Galatians 2:11-14: Confronting Hypocrisy

Galatians 2:11-14: Confronting Hypocrisy

We’ve been working our way passage by passage through Paul’s letter to the Galatians, and today the next passage we come to is Galatians 2:11-14. It says,

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” 

May God bless the reading of his Word.

Let’s pray: Father, what a blessing it is to be gathered together around your Word with the opportunity to immerse ourselves in it this morning. We pray that your Spirit would be present and at work in our midst, causing the truths and teachings we encounter to find a place in our hearts. It’s in Jesus’ name we pray, amen.One of the reasons we can be confident that the Bible provides us with a reliable account of historical events is that it doesn’t gloss over the flaws or shortcomings of the people it tells us about. Even when the Bible describes the key leaders whom God used mightily to accomplish his purposes, the Bible never presents them as larger-than-life figures but instead is very faithful to describe not only their positive qualities but also their weaknesses and shortcomings and even their sins. 

Just think about Abraham and the way Genesis records him telling a bald-faced lie about his wife not just on one occasion but on at least two separate occasions. As Abraham was traveling through various kingdoms, he was afraid that the kings of those kingdoms would want his wife Sarah for themselves and would therefore kill him in order get her. So, Abraham lied and told these two kings that Sarah was just his sister and not his wife. And on both occasions when Abraham told this lie, it blew up in his face in a very public and embarrassing way. 

Or consider Moses. Moses had a terrible temper issue that caused him to do a number of rash things, including murder an Egyptian who was abusing an Israelite. Moses was also very reluctant to obey God when God told him to go to Pharaoh, the Egyptian ruler. Instead of demonstrating a willingness to do what God was calling him to do, Moses made one excuse after another about why it supposedly wasn’t a good idea for him to go. Then finally, after two chapters of Moses making excuses, the Bible tells us that “the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses,” and God rebuked him. Only then did Moses obey God by going to Pharoah. 

And to give one final example from the Old Testament, let’s not forget about David, whom God describes quite remarkably as “a man after his own heart.” Yet David had a few flaws that weren’t exactly insignificant. Not only did he see an attractive woman named Bathsheba and take her into his palace and basically rape her, he even had her husband Uriah killed in order to cover up what he had done. 

So, one reason we can be confident that the Bible provides us with a reliable account of historical events is that it doesn’t hide the sins and shortcomings of even the most revered leaders of God’s people. And as we’re going to see in our main passage today, this is the case not only in the Old Testament but also in the New Testament—and specifically with the Apostle Peter. 

Peter is commonly acknowledged as the foremost of the Apostles. Yet, in this passage, Paul has to publicly confront Peter for demonstrating religious hypocrisy while visiting the church of Antioch. And that’s the main idea of this passage. Paul confronts Peter for demonstrating religious hypocrisy. And Paul’s not subtle about it either but is instead very direct in his confrontation.  

Look first at verse 11: “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” Cephas is another name for Peter. And Paul says that when Peter came to Antioch—which was a city on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean—he “opposed [Peter] to his face.” 

So, even at the very outset of the passage here, we encounter an important biblical principle related to confrontation. Whenever there’s an issue that needs to be dealt with, the way to deal with that issue isn’t to gossip about someone to other people but instead to go to the person directly and confront them. Paul states that he “opposed [Peter] to his face,” not that he talked about Peter behind his back. So, for example, Paul didn’t share a prayer request about Peter at his Community Group and tell everyone, “Hey guys, pray for Peter. I saw him the other day acting hypocritically by refusing to eat with some of the Gentiles in our church, and I just think he could really use our prayers.” No, Paul talked to Peter rather than about Peter. 

This is exactly what Jesus tells us to do in Matthew 18:15, where he states, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.” And it really is that simple. Of course, there are always extenuating circumstances that might make it necessary to involve other people from time to time, such as if someone is a victim of abuse or something like that. But in the vast majority of situations, if you have an issue with someone, you need to go to them directly and tell them about that issue just between the two of you—talking to the person rather than about the person. 

In addition, as we consider the context of Galatians, it’s very significant that Paul would confront Peter in this way. You see, the false teachers—called Judaizers—who were spreading all kinds of unbiblical teachings in the Galatian churches were saying that Paul wasn’t really an Apostle. Yet this incident that Paul shares demonstrates that Paul wasn’t in any way inferior to the other Apostles but was on equal footing even with the Apostle Peter and found it necessary to confront Peter on this particular occasion when Peter was clearly in the wrong. 

This encounter between Paul and Peter also demonstrates that even the most mature Christians and the most respected Christian leaders, at times, need to be confronted about issues in their lives. None of us ever outgrows our need for accountability. It doesn’t matter what kind of leadership credentials a person has. No one should ever be considered to be beyond the need of being held accountable by other godly and mature Christians. 

By the way, this is one reason why it’s so critical for every Christian to be a part of a healthy local church—and not just to anonymously slip in and out of church worship services on Sundays but to actually be a part of the relational fabric of that church and to be a member of that church. If you’re not embedded enough in a local church for other Christians to be in a position to hold you accountable, then you’re not really a part of that church the way God wants you to be. 

Because no matter how mature we are—or think we are—as Christians, the reality is that we all have blind spots in our lives. Just like, when you’re driving on a highway and want to change lanes, there’s a certain blind spot that you can’t see without the aid of some sort of technology or without turning your head. All of us likewise have blind spots in our lives. We have areas of our lives in which we’re not living in a way that’s consistent with what we say we believe and in which we’re falling short of full obedience to the Bible. So, we need other Christians to lovingly bring those inconsistencies and shortcomings to our attention. That’s one reason why we place such a heavy emphasis on Community Groups at our church and encourage every Christian to develop relationships in the church that extend far beyond Sunday mornings. 

Now, returning to the specific encounter that Paul describes between him and Peter, we might wonder, what exactly was Peter doing that warranted such direct confrontation? Paul tells us in verse 12: “For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.”

So, Peter was in the habit of eating with the Gentile—or non-Jewish—Christians of the church of Antioch. But when “certain men came from James”—and that would be James, the Lord’s brother and leader of the Jerusalem church—Peter “drew back and separated himself” from the Gentile Christians. The Greek verb translated “drew back” was a term that was often used of a military maneuver in which troops that were about to be overpowered on the battlefield would draw back in retreat to a place of protection and safety. Likewise, that’s what Peter did when these Judaizers showed up at the church of Antioch. He “drew back.”

And as this verse says, the reason Peter did this is because he was afraid of “the circumcision party,” which was another name for the Judaizers. The reason they were called “the circumcision party” was because a key element of their false teaching was the assertion that Gentiles who wanted to become Christians first had to undergo the Jewish ritual of circumcision in order for their Christian faith to be valid. Basically, according to “the circumcision party,” it wasn’t enough for people to simply trust in Jesus in order to be saved from their sins and go to heaven. Salvation comes not through Jesus alone, they claimed, but through Jesus plus adherence to the Old Testament Law, including the Law’s requirement of circumcision. 

In addition, another aspect of the Law that the Judaizers said had to be observed was the regulations regarding which foods were and weren’t okay to eat. As you might imagine, these Kosher regulations were unique to Jews and weren’t observed by Gentiles. So, for Peter to eat with Gentile Christians meant that he was eating foods that weren’t Kosher. And that’s why he felt that he had to stop eating with the Gentile Christians when the Judaizers arrived. 

It kind of reminds me of a middle school cafeteria where someone who wants to be included among the “cool” kids has to be very careful never to be caught eating at the same cafeteria table as the “uncool” kids so as to not lose whatever shot they have at being considered cool. By the way, for those of you who are under 25, just switch out the word “cool” with whatever word you guys are using nowadays to talk about someone who’s popular, and hopefully that’ll help what I just said make sense to you. 

So, that’s kind of where it feels like we are here in Galatians 2. It feels like we’re back in middle school, and Peter doesn’t want to be seen eating non-Kosher food with Gentile Christians, so he switches cafeteria tables, you might say, in order to eat exclusively with Jewish Christians. 

And one reason why that was totally unacceptable was because it undermined the unity of the church. The church of Antioch was already having to work very hard to overcome the ethnic division between Jews and Gentiles, and for someone of the spiritual stature of Peter to draw back from eating with the Gentiles was a devastating blow to that church’s efforts to encourage ethnic unity. The Bible teaches that Christians are supposed to live out a unity that transcends any kind of superficial differences they might have with each other—whether they be ethnic differences, cultural differences, socio-economic differences, or any other superficial distinctions that might be barriers to meaningful fellowship. And Peter’s conduct was undermining that fellowship and unity. 

In addition, another reason Peter’s conduct was unacceptable was because it undermined not only the unity of the church but even the gospel itself. Down in verse 14, Paul states that Peter’s conduct “was not in step with the truth of the gospel.” This was because Peter’s refusal to eat with Gentile Christians implied that it was necessary to observe Jewish food laws in order to have a relationship with God and be a part of God’s people. 

And to make matters worse, Peter’s conduct influenced others as well. Verse 13 tells us, “And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.” So, Peter’s example influenced all the rest of the Jews of the church of Antioch as well, including even the respected Christian leader Barnabas, who had joined Paul in his missionary endeavors to the Gentiles. 

And Paul doesn’t mince words in his description of their conduct but instead calls it out for what it is. He refers to it in this verse as “hypocrisy.” In ancient times, Greek word translated “hypocrisy” or “hypocrite” literally referred to an actor in a play who would put on a mask in order to pretend to be a certain character in that play. So, to be a hypocrite is to pretend to be someone other than who you truly are. And that’s exactly what Peter and those he influenced were doing. The fact that they were originally eating with Gentile Christians shows that they understood full well that the Jewish food laws were no longer in effect. Yet, when the Judaizers arrived, they pretended that they were still committed to observing those food laws. 

And as we read this, I think it’s important for us to remember that we too are often tempted to act in a hypocritical manner in certain situations. Especially when we find ourselves in a secular environment such as school or work—and also when we’re around family members or friends who don’t share our Christian convictions—it’s not uncommon for us to be tempted to compromise our Christian values in order to appease people and conform to their expectations and gain their approval. To some degree, we all crave social validation and social approval and can therefore be tempted to pretend to be someone we’re not in order to obtain it. So, perhaps it would be a good idea for each of us to examine ourselves and consider how specifically we might be doing that in the various situations in which we often find ourselves. 

In addition, let’s also remember that—just as we see with Peter here—our sin almost always has at least some effect on other people. In the vast majority of situations, your sins don’t just hurt you. They hurt others as well. Even if you’re not directly sinning against others in the sense of others being the primary victims of your wrongdoing, your sins still have a spiritual effect on the people around you that’s more significant than you might often recognize. This is the case especially for those of us who are parents. 

And it’s certainly the case for those of us who have leadership positions in the church. Just think about how the Gentile Christians in the church of Antioch must have felt when Peter “drew back” and would no longer eat with them. Think about the sense of betrayal they must have felt. And it’s very common and understandable for people to feel that way when a respected Christian leader acts hypocritically. This is why James 3:1 states that those “who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” Basically, the more spiritual influence you have, the more rigorous God’s judgment of you is going to be.  

Then, moving forward in our main passage, Paul continues his account of his confrontation of Peter in verse 14: “But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?’”

So, again, Peter was committing no small error in his refusal to eat with the Gentile Christians but was doing something that, according to this verse, “was not in step with the truth of the gospel.” You see, the gospel is the message of God rescuing us from our sins through his Son Jesus. 

In our natural condition, we’re all guilty of sinning against God and are therefore alienated from God and under God’s wrath. That’s the penalty our sins deserve. Yet God saw our wretched and miserable condition and had mercy on us. In fact, he loved us so much that he sent his own Son Jesus into this world on a rescue mission to save us. Jesus existed as God from all eternity yet entered this world as a human—fully God and fully man. 

Then, after living a perfectly sinless life, Jesus took on himself the penalty for our sins. He did this voluntarily by allowing himself to be crucified. So, on the cross, Jesus endured not just the physical agony of crucifixion but also the even more unthinkable agony of God the Father’s wrath against sin. Essentially, God’s wrath was poured out on Jesus so it wouldn’t have to be poured out on us. 

Then, after three days, Jesus was raised from the dead with the result that he now stands ready to save everyone who puts their faith in him. That involves renouncing all confidence in ourselves and our own moral accomplishments or religious observances to make ourselves right with God and instead putting our full confidence in Jesus alone. One way we often like to express this is to say that we’re saved by grace alone and through faith alone. That’s the message of the gospel. 

Yet Peter’s conduct in the church of Antioch was a deviation from this gospel message since his conduct communicated that, instead of being saved by grace alone and through faith alone, we’re instead saved through a combination of faith plus our own moral accomplishments, such as—in that particular situation—the observance of the Old Testament Law. That’s directly contrary to the gospel—as Paul notes here in verse 14. 

In addition, Paul states that he confronted “Cephas [or Peter] before them all.” This means that Paul confronted Peter publicly in front of the entire church of Antioch. Now, you may remember from earlier that Jesus teaches us in Matthew 18:15 to confront people in private, between us and them “alone.” Yet in this particular situation, it was necessary for Paul to confront Peter publicly for a couple of reasons. First of all, Peter was a prominent leader in the church, and 

1 Timothy 5:20 says that we’re supposed to deal with church leaders—and specifically elders—in a particular way. It states, “As for those [elders] who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.”

Not only that, Peter’s sin was also public in nature. It was something Peter did in front of everyone and therefore needed to be dealt with in front of everyone. If Paul didn’t confront Peter publicly, the Christians of Antioch would be very confused about the entire situation. The Jewish Christians who joined Peter in withdrawing would have felt comfortable in their sin, and the Gentile Christians would have continued to think that Peter’s misconduct hadn’t been dealt with. So, the confrontation had to be public. 

And as we consider the fact that Paul confronted Peter’s sin in this passage and that he recognized Peter’s offense was one that simply had to be dealt with, that raises the question of when an offense requires confrontation versus when it might not require confrontation. Because one principle in the Bible is that, when someone commits an offense against us, we should overlook it whenever possible. For example, Proverbs 19:11 states that, “Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense.” So, whenever possible, we should try to overlook the offenses others commit against us. 

Yet, we also see in the Bible—such as in Galatians 2—that there are situations when it’s not possible to overlook an offense. So, what principles should we use in determining whether we should or shouldn’t confront someone? Well, I’m glad you asked, and I’ll give you four of them. I’ve taken these from a book by Ken Sande titled The Peacemaker. 

Four principles for determining when to confront someone. 

First, we should confront someone when their sin causes significant dishonor to God. This is especially the case when someone who claims to be a Christian publicly engages in conduct that’s blatantly contrary to biblical teaching. Not only does such conduct have a negative effect on other Christians in the church, it also serves a bad testimony to non-Christians and thereby brings God’s name into disrepute. 

Second, we should confront someone when their sin has caused damage to our relationship with them. If someone has done something that you’ve tried your best to overlook, and yet you’re having a lot of trouble doing so to the extent that it’s hindering your relationship with that person, it’s necessary for you to deal with that issue by confronting them. 

Third, we should confront someone when their sin is hurting or might hurt other people. Loving our neighbors involves making a reasonable effort to protect our neighbors from harm. So, if someone’s doing something that’s bringing or will likely bring physical or emotional or spiritual harm to those around them, we should confront the person. 

And finally, we should confront someone if their sin is causing significant harm to themselves. Obviously, any time someone sins, they’re causing some degree of harm to themselves. Yet the more significant we determine that harm to be, the more of a responsibility we have to engage in confrontation. This, again, goes back to the foundational biblical principle of loving our neighbor. Don’t let someone continue down a path that’s clearly going to lead to their spiritual destruction.

And I realize that confronting someone isn’t easy. It can actually be quite difficult and uncomfortable, especially if you have a very close relationship with someone. Yet if we really love people, we’ll confront them when it’s necessary for us to do so. Because the longer we allow significant and blatant sin to go unaddressed in someone’s life, the more that sin is going to metastasize. In reality, sin is like cancer. Not only is it deadly, it also spreads very quickly. So, if we really love someone, we won’t let our fear of confrontation keep us from ministering to them in a way that seems to be needed.  

So, that answers the question of when to confront, but what about how we should confront? Fortunately, our good friend Ken Sande also gives us several very practical and helpful principles for how to engage in confrontation, which I’ve taken the liberty of editing and rephrasing in ways I’ve thought helpful. And I’ll share four of them. 

First, before confronting someone, consider your own contribution to the conflict. In Matthew 7:3-5, Jesus tells us to get the log out of our own eye before pointing out the speck in someone else’s eye. So before confronting anyone, we need to examine ourselves and the way our own actions have contributed to the current situation. Even if the situation began with the other person wronging us in some way, there’s still a good chance that we’ve responded to their sin with sin of our own. 

Second, confront in love rather than anger. Our primary purpose in confrontation shouldn’t be to vent our feelings but rather to lead someone to repentance and enjoy a restored relationship with them. That’s not likely to happen if we confront someone in anger. Instead, we need to make sure we’re spiritually prepared to confront the person by praying that God would give us a heart of love for them. And we should view the confrontation not as a way for us to punish the person but rather as a way for us to serve the person. 

Third, believe the best about others until you have clear facts that indicate otherwise. Just to give one example of this, since you don’t have a spiritual x-ray machine, you don’t know what’s going on in someone else’s heart. Therefore, don’t simply assume they had a certain motive for doing something. Instead, focus on the clearly observable facts of things they’ve said or done that are unloving or otherwise contrary to biblical teaching, and try to believe the best about everything else. 

And fourth, talk from beside people rather than from above them. In other words, when you find it necessary to confront someone, don’t talk down to them or act as if you’re morally superior to them. Remember that you yourself are also a sinner who needs God’s forgiveness and grace just as much as that person does. 

Then hopefully, in an ideal situation, the person you’re confronting will respond well to the confrontation. And by the way, there’s statistically a 50% chance you’ll actually be the one on the receiving end of the confrontation. So, whenever that’s the case, you need to make sure you respond to the confrontation humbly and thoughtfully and graciously. That involves asking the forgiveness of anyone you conclude that you’ve sinned against. Don’t act as if you didn’t sin or blame someone else for your sin or make excuses for your sin but instead confess the fact that you’ve sinned and seek the forgiveness of everyone your sin has affected. 

Yet, going back to when someone has sinned against you and you confront them, hopefully they’ll acknowledge their sin and ask your forgiveness. And the Bible’s very clear that it’s your responsibility to forgive them. God expects you to do that. And even if they’re obstinate and you’re therefore unable to fully reconcile with them, God actually still expects you to have a disposition of forgiveness in your heart. 

In Matthew 18:21-35, Jesus tells a parable about an unforgiving servant. Basically, a wealthy man had a servant who owed him millions of dollars. But instead of making the servant pay, the man graciously forgave his servant of that debt. However, right after being forgiven of that enormous debt, the servant then turned around and heartlessly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law a fellow servant who owed him only a few dollars. That kind of behavior would be unthinkable, right? To be forgiven of an enormous debt but then to demand the immediate payment of a tiny debt—that’s appalling. 

Yet, that’s the situation we’re in. We’re the ones who have been forgiven an enormous debt. Our sins against a holy God are way more serious than anything others have done against us. Yet, instead of giving us the punishment we deserved, God was merciful toward us. He actually sent his own son Jesus to come to this earth and die in our place and for our sins. And aren’t you glad God did that for you? Aren’t you glad God didn’t “get even” with you when you had sinned against him but instead forgave you? 

So, as those who have been forgiven so much, how is it even possible for us to give any serious consideration to withholding forgiveness from others? It’s with this in mind that the Apostle Paul tells his readers in Colossians 3:13 to embrace a lifestyle of “bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other.” He then declares emphatically, “As the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.”