Galatians 2:14

‘But when I saw that they did not walk uprightly in accordance with the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you being a Jew live as the Gentiles do, and not as the Jews do, how do you compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews do?'

It was Paul who saw how crucial this event was. At this stage the situation was seemingly that the Jewish Christians, especially in Jerusalem and Judea, tended to remain faithful to the Jewish law and requirements, even while the Gentiles living away from Judea and Jerusalem were not being required to do so. And Paul had no quarrel with that as long as it did not involve Gentiles in any way, for they were simply following their usual customs and not making them a Christian necessity. But what he did have a quarrel with was for Jewish Christians to come among Gentiles and refuse to eat with Gentile Christians unless they fulfilled all the requirements of Jewish Law. That, he saw, could only lead to division and separation.

And it was particularly heinous for Peter to do so. For prior to the arrival of these Judaisers he had had no qualms about eating with the Gentiles. And he had been right. For by his actions he had been demonstrating the truth of the Gospel that salvation was not dependent on methods of eating and drinking. However, now that they had come he had revealed a certain level of hypocrisy by giving way to their demands, not on strictly doctrinal grounds as his previous behaviour demonstrated, but simply out of misplaced cowardice.

So he had challenged Peter before them all by saying, “If you being a Jew live as the Gentiles do, and not as the Jews do, how do you compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews do?” Basically what he was saying was that Peter had previously been willing to live as the Gentiles did, and had seen that as the right thing to do. By it he had demonstrated that living as a Jew was not a requirement of the Gospel. Why then was he now doing the opposite and demanding that the Gentiles live as the Jews do, simply because he was afraid of what some fellow-Jews would think, thereby making the Gentiles behaviour appear wrong. The Gentiles would by this clearly see his inconsistency, and his intellectual dishonesty, and would feel humiliated and rejected, and all Jews would gain the idea that they must maintain such a separation permanently. It could only totally divide the church, as well as being inconsistent with the Gospel on the grounds that he had already been spoken about.

That to eat with Gentiles, who had probably made some concessions in order to make it possible, was permissible under the Gospel, was something that Peter had already acknowledged by eating with them, no doubt influenced by the incident in Acts 10. (See especially Acts 10:9; Acts 10:28; Acts 11:3 where he had also eaten with Gentiles under God's instruction). On what grounds then did he now change his mind, thus trying to make the Gentiles behave like Jews contrary to his experience with Cornelius? By doing so he was suggesting that to be a full Christian in the Apostolic manner involved submitting to the law of Moses in full.

Peter might have denied this. He might have pointed out that he was not forcing them to eat with the Jewish Christians. But that would have been to deny the possibility of table fellowship, and this sudden withdrawal, which had affected even Barnabas, could only have been seen by the Gentile Christians as indicating that they were somehow after all only second rate, and not really full Christians at all, especially as the Judaisers were loudly demanding that all be circumcised. It was suggesting that full salvation depended on fulfilling ritual requirements, and was in danger of destroying the very foundations of the Gospel. And Paul recognised this at once. He recognised that it was both diminishing the Gospel and dividing the church. So he immediately stood up to Peter, challenging not his doctrine, but his behaviour and hypocrisy.

‘They did not walk uprightly in accordance with the truth of the Gospel.' Paul recognised quite clearly that the truth of the Gospel was being put in jeopardy by Peter's action. It was suggesting that faith in Christ was not in itself sufficient to make someone a fully acceptable Christian. Sadly there are today churches which do the same. They introduce teachings about baptism, or the seventh day, or priesthood, and make them necessary for salvation. It is against all such attitudes that Paul is arguing.

So he is pointing out that, while Peter was not strictly saying so (for he was not actually specifically compelling the Gentiles to live as Jews) Peter's action was indicating that if the Gentiles wanted to be part of the united church it was necessary for them to conform to Jewish customs. He was giving the appearance of siding with the Judaisers. And had things been left as they were there would have been two churches, a Jewish church and a separate Gentile church, and that was something Paul could not countenance. It would be to divide Christ and make a mockery of the cross. In his eyes the choice was simple, Jesus Christ or a bundle of ritual. And only Jesus Christ could save.

It should be noted that this public rebuke was necessary in this particular case. It was not just an issue between him and Peter, it was something that affected all. For it was essential that the true position, and the wrongness of Peter's position, was openly and positively revealed. Paul would have agreed that disagreements between two parties should normally be dealt with in private unless one party proved intransigent (Matthew 18:15), but that could not be the case when the matter went to the very root of the Gospel, and had been done in public by a prominent minister.