have
the same power. I received my power, not from Peter, but from the same
God, the same Spirit who was mighty in Peter was mighty in me also."
Luke corroborates Paul's statement in the words: "And God wrought
special miracles by the hands of Paul, so that from his body were
brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases
departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them." (Acts
19:11, 12.)

To conclude, Paul is not going to be inferior to the rest of the
apostles. Some secular writers put Paul's boasting down as carnal
pride. But Paul had no personal interest in his boasting. It was with
him a matter of faith and doctrine. The controversy was not about the
glory of Paul, but the glory of God, the Word of God, the true worship
of God, true religion, and the righteousness of faith.

VERSE 9. And when James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars,
perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and
Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the
heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

"The fact is, when the apostles heard that I had received the charge to
preach the Gospel to the Gentiles from Christ; when they heard that God
had wrought many miracles through me; that great numbers of the
Gentiles had come to the knowledge of Christ through my ministry; when
they heard that the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost without Law
and circumcision, by the simple preaching of faith; when they heard all
this they glorified God for His grace in me." Hence, Paul was justified
in concluding that the apostles were for him, and not against him.

VERSE 9. The right hands of fellowship.

As if the apostles had said to him: "We, Paul, do agree with you in all
things. We are companions in doctrine. We have the same Gospel with
this difference, that to you is committed the Gospel for the
uncircumcised, while the Gospel for the circumcision is committed unto
us. But this difference ought not to hinder our friendship, since we
preach one and the same Gospel."

VERSE 10. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same
which I also was forward to do.

Next to the preaching of the Gospel, a true and faithful pastor will
take care of the poor. Where the Church is, there must be the poor, for
the world and the devil persecute the Church and impoverish many
faithful Christians.

Speaking of money, nobody wants to contribute nowadays to the
maintenance of the ministry, and the erection of schools. When it comes
to establishing false worship and idolatry, no cost is spared. True
religion is ever in need of money, while false religions are backed by
wealth.

VERSE 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the
face, because he was to be blamed.

Paul goes on in his refutation of the false apostles by saying that in
Antioch he withstood Peter in the presence of the whole congregation.
As he stated before, Paul had no small matter in hand, but the chief
article of the Christian religion. When this article is endangered, we
must not hesitate to resist Peter, or an angel from heaven. Paul paid
no regard to the dignity and position of Peter, when he saw this
article in danger. It is written: "He that loveth father or mother or
his own life, more than me, is not worthy of me." (Matt. 10:37.)

For defending the truth in our day, we are called proud and obstinate
hypocrites. We are not ashamed of these titles. The cause we are called
to defend, is not Peter's cause, or the cause of our parents, or that
of the government, or that of the world, but the cause of God. In
defense of that cause we must be firm and unyielding.

When he says, "to his face," Paul accuses the false apostles of
slandering him behind his back. In his presence they dared not to open
their mouths. He tells them, "I did not speak evil of Peter behind his
back, but I withstood him frankly and openly."

Others may debate here whether an apostle might sin. I claim that we
ought not to make Peter out as faultless. Prophets have erred. Nathan
told David that he should go ahead and build the Temple of the Lord.
But his prophecy was afterwards corrected by the Lord. The apostles
erred in thinking of the Kingdom of Christ as a worldly state. Peter
had heard the command of Christ, "Go ye into all the world, and preach
the Gospel to every creature." But if it had not been for the heavenly
vision and the special command of Christ, Peter would never have gone
to the home of Cornelius. Peter also erred in this matter of
circumcision. If Paul had not publicly censured him, all the believing
Gentiles would have been compelled to receive circumcision and accept
the Jewish law. We are not to attribute perfection to any man.

Luke reports "that the contention between Paul and Barnabas was so
sharp that they departed asunder one from the other." The cause of
their disagreement could hardly have been small since it separated
these two, who had been joined together for years in a holy
partnership. Such incidents are recorded for our consolation. After
all, it is a comfort to know that even saints might and do sin.

Samson, David, and many other excellent men, fell into grievous sins.
Job and Jeremiah cursed the day of their birth. Elijah and Jonah became
weary of life and prayed for death. Such offenses on the part of the
saints, the Scriptures record for the comfort of those who are near
despair. No person has ever sunk so low that he cannot rise again. On
the other hand, no man's standing is so secure that he may not fall. If
Peter fell, I may fall. If he rose again, I may rise again. We have the
same gifts that they had, the same Christ, the same baptism and the
same Gospel, the same forgiveness of sins. They needed these saving
ordinances just as much as we do.

VERSE 12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the
Gentiles.

The Gentiles who had been converted to faith in Christ, ate meats
forbidden by the Law. Peter, visiting some of these Gentiles, ate meat
and drank wine with them, although he knew that these things were
forbidden in the Law. Paul declared that he did likewise, that he
became as a Jew to the Jews, and to them that were without law, as
without law. He ate and drank with the Gentiles unconcerned about the
Jewish Law. When he was with the Jews, however, he abstained from all
things forbidden in the Law, for he labored to serve all men, that he
"might by all means save some." Paul does not reprove Peter for
transgressing the Law, but for disguising his attitude to the Law.

VERSE 12. But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself,
fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Paul does not accuse Peter of malice or ignorance, but of lack of
principle, in that he abstained from meats, because he feared the Jews
that came from James. Peter's weak attitude endangered the principle of
Christian liberty. It is the deduction rather than the fact which Paul
reproves. To eat and to drink, or not to eat and drink, is immaterial.
But to make the deduction "If you eat, you sin; if you abstain you are
righteous"—this is wrong.

Meats may be refused for two reasons. First, they may be refused for
the sake of Christian love. There is no danger connected with a refusal
of meats for the sake of charity. To bear with the infirmity of a
brother is a good thing. Paul himself taught and exemplified such
thoughtfulness. Secondly, meats may be refused in the mistaken hope of
thereby obtaining righteousness. When this is the purpose of abstaining
from meats, we say, let charity go. To refrain from meats for this
latter reason amounts to a denial of Christ. If we must lose one or the
other, let us lose a friend and brother, rather than God, our Father.

Jerome, who understood not this passage, nor the whole epistle for that
matter, excuses Peter's action on the ground "that it was done in
ignorance." But Peter offended by giving the impression that he was
indorsing the Law. By his example he encouraged Gentiles and Jews to
forsake the truth of the Gospel. If Paul had not reproved him, there
would have been a sliding back of Christians into the Jewish religion,
and a return to the burdens of the Law.

It is surprising that Peter, excellent apostle that he was, should have
been guilty of such vacillation. In a former council at Jerusalem he
practically stood alone in defense of the truth that salvation is by
faith, without the Law. Peter at that time valiantly defended the
liberty of the Gospel. But now by abstaining from meats forbidden in
the Law, he went against his better judgment. You have no idea what
danger there is in customs and ceremonies. They so easily tend to error
in works.

VERSE 13. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch
that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

It is marvelous how God preserved the Church by one single person. Paul
alone stood up for the truth, for Barnabas, his companion, was lost to
him, and Peter was against him. Sometimes one lone person can do more
in a conference than the whole assembly.

I mention this to urge all to learn how properly to differentiate
between the Law and the Gospel, in order to avoid dissembling. When it
come to the article of justification we must not yield, if we want to
retain the truth of the Gospel.

When the conscience is disturbed, do not seek advice from reason or
from the Law, but rest your conscience in the grace of God and in His
Word, and proceed as if you had never heard of the Law. The Law has its
place and its own good time. While Moses was in the mountain where he
talked with God face to face, he had no law, he made no law, he
administered no law. But when he came down from the mountain, he was a
lawgiver. The conscience must be kept above the Law, the body under the
Law.

Paul reproved Peter for no trifle, but for the chief article of
Christian doctrine, which Peter's hypocrisy had endangered. For
Barnabas and other Jews followed Peter's example. It is surprising that
such good men as Peter, Barnabas, and others should fall into
unexpected error, especially in a matter which they knew so well. To
trust in our own strength, our own goodness, our own wisdom, is a
perilous thing. Let us search the Scriptures with humility, praying
that we may never lose the light of the Gospel. "Lord, increase our
faith."

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.

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.

VERSE 15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.

"When we Jews compare ourselves with the Gentiles, we look pretty good.
We have the Law, we have good works. Our rectitude dates from our
birth, because the Jewish religion is natural to us. But all this does
not make us righteous before God." Peter and the others lived up to the
requirements of the Law. They had circumcision, the covenant, the
promises, the apostleship. But because of these advantages they were
not to think themselves righteous before God. None of these
prerogatives spell faith in Christ, which alone can justify a person.
We do not mean to imply that the Law is bad. We do not condemn the Law,
circumcision, etc., for their failure to justify us. Paul spoke
disparagingly of these ordinances, because the false apostles asserted
that mankind is saved by them without faith. Paul could not let this
assertion stand, for without faith all things are deadly.

VERSE 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law,
but by the faith of Jesus Christ.

For the sake of argume