Chapter 2: Verses 11–14
harborless." Therefore look what we would do to Christ; the same must we do to them. Thirdly, the poor have title and interest to part of our goods. For God is the Lord of them, and we are but stewards to dispose and use them according to His appointment. And His will is that part of our goods be given for the relief of the poor. If this be not done, we are thieves in respect of the goods we possess. Lastly, mercy or the bowels of compassion in us is a pledge or an impression of the mercy that is in God toward us. And by it we may know or feel in ourselves that mercy belongs unto us. Thus we see what is our duty.
Now let us consider what is our fault. Not to blame any person or persons, it is our common fault that we are backward and slack in this duty. And the cause is that we do not heartily give ourselves to Christ. And this makes us to be so slack in giving our goods to the poor (2 Cor. 8:5). Again, we commonly live (as it were) without a law.
We do not with David set the laws of God before us (Ps. 119:168).
Neither do we apply our hearts to His statutes (v. 112). For then would we with David "make haste to keep the commandments of God" (v. 60), specially this great commandment of relief—and the rather, because the observing of it is the enriching of us all.
Lastly, let us mark that Paul, being warned of the apostles, was diligent to do that whereof he was warned. The like must we do. It is not sufficient to hear, but besides this there must be in us a care and diligence to do and practice that which we hear. For this is to build upon the rock. And it is a common fault, to hear much and do little
(Ezek. 33:32).
Chapter 2: Verses 11–14 11 And when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face: for he was to be blamed.
In these words Paul propounds the second answer, which he makes to the objection mentioned in the beginning of the chapter to this effect. Though the church glorify God for you, yet will not the apostles do it because thou art contrary to them. Here Paul answers that there was indeed a dissension between him and Peter when he withstood Peter to his face at Antioch; but the fault was not his, but Peter's, who was wholly "to be blamed."
For the better understanding of these words, three points are to be handled. The first is, who was resisted? The answer is Peter the apostle. For the intent of this chapter is to show what agreement there was between Paul and the rest of the apostles. And there was no apostle of this name but one. Therefore they among the ancient are greatly deceived who think that the apostle Peter was not reproved, but some other of that name. The second point is, who resisted? Answer. Paul—and that not for show and fashion, but in truth and good earnest. And this appears because in the words following he sets down a weighty and urgent cause of his reproof.
Therefore Jerome and others are deceived who think that Paul reproved Peter in show and appearance and not in good earnest. The third point is, what was Paul's mind and meaning in resisting of Peter? Answer. To do his office. The kingdom of God and all things pertaining thereto must have free passage without resistance. The second petition is, "Thy kingdom come." John the Baptist preached thus, "Prepare the way of the Lord, and make His paths straight"
(Mark 1). St. Paul says, "Pray that the word of God may have free passage, and be glorified" (2 Thess. 3:1). Contrariwise, such things as hinder the kingdom of God must be withstood. Therefore Peter says,
"Resist your adversary the devil, strong in faith" (1 Peter 5:9). And thus men that are instruments of evil are to be withstood. And here
Paul, by a holy reproof, withstands Peter for his bad example.
In Paul here first we may behold an example of the true virtue, in that he resists evil to the uttermost of his power, following his own rule: "Abhor that which is evil, and cleave unto that which is good"
(Rom. 12:9). "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph. 5:11). In like manner must every one of us resist evil; first, in himself, and then in them that appertain to him. Therefore Paul says to all, "Put on the armor of God, that ye may resist" (Eph. 6:13). Here two things may be demanded. First, what must we resist? Paul answers again,
"Principalities, and powers, and spiritual wickedness"—that is, the devil and all his angels. It may be said, we have no dealing with them, for they use not to47 appear unto us. Answer. That the devil come not to us visibly, but in the persons of evil men, and in the bad examples of all men. This made Christ say to Peter, "Come behind me, Satan, for thou art an offense unto me" (Matt. 16:23) when Peter would have dissuaded him from going to Jerusalem. Again, it may be said, in what things must we resist them? Paul answers, "In heavenly things" (v. 12)—that is, in things which pertain to God's kingdom and concern either the salvation of our soul or the worship of God. For the devil seeks by all manner of evils, to hinder these good things.
Moreover, this duty of resisting evil is so necessary, that we must resist sin, if need be, to the very shedding of our blood (Heb. 12:4).
Again, we have in Paul an example of boldness and liberty in reproving of sin. This was a thing commanded to the prophets and apostles: "Cry and spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, show my people their transgression" (Isa. 58:1); "Truss up thy loins, arise and speak unto them all that I command thee; be not afraid of their faces, lest I destroy thee before them" (Jer. 1:17). Like liberty may the ministers of the word use, observing Paul's rule, "God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love, and of a sound mind"
(2 Tim. 1:7), where he sets down three caveats: first, that this liberty
in reproving is not the fruit of a bold and rash disposition, but is a fruit of God's Spirit, and so to be acknowledged (read Mic. 3:8). The second, that the use of 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. The third is that all our admonitions must be seasoned and tempered with love [so] that they tend to the good and salvation of them that are reproved. These caveats observed, liberty in reproving shall never want His blessing (Isa.
50:7).
Thirdly, here is an example in Paul of an ingenuous and honest mind. When he sees Peter do amiss, he reproves him to his 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 which is in fault. This vice the law of God expressly forbids (Lev. 19:16). And it is the property of a good man "not to take up a false report" (Ps. 15). And David reproves Saul because he did but lend the ear to tale-bearers, saying, "Wherefore givest thou an ear to men's words that say, behold, David seeketh evil against thee?" (1 Sam. 24:9).
In Peter, who when he was reproved made no reply, we see an example of patience and humility, whereby he humbled himself before the reprover when he was convicted of an offence. The like was in David when he said, "Let the righteous smite me" (Ps. 141:5).
Whereas Paul says that Peter was to be blamed or condemned, not in respect of his person, but of his example, we see that excellent men, even the chief apostles, are subject to err and be deceived. It may be said, how then may we trust them in their writings? I answer: While they were in delivering anything to the church, whether it were by sermon or writing, they were guided by the infallible assistance of the
Spirit and could not err. Otherwise they might err, when they were out of this work, in mind, will, affection, or action. Thus Jonah, when he saw that Nineveh was not destroyed, was impotent in his anger.
Nathan was deceived in giving advice to David touching the building of the temple (2 Sam. 7). The apostles at the ascension of Christ still dreamed of an earthly kingdom, saying, "When wilt thou restore the kingdom of Israel?" (Acts 1). And Peter being bidden to arise and eat of things forbidden by the ceremonial law, said, "Not so Lord" (Acts
10:14).
Thus then, if Peter was subject to error, the pretended successors of Peter, namely the bishops of Rome, cannot be free from error. It is alleged that Peter erred in life and not in doctrine. I answer: It was so indeed, yet did his bad example tend to the ruin of doctrine, if it had not been prevented. Therefore the error that was in act, if we respect the event, was in doctrine. Again, I answer that an error in action presupposes an error in mind, or at the least some ignorance, because the mind is the beginning of the thing done. Thus all sinners are called "ignorant persons" (Heb. 5:2). And it seems that the error of Peter was that of two evils: it was the best to choose the less, that is to choose rather to offend the Gentiles, than the Jews, to whom he was an apostle specially appointed.
Here again, we miserable wretches are taught to watch and pray that God would not lead us into temptation, considering most excellent men are subject to falling. And men must be warned not to abuse
Peter's example in bolstering themselves in their naughty ways, by saying, we are all sinners, that the best man alive is a sinner, that the just man falls seven times a day. For the place in Proverbs 24:16 is spoken of affliction, not of sin. The just man falls seven times a day, that is, he falls into manifold perils. And further, we should not only consider the faults of just men, but also their conversion and
repentance. And again, to sin and to commit sin are two divers things. Though the godly sin, yet do they not keep a course in sinning and go on from sin to sin.
12 For before certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.
13 And other Jews dissembled likewise with him: in so much that Barnabas was brought into their dissimulation also.
The apostle has propounded his second answer in the former verse.
Now he proceeds to make a declaration of it. And first he sets down the cause why Peter was reproved and the manner of reproof. The cause is in the twelfth and thirteenth verses, namely Peter's sin. And this sin is set forth by four things: by the name of the sin, the matter of the sin, the cause of the sin, [and] the effects of the sin.
The name of the sin is noted when Paul says, "And other Jews dissembled likewise with him" (v. 13), where I gather that Peter's sin was simulation. Simulation of itself is a thing indifferent, and according to circumstances is either good or evil. Lawful simulation is when men conceit that which they may lawfully conceit, and signify something either by word or deed, that is only beside the truth and not contrary to it. This was the simulation of Joseph, who carried himself as a stranger to his brethren in Egypt after he had examined them and knew who they were (Gen. 42). This is the simulation of Christ, who when he was come to Emmaus, "made as though he would have gone further" (Luke 24:28). Thus Paul among the Jews, played the Jew (1 Cor. 9:20). Unlawful simulation is that when something is signified or feigned against the truth or to the prejudice of any. Of this kind was the simulation of Peter, which
tended to the prejudice of the gospel and to the offence of the Gentiles.
The second point is the matter of the sin or the sin itself, which was on this manner. First, among the Gentiles at Antioch, he uses
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. Like to this was the halting of the Israelites between God and Baal (1 Kings
18:21), and the practice of sundry men who are Protestants with us; and yet in other countries go to Mass, and the practice of our people, who change their religion with the times.
Here we see the great weakness of Peter, in that upon a very little occasion, and that presently, falls away from his profession to his old course. In him we may behold our own weakness and consider what we are like to do in like case. We now profess the gospel of Christ. Yet if any occasion were offered, it is to be feared that many of us would be easily moved to return to our old profaneness and to the superstition of popery. But for the staying and the better establishing of our mind, let us always remember that they shall perish who withdraw themselves from their faith, profession, and obedience, which they owe unto God (Heb. 10:38; Ps. 73:27).
Again, here it must be observed that Paul in describing the sin expresses two actions: his eating with the Gentiles and his separation from them, the first good and the latter evil. The beginning of his action was good, but the end of it was naught. The reason is this. The man regenerate is partly flesh and partly spirit. And hereupon it is that when we will that which is good, we cannot accomplish it, and evil is present with us. The child of God is like a lame man that goes the right way, but yet halts at every step. Abraham and Sarah desire
issue,54 that is from the Spirit; but they desire issue by Hagar their handmaid, that is from the flesh. Rebekah seeks the blessing for Jacob, that is a work of the Spirit; but she seeks it by lying, that is from the flesh. Peter eats with the Gentiles, that is from Christian liberty. He afterwards separates himself, that is from corruption.
Thus we see that the best works are imperfect and mixed with corruption, and that for the best works we must humble ourselves and seek pardon, not in respect of the goodness of the work, but in respect of the defect thereof.
It may be demanded, how the act of Peter should be a sin, considering he did only abstain from certain meats that he might avoid the offence of certain Jews? Answer. The fact of Peter, considered by itself, is not a sin. For Paul did the like in playing the Jew. But the circumstance makes it a sin. For first of all Peter does not only abstain from meats forbidden by the ceremonial law, but also he withdraws himself from the company of the Gentiles and keeps company apart with the Jews. Secondly, he abstains not among the Jews at Jerusalem, but at Antioch among the Gentiles, where a little before he had openly done the contrary in using his
Christian liberty. Thirdly, he used this abstinence when certain Jews came from Jerusalem to search out the liberty of the Gentiles.
Fourthly, while Peter seeks to avoid the small offence of some Jews, he incurs a greater offence of all the Gentiles. Lastly, this act of Peter did tend to the overthrowing of Paul's ministry and the suppressing of the truth of the gospel. Thus then the act of Peter becomes unlawful that was otherwise lawful being simply considered by itself.
Here it may be demanded, what Peter should have done? Answer. He should have openly withstood the Jews that came from Jerusalem as Paul withstood them that urged the circumcision of Titus. Or again, before he had played the Jew, he should have advertised the Gentiles that for a time he was to yield to the infirmity of some Jews.
In Peter's example we are taught that we must not offend God, though all the world be offended. Less offences must give place when the great offence is at hand—that is, when God is dishonored, and the very least part of His truth is suppressed.
The third point to be considered is the cause of the sin of Peter. And that was the fear of the offence of the Jews. Here two questions are to be handled. The first, how Peter's fear should be a sin? Answer.
There is a natural fear created by God and placed in the heart of man.
This fear of itself is good. Nevertheless, by the corruption of nature it becomes evil. And it is made evil two ways. One is when men fear without cause, as when the disciples fear Christ walking upon the sea, and fear drowning when Christ was in the ship with them. The other is when there is no measure in fear—as when men so fear the creature, that they neglect their duty to God. This was Peter's fear, and it was a sin in him. For God is to be feared simply because He is
Lord of body and soul and can destroy both; and He is to be feared for Himself, whereas every creature is to be feared in part only, and for God (Rom. 13:3–4). By this we are taught daily to inure ourselves in our heart to fear God above all things.
The second question is, how Peter could have the fear of God, considering he feared men more than God, at the least in this one action? Answer. There are three kinds of fear. One is without all sin.
This was in Adam and in Christ. The second is altogether sinful in the wicked and ungodly, because it is severed from faith and obedience—as when there is a fear of men, without the fear of God.
The third is a mixed fear in them that are regenerate, in whom the fear of God is joined with the corrupt fear of man. And in this mixture otherwhiles the one prevails; otherwhiles, the other. And this fear was in Peter, in whom at this time the carnal fear of man prevailed against the true fear of God.
Paul notes fear to be the cause of Peter's sin that he may thereby signify unto us what kind of sin it was, namely, a sin not of malice but of 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 overcarried by temptation, or by violence of affection, as by fear, anger, lust. Thus Peter sinned. And let it be remembered, that to sin of infirmity is properly incident to such as be regenerate, as Peter was. Every wicked man makes his sin his infirmity. Fornication is the infirmity of the fornicator; drunkenness, the infirmity of the drunkard, etc., but it is false which they say. For they sin with all their hearts when they sin.
The fourth and last point is the effect of Peter's sin in drawing the Jews and Barnabas to the like dissimulation. Here we see the contagion of an evil example. And hence we learn that ministers of the word must of necessity join with good doctrine the example of good life. For first of all, it is the express commandment of God: "Be patterns of the flock" (1 Peter 5:3). "Be an example in word, conversation, love, spirit, faith, purity" (1 Tim. 4:12). "What ye have seen in me, that do" (Phil. 4:9). "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works" (Matt. 5:16). Secondly, practice in the minister is part of his teaching. For the multitude do not mark so much what men say, as what men do. Herod did many things, not because John the Baptist was a good minister, but because he was a good man (Mark 6:20). Thirdly, ministers have not the preference and protection of God unless their lives be virtuous and godly. "If thou return, thou shalt stand before me" (Jer. 15:19). "God reveals his secrets to the prophets his servants" (Amos 3:7). Lastly, fearful judgments of God belong to ministers of wicked lives. Destruction befalls the sons of Eli and their families because they by lewd example made the people of God to sin (1 Sam. 2:24). The like befell the sons of Aaron for their presumption.
Again, all superiors are warned to go before their inferiors by good example. When Moses went into Egypt to be the guide of the Israelites, the Lord would have destroyed him by reason of the bad example in his own family, namely, the uncircumcision of his child.
David, for his evil example whereby he caused the enemies of God to blaspheme, is punished, and that after his repentance that men might see in him an example of God's judgment against sin (2 Sam.
12:14).
Here again we see that the consent of many together is not a note of truth. Peter, Barnabas, and the Jews all together are deceived, and Paul alone has the truth. Panormitane says that a layman bringing
Scripture is to be preferred before a whole counsel. Paphnutius59 alone had the truth, and the whole Council of Nicea inclined to error.
14 But when I saw that they went not with a right foot to the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before all men: If thou being a Jew livest as the Gentiles, and not like the Jews, why constrainest thou the Gentiles to do like the Jews?
In these words, Paul sets down the reproof of Peter and the whole manner of it. In it many points are to be considered. The first is the time of this reproof, and that was so soon as Paul saw the offence of Peter. Here we learn that we must resist and cut off the first beginnings of temptation, of sin, and of superstition, because we are prone to evil. And therefore if it once set footing in us, it will take place.
The second point is the foundation of the reproof in these words, "when I saw," and that is a certain knowledge of Peter's offence. Here we are to take notice of the common fault, and that is, that we use to censure and condemn men, specially public persons, upon suspicions, and conjectures, and hearsay. Whereas we should not
open our mouths to reprove till we have certain knowledge of the fault. Moreover, public persons, as magistrates and ministers, have their privilege that an accusation is not to be received against them without there be a proof by two or three witnesses (1 Tim. 5:19).
The third point is the fault reproved, which is here expressed by another name: "not to walk with a right foot to the truth of the gospel"—that is, not to converse with men and to carry himself so as he may be suitable to the sincerity of the gospel, both in word and deed.
Here is a notable duty set down for all men, "to walk with an even foot according to the truth of the gospel." And this is done when in word and deed and every way we ascribe all the good we have or can do to grace, to mercy, and to Christ, when again in word and deed and every way we give all thanks to God for grace and mercy by Christ. Here two sorts of men are to be condemned as halters in respect of the truth of the gospel. The first are papists, who join
Christ and works in the cause of our justification and salvation. The second are carnal Protestants and all other sorts of men that profess the name of Christ and withal challenge to themselves a liberty to live as they list. For they walk contrary to the gospel, disjoining justification and sanctification, faith and good life, remission of sin and mortification. This is the rife and common sin of our days. We are light in the Lord, but we walk not as children of light. We are content to come to the marriage of the King's Son, but we come not with the marriage garment. It is to be feared this very sin will banish the gospel and bring all the judgments of God upon us. Let us therefore repent of our uneven and halting lives, and prevent the Lord's anger by walking worthy of the gospel of Christ.
It will be said, how must we perform this duty? Answer. Two rules must be remembered. The first is that we must have and carry in us a right heart. For the want of this was Simon Magus condemned (Acts
8:21). A right heart is a humble and an honest heart. The humble heart is when in the estimation of our own hearts we abase ourselves under all creatures upon earth, and that for our offences when, again, in the affection of our hearts, we exalt the death and blood of Christ above all riches, above all honors, above all pleasures, above all joys, and above all that heart can think or tongue can speak. The honest heart is when we carry and cherish in our hearts the settled purpose of not sinning, so as if we sin at any time, we may in the testimony of a good conscience say that we sinned against our purpose. The second rule is that we must make straight steps to our feet (Heb. 12:13). And that is done when we endeavor to obey God according to all His commandments (Ps. 119:6); and also according to all the powers of the inward man, that is, not only in action, but also in will, affection, and thought. Let us also apply our hearts to the doing of this, lest if we come to the marriage of the King's Son without the garment of a right heart and life, we hear the sentence,
"Bind them hand and foot, and cast them into utter darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
The fourth point is the place of reproof, "before all men." For they that sin openly to the offence of any are openly to be reproved (1 Tim.
5:20).
The fifth point is concerning the reasons which Paul uses for the restraining of the sin of Peter. The first is set down in the sixteenth verse: "If thou being a Jew," etc. Here the meaning of some words are to be opened. To Judaize, or to live as a Jew, is to observe (and that necessarily) a difference of meats and times according to the ceremonial law of Moses. To Gentilize, or to "live as a Gentile," is to
use meats, and drinks, and times freely without difference. Peter is said to "compel the Gentiles to Judaize," not by teaching of any doctrine (for the apostles never erred, in teaching and delivering anything to the church of God; this is a principle). Therefore he constrained them by the authority of his example, whereby he caused them to think that the observation of the ceremonial law was necessary.
The first reason then is framed thus. If you, being a Jew, use to live as the Gentiles, you may not by your example compel the Gentiles to Judaize in the necessary observation of ceremonies. But you being a Jew, use to live as the Gentiles. Therefore you may not compel the Gentiles to live as Jews.
Here first, let us observe the force of evil example: It compels men to be evil. Therefore let all superiors, magistrates, ministers, and all governors of families look to their examples. For if they be evil, they constrain others also to be evil.
Here again, we see what wonderful subjection the ancient believers yielded to the ministry of the word. For if the actions of the apostles compelled men to do this or that, what then did their doctrines and heavenly exhortations do? When John the Baptist preached "the kingdom of heaven suffered violence, and the violent took it to themselves" (Matt. 11:12). When the disciples preached in Jewry, they "saw Satan falling down from heaven like lightning" (Luke
10:18). The weapons of Paul were "spiritual, to cast down holds, and to bring every thought in subjection to God" (2 Cor. 10:4). Here, the fault of our times is to be considered. We have the form of godliness in hearing and in outward profession, but we want the power of it.
For we do not in heart yield subjection by suffering ourselves to be urged and compelled to obedience by the authority of the ministry.