Barnabas – The Lowedown

March 4, 2026March 4, 2026

Why Did Paul Confront Peter in Galatians 2?

Galatians 2

¹¹But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ¹²For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.

¹³The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. ¹⁴But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

¹⁵“We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; ¹⁶nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

¹⁷“But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! ¹⁸“For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. ¹⁹“For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.

²⁰“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. ²¹“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (Galatians 2:11-21, NLT)

NOTE: Cephas is another name for Peter

The Daily DAVEotional

In the second half of Galatians 2, Paul mentions an odd encounter that he once had with Peter. He says that he (Paul) had to confront Peter (also known as Cephas) publicly because he was acting like a hypocrite.

The whole ordeal sounds pretty uncomfortable and embarrassing. What’s actually happening here?

To more clearly understand Paul’s encounter with Peter in this passage, we need to know a little bit about the context of this letter and why Paul is writing it in the first place.

Paul and Barnabas had established a number of churches in the Southern province of Galatia as an outcome of their first missionary journey (see Acts 13-14).

However, even though their mission of planting a number of new churches was wildly successful, it wasn’t all smooth sailing, as Paul and Barnabas encountered quite a bit of opposition along the way, primarily from Jewish unbelievers.

Not long after establishing these new churches, false teachers had infiltrated and were leading the Galatians astray. Paul tells these young believers that what they were following was a false gospel, a distortion of the truth.

At issue was the very nature of how a person is saved. I wrote about this issue in another blog post “A Pivotal Council in the Early Church” which I encourage you to read for context.

The summary is that there were a number of Jewish Pharisees who had become believers in Jesus. They held the view that in order for Gentiles to be saved, they not only needed to believe in Jesus as the Messiah, but they also had to convert to Judaism and adhere to all of its religious and cultural demands.

A council was convened to discuss this issue. The leaders of the church, including Peter, unanimously agreed that Gentiles do NOT need to become Jewish culturally in order to be saved. They determined that ALL men, regardless of cultural background, are saved by simply putting their faith in Jesus.

So what’s happening here in Galatians 2? Why does Paul confront Peter?

Apparently Peter showed up at the church in Antioch, which was known for having a mix of Jewish and Gentile believers. While there, Peter enjoyed hanging out with and eating with these new Gentile brothers and sisters. After all, he came to understand In Acts 10 that Gentiles are accepted by God in the same manner that Jews are – by faith.

However, the text says that Peter began to pull back from associating with these Gentile believers when a certain group came to visit the church in Antioch. It says that there was a group of Jewish believers who were friends with James. When these guys showed up, Peter begins acting like he doesn’t know the Gentiles with whom he had been freely associating.

This James Gang (not to be confused with the classic rock band of the same name) had a certain view and understanding that was not compatible with the gospel. This was a group that had favored the view that was rejected at the Council of Jerusalem, namely, that Gentiles needed to adhere to Jewish religious laws and cultures too.

There was an air of superiority with this group. They looked down on Gentiles, mainly because it had been drilled into them their whole lives that Gentiles were unclean and “less than” Jews. They were sinners, without the Law of God.

But Peter had been given a direct revelation from God in Acts 10 that this view was not godly. God does not look down on Gentiles and for Jews to do so was not honoring to God. One might even say it was racist.

Peter responded to that revelation in Acts 10 and the result was that Cornelius, the Roman soldier, came to faith and it was at this point that Gentiles are first inaugurated into the body of Christ.

Now here in Galatians 2, Paul tells his audience that Peter enjoyed fellowshipping with his Gentile brothers and sisters and no doubt enjoyed eating non-kosher foods as well.

But when this “party of the circumcision” arrived, Peter was afraid of what they might think. So he pulled back and disassociated himself from the Gentiles.

This exact scenario is beautifully illustrated in the 2017 movie Wonder, in which a disfigured boy named Auggie is hopelessly tortured by a group of schoolyard bullies.

Auggie is befriended by Noah who learns to overlook Auggie’s physical appearance in favor of his kind nature.

However, there is a critical scene in the movie where Noah purposefully betrays Auggie’s friendship in order to gain favor with this group of bullies. This Halloween scene in the movie mirrors the situation with Peter described by Paul. I recommend watching this movie, taking note of your emotional response to this scene. Then read this passage again. Perhaps you will see the destructive effects of hypocrisy and partiality in a new light.

Paul calls Peter a hypocrite. The word hypocrite is actually an acting term (Greek hypokrites). In those times, all the parts in a theater production were played by just a few actors, mostly men. The actors would put different masks on to represent the part they were playing. The word hypocrite refers to the mask that the actor wore.

So, to be a hypocrite is really to wear a mask. It’s when we seek to project an image to others that doesn’t represent who we really are or what we really believe.

That’s what Paul accused Peter of doing. Peter believed that Gentiles were saved just as Jews are and he enjoyed connecting with this group of non-Jews, that is, until the James gang showed up. Then Peter, fearing what these Jewish zealots might think, sought to give the impression that he saw these Gentiles as unclean, as the old Jewish laws promoted.

If Peter, one of the foremost leaders of the early church, could fall into hypocrisy, then anyone can.

All of us are hypocrites to some degree. We’re often negatively influenced by others and we can tend to order our lives around creating a favorable impression of ourselves to those around us. This is what John Ortberg, in his book “The Life You’ve Always Wanted” calls impression management.

Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites because they created an outward impression of religious perfectionism that didn’t match their internal brokenness and depravity.

This is why we need the gospel. We are hopelessly broken and corrupt inwardly, and yet we seek to project an image of success and “having it all together” to those around us.

With the gospel, we not only experience forgiveness for our depravity, but we have the hope of transformation so that over time, our outward actions begin to more accurately reflect the new heart that we have been given.

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

Reflection

What are some examples of hypocrisy that you are aware of? People you’ve known personally or in the media?

When have you acted in a hypocritical manner?

Sometimes hypocrisy can spread due to peer pressure (as it did in this passage). When have you seen someone or a group of people act against their own beliefs and values as a result of peer pressure?

What are some ways you tend to manage your image to those around you? In what ways have you compromised your values or beliefs in order to garner favor with an individual or group?

What do you think are practical steps you can take to avoid hypocrisy?

How do you think the gospel message provides hope for becoming a person of integrity and not a person who is hypocritical?

Photo by Finan Akbar on Unsplash

July 8, 2021February 7, 2026

Who Was at Fault for the First Recorded Church Split?

Acts 15

³⁶After some time Paul said to Barnabas, “Let’s return to each city where we previously preached the word of the Lord, to see how the new believers are getting along.” ³⁷Barnabas agreed and wanted to take along John Mark. ³⁸But Paul disagreed strongly, since John Mark had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not shared in their work. ³⁹Their disagreement over this was so sharp that they separated. Barnabas took John Mark with him and sailed for Cyprus. ⁴⁰Paul chose Silas, and the believers sent them off, entrusting them to the Lord’s grace. ⁴¹So they traveled throughout Syria and Cilicia to strengthen the churches there. (Acts 15:36-41, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

If you’ve had many conversations with non-believers about Christianity and the gospel message, you no doubt have encountered questions about “all the different denominations” of Christianity.

To many non-Christians the existence of so many different groups and denominations is a kind of proof of the invalidity of the message. After all, if Christians can’t get along and they disagree enough to split over, how can we believe the message they are promoting is true?

This line of reasoning argues that if Christianity were really true, there wouldn’t be so many “versions” of it.

If you happen to agree with this, you might be surprised to know that Acts 15 records the first known church “split”.

Paul and Barnabas were the first missionary super-team, having been commissioned and sent out in Acts 11 by the church at Antioch. Along for the ride was John Mark, who was the cousin of Barnabas.

In Acts 13, when they arrived at Pamphylia, the text says that John Mark left to return to Jerusalem:

Now Paul and those with him left Paphos by ship for Pamphylia, landing at the port town of Perga. There John Mark left them and returned to Jerusalem. ¹⁴But Barnabas and Paul traveled inland to Antioch of Pisidia.

The mention of John Mark leaving almost seems like an after-thought. There certainly isn’t any indication that his return to Jerusalem was anything more than an expected part of the plan.

But in chapter 15 we find out that John Mark’s return to Jerusalem was NOT a part of the plan – that he had left the team unexpectedly. In his first experience as a missionary apprentice, he washed out.

Now Paul and Barnabas are planning their return trip and Barnabas wants to take John Mark along. Paul wants nothing to do with John Mark, seeing as how he had deserted them on the previous journey.

Their opinion on this issue is so strong that they split. Barnabas takes John Mark with him while Paul selects Silas as his new sidekick.

When evaluating this situation, it’s natural for us to want to assign blame – to ask, “who was in the wrong?”

Let’s look at Barnabas for a moment. We first see Barnabas at the end of Acts 4 when he sells some property and gives the proceeds to the church. We learn that his name means “Son of encouragement”.

Barnabas was an encourager. He believed the best in people. It was Barnabas who first found Paul after he had converted and brought him to the apostles. Barnabas vouched for Paul when others thought his conversion story was just a ruse to worm his way into the church for the purpose of arresting and persecuting its followers.

And now Barnabas is wanting to give John Mark, his cousin, a second chance. It’s who Barnabas is.

But Paul is different. He’s a hard charger – a leader who is singularly focused. Because of Paul’s vision and determination, not only are numerous churches planted throughout the known world, but he writes half of the New Testament as well.

Being a missionary is serious business and Paul doesn’t have time for those who aren’t going to last.

So who was at fault? Who was wrong?

If you are an encourager like Barnabas, you’re likely to take his side and say that Paul was in the wrong.

However, if you’re a leader with a pioneering spirit like Paul, you’re likely to take his side and think that Barnabas was in the wrong.

In my opinion, neither was at fault or in the wrong. This is simply an example where two people with different personalities and different values could not agree. As a result, they decided to go their separate ways.

While some might bemoan the fact that they split as an example of “disunity” or even selfishness, consider the fact that by going their separate ways, their missionary labor force was essentially doubled.

In addition, God honored both groups. We see how Paul’s ministry continued to expand even without Barnabas by Paul’s side. Also, we know that John Mark did indeed learn from his previous mistakes, thanks to Barnabas believing in him. Even Paul, later in 2 Timothy 4:11, recognizes John Mark’s contribution when he states:

Only Luke is with me. Bring Mark with you when you come, for he will be helpful to me.

So who was at fault for the first recorded church split? Neither party. Instead, both parties stood firm to their principles and personalities and as a result agreed to dissolve their partnerships and form new ones. God uses each new missionary unit to further his kingdom purposes.

So while it’s true that there are many denominations and many different groups within Christianity, it’s an overstatement to assume that the reason so many groups exist is because of some sinful or immoral separation. Though it’s possible and even likely that some splits occurred because of sinful and selfish reasons, it’s also true that the existence of different groups is not because of sin or immorality but simply different preferences and choices that in no way negate the validity or truthfulness of the Christian message.

In other words, just as God honored and blessed the two different groups that emerged from the Paul and Barnabas split, the existence of many different groups within Christianity today should not be seen as evidence against Christianity but as proof that God is able to accomplish His purposes and expand His reach despite the conflicting preferences and personalities of those who claim to be His ambassadors.

Reflection

In this scenario pitting Paul vs Barnabas, are you on team Paul or team Barnabas? Why did you pick the side you picked?

What has been your response to someone who argues that all the different denominations must somehow be a proof against the validity or truthfulness of the Christian message?

What insights have you gained from this passage that might help you to address those who seem overly concerned about the number of churches and denominations within Christianity?

What do you see as the primary values each person (Barnabas & Paul) were holding onto in their disagreement? When do you think a person should hold fast to their principles and when do you think a compromise is warranted?

Photo by Matt Moloney on Unsplash

January 14, 2021February 25, 2026

A Pivotal Council in the Early Church

Acts 15

While Paul and Barnabas were at Antioch of Syria, some men from Judea arrived and began to teach the Christians: “Unless you keep the ancient Jewish custom of circumcision taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” ²Paul and Barnabas, disagreeing with them, argued forcefully and at length. Finally, Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem, accompanied by some local believers, to talk to the apostles and elders about this question. ³The church sent the delegates to Jerusalem, and they stopped along the way in Phoenicia and Samaria to visit the believers. They told them—much to everyone’s joy—that the Gentiles, too, were being converted. ⁴When they arrived in Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas were welcomed by the whole church, including the apostles and elders. They reported on what God had been doing through their ministry. ⁵But then some of the men who had been Pharisees before their conversion stood up and declared that all Gentile converts must be circumcised and be required to follow the law of Moses. ⁶So the apostles and church elders got together to decide this question. ⁷At the meeting, after a long discussion, Peter stood and addressed them as follows: “Brothers, you all know that God chose me from among you some time ago to preach to the Gentiles so that they could hear the Good News and believe. ⁸God, who knows people’s hearts, confirmed that he accepts Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he gave him to us. ⁹He made no distinction between us and them, for he also cleansed their hearts through faith. ¹⁰Why are you now questioning God’s way by burdening the Gentile believers with a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear? ¹¹We believe that we are all saved the same way, by the special favor of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 15:1-11, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Acts 15 is perhaps the most important chapter in the entire book of Acts because it highlights an important dispute that arose in the early church.

The issue wasn’t just about the rite of circumcision. At issue was what was necessary to be saved. The dispute seemed to be led by some Pharisees who had been converted (see verse 5). These men believed that salvation was for the Jews and therefore, they believed that the only way a Gentile could become saved was to convert to Judaism. This meant adopting Jewish customs, including observance of the law.

Circumcision was really an outward representation that a person had converted to Judaism. So when these men from Judea began teaching that Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to be saved, what they were really asserting was that Gentiles needed to become culturally Jewish before they could accept the Jewish Messiah.

So the question became: can Jesus save non-Jews, or do Gentiles need to adopt Jewish culture and become Jews before they can be saved by the Messiah?

Paul and Barnabas argued that Gentiles didn’t need to adopt Jewish customs, including circumcision, but only needed to receive Jesus by faith in order to be saved.

Peter also advocated for this position as he recalled his experience with Cornelius, the Roman centurion in Acts 10. Peter noted that Cornelius and his family, all Gentiles, had received the Holy Spirit just as the Jews had, on the basis of faith alone.

All of the church leaders agreed. The issue was settled, and from that point on, it was clear that the Jewish Messiah was not just for Jews but for all the peoples of the world. And more importantly, it was clear that the only requirement to receive the Jewish Messiah was faith. It was not necessary to become culturally Jewish.

There are important implications for us today as we seek to share Jesus with a dying world. The principle here is that when sharing the gospel with others, we want to help them become followers of Jesus, not adopt our culture. Sometimes, it’s easy to conflate the two. People need Jesus. They don’t need my culturalized version of Jesus.

Reflection

In what ways has your culture influenced your view and understanding of Jesus?

What examples can you think of in which a person’s invitation to come to Jesus might include unnecessary cultural expectations?

How can you ensure that when you share Jesus with others you are not taking a Pharisaical approach – injecting cultural requirements into the gospel message?