Justification by Faith Alone (2:11-21)

Justification by
Faith Alone (2:11-21)

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the Law I died to the Law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (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 katatom, 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 preeminent 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.

PETER’S DEVIATION

THE CLASH

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. (2:11)

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 anistmi, 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.

THE CAUSE

For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. (2:12)

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 hupostell, 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.

THE CONSEQUENCE

And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. (2:13)

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 denned 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).

PAUL’S DOCTRINE

But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the Law I died to the Law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (2:14-21)

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.

HIS REACTION

As already noted, the withdrawal of the Jewish believers from the Gentiles was likely gradual; but as soon as Paul realized what was happening he immediately reacted against it. When [he] saw they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, he sharply rebuked Peter (Cephas). As an apostle Peter was the most accountable, and it was his wrong example that had drawn the others into the destructive hypocrisy.

Straightforward is from orthopode, a compound orthos (straight) and pous (foot) that means to walk straight, or uprightly. One scholar translates verse 14a as, “They were not walking on the straight path towards the truth of the gospel.” In withdrawing from their Gentile brethren, Peter and the others were not living parallel to God’s Word, not walking a straight spiritual course.

Because Peter’s offense was public, Paul rebuked him in the presence of all, unmasking his hypocrisy before the whole congregation. Every believer in Antioch, and doubtlessly many unbelievers as well, knew that Peter was no longer associating with Gentiles as he had once done so freely and openly. Augustine said, “It is not advantageous to correct in secret an error which occurred publicly.” Unless the public sin of a believer is dealt with publicly, people will think the church does not take sin seriously and therefore gives tacit approval of it. A church that does not discipline sinning members (including the most prominent members) loses its credibility, because it does not take seriously its own doctrines and standards. A child who is not disciplined when he does wrong soon concludes that his parent’s standards are not really very important, because they are not enforced.

After taking care to determine by several witnesses that a charge against an elder is true, Paul told Timothy, the elder should be rebuked “in the presence of all, so that the rest also may be fearful of sinning” (1 Tim. 5:20). Paul’s rebuke of Peter shows that no Christian leader, regardless of his stature, is beyond discipline by the Body. Public sin demands public rebuke.

“If you, being a Jew,” Paul said, “live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” In contrast to Peter’s hypocrisy, Paul’s indictment was straightforward. He simply pointed out the obvious inconsistency of Peter’s behavior in Antioch. He reminded him that when he first arrived there, Peter had freely fellowshiped with Gentile believers and regularly ate with them (v. 12). He had openly visited in their homes and joined them in love feasts and Communion, showing no evidence of legalism or prejudice. He had lived like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, who were known throughout the world for their separatism.

Josephus reports that the Midianite woman who tried to seduce the Israelites said to them, “Your kinds of food are peculiar to yourselves, and your kinds of drink are common to no other.” For centuries Jews had been known for their strict laws and separation from Gentiles. Under the Old Covenant God had established certain dietary laws and other restrictions for the purpose of keeping His chosen people from intermingling and intermarrying with pagan Gentiles and being corrupted by their idolatry and immorality. But during and after the time of the Exile, rabbinic tradition had made countless additions and amendments to the biblical regulations. For example, Jews were allowed to buy meat from a Gentile market only if the animal had been slaughtered by a Jew and had not been used in a pagan religious ceremony.

After his vision of the unclean animals and his experience with Cornelius, Peter had no longer lived like the Jews, having finally come to realize that even the God-given ceremonial separation taught in the Old Testament was no longer valid. But under the influence of the Judaizers in Antioch he faltered and slipped back into the old ways. When the winds of legalism blew in, he adjusted his sails accordingly and was blown along with them.

Paul had no desire to lord it over Peter or to build up his own reputation at the expense of a fellow apostle. His motive was not to humiliate Peter but to correct him in a serious error that had caused many other believers to stumble with him. He could tolerate nothing that threatened the integrity of the gospel, especially if that threat came from a prominent and influential leader such as Peter.

HIS STATEMENT

We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. (2:15-16)

The heart of man’s spiritual dilemma is that he is incapable of overcoming the total sinfulness that separates him from the holy God. Job’s friend Bildad asked, “How then can a man be just with God?” (Job 25:4). How can a guilty and condemned sinner be made righteous and thereby acceptable to God? The provision of justification by faith is God’s answer to that dilemma and need.

Paul’s rebuke of Peter culminated in one of the most forceful statements in the New Testament on the doctrine of justification—the very doctrine that Peter and the others were in effect renouncing by their hypocritical separation from Gentile believers. In effect, Paul was saying, “Peter, I am rebuking you because you are violating the cardinal truth of Christianity. By your behavior you are condoning works-righteousness, a system of legalism that is contrary even to the covenant given by Moses, not to mention the New Covenant given by our Lord Jesus Christ.”

In setting forth the true doctrine of justification Paul first states what it is (w. 15-16) and then gives a defense of it (w. 17-21). As noted in a previous chapter, because of his intense and emotional concern for the integrity of the gospel and the spiritual welfare of the Galatian believers, Paul’s grammar in this epistle is sometimes difficult to reconstruct and his logic difficult to follow, though his meaning is always clear.

We is used four times in verses 15-17 and refers to Paul, Peter, and all other Jewish Christians. The first part of his argument here is that, even we who are Jews by nature . . . have believed in Christ Jesus. “As Jews,” he was indicating, “we of all people know what it is to live by the system of law. We know the law as a way of life, what it is to function continually under the demands of religious rituals and regulations. Yet even we were saved by believing in Christ Jesus, not by the law And if we, as Jews, cannot be saved by the law, how can we expect sinners from among the Gentiles to be?”

In referring to the Gentiles as sinners, Paul was not using the term in the behavioral sense of public immorality (as it is often used in the gospels), but in the legal sense in which it was frequently used by Jews. In the minds of most Jews, Gentiles were sinners by nature because they had no law to guide them in right living and in pleasing God. But with or without the law, Paul was saying, no person is saved who has not believed in Christ Jesus.

At the Jerusalem Council Peter declared that same truth in response to the Judaizers. “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 [the Gentiles] also are” (Acts 15:10-11).

Martin Luther said that if the article of justification by faith is lost, all Christian doctrine is lost. In this last section of chapter 2 Paul was inspired to introduce this most essential doctrine in the epistle, a doctrine he had preached and explained to the Galatians on many occasions. He uses the verb form of justification (dikaio) four times in verses 16-17 and the noun form (dikaiosun) once in verse 21, where it is rendered “righteousness.” In the New Testament these and other forms of the same Greek term are variously translated by such English words as justify, justification, righteousness, just, righteous, and justified.

The basic term was originally used forensically of a judge’s declaring an accused person not guilty and right before the law It was the opposite of being declared guilty and condemned. Throughout Scripture justification refers to God’s declaring a sinner to be guiltless on the basis of faith in Him. It is the free and gracious act by which God declares a sinner right with Himself—forgiving, pardoning, restoring, and accepting him on the basis of nothing but trust in the Person and work of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, Paul continues, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.

No amount of law-keeping can make a person righteous, because the root of sinfulness is in the fallenness of man’s heart, not in actions. Man’s basic problem is in what he is, not in what he does. Sinful acts are but the outward expression of a depraved nature that contains sinful thoughts. A person who hates is inwardly a murderer, whether or not he ever takes another person’s life (Matt. 5:22). A man who has immoral thoughts about women is an adulterer, whether or not he ever commits the physical act of adultery (5:28).

Consequently, no amount of works of the Law can save a person, because even the best of human works cannot change the nature of the person doing them. “We know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight” (Rom. 3: 19-20). The law is important as a mirror to show us our sinfulness; but it can only reveal sin, not remove it. “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. . . . For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (3:21-24, 28).

Only faith in Christ Jesus can bring a person the gracious gift of righteousness that provides forgiveness and salvation. Faith in Christ is not mere intellectual assent to the fact that Jesus died and rose for man’s sin but is personal trust in His death to remove and forgive one’s own sins. It is total commitment to submit to Him as Lord (cf. James 4:7).

Three times in Galatians 2:16 Paul declares that salvation is only through faith in Christ and not by law The first statement is general: a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus. The second is personal: even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law. The third is universal: by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified (cf. Ps. 143:2). All three affirm the same great reality.

All claims that salvation is through belief in Jesus Christ plus something else are blasphemous, satanic lies. There can be no effective or acceptable human addition to Christ’s work. This passage is as forceful and unequivocal a statement of the doctrine of salvation by faith alone as can be found in Scripture. First Paul establishes it on the basis of his apostolic authority. Second, he establishes it on the basis of his own experience. And third, he establishes it on the basis of God’s Word in the Old Testament.

HIS DEFENSE

But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the Law I died to the Law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (2:17-21)

By their behavior, Peter and the other Jewish Christians at Antioch had given approval to the Judaizers’ idea that it was necessary for a Gentile to keep the Jewish rituals before he could become a Christian. Paul’s defense of justification by faith in verses 17-21 continues his contradiction of this Judaistic legalism to which Peter and the others had succumbed.

It is crucial to understand that, as in the previous two verses, we refers to Jewish Christians. But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves, as Jewish Christians, have also been found sinners, Paul asks rhetorically, is Christ then a minister of sin?

His first point was to show that, if the Judaizers were correct in their doctrine that believers are saved in part by keeping the ceremonial law of Moses and continue to be bound by that law to maintain their salvation, then, even before the Judaizers arrived in Antioch, Peter, Barnabas, and all the other Jewish believers, including Paul, had fallen back into the category of sinners by having freely eaten and fellowshiped with Gentile Christians.

Paul’s second point was even more devastating. “If you became sinners because of fellowshiping with your Gentile brothers,” he implies, “then Christ Himself became a minister of sin, did he not?” How? Jesus had clearly taught that no food can spiritually contaminate a person, because food cannot affect the heart (Mark 7:19). Through the vision of the unclean animals and the dramatic conversion and anointing of Cornelius, the Lord had given Peter direct evidence that Gentile believers are in every way equal to Jewish believers (Acts 10). On many other occasions and in many other ways Jesus had taught that all those who belong to Him are one with Him and therefore one with each other. Shortly before His arrest, trial, and crucifixion, Jesus earnestly and repeatedly prayed to His Father that those who believed in Him “may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us . . . that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity” (John 17:21-23).

But if the Judaizers were right, Paul pointed out, Jesus was wrong; if they taught the truth, He had taught falsehood and was thereby a minister of sin! Such an accusation must have shaken Peter to his bones. To be called a hypocrite stung enough, but to be called a sinner was unthinkable, and to be accused of making Jesus a minister of sin was shocking and repulsive. Yet the logic of Paul’s argument was inescapable. By his actions, Peter had in effect condemned Jesus Christ. He therefore had to forsake his Judaistic sympathies or continue to make His Lord a liar.

To his own question Paul immediately responded, May it never be! It must have been painful to Paul to suggest even hypothetically that Christ could participate in, much less promote, sin. But the drastic danger of Judaistic legalism demanded such drastic logic. He knew of no other way to bring Peter and the others to their senses.

By using the term we in the previous verses, Paul had graciously identified himself with the compromisers to a certain extent. Now he even more graciously and lovingly softens the blow to his friends by using himself as a hypothetical example. For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, he said, I prove myself to be a transgressor. In other words, if anyone, including myself, tries to rebuild a system of legalism after he has once destroyed it by believing and preaching the gospel of God’s powerful grace and man’s sinful helplessness, he proves himself, not Christ, to be a transgressor. He proves himself to be a hypocrite and a sinner by abandoning grace for law

“I could never do such a thing,” Paul asserts, “for through the Law I died to the Law, that I might live to God. The idea of legalism clashes with God’s clearest truth and my own deepest convictions. Now that I have accepted grace and died to the Law, I could never go back to its system of rituals and ordinances. Otherwise I could not live to God.” The law is not the believer’s master; God is. It is not his relation to the law that saves him, but his relation to God.

“Do you not know, brethren,” Paul asked the believers at Rome, “that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. . . . Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead that we might bear fruit for God” (Rom. 7:1-2, 4).

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. (Rom. 6:1-14)

In both Romans and Galatians, Paul is referring to the fact that when a person exercises faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, he is placed in transcendent spiritual union with Christ in the historical event of His death and resurrection, in which the penalty of sin was paid in full.

If a man is convicted of a capital crime and is put to death, the law obviously has no more claim on him. He has paid his debt to society. Therefore, even if he were to rise from the dead, he would still be guiltless before the law which would have no claim on his new life. So it is with the believer who dies in Christ to rise in new life. He is free forever from any claim of the law on him. He paid the law’s demand when he died in Christ. His physical death is no punishment, only a release to glory provided in his union with Christ.

Legalism’s most destructive effect is that it cancels the effect of the cross. I have been crucified with Christ, Paul testifies, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. To go back under the law would be to cancel one’s union with Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and therefore to go back under sin.

I died to the Law, Paul explains, because I was crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live. The old man, the old self, is dead, crucified with Christ, and the new man lives (cf. Col. 3:9-10). Now I. . . live to God, because Christ lives in me (cf. Rom. 8:9). The life I received by faith I now also live by faith. The Greek verb behind live is in the perfect tense, indicating a past completed action that has continuing results. When a believer trusts in Christ for salvation he spiritually participates with the Lord in His crucifixion and in His victory over sin and death.

That is why, the apostle continues, the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God. The true Christian life is not so much a believer’s living for Christ as Christ’s living through the believer. Because in Christ “all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Col. 2:9), the fulness of God also dwells in every believer, as “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4).

I do not have such a divine life and the magnanimous privilege of being indwelt with the living, powerful Son of God because of anything I have done or merited, but only because He loved me, and delivered Himself up for me.

The surpassing motive, therefore, for all spiritual devotion and obedience is gratitude to the sovereign, gracious Lord. The statement who loved me refers to the motive behind God’s saving grace. The New Testament is replete with teaching on this great truth (see, e.g., John 3:16; Rom. 5:8; Eph. 2:5). The gift of love was not taken from Christ, but He delivered Himself up for me, says the apostle. This is reminiscent of our Lord’s words in John 10:17-18, “I lay down my life that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down of My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.”

All of this saving work is the gift of God’s sovereign grace. Consequently, Paul concludes, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. In effect he was saying to Peter, “By withdrawing from fellowship with your Gentile brothers you take your stand with the Judaizers and against Christ. You nullify the grace of God by denying the need for Christ’s death, just as you did when you rebuked the Lord for declaring it was necessary for Him to suffer, be killed, and raised on the third day (see Matt. 16:21-22).

The two pillars of the gospel are the grace of God and the death of Christ, and those are the two pillars that, by its very nature, legalism destroys. The person who insists that he can earn salvation by his own efforts undermines the very foundation of Christianity and nullifies the precious death of Christ on his behalf.