The subsequent separation of Paul from Barnabas and Mark, which the author of Acts
frankly relates, was no doubt partly connected with this manifestation of human weakness.^470
The sin of Peter roused the fiery temper of Paul, and called upon him a sharper rebuke than
he had received from his Master. A mere look of pity from Jesus was enough to call forth bitter
tears of repentance. Paul was not Jesus. He may have been too severe in the manner of his
remonstrance, but he knew Peter better than we, and was right in the matter of dispute, and after
all more moderate than some of the greatest and best men have been in personal controversy.
Forsaken by the prince of the apostles and by his own faithful ally in the Gentile mission, he felt
that nothing but unflinching courage could save the sinking ship of freedom. A vital principle was
at stake, and the Christian standing of the Gentile converts must be maintained at all hazards, now
or never, if the world was to be saved and Christianity was not to shrink into a narrow corner as a
Jewish sect. Whatever might do in Jerusalem, where there was scarcely a heathen convert, this
open affront to brethren in Christ could not be tolerated for a moment at Antioch in the church
which was of his own planting and full of Hellenists and Gentiles. A public scandal must be publicly
corrected. And so Paul confronted Peter and charged him with downright hypocrisy in the face of
the whole congregation. He exposed his misconduct by his terse reasoning, to which Peter could
make no reply.^471 "If thou," he said to him in substance, "who art a Jew by nationality and training,
art eating with the Gentiles in disregard of the ceremonial prohibition, why art thou now, by the
moral force of thy example as the chief of the Twelve, constraining the Gentile converts to Judaize
or to conform to the ceremonial restraints of the elementary religion? We who are Jews by birth
and not gross sinners like the heathen, know that justification comes not from works of the law,
but from faith in Christ. It may be objected that by seeking gratuitous justification instead of legal
justification, we make Christ a promoter of sin.^472 Away with this monstrous and blasphemous
conclusion! On the contrary, there is sin in returning to the law for justification after we have
abandoned it for faith in Christ. I myself stand convicted of transgression if I build up again (as
thou doest now) the very law which I pulled down (as thou didst before), and thus condemn my
former conduct. For the law itself taught me to exchange it for Christ, to whom it points as its end.
Through the Mosaic law as a tutor leading me beyond itself to freedom in Christ, I died to the
Mosaic law in order that I might live a new life of obedience and gratitude to God. I have been
crucified with Christ, and it is no longer my old self that lives, but it is Christ that lives in me; and
the new life of Christ which I now live in this body after my conversion, I live in the faith of the
Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if the
observance of the law of Moses or any other human work could justify and save, there was no good
cause of Christ’s death his atoning sacrifice on the cross was needless and fruitless."
From such a conclusion Peter’s soul shrank back in horror. He never dreamed of denying
the necessity and efficacy of the death of Christ for the remission of sins. He and Barnabas stood(^470) There are not a few examples of successful intimidations of strong and bold men. Luther was so frightened at the prospect
of a split of the holy Catholic church, in an interview with the papal legate, Carl von Miltitz, at Altenburg in January, 1519, that
he promised to write and did write a most humiliating letter of submission to the Pope, and a warning to the German people
against secession. But the irrepressible conflict soon broke out again at the Leipzig disputation in June, 1519.
(^471) Gal 2:14-21. We take this section to be a brief outline of Paul’s address to Peter; but the historical narrative imperceptibly
passes into doctrinal reflections suggested by the occasion and adapted to the case of the Galatians. In the third chapter it naturally
expands into a direct attack on the Galatians.
(^472) Paul draws, in the form of a question, a false conclusion of the Judaizing opponents from correct premises of his own, and
rejects the conclusion with his usual formula of abhorrence, μὴ γένοιτο, as in Rom. 6:2.
A.D. 1-100.