GALATIANS 2
OPENS WITH PAUL DEFENDS THE GOSPEL OF GRACE REVEALED TO HIM BY JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF...TO THE LEADERS OF THE CHURCH IN JERUSALEM
Verses 1-2 tells us Paul's LATER trip to Jerusalem.
"Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain."
AFTER 14 YEARS...
In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul described a trip he made to Jerusalem THREE years AFTER Jesus met him on the road to Damascus. Now, he describes a SECOND trip to Jerusalem, 14 YEARS later.
WE REMEMBER Paul's point from Galatians 1.
He DEMONSTRATED that his gospel came by a revelation FROM Jesus Christ himself, NOT from man, NOT EVEN from the apostles in Jerusalem.
TWO VISITS ONLY TO Jerusalem over 14 years shows that Paul did NOT sit at the feet of the disciples of Jesus to learn the gospel, as some, then and now WRONGLY teach.
Traveling WITH Paul to Jerusalem were BOTH Barnabas (who was well respected among the leadership in Jerusalem according to Acts 4:36-37 and 11:22 and Titus, who was a GENTILE convert.
Titus was a remarkable man and associate of the apostle Paul.
WHERE?
In 2 Corinthians 2:13, Paul refers to Titus my brother, and says how he had NO PEACE when Titus was absent.
2 Corinthians 7:6 says how Paul was COMFORTED … by the coming of Titus.
2 Corinthians 8:6 shows how Paul TRUSTED Titus to receive a collection from the Corinthians.
2 Corinthians 8:16 says that Titus had the same EARNEST CARE that filled the heart of Paul.
In 2 Corinthians 8:23, Paul says If anyone inquires about Titus, he is my PARTNER & FELLOW WORKER concerning you.
In 2 Corinthians 12:18, Paul speaks again of Titus, and how he SHARES Paul's heart, "Did Titus take advantage of you? Did we not walk in the same spirit? Did we not walk in the same steps?"
In Titus 1:4, Paul calls Titus a TRUE SON in our common faith.
Paul ABSOLUTELY loved and trusted Titus, and regarded him as a valuable associate.
And I went up by revelation...
THIS TELLS US that Paul went to Jerusalem by the EXPRESS DIRECTION of God. He did NOT GO because ANY man called him to come; it was because God TOLD HIM TO GO.
And communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles...
This trip to Jerusalem is most likely THE ONE mentioned in Acts 11:27-30, when Paul brought a gift from Christians in other cities to the Christians in Jerusalem, who suffered under famine. When Paul was in Jerusalem at this time, he assured the leaders in Jerusalem that he was obedient to God in his presentation of the gospel to the Gentiles.
AND WE KNOW, AT THIS TIME, there was a GREAT CONTENTION rising over the place of GENTILES in the church.
God used Peter to WELCOME Gentiles in the church in Acts 10. But some Christians from a Jewish background said that Gentiles could indeed be saved, ONLY IF THEY made themselves Jews FIRST, and brought themselves under the law of Moses. Their idea was that salvation in Jesus was ONLY for the JEWISH people, and Gentiles had to BECOME JEWS BEFORE THEY COULD BECOME CHRISTIANS.
Knowing this contention was present, the leaders of the church in Jerusalem wanted to know WHAT PAUL TAUGHT, and when he visited Jerusalem it was the perfect time to tell them, so Paul communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.
But privately to those who were of reputation...
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
Paul KNEW HE HAD THE TRUE GOSPEL GIVEN HIM DIRECTLY FROM JESUS CHRIST; but he DID NOT KNOW how everyone of reputation in Jerusalem would receive it.
Perhaps SOME OF THE APOSTLES themselves WERE WRONG on this point, and needed to be corrected! But if there was any confrontation to be done, Paul did it PRIVATELY to those who were of reputation.
WE NOTICE, PAUL did THE BEST he could TO NOT publicly embarrass those who were of reputation in Jerusalem.
GUZIK says it well, "What love and sensitivity on Paul's part! It would have been easy for him to say, "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and I can't wait to get in their face publicly." But he didn't. He knew that being right DID NOT give you the privilege of being RUDE.
What made Paul fear that he might run, or had run, in vain?
It probably WAS NOT the fear that he himself WOULD fall away.
Probably it was the FEAR that an UNNECESSARY conflict with the leaders of the church in Jerusalem leaders MIGHT damage his reputation and ministry in some way.
Also, the danger was that FALSE TEACHERS- if encouraged in some way by the leaders in Jerusalem - might UNDO Paul's work in planting churches and raising disciples for Jesus, and would make his work in vain.
Verses 3-5 tells us THE ISSUE over the circumcision of Titus.
"Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."
Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was COMPELLED to be circumcised...
Paul's point is that the leadership in Jerusalem ACCEPTED Titus, a Gentile convert, even though he WAS NOT circumcised in accord with the Mosaic law. This shows that the Jerusalem leadership ACCEPTED Paul's gospel of grace.
SOME HAVE ASKED:
Why would ANYONE compel someone like Titus to be circumcised?
Why was it even an issue?
Because circumcision - the cutting away of the male foreskin - was the SIGN OF INITIATION into the Jewish faith and the Mosaic covenant that God commanded of Moses.
If a Gentile man wanted to become a Jew, he would have to be circumcised AS AN ADULT.
BECAUSE JEWISH MEN WERE ALWAYS circumcised as babies.
Since ALL Jewish men were circumcised, and most ALL Gentile men were not, it was an easy way to refer to "those part of the covenant" and to "those outside of the covenant of Moses."
MARTIN LUTHER says it well, "Paul did not condemn circumcision as if it were a sin to receive it. But he insisted, and the conference upheld him, that circumcision had no bearing upon salvation and was therefore not to be forced upon the Gentiles."
Yet, the LACK of circumcision in Titus became an issue because of FALSE BRETHREN who attempted to BRING, TO PUT Paul and other Christians INTO BONDAGE.
AND WE NOTICE...It is significant that Paul calls these men FALSE brethren.
That's a HEAVY title!
Of course, they DID NOT think of themselves as FALSE brethren.
They thought of themselves as TRUE brethren.
BUT IN GALATIANS 1:6-9, Paul says because they OPPOSED and CONTRADICTED the gospel revealed to Paul by Jesus Christ, they really were FALSE brethren.
AND WE NOTICE IT IS SIGNIFICANT....that Paul says these men SECRETLY brought in and came in by STEALTH.
They did NOT come in with name badges that said, "False Brother."
They did NOT come in with a purpose statement that said, "We have come to spy out your liberty in Jesus, and to bring you into bondage."
These men probably had the best of intentions, EITHER DECEIVED OR DECEIVING...but they were STILL VERY DANGEROUS men who had to be confronted!
STOTT wisely adds about SECRETLY BROUGHT IN, "This may mean either that they had no business to be in the church fellowship at all, or that they had gate-crashed the private conference with the apostles."
IT IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT that Paul himself says these men MIGHT bring us into bondage.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
For Paul, this WAS NOT just an issue between the false brethren and Gentiles. It might be easy for Paul to say, "This DOES NOT affect me. After all, I am a Jew and have been circumcised under the law of Moses. I'll let Titus or other Gentiles deal with this problem, because these false brethren have a problem with them, not me."
Paul realized that if the message of the gospel was COMPROMISED, it WAS NOT just bondage for the Gentiles, but bondage for EVERYONE who named the name of Jesus.
In response, we see Paul REMAINED STEADFAST:
We did NOT YIELD submission EVEN FOR AN HOUR.
Some WRONGLY TEACH THAT PAUL REACTED THIS WAY OUT OF PRIDE...IF NOT STUBBORN-HEADEDNESS.
But just as PAUL SAID NOT TO ARGUE OR FIGHT OR HAVE DIVISION OVER DOUBTFUL THINGS, WHICH MEANT TRIVIAL THINGS THAT ARE NOT IMPORTANT TO THE SAVING REDEEMING GRACE OF JESUS.
PAUL DID NOT BUDGE...AT ALL OVER THE ETERNAL POINTS.
PAUL WAS ADAMANT AND UNMOVED HERE so that the truth of the gospel might continue with you (the Gentile Christians like those in Galatia).
SO WE SHOULD NOT BE MOVED...THIS ISSUE WAS, IS AND EVER SHALL BE SO CRUCIAL AND SO IMPORTANT TO THE ETERNAL DESTINY OF MANKIND..., Paul was stubborn.
MARTIN LUTHER expressed the same heart: "Wherefore, God assisting me, my forehead shall be more hard than all men's foreheads. Here I take upon me this title … "I give place to none." Yea, I am glad even with all my heart, in this point to seem rebellious and obstinate. And here I confess that I am and ever will be stout and stern, and will not give one place to any creature."
AGAIN LUTHER wisely adds, "If they had asked for it on the plea of brotherly love, Paul would NOT have denied them. But because they DEMANDED IT on the ground that it was NECESSARY for salvation, Paul defied them, and prevailed. Titus was not circumcised."
Verse 6 tells us Paul SUMMARIZES his point: his gospel or apostolic credentials DID NOT depend on any sort of approval or influence from MEN, even influential men.
"But from those who seemed to be something; whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man; for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me."
But from those who SEEMED to be something: Paul knew that in his day, there were leaders of HIGH reputation - "FAMOUS" Christians, if you will. But they DID NOT overly impress or intimidate Paul; whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to NO man.
THINK ABOUT IT...
THERE ARE MANY "FAMOUS, WELL-KNOWN, ICONIC" SUPPOSED MEN AND/OR WOMEN OF WHO PROCLAIM AND ARE LAUDED AS MIGHTY MEN AND WOMEN CALLED BY, ANOINTED, APPOINTED, AND LED BY GOD SEEN IN PULPITS, REVIVALS, EVANGELISMS, TV, THE INTERNET...AND THEIR TEACHINGS, PREACHING, AND PROCLAMATIONS ARE NOT BIBLICAL AT ALL. IT IS MEISTIC...IT IS ALL I SAY, I TEACH, I KNOW, I BELIEVE...AND THOSE KNOWINGLY AND UNKNOWINGLY...OR DECEIVED OR WILLINGLY DECEIVED...BOW AND SCRAP BEFORE THEM...DARE NOT CHALLENGE THEM...TAKE FOR GRANTED THAT THEY ((MUST)) KNOW THE TRUTH, SPEAK THE BIBLICAL TRUTH...HAVE THE EAR OF GOD, TALK TO JESUS DAILY, HAVE VISITATIONS...AND ARE VERY IMPRESSED BY THEM AND ALL THEIR FAME, ACCLAIM AND POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE THAT FOLLOWS THEM.
SO Even though Paul MET with influential and "famous" Christians a few times, they DID NOT give him the gospel he preached. He could say, those who seemed to be something added NOTHING to me. The LEADERS in Jerusalem added NOTHING to the gospel Paul preached or the apostolic authority he possessed that came straight from Jesus Christ himself.
Paul DID NOT wait for someone else to MAKE HIM a great Christian.
WHY?
He knew that it came down to a personal relationship between himself and Jesus.
MAKE NO MISTAKE...This IS NOT, AND PAUL IS NOT SAYING that he received nothing from others, or that NO ONE else could ever bless him. But that his Christian life WAS NOT BUILT ON what other people did for him.
STOTT says it well, "Paul's words are neither a denial of, nor a mark of disrespect for, their apostolic authority. He is simply indicating that, although he accepts their office as apostles, he is not overawed by their person as it was being inflated (by the false teachers)."
Verses 7-10 tells us the leaders of the church in Jerusalem APPROVED Paul's gospel.
"But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do."
When they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me...
The LEADERS of the Jerusalem church (James, the brother of Jesus; Cephas, also known as Peter, and John) ACCEPTED Paul and his ministry to the Gentiles. They APPROVED Paul's ministry, knowing that Paul did not require the Gentiles to come under the Mosaic Law to find favor with God.
The gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter...
THIS CONFIRMS TO US...Paul's main ministry was to Gentiles, and Peter's main ministry was to Jews. These distinctions were NOT absolute; each DID minister to the OTHER groups.
Yet, the distinction is VERY interesting...
WHY?
Because Roman Catholics STOUTLY AND WRONGLY CLAIM that the Pope is the successor of Peter - but where is his ministry to the Jews then?
The ONLY CAUTION from the leaders in Jerusalem was that Paul should remember the poor. In this case, probably the poor saints in Jerusalem, whom Gentile believers should not forget.
AND WE KNOW...Paul certainly did remember the poor in Jerusalem; he put a lot of effort towards GATHERING a contribution among the Gentile churches for the sake of the saints in Jerusalem.
Verses 11-13 tells us THE REASON for Paul's PUBLIC REBUKE of the apostle Peter.
"Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy."
Peter HAD APPROVED of Paul's gospel and ministry when Paul came to Jerusalem; and God USED Peter himself to welcome Gentiles into Christianity without the precondition of becoming Jews confirmed to us in Acts 11:1-18.
BUT PETER withdrew and separated himself, FEARING those who were of the circumcision...
Though Peter had been in agreement with welcoming Gentiles into the church without bringing them under the Law of Moses, when Peter came to Antioch (Paul's home church), it was another story. He refused to associate with Gentile Christians once certain Jewish believers from Jerusalem came.
These men were Christians of Jewish background - Paul calls them certain men … from James and those who were of the circumcision - and Peter knew they would be "offended" at his fellowship with Gentiles who had not come under the Law of Moses.
In their eyes, these uncircumcised Gentiles were NOT really Christians at all, so to PLEASE THEM AND AVOID A CONFLICT, Peter treated these Gentile Christians as if they were NOT Christians at all.
Peter HAD KNOWN that God did not require Gentiles to come under the Law of Moses for salvation.
HOW?
PETER LEARNED THIS from the vision God gave him in Acts 10:23.
PETER LEARNED THIS from the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles who believed (apart from being circumcised!) in Acts 10:44-48.
PETER LEARNED THIS by the agreement of the other leaders of the church in Acts 11:1-18.
Now, Peter TURNS BACK ON ALL THAT HE HAS KNOWN about the place of Gentiles in the church, and he treats uncircumcised Gentiles as if they are NOT SAVED at all.
MORRIS wisely points out, "It is perhaps curious that nobody seems to have recalled that Jesus ate 'with publicans and sinners', which can scarcely mean that he conformed to strict Jewish practice."
TRAPP adds and warns, "Sadly, others will follow Peter's lead. "The sins of teachers are the teachers of sins."
The matter was SO SERIOUS that Paul boldly withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed. Paul had a public confrontation with Peter over this issue (I said to Peter before the all, Galatians 2:14).
This was ALSO VERY SERIOUSLY WRONG OF PETER because it involved the issue of eating together.
BEFORE CERTAIN MEN came from James, Peter WOULD eat with the Gentiles. But once they came, Peter WITHDREW AND SEPARATED himself.
This separation was probably at the church potluck dinner, which they called "the agape banquet" or the "love feast." They would also remember the Lord's death at this dinner, and take communion together. Therefore, Peter put these Gentile Christians AWAY from the communion table!
LUTHER strongly adds, "Paul had no small matter in hand, but the chief article of the Christian religion. When this article is endangered, we must not hesitate to resist Peter, or an angel from heaven."
SOME ASK...WHY did Peter do this, when he KNEW that God welcomed Gentiles into the church without placing them under the Law of Moses?
Paul says Peter was fearing those who were of the circumcision.
Peter acted against what he knew was right out of fear.
It is easy to criticize Peter; but EVERYONE knows what it means to do something you know is wrong.
EVERYONE KNOWS what it feels like to go against what you know very well is right.
EVERYONE KNOWS what it feels like when social pressure pushes you towards compromise in some way.
AND WE KNOW....this is the kind of behavior that DOMINATED Peter's life BEFORE he was transformed by the power of God.
HOW?
This is like when Peter told Jesus NOT to go to the cross.
Peter taking his eyes of Jesus and sinking.
Peter cutting off the ear of the servant of the High Priest when they came to arrest Jesus.
We see that the flesh is STILL PRESENT in Peter.
Salvation and the filling of the Holy Spirit has NOT made Peter PERFECT, as some then and now PREACH, TEACH, AND PROCLAIM.
The OLD Peter is still there, just SEEN FAR LESS OFTEN.
We MIGHT BE surprised that Peter, who DID know better, did this; but we are ONLY surprised if we DO NOT believe what God says about the weakness and corruption of our flesh.
Paul himself knew this struggle, as he describes it in ROMANS 7:18: "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find."
We don't know what it was about these certain men from James that made Peter AFRAID.
Perhaps they were men of very strong personality.
Perhaps they were men of great prestige and influence.
Perhaps they made threats of one kind or another.
Whatever it was, the desire to cater to these legalistic Jewish Christians was so strong that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
When these men from James came, EVEN Barnabas treated the Gentile Christians as if they were not Christians at all!
THINK ABOUT THIS...
Barnabas was Paul's trusted friend and associate.
Barnabas stood beside Paul when he first met the apostles (Acts 9:27).
Barnabas sought out Paul and brought him to Antioch to help with the ministry there (Acts 11:25).
Acts 11:24 says of Barnabas, "he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith".
Yet, Barnabas fails at this critical test also.
AND ACTS 15:39, tells us it IS POSSIBLE that this incident, by producing a temporary feeling of distrust, may have prepared the way for the dissension between Paul and Barnabas which shortly afterwards led to their separation.
The rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him...
THIS TELLS US SOMETHING ELSE, it was bigger than just Peter and Barnabas!
Peter FIRST made the compromise of acting as if the Gentile Christians were not Christians at all.
Then Barnabas followed him.
Then the rest of the Jews at the church in Antioch followed Peter and Barnabas.
This shows what a HEAVY responsibility it is to be a leader. When we go astray, others will often follow.
AND LET'S FACE IT...Satan knew that if he could make Peter take the wrong path, so would many others.
Played the hypocrite … carried away with their hypocrisy...
How was this hypocrisy?
DID YOU KNOW...the word "hypocrite", in the original language of the Bible, means "one who puts on a mask," referring to an actor.
In this case, Peter, Barnabas, and the rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch KNEW that these Gentile believers were really Christians.
Yet, because of the pressure from the certain men from James, they acted like THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS were not Christians at all.
But now Peter refused to eat with Gentile believers!
When a Jew refused to eat with a Gentile, he did this in obedience to Jewish rituals. Peter had already learned that obedience to Jewish rituals (such as keeping kosher) was not essential for salvation, for either Jews or Gentiles (Acts 10 and 11).
Peter had STOPPED keeping these Jewish rituals for himself, but now he is acting as if he does keep them, to accommodate the legalism of the certain men from James.
Peter no longer kept a strict observance of the Law of Moses for himself, but by his actions, he implies that Gentiles believers MUST keep the law - when he himself does not!
Verse 14a tells us Paul CONFRONTS Peter publicly.
"But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all."
At the foundation, this WAS NOT an issue of seating arrangements at the church potluck.
It WAS NOT about table manners and being a good host.
It WAS NOT even about being sensitive to another brother's conscience.
YET...Paul saw the issue for what it was; it was about THE TRUTH OF JESUS CHRIST GOSPEL.
When THE CERTAIN MEN from James, and Peter, and Barnabas, and the rest of the Jews of the church in Antioch would NOT eat with Gentile Christians, they declared those Gentiles unsaved unbelievers. They said loud and clear, "You can only be right with God if you put yourself under the demands of the Law of Moses. You must be circumcised. You must eat a kosher diet. You must observe the feasts and rituals. You must do nothing that would imply partnership with someone who is not under the Law of Moses. This is THE ONLY WAY to receive the salvation of Jesus." That message made Paul say, I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel.
I said to Peter before them all...
GUZIK gives us a great visual analogy...."What a scene this must have been! There they are, at the church of Antioch potluck. The Gentile Christians have just been asked to leave, or are told to sit in their own section away from the "real" Christians. They also wouldn't be allowed to share the same food that the "real" Christians ate. Peter - the honored guest - goes along with all this. Barnabas - the man who led many of the Gentiles to Jesus! - goes along with all this. The rest of the Jews in the church at Antioch go along with all this. But Paul won't stand for it. Because this is a public affront to the Gentile Christians, and because it is a public denial of the truth of the gospel, Paul confronts Peter in a public way."
It must have been hard, knowing who Peter was.
WHY?
Peter was the MOST prominent of all the disciples of Jesus.
Peter was the SPOKESMAN for the apostles.
Peter was the most PROMINENT Christian in the WHOLE world at the time.
It must have been hard, knowing who Paul was.
WHY?
This happened BEFORE any of Paul's missionary journeys.
Before Paul was an apostle of great prominence.
At this time, Paul was far more famous for who he was BEFORE he was a Christian.
WHY?
Paul was BETTER KNOWN as a terrible persecutor of the church - than he was for who he was as a Christian.
It must have been hard, knowing who was in agreement with Peter.
FIRST, Paul had the strong, domineering personalities of the certain men from James.
SECOND, Paul had Barnabas, who was probably his BEST friend.
THIRDLY, Paul was in the minority on this issue - it was him and all the Gentile Christians against all the Jewish Christians!
As hard as this was, why did Paul do it?
Because he knew what was at stake.
This wasn't a matter of personal conduct, or just personal sin on Peter's part. If that were the case, it is unlikely that Paul would have first used such a public approach.
This was a matter about the truth of the gospel, proclaiming, "This is how a man is right before God."
Verse 14b tells us Paul exposes Peter's hypocrisy in appearing to live under the law.
"If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?"
If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews: Paul first reminded Peter that he himself did not live under strict obedience to the Law of Moses. "Peter, you eat bacon and ham and lobster. You don't keep a kosher diet. Yet now, before these visitors, these certain men … from James, now you act as if you keep these laws all the time."
Imagine the scene!...
They had all been having a good time, until Paul spoils the party. He probably wasn't shouting, but he did speak with firmness in his voice. And as he tells everyone that Peter doesn't live under the Law of Moses, the certain men … from James look amazed. Their jaws drop! "What? Peter, the most prominent of all the apostles, Peter doesn't live under the Law of Moses? Peter eats bacon and lobster? Peter eats with Gentiles?" As for Peter, his face gets red, his heart beats faster, and he just feels sick to his stomach. Everyone else just feels awkward and wishes the whole problem would go away.
Why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? Perhaps Peter and the others might say, "We're not making them live as Jews." But of course they were; because their message was, "Unless you live as Jews, you aren't saved!"
Verses 15-16 tells us Paul reminds Peter that they are justified before God by the work of Jesus, not by their keeping of the law.
"We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified."
Peter, we all grew up as observant Jews. Yet we know very well that we were not considered right before God - justified - by the works of the law that we did. We know that we, even though we grew up as observant Jews, are considered right before God by faith in Jesus Christ."
Not justified by the works of the law...
This is Paul's first use of the great word "dikaioo" (justified, declared righteous) in his letter to the Galatians.
MORRIS adds, "It is a legal concept; the person who is 'justified' is the one who gets the verdict in a court of law. Used in a religious sense it means the getting of a favorable verdict before God on judgment day."
Even we have believed in Christ Jesus...
Paul knew that even a strictly observant Jew such as he was could never be considered right before God by what they did under the Law of Moses. Instead, he, and Peter, and every single Christian must have believed in Christ Jesus.
STOTT adds, "Faith in Jesus Christ', then, is not intellectual conviction only, but personal commitment. The expression in the middle of verse 16 is (literally) 'we have believed into (eis) Christ Jesus.' It is an act of committal, not just assenting to the fact that Jesus lived and died, but running to Him for refuge and calling on Him for mercy."
STOTT continues, "It would be hard to find a more forceful statement of the doctrine of justification than this. It is insisted upon by the two leading apostles ('we know'), confirmed from their own experience ('we have believed'), and endorsed by the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament ('by works of the law shall no one be justified'). With this threefold guarantee we should accept the biblical doctrine of justification and not let our natural self-righteousness keep us from faith in Christ."
That we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law.
IN OTHER WORDS, PAUL SAID TO PETER...
"Peter, we were not justified by being under the Law of Moses, but by faith in Jesus." By refusing fellowship with Gentile Christians, Peter said in his actions that we are - in part ? considered right before God by the works of the law. Paul couldn't stand for this, because it wasn't the truth.
For by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified...
Here, Paul emphasizes the point in the STRONGEST way possible. NO flesh - NOT Gentile, NOT Jewish, NOT anyone - will be considered right before God by the works of the law.
AND REMEMBER WHAT DAVID CONFIRMED IN PSALM 143:2, "For in Your sight no one living in righteous."
Since this is true, it's plain to see how FOOLISH and WRONG it was for Peter to separate from these Gentile Christians because they had NOT put themselves under the Law of Moses. Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, then what difference does it make if a Gentile is circumcised according to the Law of Moses? What difference does it make if a Gentile keeps a kosher table? ALL that matters is their FAITH IN CHRIST, because that is how we are made right before God.
Verses 17-18 tells us Paul answers the main objection against the truth that we are made right before God by faith in Jesus and not by works of the law.
"But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor."
Now, Paul deals with an objection that the certain men from James would raise. It's important to remember that Paul made this statement publicly, with the concerned parties right in front of him.
On one side of the room are the certain men from James, who believed that God would not accept the Gentiles unless they put themselves under the law of Moses. Peter is sitting with these men, and so is Barnabas, who is Paul's best friend.
In fact, ALL THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS are sitting with these Christians from Jerusalem who DO NOT believe that the Gentiles in the church at Antioch are really saved at all.
AND REMEMBER...In a real-life setting like this, Paul CAN NOT just speak his mind without answering the objections - spoken or unspoken - of those who disagree with him.
As the men from Jerusalem saw it, the idea that we are made right before God by faith in Jesus alone wasn't "real" enough. After all, Christians still struggled with sin. How could they have the "accepted by God" issue settled if they still battled sin? In their thinking, this made Christ … a minister of sin, because Jesus' work of making them right with God apparently DID NOT make them right enough!
WE HERE THIS SAME MINDSET PREACHED IN PULPITS, REVIVALS, AND IN THE MEDIA ALL THE TIME TODAY..."If God justifies bad people, what is the point of being good? Can't we do as we like and live as we please and be saved?"
Paul's answer is brilliant.
FIRST, yes, we seek to be justified by Christ, and not by Jesus plus our own works.
SECOND, yes, we ourselves also are found sinners, that is, we acknowledge that we still sin even though we stand justified by Christ.
THIRD, but NO, this certainly does not make Jesus the author or approver of sin in our life. He is not a minister of sin.
Why?
For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
Paul's answer is subtle, but brilliant. If he were to build again a way to God through keeping the Law of Moses, then he would make himself a transgressor.
Essentially, Paul says "There is more sin in trying to find acceptance before God by our law-keeping than there is sin in everyday life as a Christian."
These certain men from James thought they had to hang on to the Law - for themselves and for Gentiles - so there WOULD NOT be so much sin. What Paul shows is that by putting themselves under the law again, they are sinning worse than ever!
In many ways, but perhaps the greatest is that this argument basically looks at Jesus, hanging on the cross, taking the punishment we deserved, bearing the wrath of God for us, and says to Him,
"That's all very nice Jesus, but it IS NOT enough. Your work on the cross WAS NOT good enough before God until I'm circumcised and eat kosher and keep all the feasts, festivals, rules, rituals, and pomp and circumstance. Jesus you began a great saving work, but we have to finish it for you. Your life, your torture, your blood, you death and Almighty God's grace and mercy gift were NOT good enough. You need some preacher, teacher, priest, some church, some religiosity to COMPLETE the salvation work!" What an insult to the Son of God!
Of course, this is the great TRAGEDY of legalism.
In trying to be more right with God, they end up being less right with God. This was exactly the situation of the Pharisees that opposed Jesus so much during His years of earthly ministry. Paul knew this thinking well, having been a Pharisee himself (Acts 23:6).
Verses 19-20 tells us Paul describes his permanently changed relationship to the law.
"For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 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 for me."
For I through the law died to the law: Paul makes a bold statement, saying that he has died to the law. If he is dead to the law, then it is impossible for the law to be the way he stands accepted by God.
WE NOTICE SOMETHING IMPORTANT HERE...
It IS NOT the law that is dead.
The law reflects, in its context, the holy heart and character of God.
There was nothing wrong with the law.
It IS NOT the law that died, but Paul died TO the law.
How did Paul die to the law? I through the law died to the law. The law itself "killed" Paul.
It showed Paul that he NEVER could live up to the law, and fulfill its holy standard PERFECTLY.
For a long time before Paul knew Jesus, he thought God would accept him into Heaven first because of his Jewish blood and because of his law-keeping.
But he came to the point where he really understood the law - understanding it in the way Jesus explained it in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7.
Then Paul realized that the law made him GUILTY before God, NOT JUSTIFIED before God. This sense of guilt before God "killed" Paul, and made him see that keeping the law WAS NOT the answer.
The problem with the certain men with James was that they were NOT thinking and NOT living as if they were dead to the law. For them, they were still ALIVE under the law, and they believed keeping the law would make them ACCEPTED by God. Not only were they living under the law, but they wanted the Gentiles to live under the law also!
I through the law died to the law that I might live to God...
When Paul died to the law, then he could live to God. As long as he still tried to justify himself before God, by all his law-keeping, he was dead. But when he died to the law, then he could live to God.
I have been crucified with Christ...
Again, Paul anticipates a question from those who disagree with him. "Paul, when did you die to the law? You like pretty alive to me!" Paul is happy to answer, "I have been crucified with Christ. You want to know when I died to the law? I died to the law when Jesus died on the cross. He died in my place on the cross, so it is like it was me up on the cross. He died, and I died to the law when He died."
It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me...
Since we died with Christ on the cross, we have a different life. Our old life, lived under the law, is dead. Now we are alive to Jesus Christ, and Jesus is alive in us (but Christ lives in me).
Paul realized that on the cross, a "great exchange" occurred.
Paul GAVE Jesus his old, try-to-be-right-before-God-by-the-law life, and it was crucified on the cross.
Then Jesus GAVE Paul His life to life - Christ came to live in him.
So Paul's life IS NOT his own anymore, it belongs to Jesus Christ!
Paul doesn't own his own life (that life died); he is simply "managing" the new life Jesus gave him.
And the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith...
Paul can only "manage" the new life Jesus gave him by faith. You can't live the new life Jesus gives on the foundation of law-keeping. You can only live it by faith.
When Paul says I now live in the flesh, he doesn't mean that he lives a chronically sinful life.
'FLESH' here means the whole nature of man, inclusive of reason and instincts.
The point of this verse isn't the flesh, it is faith. Faith is not simply a topic about which Paul preached from time to time.
The faith Paul lives by is NOT faith in himself, NOT faith in the law, and NOT faith in what he can earn or deserve before God. It is faith in the Son of God, Jesus Christ - who loved me and gave Himself for me!
Before, Paul's relationship with God was founded on what he could do for God - his faith was in HIMSELF.
Now, the foundation is what Jesus Christ has done for him - his faith is in Jesus.
And Paul found a marvelous person to put his faith in!
It is a person who loved him.
It is a person who demonstrated that love when He gave Himself for Paul.
What confidence Paul can have in giving his life to, and living His life for, someone who loves him that much!
When we realize HOW GREAT THE LOVE God has shown for us, it makes everything in the Christian life easier.
Who loved me...
Paul can confidently give himself to Jesus because of the love Jesus has demonstrated in the past.
DO YOU NOTICE...THE VERB TENSE?
Loved … gave Himself...
The PAST TENSE is important.
William Newell, wonderfully adds, "Speaks to the importance of the past tense in the word loved. "It is this past tense gospel the devil hates … Let a preacher be continually saying, 'God loves you, Christ loves you,' and he and his congregation will by and by be losing sight of both their sinnerhood and of the substitutionary atonement of the cross, where the love of God and of Christ was once for all and supremely set forth."
LUTHER asks, "Did the Law ever love me? Did the Law ever sacrifice itself for me? Did the Law ever die for me? On the contrary, it accuses me, it frightens me, it drives me crazy. Somebody else saved me from the Law, from sin and death unto eternal life. That Somebody is the Son of God, to whom be praise and glory forever."
SPURGEON says it well, "Take these blessed words of the apostle, and put them in your mouth, and let them lie there as wafers made with honey, till they melt into your very soul: 'Who loved me, and gave himself for me.'"
Verse 21 tells us Paul shows WHY the issue of law-righteousness is so important.
"I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."
I do not set aside the grace of God...
Paul concludes his public confrontation with Peter with strength. For these Jewish Christians from Jerusalem to require for themselves or anyone else to live under the law of Moses to be right with God is to set aside the grace of God - the very thing Paul does not do.
STOTT says, "They think it noble to try to win their way to God and to heaven. But it is not noble; it is dreadfully ignoble. For, in effect, it is to deny both the nature of God and the mission of Christ. It is to refuse to let God be gracious."
This is because if righteous comes through the law, then Jesus died in vain, because IF you can be righteous before God by law-keeping, and you DO NOT need the work of Jesus to make you righteous.
AND REMEMBER...In Jesus' prayer in the garden in Matthew 26:39-42), Jesus asked that if there be any other way to accomplish what stood before Him at the cross, He asked to be spared the cross. But Jesus was not spared the cross, because there is NO OTHER WAY to accomplish what He did.
This is also the great problem with seeing the grace of God as something that helps us get to heaven, as if we put forth the best we can, and then grace supplies the rest. Never! Grace DOES NOT help, it does IT ALL. All of our righteousness comes from the work of Jesus for us.
LUTHER says it well, "What awful presumption to imagine that there is any work good enough to pacify God, when to pacify God required the invaluable price of the death and blood of His own and only Son?"
SOME HAVE ASKED...How did this confrontation end up?
WHILE we do NOT KNOW the immediate effect, other than to say that Paul obviously made a bold stand for the truth.
Yet we know that over time, Peter came to his senses and took Paul's words to heart. We know this from Acts 15:6-11, where Peter, in Jerusalem, before James and Paul and Barnabas and the other apostles, proclaimed that Gentiles did not have to come under the Law of Moses to be saved.
We KNOW that Peter was already in agreement by how Paul states the case in Galatians 2:15-17: We … even we have believed … we might be justified by faith … we seek to be justified by Christ. Paul is calling Peter's attention to something that Peter believes but isn't acting according to. You may believe that Jesus saves you, and you don't save yourself; but are you acting and thinking that you save yourself?
AND GREATER STILL...We can trust that God used this awkward encounter in Antioch for everyone's good.
1. It was good FOR Paul, because he stayed true and proclaimed the gospel.
2. It was good FOR Peter, because he was corrected, and as a result became more firm in the truth than before.
3. It was good FOR Barnabas, because he came to the correct belief on this matter.
4. It was good FOR the men who came from James and started the whole mess, because a line was drawn at the true gospel, and they had to decide.
5. It was good FOR the Jewish believers in Antioch, because they had the truth spelled out clearly before them.
6. It was good FOR the Gentile believers in Antioch, because their faith and liberty in Jesus was strengthened.
7. It was good FOR us because the truth still lives today!
All this good came, but only because Paul was willing to do something totally right, but uncomfortable.
Peter was willing to do that too, when he admitted he was wrong.
Peter and Paul were willing to sacrifice their comfort zone for what was right; are we?
ARE WE WILLING TO STAND AND SPEAK THE GOOD NEW GOSPEL TRUTHS...NOT MAN'S JUST THE GOOD TRUTH...BUT ALL JESUS' TRUTHS...THE GRACE, THE MERCY, THE BLESSINGS, THE WARNINGS, THE DANGERS OF DISMISSAL AND REJECTION AND THE JUDGMENTS TOO?
HOW MUCH REALLY DO THE LOST MATTER TO US?
DO WE HAVE JESUS HEART FOR THE LOST, THE DECEIVED, THE DECEIVING, THE HURT, THE HOPELESS, THE BITTER, THE ANGRY AND THE REJECTING?
IF SO, GIVE THEM JESUS AND ALL HIS TRUTHS, PROMISES, AND WARNINGS..