---

There can be no doubt that this rebuke offered by one apostle to another was real and earnest, and not, as St. Jerome tried to maintain, a dramatic pretence. We have here, then, the startling spectacle of the two leading apostles in conflict. Yet it is plainly implied that they were not opposed in their general work. It was not their teaching nor their normal practice, but one particular act of weakness that occasioned the trouble.

I. APOSTLES ARE FALLIBLE. Plainly St. Peter was to blame. If St. Paul's view of the gospel were correct - as we must all now hold - St. Peter was wrong in ceasing to eat with Gentiles. But even if the view of the Jerusalem Church were correct, he was not the less to blame in first following the more liberal course, and then abandoning it out of deference to the party of James. He was clearly inconsistent, and it is evident that his inconsistency was not due to change of conviction, but only to culpable weakness.

1. If an apostle fail, who else will presume to be safe?

2. The "fear of man that bringeth a snare" is a fruitful source of temptation to many of the best men, especially in regard to sins against charity. We seem to be ashamed of our charity more than of any other grace, and yet it is the noblest and the most essentially Christian.

3. Distinguish between apostolic teaching and apostolic conduct. Neither in his preaching nor in his writing did St. Peter defend the course he pursued at Antioch. Inspiration for teaching does not imply faultlessness in action.

II. IT IS RIGHT TO REBUKE DANGEROUS FAULTS. St. Peter was the senior apostle, and it might seem presumptuous to oppose him. He was the foremost apostle, and opposition might endanger the peace of the Church. Many would let deference to years and rank and fear of painful discord prevent them from acting as St. Paul acted. But right is above all personal considerations. There are interests of the Church that may be ruined by a slavish fear of disturbing peace. The peace thus secured is a false peace. There are times when controversy in the Church is a duty of paramount importance. It may be the only security against fatal error. Yet, though then the least of evils, it is still an evil, and should not be undertaken without grave reason.

1. In the present instance the question was of vital importance. It cut at the root of the unity and brotherhood of the Church. If Christians could not eat together at the "agape," the simple but all-significant meal of the Christian family, the Church would be broken up. This was no light matter to be overlooked. It demanded even the contention of apostle with apostle. Let us see that the importance of the cause is sufficient to justify the painful consequences of a controversy before opening it up.

2. The question was of public interest. The fault of St. Peter was no secret, nor did it only concern himself. His powerful example affected others, till even St. Barnabas was led away. No private friendship can be pleaded in excuse for letting a public evil go unchecked. In such cases brother must oppose brother, though his heart bleeds at the necessity.

III. REBUKE SHOULD BE OPEN AND DIRECTLY OFFERED TO THE OFFENDER. St. Paul "withstood him to the face." It needed no little courage for the new and often-suspected apostle thus to challenge the first man in the Church. Few have such courage, and many only betake themselves to backbiting. If we have anything against a man, the right thing is to tell it him to his face. This is the only honourable course. It is due to him in fairness. It prevents misunderstanding, and often saves a long and widespread quarrel. Such a course escapes presumption if it is taken with an honest conviction that the conduct opposed is wrong, with a sincere desire to save others from the consequences of it, with all humility in regard to one's self as equally fallible and with great kindness and charity for the offender. Yet we are not all called to this work. It requires a Paul to rebuke a Peter wisely and well. - W.F.A.

---

---

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

WEB: But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, because he stood condemned.