11<\/strong>. Peter<\/em> ] In the Greek, ‘Cephas’, the Apostle Peter. The difficulty of accepting this narrative in its obvious sense, led some in early times to suggest that not the Apostle, but one of the seventy disciples of the same name, is here referred to.<\/p>\n withstood him to the face<\/em> ] Jerome’s well-known solution of the difficulty a solution which approved itself to Chrysostom that the reproof was only apparent, was refuted by Augustine and ultimately abandoned by Jerome. It supposes a preconcerted plan for convincing, not Peter, but the Jewish converts, that the obligation of the ceremonial law had ceased, and leans for support on a mistranslation, ‘in appearance’, for ‘to the face’. The exact expression is found in the LXX. Deu 7:24<\/span>; Deu 9:2<\/span>; Jdg 2:14<\/span>. At Jerusalem St Paul’s authority had been confirmed by the acquiescence of the Church; here it must be asserted in opposition to the temporising conduct of St Peter.<\/p>\n was to be blamed<\/em> ] Better, as R.V. stood condemned<\/strong>, convicted of dissimulation by the very facts of the case.<\/p>\n 11 21<\/strong>. We learn from Act 15:22<\/span>, foll. that when the Council broke up, certain members of the Apostolic company were sent to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, to convey to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia the determination of the Church in Jerusalem on the question which had been submitted to them, as to the necessity of circumcision in the case of Gentile converts. After the deputation had returned to Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas “tarried in Antioch”. It was during their stay that the visit of St Peter took place, as to which St Luke is silent.<\/p>\n Various attempts were made in early times to explain away an incident, which seemed to throw discredit on Peter or Paul or on both of them. To some it appeared incredible that Peter, the Apostle of the circumcision, should have been permitted to fall into grievous doctrinal error; to others, that St Paul should have treated him with such severity; to a third class, that such a dispute should have arisen in the infancy of the Church between its two principal teachers, both being inspired men. But we may note,<\/p>\n 1st, that the error of St Peter did not consist in preaching false doctrine, but in a want of straightforwardness of conduct, by which the ‘truth of the Gospel’ was liable to be perverted.<\/p>\n 2nd, that moral perfection is not to be looked for, even in an Apostle.<\/p>\n 3rd, that St Peter’s conduct, as here described, is quite consistent with that pourtrayed by the Evangelists. ‘Boldness and timidity, first boldness, then timidity, were the characteristics of his nature.<\/p>\n “It is remarkable, and may be considered as a proof of the truth of the history, that this conduct, however unintelligible, is in keeping with Peter’s character. We recognise in it the lineaments of him who confessed Christ first, and first denied Him; who began by refusing that Christ should wash his feet, and then said, ‘not my feet only, but my hands and my head’; who cut off the ear of the servant of the highpriest, when they came to take Jesus, and then forsook Him and fled”. Jowett.<\/p>\n 4th, that St Paul’s rebuke, though unsparing, is free from any rudeness of expression or personal animosity.<\/p>\n 5th, that the record of this painful interview, while placing St Paul’s Apostolic authority in the strongest light, and therefore germane to his purpose in the opening chapters of this Epistle, is a precious heritage of the Church an everlasting monument of the grace of God. For an admirable summary of the instructive lessons which it contains, see Dr Schaff’s Commentary, p. 29. Appendix II. p. 84. That the two great Apostles were at heart agreed, taught and influenced by the same Spirit, and zealous for the same truth, is shewn by the touching allusion made subsequently by Peter (2Pe 3:15-16<\/span>) to the Epistles (including this to the Galatians) of ‘our beloved brother Paul’ an allusion the more striking because the letter in which it occurs is probably addressed to Galatian<\/em> converts among others.<\/p>\n The following is the summary referred to on ch. Gal 2:11-21<\/span><\/p>\n “We take the record in its natural, historical sense, and derive from it the following instructive lessons: <\/p>\n 1. The right and duty of protest against ecclesiastical authority, even the highest, when Christian truth and principle are endangered. The protest should be manly, yet respectful. Paul was no doubt severe, but yet he recognised Peter expressly as a ‘pillar’ of the Church and a brother in Christ (Gal 1:18<\/span>; Gal 2:9<\/span>). There was no personal bitterness and rudeness, as we find, alas, in the controversial writings of St Jerome (against Rufinus), St Bernard (against Abelard), Luther (against Erasmus and Zwingli), Bossuet (against Fnlon), and other great divines.<\/p>\n 2. The duty to subordinate expediency to principle, the favour of man to the truth of God. Paul himself recommended and practised charity to the weak; but here a fundamental right, the freedom in Christ, was at stake, which Peter compromised by his conduct, after he himself had manfully stood up for the true principle at the Council of Jerusalem, and for the liberal practice at Antioch before the arrival of the Judaizers.<\/p>\n 3. The moral imperfection of the Apostles. They remained even after the Pentecostal illumination frail human beings, carrying the heavenly treasure in earthen vessels, and stood in daily need of forgiveness (2Co 4:7<\/span>; Php 3:12<\/span>; Jas 3:2<\/span>; 1Jn 1:8<\/span>; 1Jn 2:2<\/span>). The weakness of Peter is here recorded, as his greater sin of denying his Lord is recorded in the Gospels, both for the warning and for the comfort of believers. If the chief of the Apostles was led astray, how much more should ordinary Christians be on their guard against temptation! But if Peter found remission, we may confidently expect the same on the same condition of hearty repentance. ‘The dissension if dissension it could be called between the two great Apostles will shock those only who, in defiance of all Scripture, persist in regarding the Apostles as specimens of supernatural perfection.’ (Farrar, Life and Work of St Paul<\/em>, i. 444.)<\/p>\n 4. The collision does not<\/em> justify any unfavourable conclusion against the inspiration<\/em> of the Apostles and the infallibility of their teaching. For Paul charges his colleague with hypocrisy or dissimulation, that is, with acting against his own better conviction. We have here a fault of conduct<\/em>, a temporary inconsistency<\/em>, not a permanent error of doctrine<\/em>. A man may know and teach the truth, and yet go astray occasionally in practice. Peter had the right view of the relation of the gospel to the Gentiles ever since the conversion of Cornelius; he openly defended it at the Apostolic Council (Act 15:7<\/span>; comp. Gal 2:1-9<\/span>), and never renounced it in theory; on the contrary, his own Epistles agree fully with those of Paul, and are in part addressed to the same Galatians with a view to confirm them in their Pauline faith; but he suffered himself to be influenced by some scrupulous and contracted Jewish Christians from Jerusalem. By trying to please one party he offended the other, and endangered for a moment the sound doctrine itself.<\/p>\n 5. The inconsistency here rebuked quite agrees with Peter’s character as it appears in the Gospels. The same impulsiveness and inconsistency of temper, the same mixture of boldness and timidity, made him the first to confess, and the first to deny Christ, the strongest and the weakest among the Twelve. He refused that Christ should wash his feet, and then by a sudden change he wished not his feet only, but his hands and head to be washed; he cut off the ear of Malchus, and in a few minutes afterwards he forsook his Master and fled; he solemnly promised to be faithful to Him, though all should forsake Him, and yet in the same night he denied Him thrice.<\/p>\n 6. It should be remembered, however, on the other hand, first, that the question concerning the significance of the Mosaic law, and especially of the propriety of eating meat offered to idols, was a very difficult one, and continued to be agitated in the Apostolic Church (cf. 1 Corinthians 8-10; Romans 14<\/span>). The decree of the Council at Jerusalem (Act 15:20<\/span>; Act 15:29<\/span>), after all, stated simply the duties of the Gentile converts, strictly prohibiting them the use of meat offered to idols, but it said nothing on the duties of the Jewish Christians to the former, thus leaving some room for a milder and stricter view on the subject. We should also remember that the temptation on the occasion referred to was very great, since even Barnabas, the Gentile missionary, was overcome by it.<\/p>\n 7. Much as we may deplore and censure the weakness of Peter and admire the boldness and consistency of Paul, the humility and meekness with which Peter, the oldest and most eminent of the twelve Apostles, seems to have borne the public rebuke of a younger colleague, are deserving of high praise. How touching is his subsequent allusion in 2Pe 3:15-16<\/span>, which is addressed to the Galatians among others, to the very Epistles of his ‘beloved brother Paul,’ in one of which his own conduct is so sharply condemned. This required a rare degree of Divine grace, which did its full work in him through much suffering and humiliation, as the humble, meek, gentle, and graceful spirit of his Epistles abundantly prove.<\/p>\n 8. The conduct of Paul supplies a conclusive argument in favour of the equality of the Apostles and against the papal view of the supremacy of Peter. No pope would or could allow any Catholic bishop or archbishop to call him to an account and to talk to him in that style of manly independence. The conduct of Peter is also fatal to the claim of papal infallibility, as far as morals or discipline is concerned; for Peter acted here officially with all the power of his Apostolic example, and however correct in doctrine, he erred very seriously in practice, and endangered the great principle of Christian freedom, as the popes have done ever since. No wonder that the story was offensive to some of the Fathers and Roman commentators and gave rise to most unnatural explanations.<\/p>\n We may add that the account of the Council in Jerusalem in Acts 15<\/span> likewise contradicts the Vatican system, which would have required a reference of the great controversy on circumcision to the Apostle Peter rather than to a council under the presidency of James.<\/p>\n 9. The Apostolic Church is typical, and foreshadows the whole course of the history of Christendom. Peter, Paul and John represent as many ages and phases of the Church. Peter is the rock of Catholicism, Paul the rock of evangelical Protestantism. Their temporary collision at Antioch anticipates the world-historical antagonism of Romanism and Protestantism, which continues to this day. It is an antagonism between legal bondage and evangelical freedom, between Judaizing conservatism and Christian progress. Let us hope also for a future reconciliation in the ideal Church of harmony and peace which is symbolized by John, the bosom friend of Christ, the seer of the heavenly Jerusalem.<\/p>\n Paul and Peter, as far as we know from the New Testament, never met again after this scene in Antioch. But ecclesiastical tradition reports that they were tried and condemned together in Rome, and executed on the some day (the 29th of June), Peter, the Galilan disciple, on the hill of the Janiculum, where he was crucified; Paul, the Roman citizen, on the Ostian road at the Tre Fontane, where he was beheaded. Their martyr blood thus mingled is still a fountain of life to the Church of God.” Abridged from Dr Schaff’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians<\/em>.<\/p>\n But when Peter was come to Antioch – <\/B>On the situation of Antioch, see the note at Act 11:19<\/span>. The design for which Paul introduces this statement here is evident. It is to show that he regarded himself as on a level with the chief apostles, and that he did not acknowledge his inferiority to any of them. Peter was the oldest, and probably the most honored of the apostles. Yet Paul says that he did not hesitate to resist him in a case where Peter was manifestly wrong, and thus showed that he was an apostle of the same standing as the others. Besides, what he said to Peter on that occasion was exactly pertinent to the strain of the argument which he was pursuing with the Galatians, and he therefore introduces it Gal 2:14-21<\/span> to show that he had held the same doctrine all along, and that he had defended it in the presence of Peter, and in a case where Peter did not reply to it. The time of this journey of Peter to Antioch cannot be ascertained; nor the occasion on which it occurred. I think it is evident that it was after this visit of Paul to Jerusalem, and the occasion may have been to inspect the state of the church at Antioch, and to compose any differences of opinion which may have existed there. But everything in regard to this is mere conjecture; and it is of little importance to know when it occurred.<\/P> I withstood him to the face – <\/B>I openly opposed him, and reproved him. Paul thus showed that he was equal with Peter in his apostolical authority and dignity. The instance before us is one of faithful public reproof; and every circumstance in it is worthy of special attention, as it furnishes a most important illustration of the manner in which such reproof should be conducted. The first thing to be noted is, that it was done openly, and with candor. It was reproof addressed to the offender himself. Paul did not go to others and whisper his suspicions; he did not seek to undermine the influence and authority of another by slander; he did not calumniate him and then justify himself on the ground that what he had said was no more than true: he went to him at once, and he frankly stated his views and reproved him in a case where he was manifestly wrong. This too was a case so public and well known that Paul made his remarks before the church Gal 2:14<\/span> because the church was interested in it, and because the conduct of Peter led the church into error.<\/P> Because he was to be blamed – <\/B>The word used here may either mean because he had incurred blame, or because he deserved blame. The essential idea is, that he had done wrong, and that he was by his conduct doing injury to the cause of religion.<\/P> <\/p>\n Gal 2:11-12<\/span><\/p>\n I withstood him to the face.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Paul and Peter<\/strong><\/p>\n Paul rebukes Peter<\/strong><\/p>\n One of the most remarkable events in sacred history. Tradition tells us St. Paul was a man of small stature, bearing the marked features of the Jew, yet not without some of the finer lines indicative of Greek thought. His head bald, his beard long and thin; a bright gray eye, overhung by somewhat contracted eyebrows; whilst a cheerful and winning expression of countenance invited the approach and inspired the confidence of strangers. St. Peter is represented as a man of larger form and stronger build, with dark eye, pale and sallow complexion, and short hair curled black and thick round his temples. At the meeting here mentioned Judaism and Christianity were brought face to face. In Gal 2:14-16<\/span> we have the case of Gospel versus Law.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>An example of temptation arising from the fear of man. Peter was by nature timid; prompt to act, yet apt to vacillate; afraid of opposition.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>An instance of an apostles departure from the straight path of gospel truth, and of the ease with which such departure may take place. No divergence from Gods truth, however slight, is unimportant. We never know what (to all appearance) the slightest error may result in. Our only safety lies in holding fast the whole truth.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Not inconsistent with his integrity as a Christian, or with his inspiration as a writer. His writings were under the direction of the Holy Spirit. He nobly redeemed this error by a faithful and consistent after-life.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>An example of moral courage in administering reproof. No easy thing, at any time, to rebuke a friend. It is painful to oppose one whom we love, or whose good opinion we value.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>A noble vindication of gospel truth. (Emilius<\/em> Bayley,<\/em> B. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Peters inconsistent conduct<\/strong><\/p>\n The conduct of Peter is not easy to understand. Already, at the council or concordat of the apostles, he had agreed to impose no burdens on the Gentile Christians; and, at a much earlier period in the history of the apostles, he had not only been charged with going in unto men uncircumcised and eating with them, but had taught others that they were to call nothing common or unclean. And now, not of his own free will, but under the influence of certain who came from Jerusalem, from a fear of the very same charge, Thou wentest in unto men uncircumcised and eatest with them, he held back, and seemed to view his Christian brethren with the feelings with which he would have regarded men who sat at meat in an idols temple. It is remarkable, and may be considered as a proof of the truth of the history, that this conduct, however unintelligible, is in keeping with Peters character. We recognize in it the lineaments of him who confessed Christ first, and first denied Him; who began by refusing that Christ should wash his feet, and then said, Not my feet only, but my hands and my head; who cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest when they came to take Jesus, and then forsook Him and fled. Boldness and timidity–first boldness, then timidity–were the characteristics of his nature. It was natural for such a one, though no longer strictly a Jew himself, to desire that others should conform to the prejudices of Jews; such conduct agreed with the bent of his own mind, though he formally disowned it. There is, we may observe, in many men a sort of tenderness to what they once were themselves; as there is another class of men who learn a lesson, but only to apply it under given circumstances. Something of this kind there may have been in St. Peter; a narrowness of perception, or secret sympathy with the Judaizing converts, which prevented his seeing the wider truth which presented itself to St. Paul. At any rate, his was a disposition on which ancient habits and feelings were ever liable to return; whose heart could scarcely avoid lingering around the weak and beggarly elements of the law; on whom in age the lessons of youth were too prone to come back, carrying him whither he would not. The charge which St. Paul brings against him was, inconsistency with himself; he was half a Gentile, and wanted to make the Gentiles altogether Jews. (B. Jowett,<\/em> M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Force of example<\/strong><\/p>\n What a constraining power there is in the example of eminent persons. He is said to compel, in Scripture, not only who doth violently force, but who, being of authority, doth provoke by his example. (Burkitt.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The errors of those that do rule become rulers of error. Men sin through a kind of authority, through the sins of those who are in authority. (Burkitt.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Open reproof for open sin<\/strong><\/p>\n Such as sin openly must be reproved openly. No bands of friendship must keep the ministers of God from reproving sin. A notorious fault must be reproved with much boldness and resolution. If such as are <\/strong>eminent in the Church fall, they fall not alone; many fall with them.<\/p>\n Protestant popery<\/strong><\/p>\n How many rejoice at Pauls defence of the liberty of the gospel against Peters weakness, who themselves will not receive rebuke as Peter did–nay, are very popes at heart. For there are popes in pews as well as in pulpits, besides the pope who openly claims to be such; Christian liberty suffers from them all. (M. B. Riddle,<\/em> D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n False doctrine<\/strong><\/p>\n It is a good and a pleasant thing for brethren to dwell together in unity. But in a world like this such enjoyment cannot be universal or permanent. No Christian vigilance can prevent differences of opinion. They existed even among the apostles, and even upon fundamental truths. We may learn from this fact a twofold lesson.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>When differences affect only the circumstantials of religion, however interesting, and in their place important, those matters which are in themselves of human origin and rest on human authority may be, the differences respecting them are calculated to teach us a lesson of charity (Rom 14:5-6<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>When they extend to the fundamental portions of revealed truth, they are equally calculated to teach us a lesson of fidelity (Gal 1:8<\/span>). The matter to which the text refers, considered in itself, might have been enumerated among those questions which teach charity; but, considered in its bearing upon the gospel, considered in the aspect which it gave to the gospel among the Gentiles, it compromised the freeness of the gospel, and marred the simplicity of Gods message in Christ. And therefore St. Paul withstood the error of St. Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed. Barnabas was carried away also with the dissimulation. St. Paul was left alone. It was a critical moment for the primitive Church. Who can estimate the amount of the disaster that would have followed had St. Paul fallen as St. Peter fell? Who can estimate the damage which would have been sustained had the gospel, from the very outset, been presented in a corrupt form? How could we now have traced its purity had St. Paul sunk with St. Peter? As far as man can judge, the world would then never have had the gospel in its simplicity with the clear authority of Scriptural truth. But, through the mercy and grace of God, St. Paul stood fast. (H. McNeile,<\/em> D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Good men are not perfect men<\/strong><\/p>\n A gentleman of the Perfectionist school of thought called to see an old Christian of his neighbourhood, and began enlarging upon that interesting topic. Can you point to a single perfect man or woman in the Bible? inquired the aged saint. Yes, readily answered the other; turn to Luk 1:6<\/span>, you will there read of two–Elizabeth and Zacharias walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless. Then you consider yourself a believer like Zacharias? Certainly I do, said the visitor. Ah, replied the old man, I thought you might be; and we read a few verses further on that he was struck dumb for his unbelief. (Nye.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Robert Halls temper<\/strong><\/p>\n It is said that in the earlier part of Robert Halls ministry, he was impetuous and sometimes overbearing in argument; but if he lost his temper he <\/strong>was deeply humbled, and would often acknowledge himself to blame. On one of these occasions, when a discussion had become warm, and he had evinced unusual agitation, he suddenly closed the debate, quitted his seat, and, retiring to a remote part of the room, was overheard to ejaculate, with deep feeling, Lamb of God, Lamb of God, calm my perturbed spirit!<\/p>\n The fear of man illustrated<\/strong><\/p>\n Burgomeister Guericke constructed a gigantic barometer with a tube thirty feet in height, part of which projected above the roof of his house at Magdeburg. The index was the figure of a man, who, in fair weather, was seen standing full size above the roof; but, when a storm was brewing, he cautiously withdrew for security and shelter. Antitype of religionists and politicians I When the sun shines brightly, and the breezes scarcely breathe across the landscape, how erect and bold they look! But let the clouds gather, and the thunders mutter, and what a drawing-in of diminished heads! O rare, satirical Burgomeister! you must have had an aldermans experience. (Dr. W. F. Warren.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Brotherly reproof<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>An act of charity and mercy, not of pride and vain-glory (2Th 3:15<\/span>; Jam 3:17<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Using fit discourse, not chastisement, and, in general, from Gods Word (Col 3:16-17<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Having as its end not our brothers shame, but his reclamation from sin to duty (Gal 6:1<\/span>).<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Authoritative. By way of office (2Ti 4:2<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>In the way of general duty, which lieth on all men (1Th 5:14<\/span>).<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Faithfully (Tit 1:13<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>With lenity and Christian meekness (Gal 6:1<\/span>).<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Prudently. Well weighing all the circumstances of person, time, place, occasion, provocation, that all things may be proportioned to the design (Pro 25:12-17<\/span>).<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The law of nature, which teaches us to love our neighbour.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>The law of God (Pro 25:8-10<\/span>; Mat 18:15<\/span>; 1Th 3:15; 1Th 5:14<\/span>; Jud 1:22-23<\/span>).<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Giving reproof is commended (Pro 24:25<\/span>; Jam 5:19-20<\/span>), and taking reproof (Pro 13:18<\/span>; Pro 15:31-32<\/span>; Ecc 7:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>The maintenance of society and the improvements of human relations depend upon it.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Not unless the fault is certainly known; not, therefore, on mere suspicion (1Co 13:5<\/span>), uncertain hearsay (Isa 11:3<\/span>), flying reports, or slander.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Not if our brother has repented.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Not if a good result is unlikely, and a bad result probable (Mat 7:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n In conclusion:<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>If we are to <\/strong>reprove others, let us take care that we are blameless (Mat 6:3-5<\/span>; Rom 3:21<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>If others are bound to reprove, we are bound to take reproof. (T. Manton.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The end of St. Peters error<\/strong><\/p>\n Though St. Pauls narrative stops short of the last scene in this drama, it would not be rash to conclude that it ended as that other had ended, that the revulsion of feeling was as sudden and complete, and that again he went out and wept bitterly, having denied his Lord in the person of these Gentile converts. (Bishop<\/em> Lightfoot.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Differences among the apostles<\/strong><\/p>\n Nothing can be more false and delusive than to imagine that the first teachers were men whose harmony of opinion and action was complete, who had neither debate, difference, or quarrel. They were not unconscious mouthpieces of a supernatural inspiration, automata of some uncontrollable enthusiasm, unanimous machines, but men of like passions with ourselves, men with characters, impulses, affections, fears, dislikes–men human in the mistakes they made and in the truths they embraced and enunciated. It is sheer superstition to treat them as more than men, as other than men, however highly we may esteem them and their work. If we make them unreal and transcendental personages we do them a great injustice, and ourselves a certain mischief, because all free inquiry into their motives and feelings is suspected as a challenge of their authority, and every other form of commentary becomes mere verbiage around a foregone conclusion. They ace not stars fixed round the great central Light, and differing only in glory and goodness from Him who is the centre of their system; but they have what light they possess from reflection, and feel themselves immeasurably distant from the Power which illumines them. (Paul<\/em> of<\/em> Tarsus.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The dissension a witness to the truth of the Bible<\/strong><\/p>\n The Bible is of great worth for its natural, fresh, and honest expressions of human thought and feeling. The faith, hope, love, reverence, wonder; the doubts, sorrows, fears, temptations, and sins of the writers are recorded for our instruction, as well as the Divine doctrine they teach. In this spiritual portrait gallery we behold the work of truthful artists. No vanity, no pride, no desire to deceive, prevented them from pourtraying themselves just as they appeared. We value the Scriptures because their truths make us wise unto salvation; but we value them also as a record of what the good and wise thought and felt during their life-struggle on this earth. The Bible is not only a revelation of God, but also a revelation of man–the most Divine and the most human book ever written. (Thomas<\/em> Jones.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Blemishes in Christians<\/strong><\/p>\n There are MSS. which are called palimpsests–MSS, written over again. The original inscription, which was fair and full of Divine wisdom, has been defaced, and in its place may now be seen letters and words and sentences in contrast to what was contained before. And so the character of men–these great men, men born of the Spirit–over their better natures you may see scratched in ugly scrawls, obvious imperfections and failures. But, thank God, Divine grace, through discipline of various kinds, rubs out the evil and brings back the good, and causes the soul at last to reveal again most distinctly what had been only dimmed and not destroyed, even as there has been discovered a method by which the palimpsests can be made to exhibit once more what seemed for ever spoiled. (J. Stoughton,<\/em> D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Truth-telling: an act of friendship<\/strong><\/p>\n There cannot more worthy improvement of friendship than in a fervent opposition to the sins of those whom we love. (Bishop<\/em> Hall.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The truth-tellers reward<\/strong><\/p>\n Years after this encounter Peter took his revenge. Having to write to the strangers scattered through Galatia, who through a celebrated Epistle knew of his humiliation, what does he do? Vindicate himself? State the other side? No; he calls his reprover a brother beloved, and testifies that in all his Epistles he wrote according to the wisdom given him of God.<\/p>\n The weakness and dissimulation of Peter<\/strong><\/p>\n The act of which he was guilty was dissimulation; it was not what he believed to be right, but an expediency adopted in a moment of weakness. It is described–<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Honesty of belief, purpose, and work should be one of the chief laws of Christian life. This should apply to every kind of secular business, and to religion.<\/p>\n This above all; to thine own self be true,<\/p>\n And it must follow, as the night the day.<\/p>\n Thou canst not then be false to any man.<\/p>\n 2.<\/strong> God can preserve the truth by the few as well as by the many. Whatever may be the character of human conduct, God does not allow his purpose to fail. At Antioch Paul alone was faithful (of the Jewish believers), but the truth triumphed notwithstanding. (Richard<\/em> Nicholls.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I. <\/strong>Character is growth. The most zealous is not always the most steadfast. Fires slumber within which circumstances may fan into a terrible flame. We bring our evil tendencies with us into the Kingdom of God to be gradually curbed, restrained, overcome by higher and Divine tendencies. Let every man keep sentinel over himself; let him beware of old sins; let him guard his soul by prayer against attacks on his weak points; let him cast aside every weight if he would run the true race, whose goal is perfection.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>Fear of man deteriorates the character. How many barter their birthright for the worlds empty applause! A little courage would save them a world of shame; a decisive step or a bold word would put to silence their adversaries; but they dare not make a stand, and so their independence is lost and their character lowered.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>Observe the influence of character on others. Peter did not sin alone. The other Jews dissembled, and even Barnabas was led away. So it is always. Evil companionships and examples corrupt good characters.<\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>Bear in mind the supreme necessity of honesty. The truth must at all hazards be defended, faithfully, courteously, lovingly.<\/p>\n
V. <\/strong>Pauls appeal was successful. Truth always prevails in the end. A little firmness at the right time, and in the right way, may save a brothers soul.<\/p>\n
VI. <\/strong>This was no mere personal dispute, but involved vital issues. The antagenism was between law on the one hand and grace on the other. (S. Pearson,<\/em> M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>The conduct of St. Peter on this occasion may be regarded as–<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The conduct of St. Paul was–<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>What is reproof.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The kind of reproof it is our duty to give.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>The manner in which to discharge this duty.<\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>The arguments which enforce this duty.<\/p>\n
V. <\/strong>When and to what this duty binds.<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>As a violation of his convictions. He had commenced upon equal terms with Gentile believers, and he bad done this according to the express will of God revealed to him (Act 10:28<\/span>). These convictions had been further deepened by what had taken place in Jerusalem during Pauls visit to that city.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>This dissimulation was prompted by a very unworthy motive. Peter feared them which were of the circumcision. Many have made shipwreck of faith upon this same rock. How often have men been ashamed to confess Christ, or to acknowledge their connection with His people for fear of man.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>This dissimulation was an evil example, soon copied by others–And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. Peters sin was followed by the sin of others. One of the greatest mysteries of our life is that so much of our happiness or misery appears to depend upon others. As it sometimes happens on the snow slopes of the Alps, that one mans slip will involve the overthrow and destruction of all his fellow-travellers, so is it with us in the moral and spiritual life. Peter drags Barnabas and the rest of the Jews with him; and in our day men too often exercise the <\/strong>same fatal spell on those within the region of their influence. Lessons:<\/p>\n