I. Here we have an example of true virtue, in St. Paul resisting evil to the utmost of his power. In like manner must every one of us resist evil, first in himself and then in them that appertain to him.
II. An example of boldness and liberty in reproving sin.—1. This liberty in reproving is not the fruit of a bold and rash disposition, but is the fruit of God’s Spirit, and is so to be acknowledged. 2. This liberty is to be ordered by a sound mind whereby we are able to give a good account of our reproofs, both for the matter and manner of them. 3. Our admonitions must be seasoned and tempered with love.
III. An example of an ingenuous and honest mind.—When Paul sees Peter he reproves him to the face. Contrary to this is the common practice in backbiting, whispering, and tale-bearing, whereby it comes to pass that when a man is in fault every man knows it save he who is in fault. We see that excellent men, even the chief apostles, are subject to err and be deceived.—Perkins.
Vers. 12, 13. The Power of Example.—1. So weak and inconstant are the best of men that, being left to themselves, the least blast of temptation will make them break off the course of doing well in the very midst, and without respect either to conscience or credit, openly desert it. 2. To separate from a true Church and break off communion with its members cannot be attempted without sin, not though we eschew the offence and stumbling of many. 3. Of so great force is the bad example of men, eminent, gracious, and learned, that not only the weak and infirm, but even those who are strong and richly endowed with both grace and parts, will sometimes be corrupted by it. It is usual for us unawares to esteem such as more than men and being once so far engaged in our esteem of them we do not so narrowly examine their actions as we do those of other men. 4. An inundation of evil examples, though held forth by private Christians, is so impetuous and of such force to carry others along with it, that even the very best of men can hardly stand against it.—Fergusson.
An Erring Apostle.
I. Peter’s sin was simulation.—Among the Gentiles at Antioch he used Christian liberty in eating things forbidden by the ceremonial law; yet after the coming of certain Jews from Jerusalem, he separates himself from the Gentiles, and plays the Jew among the Jews. This act of Peter was not a sin in itself, but the circumstances made it a sin. 1. He not only abstained from meats forbidden by the ceremonial law but withdrew himself from the Gentiles and kept company apart with the Jews. 2. He abstained not among the Jews at Jerusalem, but at Antioch among the Gentiles, where a little before he had openly done the contrary, using his Christian liberty. 3. He used this abstinence when certain Jews came from Jerusalem to search out the liberty of the Gentiles. 4. While Peter seeks to avoid the small offence of some Jews, he incurs a greater offence of all the Gentiles. 5. This act of Peter tended to the overthrowing of Paul’s ministry and the suppressing of the truth of the Gospel.
II. The cause of Peter’s sin was fear of offending the Jews.—It was a sin because he feared man more than God. It was a sin, not of malice, but infirmity. A sin of infirmity is when there is a purpose in the heart not to sin, and yet for all this the sin is committed, by reason the will is over-carried by temptation, or by violence of affection as by fear, anger, lust.
III. The effect of Peter’s sin.—He drew the Jews and Barnabas to the like dissimulation. Here we see the contagion of an evil example. 1. Ministers of the Word must join with good doctrine the example of a good life. 2. Practice in the ministry is a part of the teaching. 3. All superiors are warned to go before their inferiors by good example. 4. The consent of many together is not a note of truth. Peter, Barnabas, and the Jews, all together are deceived; Paul alone has the truth. Ponormitane said, “A layman bringing Scripture is to be preferred before a whole council.” Paphnutius alone had the truth, and the whole council of Nice inclined to error.—Perkins.
Vers. 14–16. Justification by Faith, not by Works.—1. Though private sins, which have not broken forth to a public scandal, are to be rebuked in private, public sins are to receive public rebukes, that public scandal may be removed, and others scared from taking encouragement to do the like (ver. 14). 2. Though the binding power of the ceremonial law was abrogated at Christ’s death, and the practice in some things left as a thing lawful and in itself indifferent, yet the observance, even for that time, was dispensed with more for the Jews’ sake, and was more tolerable in them who were born and educated under that yoke, than in the Gentiles, to whom that law was never given, and so were to observe it, or any part of it, only in case of scandalising the weak Jews by their neglecting of it (ver. 14). 3. Though every man by nature is a child of wrath and enemy to God, yet those born within the visible Church have a right to Church privileges and to enjoy the external means of grace and salvation (ver. 15). 4. The doctrine of justification by faith and not by works was early opposed, and no doctrine so much opposed, because no truth is more necessary to be kept pure, as if it be kept pure several other truths are kept pure also, and if it fall other truths fall with it (ver. 16).—Fergusson.
Ver. 16. Justification by Faith.