Q1. Peter's Hypocrisy

[lighthouse2014]

Q1. (Galatians 2:11-14) Why do you think Peter first embraced the Gentile believers in Antioch and later withdrew from them to eat only with Jews? What does this tell us about his character? Why should he have known better? What does this tell us about Barnabas? What does it tell us about the political clout of the visitors from Jerusalem? Have you ever acted like a hypocrite to impress others? What should you do when you recover your senses?

Peter had embraced the Gentile believers in Antioch when he went to visit Paul and Barnabas, they ate what ever the house of Cornelius had for them. A delegation of Christian Jews came from Jerusalem to see if the Gentiles were conforming to their beliefs. Peter with drew from the Gentiles and ate with Jews. He was afraid of the delegates that they would convict him of eating unclean food and the Gentiles were uncircumcised, which the group from Jerusalem believed they should have been.

Peter's character had at times been somewhat unstable, stating one thing then withdrawing when conviction came.

he should have known better because the :ord had already given him permission to eat all food.

Barnabas who was a Greek speaking Jew, was even drawn over to the Christian Jews from Jerusalem who were of the circumcision group. Their persuasion and afluence must have great to move everyone over to their side.

The political clout of the delegation from Jerusalem  must have been tremendous and impressive, being from the leaders of James.

After coming to Christ, and to the best of my knowledge in remembrance, I have not been a hypocrite. If I had and come to realize what I had done, I would be very repentant and ask the Lord's forgiveness.

[Lionwolf]

Q1. (Galatians 2:11-14) Why do you think Peter first embraced the Gentile believers in Antioch and later withdrew from them to eat only with Jews? What does this tell us about his character? Why should he have known better? What does this tell us about Barnabas? What does it tell us about the political clout of the visitors from Jerusalem? Have you ever acted like a hypocrite to impress others? What should you do when you recover your senses?

Peter did vacillate when he was unsure. This was a situation where Peter was unsure of himself. Should he follow Paul or follow the visiting Jews? He put more credence in the visiting Jews than in what Jesus had taught. As a Christian Peter knew this was hypocritical behavior. Barnabas also placed the Jewish law above his faith as a Christian. Both kowtowed to the status of the church in Jerusalem. Most people have been in this situation. When the hypocrisy is realized you need to do whatever it takes to undo the damage that has been done. This includes asking for forgiveness from those injured and from God. And remembering the lesson!

 

[Annie343]

EMBRACED THEN WITHDREW: He was formally holding to Jewish law, but he was living much like the Gentiles before the visitors came; withdrawal was gradual and deceptive; affirming what God had abolished; before he had fellowship with Gentiles but now he was aligning himself with the Judaizers

HIS CHARACTER: Influenced by visitors pretending to be sent by James; his own behavior did not support his convictions; he was guilty of sin by aligning himself with men who were in error; he was afraid and a hypocrite; weak (not standing up to his convictions); gave into human nature; inconsistent; had previously modeled Christian love and liberty; by actions he was wrong and caused confusion; compromised beliefs; did not stand with Paul; fear was his motivation; man-pleaser; double-standard; he followed the crowd; claimed to oppose racism; ambivalent

SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER: he was not acting in line with the truth of the Gospel; racism is incompatible; he was declaring that the Judaizers were correct; that salvation was only by God's grace and not rested on the law; knew the restrictions had been abolished

BARNABAS: when the crisis became intense he sided with Peter;  led astray by hypocrisy; he was not a Palestine Jew but Greek and had no personal stake in the situation; should focus on the purity of the Gospel (experiences with working with Gentiles) and feared reproaches by the Judaizers' rank

[smithjeanne]

Before men came from Jerusalem, he felt it was proper to eat with Gentile believers like Cornelius who G-d sent Peter to in Acts. He only withdrew from these Gentile believers because he was intimidated by the Jewish believers who had political clout with the Jerusalem leadership. He was easily intimidated and cowardly at times and was more concerned with "saving face" with his fellow Jewish believers. He should have known better because it was G-d Himself who gave Peter a vision about presenting the gospel to the Gentile, Cornelius and sent him to meet with him. Barnabus was from Cyprus and defended Paul in Jerusalem when Paul was there getting the leadership's  imput into the gospel he was going to present to the Gentiles. He was also sent by the leadership in Jerusalem to instruct new believers in Antioch. 

[kennedy]

 

 

 

 

peter had a vision to minister to gentiles.he  knew very well that there are no differences between jews and gentiles. He withdrew for fear of being excommunicated from Jerusalem church.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

rPeter was on an apostolic mission to view the wondrous works of God amongst the Gentiles.  He was freed from the strictness of dietary laws and numerous traditions.  He knew that men cannot be justified by the works of the Law; Christ alone is our sufficient Saviour.   Self-righteousness is a rotten foundation.  Peter wanted to rebuild a spirituality based on Self-righteousness and legalism.  It makes the sacrifice of Jesus as vain.

Peter's character was unsteady.  Peter had a history of acting in inconsistent ways, e.g. Peter walking on water than sinking; betrayal of Christ.   Peter was exercising the law of liberty in Antioch until he saw the Judaizers from Jerusalem.   

Peter should of known better.   He was the fearless preacher at Pentecost, and he had fellowship with the Resurrected Christ.  Peter actually beheld the Risen Christ !   He had weak changeable character. 

Barnabas too had that tendency to straddle both sides of the fence.   He was a seasoned preacher yet succumbed to Peter's error.   The fear of the Judaizers also caused him to draw back from great principles.  The victory was won !   The Galatians were firmly taught that faith alone is paramount, and the Judaizers weren't confirmed in their errors

 

[Krissi]

I have many Jewish friends, some of whom are Orthodox. They have a certain pride in being different, a felt superiority to those who don't "keep Kosher" as well as to Christians. Recently, a Jewish man asked me why Christians don't keep dietary laws. He genuinely wanted to know. He told me that in his understanding, all religions have dietary laws except Christians. 

I told him about Peter's vision of the animals in the tarp and God's command to not call unclean what He had deemed clean. My friend said he had never heard of this. 

I've also been at the home of another Jewish friend who openly performed all the rituals and behaviours. But in the lower freezer section to his "other" refrigerator was a huge bag of frozen shrimp (not Kosher) and bacon (!) in the refrigerator part.

Kosher for thee and not for me?

I think contemporary Jews still use food as a wedge -- a protective wedge -- against the dominant culture which they consider Christian (though we know to be secular.) They have good reason to be worried about syncretism and "marrying out" for more than half of American Jews have married non-Jews, both male and female. Since Jewishness is passed through the female line, more females marry Jews than males, but it's still a big deal, even to secular Jews, who openly lament that their numbers will be halved in a generation.

I guess I'm trying to say that these laws make cultural sense for a small outgroup in a larger population, although they make little spiritual sense.  Christians, too, have to "draw lines" between themselves and the dominant culture. As a Christian, I can eat anything with anyone; this matters not to me. The lines I draw are deeper -- they're behavioral and intellectual, and have nothing to do with food, which I regard as a silly and incidental. I've learned the hard way not to marry an unbeliever, for instance -- sorta obvious, but I missed it!  I find the dominant culture increasingly repulsive and have pulled away from it. Most pop culture (movies, books, tv, music, even some art) has no appeal to me. None. I find it disturbing to my spirit so I withdraw. Many people disturb me, too. I draw, now, a mental line between seculars and Jews I can enjoy openly and those I enjoy for the purpose of witnessing.

Christian draw lines within themselves. With others, they know when to withdraw, to look away, to run away ...  They may not always obey the little voice in their heart, but they know. 

Christians don't need laws. The only laws that matter are written in their hearts.