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?” 15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:11-16)

Paul wanted the Galatians—and us—to fly up into a life of freedom and love, and he knew that the gospel message could take us there (Gal. 5:13). But as we’ve seen, the Galatians were in danger of destroying the gospel message by adding to it, so Paul wrote this letter to defend the message of the gospel of grace. Today’s passage details a third, less peaceful interaction of defending his message.

This encounter occurred in Antioch, where the gospel had spread, and the church flourished (11). At some point (we do not know precisely when), Peter (Cephas) came to Antioch (11). At first, his presence only added to the beauty of the church there because he was so united with the Gentile believers in Antioch that he regularly ate with the Gentiles (12). Peter, the lead apostle, a racial and cultural Jew, signified through his actions that the blood of Jesus had united him with his Gentile brothers.

But Paul had to oppose Peter to his face because Peter did something worthy of condemnation (11). During his visit, men came from James down into Jerusalem (12). Paul does not say why they were there, but Peter feared the circumcision party and began to slink back and separate himself from his Gentile friends (12). And, because he was a leader, his shameful act spread like wildfire, and soon, the rest of the Jews separated themselves during meal time (13). Even Barnabas, a beloved pastor and friend of the Antioch church, was swept up by their hypocrisy (13). You can imagine the hurt and confusion the believers in Antioch suffered because of Peter and Barnabas' withdrawal from them. The dividing wall of separation that Christ had destroyed was now rebuilt.

Paul could not stand by and let this unfold without consequence. He arose to rebuke Peter before them all (14). In addressing Peter, Paul addressed everyone who went along with him, reminding Peter of the doctrine of justification by faith that Peter preached and espoused.

Why include this embarrassing story? Paul has already told us that anyone who distorts the gospel should be cut off (Gal. 1:8-9). By confronting Peter, Paul shows that no one is above the gospel and that even if we profess it, as Peter did, we must live by it, which Peter did not.

That was Paul's main issue with Peter. He said, "When I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I rebuked Peter before them all" (14).

Peter was a champion of the gospel of grace. He was the one who took the keys of the kingdom and opened the door wide to the Gentile world. Years earlier, God led him to go to Caesarea and preach to the household of a Gentile military officer named Cornelius. And when he did, they all believed and were filled with the Spirit (Acts 10:44). Seeing that God had accepted these Gentiles, so did Peter, and he baptized them on the spot (Acts 10:47-48).

Nothing in our passage suggests that Peter changed his mind about any of that. He only separated himself out of fear of the circumcision party (12). The fear of man led him to act contrary to his theological convictions, so Paul sought to bring Peter back into living in step with the gospel he believed.

So, how does this passage encourage us to walk out the gospel? What does it teach us about living in step with the gospel?

1. Unite Over the Gospel

First and most significantly, this passage shows us that we must unite over the gospel. When Peter acted the way he did, he united with some over Judaism, which divided him (unnecessarily) from others who did not embrace Judaism.

Again, Peter believed the gospel, but through his actions, Peter was telling a whole church of Gentile Christians that simple faith in Christ was not enough—they needed to add circumcision and dietary laws. They needed to become Jewish! This would have been an intensely depressing message for a group of Gentile Christians living in a Gentile society. The good news that Jesus came to save them was turning into the bad news that they would have to adopt Judaism. And, since Peter was a heavyweight in the church, he was telling the entire future church the same thing!

But when Peter freely ate with the Gentile believers, he represented the gospel well, living in line with the gospel of grace. During those meals, he was saying, "It's the gospel of Christ that unites us. It is bigger than any other dividing factor." But once he separated, he was saying, "The issue of Judaism is on the same level as the gospel. It is just as important. And you cannot be fully accepted by God unless you embrace it."

We must be on guard against doing what Peter did. We might not denounce the core elements of the gospel, but we should not, with our actions, communicate that one must add anything to faith in Christ. If the Apostle Peter, who had Scriptures, dreams, visions, and personal experiences showing him that the gospel was for the Gentiles, fell to the temptation to live out of step with the gospel, who are we to think that we would not? As Paul said, to live in step with the gospel is to never stray from the straight path of the gospel. But detours abound, and we must resist them.

To live in step with the gospel is to avoid classism, the tendency to only be in relationships with people from the same social class. To live in step with the gospel is to avoid dividing over the spectrum of political persuasions, knowing that we should not put up a barrier to entry into Christ's kingdom that Christ himself did not construct. To live in step with the gospel is to avoid relational snobbery, the tendency to spend time only with those who are easy (for you) to be around. To live in step with the gospel is to appreciate people from every generation because you recognize that your generation's values and norms are subservient to the supremacy of the gospel. To live in step with the gospel destroys racism—blatantly racist attitudes or the soft racism of nodding at racial stereotypes behind closed doors.

We must be careful not to communicate through our words or actions that, to be a real Christian approved by God, you have to be of a particular class, sect, personality, political persuasion, social skill, generational value system, race, or anything else. Peter would only eat with those under Judaism. To eat together was to commune and fellowship with someone. So, if we will only commune and fellowship with certain people, what are we communicating about the gospel? When it comes to secondary matters, we must keep them in that second place and not give the impression that they are on the same level as the gospel.

Next week, we will see two more ways this passage encourages us to walk in the gospel.