The relationship between the apostles Peter and Paul, challenging the common perception of antagonism by highlighting their four recorded encounters. It details Paul's initial two-week visit with Peter in Jerusalem, emphasizing the fellowship and mutual understanding they likely shared despite their different backgrounds. The sermon addresses the incident in Antioch where Peter temporarily withdrew from Gentile fellowship due to pressure from legalistic Jews, explaining Peter's prior experiences that should have informed his actions, and Paul's subsequent confrontation. Finally, it points to their collaborative work at the Jerusalem Council and Peter's later affectionate reference to Paul as a "beloved brother" as evidence of their deep friendship and shared mission.
Restored with Diffio
Audio restored with Diffio. Diffio processed the original archive recording to reduce noise and produce a cleaner listening version; the original stays available.
Speech quality score (model-estimated, SCOREQ): before 1.74 → restored 4.17
Good morning. Let's think of a mother of the friends of St. Paul. It's rather amusing at times to hear other men, and I appreciate every effort to expound the Word of God, but I think the majority give us the impression that Peter wasn't a very good friend of St. Paul's. Because of one incident in the life of Peter, we gather the idea that they were more or less antagonistic than one to the other.
It's something similar to Luther's approach to the official of James. Luther actually called the epistle of James the epistle of straw because he couldn't harmonize the teaching of Paul on the matter of justification with the presentation of James in regard to the very same theme. They picture them, or at least Luther pictured them as more or less antagonistic, and somehow or another, that is the impression we get about Peter and Paul.
There are some very interesting contacts between these two beloved brethren. On four different occasions they were together. And it's only in one occasion where there is any difference between them. I thought this morning we should think through some of these contacts, some of these times that they spent together. So let's open our New Testament at the Epistle to the Galatians. For Paul himself tells us of these interesting contacts.
Chapter I. Verse nineteen or verse fifteen. A friend has pleased God, who separated me from another's womb and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me that I might preach him among the heathen. Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me.
But I went into Arabia and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and abode with him fifteen days. Mr. Darby in his translation makes this a little bit warmer. He said, Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Peter and abode with him fifteen days. I don't know whether I said it here or down in Hollywood.
I really wish we had that conversation on tape. between these two remarkable men. Here is Peter, the leader of their little apostolic group, and here is Paul, a real academic, and they are together for two weeks. I imagine that they read the Word of God, that is, the Old Testament. And I am sure that Peter was able to expound the Old Testament in the terms of the Lord Jesus, probably understood some of the figures of the Old Testament, the types that make reference to the Messiah, and certainly very well acquainted with some of those direct predictions.
I just like to think of the two of them sitting together, an old man and a young man, so far apart, I suppose, academically speaking, and yet enjoying together the Word of God. I think we need to look into the background to really appreciate what this little retreat must have meant. There are two retreats in the life of the Apostle Paul. He wasn't given to take invocation once a year or twice a year, up in the Northland now, any executive.
He gets four weeks. Some of them will take two weeks. winter vacation to get away from the ice and snow. And then they'll take the other two weeks as a summer vacation in which to enjoy their own sunshine. I don't see that in the life of Paul. He's almost going on and going on and going on, except in these two occasions. This is one. Two weeks with Peter. He went to Caesarea on one occasion, and he stayed in the home of Philip the Evangelist, who had seven daughters, then they prophesied.
And Luke was with him. And Luke says, We spent many days there. All the time that must have been, away from the routine of service. away from the pressures, even off the work of the Lord, just spending time with Philip and this family, along with Dr. Luke, must have been a remarkable time. These are the only two retreats, two withdrawals that I see in the life of Peter. But I want to think of this one with the background.
in Miami. I made the statement that I believed that the Apostle Paul was a married man. You don't make those kind of statements in them pumbly until you have the rest of the Lord's servants down on your back. Prove us. How do you know? Well, there are a few things that come to my mind. in Philippians three, speaking of what it cost him to accept Christ. And brethren, I feel sometimes we're very remiss in our gospel preaching.
We stress the blessed simplicity of the gospel, and well, we might do. That is a good point of emphasis. But you remember what the Lord said. to enter into the street gate. For straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth to life and to the be that find it. There is a cost in conversion to God. Paul says in writing to the Philippines, Yea, he says, I have suffered the loss of all to win Christ.
I have suffered the loss of all to win Christ. Never mentions his father or his father's family. Never mentions a wife or children. I assume because These were lost to him. He was to use modern language, a Massoud person. A Massoud person is a Jew that becomes a genuine Christian and is rejected in this own by the family and oftentimes buried in effigy, completely abandoned.
There's another little thing that comes to my mind. Maybe you should turn it up. First Corinthians chapter seven. He slips himself in, and the use of a pronoun here, and I like to think of his so doing. In speaking to the marriage, He goes on and he says, Let's look at verse fourteen. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband.
Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy? It always seems so sad when couples are divided through the gospel. And I think any of us who had preached Christ and him crucified for years, we have seen this happen. The mother gets saved, the wife gets saved, the husband doesn't. There you have a division which could create irritabilities and grave differences. That's what Paul's talking about.
verse sixteen for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband else were your children unclean but now are they holy but if the unbelieving depart let them go if he doesn't want to live peaceably with his spouse who now is in Christ the Christian is instructed, let him depart. A brother or a sister under those circumstances is not under bondage, is not forced to live with all irritabilities and differences and quarrels.
And unpleasantness is not under bondage in such cases. But God hath called them to peace, or him to peace, or she to peace. Now I think in good grammar it would read a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases, where God hath called them to peace. But you see the change in the pronoun? And God has called us, you an abandoned spouse, and I an abandoned spouse.
God is not going to force us to live in a constant quarrel. He has called us to peace. I feel that he is inserting himself into this passage of scripture there is another proof historical if you turn to acts twenty six now we're not going to take time to do it because i want to look at some of the other visits they had together but if you turn to acts twenty six where he gives an account of himself to king of griffa and he speaks of those ears that he spends in wasting the church of God.
He says, I led them to prison and to death. Now the King James Version says, when they were tried, I gave my voice against them. No, that's too weak. The word is both. I voted against them. Paul was a member of the Jewish Parliament, the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was brought into existence, so historically he stated, under the leadership of Ezra.
It was more or less a reproduction of those wonderful men who gathered with Moses, the seventy men. And so the Sanhedrin was composed of seventy men plus the high priest who was the chairman of all till I was there. That was my position. But when Christians were brought in on trial, I always cast my vote against them. That's the strength of it. Josephus, the contemporary of our Lord, Jesus, I have very mixed feelings about Josephus.
He was a traitor to his own people to escape the ravishes of war. He became a spy really for the Roman government. But he says this concerning the Sanhedrin. To be a member, one had to be a married man with a family. Single man was out. So putting those three things together, I feel that the Apostle Paul was a married man. Here he is. He's only been saved. three years. The awful grief and sorrow of being cast out by his own family still weighs heavily.
Then he meets Peter. And he spends two weeks with Peter. Oh, what those two weeks must have meant to that lonely man. God alone knows. I think they must have had wonderful times together and I am sure in the friendship of Peter the Apostle Paul found understanding simply and Christian love now let's go back to the epistles of the Galatians we'll have another little look verse one of chapter two Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas and took Titus with me also.
And I went up by Revelation. God sent him up to Jerusalem. He didn't go in order that some powers be bestowed upon him. Didn't you go to Jerusalem to have the apostles lay their hand on his head and pronounce some strange expressions and convey something to him? The Lord George Landis comes to my mind.
Speaking of his ordination, he said, you know, When I was ordained as a clergyman, one man put his empty hands on my empty head and pronounced some empty phrases. Then he would speak of how the Lord had called him and directed him into his service. So Paul, now a Christian of some seventeen, eighteen years in Christ, he goes up to Jerusalem. Notice what happened at Jerusalem. Verse nine.
He gives an account of his preaching. He tells the message that he had for the nations. Now notice verse nine. And when James, Cephas and John, who seem to be pillars, and you know that, that's not a very good translation. some of our more modern translations. Read, I think, a little better. This gives the impression that these three brethren assume something and we're doing something for which they were not qualified. They just seem to be pillars.
No, they were pillars. They were pillars. When James, Cephas, and John, that is James, Peter, and John who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me. They gave to me and by them us the right hand of fellowship. Oh, I like that. They gave to me the right hand of fellowship. There was a real grip in that handshake. Nothing was conferred But there was the indication that these pillars in the early church, they were, so to speak, confirming the work of God in the life and in the heart of the Apostle Paul.
Some people, you know, when they shake hands with you, their hand almost feels like the tail of a fish. But that was not so. In Jerusalem on that occasion they gave to me and to Barnumus the right hand of fellowship. How can you say that they were antagonistic the ones of the other? How can you possibly say that they were not friends? I think this is very indicative of the action and the attitude of these two men. The one extending his hand to express fellowship, the other receiving it.
Thus we have this beautiful expression. The right hand, not the left hand, the right hand of fellowship. Now let us look at the third time they are together. Verse eleven. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I was stood into the face because he was to blame. For before that certain came down from James, who certainly was very serious and legalistic, he did eat with the Gentiles.
but when they were come he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were off a circumcision. On one occasion Peter heard the Lord say, Other sheep I have are thisfold. Then I must also bring that there may be one flock. Well, I know in the King James Version it says one fold. That's in error. That there may be one flock and one shepherd.
Other sheep I have which are not of this Jewish fold. He had gathered together quite a number of sheep from the Jewish fold. A fold was an enclosure. There was something very exclusive about the fold. And he uses it as a picture of a Jewish nation. Other sheep I have which are not Jews. They don't belong to this nation. They're not of this fold. them I must also bring, let there be not an enclosure, not an exclusive group, but a very wide and broad group, that there might be one flock and one shepherd, who are the other sheep, the Gentiles.
the Gentiles who eventually would hear the gospel, believe the gospel through salvation, and become part of the body of Christ. Peter knew that. Peter was there when that was said. Then Peter had another experience in which the Lord really taught him this. by means of an object lesson. You remember the sheet that was let down from heaven. He's on the rooftop in vision.
This great sheet comes down from heaven, tied by the four corners, comes right down to where he is, and the boy says, Peter, rise and eat. I suppose there was pork and rabble and other such things in that sheet. Oh, no, said Peter. I've never eaten anything unclean. Pork has never passed my teeth. That's too rabble.
I just simply can't think of it as food at all. I've never eaten of anything unclean. She disappears, comes back down again. The same procedure. What there was that of this word, call not thou that common and unclean, which God hath cleansed. What an object lesson. Here we have the other sheep. Oh, yes, they're unclean.
For a Jew, they are taboo. You should never associate with them. Peter, call not thou common an unclean that which God has cleansed. Oh, thank God for the precious blood of Christ. Now, there's the background. And so Peter goes off down to Antioch and is he ever having the time of his life? Going in, associating with Gentiles. He's sitting down at their tables. He enjoys what they provide.
until certain came down from James, stern, legalistic James. Now the apparent leader of the church in Jerusalem, certainly came down from James. Peter was afraid. He was running into problems. Difficulties were arising. I suppose he did it as kind and graciously as he could. He withdrew his fellowship from the Gentile believers. And did that ever hurt Paul?
Paul said, I withstood him to the face. That's stern language. Because he was to blame. He knew better. The Lord had entrusted him with all this. He had heard it spoken in prophecy. He had been taught it by means of objects. And now he is going absolutely contrary to it. Paul says he was to blame, and I must turn him to the face.
Very unfortunate. And so we build up the idea that they could not possibly have been warm-hearted friends. Well, let us look again. We would have to, there's not time, there's only a minute and a half left by my watch. But the fourth time they were together is in Acts chapter fifteen. the church council, the first church council. And there's Paul and Barnabas explaining their work among the Gentiles.
But lodging a complaint against the Judaizing teachers who pretended that they had come from the church in Jerusalem, and they were perverting the gospel. mixing law and grace together as a means of salvation. And so the church gathers, the elders gather, and they meet, they listen to Paul, they listen to Barnabas, and they send that wonderful letter, the Charter of Christian Liberty. Your country has a Charter.
Mine now is trying to possess it for themselves and get it from the British government and that will sever Britain and Canada absolutely completely. The Charter. Well, read Acts fifteen. There you have the Charter of Christian Liberty. No bondage. Oh yes, there's just a little restraint about things that are not suitable. Fornication, immoralities, and who are the main features in that council?
Peter. James and Simele all up. He makes reference to Paul and Barnabas. Do you know what he says? Men who have hazarded their lives for the gospel. The highest possible respect and love is expressed by Peter toward Paul. I believe that the epistles of Peter were written after the martyrdom of Paul.
If you pay particular attention to the introduction of First Peter, you will see that that letter was sent to the areas in which the Apostle Paul had expended his whole life. And what does Peter have to say about him? He's trying to strengthen and comfort the bereaved spiritual children of Paul. He said, Our beloved brother Paul. Isn't that lovely?
Don't tell me that they were not friends. Peter was a warm-hearted friend of the Apostle. Shall we pray? Our Heavenly Father, we thank you for the Apostle Peter. We thank you for the Apostle Paul. Man so different in disposition, in temperament, in accomplishments. Not only brethren in Christ, but warm hearted friends, the one or the other, throughout life enjoying the intimate fellowship of the family of God.
We give our thanks for these instructions and grant us throughout the day thy presence we pray. In his word a precious name, Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.