Galater 2:12

certain--men: perhaps James' view (in which he was not infallible, any more than Peter) was that the Jewish converts were still to observe Jewish ordinances, from which he had decided with the council the Gentiles should be free (Act 15:19). NEANDER, however, may be right in thinking these self-styled delegates from James were not really from him. Act 15:24 favors this. "Certain from James," may mean merely that they came from the Church at Jerusalem under James' bishopric. Still James' leanings were to legalism, and this gave him his influence with the Jewish party (Act 21:18-26). eat with . . . Gentiles--as in Act 10:10-20, Act 10:48, according to the command of the vision (Act 11:3-17). Yet after all, this same Peter, through fear of man (Pro 29:25), was faithless to his own so distinctly avowed principles (Act 15:7-11). We recognize the same old nature in him as led him, after faithfully witnessing for Christ, yet for a brief space, to deny Him. "Ever the first to recognize, and the first to draw back from great truths" [ALFORD]. An undesigned coincidence between the Gospels and the Epistle in the consistency of character as portrayed in both. It is beautiful to see how earthly misunderstandings of Christians are lost in Christ. For in Pe2 3:15, Peter praises the very Epistles of Paul which he knew contained his own condemnation. Though apart from one another and differing in characteristics, the two apostles were one in Christ. withdrew--Greek, "began to withdraw," &c. This implies a gradual drawing back; "separated," entire severance.

The apostle, in this chapter, continues the relation of his past life and conduct, which he had begun in the former; and, by some further instances of what had passed between him and the other apostles, makes it appear that he was not beholden to them either for his knowledge of the gospel or his authority as an apostle, as his adversaries would insinuate; but, on the contrary, that he was owned and approved even by them, as having an equal commission with them to this office. I. He particularly informs them of another journey which he took to Jerusalem many years after the former, and how he behaved himself at that time (Gal 2:1-10). And, II. Gives them an account of another interview he had with the apostle Peter at Antioch, and how he was obliged to behave himself towards him there. From the subject-matter of that conversation, he proceeds to discourse on the great doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, without the works of the law, which it was the main design of this epistle to establish, and which he enlarges more upon in the two following chapters.

2:12 That Peter ate with the Gentile believers was consistent with what God had shown him (Acts 10:9-16, 34-35). • The friends of James wanted to reassert Jewish scruples and prevent the free communion between Gentiles and Jews from continuing. • Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore: When Peter refused to share regular meals and the Lord’s Supper (cp. 1 Cor 11:20-22, 33-34) with fellow Christians, he divided the Jewish and Gentile Christians and implied that the Jews’ observances made them more acceptable to God. Peter’s example, if uncorrected, would have undermined the Good News of salvation by grace through faith. • He was afraid: The friends of James intimidated Peter, who had previously withstood the same sort of criticism with power and eloquence (Acts 11:2-18). Peter might have been trying to avoid creating a barrier for the evangelism of Jews, or he might have been concerned for the safety and well-being of the Jewish Christians in Judea, who experienced persecution from non-Christian Jews (cp. 5:11; 6:12). In any case, his actions were inexcusable.