WHAT MADE THE ISSUE IMPORTANT?

Perhaps you are wondering why Paul thought it important to make an issue over Peter's choice of dining companions. After all, don't we usually chose our own dining companions. Actually there was much more at stake than who would sit next to Peter at the dinner table.

Peter was in conflict with his own words.

To put it bluntly, Peter was a hypocrite. That's strong language, but that's the language Paul chose. Notice verse 13

The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

We hear the word "hypocrite" thrown about quite a bit. Young people sometimes speak of "adult hypocrisy." People who don't attend church often excuse themselves on the ground that the church is filled with hypocrites. We need to be careful about the reckless use of that term. Hypocrisy is not the same thing as imperfection. In the original language, hypocrisy refers to words spoken on a stage. A hypocrite is a play actor. A hypocrite is one who pretends that he is something he is not. If Peter had really believed that it was wrong to eat with the Gentiles, he would not have been called a hypocrite. Unfortunately, Peter knew what was right, but he refused to do what was right and Paul hung the hypocrite label on him.

Just think about the incriminating evidence that can be brought against Peter.

• His experience at Joppa.

  According to Acts 10, he was shown a vision of numerous kinds of food that previously been forbidden. He heard a voice say to him, "Get up Peter, kill and eat." When Peter protested, the voice said, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." I would call that an "attention grabber" - a fairly clear and definite message about the way God looks at food.

• His experience at the household of Cornelius.

  Not only did Peter go to the home of Cornelius, he preached the gospel to him. He didn't just preach the gospel, he emphatically said that God is not a respecter of persons. Then after Cornelius was baptized, according to Acts 10:48, Peter was asked to stay for a few days. Did Peter eat with the Gentiles when we stayed at the home of Cornelius? It wasn't like he had an option to take his meals at a nearby fast food restaurant. Besides that Acts 11:2-3 says that Peter did indeed eat with the Gentiles. "So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, 'You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.'" I'm told by those who make it their business to study Greek syntax that the tense of the verb "ate" means that it was Peter's normal practice to eat with the Gentiles and that he did it not just once, but repeatedly.

• His experience in Jerusalem.

  The Bible plainly says that Peter sat in on the meeting in Jerusalem. He participated in the decision that addressed the question of dietary restrictions. The only dietary restriction that was imposed on the Gentiles involved abstaining from things strangled and blood. There's no evidence that Gentile Christians every violated that prohibition.

  Despite a recent history of progressive thinking along these lines, in Antioch, Peter reversed his field and behaved in a totally different manner. Paul labeled that "hypocrisy."

top of page    previous page    next page