Friday, March 16, 2007
Face to Face
Peter had been the man to first extend hospitality to the Gentiles. He tore down the wall between Jews and Gentiles. He did this after receiving a vision from God and word from the Holy Spirit. Jesus called Peter to set aside his prejudices and work toward one Church. His actions at Caesarea had led to the spread of the Gospel to Gentiles.
While Peter had stood up for the Gentile Christians in front of the Jewish believers in Jerusalem, he was not perfect. He was still prone to make mistakes.
Peter's ministry to that point had remained focused on the Jews. Paul on the other hand was sent as the leading missionary to the Gentiles. He appeared to have a deeper conviction that Gentiles did not need to act like Jews to be welcome as fellow Christians.
Paul opposed Jews eating separately or acting as if they could not fellowship with Gentile believers. He saw the communion of one body at one table not a divided Church. Peter may have agreed with this in principle. But old habits can be hard to break. This is especially true when people come around that we want to impress. The fear of man can lead even a strong leader to cave when peer pressure gets too great. When Peter came to Antioch Paul got in his face for being two-faced.
At first, Peter had no problem eating with the Gentiles. But that all changed when some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem came to town. James, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, is mentioned in connection with these men. But we don't know whether or not he sent them. We don't even know if they represented his theological perspective although James tended toward a more legalistic view than Paul. When these men known as Judaizers came to Antioch, Peter withdrew from the Gentiles because he was worried about offending the religious sensitivities of the Jerusalem Jewish Christians.
Paul said that these men from Jerusalem were of the circumcision group. This likely means that they thought you had to be circumcised to be a Christians. And some of the Gentiles among the group probably had not been circumcised.
Scripture does not indicate whether or not the men from James encouraged this or said anything to provoke this response. That doesn't really matter because it is clear that Peter set the tone, and the other Jewish Christians followed his lead.
Leaders must hold themselves to a higher standard and realize that they are always being watched. Not only our words and actions, even our facial expressions or body language can bring death and division to a situation. Peter needed to know who he was and lead in the right direction. Or else it was going to have a negative effect on everyone in that local assembly of believers.
Paul stepped up as a messenger from God. While we don't see Jesus physically speaking to Peter, God continues to disciple him through this moment. God chose to use a man, and his name was Paul. This is important for Peter's development to take a public rebuke. It also showed that Paul was coming into his own as an Apostle. He had the authority to go face-to-face with Peter. This transformation is not about either one of the men as individuals as much as it was about the morphing of the Gospel to fit a Greek and Roman context. By their actions, the Jewish Christians were acting against the unity of the Gospel.
The tent keepts on getting bigger and some guys from the old establishment did not like it.
Even Barnabas, Paul long-time companion, got swept up in the hypocrisy of the moment.
Paul was right to do what he did because Peter was acting out of ungodly fear and prejudice. Paul showed how Peter was using dishonest scales. He expect one thing from the Gentile Christians and did the exact opposite himself. Paul said, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"
Paul asked the above question in front of everyone. He then pointed to the message of Christ because the moment was not about the Gentiles, the Jews or any one Christian leader. Paul turned the focus to the essence of the Gospel. Paul said, "We put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified."
Finally, Paul points out how religious separation completely undermines Jesus' message and life. He said, "If righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
Circumcision was the issue named in this passage that caused Peter's divisive behavior. It was likely not the only concern although it does symbolize the ritualistic differences between the Jews and the Gentiles. The leaders of the Christian church in Jerusalem had already praised God for the Gentiles coming to salvation. It appears that some still wanted them to fully convert to Jewish practices before being accepted among the Jewish Christians. Sometimes leaders have to take a strong stance on the same issue over and over because people can be slow to embrace necessary change.
Once and for all the council of leaders at Jerusalem had already addressed in Acts 15 what the Gentile Christians had to do as far as moral requirements. Circumcision was not on the list. These leaders said that it "seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" not to burden you with excessive religious requirements. This language shows that the early Church was on a path to discovery. Its leaders were not always certain what to do. Sometimes there were disagreements. In those instances, the leaders had to come together, pray and listen for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Then they had to make judgments based on their inner witness from the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures and common sense group consensus.
In Acts 15, the council in Jerusalem sent a letter to Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas as messengers to proclaim what the Gentile believers should do. This letter also identified that some had gone out from Jerusalem without the authorization of the leadership and had caused division and confusion in Antioch.
This time the question went beyond what moral code should Gentiles follow. It was not whether the Gentiles were admissible to the Christian covenant without becoming circumcised. That question had already been settled. Now the issue was whether the Gentile Christians were to be admitted to social intercourse with the Jewish Christians without conforming to Jewish practices.
The Judaizers went to Antioch. And they may have explained away the council's decision by saying that the Gentiles were Christians but Jews were not to eat with them or forsake Jewish practices to accommodate them. The council had not ruled on these issues in their letter.
Fear led Peter to abandon the principles that he had fault for and appeared to believe until the Judaizers showed up. Throughout his life, Peter had periods of bravery and distinction marred by moments of cowardice and fear. Remember that he faithfully witnessed for Christ and then denied him later. He fought for Gentiles as believers fully accepted by God and then refused to eat with them.
This moment could have caused even further division in the Church. But both Paul and Peter responded in a godly way. Peter before his death praised Paul's letters and teaching (2 Peter 3:15). He did this even though the letter to the Gentiles contains the story of this rebuke.
Many of the leaders who should have known better, caved under pressure. This should reassure us as well as challenge us to recognize our own humanity. Barnabas one of those who had directly ministered with Paul to the Gentiles was carried away by this prejudiced attitude. Strangely, had been instrumental in planting and watering the churches of the Gentiles. This shows that even the best men can be weak and inconsistent at times. Leaders must always be on their guard against corrosive compromise.
Paul adhered resolutely to his principles, when others faltered in theirs; he was as good a Jew as any of them (for he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews), but he had fully embraced the cross even while others slipped into religiosity.
Even men with good intentions can say or do things that put others into bondage. Legalism tends to masquerade as purity, propriety or holiness. But it is as firmly grounded in self and pride as any other sin. To eat and to drink, or not to eat and drink, is immaterial. The intent of the heart, our attitude toward God in our behavior, and the impact of our actions on other believers are the deciding factor about the sinfulness of doing anything.
If Paul had not reproved Peter, there would have been a sliding back of Christians into the Jewish religion, and a return to the burdens of the Law. Sometimes one lone person can do more in a conference than the whole assembly. This means that every person has the responsibility to a local body of believers to stand up for what is right.
While Peter had stood up for the Gentile Christians in front of the Jewish believers in Jerusalem, he was not perfect. He was still prone to make mistakes.
Peter's ministry to that point had remained focused on the Jews. Paul on the other hand was sent as the leading missionary to the Gentiles. He appeared to have a deeper conviction that Gentiles did not need to act like Jews to be welcome as fellow Christians.
Paul opposed Jews eating separately or acting as if they could not fellowship with Gentile believers. He saw the communion of one body at one table not a divided Church. Peter may have agreed with this in principle. But old habits can be hard to break. This is especially true when people come around that we want to impress. The fear of man can lead even a strong leader to cave when peer pressure gets too great. When Peter came to Antioch Paul got in his face for being two-faced.
At first, Peter had no problem eating with the Gentiles. But that all changed when some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem came to town. James, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, is mentioned in connection with these men. But we don't know whether or not he sent them. We don't even know if they represented his theological perspective although James tended toward a more legalistic view than Paul. When these men known as Judaizers came to Antioch, Peter withdrew from the Gentiles because he was worried about offending the religious sensitivities of the Jerusalem Jewish Christians.
Paul said that these men from Jerusalem were of the circumcision group. This likely means that they thought you had to be circumcised to be a Christians. And some of the Gentiles among the group probably had not been circumcised.
Scripture does not indicate whether or not the men from James encouraged this or said anything to provoke this response. That doesn't really matter because it is clear that Peter set the tone, and the other Jewish Christians followed his lead.
Leaders must hold themselves to a higher standard and realize that they are always being watched. Not only our words and actions, even our facial expressions or body language can bring death and division to a situation. Peter needed to know who he was and lead in the right direction. Or else it was going to have a negative effect on everyone in that local assembly of believers.
Paul stepped up as a messenger from God. While we don't see Jesus physically speaking to Peter, God continues to disciple him through this moment. God chose to use a man, and his name was Paul. This is important for Peter's development to take a public rebuke. It also showed that Paul was coming into his own as an Apostle. He had the authority to go face-to-face with Peter. This transformation is not about either one of the men as individuals as much as it was about the morphing of the Gospel to fit a Greek and Roman context. By their actions, the Jewish Christians were acting against the unity of the Gospel.
The tent keepts on getting bigger and some guys from the old establishment did not like it.
Even Barnabas, Paul long-time companion, got swept up in the hypocrisy of the moment.
Paul was right to do what he did because Peter was acting out of ungodly fear and prejudice. Paul showed how Peter was using dishonest scales. He expect one thing from the Gentile Christians and did the exact opposite himself. Paul said, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"
Paul asked the above question in front of everyone. He then pointed to the message of Christ because the moment was not about the Gentiles, the Jews or any one Christian leader. Paul turned the focus to the essence of the Gospel. Paul said, "We put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified."
Finally, Paul points out how religious separation completely undermines Jesus' message and life. He said, "If righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
Circumcision was the issue named in this passage that caused Peter's divisive behavior. It was likely not the only concern although it does symbolize the ritualistic differences between the Jews and the Gentiles. The leaders of the Christian church in Jerusalem had already praised God for the Gentiles coming to salvation. It appears that some still wanted them to fully convert to Jewish practices before being accepted among the Jewish Christians. Sometimes leaders have to take a strong stance on the same issue over and over because people can be slow to embrace necessary change.
Once and for all the council of leaders at Jerusalem had already addressed in Acts 15 what the Gentile Christians had to do as far as moral requirements. Circumcision was not on the list. These leaders said that it "seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" not to burden you with excessive religious requirements. This language shows that the early Church was on a path to discovery. Its leaders were not always certain what to do. Sometimes there were disagreements. In those instances, the leaders had to come together, pray and listen for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Then they had to make judgments based on their inner witness from the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures and common sense group consensus.
In Acts 15, the council in Jerusalem sent a letter to Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas as messengers to proclaim what the Gentile believers should do. This letter also identified that some had gone out from Jerusalem without the authorization of the leadership and had caused division and confusion in Antioch.
This time the question went beyond what moral code should Gentiles follow. It was not whether the Gentiles were admissible to the Christian covenant without becoming circumcised. That question had already been settled. Now the issue was whether the Gentile Christians were to be admitted to social intercourse with the Jewish Christians without conforming to Jewish practices.
The Judaizers went to Antioch. And they may have explained away the council's decision by saying that the Gentiles were Christians but Jews were not to eat with them or forsake Jewish practices to accommodate them. The council had not ruled on these issues in their letter.
Fear led Peter to abandon the principles that he had fault for and appeared to believe until the Judaizers showed up. Throughout his life, Peter had periods of bravery and distinction marred by moments of cowardice and fear. Remember that he faithfully witnessed for Christ and then denied him later. He fought for Gentiles as believers fully accepted by God and then refused to eat with them.
This moment could have caused even further division in the Church. But both Paul and Peter responded in a godly way. Peter before his death praised Paul's letters and teaching (2 Peter 3:15). He did this even though the letter to the Gentiles contains the story of this rebuke.
Many of the leaders who should have known better, caved under pressure. This should reassure us as well as challenge us to recognize our own humanity. Barnabas one of those who had directly ministered with Paul to the Gentiles was carried away by this prejudiced attitude. Strangely, had been instrumental in planting and watering the churches of the Gentiles. This shows that even the best men can be weak and inconsistent at times. Leaders must always be on their guard against corrosive compromise.
Paul adhered resolutely to his principles, when others faltered in theirs; he was as good a Jew as any of them (for he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews), but he had fully embraced the cross even while others slipped into religiosity.
Even men with good intentions can say or do things that put others into bondage. Legalism tends to masquerade as purity, propriety or holiness. But it is as firmly grounded in self and pride as any other sin. To eat and to drink, or not to eat and drink, is immaterial. The intent of the heart, our attitude toward God in our behavior, and the impact of our actions on other believers are the deciding factor about the sinfulness of doing anything.
If Paul had not reproved Peter, there would have been a sliding back of Christians into the Jewish religion, and a return to the burdens of the Law. Sometimes one lone person can do more in a conference than the whole assembly. This means that every person has the responsibility to a local body of believers to stand up for what is right.
