Galatians
2:11-21: “Paul Rebuked Peter In
By
1.
In our last
study, we looked at verses 1-10 of chapter 2, and conclude our discussion about
what we learn about the background and calling of the apostle Paul.
1.1.
We finished up
Paul’s defense of his apostleship and calling, this time by talking about his
trip to
1.2.
We looked closely
at that Jerusalem Council that is referenced in our study, and also written
about in Acts chapter 15.
1.3.
We also looked at
Peter’s calling to preach the gospel to the family of Cornelius, the first
Gentile to come to salvation after Jesus was raised from the dead. This is found in Acts chapter 10. We saw that Peter’s vision that he had to go
to the house of Cornelius revealed the same truth that Paul received from Jesus
Christ in the deserts of
2.
In our study
today, we are going to look at verses 11-21 of chapter 2.
2.1.
Paul will tell us
about an event that occurred in which he had to rebuke the apostle Peter for
hypocrisy because when some Jewish believers came up from
2.2.
We will see that
Paul will state that no flesh shall ever be justified by the works of the Law,
and we will discuss why this is so.
2.3.
When Jesus Christ
called His disciples and began to teach them how they were to live, He did not
follow the legalistic rules that the Pharisees had set up and added to the
commandments of scripture. He taught His
disciples in all cases to obey the scriptures, and to live holy lives. But, He didn’t teach them to follow the rules
and regulations that were manmade, those that the religious establishment set
in place and enforced, for instance:
2.3.1. The Pharisees taught their followers to wash their
hands before they ate, because they taught that dirty hands would defile one
before God. However, Jesus taught His
disciples not to worry about the washing of the hands before meals, and this
was because true righteousness is of the heart, not by external rites and
observances. There is nothing wrong with
washing your hands, that is, as long as your heart motive is not that you will
be made righteous by doing so.
2.3.2. The Pharisees taught their disciples to fast regularly
(two times a week?), and this was because they thought that the external act of
fasting made a person righteous. However,
Jesus taught His disciples not to fast, at least not while He was with
them. Again, the lesson He was showing
is that righteousness is from the heart not external observance. There is nothing wrong with fasting, that is,
and in fact you can be benefited by fasting as a Christian, that is as long as
your heart motive is not that you are making yourself more righteous by your
fasting.
2.3.3. The Pharisees had added several hundred laws to what
the scripture taught about observing the Sabbath, and this was because they
thought that by really regulating what someone did on the Sabbath this would
make that person just so much more righteous before God. However, Jesus taught His disciples not to go
along with the manmade laws regulating the Sabbath because that was not what
the Sabbath was given to man for.
2.3.4. I find it interesting with all that many of the
churches in America have done in trying to legislate it that a Christian should
never drink alcohol, that John chapter 2 tells us that it was the water for purification
(hand washing before a meal) that Jesus used to turn into wine in His first
miracle, at the wedding in Cana. Is
there a lesson for the church today in this regarding adding rules to be
followed for Christians? BTW, it is a
sin to get drunk, that is forbidden in the scripture. Plus, regarding areas that are not forbidden
for us as Christians, Paul wrote to the Romans, in the fourteenth chapter of
that book, that God may have shown us personally that for us to do them it
would be sin for us, and we must not do anything that would cause another
brother or sister to stumble in their faith:
Romans 14:12-15, “12 So then each one of us will give
an account of himself to God. 13
Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not
to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that
nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to
him it is unclean. 15 For if because of food
your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not
destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.”
2.4.
We will see in
our study today, that Paul’s argument against the keeping of the Law to make one
righteous has to do with living an exchanged life, of dying to self and having
Christ live through you, and this means that it deals with the internal matter
of the heart not the external matter of rules, regulations, and rule keeping. Paul will tell us that he died to the law,
and that it is Christ that is living through him, and this exchanged life
trumps a life of external observances and rites every time.
3.
VS 2:11-14 - “11 But when Cephas came to
3.1.
In our previous
study, we saw that Paul was speaking of the events that had occurred at the
Jerusalem Council, recorded for us in Acts 15, and there we saw that Paul had
delivered the gospel that he preached to the apostles and elders of the
church. When Paul had explained how he
had received this gospel, and then Peter recounted what had happened to him in
Acts 10 with taking the gospel to the household of Cornelius, the first
Gentile, the leaders assembled there were of one mind in acknowledging that
Paul’s gospel was of God. It is believed
to be after this time that Peter had come to
3.2.
When we discussed
the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, we saw at that time that Peter had stood up
and then began recounting his vision that he had before he had been summoned to
the house of Cornelius, the Gentile, to preach the gospel. Cornelius and his household had all come to
faith in Christ apart from any works of the Law, being circumcised as a Jew,
etc. In that vision which Peter
mentioned (and which is recorded in Acts 10), we saw that Peter was told to
kill and eat various animals which had been banned under the Jewish Law as
being unclean. Peter knew from this and
God’s acceptance into the faith of Cornelius and his household (evidenced by
their being baptized in the Holy Spirit) that the Gentile believers did not
have to keep the Law of Moses to be saved.
3.3.
Peter in Acts
15:10, at that Jerusalem Council, was very vocal and declared that trying to
force the Gentile believers to have to live under the law was putting on them a
huge burden that no one had been able to carry:
“10 “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?”
Yet, now at least by his actions Peter is going backwards and seemingly
indicating that the Gentile believers would have to live under the Law in order
to be accepted by God, and be saved.
3.4.
The Commentary
Critical And Explanatory states the following about the issue that was involved
when these Jewish brethren came from the church in
“The question at Antioch was not
whether the Gentiles were admissible to the Christian covenant without becoming
circumcised—that was the question settled at the Jerusalem council just
before—but whether the
Gentile Christians were to be admitted to social intercourse with the Jewish
Christians without conforming to the Jewish institution. The
Judaizers, soon after the council had passed the resolutions recognizing the
equal rights of the Gentile Christians, repaired to Antioch, the scene of the
gathering in of the Gentiles (Ac 11:20–26), to witness, what to Jews would look
so extraordinary, the receiving of men to communion of the Church without
circumcision. Regarding the proceeding with prejudice, they explained away the force
of the Jerusalem decision; and probably also desired to watch whether the Jewish
Christians among the Gentiles violated the law, which that decision did not
verbally sanction them in doing, though giving the Gentiles latitude (Ac
15:19).”
3.5.
The Bible Knowledge
Commentary indicates that Peter’s withdrawal from the Gentile believers was a
progressive thing:
“The
verb tenses (imperf.) indicate a gradual withdrawal, perhaps from one joint
meal a day, and then two; or it may be that he began a meal with Gentiles but
finished it with only Jewish Christians. By such actions Peter in effect was teaching that there
were two bodies of Christ, Jewish and Gentile. And that was heresy. But
why did Peter create this breach? Not because of any change in theology, but
simply out of fear. Once, after preaching to Gentile Cornelius, Peter
courageously defended himself before the
3.6.
I believe that at
some point soon after Peter’s vision of Acts that he understood that the
animals banned under the Old Testament Law were now allowed to be eaten by
those who were under the New Covenant of grace through Jesus Christ. It seems pretty clear here that prior to
these ones who had come from James, the brother of Christ and pastor of the
church in Jerusalem, Peter had sat at table with the Gentile believers at the
church in Antioch, and that he had eaten foods that were not kosher under the
Law for a Jew. He had not treated
Gentile believers any different than he would a Jew who had come to faith in
Christ. Further, when Peter had arrived
he found in the church the Jewish brethren who had come to Christ eating
alongside the Gentile believers, and not according to the Jewish dietary laws.
3.7.
We aren’t really
sure why these men had come from James to the church at
3.8.
Whatever the
reason these men were in
3.9.
The influence of
these Jewish believers upon the Jewish Christians in
3.10.
There were three main
problems with Peter’s conduct on this day at the church in
3.10.1. He was being hypocritical because in fact he did
normally eat all kinds of food and hang out with the Gentile believers, but now
he was acting like he did not.
3.10.2. Peter’s actions reflected upon what makes for a person
to be justified before the Lord. His
actions were saying that in addition to having faith in Christ alone to save
you, you also had to have works, you had to do something, you had to keep the
Law of Moses.
3.10.3. It was very hurtful to the Gentile believers who had
been treated as brothers to now be treated as unclean sinners headed for hell.
3.11.
We can thank God
for the apostle Paul and that he had the wisdom and insight to stick to his
guns and not give in to the pressure of these Christian brothers who believed
that in order to be saved you had to both keep the law as well as have faith in
Christ. If Paul had given in to the
pressure from these Jewish brethren, as Peter and Barnabas had done, then who
knows where Christianity would be today.
3.12.
Because Peter was
a leader whom all looked up to and yet he was openly being hypocritical and
disobedient, Paul rebuked him openly and in the presence of all, and perhaps
you could say he followed 1 Timothy 5:19-20:
“19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on
the basis of two or three witnesses. 20 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all,
so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.”
3.13.
Paul’s open rebuke of Peter
was to ask him why he who was a Jew yet who lived like a Gentile would try to
compel the Gentile believers to live like Jews.
3.14.
By the way, those in the
church who have taken the position that Peter was the first pope of the church
have a major dance that they make when they try to interpret this chapter and
see Paul opposing Peter to his face, and prevailing against him. The chapter clearly shows that there was no
hierarchy in the early church with Peter at the top.
3.15.
This chapter also
reveals how that Paul looked even at apostles in the church as being just
regular guys and flawed just as all of us are flawed. He did not put Peter up on a pedestal and he
wasn’t a respecter of persons but rather sought to serve and please the Lord
alone.
4.
VS 2:15 - “15 “We are Jews by nature and
not sinners from among the Gentiles;” – Paul writes that
believers in Christ are Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners
4.1.
Here, I believe
that Paul is referring to how the Jewish race felt about those who were
Gentiles. They thought the Gentiles were
unclean and sinful and they would have nothing to do with them, wouldn’t come
to a Gentile’s house, etc. But, Paul’s
little turn on this idea is that he is saying that all of those who having
faith in Christ for salvation are not to be thought of as like the unclean and
sinful Gentiles, because we believers are all made righteous through Christ
accepted by God, and we need to think of all Christians as being a true ‘Jew’
who is holy and accepted by God.
5.
VS 2:16 - “16 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, so that we may be justified by faith in
Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh
will be justified.” – Paul writes to the Galatians that no man is
justified by the works of the Law, but rather through faith in Christ Jesus,
since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified
5.1.
The Bible
Knowledge Commentary says the following about this word ‘justified’ that
is introduced by Paul here:
“In
this verse, one of the most important in the epistle, the word justified occurs
for the first time. It is a legal term, borrowed from the law courts and means “to
declare righteous.” Its opposite is “to condemn.” But since people are
condemned sinners and God is holy, how can people be justified? In answer, the
apostle made a general declaration that negatively man is not justified by
observing the Law, but positively, justification is by faith in Jesus
Christ.”
5.2.
The Law is a line in the sand, a standard, and as such it shows us our
sin. When we cross over that line we are
found to be sinners.
5.3.
As a standard, God’s Law
could justify no one. In fact, Paul writes
in another place the “Law is for the lawless.” Those whose consciences are not keen enough
to recognize right and wrong, even though the scripture indicates that the Laws
of God have even been placed into our hearts, have the law as a reminder of
God’s holy standard for their conduct.
5.4.
If a person had “never” broken God’s law he would be justified
before God, but only Jesus Christ Himself has never broken God’s Law, therefore
‘no flesh will be justified’ before God based upon the Law.
5.5.
The average person upon the street would tell you that he believes that
if a person is good enough that God will let him into His heaven. However, to get to heaven because you were
good enough would mean that you were justified before God based upon your
works, and this verse tells you that you cannot do that. The ONLY way that a person can get to heaven
is through Jesus Christ and the work that Jesus performed on the cross for
sinful men in paying the full debt of their sin. It is only by faith and trusting Jesus and His
work on the cross that a person shall ever get to heaven.
6.
VS 2:17-18 - “17 “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! 18 “For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I
prove myself to be a transgressor.” – Paul writes to the
Galatians that if a believer who has been justified in Christ, is also found a
sinner, that Christ isn’t a minister of sin, but rather that if we rebuild what
we once destroyed we will prove ourselves to be a transgressor
6.1.
Paul is indicating in this statement that Peter, by virtue of the fact
that he had gone and tried to live under the Law after coming to faith in
Christ, was ‘a transgressor’ because he was “rebuilding that foundation
of salvation by works” in avoiding contact with the Gentile believers after
these Jewish believers had come to them from James in Jerusalem.
6.2.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary states the following about the motive
for these Jewish brethren in believing that a Christian had to keep the Law of
Moses in addition to believing in Christ for salvation:
“Paul’s
opponents argued, however, that since justification by faith eliminated the
Law, it encouraged sinful living. A person could believe in Christ for salvation
and then do as he pleased, having no need to do good works. Paul hotly denied
the charge, especially noting that this made Christ the promoter of sin.
On the contrary, if a believer would return to the Law after trusting
Christ alone for salvation, that Law would only demonstrate that he was a
sinner, a lawbreaker.”
7.
VS 2:19-20 - “19 “For through the Law I died to
the Law, so that I might live to God. 20 “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 gave Himself
up for me.” – Paul tells the Galatians that through the law he
died to the law because he had been crucified with Christ, and it was no longer
he who lived but Christ lived through him, and the life which he now lived, he
lived by faith in the Son of God who loved him and gave His life up for him
7.1.
How was it that ‘through the Law’ Paul ‘died to the Law’? The Law revealed to Him his sin, revealed to him
that he could not keep the Law, and the Law was his “tutor” therefore to
lead him to Christ, so that then he could die ‘to the Law’ but through
new resurrection life in Christ ‘live to God’.
7.2.
The life of legalism and law-keeping does not crucify the sinful nature
within a person, in fact, Paul points out in other places that before he had
come to know Christ as his Lord and Savior that he had kept the Law as a Jew,
albeit he could not keep that internal aspect of the Law of “coveting.” You can be a selfish, self-centered person,
and still keep a set of rules that deal with external conduct. But, you are still motivated by the natural
man, or what Paul refers to elsewhere as “the flesh.”
7.3.
But, now Paul was living a much better life, a life in the power of the
Holy Spirit, an “exchanged life.”
He says of himself that he has been ‘crucified with Christ’ and
that in that place it was no longer he who lived, but Christ that lived in
him. Further, the life that he now lived
he lived ‘by faith in the Son of God.’
A life lived by faith trusts not in your own good works and
righteousness to be accepted by God, but in Christ and what He did on your
behalf. The righteous standards of the
law were kept by Christ, and he paid the debt of our sin, now faith in Him and
what He did for us on the cross is “the means” to be acceptable to God,
the means to have life.
7.4.
The aorist
tense is used here when Paul tells us that he ‘died’ to the
Law. The death of his old sinful nature
happened at a point in time.
7.5.
The perfect tense is used when Paul says, ‘I have been
crucified with Christ’. This
indicates action completed in the past.
Paul is indicating then that when Christ died on the cross, each of us
were crucified with Him, that is our old sinful nature hung on that cross and
died.
7.6.
The Greek present tense is used for the word ‘live’
everywhere it is found in these two verses.
The apostle is speaking therefore of his continuous present condition.
8.
VS 2:21 - “21 I do not nullify the grace of
God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died
needlessly.” – Paul writes that he does not nullify the grace of
God because if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died in vain
8.1.
Paul makes the point here that if a person could be made righteous
through rules and law-keeping then Jesus Christ’s coming and his death upon the
cross was needless. In fact, all that
Jesus went through on that day He died upon the cross would be a needless
tragedy if men could be made righteous and acceptable to God based upon their
deeds and works of the Law.
8.2.
If men could make themselves righteous enough to be accepted by God
then salvation would be earned by them, and it would not be by ‘the grace of
God’. But, this is not the case and
thus Paul said he did not want to bring to nothing or ‘nullify’ the
grace of God.
8.3.
I have a friend who the other day said something I thought was
profound: “The grace of God is the
biggest scandal in the universe.”
When you think about this statement, it is so true. That God extended grace to us, a bunch of
sinners who deserved condemnation and punishment, is a scandal, and this is
because we absolutely do not deserve God’s grace. But, because of God’s love for us, after we
had sinned, the Lord determined to for us to be redeemed not through our own
effort, but through Him sending His only begotten Son to come and die upon the
cross for our sins, so that we could be saved by His grace. Grace means we did not deserve what Christ
did for us
8.4.
Another friend of mine once said that when you preach about God’s grace
that if someone doesn’t come up to you afterwards and tell you that you have
gone too far, then you haven’t gone far enough.
9.
CONCLUSIONS:
9.1.
We must never think that by trying our best to be good and keep a set
of rules that we can be accepted by God.
Righteousness is imputed to the believer from Christ, and it is His
righteousness not ours that makes us acceptable to God.
9.2.
We have freedom in Christ, freedom from the Law, but not freedom to
sin. Breaking God’s Law is always a sin.
9.3.
Paul tells us in his writings “all things are lawful but not all
things are profitable.” Though we
have freedom to do a lot of things, we must be careful not to stumble in our
faith, or cause others to stumble. Paul
states that if God has revealed something to be sinful to you, then you better
not do it because to you it will be sin.
9.4.
Are you living the exchanged life?
Are you dead to sin and Christ is living through you? This is the life that gives glory to God and
will please Him. This is walking in the
power of the Holy Spirit and that “eternal life” that Christ came to
give us. Experiencing anything less is
to live in the domain of the flesh, the domain of Law and condemnation, the
domain of rule and law-keeping. As a
Christian, you either have an internal dynamic of spiritual life working within
you as Christ lives in and through you, or you are living under the laws and
domain of sin, death, and condemnation.