But when I saw that they didn’t walk uprightly according to the truth of the Good News, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live as the Gentiles do, and not as the Jews do, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews do?
Parallel Translations
-
But when I saw that they didn’t walk uprightly according to the truth of the Good News, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live as the Gentiles do, and not as the Jews do, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews do?
-
But when I sawe that they went not the ryght waye after the trueth of the gospell I sayde vnto Peter before all men yf thou beynge a Iewe livest after the maner of the gentyls and not as do the Iewes: why causest thou the getyls to live as do the Iewes?
-
But when I saw, that they went not ye right way to the trueth of ye Gospel, I sayd vnto Peter before all men, If thou being a Iewe, liuest as the Gentiles, and not like the Iewes, why constrainest thou the Gentiles to doe like the Iewes?
Cross-references (24)
Passages linked to Galatians 2:14 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Galatians 2:5 to whom we gave no place in the way of subjection, not for an hour, that the truth of the Good News might continue with you.
- Acts 10:28 He said to them, “You yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man who is a Jew to join himself or come to one of another nation, but God has shown me that I shouldn’t call any man unholy or unclean.
- Acts 15:10-11 Now therefore why do you tempt God, that you should put a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they are.”
- 1 Timothy 5:20 Those who sin, reprove in the sight of all, that the rest also may be in fear.
- Psalms 84:11 For Yahweh God is a sun and a shield. Yahweh will give grace and glory. He withholds no good thing from those who walk blamelessly.
- Proverbs 2:7 He lays up sound wisdom for the upright. He is a shield to those who walk in integrity,
- Acts 15:28-29 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden on you than these necessary things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality, from which if you keep yourselves, it will be well with you. Farewell.”
- Galatians 6:12 As many as desire to make a good impression in the flesh compel you to be circumcised; just so they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.
- Acts 15:19-21 Therefore my judgment is that we don’t trouble those from among the Gentiles who turn to God, but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollution of idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. For Moses from generations of old has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
- Acts 15:24 Because we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, ‘You must be circumcised and keep the law,’ to whom we gave no commandment;
- Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; except that to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
- Galatians 2:7 but to the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the Good News for the uncircumcised, even as Peter with the Good News for the circumcised—
- Galatians 2:9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, those who were reputed to be pillars, gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision.
- Galatians 2:11-13 But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before some people came from James, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
- 1 Timothy 4:3-5 forbidding marriage and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving. For it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer.
- Hebrews 9:10 being only (with meats and drinks and various washings) fleshly ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation.
- Hebrews 12:13 and make straight paths for your feet, so what is lame may not be dislocated, but rather be healed.
- Leviticus 19:17 “ ‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him.
- Psalms 15:2 He who walks blamelessly and does what is right, and speaks truth in his heart;
- Psalms 58:1 Do you indeed speak righteousness, silent ones? Do you judge blamelessly, you sons of men?
- Psalms 141:5 Let the righteous strike me, it is kindness; let him reprove me, it is like oil on the head; don’t let my head refuse it; Yet my prayer is always against evil deeds.
- Proverbs 10:9 He who walks blamelessly walks surely, but he who perverts his ways will be found out.
- Proverbs 27:5-6 Better is open rebuke than hidden love. The wounds of a friend are faithful, although the kisses of an enemy are profuse.
- Acts 11:3-18 saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men, and ate with them!” But Peter began, and explained to them in order, saying, “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision: a certain container descending, like it was a great sheet let down from heaven by four corners. It came as far as me. When I had looked intently at it, I considered, and saw the four-footed animals of the earth, wild animals, creeping things, and birds of the sky. I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter, kill and eat!’ But I said, ‘Not so, Lord, for nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered into my mouth.’ But a voice answered me the second time out of heaven, ‘What God has cleansed, don’t you call unclean.’ This was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven. Behold, immediately three men stood before the house where I was, having been sent from Caesarea to me. The Spirit told me to go with them, without discriminating. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house. He told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying to him, ‘Send to Joppa, and get Simon, who is called Peter, who will speak to you words by which you will be saved, you and all your house.’ As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John indeed baptized in water, but you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave to them the same gift as us, when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God?” When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life!”
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (18 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Martin Luther 1535 · Public Domain VERSE 14. But when I saw that they walked…
VERSE 14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.
No one except Paul had his eyes open. Consequently it was his duty to reprove Peter and his followers for swerving from the truth of the Gospel. It was no easy task for Paul to reprimand Peter. To the honor of Peter it must be said that he took the correction. No doubt, he freely acknowledged his fault.
Read full note →
The person who can rightly divide Law and Gospel has reason to thank God. He is a true theologian. I must confess that in times of temptation I do not always know how to do it. To divide Law and Gospel means to place the Gospel in heaven, and to keep the Law on earth; to call the righteousness of the Gospel heavenly, and the righteousness of the Law earthly; to put as much difference between the righteousness of the Gospel and that of the Law, as there is difference between day and night. If it is a question of faith or conscience, ignore the Law entirely. If it is a question of works, then lift high the lantern of works and the righteousness of the Law. If your conscience is oppressed with a sense of sin, talk to your conscience. Say: "You are now groveling in the dirt. You are now a laboring ass. Go ahead, and carry your burden. But why don’t you mount up to heaven? There the Law cannot follow you!" Leave the ass burdened with laws behind in the valley. But your conscience, let it ascend with Isaac into the mountain.
In civil life obedience to the law is severely required. In civil life Gospel, conscience, grace, remission of sins, Christ Himself, do not count, but only Moses with the lawbooks. If we bear in mind this distinction, neither Gospel nor Law shall trespass upon each other. The moment Law and sin cross into heaven, i.e., your conscience, kick them out. On the other hand, when grace wanders unto the earth, i.e., into the body, tell grace: "You have no business to be around the dreg and dung of this bodily life. You belong in heaven."
By his compromising attitude Peter confused the separation of Law and Gospel. Paul had to do something about it. He reproved Peter, not to embarrass him, but to conserve the difference between the Gospel which justifies in heaven, and the Law which justifies on earth.
The right separation between Law and Gospel is very important to know. Christian doctrine is impossible without it. Let all who love and fear God, diligently learn the difference, not only in theory but also in practice.
When your conscience gets into trouble, say to yourself: "There is a time to die, and a time to live; a time to learn the Law, and a time to unlearn the Law; a time to hear the Gospel, and a time to ignore the Gospel. Let the Law now depart, and let the Gospel enter, for now is the right time to hear the Gospel, and not the Law." However, when the conflict of conscience is over and external duties must be performed, close your ears to the Gospel, and open them wide to the Law.
VERSE 14. I said unto Peter before them all, If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews.
To live as a Jew is nothing bad. To eat or not to eat pork, what difference does it make? But to play the Jew, and for conscience’ sake to abstain from certain meats, is a denial of Christ. When Paul saw that Peter’s attitude tended to this, he withstood Peter and said to him: "You know that the observance of the law is not needed unto righteousness. You know that we are justified by faith in Christ. You know that we may eat all kinds of meats. Yet by your example you obligate the Gentiles to forsake Christ, and to return to the Law. You give them reason to think that faith is not sufficient unto salvation."
Peter did not say so, but his example said quite plainly that the observance of the Law must be added to faith in Christ, if men are to be saved. From Peter’s example the Gentiles could not help but draw the conclusion that the Law was necessary unto salvation. If this error had been permitted to pass unchallenged, Christ would have lost out altogether.
The controversy involved the preservation of pure doctrine. In such a controversy Paul did not mind if anybody took offense.
Martin Luther — Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535), English translation by Theodore Graebner (Zondervan, 1939) — public domain (U.S. copyright not renewed). Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain 14. But when I saw that they walked not…
14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly. Some apply these words to the Gentiles, who, perplexed by Peter’s example, were beginning to give way; but it is more natural to understand them as referring to Peter and Barnabas, and their followers. The proper road to the truth of the gospel was, to unite the Gentiles with the Jews in such a manner that the true doctrine should not be injured. But to bind the consciences of godly men by an obligation to keep the law, and to bury in silence the doctrine of liberty, was to purchase unity at an exorbitant price.
The truth of the gospel is here used, by Paul, in the same sense as before, and is contrasted with those disguises by which Peter and others concealed its beauty. In such a case, the struggle which Paul had to maintain must unquestionably have been serious. They were perfectly agreed about doctrine; but since, laying doctrine out of view, Peter yielded too submissively to the Jews, he is accused of halting. There are some who apologize for Peter on another ground, because, being the apostle of the circumcision, he was bound to take a particular concern in the salvation of the Jews; while they at the same time admit that Paul did right in pleading the cause of the Gentiles. But it is foolish to defend what the Holy Spirit by the mouth of Paul has condemned. This was no affair of men, but involved the purity of the gospel, which was in danger of being contaminated by Jewish leaven.
Read full note →
Before them all. This example instructs us, that those who have sinned publicly must be publicly chastised, so far as concerns the Church. The intention is, that their sin may not, by remaining unpunished, form a dangerous example; and Paul elsewhere (1 Timothy 5:20) lays down this rule expressly, to be observed in the case of elders,
“Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear;”
because the station which they hold renders their example more pernicious. It was particularly advantageous, that the good cause, in which all had an interest, should be openly defended in presence of the people, that Paul might have a better opportunity of shewing that he did not shrink from the broad light of day.
If thou, being a Jew. Paul’s address to Peter consists of two parts. In the first, he expostulates with him for his injustice toward the Gentiles, in compelling them to keep the law, from the obligations of which he wished himself to be exempted. For, not to mention that every man is bound to keep the law which he lays down for others, his conduct was greatly aggravated by compelling the Gentiles to observe Jewish ceremonies, while he, being a Jew, left himself at liberty. The law was given to Jews, not to Gentiles; so that he argues from the less to the greater.
Next, it is argued, that, in a harsh and violent manner, he compelled the Gentiles, by withdrawing from their communion, unless they chose to submit to the yoke of the law; and thus imposed on them an unjust condition. And, indeed, the whole force of the reproof lies in this word, which neither Chrysostom nor Jerome has remarked. The use of ceremonies was free for the purposes of edification, provided that believers were not deprived of their liberty, or laid under any restraint from which the gospel sets them free.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain He saith they were constrained, which played the Jews…
He saith they were constrained, which played the Jews by Peter’s example.
Word for word, with a right foot which he setteth against halting and dissembling which is backward.
Read full note →
He calleth the truth of the Gospel both the doctrine itself, and also the use of doctrine, which we call the practice.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain Uprightly, here, is opposed to halting. Peter halted between…
Uprightly, here, is opposed to halting. Peter halted between two opinions, (as Elijah sometime told the Israelites), when he was with the Gentiles alone, he did as they did, using the liberty of the gospel; but when the Jews came from Jerusalem, he left the Gentile church, and joined with the Jews; this was not according to that plainness and sincerity which the gospel required; he did not (according to the precept he held, Heb 12:13) make straight paths to his feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way. Paul not hearing this from the report of others, but being an eye-witness to it, doth not defer the reproof, lest the scandal should grow: nor doth he reprove him privately, because the offence was public, and such a plaster would not have fitted the sore; but he speaketh
unto Peter before them all, rebuking him openly, because he sinned openly; and by this action had not offended a private person, but the church in the place where he was, who were all eyewitnesses of his halting and prevarication, 1Ti 5:20.
Read full note →
If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews; if thou, who art a Jew, not by religion only, but by birth and education, hast formerly lived, eat, and drank, and had communion with the Gentiles, in the omission of the observance of circumcision, and other Jewish rites, generally observed by those of their synagogues; (as Peter had done before the Jews came from from Jerusalem to Antioch);
why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Why dost thou, by thy example, compel the members of a Gentile church to observe the Jewish rites? For compelling here doth not signify any act of violence, (Peter used none such), but the example of leaders in the church, who are persons of reputation and authority, is a kind of compulsion to those that are inferiors, and who have a great veneration for such leaders. So the word here used, αναγκαζεις, is used in 2Co 12:2, as also to express the force of exhortations and arguments. Of such a compulsion the word is used, Luk 14:23. Peter, by his example, and possibly by some words and arguments he used, potently moved those proselyted Jews, who were in communion with the churches of Galatia, to observe the Jewish rites: so that by this fact he did not only contradict himself, who by his former walking with the Gentile church had practically asserted the gospel liberty; but he also scandalized those Christians in these churches who stood fast in the liberty which Christ had purchased for them, and Paul had taught them; and also drew others away from the truth they had owned and practised. This was the cause of Paul’s so open and public reproof of him.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain But when I saw that they walked not uprightly,....…
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly,.... Or "did not foot it aright"; or "walked not with a right foot": they halted, as the Jews of old did, between two opinions, being partly for God, and partly for Baal; so these seemed, according to their conduct, to be partly for grace, and partly for the works of the law; they seemed to be for joining Christ and Moses, and the grace of the Gospel, and the ceremonies of the law together; they did not walk evenly, were in and out, did not make straight paths for their feet, but crooked ones, whereby the lame were turned out of the way; they did not walk in that sincerity, with that uprightness and integrity of soul, they ought to have done:
nor according to the truth of the Gospel; though their moral conversations were as became the Gospel of Christ, yet their Christian conduct was not according to the true, genuine, unmixed Gospel of Christ; which as it excludes all the works of the law, moral or ceremonial, from the business of justification and salvation, so it declares an entire freedom from the yoke of it, both to Jews and Gentiles. Now when, and as soon as this was observed, the apostle, without any delay, lest some bad consequences should follow, thought fit to make head against it, and directly oppose it:
Read full note →
I said unto Peter before them all. The Alexandrian copy, and others, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions, read "Cephas", as before. The reproof was given personally and principally to Peter, though Barnabas and others were concerned with him, because he was the first in it, the chief aggressor, who by his example led on the rest; and this was given publicly before Barnabas, and the other Jews that dissembled with him, and for their sakes as well as his; before the Jews that came from James for their instruction and conviction, and before all the members of the church at Antioch, for the confirmation of such who might be staggered at such conduct; nor was this any breach of the rule of Christ, Mat 28:15 for this was a public offence done before all, and in which all were concerned, and therefore to be rebuked in a public manner: and which was done in this expostulatory way,
if thou being a Jew; as Peter was, born of Jewish parents, brought up in the Jews' religion, and was obliged to observe the laws that were given to that people:
livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews; that is, he had done so, he had ate with the Gentiles, and as the Gentiles did, without regarding the laws and ceremonies of the Jews relating to meats and drinks; being better informed by the Spirit of God, that these things were not now obligatory upon him, even though he was a Jew, to whom these laws were formerly made:
why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? he asks him, with what conscience, honour, and integrity, with what consistency with his own principles and former practice, he could compel, not by force, nor, it may be, even by persuasions and exhortations, but by his example, which was very strong and powerful, the Gentiles, to whom these laws were never given, and to observe which they never were obliged; how he could, I say, make use of any means whatever to engage these to comply with Jewish rites and ceremonies. The argument is very strong and nervous; for if he, who was a Jew, thought himself free from this yoke, and had acted accordingly, then a Gentile, upon whom it was never posed, ought not to be entangled with it: and in what he had done, either he had acted right or wrong; if he had acted wrong in eating with the Gentiles, he ought to acknowledge his fault, and return to Judaism; but if right, he ought to proceed, and not by such uneven conduct ensnare the minds of weak believers.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain I said to Cephas before them all - See…
I said to Cephas before them all - See Paul single against Peter and all the Jews! If thou being a Jew, yet livest, in thy ordinary conversation, after the manner of the gentiles - Not observing the ceremonial law, which thou knowest to be now abolished. Why compellest thou the gentiles - By withdrawing thyself and all the ministers from them; either to judaize, to keep the ceremonial law, or to be excluded from church communion?
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Verse 14. That they walked not uprightly] ουκ ορθοποδουσι.…
Verse 14. That they walked not uprightly] ουκ ορθοποδουσι. They did not walk with a straight step-they did not maintain a firm footing.
According to the truth of the Gospel] According to that true doctrine, which states that Christ is the end of the law for justification to every one that believes; and that such are under no obligation to observe circumcision and the other peculiar rites and ceremonies of the law.
Read full note →
If thou, being a Jew, livest] This was a cutting reproof. He was a Jew, and had been circumstantially scrupulous in every thing relative to the law, and it required a miracle to convince him that the Gentiles were admitted, on their believing in Christ, to become members of the same Church, and fellow heirs of the hope of eternal life; and in consequence of this, he went in with the Gentiles and ate with them; i.e. associated with them as he would with Jews. But now, fearing them of the circumcision, he withdrew from this fellowship.
Why compellest thou the Gentiles] Thou didst once consider that they were not under such an obligation, and now thou actest as if thou didst consider the law in full force; but thou art convinced that the contrary is the case, yet actest differently! This is hypocrisy.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Gal 2:14. When I saw that, in this matter,…
Gal 2:14. When I saw that, in this matter, they walked not uprightly — Ουκ ορθοποδουσι, did not walk with a straight step, or in a plain and straight path; according to the truth of the gospel — That is, according to their own knowledge of the simplicity of the true gospel doctrine; I said to Peter, before them all — That is, in the hearing of Barnabas and all the Judaizers: see Paul single against Peter and all the Jews! If thou, being a Jew — And having been brought by circumcision under the strongest engagements to fulfil the whole law; livest after the manner of the Gentiles — Conversing and eating freely with them, as since the vision which thou sawest thou hast done; and not as do the Jews — Not observing the ceremonial law, which thou knowest to be now abolished; why compellest thou the Gentiles — By refusing to eat and converse freely with them, as if the distinction of meats was necessary to be observed in order to salvation, and by withdrawing thyself, and all the ministers, from them; to live as do the Jews — Ιουδαιζειν, to Judaize; to keep the ceremonial law, or be excluded from church communion. What is here recorded, probably took place at the conclusion of some of their meetings for public worship; for on these occasions it was usual, after the reading of the law and the prophets, to give the assembly exhortations. Had this offence of Peter been of a private nature, undoubtedly, as duty required, Paul would have expostulated with him privately upon it, and not have brought it, at least in the first instance, before such a number of persons: but as it was a public affair, in which many persons were deeply concerned, the method Paul took was certainly most proper. And in thus openly reproving Peter, he not only acted honestly, but generously; for it would have been mean to have found fault with him behind his back, without giving him an opportunity to vindicate himself, if he could have done it. “Perhaps,” says Macknight, “Peter in this, and in a former instance, may have been suffered to fall, the more effectually to discountenance the arrogant claims of his pretended successors to supremacy and infallibility.”
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain But when I saw that they walked not uprightly…
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly - To walk, in the Scriptures, is usually expressive of conduct or deportment; and the idea here is, that their conduct in this case was not honest.
According to the truth of the gospel - According to the true spirit and design of the gospel. That requires perfect honesty and integrity; and as that was the rule by which Paul regulated his life, and by which he felt that all ought to regulate their conduct, he felt himself called on openly to reprove the principal person who had been in fault. The spirit of the world is crafty, cunning, and crooked. The gospel would correct all that wily policy, and would lead man in a path of entire honesty and truth.
Read full note →
I said unto Peter before them all - That is, probably, before all the church, or certainly before all who had offended with him in the case. Had this been a private affair, Paul would doubtless have sought a private interview with Peter, and would have remonstrated with him in private on the subject. But it was public. It was a case where many were involved, and where the interests of the church were at stake. It was a case where it was very important to establish some fixed and just principles, and he therefore took occasion to remonstrate with him in public on the subject. This might have been at the close of public worship; or it may have been that the subject came up for debate in some of their public meetings, whether the rites of the Jews were to be imposed on the Gentile converts. This was a question which agitated all the churches where the Jewish and Gentile converts were intermingled; and it would not be strange that it should be the subject of public debate at Antioch. The fact that Paul reproved Peter before “them all,” proves:
(1) That he regarded himself, and was so regarded by the church, as on an equality with Peter, and as having equal authority with him.
(2) That public reproof is right when an offence has been public, and when the church at large is interested, or is in danger of being led into error; compare 1Ti 5:20, “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.”
(3) That it is a duty to reprove those who err. It is a painful duty, and one much neglected; still it is a duty often enjoined in the Scriptures, and one that is of the deepest importance to the church. He does a favor to another man who, in a kind spirit, admonishes him of his error, and reclaims him from a course of sin. He does another the deepest injury, who suffers sin unrebuked to lie upon him, and who sees him injuring himself and others, and who is at no pains to admonish him for his faults.
(4) If it is the duty of one Christian to admonish another who is an offender, and to do it in a kind spirit, it is the duty of him who has offended to receive the admonition in a kind spirit, and with thankfulness. Excitable as Peter was by nature, yet there is no evidence that he became angry here, or that he did not receive the admonition of his brother Paul with perfect good temper, and with an acknowledgment that Paul was right and that he was wrong. Indeed, the case was so plain, as it usually is if men would be honest, that he seems to have felt that it was right, and to have received the rebuke as became a Christian. Peter, unhappily, was accustomed to rebukes; and he was at heart too good a man to be offended when he was admonished that he had done wrong. A good man is willing to be reproved when he has erred, and it is usually proof that there is much that is wrong when we become excited and irritable if another admonishes us of our faults. It may be added here that nothing should be inferred from this in regard to the inspiration or apostolic authority of Peter. The fault was not that he taught error of doctrine, but that he sinned in conduct. Inspiration, though it kept the apostles from teaching error, did not keep them necessarily from sin. A man may always teach the truth, and yet be far from perfection in practice. The case here proves that Peter was not perfect, a fact proved by his whole life; it proves that he was sometimes timid, and even, for a period, timeserving, but it does not prove that what he wrote for our guidance was false and erroneous.
If thou, being a Jew - A Jew by birth.
Livest after the manner of the Gentiles - In eating, etc., as he had done before the Judaizing teachers came from Jerusalem, Gal 2:12.
And not as do the Jews - Observing their special customs, and their distinctions of meats and drinks.
Why compellest thou the Gentiles ... - As he would do, if he insisted that they should be circumcised, and observe the special Jewish rites. The charge against him was gross inconsistency in doing this. “Is it not at least as lawful for them to neglect the Jewish observances, as it was for thee to do it but a few days ago?” Doddridge. The word here rendered “compellest,” means here moral compulsion or persuasion. The idea is, that the conduct of Peter was such as to lead the Gentiles to the belief that it was necessary for them to be circumcised in order to be saved. For similar use of the word, see Mat 14:22; Luk 14:23; Act 28:19.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain walked not uprightly--literally, "straight": "were not walking with straightforward…
walked not uprightly--literally, "straight": "were not walking with straightforward steps." Compare Gal 6:16.
truth of the gospel--which teaches that justification by legal works and observances is inconsistent with redemption by Christ. Paul alone here maintained the truth against Judaism, as afterwards against heathenism (Ti2 4:16-17).
Read full note →
Peter--"Cephas" in the oldest manuscripts
before . . . all-- (Ti1 5:20).
If thou, &c.--"If thou, although being a Jew (and therefore one who might seem to be more bound to the law than the Gentiles), livest (habitually, without scruple and from conviction, Act 15:10-11) as a Gentile (freely eating of every food, and living in other respects also as if legal ordinances in no way justify, Gal 2:12), and not as a Jew, how (so the oldest manuscripts read, for 'why') is it that thou art compelling (virtually, by thine example) the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (literally, to Judaize, that is, to keep the ceremonial customs of the Jews: What had been formerly obedience to the law, is now mere Judaism). The high authority of Peter would constrain the Gentile Christians to regard Judaizing as necessary to all, since Jewish Christians could not consort with Gentile converts in communion without it.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain a. Paul’s declaration of his gospel to Peter, Gal_2:14-21.
a. Paul’s declaration of his gospel to Peter, Gal_2:14-21.
The purpose of Paul in this speech is to put an end to this paltering between law-justification and Christ-justification. If we are justified by Christ. why need we law observances? We analyze these verses as follows:—14. If you, Peter, a born Jew, rely on Christ-justification, why make even Gentiles law-keepers? 15, 16. We born Jews certainly have flung ourselves on Christ as our sole justification. 17. But if, while relying on Christ-justification, we admit ourselves by law-keeping to be still unjustified sinners, is Christ to submit to being made tributary to a real non-justification? By no means. 18. For such we really make him when, by law-keeping, we build up that law-justification we once destroyed, and so make our self in Christ an unjustified transgressor. 19-21. There is, then, but one sole way of justification. The law itself kills and drives us to Christ for life. We are dead to the law, or Christ has needlessly died. Christ, without the old law, is our sole life.
Read full note →
14. The truth of the gospel—Which makes all one in Christ. Before…
all—Which must have been in a public assembly of the Church. And, Gal_2:11, it was a rebuke to the face. This was, perhaps, the most decisive stroke of Paul’s life in the cause of Gentile Christian emancipation. It saved Antioch, and rolled the overwhelming wave of Judaism back.
Upon the words of Paul (Gal_2:14-21) there are differences of opinion. Prof. Lightfoot does not believe that they were really uttered, but holds that Paul loses himself, as it were, in the writing, and runs into discourse for the Galatians. Others think that Paul’s speech to Peter closes with Gal_2:14. We suppose that Paul, commencing with his literal words in Gal_2:14, gives in what follows a free summary of the grounds taken by him in this conference with Peter. It is not probable that nothing else was said save this brief isolated speech. Probably interchanges of remark took place, and Paul was led to lay here that explicit platform of justification by faith alone, which he subsequently expanded in the book of Romans. As that book was written about the same time with this book, the phraseology of both is not a little shaped in the same modes and forms.
14. If thou—Peter.
Livest after the manner of Gentiles—Unfolding the fact, doubtless well remembered by Gentiles present, how he lived before the men from James arrived.
Compellest thou the Gentiles—By force of his example, after these men arrived.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 14. This was not a case for private remonstrance.…
14. This was not a case for private remonstrance. The conduct of Peter and the rest was a practical denial of the truth of the Gospel, and, as such, could not but do widespread mischief. St Paul therefore took occasion to rebuke him in the presence of the whole company of believers (comp. ‘I withstood him to the face’, Gal_2:11).
according to the truth] Lit. ‘towards the truth,’ i.e. with a view to its maintenance and propagation.
Read full note →
If thou, being a Jew … Jews] Various opinions have been held with regard to the limit of the address to Peter. Some suppose it to terminate in this verse; others with Gal_2:15 or 18; most, at the end of the chapter. But a comparison of the abruptness of the opening words with the more calm argumentative style of what follows, seems to confirm the view that the actual words addressed to Peter are contained in Gal_2:14, and that Paul passes imperceptibly into a discussion of the great principle which he felt to be at stake. It is possible that the later verses contain the substance of the Apostle’s remonstrance with Peter, as they certainly contain the ground of the expostulation in Gal_2:14. This is confirmed by the expression “We, Jews by nature”; but the whole passage has direct reference to the state and dangers of the Galatians.
being a Jew] a Jew by birth and education, not a Gentile proselyte.
livest after … Gentiles] Ever since his visit to Cornelius, Peter had associated freely and eaten with the Gentiles.
why compellest thou] How is it that now by your example you are forcing the Gentile converts to conform to the Jewish ceremonial? It is of course moral compulsion that is meant, that kind of influence to which new converts would be specially prone to yield.
to live as do the Jews] Lit. to Judaize, to observe the ceremonial law, as necessary to salvation. That no less is intended appears from Gal_2:21.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (14) Walked not uprightly.—This is a single word in…
(14) Walked not uprightly.—This is a single word in the Greek, and found here alone in the New Testament. It means, literally, “to walk on straight feet”—i.e., erect and straightforwardly, as opposed to “shuffling.”
Unto Peter before them all.—The true reading is again Cephas. The Apostle lays stress upon the publicity of his remonstrance, as showing that in his controversy with the Apostles of the circumcision he did something more than hold his own.
Read full note →
Being a Jew.—“Being” is here emphatic, and means, “with all the antecedents of a Jew.” It is implied that a different rule must be applied to the Gentiles, with totally different antecedents.
Livest after the manner of Gentiles—i.e., in the matter of eating promiscuously with those whom the Law (or rather, the Pharisaic tradition) forbids you to eat with.
Why.—The great preponderance of MSS. is here in favour of the reading how—i.e., how does it come about that?
Compellest.—Do what you can to compel.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain But when I saw that they walked not uprightly…
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly (ajll ote eidon oti oujk ojrqopodousi); but when I saw that they were not walking rightly. The strongly adversative ajlla seems to imply: But I set myself to stem the mischief; comp. "withstood" (ver. 11). The precise force of ojrqopodein is doubtful. The verb occurs nowhere else except in later writers, who, it is thought, borrowed it from this passage. Etymologically, according to the ambiguous meaning of ojrqov either vertically or horizontally it may be either "walk uprightly," that is, "sincerely," which, however, is an unusual application of the notion of ojrqothv; or, "walk straight onward," that is, "rightly." As the apostle is more concerned on behalf of the truth which he was contending for than on behalf of their sincerity or consistency, the latter seems the preferable view. Compare the force of the same adjective in ojrqobatein ojrqopragein, ojrqodromein ojrqotomein, etc. According to the truth of the gospel (prov thqeian tou aujaggeliou); with an eye to the truth of the gospel. Prov, "with an eye towards," may refer to the truth of the gospel, either as a rule for one"s direction (as in 2Co_5:10, Prov a epraxen) or as a thing to be forwarded. (cf. JUpeav, 2Co_13:8) The same ambiguity attaches to the use of the preposition in Luk_12:47. The "truth of the gospel," as in ver. 5, is the truth which the gospel embodies, with especial reference to the doctrine of justification by faith. Peter and Barnabas were acting in a manner which both was inconsistent with their holding of that truth, and contravened its advancement in the world. I said unto Peter (ei+pon tw Khfa Receptus, Petrw); I said to Cephas. Here again we are to read Cephas. Before them all (emprosqen pantwn). At some general meeting of the Antiochian brethren. Both the expression and St. Paul"s proceeding are illustrated by 1Ti_5:20, "Them who sin sc. of the elders reprove in the sight of all (ejnwpion pantwn elegce)." If thou, being a Jew (eij su jIoudaiov uJparcwn); if thou, originally a Jew, as thou art. jUparcwn, as distinguished from wn, denotes this, together with a reference to subsequent action starting from this foregoing condition. Compare, for example, its use in Gal_1:14; Php_2:6. This distinctive shade of meaning is not always discernible. Livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews (ejqnikwv zhv kai oujk jIoudaikwv) livest as do the Gentiles and not as the Jews. In what sense, and to what extent, were these words true of St. Peter? When, in the vision at Joppa, unclean animals together with clean were offered to him for food, he had answered, "Not so, Lord; for! have never eaten anything that is common and unclean." This shows that, up to that time, the personal teachings of Christ when he was upon earth had not relieved his mind of the sense that to use certain kinds of meat was for him an unlawful thing. The heavenly rejoinder, "What God hath cleansed, make not thou common," appears to have been understood by him with reference, at least in the first instance, to human beings. (Act_10:28) There seems to be no doubt that the habit of mind generated by long subjection to the Levitical Law. producing repugnance to Gentiles as habitually using unclean meats, he brought with him when crossing Cornelius"s threshold; and that it is quite supposable that, in "eating with Gentiles" while his visit to Cornelius continued, he had had no occasion to break through those barriers of restriction which the Law of itself imposed. But, on the other hand, it is also quite supposable that the answer made to him in the vision had, if not at once, at least later, led him on to the further conviction that God had now made all kinds of meat lawful for a Christian"s use, although, when consorting, as in the main he had to do, with Jews, he would still bow to the Levitical restrictions. The Petrine Gospel of St. Mark appears, according to the now by many accepted reading of kaqarizwn in the text of Mar_7:19, to have stated that Christ in teaching, "Whatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him," had said this, "making all meats clean." There is no question that in St. Paul"s own view at that epoch of his ministry when he wrote this Epistle, "nothing," to use his own words, "is unclean of itself" (Rom_14:14; 1Co_10:23, 1Co_10:25) and we have no reason to doubt that he had "been in the Lord Jesus persuaded" of this long before, at the very outset probably of his ministry. It is, therefore, not unlikely that this same persuasion of the real indifferency of all kinds of meat had been by Christ instilled into St. Peter"s mind as well. But if it were thus in respect to the use of meats, it would be thus also in reference to all other kinds of purely ceremonial restriction. Very shortly before these occurrences at Antioch, St. Peter had at Jerusalem openly and strongly expressed the feeling which he experienced, how intolerably galling were the restraints imposed by the Levitical, not to say by the rabbinical, ceremonialism; "a yoke," he said, "which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear language which seems to betoken a mind which had spiritually been set at liberty from the yoke. On the whole, the inference naturally suggested by St. Paul"s words, "Thou livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews," commends itself as the true one; namely this that St. Peter, not on that occasion only, but also on others, when thrown into contact with masses of Gentile converts, was wont to assert his Christian liberty; that, like as St. Paul did, so did he: while, on the one hand, to the Jews he became as a Jew, to them under the Law as under the Law, that he might gain the Jews, gain them that were under the Law, so also, on the other, to them that were without Law he became as without Law, that he might gain also them. (1Co_9:20, 1Co_9:21) Why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (pwv Receptus, ti tazeiv jIoudaizein). In place of ti, why, recent editions read, pwv, how, which is a more emphatic interrogatory with a tinge of wonderment; as if it were, "How is it possible that?" (so 1Co_15:12) The verb "Judaize" occurs in the Septuagint ofizon Est_8:17, "And many of the Gentiles had themselves circumcised and Judaized (ijouda) by reason of their fear of the Jews." It is plainly equivalent to ijoudaikwv zhn. Compellest, i.e. settest thyself to compel. The "compulsion" applied by Cephas was a moral compulsion; he was, in effect, withholding front them Christian fellowship, unless they Judaized. Put into words, his conduct said this: "If you will Judaize, I will hold fellowship with you; if you will not, you are not qualified for full fraternal recognition from me." The withholding of Christian fraternization, short of formal Church excommunication such as 1Co_5:3-5, is a powerful engine of Christian influence, the use of which is distinctly authorized and even commanded in Scripture (Rom_16:17; 1Co_5:11; 2Th_3:6, 2Th_3:14; 2Ti_3:5; Tit_3:10 2Jn_1:10) and may on occasion be employed by private Christians on their own responsibility. But its use, when not clearly justified, is not only a cruelty to our brethren, but an outrage upon what St. Paul here calls the truth of the gospel. It is at our peril that we grieve, by a cold or unbrotherly bearing towards him, one whom we have reason to believe God has "received". (Rom_14:3 Rom_15:7) If God in Christ owns and loves him as a son, we ought to frankly own and love him as a brother.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain But when I saw that they walked not uprightly.
Gal_2:14-15
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly.
Read full note →
Moral shuffling
I. Its nature.
1. Literally--not to walk on straight feet, i.e., erect, or straightforwardly.
2. Morally.
(1) Thinking rightly and acting wrongly.
(2) Orthodoxy in creed, heterodoxy in conduct.
(3) All compromises when conscience is concerned.
II. Its relation to the gospel. It is not according to its truth.
1. In the letter.
2. In the spirit.
III. Its motives.
1. Aversion to unpleasantness.
2. Desire to be agreeable all round.
3. Hope by its means to get over a temporary difficulty.
IV. Its consequences.
1. It deceives the very elect, even Barnabas.
2. It involves others in deplorable inconsistencies.
V. Its inexcusableness (Gal_2:15-16).
1. Knowledge and experience are against it.
2. Spiritual privileges render it unnecessary.
3. Gods Word has condemned the doing of evil that good may come.
VI. The duty of the truth-lover with reference to it. To rebuke it in--
1. The most eminent.
2. The most esteemed.
Straightforwardness
has been defined as a mixture of sincerity and simplicity, and is well illustrated by an anecdote of Bishop Atterbury. On one occasion he was asked why he would not suffer his servants to deny him when he did not care to see company. It is not a lie for them to say that you are not at home, for it deceives no one; every one knows that it only means that your lordship is busy. He replied, If it is (which I doubt) consistent with sincerity, yet I am sure it is not consistent with that simplicity which becomes a bishop. But the fine nervous Saxon word aptly explains the virtue for which it stands. It is rectitude in motion, movement in a right direction in spite of all inducements to swerve, movement on that straight line which in morals as in mathematics is the shortest distance between two points.
The grave question at issue
There was no question of charity here, but a question of principle. To eat with the Gentiles was either right or wrong. In the light of the gospel it was right; but to shilly-shally on the matter and to let it depend on the presence or absence of certain people was clearly wrong. It was monstrous that a Gentile convert should at one time be treated as a brother, and at another shunned as though he were a Pariah. (F. H. Farrar.)
Eating with the Gentiles
This involved concessions of the nature of which it is almost impossible for us at this distance to conceive. It was to the Jew what the breaking of caste is to the Hindoo, as startling, in some respects, as though in our own country peers and working men were found to be working daily on the most friendly terms, (S. Pearson, M. A.)
Law versus gospel
Many have the gospel, but not the truth of the gospel. So Paul saith here, that Peter, Barnabas, and other of the Jews, had the gospel, but walked not uprightly according to the gospel. For, albeit they preached the gospel, yet, through their dissimulation (which could not stand with the truth of the gospel) they established the law; but the establishing of the law is the abolishing of the gospel. Whoso then can rightly judge between the law and the gospel, let him thank God, and know that he is a right divine. Now the way to discern the one from the other, is to place the gospel in heaven, and the law on earth; to call the righteousness of the gospel heavenly, and that of the law earthly; and to put as great difference between the righteousness of the gospel and of the law as God hath made between heaven and earth, light and darkness, day and night. Wherefore, if the question be concerning the matter of faith or conscience, let us utterly exclude the law, and leave it on the earth; but, if we have to do with works, then let us lighten the lantern of works and of the righteousness of the law. Wherefore, if thy conscience be terrified with the sense and feeling of sin, think thus with thyself: Thou art now remaining upon earth; there let the ass labour and travail; there let him serve and carry the burden that is laid upon him; that is to say, let the body with his members be subject to the law. But when thou mountest up into heaven, then leave the ass with his burden on the earth; for the conscience hath nothing to do with the law, or works, or with the earthly righteousness. So doth the ass remain in the valley, but the conscience ascendeth with Isaac into the mountain, knowing nothing at all of the law or works thereof, but only looking to the remission of sins and pure righteousness offered and freely given unto us in Christ. (Luther.)
Unswerving integrity
Bishop Hooper was condemned to be burned at Gloucester, in Queen Marys reign. A gentleman, with the view of inducing him to recant, said to him, Life is sweet, and death is bitter. Hooper replied, The death to come is more bitter, and the life to come more sweet. I am come hither to end this life, and suffer death, because I will not gainsay the truth I have here formerly taught you. When brought to the stake, a box, with a pardon from the queen in it, was set before him. The determined martyr cried out, If you love my soul, away with it! if you love my soul, away with it! (Foster.)
Fidelity
A man gave his two infant children in charge of a negro slave, to be by him cared for, and taken to a distant port. The ship was wrecked, and had to be abandoned. The boats were nearly full. The slave had his choice to leave the children, or himself be left. He kissed them; bade the sailors take good care of them, and tell his master of his faithfulness; and soon went bravely down with the foundering ship. (Foster.)
Swerving from the truth
1. The multitude of those who swerve from truth should not make truth seem less lovely to others, or damp their ardour in defending it against error. Though truth should be deserted by all except one only, yet is it worthy to be owned, stood to, and defended by that one, against all who oppose it.
2. It is the duty of all professors to walk so, both in the matter of opinion and practice, as is suitable to, and well agreeing with, the sincere truth of God held out in the gospel; holding nothing which is even indirectly contrary to it, and practising nothing which may reflect upon it. When they halt, or walk not with a straight foot in either of those, they are blameworthy.
3. When many are guilty of one and the same sin, the minister of Jesus Christ ought to reprove wisely and without respect of persons; making the weight of the reproof light upon them, as they have been more or less accessory to the sin.
4. Though private sins, which have not broken forth to a public scandal of many, are to be rebuked in private (Mat_18:15), yet public sins are to receive public rebukes, that hereby the public scandal may be removed, and others may be scared from taking encouragement to do the like (1Ti_5:20).
5. Though the binding power of the ceremonial law was abrogated at Christs death, and the practice thereof, in some things at least, left as a thing lawful and in itself indifferent unto all for a time after that, yet the observance thereof, even for that time, was dispensed with more for the Jews sake, and was more tolerable in them who were born and educated under the binding power of that yoke, than in the Gentiles, to whom that law was never given, and so were to observe it, or any part of it, only in ease of scandalising the weak Jews by their neglect of it (Rom_14:20-21).
6. A minister must not take liberty of practice to himself in things which he condemns in others.
7. It is no small sin for superiors to bind where the Lord has left free, by urging upon their inferiors the observing of a thing, in its own nature indifferent, as necessary; except it be in those cases wherein the Lord, by those circumstances which accompany it, points it out as necessary; e.g., cases of scandal (Act_15:28-29), and contempt (1Co_14:40).
8. In the primitive times of the Christian Church, the people of God did wonderfully subject themselves to the ministry of the Word in the head of His servants, and much more than people now do; for if the actions of the apostles compelled men to do this or that, as Peters action did compel the Gentiles, what then did their doctrine and heavenly exhortations? (James Fergusson.)
Inconsistency reproved
I. That the gospel supplies the rule of life.
II. To depart from the rule of gospel truth is to become inconsistent in the Christian life.
III. Such inconsistency calls for reproof.
1. That reproofs are sometimes necessary. An earthly life is ever an imperfect one, and the best men may in unguarded moments fall into grievous errors.
2. They should be given with faithfulness, yet in love. No ties of private friendship should prevent sin being reproved, and where the sin has been committed openly, it should be reproved openly--Burkitt. Yet there should be no personal reproaches, but the manifestations of brotherly love. (R. Nicholls.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain 14. But when I saw. It was time to…
14. But when I saw. It was time to act decisively. Antioch was a great center. It was important that no wrong influences go forth from that center. Hence Paul administered the stern rebuke to Peter which follows. Before them all. The rebuke was on a public occasion. If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles. He had, right there in Antioch, lived with the Gentile Christians according to their customs (verse 12). Why compellest thou the Gentiles, etc. Now, he insisted, at least by his example, that the Gentile Christians should become Jews. He virtually refused to fellowship them.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain But when I saw that they walked not uprightly…
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before them all [Antioch was the center and citadel of Gentile Christianity with all its privileges and liberties, and Antioch was being captured. It was time to act, and the whole fate of the church, humanly speaking, rested on one man, but that man was equal to the occasion. When leaders failed to walk according to the truth of the gospel, Paul was always heard from. He spoke here, and the church was saved. The open boldness of his unsparing rebuke, delivered before some great congregation, was a warning to these gospel-perverters of what he would do should he come to Galatia. Doubt exists as to where Paul's words to Peter end, but they seem to embrace the entire chapter], If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 2:14-21 The actions of Peter and the others implied…
2:14-21 The actions of Peter and the others implied that faith in Christ was not enough. Paul eloquently argues against such a compromise of the truth of the gospel message, showing that the law plays no role in defining a Christian’s position before God, which is by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9). • It is not clear where Paul’s public rebuke of Peter ends and his message to the Galatians resumes (see study note on Gal 2:16). While Paul was recounting his address to Peter, he was also speaking to the Galatians. His rebuke of Peter was also a rebuke of them (see 3:1).
2:14 By living like a Gentile—eating with Gentiles and not observing Jewish food laws—Peter communicated God’s acceptance of Gentiles on equal terms with Jews, on the basis of faith in Christ (see Acts 10:34-43; 11:17-18). • why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions? Both Jews and Gentiles would draw this conclusion from Peter’s actions.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.