#7 The Minister Proclaimed the Gospel

Galatians: The Gospel of God’s Grace

#7 The Minister Proclaimed the Gospel to Those Who Had Drifted Away, 2:11-21

Guilt is a universal plague of sinful mankind. Every person feels guilty. Consequently every person tries in some way to alleviate his guilt. Primitive tribesmen seek to assuage their guilt by appeasing the imagined gods who are supposedly angry with them. Cultured, sophisticated people may take the escape route of psychoanalysis or some other form of human counseling. Some people try to salve their guilt by positive thinking and self-confident, self-indulgent living. Others try to escape through sex, alcohol, or drugs.

Millennia before Jesus Christ came to earth and died for man’s sin, God foreshadowed His perfect sacrifice through the offering of slain animals. He apparently began by instructing Adam to offer blood sacrifices as symbols pointing to the true and effective shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross. The sacrifice of a ram, goat, lamb, or other animal never had power to forgive and cleanse sin—nor was it ever meant to. Such sacrifices were only outward, symbolic acts of obedience that, unless accompanied by a humble and contrite heart, were not acceptable to God. Without reverential trust in the God to whom he offered the sacrifice, the offerer engaged only in meaningless ritual (Isa. 29:13).

When Cain offered his sacrifice of grain to the Lord, he sinned both by disobediently bringing the wrong kind of offering and by offering it in the wrong spirit. Rather than bringing an animal sacrifice as God had obviously
commanded, he brought the fruit of his own labor, proudly supposing that this offering of disobedience was just as acceptable to God as the one He had prescribed. His was the first act of works-righteousness, the forerunner of every such act since his time. Every person of every era who has tried to come to God on the basis of his own merits and works, or by some humanly designed religious prescriptions, has followed in the unbelieving, grace—rejecting steps of Cain. By rejecting God’s prescribed animal sacrifice, Cain rejected God’s provision of substitutionary salvation in His Son toward which that blood offering pointed.

Abel, on the other hand, by obediently offering the blood sacrifice God required, in faith leaped across the centuries and touched the cross. God accepted his offering not because it had any spiritual benefit in itself but because it was presented in faith and obedience.

Since the time of Cain and Abel the two divergent lines of works and faith have characterized man’s religious life. The person who follows the way of man, whatever it is, follows Satan’s lie and the way of Cain. The person who follows God’s way follows the way of Abel, the way of grace and forgiveness.

Those two lines of approach to God can be followed throughout the Old Testament. The builders of the tower of Babel followed the unbelieving and rebellious way of Cain, whereas Noah and his family followed the believing and obedient way of Abel. The vast majority of the ancient world followed the ungodly way of Cain, whereas Abraham and his household followed the godly way of Abel. Within the nation of Israel there were always the same two lines of human achievement and divine accomplishment, of trusting in what man can do
for God or of trusting in what God has done for man. Those who follow the narrow way of faith are always a minority, but for that faithful remnant, God’s blessings never cease and His promises never fail.

At the time Jesus was born the believing remnant included Mary, Joseph, Elizabeth, Zacharias, Anna, Simeon, and many others whose names are unknown to us. They placed their trust in the God of Israel for their salvation and implicitly believed the Old Testament as His divinely-revealed Word. They faithfully and
willingly conformed their behavior to God’s prescribed ceremonies and standards, all the while demonstrating that their trust was in the Lord Himself, not in the keeping of those ceremonies and standards, important as such outward testimony of obedience was under the Old Covenant.

But when Jesus was born the vast majority of Israelites, whether in Palestine or other parts of the Roman Empire, continued to pervert and add to Old Testament revelation and to put their trust in themselves, looking to their own goodness and accomplishments to make them acceptable to God. The great body of rabbinic traditions was grounded in works-righteousness, in the idea of attaining merit before God through strict observance of an almost endless list of man-made regulations and ceremonies. Most Jewish leaders, epitomized by the self-righteous scribes and Pharisees, proudly believed their religious works placed them in God’s special favor and gained them forgiveness for their sins.

It was from among that vast group of legalistic Jews that the Judaizers arose, claiming to follow Christ but teaching that a Gentile had to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic law before he could be saved and that all believers, Jew and Gentile alike, had to continue observance of that law in order to maintain their relation to God. Their teaching not only corrupted the gospel but also the teaching of the Old Testament, in which the way of salvation was always and only by obedient faith in God. At no time in history has a person been saved by his own merit. Both before and during the time of the Mosaic covenant men were saved by faith alone. Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, the godly judges, kings prophets, and every other Old Testament saint were saved only on the basis of faith. All of those people, whether man or woman, Jew or Gentile, “gained approval through their faith” (cf. Heb. 11:1-39).

The Judaizers were therefore not teaching Old Testament doctrine but the cardinal doctrine of Satan, that a person can by his own goodness and works gain favor with God. That is why Paul referred to the Judaizers as “dogs, … evil workers, … the false circumcision” (Phil. 3:2). “False circumcision” translates katatomeô, which is used only there in the New Testament and refers to pagan sexual mutilation. Paul was declaring that for an unbeliever, no matter what his Jewish pedigree and attainments might be, circumcision amounted to no more
than pagan mutilation. “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter” (Rom. 2:28-29). Since the coming of Christ only Christians can be “heart circumcised.” “We are the true circumcision,” Paul explained to the Philippian believers, “who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3).

No person of his day had more reason than Paul to boast in his Jewish heritage and accomplishments. He was “circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law a Pharisee; … as to the righteousness which is in the Law found blameless. But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith” (Phil. 3:5-9).

The Judaizers recognized Jesus as the Messiah, but because their view of the Messiah was corrupt so was their view of Jesus. They did not look to the Messiah as the Lamb of God who would take away their sin, because they did not believe they had sin that demanded such sacrifice in order to be forgiven. As circumcised, ceremonial Jews they were convinced they already had the full favor of God and were spiritually and morally acceptable to Him just as they were. That common Jewish view is reflected in the argument of the book of Hebrews, in which the writer goes to great lengths to persuade his Jewish readers that the Messiah (Christ) is superior to the prophets, to angels, and even to Moses (Heb. 1:1-3:6). He was not simply another great Jewish leader. He was of a completely different order; the very Son of God and Savior of the world, whose saving sacrifice was necessary for anyone to be right with God.

In Galatians 2:11-21, the scene changes from Jerusalem and the council there to Syrian Antioch, where the first church in a Gentile area was established and where Paul and Barnabas served as co-pastors, with help from three other men (see Acts 13:1). Paul continues the defense of his apostolic credentials by reporting his exercise of authority on one occasion even over Peter, whom most believers in the early church considered to be the pre-eminent apostle. And Paul did not hesitate to correct him when he was out of line with the truth. First he briefly explains Peter’s deviation from the gospel and then, from that platform, presents it in its true form.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty!”

Wendell Phillips said that at a Massachusetts antislavery meeting in 1852, but its sentiment is valid today—not only in the realm of the political, but even more so in the realm of the spiritual. Paul had risked his life to carry the Gospel of God’s grace to the regions beyond, and he was not willing for the enemy to rob him or his churches of their liberty in Christ. It was this “spiritual vigilance” that led Paul into another dramatic encounter, this time with the Apostle Peter, Barnabas, and some of the friends of James. Again, the drama is in three acts.

This is a passage packed full of truth and meaning for all men, but especially for the believer. It is a passage that deals with backsliders, with righteousness and self-righteousness, works and faith, the law and God’s grace. It is a passage that needs to be proclaimed to the world. It is the message of the gospel proclaimed to those who drift away.

1. Paul confronted Peter (v.11-13).

2. A believer cannot have double standards (v.14).

3. A believer is justified by faith alone (v.15-16).

4. A man is not misled by Christ (v.17-18).

5. A man is justified by living for God (v.19-21).

(2:11-13) Paul—Inconsistency—Double-minded: Paul confronted Peter. What happened is simply explained. Paul and Barnabas were ministers of the Antioch church and they had apparently invited Peter, or else Peter had taken it upon himself to conduct some services in Antioch (cp. Acts 11:25-26). Antioch was not only a great church, but the first great Gentile church and the very first church to send missionaries forth. It was comprised mainly of Gentile believers (cp. Acts 11:20-21; Acts 13:1-3). When Peter began his ministry in Antioch, he joined right in with the Gentiles, fellowshipping, eating, and sharing with them. However, some Judaizers or religionists came to Antioch and began to visit the church. They were astounded to find Peter fellowshipping and eating so freely with Gentiles, even if they were Christians. Remember: the Judaizers believed in the gospel of Jesus Christ, but they thought it was only an addition to the existing religion (Judaism). They said that if people wished to be saved...

· they had to undergo the ritual of circumcision.

· they had to subject themselves to the law of Moses.

· they had to adopt the ritual and ceremonies of the existing religion.

· they had to practice the rules and regulations of religion, for example, observe strict food laws which prohibited the eating of pork and meat bought in the marketplace.

· they had to separate themselves and have no fellowship with Gentiles who had not been circumcised nor subjected themselves to the law of Moses and the rules and regulations of religion.

When the Judaizers saw Peter, the great Jewish apostle, eating with Gentiles who had not done these things, they apparently jumped all over him. They even used James’ name to support their position. Of course, James did not support their position or false teaching (cp. Acts 15:24). However, Peter weakened under their attack and withdrew himself from close fellowship with the Gentiles. When Peter withdrew, the inevitable happened: the church split. The church became tragically divided just as any church does when a leader becomes a man-pleaser and begins to follow critics and cliques.

Note how severe the split was: Peter and the other Jews separated themselves from the Gentiles. And note another fact: their argument was so strong that the senior minister, Barnabas, was even led to join their ranks. Paul stood alone among the leaders to fight for the truth of the gospel.

Another way to look at Peter’s failure is to look at the three gross sins he committed.

Because the Judaizers had told believers in the Galatian churches that Paul was not a true apostle, the incident mentioned in this verse is especially significant. Paul not only was equal to the other apostles but had on this occasion even reprimanded Peter (Cephas), the one who was recognizably the leading apostle among the Twelve. Both Peter and Paul had experienced salvation by grace through faith, both were directly chosen by the resurrected Jesus Christ to be apostles, and both had been mightily used by the Holy Spirit in establishing and teaching the church. The book of Acts can be divided between the early church ministry that centered on Peter (1-12) and that which centered on Paul (13-28). But in Antioch these two men of God came into head-on collision.

Opposed is from anisteômi, which carries the meaning of hindering or forbidding, and was usually applied to defensive measures. By his withdrawal from the Gentiles, Peter had, in effect, joined the Judaizers in belittling Paul’s inspired teaching, especially the doctrine of salvation by God’s grace alone working through man’s faith alone. Peter knew better, and Paul opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Peter was not condemned in the sense of losing his salvation but in the sense of being guilty of sin by taking a position he knew was wrong. He no doubt also stood condemned as a sinner in the eyes of the Gentile believers in Antioch, who, because they were well-grounded in the gospel of grace, were perplexed and deeply hurt by his ostracism of them.

Before Peter’s compromise with the Judaizers could do serious damage in the Antioch church, God used Paul to nip the error in the bud. In so doing He also provided Paul with perhaps his most convincing proof of apostolic authority. God has a purpose even in the worst of circumstances, and what could have been a tragedy He used for His glory and for the strengthening of His church.

Peter had been in Antioch for some time prior to the coming of certain men from James, and during that time he used to eat with the Gentiles. The certain men were Judaizers who had come to Antioch claiming to be from James but were not. As leader of the Jerusalem church, James (our Lord’s half-brother) had summarized the decision of the council against the Judaizers, saying, “It is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19). These men were of the party of the circumcision and
not only taught a false gospel but also made false claims of support by the Jerusalem apostles and elders. Like Peter, James at times had difficulty giving up his lifelong adherence to the Mosaic rituals and regulations (see Acts 21:18-26), and he perhaps still had remnants of prejudice against Gentiles. But he would hardly have sent a delegation of heretics to Antioch to undermine the true gospel and cause the church there nothing but trouble. He would never have been the cause of discord and chaos where there was the pursuit of such Spirit-induced harmony and unity.

The imperfect tense of the Greek verb indicates that Peter’s eating with the Gentiles was continuous, that is, habitual and regular over some period of time. He ate whatever was set before him with whoever was sitting beside him. He had no doubt participated in numerous love feasts with Gentile believers and joined them in the Lord’s Supper. Until the men from James came to Antioch, he was participating with the church in a model fellowship of Jewish and Gentile believers who freely expressed and deeply cherished their love and liberty in
Christ.

It is only a small digression within the broad boundaries of our discussion to say that the Christian church cannot be what it is called to be when ritual, race, class, or other distinctions separate members from each other. The labels men put on themselves and on others are irrelevant to God, and should also be irrelevant to His people. Before salvation, every person is equally separated from God, and after salvation every person is equally reconciled to God. Believers “are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus … There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for [they] are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26, 28). Because believers are all children of God, they are all brothers and sisters, with no exceptions or distinctions.

The claim of some Christian groups that the Bible forbids the mingling of races is totally spurious, and such a claim is a blight on the church, an offense before God, and even a reproach before the world. It is the antithesis of New Testament teaching. If Paul were alive today he would stand as steadfastly against such prejudiced, unscriptural teaching as he did against Peter and the others in Antioch who allowed their prejudices and fears to compromise God’s truth.

Better than any other apostle, Peter should have known that in Christ all foods were clean and all believers equal. He had heard Jesus explain that “whatever goes into the man from the outside cannot defile him; because it does not go into his heart” (Mark 7:18-19). He had experienced the unique and dramatic vision of the unclean animals and the related encounter with the Gentile Cornelius, after which he declared, “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality” (Acts 10:34). At the Jerusalem Council Peter forcefully opposed the Judaizers, saying, “God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them [the Gentiles, v. 7] giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts
by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are” (Acts 15:8-11).

Yet when the Judaizers came to Antioch, Peter began to withdraw and hold himself aloof from the Gentiles, fearing the party of the circumcision. Withdraw is from hupostelloô, a term used for strategic military disengagement. Polibius used it to describe troops drawing back from the enemy in order to secure shelter and safety. The imperfect tense may indicate that Peter’s withdrawal was gradual and, if so, suggests the idea of sneaky retreat. Acquiescing to both the ritualism and racism of the Jews, he began to drift away from his Gentile brethren and stopped accepting their invitations to dinner. He found excuses not to join with them in other activities and finally held himself aloof from them altogether.

The old Peter—weak, fearful, and vacillating—had come to the fore again. Here was the same Peter who under divine inspiration declared Jesus to be “the Christ, the Son of the living God” but who a short while later rebuked his Lord for saying that He must suffer and die (Matt. 16:16, 22). Here is the same Peter who boldly declared he would die rather than deny his Lord but who, before the night was out, had denied Him three times (Mark 14:29-31, 66-72). Here was the same Peter who was called to preach but who disobediently went back to fishing even after he had encountered the resurrected Christ (John 21:3).

Peter was not fearing the party of the circumcision because they might threaten his life or freedom. The Judaizers claimed to be Christians and therefore obviously had no authority from the Sanhedrin to arrest, imprison, or put anyone to death—as the men did who stoned Stephen and as Paul himself once had done. The most the Judaizers could have done against Peter was to ridicule him and malign him in Jerusalem, as their fellow Judaizers would later malign Paul in Galatia. Peter was afraid of just that—losing popularity and prestige with a group of self-righteous hypocrites whose doctrines were heretical and whose tactics were deceitful.

Peter was not unlike most Christians in finding it difficult to be consistent in spiritual commitment. He would show great courage and conviction and then stumble. He would staunchly defend the faith and then succumb to compromise. When he did that in Antioch he played into the hands of the Judaizers, who must have been elated to have drawn this great apostle into their camp, by practice if not by precept.

Christians who refuse to share the Lord’s table with other believers because of fear and prejudice fall into the same spiritual error as Peter did at Antioch. And in so doing they fracture the divine unity of Christ’s own Body, the church.

Peter not only withdrew from the Gentile believers himself but, by example, indirectly induced the rest of the Jews to join him in hypocrisy. The separation became so widespread and influential that even the godly Barnabas, who at this time was one of the pastors at Antioch, was carried away into the sin. Paul and Barnabas had recently been on a fruitful missionary journey together, had gone with each other to the Jerusalem Council (see the previous chapter), and were now co-pastors at Antioch. They had taught together, prayed together, ministered together, and suffered together. They were the closest of friends and loved each other deeply. It was Barnabas who had first befriended and defended Paul when he went to Jerusalem shortly after his conversion (Acts 9:27). Many times Barnabas had heard Paul preach the gospel of salvation by faith alone and had preached it many times himself. But even he was carried away by the legalistic hypocrisy of Peter and the others. It may have been Barnabas’s hypocrisy on this occasion that began the eventual rift with Paul that a short while later resulted in their separation over taking John Mark on the next journey (Acts 15:37-40).

Peter was a natural leader, and his public action invariably took others with him. When he acted in his own wisdom the result was tragic, and when other believers put their faith in him as a man the tragedy was compounded. The effect on the Antioch church was disastrous.

The Greek term behind hypocrisy originally referred to an actor wearing a mask to indicate a particular mood or type of character. A hypocrite is someone who, like a Greek actor, masks his true self.

Peter and the other Jewish believers who withdrew with him knew that what they were doing was wrong, but they were intimidated by the Judaizers into going against the truth of their convictions and consciences. In seeking to please those hypocrites they became hypocrites themselves, and in so doing brought heartache to their Gentile brothers and to their Lord.

From Peter’s failure at Antioch several important truths can be learned. The first is that even uniquely gifted ministers of the gospel can commit serious transgressions, sometimes becoming guilty of the very errors and sins they once strongly preached against.

In order to maintain the doctrine of the infallibility of the popes, who are claimed by the Roman system to be successors of Peter, some Catholic theologians have insisted that the Peter at Antioch was not the apostle. But he was the same Peter who preached the Spirit-empowered sermon at Pentecost and through whom the crippled man outside the Temple was healed. Despite his divine calling and giftedness, he manifested feet of clay.

Second, we learn that faithfulness involves more than believing the right doctrine. Right doctrine without right behavior always produces hypocrisy.

Third, we learn that truth is more important than outward harmony and peace. Christian fellowship and unity are built on truth, never falsehood. No matter what the beneficial prospect might seem to be from a human perspective, compromise can do nothing but weaken the church. Peace that is preserved by compromising God’s truth is the pseudo-peace of the world and is not of God. “The bond of peace” (Phil. 4:3) is not peace at any price but peace based on God’s Word and established by God’s Spirit.

Fourth, we see that situation ethics is ungodly ethics. God’s Word, not a given human situation, determines what is right and wrong. Christians do not make truth; and a group of believers, no matter how large or influential—even if they were to be apostles—who take a wrong position or indulge in a wrong practice are still wrong. Neither expediency falsely defined love, nor majority vote have any bearing on truth and righteousness.

Fifth, we learn that falsehood is not to be ignored, regardless of the consequences that opposition to it may bring. When the falsehood strikes at the heart of the gospel, as did the heresy of the Judaizers, opposition is all the more imperative. Even leading Christians “who continue in sin” are to be rebuked “in the presence of all, so that the rest also may be fearful of sinning” (1 Tim. 5:20).

Apparently, sometime after the important conference described in Acts 15, Peter came from Jerusalem to A ntioch. The first thing to note is Peter’s freedom then. He enjoyed fellowship with all the believers, Jews and Gentiles alike. To “eat with the Gentiles” meant to accept them, to put Jews and Gentiles on the same level as one family in Christ.

Raised as an orthodox Jew, Peter had a difficult time learning this lesson. Jesus had taught it while He was with Peter before the Crucifixion (Matt. 15:1-20). The Holy Spirit had reemphasized it when He sent Peter to the home of Cornelius, the Roman centurion (Acts 10). Furthermore, the truth had been accepted and approved by the conference of leaders at Jerusalem (Acts 15). Peter had been one of the key witnesses at that time.

Before we criticize Peter, perhaps we had better examine our own lives to see how many familiar Bible doctrines we are actually obeying. As you examine church history, you see that, even with a complete Bible, believers through the years have been slow to believe and practice the truths of the Christian faith. When we think of the persecution and discrimination that have been practiced in the name of Christ, it embarrasses us. It is one thing for us to defend a doctrine in a church meeting, and quite something else to put it into practice in everyday life.

Peter’s freedom was threatened by Peter’s fear. While he was in Antioch, the church was visited by some of the associates of James. (You will remember that James was a strict Jew even though he was a Christian believer.) Paul does not suggest that James sent these men to investigate Peter, or even that they were officials of the Jerusalem church. No doubt they belonged to the “circumcision party” (Acts 15:1, 5) and wanted to lead the Antioch church into religious legalism.

After his experience with Cornelius, Peter had been “called on the carpet” and had ably defended himself (Acts 11). But now, he became afraid. Peter had not been afraid to obey the Spirit when He sent him to Cornelius, nor was he afraid to give his witness at the Jerusalem Conference. But now, with the arrival of some members of “the opposition,” Peter lost his courage. “The fear of man bringeth a snare” (Prov. 29:25).

How do we account for this fear? For one thing, we know that Peter was an impulsive man. He could show amazing faith and courage one minute and fail completely the next. He walked on the waves to go to Jesus, but then became frightened and began to sink. He boasted in the Upper Room that he would willingly die with Jesus, and then denied his Lord three times. Peter in the Book of Acts is certainly more consistent than in the four Gospels, but he was not perfect—nor are we! Peter’s fear led to Peter’s fall. He ceased to enjoy the “love feast” with the Gentile believers and separated himself from them.

There are two tragedies to Peter’s fall. First, it made him a hypocrite (which is the meaning of the word dissembled). Peter pretended that his actions were motivated by faithfulness, when they were really motivated by fear. How easy it is to use “Bible doctrine” to cover up our disobedience.

The second tragedy is that Peter led others astray with him. Even Barnabas was involved. Barnabas had been one of the spiritual leaders of the church in Antioch (Acts 11:19-26), so his disobedience would have a tremendous influence on the others in the fellowship.

Suppose Peter and Barnabas had won the day and led the church into legalism? What might the results have been? Would Antioch have continued to be the great missionary church that sent out Paul and Barnabas? (Acts 13) Would they, instead, have sent out the “missionaries” of the circumcision party and either captured or divided the churches Paul had already founded? You can see that this problem was not a matter of personality or party; it was a question of “the truth of the Gospel.” And Paul was prepared to fight for it.

(2:14) Double-minded—Inconsistency: a believer must not have double standards. In common language, Peter was two-faced; he was a man-pleaser. He ate with the Gentile Christians; but when some Judaizers arrived, he separated himself completely from the Gentiles. He feared what the Judaizers would think. His failure was threefold.

Þ He was hypocritical. He said one thing (Galatians 2:9) but lived something else (Galatians 2:11-12).

Þ He followed the crowd simply because they put pressure upon him—even when he knew better.

Þ He esteemed some persons better than others (Galatians 2:12).

1. Peter was walking an unrighteous path, not living according to the truth of the gospel. The gospel declares that God loves and receives all men. But Peter was separating himself from those who followed Christ differently than he and the mother church at Jerusalem.

2. Peter was walking a hypocritical path, living one way while telling others to live another way. When the Judaizers were not around to see him, he fellowshipped with the Gentiles; but when the strict religionists arrived, he began to be more strict and follow their strict life-style. Note: he even began to compel the Gentiles to undergo the ritual of circumcision and submit to the law of Moses in order to be accepted into the true church of Christ.

The fact that Peter could be led astray is a strong warning to every believer, especially to ministers.

Þ We must guard against an unrighteous walk, against not being true to the gospel.

Þ We must guard against a hypocritical walk, against living one way while telling others to live another way.

The actions of Peter, Barnabas, and the other Jewish believers in Antioch were not simply a matter of personal hypocrisy. Their capitulation to the Judaizers, by example if not by doctrine, was fracturing the church. The fact that Peter and Barnabas were spiritual leaders made the matter immeasurably worse. For years they had taught salvation by faith alone, and they had exemplified that teaching in their lives. The Antioch church had become a model of Jewish-Gentile fellowship and harmony, and almost overnight it had become the opposite.

Peter was a Jew, but through his faith in Christ he had become a Christian. Because he was a Christian, he was part of the church, and in the church there are no racial distinctions (Gal. 3:28). We have seen how the Lord taught Peter this important lesson, first in the house of Cornelius and then at the Jerusalem Conference.

Paul’s words must have stung Peter: “You are a Jew, yet you have been living like a Gentile. Now you want the Gentiles to live like Jews. What kind of inconsistency is that?”

Peter himself had stated at the Jerusalem Conference that God had “put no difference between us and them” (Acts 15:9). But now Peter was putting a difference. God’s people are one people, even though they may be divided into various groups. Any practice on our part that violates the Scripture and separates brother from brother is a denial of the unity of the body of Christ.

(2:15-16) Justification—Faith versus Works: a believer is justified by faith alone. Note that Paul now identifies himself with the Jews, for he was a Jew by nature, that is, by birth. Note also the reference to the Gentiles as “sinners.” The meaning is rank sinners. The Jews considered themselves to be religionists and considered the Gentiles to be rank sinners. What Paul was saying is this: all Jews (religionists) who had believed in Christ had confessed the very same thing the rank sinners had confessed: a person is justified by faith alone and not by the works of the law.

By coming to Christ the Jewish religionists were confessing that their religion, ritual, works, and law were not able to save them. They needed something more, much more; therefore, they had turned to Christ. Note three crucial points.

1. A person is not justified and made acceptable to God by works nor by law. Why? Because man is short of God’s glory; he is imperfect, incomplete, and less than what he should be. Yet everything that lives in God’s presence must be perfect and complete, full to the ultimate degree, for God is the very embodiment of perfection, completeness, and fulness. Therefore man, who is imperfect and incomplete, cannot stand or live in God’s presence.

However, a question needs to be asked: Is there a work that man can do or a law that he can keep that will make him perfect? God says, “No!” For everything that an imperfect being does is imperfect and incomplete. An imperfect being cannot do anything perfectly good, and certainly not good enough to make him perfect. An imperfect man is short of God’s perfection; therefore, no matter what man does, he is short of what he should be. He could always be better and do better, much better in the world of infinity and perfection.

Hence, man is not saved by works nor by law. If our salvation is dependent upon some work or works that we can do, then we are hopelessly lost. For what work can we do that will make us a perfect and eternal creature? No man can make us perfect and eternal and cause us to live forever in a perfect and righteous world—and we know it. What can any person do to make his loved one live forever—to be perfected and made eternal? There is no work that we can do or law that we can keep to save ourselves from unrighteousness and death. If we are to be justified before God, accepted as perfect and complete, it will not be by the works of the law.

What then is our hope? How can we become justified, made perfect and complete before God? God says there is only one way. Note the middle of the verse:

We must believe “in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ” (Galatians 2:16).

2. A person is justified by the faith of Christ alone.

3. No person is ever justified by works nor by law.

This is the first appearance of the important word justification in this letter, and probably in Paul’s writings (if, as we believe, Galatians was the first letter he wrote). “Justification by faith” was the watchword of the Reformation, and it is important that we understand this doctrine.

“How should [a] man be just with God?” (Job 9:2) was a vital question, because the answer determined eternal consequences. “The just shall live by his faith” (Hab. 2:4) is God’s answer; and it was this truth that liberated Martin Luther from religious bondage and fear. So important is this concept that three New Testament books explain it to us: Romans (see 1:17), Galatians (see 3:11), and Hebrews (see 10:38). Romans explains the meaning of “the just”; Galatians explains “shall live”; and Hebrews explains “by faith.”

But what is justification? Justification is the act of God whereby He declares the believing sinner righteous in Jesus Christ. Every word of this definition is important. Justification is an act and not a process. No Christian is “more justified” than another Christian. “Having therefore been once-and-for-all justified by faith, we have peace with God” (Rom. 5:1, literal translation). Since we are justified by faith, it is an instant and immediate transaction between the believing sinner and God. If we were justified by works, then it would have to be a gradual process.

Furthermore, justification is an act of God; it is not the result of man’s character or works. “It is God that justifieth” (Rom. 8:33). It is not by doing the “works of the Law” that the sinner gets a right standing before God, but by putting his faith in Jesus Christ. As Paul will explain later in this letter, the Law was given to reveal sin and not to redeem from sin (see Rom. 3:20). God in His grace has put our sins on Christ—and Christ’s righteousness has been put to our account (see 2 Cor. 5:21).

In justification, God declares the believing sinner righteous; He does not make him righteous. (Of course, real justification leads to a changed life, which is what James 2 is all about.) Before the sinner trusts Christ, he stands GUILTY before God; but the moment he trusts Christ, he is declared NOT GUILTY and he can never be called GUILTY again!

Justification is not simply “forgiveness,” because a person could be forgiven and then go out and sin and become guilty. Once you have been “justified by faith” you can never be held guilty before God.

Justification is also different from “pardon,” because a pardoned criminal still has a record. When the sinner is justified by faith, his past sins are remembered against him no more, and God no longer puts his sins on record (see Ps. 32:1-2; Rom. 4:1-8).

Finally, God justifies sinners, not “good people.” Paul declares that God justifies “the ungodly” (Rom. 4:5). The reason most sinners are not justified is because they will not admit they are sinners! And sinners are the only kind of people Jesus Christ can save (Matt. 9:9-13; Luke 18:9-14).

When Peter separated himself from the Gentiles, he was denying the truth of justification by faith, because he was saying, “We Jews are different from—and better than—the Gentiles.” Yet both Jews and Gentiles are sinners (Rom. 3:22-23) and can be saved only by faith in Christ.

(2:17-18) Righteousness—Law—Works: a believer is not misled by Christ. The question is, “Could Christ be making us sinners by our trusting that we are justified by faith in Him alone?” Some argued that Paul was making Christ a minister of sin. Their reasoning went like this: when men turned away from the law and trusted Christ for righteousness, Christ caused them to sin, for Christ made it easy for them to transgress the law. They said that Christ tore down the law, for He led men away from the law. He removed the restraints and barriers of the law; therefore, men became transgressors by rejecting the law.

Paul simply says two things about this argument. First, God forbid! Second, the man who tries to keep the law makes himself a sinner, for it is the law that condemns him (Galatians 3:19).

The believer, of course, rejects the righteousness which comes by law, for the law gives him no righteousness. It only shows him where his failures are. The law condemns his conscience and makes him feel miserable and broken. However, the law has its place in the plan of God just as much as faith does. Very simply, when a man sees what God has done for him, he is driven to please God. The believer sees Christ bearing the guilt and punishment for his crimes (sins) and then bows in love and adoration and arises to work in appreciation for such amazing love. The believer tries to be good, not to earn or to win righteousness but to serve God out of appreciation for salvation. He does not try to put God in debt for salvation, but he thanks God for righteousness. He sees that he owes God whatever service he can perform. The genuine believer has come to know above all others that love is a much stronger force than fear. He follows Christ—does all he can to live like Christ—because he loves Christ. He loves Him because Christ has done so much for Him.

At the Jerusalem Conference, Peter had compared the Mosaic Law to a burdensome yoke (Acts 15:10; see Gal. 5:1). Now he had put himself under that impossible yoke.

Paul’s argument goes like this: “Peter, you and I did not find salvation through the Law; we found it through faith in Christ. But now, after being saved, you go back into the Law! This means that Christ alone did not save you; otherwise you would not have needed the Law. So, Christ actually made you a sinner!

“Furthermore, you have preached the Gospel of God’s grace to Jews and Gentiles, and have told them they are saved by faith and not by keeping the Law. By going back into legalism, you are building up what you tore down! This means that you sinned by tearing it down to begin with!”

In other words, Paul is arguing from Peter’s own experience of the grace of God. To go back to Moses is to deny everything that God had done for him and through him.

(2:19-21) Believer, Position—Indwelling Presence—Christ, In the Believer: a believer is justified by living for God. A believer lives for God by doing four things.

1. The believer lives for God by dying to the law. The law shows a man that he is a sinner and that he comes ever so short of perfection and righteousness. The law shows man that he is to be punished and separated from the society of God forever. The law shows man that he stands no chance of ever being accepted by God—not if he has to approach God by keeping the law. He just cannot keep the law—not continually, not consistently—for he is always coming short of the law and of God’s glory. The law slays man; it kills him and condemns him to death. The only hope man ever has of being acceptable to God is to die to the law—somehow, some way to be delivered out from under the law—to be removed so far away from the law that it has no bearing upon him. How can man do this? By turning away from the law and finding Someone who can stir God to count him righteous and to accept him. The first thing that a man must do in order to live for God is to die to the law and to self-righteous works.

2. The believer lives for God by being crucified with Christ (Galatians 2:20). How in the world can a man be crucified with Christ when Christ died so many centuries ago? Scripture tells us how. When a man believes that Jesus Christ died for him—that Jesus Christ bore the punishment of sin for him—God takes that man’s faith and...

· counts his faith as his having died in Christ.

· counts his faith as his identification with Christ in death.

· counts his faith as his having already been punished for sin in the death of Christ.

As Scripture says, the man is “crucified with Christ.” God counts or credits the believer as having already died—as having died with Christ. (See notes—^§ Romans 6:3-5; note 3—^§ Romans 8:1 for more discussion.)

3. The believer lives for God by allowing Christ to live His life through his body. Now note: the believer is “crucified with Christ,” yet he is still living upon earth. However, he is not to be the one in charge of his life. By faith he has died with Christ; therefore, he is to live with Christ. He is to allow Christ to live in and through his body, to control and to be in charge of his life.

Þ The believer is to be so merged into Christ that it is as though Christ is walking upon the earth in his body.

Þ The believer is to be so much in union and fellowship with Christ that it is as though he is but a branch drawing his very life and nourishment from Christ (cp. the Vine and the branches, John 15:1-6).

4. The believer lives for God by trusting the grace of God, that is, by trusting Jesus Christ who is God’s righteousness. The word “frustrate” (atheto) means to set aside, void, invalidate, make ineffective, and nullify. If a man sets aside the grace of God and seeks righteousness by the law, then Christ died in vain. The person who preaches that a man can be good enough—that he can work enough and keep enough law—to become righteous and acceptable to God...

· voids and does away with the love and grace of God.

· makes the death of Christ empty and meaningless.

The only way a man can live for God is by trusting the grace and love of God, that is, by trusting the death of Jesus Christ for His righteousness.

If a man is justified by the works of the Law, then why did Jesus Christ die? His death, burial, and resurrection are the key truths of the Gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-8). We are saved by faith in Christ (He died for us), and we live by faith in Christ (He lives in us). Furthermore, we are so identified with Christ by the Spirit that we died with Him (see Rom. 6). This means that we are dead to the Law. To go back to Moses is to return to the graveyard! We have been “raised to walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4); and since we live by His resurrection power, we do not need the “help” of the Law.

The Judaizers wanted to mix Law and grace, but Paul tells us that this is impossible. To go back to the Law means to “set aside” the grace of God.

Peter had experienced God’s grace in his own salvation, and he had proclaimed God’s grace in his own ministry. But when he withdrew from the Gentile Christian fellowship, he openly denied the grace of God.

Grace says, “There is no difference! All are sinners, and all can be saved through faith in Christ!”

But Peter’s actions had said, “There is a difference! The grace of God is not sufficient; we also need the Law.”

Returning to the Law nullifies the Cross: “If righteousness came by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Gal. 2:21). Law says DO! Grace says DONE! “It is finished!” was Christ’s victory cry (John 19:30). “For by grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8).

We have no record of Peter’s reply to Paul’s rebuke, but Scripture would indicate that he admitted his sin and was restored to the fellowship once again. Certainly when you read his two letters (1 and 2 Peter) you detect no deviation from the Gospel of the grace of God. In fact, the theme of 1 Peter is “the true grace of God” (1 Peter 5:12); and the word grace is used in every chapter of the letter. Peter is careful to point out that he and Paul were in complete agreement, lest anyone try to “rob Peter to pay Paul” (2 Peter 3:15-16).

So end the two acts of this exciting drama. But the curtain has not come down yet, for there is a third act which involves you and me.

The Believer’s Response

We know what Peter’s response was when he was challenged to live up to the truth of the Gospel: fear and failure. And we know what Paul’s response was when he saw the truth of the Gospel being diluted: courage and defense. But the important question today is: what is my response to the “truth of the Gospel”? Perhaps this is a good place to take inventory of ourselves before we proceed into the doctrinal chapters of this letter. Let me suggest some questions for each of us to answer.

Have I been saved by the grace of God?

The only Gospel that saves is the Gospel of the grace of God as revealed in Jesus Christ. Any other Gospel is a false gospel and is under a curse (Gal. 1:6-9). Am I trusting in myself for salvation—my morality, my good works, even my religion? If so, then I am not a Christian, for a true Christian is one who has trusted Christ alone. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9).

Am I trying to mix Law and grace?

Law means I must do something to please God, while grace means that God has finished the work for me and all I need do is believe on Christ. Salvation is not by faith in Christ plus something: it is by faith in Christ alone. While church membership and religious activities are good in their place as expressions of faith in Christ, they can never be added to faith in Christ in order to secure eternal life. “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work” (Rom. 11:6).

Am I rejoicing in the fact that I am justified by faith in Christ?

It has often been said that “justified” means “just as if I’d never sinned” and this is correct. It brings great peace to the heart to know that one has a right standing before God (Rom. 5:1). Just think: the righteousness of Christ has been put to our account! God has not only declared that we are righteous in Christ, but He deals with us as though we had never sinned at all! We need never fear judgment because our sins have already been judged in Christ on the cross (Rom. 8:1).

Am I walking in the liberty of grace?

Liberty does not mean license; rather, it means the freedom in Christ to enjoy Him and to become what He has determined for us to become (Eph. 2:10). It is not only “freedom to do” but also “freedom not to do.” We are no longer in bondage to sin and the Law. As Paul will explain in the practical section of this letter (Gal. 5-6), we obey God because of love and not because of Law. Christians enjoy a wonderful liberty in Christ. Am I enjoying it?

Am I willing to defend the truth of the Gospel?

This does not mean that we become evangelical detectives investigating every church and Sunday School class in town. But it does mean that we do not fear men when they deny the truths that have brought us eternal life in Christ. “Do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

Many people with whom we come in contact actually believe that people are saved by faith in Christ plus “doing good works . . . keeping the Ten Commandments . . . obeying the Sermon on the Mount,” and any number of other “religious plusses.“ We may not have the same apostolic authority that Paul exercised, but we do have the Word of God to proclaim; and it is our obligation to share the truth.

Am I “walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel”?

The best way to defend the truth is to live the truth. My verbal defense of the Gospel will accomplish very little if my life contradicts what I say. Paul is going to explain to us how to live in liberty by the grace of God, and it is important that we obey what he says.

A new employee was instructed how to measure valve parts to make sure they were ready for the final assembly. But after a few hours, his foreman was receiving complaints that the parts he was approving were faulty. “What are you doing?” the foreman asked. “I showed you how to use that micrometer. You’re sending through parts that are oversize!”

The employee replied, “Oh, most of the parts I was measuring were too large, so I opened up the micrometer a bit.”

Changing the standards will never make for success, either in manufacturing or ministry. Paul maintained the standards of “the truth of the Gospel”—and so should we