Let's open our Bibles now to the second chapter
of Galatians; Galatians chapter 2. We are coming to a text this morning that
on the surface is the kind of text that no one would choose to preach on. But we don't have that choice, since we go
through the books of the Bible verse by verse, and we take what comes, and it usually turns
out that those which would be usually ignored by a preacher who might be picking and choosing
texts become some of our favorites. This may be that for you. Let me read you Galatians 2:11-13. "But when Cephas" - that is the Aramaic word
for Peter. Peter is the Greek word; Cephas is the Aramaic
- "when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from
James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold
himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy,
with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy." It's a rather shocking passage: the apostle
Paul confronting the apostle Peter to the face, opposing him because he was to be condemned. What is behind this confrontation? In actuality, what is behind this confrontation
is what is behind the book of Galatians. And what is behind the book of Galatians is
Paul's desire to defend and declare the true gospel in the face of certain men who have
come into the churches of Galatia and propagated false gospel. This is a polemical book. It is a fight. It is a defense of the true gospel against
those who were purveyors of the false gospel. Now with that in mind, I want to back up a
little, and we'll start at altitude, and then we'll come down and land on these few verses. Why does religion exist in the world? It's a big question. Why does religion exist in the world? Materialists tell us that there is nothing
but the material world, there is no supernatural world. But, still, religion exists. Why does it exist? And why is it so universal? And why is it so personal? And why is it in every period of time, in
every location, and in every culture, every society, every ethnic group that's ever lived? Why also does religion take so many forms? Why is there religion everywhere, and why
are there so many kinds of religion? Those are longstanding questions. Now let me define religion, just in a dictionary
definition. Religion is the connection between human beings
and supernatural beings; that is what religion is. It is a system of belief that connects people
to their deities. It is a bridge to the supernatural. It is universal. Why is it universal? There are just a couple of very obvious reasons. It is universal because all people are created
by God and in the image of God. All people are in some way a reflection of
the divine God. They bear the image of God, and they feel
innately that connection. Someone once said, "It's like the blind boy
who flies a kite. He can't see it, but he can feel the tug of
the string that he holds in his hand." It is the tug of the eternal. It is the tug of the divine. In Romans 1 it defines it this way: "The knowledge
of God is in them." "The knowledge of God is in them." It's part of being human. The Bible says that all societies feel after
God. It's an internal impulse built in. Not only is that impulse toward God part of
being human, but the law of God - that is to say, standards which God has ordained - are
also built into every human being. It's Romans 2 that tells us "the law of God
is written in the heart." We know what is right and wrong, and that
knowledge triggers our conscience to either excuse us or accuse us. That answers the reason why there is religion,
because man is made for God, and his something has something innate in him that drives him
in the direction of God, and the law of God is written in his heart, so that he has a
sense of fear when he violates that law: fear of the Judge, the God who made him. That is what it means to be human. But that doesn't answer the question, "Why
are there so many forms of religion?" That only answers the question of, "Why has
man a religious longing built in by God?" But why are there so many forms of religion? That is not answered by looking at God; that
is answered by looking in the other direction at Satan. Satan knows the true and living God. Satan knows the truth about God. Satan knows God is a Trinity: Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit. Satan knows who Jesus Christ is. He knows the gospel. Even when our Lord was on earth, the demons
themselves, as well as Satan, knew who He was and responded accordingly. Why does Satan then devise so many false religions? He is the archenemy of God. He is the arch-hater of God. He, along with a third of the holy angels
who rebelled and fell, compose the demonic forces. Those demonic forces do all evil that they
can possibly perpetrate against the purposes of God and against God Himself. They give us the reason why there are so many
false religions. There's only one God. There are many, many, many demons - thousands,
upon thousands, and thousands times thousands of demons concocting false religion. That said, there are only two real religions
in the world: that is the true religion of God and the false religion of Satan in its
multiplicity of forms. Satan knows there is only one God, and one
Savior, and one gospel, and one salvation, and one way to heaven. But he has proliferated human history and
the world with as many religions as conceivable in the sinful hearts of men and the wicked
minds of demons. The earth is overrun with all kinds of forms
of false religion. But boiled down, there really are two religions:
the true religion, which God has revealed in Scripture, which is that salvation comes
by grace through faith through believing; and all forms of false religion, which declare
that salvation comes to man by man's own effort, by his own achievement, by something he does
- some morality, some religiosity, some ritual, some rite, some ceremony, some behavior. Either salvation is solely by God through
divine achievement, divine accomplishment, or it is by man to a total degree or some
kind of degree through human achievement. Satan's religion is the religion of human
achievement. God's true religion is the religion of divine
accomplishment. Now I want you to understand this, because
it's how you define the whole world of religion. So go back to the book of Genesis, back to
Genesis, and I want you to see this in its large context. Genesis 1 and 2, God creates in six days everything
in the universe, absolutely everything in the universe: the macrocosm of the universe,
the microcosm of the universe created in six days. When He finished creating it, He pronounced
this statement, verse 31 of Genesis 1, "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was
very good." "It was very good." A perfect creation, including man, a perfect
creation. There's no sin. Chapter 2, which recapitulates the creation
of man on the sixth day, ends this way in verse 25: "And the man and his wife were both
naked and were not ashamed." There was nothing to be ashamed of. There was no sin. You have a perfect universe, and you have
a perfect man and a perfect woman - sinless. There is, therefore, no religion. There is no bridge to God. There is no way to God, because there is no
barrier, there is no alienation, there is no separation. Adam and Eve are living in the garden in the
fellowship of God. It is a full, blessed, pure, righteous fellowship. There's no alienation. There's no separation. There's no need for a religion, no need to
find a way to reconcile with God. God is not alienated; the sinner has not yet
sinned. Come to chapter 3, and immediately Satan finds
Eve, Eve finds Adam, they disobey God. You remember the Fall occurs there. Now sin has entered the world. Immediately there is alienation and separation. Go down to verse 7: "The eyes of both of them
were opened, they knew that they were naked, and now all of a sudden they are naked and
there is shame; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. They heard the sound of the Lord God walking
in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the
presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden." Now we have gone from communion to alienation,
fellowship to separation. Sin has separated man from God. Now we have the need for reconciliation. What did Adam and Eve do? Verse 7, "They sewed fig leaves together and
made themselves loin coverings." That is the launch of false religion. That is the launch of false religion. That is the symbol of false religion. That is the first act of man to create a way
in which he himself could deal with his own shame, in which he could cover his own iniquity. And then he hides, because he hasn't yet found
a way to face God. This is the birth of false religion: men make
ways to cover their own sin. But it does not salve their guilty conscience,
and so they hide from God. False religion is a form of hiding from God,
hiding from His true presence. That is the symbol of all false religion,
that a guilty, dying sinner can make a covering for his own shame, and that somehow he can
cover his shame and hide himself from God. He hides himself in his own self-made coverings. That can't work, as we see immediately, "The
Lord God," in verse 9, "called to the man, and said to him, 'Where are you?' He said, 'I heard the sound of You in the
garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.'" Now what once was a sweet communion with God
is over. He fears God, because his conscience is accusing
him strongly of sin. That's why he felt shame. That's why he and his wife covered themselves. They are now not anxious to commune with God. They are afraid of God. They are hiding from God. God has become fearful, terrifying to them. Why? Because God said, in chapter 2, verses 15-17:
"Don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And if you eat, you will die." God has now become their hunter. God is stalking them to kill them; that's
what they feel. Their relationship to God has dramatically
changed, and that is the relationship to God that every human being since has. And religion comes along and says, "Make some
leaves. Make yourselves some covering for your shame." It doesn't work. It doesn't work. God exposes their sin, and then God begins
to curse them. He curses the serpent, curses the woman, curses
the man, and the curse is unleashed. That curse in that moment went to the end
of the created universe. It touched every molecule of matter, every
element of infinite space. The curse went instantaneously to the ends
of creation. Everything was cursed - everything, including
man. The coverings that man made are useless: they
do not cover his shame, they do not hide him from God, and they do not remove him from
divine judgment. And then verse 21: "The Lord God made garments
of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them." Here is the first act of true religion. If the sinner is to have a covering it has
to come from God, and it has to come by death. It has to come from God, and it has to come
by death. This is the first death since creation began. This is the first death, and God is the killer. This, of course, is the primary reason in
the book of Genesis that you cannot put evolution in chapter 1 and 2, because nothing dies. The theory of evolution is simply an elongated
series of deaths. But there are no deaths in Genesis 1 and 2. The first death is an execution by God, and
it's an amazing thing to think about, because God said to Adam and Eve, "In the day you
eat, you'll die." And they were ready to die. They were covering themselves to hide themselves
from God for fear that their death was coming. And they saw a death, but amazingly it was
the death of an innocent substitute. And here at the very beginning, in the garden
itself, is the introduction of the Christian doctrine of substitutionary death. An innocent animal gives its life to provide
covering for sinners who cannot cover themselves. So in the garden, you have the beginning of
false religion, in the covering that Adam and Eve made; and the beginning of true religion,
which is the covering that only God can make through death, through death. From that point on those two religions have
never changed. There is the true religion that requires death,
the death of the substitute. There were many animal deaths through all
of Israel's history. None of them could atone for sin; but they
all pictured the one who would die as the Lamb of God and take away the sins of the
world. But they communicated the message that the
bridge to God - true religion, the way to God - is through the death of a perfect sacrifice. Turned out that that perfect sacrifice was
Jesus Christ. True religion has always realized that the
sinner deserves death, that God will provide a substitute, that God will forgive and mete
out His punishment on someone else who is innocent. That's what the sacrificial system communicated. False religion has always said, "Make something
to cover yourselves and hide." True religion is based on faith in what God
will provide. False religion is based on the works that
I provide. True religion, the religion of Scripture,
is the religion that trusts what God provides; and all false religion by any name, any title,
in any form, language, or structural, social context is always the same: "You provide your
own covering to somehow satisfy the deity." Now, immediately, Adam and Eve got together
and had two sons, chapter 4. "Man had relations with his wife Eve, and
she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, 'I've gotten a manchild with the
help of the Lord.' Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain
was a tiller of the ground." Now you know this, that there were not a whole
lot of lessons that Adam and Eve would have taught their children; they were the only
two people on the planet. But there were some lessons that were very,
very clear in their minds. One had to do with sacrifice: that we're sinful,
we're cursed, the sentence of death is on our heads. Don't offer God something of your own doing. There must be a sacrifice. There must be a sacrifice to please God. You know that Adam taught his sons that lesson,
because that is the one lesson they learned that's recorded here in Genesis. So it came time for the offering. Verse 3: "In the course of time Cain brought
an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground." This is exactly what his parents did the first
time. He's going to bring something that he received,
that he harvested from the work of his hands, and he's going to try to come before God and
cover his sin in that way. "Abel," verse 4, "on his part also brought,
but he brought of the firstlings of his flock" - that means the best of the flock - "and
their fat portions" - a full, fatted animal - "And the Lord had regard for Abel and his
offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard." Now here again you see the two kinds of religion. God accepts the sacrifice, because sin requires
a death. The death of an innocent substitute God will
accept if the heart is right. The other religion is the religion illustrated
by Cain who brings something that he himself has plucked up out of the ground. The plants symbolize false religion and man's
efforts; that is covering without death, without the death of a substitute. Animal death symbolizes true religion and
God's provision by death - a death acceptable to God in the sinner's place. Cain then is the prototype of false religion. Cain is the prototype of false religion. Abel is the prototype of true religion. Abel brought a sacrifice. Cain offers the fruit of his labor; that becomes
the endless pattern of false religion. Abel offers an animal sacrifice, because he
knew he had nothing in and of himself to give. But he knew God would accept a death in the
place of his death. That's how it has to be. Salvation would come by the death of an acceptable,
innocent substitute. The story turns very, very sadly to murder. Verse 5: "Cain became very angry, his countenance
fell." He started to feel the guilt. "The Lord said to Cain, 'Why are you angry? Why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance
be lifted up?'" If you had done the right thing, if you had
done what you were instructed to do you wouldn't be in this condition where you're both angry
and feeling guilt and remorse. "'If you do not do well, sin is crouching
at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.'" "Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in the field,
that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him." And here is the other thing that you need
to learn from this: true religion has always been slaughtered by false religion. Look at the world. It is always false religion that leads the
massacre against the true people of God - false religion in some form. The way of Cain is the way of works and hates
the way of faith; the way of Abel is the way of faith that obeys God. They way of Cain trusts in himself; the way
of Abel trusts in another. The way of Cain doesn't need a death; the
way of Abel demands a death. And as the history goes from there at the
Tower of Babel, the people followed the way of Cain. They would build a tower to God, and judgment
came. On the other hand, there was Noah who followed
the way of Abel, but it was only Noah and his sons and daughters, and the rest of the
world was engulfed in the way of Cain, and consequently engulfed in the death that came
to them through the global Flood. Even after the Flood subsided and life began
again, the way of Cain, the way of Satan, dominated the world. Then you come to Abraham, the story of Abraham
- incredibly wonderful story. God calls out a people to follow the way of
Abel, the way of faith, the way of sacrifice. Cain's way was the majority way in the world;
it still is. Abel's was the small believing remnant that
came through Abraham, and initially constituted the nation Israel. But even in the nation Israel, there were
both religions existing within the framework of Judaism. And you need to keep that in mind, that false
religion is not just outside the boundaries of true religion. It is both outside and inside. There were forms of Judaism that were false,
as there are forms of Christianity that are false. Satan doesn't just do his work as anti-Christian;
he does his work as subtly pretending to be Christian. The whole nation of Israel, by way of illustration,
was involved in the sacrificial system. The whole nation was involved in it. Sacrifices were given every single day, and
repeated sacrifices on special occasions. The whole nation was part of that system,
and yet they still were engulfed in false religion, because there were many of them,
most of them, the majority of them, going through the sacrificial motions, but not with
a pure heart, not with a repentant heart, not like the publican in Luke 16, pounding
on the chest, saying, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner." They were trusting in their works, trusting
in their religion, trusting in their Jewish heritage, trusting in the covenants God had
given them in the past. The world had gone the way of Cain. Most of Israel had gone the way of Cain; and
most of Israel, having gone the way of Cain, ended up killing the prophets who were going
the way of Abel. Even in Judaism, the religion of Cain was
killing those who were in the religion of Abel. It's been the same in Christianity. True Christians, through the history of Christianity,
have been massacred by false Christians. So the two religions were side-by-side in
Judaism as they are side-by-side in Christianity even today. The prophets exposed that repeatedly. You can read many of the things the prophets
said in denouncing not only the nations around them and their false religion, but denouncing
the hypocrisy of Israel. Isaiah does it repeatedly; they all do it. I think about Amos chapter 5 where Amos says,
"Stop your festivals, stop your sacrifices, stop your offerings, stop your music. Your hearts aren't right. I hate what you're doing." To offer a sacrifice was the right thing to
do, but it had to be done with a right heart; and a right heart said, "I know I'm a sinner. I know I can't earn my salvation. I trust You God to be merciful to me, to be
gracious to me, and to provide a substitute in my place to take my punishment," even though
they didn't know who the substitute was. Paul picks this reality up in Romans 2 when
he says, "Not all Israel is Israel. Not every Jew is a true Jew." There are Jews who are Jews outwardly, and
there are a lot fewer who are Jews inwardly - that is who really trusted God, and to whom
salvation came, because they believed like Abraham, and it was counted to them for righteousness. You come to the time of Jesus and you meet
some of the true Jews: Zacharias, Elizabeth, Joseph, Mary, Simeon, Anna - very few. The nation at the time of our Lord was hypocritical,
massively hypocritical. Judaism was basically defined by the Pharisees
who would say, "I thank You that I'm not like other men. I'm not a sinner like this publican over here. I tithe, I fast" - et cetera, et cetera - "I'm
worthy to be received by You, O God." The Bible is clear that the Jews trusted in
themselves. They did it through their whole history. They certainly did it at the time of our Lord,
and even the time of the apostles. They had literally developed an apostate form
of Judaism, which was basically designed and defined by rabbinic tradition that had replaced
the Word of God. Achieving right relationship to God was done
by strict obedience to Mosaic rules and ceremonies, epitomized by the scribes and Pharisees who
were the proud, boasting purveyors of that hypocritical, apostate religion. Then Pentecost comes and the church is born. Now you've got Jews in Jerusalem who have
become Christians. This is a problem for some Jews. Out of that vast, vast mass of legalistic,
proud Jews, rises a group called the Judaizers - Judaizers because they wanted to Judaize
Gentiles. In other words, they said this: "We believe
in Christ, and we believe He's Messiah. We believe in His death and resurrection. But we don't believe you can be saved by simply
believing in Him. You must be circumcised, and you must adhere
to the law of Moses and the ancestral traditions." They did not believe that the atoning work
of Jesus Christ was all-sufficient. They believed it was necessary, but you had
to add your works. That essentially is what all false forms of
Christianity also say today. They denied, rejected the sufficiency of the
atoning, substitutionary death of Jesus, and demanded that Gentile converts be circumcised
and adhere to Mosaic rules and traditions. They were so adamant about this that they
trailed the apostle Paul in his ministry and went into the churches that he founded and
began to propagate this and tell the Gentiles, "You are not truly saved unless you are circumcised
and adhere to the Mosaic rules. You are not truly saved." It is in the face of this - and now you can
go back to Galatians - that Paul wrote Galatians, the first of his thirteen letters. Is it true? Do Gentiles have to go through Mosaic formulas:
circumcision and ritual and rules? Do they have to be circumcised? Paul writes Galatians to say, "Absolutely
not." He said it in Romans - we read it, didn't
we - in chapter 4. Abraham himself believed, and it was counted
to him for righteousness before he was ever circumcised. Circumcision plays no role in that. And the Mosaic law didn't come until long
after Abraham. Paul sees this addition to Christ: "Yes, Christ. Yes, He died and rose. But it's not enough. You have to be circumcised. You have to adhere to the law." Paul saw that as a false gospel. And in chapter 1, verses 8-9, he pronounced
a curse on anybody who preaches that as we've been seeing. Paul is fighting now - this is a polemical
book - he's fighting for the true gospel: the gospel of grace alone, through Christ
alone, received by faith alone. Let me sum up what Paul would say based on
what we read in Romans 4 and what's before us. At no time, at no time in history has any
person been saved, made right with God, been forgiven, escaped judgment because of anything
that person has done - at no time. No one has ever been saved by works, never. That is the way of Cain. No one ever saved by works. That is why faith is so much the subject that
dominates Paul's letters. So he's writing because the Judaizers have
gone into the region of Galatia. They've gone into the churches of Lystra,
Iconium, Derbe, and Antioch, and they've taken this false gospel, this damning gospel, in
and they've confused the people. It's not that the believers have lost their
salvation; you can't lose it. It's that they've become confused about what
the gospel really is; and because they're confused about the gospel, they're subject
then to proclaim a false gospel. Paul is not trying to save them as if they
could be lost again. He is trying to save their usefulness by making
sure they understand the true gospel. Now the Judaizers, in order to get the people
in Galatia to lean their way toward this false, Judaizing gospel, had to try to discredit
Paul. So they denounced him, said he was a false
apostle. So Paul has to open this book defending his
apostleship. He opens the book defending his apostleship. Now we've heard him give a defense in chapter
1. And what was his defense in chapter 1? That, "I was called an apostle not by men,
I was called by God. I was called directly by Jesus Christ." We saw that in the Damascus Road experience;
he met the risen Christ. He says, "I didn't go to Jerusalem. I didn't learn my theology from the apostles. I went into the desert in Nabataean Arabia
for three years. For three years I was tutored by Jesus Christ,
just as the twelve apostles were tutored by Him for three years when He was on earth. For three years I learned everything out of
the mouth of Christ, not from the apostles. I am a true apostle taught by Christ." His first defense in chapter 1 is his own
personal encounter with Christ. His second defense in the opening of chapter
2 is, "I did finally after fourteen years" - actually seventeen if you add the three
in Arabia - "I finally went down to Jerusalem for a prolonged visit, and the apostles affirmed
me, and said, 'The gospel you preach is the true gospel'" - you see that in verse 9 - "I
met with James the brother of our Lord, Cephas" - who's Peter - "and John. They were the pillars, and they gave to me
and Barnabas my companion the right hand of fellowship, so we might go to the Gentiles. They didn't change our theology." "So I tell you I am a true apostle because
of my encounter with Christ over three years. I tell you I'm a true apostle because of the
validation of the apostles in Jerusalem." But here, friends, is the final devastating
proof: "I opposed Peter to his face." Paul says elsewhere, "I don't come behind
any apostles." And he didn't. He took on Peter. Let's come down to verse 11. "When Cephas" - or Peter - "came to Antioch,
I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." Peter had come to Antioch, Antioch of Syria
where the first church was and where Paul and Barnabas were pastors, along with a group
of other men mentioned in the twelfth chapter of Acts. Peter had come there, and he'd stayed a long
time. Peter obviously must have been the center
of attention. "Tell us about Jesus." Can you imagine that? "Tell us about Him. Tell us, What was it like when you walked
on water? Tell us all the things that we've heard." Remember the gospels haven't been written
yet, and an eyewitness with Christ would have meant everything to these Gentile believers
up in Antioch in a flourishing gospel church. Peter would have been some kind of icon, some
kind of hero to them. Why would Paul oppose him to the face? And it's very strong language. This is the clash we'll call it, the clash. "What do you mean 'oppose him'?" That's a term that - it's an interesting term,
[???] anthistémi . It means "to stop somebody in the direction
they're going." Peter is doing something that has to be stopped. It could be translated, "I forbid him. I set myself against him. I play defense, stopping him in his tracks;
and I did it to his face, eyeball to eyeball, because he stood condemned." I mean that's just shocking. How do you do that to someone like Peter? Where does Paul get this boldness? Is this some kind of personal jealousy? What's going on here? No. Peter had done something that Paul saw as
an attack on the gospel: the gospel of grace alone, faith alone, apart from works. And so he condemned him. This is an apostolic clash of massive proportions. First half of the book of Acts is all the
preaching of Peter. Second half's all the preaching of Paul. What's going on here? Why the clash? Well, the cause is in verse 12: "For prior
to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they
came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision." Wow. What's going on? Is this personal jealousy? Not at all. Let me unfold this for you. "Prior to the coming of certain men from James." James is the head of the Jerusalem church,
the brother of our Lord. He's kind of the leader there; we see that
in the fifteenth chapter of Acts. So here comes some men. I don't think James sent these men. I think they said they were from James, and
they had some connection to the Jerusalem church. At this time, that's the mother church, that's
the church. So somehow they were associated with it. And prior to the arrival of these men who
came from the Jerusalem church and said they had a connection with James, Peter used to
eat with the Gentiles. Now why is that a big deal? Because Jews didn't eat with Gentiles. Just as a normal rule of life, Jews didn't
eat with Gentiles. Forget Christianity, forget the gospel, forget
the church; Jews didn't do that. A Gentile was unclean; a Gentile home was
unclean; a Gentile utensil was unclean. They couldn't go near Gentiles. They couldn't eat off the dish a Gentile offered
them. And these were rabbinic standards that were
iron-fisted laws. It was believed that all Gentile food was
contaminated by being unclean, to say nothing of that which was not kosher, not according
to the standards of the Mosaic dietary laws. So what you had was the Jews holding to their
own dietary laws and a kind of developing racism toward Gentiles. We saw the racism even in the day of Jonah,
where he didn't want to see Gentiles repent. Jews resented, hated Gentiles; and they kept
separate. Peter was raised in that environment. He comes to Antioch; he's in a Gentile church. And what does he do? He does what a Jew would never do. He used to eat with the Gentiles. What is that saying? That he knows that the lesson he learned in
Acts 10, "Rise, Peter, kill and eat." There's nothing unclean anymore, nothing unclean
anymore - the dietary laws are over. In Christ, the middle wall is broken down. Jew and Gentile are one, and Christ is neither
Jew nor Greek. That's all over with. That's all over. He knows that. He also knows that they are brothers and sisters
in Christ. And when he eats with them, it's not just
a meal; it's the love feast; it's the Lord's Table. He's just living life with the Gentiles. He's with them all the time. They're being served the same food. He's finding out what it is to eat all the
stuff that Jews could never eat. He's been liberated. He is turning his back on the [???] halakhoth
, the list of elder traditions that prescribed certain kinds of food. And the fact that you couldn't eat certain
kinds of meat. You couldn't eat meat that was butchered by
a Gentile, or that was, a part of it was offered to idols, or violated the laws of Moses, or
had been in the hands of Gentiles, or served on Gentile plates, and all of that. And all of a sudden that's not even an issue. Peter's having a great time. He's discovering all kinds of foods that he'd
never eaten before, eating with Gentiles, his brothers and sisters in Christ, until
certain men show up. And he began to withdraw and hold himself
aloof. He pulled back. They would have criticized him mercilessly
for eating with those Gentiles. And they would have said this: "Not only are
you not to eat with Gentiles, they're not believers, because they haven't been circumcised,
and they don't adhere to Mosaic rules. So you're eating not only with Gentiles who
are unclean, but you're eating with nonbelievers." And they obviously intimidated Peter. "He began to withdraw and hold himself aloof"
- and there's no questioning the motive - "he was fearing the party of the circumcision." That's the Judaizers. "The party of the circumcision" they became
known as. He was afraid of them. Good men, great men - for the sake of pride
and self-protection, self-preservation, popularity - compromise. They compromise. Peter just can't get out of his own shadow,
can he? I mean it's just a history of this guy doing
this. He's an illustration of how sanctification
works. It's not a straight line upward. It's a few steps forward and a few steps back,
and a few steps forward and a few steps back. And it's where we all live, isn't it? All of a sudden now he doesn't want to be
with them, the Gentiles. He won't eat with the Gentiles. He pulls back from the Lord's Table. He pulls back from the love feast. He pulls back from the normal fellowship around
the meals. He pulls back, fearing. Peter afraid? It could cost him his reputation. He wants to be liked, he wants to be accepted. He also knows that he's supposed to take the
gospel to the Jews; that's his particular calling. And now if he offends them all, what's going
to happen? What he did was so influential, verse 13 says,
that, "The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas
was carried away by their hypocrisy." Peter became a hypocrite. He acted like he agreed with the Judaizers
- devastating . And so did the rest of the Jews that were
there, and so did Barnabas. And now what you have is a fracture in the
whole church. And what is this more than that? This is not about disunity; this is an assault
on the gospel of faith, because now Peter is acting as if the Judaizers are right. "For that," Paul says, "I opposed him to his
face, because he was to be condemned." If you deviate from the gospel in what you
say about the gospel, or if you deviate from the gospel in how you act, you're in violation
of the purity of the gospel. It's hard; I understand. It's hard to be bold for the gospel when you're
with people who compromise the gospel but also talk about Christ. It's hard to talk to someone in a form of
Christianity that is apostate, heretical, outside the bounds of the true gospel. It's hard to talk to a Roman Catholic or somebody
in some cult or some fringe group, or any kind of "Christian" organization that has
a review of the gospel that's in error. It's hard to be bold, because you want to
be accepted by them. And maybe you say, "Well, you know, they're
not going to listen to what I have to say if they don't" - it's hard. And the fear of men brings a snare, doesn't
it. Even Peter had to be confronted to the face. Don't attack the gospel. Don't attack it by changing it in its content,
and don't attack it by siding with people who have a false gospel. You can't do that. Paul is saying to the church at Galatia, "We
have to have the gospel clear; that's why we're in the world." Lord, we thank You that we've been able to
look at this fascinating moment in the life of Paul and Peter. We know that as time went on, Peter grew in
his love and respect for Paul, and even called the writings of Paul Scripture. But in this moment we see the importance of
recognizing Paul as an apostle. He is an apostle to the degree that he is
more faithful to the true gospel than even Peter, who was the head of the twelve. He is an apostle because he will defend the
gospel. Peter wanted to avoid persecution. He wanted to avoid unpopularity. Paul never did that, never did that. He wouldn't compromise the gospel no matter
what. Peter needed this rebuke. He needed to have someone he could look up
to, and that someone was Paul. Father, help us to be faithful to the gospel
that we proclaim; and even in our relationships, make clear where we stand. May there be no hypocrisy that compromises
the true gospel. May we not be intimidated into affirming those
who preach a false gospel, who add works to the gospel of grace and faith. Do Your work in and through our church and
through our lives, we pray in Christ's name. Amen.
