Back
The Freedom Fighter, Part I Galatians 2:1-10
This will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave." So wrote veteran news analyst Elmer Davis in his book But We Were Bom Free, and his convictions would certainly be echoed by the Apostle Paul. To Paul, his spiritual liberty in Christ was worth far more than popularity or even security. He was willing to fight for that liberty.
Paul's first fight for Christian liberty was at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-35; Gal. 2:1-10); his second was at a private meeting with Peter (Gal. 2:11-21). Had Paul been unwilling to wage this spiritual warfare, the church in the first century might have become only a Jewish sect, preaching a mixture of Law and grace. But because of Paul's courage, the Gospel was kept free from legalism, and it was carried to the Gentiles with great blessing.
Before we look at the three acts in the first drama, the Council at Jerusalem, we must get acquainted with the participants. Paul, of course, we know as the great apostle to the Gentiles.
Barnabas was one of Paul's closest friends. In fact, when Paul tried to get into the fellowship of the Jerusalem church, it was Barnabas who opened the way for him (Acts 9:26-28).
The name Barnabas means "son of encouragement," and you will always find Barnabas encouraging somebody. When the Gospel came to the Gentiles in Antioch, it was Barnabas who was sent to encourage them in their faith (Acts 11:19-24).
Thus, from the earliest days, Barnabas was associated with the Gentile believers. It was Barnabas who enlisted Paul to help minister at the church in Antioch (Acts 11:25-26), and the two of them worked together, not only in teaching, but also in helping the poor (Acts 11:27-30).
Barnabas accompanied Paul on the first missionary trip (Acts 13:1-14:28) and had seen God's blessings on the Gospel that they preached. It is worth noting that it was Barnabas who encouraged young John Mark after he had "dropped out" of the ministry and incurred the displeasure of Paul (Acts 13:13; 15:36-41). In later years, Paul was able to. commend Mark and benefit from his friendship (Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11).
Titus was a Gentile believer who worked with Paul and apparently was won to Christ through the apostle's ministry (Titus 1:4). He was a "product" of the apostle's ministry among the Gentiles, and was taken to the Jerusalem conference as "exhibit A" from the Gentile churches. In later years, Titus assisted Paul by going to some of the most difficult churches to help them solve their problems (2 Cor. 7; Titus 1:5).
Three men were the "pillars" of the church in Jerusalem: Peter, John, and James, the brother of the Lord (who must not be confused with the Apostle James, who was killed by Herod, Acts 12:1-2). Peter we know from his prominent part in the accounts in the Gospels as well as in the first half of the Book of Acts. It was to Peter that Jesus gave "the keys," so that it was he who was involved in opening the door of faith to the Jews (Acts 2), the Samaritans (Acts 8), and the Gentiles (Acts 10). John we also know from the Gospel records as one of Christ's "inner three" apostles, associated with Peter in the ministry of the Word (Acts 3:1ff).
It is James who perhaps needs more introduction. The Gospel record indicates that Mary and Joseph had other children, and James was among them (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3). (Of course, Jesus was born by the power of the Spirit, and not through natural generation; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38.) Our Lord's brothers and sisters did not believe in Him during His earthly ministry (John 7:1-5). Yet we find "His brethren" associated with the believers in the early church (Acts 1:13-14). Paul informs us that the risen Christ appeared to James, and this was the turning point in his life (1 Cor. 15:5-7). James was the leader of the early church in Jerusalem (Acts 15; see also 21:18). He was also the writer of the Epistle of James; and that letter, plus Acts 21:18, would suggest that he was very Jewish in his thinking.
Along with these men, and the "Apostles and elders" (Acts 15:4, 6), were a group of "false brethren" who infiltrated the meetings and tried to rob the believers of their liberty in Christ (Gal. 2:4). Undoubtedly these were some of the Judaizers who had followed Paul in church after church and had tried to capture his converts. The fact that Paul calls them "false brethren" indicates that they were not true Christians, but were only masquerading as such so they could capture the conference for themselves.
This, then, is the cast of characters. Acts 15 should be read along with Galatians 2:1-10 to get the full story of the event.
Act 1--The Private Consultation (Gal. 2:1-2) Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch from their first missionary journey, excited about the way God had "opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles" (Acts 14:27). But the Jewish legalists in Jerusalem were upset with their report; so they came to Antioch and taught, in effect, that a Gentile had to become a Jew before he could become a Christian (Acts 15:1).
Circumcision, which they demanded of the Gentiles, was an important Jewish rite, handed down from the days of Abraham (Gen. 17). Submitting to circumcision meant accepting and obeying the whole Jewish Law. Actually, the Jewish people had forgotten the inner, spiritual meaning of the rite (Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:1-4; Rom. 2:25-29), just as some churches today have lost the spiritual meaning of baptism and have turned it into an external ritual. The true Christian has experienced an inner circumcision of the heart (Col. 2:10-11) and does not need to submit to any physical operation (Phil. 3:1-3).
When Paul and Barnabas confronted these men with the truth of the Gospel, the result was a heated argument (Acts 15:2). It was decided that the best place to settle the question was before the church leaders in Jerusalem. We should not think that this "Jerusalem Conference" was a representative meeting from all the churches, such as a denominational conference; it was not. Paul, Barnabas, Titus, and certain other men from Antioch represented the Gentile Christians who had been saved totally apart from Jewish Law; but there were no representatives from the churches Paul had established in Gentile territory.
When the deputation arrived in Jerusalem, they met privately with the church leaders. Paul did not go to Jerusalem because the church sent him; he "went up by revelation"—that is, the Lord sent him (compare Gal. 2:1 and 1:12). And the Lord gave him the wisdom to meet with the leaders first so that they would be able to present a united front at the public meetings.
"Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain" (Gal. 2:2) does not mean that Paul was unsure either of his message or his ministry. His conduct on the way to the conference indicates that he had no doubts (Acts 15:3). What he was concerned about was the future of the Gospel among the Gentiles, because this was his specific ministry from Christ. If the "pillars" sided with the Judaizers, or tried to compromise, then Paul's ministry would be in jeopardy. He wanted to get their approval before he faced the whole assembly; otherwise a three-way division could result.
What was the result of this private consultation? The Apostles and elders approved Paul's Gospel. They added nothing to it (Gal. 2:6b) and thereby declared the Judaizers to be wrong. But this private meeting was only the beginning.
Act 2--The Public Convocation (Gal. 2:3-5) The historical account of the Council of Jerusalem is recorded by Luke (Acts 15:6-21). Several witnesses presented the case for the Gospel of the grace of God, beginning with Peter (Acts 15:7-11). It was he who had been chosen by God to take the Gospel to the Gentiles originally (Acts 10); and he reminds the assembly that God gave the Holy Spirit to the believing Gentiles just as He did to the Jews, so that there was "no difference."
This had been a difficult lesson for the early Christians to learn, because for centuries there had been a difference between Jews and Gentiles (Lev. 11:43-47; 20:22-27). In His death on the cross, Jesus had broken down the barriers between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:11-22), so that in Christ there are no racial differences (Gal. 3:28). In his speech to the conference, Peter makes it clear that there is but one way of salvation: faith in Jesus Christ.
Then Paul and Barnabas told the assembly what God had done among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12), and what a "missionary report" that must have been! The "false brethren" who were there must have debated with Paul and Barnabas, but the two soldiers of the Cross would not yield. Paul wanted the "truth of the Gospel" to continue among the Gentiles (Gal. 2:5).
It seems that Titus became a "test case" at this point. He was a Gentile Christian who had never submitted to circumcision. Yet it was clear to all that he was genuinely saved. Now, if the Judaizers were right ("Except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved," Acts 15:1), then Titus was not a saved man. But he was a saved man, and gave evidence of having the Holy Spirit; therefore, the Judaizers were wrong.
At this point, it might be helpful if we considered another associate of Paul—Timothy (see Acts 16:1-3). Was Paul being inconsistent by refusing to circumcise Titus, yet agreeing to circumcise Timothy? No, because two different issues were involved. In the case of Timothy, Paul was not submitting to Jewish Law in order to win him to Christ. Timothy was part Jew, part Gentile, and his lack of circumcision would have hindered his ministry among the people of Israel. Titus was a full Gentile, and for him to have submitted would have indicated that he was missing something in his Christian experience. To have circumcised Titus would have been cowardice and compromise; not to have circumcised Timothy would have been to create unnecessary problems in his ministry.
James, the leader of the church, gave the summation of the arguments and the conclusion of the matter (Acts 15:13-21). As Jewish as he was, he made it clear that a Gentile does not have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian. God's program for this day is to "take out of the Gentiles a people for His name." Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way: through faith in Jesus Christ. James then asked that the assembly counsel the Gentiles to do nothing that would offend unbelieving Jews, lest they hinder them from being saved. Paul won the battle.
His view prevailed in the private meeting when the leaders approved his Gospel and in the public meeting when the group agreed with Paul and opposed the Judaizers.
Echoes of the Jerusalem Conference are heard repeatedly in Paul's Letter to the Galatians. Paul mentions the "yoke of bondage" (Gal. 5:1), reminding us of Peter's similar warning (Acts 15:10). The themes of liberty and bondage are repeated often (Gal. 2:4; 4:3, 9, 21-31; 5:1), as is the idea of circumcision (Gal. 2:3; 5:3-4; 6:12-13).
Centuries later, today's Christians need to appreciate afresh the courageous stand Paul and his associates took for the liberty of the Gospel. Paul's concern was "the truth of the Gospel" (Gal. 2:5, 14), not the "peace of the church." The wisdom that God sends from above is "first pure, then peaceable" (James 3:17). "Peace at any price" was not Paul's philosophy of ministry, nor should it be ours.
Ever since Paul's time, the enemies of grace have been trying to add something to the simple Gospel of the grace of God. They tell us that a man is saved by faith in Christ plus something—good works, the Ten Commandments, baptism, church membership, religious ritual—and Paul makes it clear that these teachers are wrong. In fact, Paul pronounces a curse on any person (man or angel) who preaches any other gospel than the Gospel of the grace of God, centered in Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:6-9; see 1 Cor. 15:1-7 for a definition of the Gospel). It is a serious thing to tamper with the Gospel.
Act 3--The Personal Confirmation (Gal. 2:6-10) The Judaizers had hoped to get the leaders of the Jerusalem church to disagree with Paul.
By contrast, Paul makes it clear that he himself was not impressed either by the persons or the positions of the church leaders. He respected them, of course. Otherwise he would not have consulted with them privately. But he did not fear them or seek to buy their influence. All he wanted them to do was recognize "the grace of God" at work in his life and ministry (Gal. 2:9), and this they did.
Not only did the assembly approve Paul's Gospel, and oppose Paul's enemies, but they encouraged Paul's ministry and recognized publicly that God had committed the Gentile aspect of His work into Paul's hands. They could add nothing to Paul's message or ministry, and they dared not take anything away. There was agreement and unity: one Gospel would be preached to Jews and to Gentiles.
However, the leaders recognized that God had assigned different areas of ministry to different men. Apart from his visit to the household of Cornelius (Acts 10) and to the Samaritans (Acts 8), Peter had centered his ministry primarily among the Jews. Paul had been called as God's special ambassador to the Gentiles. So, it was agreed that each man would minister in the sphere assigned to him by God.
"The Gospel of the circumcision" and "the Gospel of the uncircumcision" are not two different messages; it had already been agreed that there is only one Gospel. Rather, we have here two different spheres of ministry, one to the Jews and the other to the Gentiles. Peter and Paul would both preach the same Gospel, and the same Lord would be at work in and through them (Gal. 2:8), but they would minister to different peoples.
This does not mean that Paul would never seek to win the Jews. To the contrary, he had a great burden on his heart for his people (Rom. 9:1-3). In fact, when Paul came to a city, he would first go to the Jewish synagogue, if there was one, and start his work among his own people. Nor was Peter excluded from ministering to the Gentiles. But each man would concentrate his work in his own sphere assigned to him by the Holy Spirit James, Peter, and John would go to the Jews; Paul would go to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:9b, where the word heathen means "Gentile nations").
The Jerusalem Conference began with a great possibility for division and dissension; yet it ended with cooperation and agreement. "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity" (Ps. 133:1). Perhaps we need to practice some of this same cooperation today.
We need to recognize the fact that God calls people to different ministries in different places; yet we all preach the same Gospel and are seeking to work together to build His church. Among those who know and love Christ, there can be no such thing as "competition." Peter was a great man, and perhaps the leading apostle; yet he gladly yielded to Paul—a newcomer—and permitted him to carry on his ministry as the Lord led him. Previously, Paul explained his independence from the Apostles (Gal. 1); now in Galatians 2 he points out his interdependence with the Apostles. He was free, and yet he was willingly in fellowship with them in the ministry of the Gospel.
We move next from the theological to the practical—helping the poor (Gal. 2:10). Certainly these things go together. Correct doctrine is never a substitute for Christian duty (James 2:14-26). Too often our church meetings discuss problems, but they fail to result in practical help for the needy world. Paul had always been interested in helping the poor (Acts 11:27-30), so he was glad to follow the leaders' suggestion.
Even though the conference ended with Paul and the leaders in agreement, it did not permanently solve the problem. The Judaizers did not give up, but persisted in interfering with Paul's work and invading the churches he founded. Paul carried the good news of the council's decision to the churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:23) and in the other areas where he had ministered (Acts 16:4). But the Judaizers followed at his heels (like yelping dogs—see Phil. 3:1-3), starting at Antioch where they even swayed Peter to their cause (see Gal. 2:llff).
There is little question that the Judaizers went to the churches of Galatia to sow their seeds of discord, and for this reason Paul had to write the letter we are now studying. It may have been written from Antioch shortly after the Council of Jerusalem, though some scholars date it later and have Paul writing from either Ephesus or Corinth. These historical details are important, but they are not vital to an understanding of the letter itself. Suffice it to say that this is probably Paul's earliest letter, and in it we find every major doctrine that Paul believed, preached, and wrote about in his subsequent ministry.
The curtain falls on this drama, but it will go up to reveal another. Once again God's "freedom fighter" will have to defend the truth of the Gospel, this time before Peter.
The Freedom Fighter, Part II Galatians 2:11-21
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.
Peter's Relapse (Gal. 2:11-13) Apparently, sometime after the important conference described in Acts 15, Peter came from Jerusalem to Antioch. 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, me 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.
Paul's Rebuke (Gal. 2:14-21) Bible students are not sure just where Paul's conversation with Peter ends and where his letter to the Galatians continues in the passage. It does not really matter since the entire section deals with the same topic: our liberty in Jesus Christ. We will assume that the entire section represents Paul's rebuke of Peter. It is interesting to note that Paul builds the entire rebuke on doctrine. There are five basic Christian doctrines that were being denied by Peter because of his separation from the Gentiles.
The unity of the church (v. 14). 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.
Justification by faith (vv. 15-16), 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.
Freedom from the Law (vv. 17-18). 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.
The very Gospel itself (vv. 19-20). 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 grace of God (v. 21). 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 feet, 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.
The Freedom Fighter, Part I Galatians 2:1-10
This will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave." So wrote veteran news analyst Elmer Davis in his book But We Were Bom Free, and his convictions would certainly be echoed by the Apostle Paul. To Paul, his spiritual liberty in Christ was worth far more than popularity or even security. He was willing to fight for that liberty.
Paul's first fight for Christian liberty was at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-35; Gal. 2:1-10); his second was at a private meeting with Peter (Gal. 2:11-21). Had Paul been unwilling to wage this spiritual warfare, the church in the first century might have become only a Jewish sect, preaching a mixture of Law and grace. But because of Paul's courage, the Gospel was kept free from legalism, and it was carried to the Gentiles with great blessing.
Before we look at the three acts in the first drama, the Council at Jerusalem, we must get acquainted with the participants. Paul, of course, we know as the great apostle to the Gentiles.
Barnabas was one of Paul's closest friends. In fact, when Paul tried to get into the fellowship of the Jerusalem church, it was Barnabas who opened the way for him (Acts 9:26-28).
The name Barnabas means "son of encouragement," and you will always find Barnabas encouraging somebody. When the Gospel came to the Gentiles in Antioch, it was Barnabas who was sent to encourage them in their faith (Acts 11:19-24).
Thus, from the earliest days, Barnabas was associated with the Gentile believers. It was Barnabas who enlisted Paul to help minister at the church in Antioch (Acts 11:25-26), and the two of them worked together, not only in teaching, but also in helping the poor (Acts 11:27-30).
Barnabas accompanied Paul on the first missionary trip (Acts 13:1-14:28) and had seen God's blessings on the Gospel that they preached. It is worth noting that it was Barnabas who encouraged young John Mark after he had "dropped out" of the ministry and incurred the displeasure of Paul (Acts 13:13; 15:36-41). In later years, Paul was able to. commend Mark and benefit from his friendship (Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11).
Titus was a Gentile believer who worked with Paul and apparently was won to Christ through the apostle's ministry (Titus 1:4). He was a "product" of the apostle's ministry among the Gentiles, and was taken to the Jerusalem conference as "exhibit A" from the Gentile churches. In later years, Titus assisted Paul by going to some of the most difficult churches to help them solve their problems (2 Cor. 7; Titus 1:5).
Three men were the "pillars" of the church in Jerusalem: Peter, John, and James, the brother of the Lord (who must not be confused with the Apostle James, who was killed by Herod, Acts 12:1-2). Peter we know from his prominent part in the accounts in the Gospels as well as in the first half of the Book of Acts. It was to Peter that Jesus gave "the keys," so that it was he who was involved in opening the door of faith to the Jews (Acts 2), the Samaritans (Acts 8), and the Gentiles (Acts 10). John we also know from the Gospel records as one of Christ's "inner three" apostles, associated with Peter in the ministry of the Word (Acts 3:1ff).
It is James who perhaps needs more introduction. The Gospel record indicates that Mary and Joseph had other children, and James was among them (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3). (Of course, Jesus was born by the power of the Spirit, and not through natural generation; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38.) Our Lord's brothers and sisters did not believe in Him during His earthly ministry (John 7:1-5). Yet we find "His brethren" associated with the believers in the early church (Acts 1:13-14). Paul informs us that the risen Christ appeared to James, and this was the turning point in his life (1 Cor. 15:5-7). James was the leader of the early church in Jerusalem (Acts 15; see also 21:18). He was also the writer of the Epistle of James; and that letter, plus Acts 21:18, would suggest that he was very Jewish in his thinking.
Along with these men, and the "Apostles and elders" (Acts 15:4, 6), were a group of "false brethren" who infiltrated the meetings and tried to rob the believers of their liberty in Christ (Gal. 2:4). Undoubtedly these were some of the Judaizers who had followed Paul in church after church and had tried to capture his converts. The fact that Paul calls them "false brethren" indicates that they were not true Christians, but were only masquerading as such so they could capture the conference for themselves.
This, then, is the cast of characters. Acts 15 should be read along with Galatians 2:1-10 to get the full story of the event.
Act 1--The Private Consultation (Gal. 2:1-2) Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch from their first missionary journey, excited about the way God had "opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles" (Acts 14:27). But the Jewish legalists in Jerusalem were upset with their report; so they came to Antioch and taught, in effect, that a Gentile had to become a Jew before he could become a Christian (Acts 15:1).
Circumcision, which they demanded of the Gentiles, was an important Jewish rite, handed down from the days of Abraham (Gen. 17). Submitting to circumcision meant accepting and obeying the whole Jewish Law. Actually, the Jewish people had forgotten the inner, spiritual meaning of the rite (Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:1-4; Rom. 2:25-29), just as some churches today have lost the spiritual meaning of baptism and have turned it into an external ritual. The true Christian has experienced an inner circumcision of the heart (Col. 2:10-11) and does not need to submit to any physical operation (Phil. 3:1-3).
When Paul and Barnabas confronted these men with the truth of the Gospel, the result was a heated argument (Acts 15:2). It was decided that the best place to settle the question was before the church leaders in Jerusalem. We should not think that this "Jerusalem Conference" was a representative meeting from all the churches, such as a denominational conference; it was not. Paul, Barnabas, Titus, and certain other men from Antioch represented the Gentile Christians who had been saved totally apart from Jewish Law; but there were no representatives from the churches Paul had established in Gentile territory.
When the deputation arrived in Jerusalem, they met privately with the church leaders. Paul did not go to Jerusalem because the church sent him; he "went up by revelation"—that is, the Lord sent him (compare Gal. 2:1 and 1:12). And the Lord gave him the wisdom to meet with the leaders first so that they would be able to present a united front at the public meetings.
"Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain" (Gal. 2:2) does not mean that Paul was unsure either of his message or his ministry. His conduct on the way to the conference indicates that he had no doubts (Acts 15:3). What he was concerned about was the future of the Gospel among the Gentiles, because this was his specific ministry from Christ. If the "pillars" sided with the Judaizers, or tried to compromise, then Paul's ministry would be in jeopardy. He wanted to get their approval before he faced the whole assembly; otherwise a three-way division could result.
What was the result of this private consultation? The Apostles and elders approved Paul's Gospel. They added nothing to it (Gal. 2:6b) and thereby declared the Judaizers to be wrong. But this private meeting was only the beginning.
Act 2--The Public Convocation (Gal. 2:3-5) The historical account of the Council of Jerusalem is recorded by Luke (Acts 15:6-21). Several witnesses presented the case for the Gospel of the grace of God, beginning with Peter (Acts 15:7-11). It was he who had been chosen by God to take the Gospel to the Gentiles originally (Acts 10); and he reminds the assembly that God gave the Holy Spirit to the believing Gentiles just as He did to the Jews, so that there was "no difference."
This had been a difficult lesson for the early Christians to learn, because for centuries there had been a difference between Jews and Gentiles (Lev. 11:43-47; 20:22-27). In His death on the cross, Jesus had broken down the barriers between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:11-22), so that in Christ there are no racial differences (Gal. 3:28). In his speech to the conference, Peter makes it clear that there is but one way of salvation: faith in Jesus Christ.
Then Paul and Barnabas told the assembly what God had done among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12), and what a "missionary report" that must have been! The "false brethren" who were there must have debated with Paul and Barnabas, but the two soldiers of the Cross would not yield. Paul wanted the "truth of the Gospel" to continue among the Gentiles (Gal. 2:5).
It seems that Titus became a "test case" at this point. He was a Gentile Christian who had never submitted to circumcision. Yet it was clear to all that he was genuinely saved. Now, if the Judaizers were right ("Except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved," Acts 15:1), then Titus was not a saved man. But he was a saved man, and gave evidence of having the Holy Spirit; therefore, the Judaizers were wrong.
At this point, it might be helpful if we considered another associate of Paul—Timothy (see Acts 16:1-3). Was Paul being inconsistent by refusing to circumcise Titus, yet agreeing to circumcise Timothy? No, because two different issues were involved. In the case of Timothy, Paul was not submitting to Jewish Law in order to win him to Christ. Timothy was part Jew, part Gentile, and his lack of circumcision would have hindered his ministry among the people of Israel. Titus was a full Gentile, and for him to have submitted would have indicated that he was missing something in his Christian experience. To have circumcised Titus would have been cowardice and compromise; not to have circumcised Timothy would have been to create unnecessary problems in his ministry.
James, the leader of the church, gave the summation of the arguments and the conclusion of the matter (Acts 15:13-21). As Jewish as he was, he made it clear that a Gentile does not have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian. God's program for this day is to "take out of the Gentiles a people for His name." Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way: through faith in Jesus Christ. James then asked that the assembly counsel the Gentiles to do nothing that would offend unbelieving Jews, lest they hinder them from being saved. Paul won the battle.
His view prevailed in the private meeting when the leaders approved his Gospel and in the public meeting when the group agreed with Paul and opposed the Judaizers.
Echoes of the Jerusalem Conference are heard repeatedly in Paul's Letter to the Galatians. Paul mentions the "yoke of bondage" (Gal. 5:1), reminding us of Peter's similar warning (Acts 15:10). The themes of liberty and bondage are repeated often (Gal. 2:4; 4:3, 9, 21-31; 5:1), as is the idea of circumcision (Gal. 2:3; 5:3-4; 6:12-13).
Centuries later, today's Christians need to appreciate afresh the courageous stand Paul and his associates took for the liberty of the Gospel. Paul's concern was "the truth of the Gospel" (Gal. 2:5, 14), not the "peace of the church." The wisdom that God sends from above is "first pure, then peaceable" (James 3:17). "Peace at any price" was not Paul's philosophy of ministry, nor should it be ours.
Ever since Paul's time, the enemies of grace have been trying to add something to the simple Gospel of the grace of God. They tell us that a man is saved by faith in Christ plus something—good works, the Ten Commandments, baptism, church membership, religious ritual—and Paul makes it clear that these teachers are wrong. In fact, Paul pronounces a curse on any person (man or angel) who preaches any other gospel than the Gospel of the grace of God, centered in Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:6-9; see 1 Cor. 15:1-7 for a definition of the Gospel). It is a serious thing to tamper with the Gospel.
Act 3--The Personal Confirmation (Gal. 2:6-10) The Judaizers had hoped to get the leaders of the Jerusalem church to disagree with Paul.
By contrast, Paul makes it clear that he himself was not impressed either by the persons or the positions of the church leaders. He respected them, of course. Otherwise he would not have consulted with them privately. But he did not fear them or seek to buy their influence. All he wanted them to do was recognize "the grace of God" at work in his life and ministry (Gal. 2:9), and this they did.
Not only did the assembly approve Paul's Gospel, and oppose Paul's enemies, but they encouraged Paul's ministry and recognized publicly that God had committed the Gentile aspect of His work into Paul's hands. They could add nothing to Paul's message or ministry, and they dared not take anything away. There was agreement and unity: one Gospel would be preached to Jews and to Gentiles.
However, the leaders recognized that God had assigned different areas of ministry to different men. Apart from his visit to the household of Cornelius (Acts 10) and to the Samaritans (Acts 8), Peter had centered his ministry primarily among the Jews. Paul had been called as God's special ambassador to the Gentiles. So, it was agreed that each man would minister in the sphere assigned to him by God.
"The Gospel of the circumcision" and "the Gospel of the uncircumcision" are not two different messages; it had already been agreed that there is only one Gospel. Rather, we have here two different spheres of ministry, one to the Jews and the other to the Gentiles. Peter and Paul would both preach the same Gospel, and the same Lord would be at work in and through them (Gal. 2:8), but they would minister to different peoples.
This does not mean that Paul would never seek to win the Jews. To the contrary, he had a great burden on his heart for his people (Rom. 9:1-3). In fact, when Paul came to a city, he would first go to the Jewish synagogue, if there was one, and start his work among his own people. Nor was Peter excluded from ministering to the Gentiles. But each man would concentrate his work in his own sphere assigned to him by the Holy Spirit James, Peter, and John would go to the Jews; Paul would go to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:9b, where the word heathen means "Gentile nations").
The Jerusalem Conference began with a great possibility for division and dissension; yet it ended with cooperation and agreement. "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity" (Ps. 133:1). Perhaps we need to practice some of this same cooperation today.
We need to recognize the fact that God calls people to different ministries in different places; yet we all preach the same Gospel and are seeking to work together to build His church. Among those who know and love Christ, there can be no such thing as "competition." Peter was a great man, and perhaps the leading apostle; yet he gladly yielded to Paul—a newcomer—and permitted him to carry on his ministry as the Lord led him. Previously, Paul explained his independence from the Apostles (Gal. 1); now in Galatians 2 he points out his interdependence with the Apostles. He was free, and yet he was willingly in fellowship with them in the ministry of the Gospel.
We move next from the theological to the practical—helping the poor (Gal. 2:10). Certainly these things go together. Correct doctrine is never a substitute for Christian duty (James 2:14-26). Too often our church meetings discuss problems, but they fail to result in practical help for the needy world. Paul had always been interested in helping the poor (Acts 11:27-30), so he was glad to follow the leaders' suggestion.
Even though the conference ended with Paul and the leaders in agreement, it did not permanently solve the problem. The Judaizers did not give up, but persisted in interfering with Paul's work and invading the churches he founded. Paul carried the good news of the council's decision to the churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:23) and in the other areas where he had ministered (Acts 16:4). But the Judaizers followed at his heels (like yelping dogs—see Phil. 3:1-3), starting at Antioch where they even swayed Peter to their cause (see Gal. 2:llff).
There is little question that the Judaizers went to the churches of Galatia to sow their seeds of discord, and for this reason Paul had to write the letter we are now studying. It may have been written from Antioch shortly after the Council of Jerusalem, though some scholars date it later and have Paul writing from either Ephesus or Corinth. These historical details are important, but they are not vital to an understanding of the letter itself. Suffice it to say that this is probably Paul's earliest letter, and in it we find every major doctrine that Paul believed, preached, and wrote about in his subsequent ministry.
The curtain falls on this drama, but it will go up to reveal another. Once again God's "freedom fighter" will have to defend the truth of the Gospel, this time before Peter.
The Freedom Fighter, Part II Galatians 2:11-21
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.
Peter's Relapse (Gal. 2:11-13) Apparently, sometime after the important conference described in Acts 15, Peter came from Jerusalem to Antioch. 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, me 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.
Paul's Rebuke (Gal. 2:14-21) Bible students are not sure just where Paul's conversation with Peter ends and where his letter to the Galatians continues in the passage. It does not really matter since the entire section deals with the same topic: our liberty in Jesus Christ. We will assume that the entire section represents Paul's rebuke of Peter. It is interesting to note that Paul builds the entire rebuke on doctrine. There are five basic Christian doctrines that were being denied by Peter because of his separation from the Gentiles.
The unity of the church (v. 14). 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.
Justification by faith (vv. 15-16), 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.
Freedom from the Law (vv. 17-18). 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.
The very Gospel itself (vv. 19-20). 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 grace of God (v. 21). 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 feet, 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.