Week four: 2.11-21 Paul explains a false issue

Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author, except as provided by U.S.A. copyright laws.

I would suggest at the outset in this section that if you spend any time in commentaries you will most likely find a lot of supposition and speculation. Beware, and stick to the text as closely as you can. For example, some suggest that Peter was the leader of the Judaizers in Jerusalem and that the Jews that came to Paul's area in this text were Judaizers. I am not sure you can validate that scripturally.

Is it important to know who the Jews from Jerusalem were? Yes, because this is Scripture we are dealing with and all is important but in the grand scope of things - not in my mind, they were Jews and the others were Gentiles and Peter acted in a way that was inconsistent with the Gospel. Yes, if they were the Judaizers it would be clearer for us to understand, but I can't imagine why Paul would clobber Peter over what he did if the Judaizers were present with their false doctrine. I would guess he would have had a revival meeting in the back room with the Judaizers and if that was unsuccessful I'd guess that he would have preached a message to the Gentiles about their false teaching. Additionally, if Peter were the head of the Judaizers, as some suggest, I doubt he would have avoided mentioning his false teaching in with his inconsistent living.

To say these were Judaizers and that Peter was identifying with them is to say that he believed that the law was a requirement of salvation along with Christ. I am not sure that I believe that, nor that it can be supported with the Word.

One author suggests that Peter was changing his beliefs to accommodate those he associated with when he sat with the Jews rather than with the Gentiles. Again I am not sure I believe this nor that it is the teaching of the Word.

Another author suggests that due to James and his bent toward legalism that he had sent some of his followers to check up on Peter. Again, what is this based on? This is not the record that Paul gives us. It would seem they are looking at the book of James and judging him to be legalistic and then further assuming that he is causing problems, which I might add, is not true on either count.

11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

After telling the reader that he had the apostle’s agreement, he tells them that he confronted Peter. This guy thinks he has the truth and is going to enforce it from the looks of things.

The 19th century German scholar, F. C. Baur suggests that there was a conflict so deep at this point that the conflict between Peter and Paul continued for quite some time. He suggests that any book by either that doesn't show this conflict between law and grace is not valid. He interpreted those books that were left according to this theory. Few hold to his thinking and most feel that the conflict was over quickly.

I guess some pundit would say that if only Peter and Paul had found Mary there would have been peace and not conflict, but I don't think I would want to say that in print.

Some suggest that this conflict occurred before the Jerusalem Council and call to reference the fact that the conflict did not last long because in Galatians there is conflict and later at the council there is only support from Peter for Paul.

We see in this section Paul's final argument to the Judaizers, in that his gospel was from Christ, his gospel was validated by the apostles and now that he had the power to confront Peter, an apostle, when he was found to be in the wrong.

There are four areas of error:

Peter and the Jews seemed to be out of line in their actions - they wanted to separate themselves from the Gentiles.

There must have been some stumbling in the Gentile group to have called for confrontation.

Not only was there the problem of causing others to sin it was hypocritical of Peter to suggest that eating with Jews only was the spiritual thing to do.

And finally there is the problem that it appeared that they were going back to a keeping of the law in some manner instead of living a life of grace.

Now, the question in my mind is whether Peter even thought of the problems that he had caused. Had he consciously set about to offend others? No, definitely not. He simply feared that he would be thought to be in error if he did not eat with the Jews. I don't think there was an attempt to cause trouble, only to protect himself and his character. That can be a problem at times - don't protect your character at the cost of others.

15 We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Verse sixteen seems to say three times in quick succession, that the law doesn't cut it in salvation - I rather think Paul was trying very hard to get that point across to his readers.

Darby translates the verse this way. "We, Jews by nature, and not sinners of [the] nations"

The "we" being Peter and Paul - we - Jews by our very nature and heritage, and not lost as the Gentiles, know that we aren't justified by the law, but by faith is the thought of verse fifteen. Another clear declaration of salvation by faith in Christ alone, without any part of the law.

17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Jamieson Fausset and Brown suggest that Paul is saying, if we, justified by faith in Christ, are found to be sinners - by eating with the Gentiles - then is Christ not the one causing us to sin if we eat with them?

Just an observation before we move on, I have to wonder what kind of relationship Peter and Paul had intellectually. This is Paul's side of the conversation, and it is such a detailed complicated response - what must Peters comments have been to elicit such a response? Just a thought to ponder.

It seems that Paul saw some feeling in the Jews, that Christ had made things different for them. The Jews and Gentiles were considered as sinners before God and seemingly the Jews may have felt that since they knew about God before the Gentiles did that they should have some special standing before God. Paul seemed to sense that there was a feeling that Christ dying for the Gentiles to was somehow causing them trouble with the Gentiles.

Paul says Christ did not cause this sin.

My own view of this verse is this. If you are seeking to be saved by faith in Christ and look to the law also - which is going to tell you that you are a sinner - then does Christ become the purveyor of sin - definitely not - it is the law that is the problem not Christ.

Verse eighteen (18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.) follows to say if I lay on the law I lay on the sin as well and make myself again a sinner, when in reality Christ has made us free and Christ is all we need to remain so - if we in fact take on the law then we take on sin once again. No, I am not speaking of security at all. He is explaining the relation of the law to Christ.

Verse nineteen adds to this! 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

I'm dead to the law and it can no longer make me a sinner, because I cannot obey all of it.

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

There is a choice to make. You can trust in the grace extended by Christ or you can trust the works of your mind and body to gain acceptance with God and gain entrance into his heaven. There are two choices, but only one can be had per person, you can't have it both ways, you can't do both, the one excludes the other.

Kind of like toast. Dry and crumbly, only way it comes but a little butter seems to make it a little more acceptable. No, works do not make the cross a little more acceptable - the cross stands on its own or it does not stand.

The overall argument to the Galatian believers - my gospel is from God, my gospel teaches right living, and just to add a little proof to the pudding, my gospel corrected Peter himself. If my gospel does it all, how can you want to try to live by someone else's perverted gospel?

Verse twenty-one restates it all again, if I take upon myself the law I render Christ's death null and void - for myself, not for all man. (21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.)

Note that the law frustrates the grace of God. Oopps, I say ooopppppps, that verse should frustrate also the Calvinist that believes man cannot frustrate or interfere with what God wants to do. If we follow through on the thinking - if I take on the law it seems that it will hinder grace. Just how far can we take this? If I am a lost person and take upon myself the law am I not countering grace completely? It would seem so. IF I counter grace completely am I not choosing the state of the lost? It would seem so, and since this counters the rest of the Word we need to understand this text in the spirit in which it was given not in some intellectual manner.

Paul is giving a defense of doctrine, not stating cases in point. He is speaking hypothetically. Not that one can choose to step outside of salvation, but that this is the end result of what the Judaizers are attempting to do. It is impossible to do in actuality.

APPLICATION:

1. We have a very clear threefold application that needs to be looked at.

a. Paul had the umph to confront an apostle with wrong doing. Wow, do we dare suggest there is application for us today in this thought? Dare we not apply what we have seen?

First, if you see another, or especially in this context, a leader of the church in error we must confront them with their error. They are not exempt from church discipline if required.

Secondly, if you do confront a leader, be sure to duck very quickly and run for cover for the fountains of verbiage will expel upon your head profusely. I've tried it a time or two and the results were very ugly. What am I saying here? Duck and run :-)! Be sure you are correct in your assessment of the situation, pray for your own preparation and confront the wrong.

This is all you can do, this is what Scripture requires us to do and it is what the Lord wants us to do, however if it goes real sour, don't be surprised, don't be dismayed, know that you have done right.

Years ago I confronted our pastor with having betrayed a confidence I had shown him. He did not deny it, just sat there and stared at me. He, like a trooper, took the ire of the upset member so the member would leave, then he promptly started spreading rumors about me.

Ultimately we had to leave the church because the deacons backed him completely and had accepted all his lies about me as truth. I found later that he had done the same to a couple of other students, and he did it to the two that followed me.

Know that truth is on your side and that you must follow its dictates and not fear's.

b. The obvious next application is to the other party in the conflict. First if you do wrong accept confrontation openly and correctly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a leader faltering now and then as long as it is unintentional. Secondly, step up to the consequences if there are any.

To admit error and to accept consequences is a lot more spiritual than to lie and backbite behind your oppositions back. There is never a time that a leader should take the low road to conflict resolution.

Peter faced what needed to be done and did it. There was no argument, there was no passing of the buck, and there was no rationalization. He did what needed to be done.

That must have been hard for Peter - think of it - the man that preached the message that founded the church - the man all looked up to as the leader of the church - how difficult it must have been for him to face criticism, to admit wrong, and correct his action. Peter may have been a lot of things, but at the very least he was a big man to admit his error.

c. Of course there is the third aspect to this application - Paul did it to Peter's face. He didn't slink off to Jerusalem and corner the rest of the apostles and say "Hey, you know what Peter is doin now?" He went face to face and confronted the error with the man that was committing it.

2. This might be a good place to clarify the law. Paul is not saying that the law is done away with, and he is not saying it is of none effect, nor is he saying we should set it aside. He is merely saying that it is not an integrated part of being saved - that is through Christ's work on the cross and it alone. The law is something that is good as he states in Rom. 7.12 "Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."

This is not to say that we need to follow the ceremonial law for Christ is the Lamb, and there is no need for any other. The moral law however is something that we should use as a guide for our lives. The Ten Commandments are moral guide posts for our everyday living.

3. The Life Application Bible notes state that these men from James were Judaizers and that the problem was that Peter had been eating with Gentiles prior to their arrival and when they arrived he started eating with the Judaizers. They did not state any proof of this, and I think it was just an embellishment to show greater conflict than was really there. There may be evidence of this but I am not aware of it at the present.

I would suspect Paul would have blown a gasket if that had been the case.

4. I am going to offend some with the following, but so be it. The crux of what Paul is saying is that you must not include the law in your gospel else wise you push Christ out of it. If you trust the law and Christ for your salvation, then you are trusting the law. You have replaced the gospel of Christ with the gospel of the law.

Likewise there are many today that substitute other rules and regulations as being part of the gospel. You accept Christ, but you must also bow to these laws to be saved.

Now, there are others that suggest if you see any do's and don'ts in the Word of God and try to follow them then you are a legalist. This ism number one, totally absurd and against the teaching of what legalism is, and secondly seems to be a form of legalism itself. Aren't they saying that to believe the true gospel you must reject all do's and don'ts from the Scripture? It seems that this is a set of laws that are added to the simple gospel of Christ.

If I accept Christ and then find I must not follow the do's and don'ts of Scripture to be saved is this not legalism of a sort? I think so.

Some today add Lordship to the simple Gospel. To be properly saved you must accept Christ and you must make Him Lord of your life. That seems to me to be a two step process when God has given only a one step process.

I agree that Lordship should be a part of all believers’ lives, but it may not be an immediate condition after salvation. Many things might hinder even the understanding of Lordship thus if these folks thinking is correct, the person has accepted Christ but is not saved until they understand and act on Lordship. Not a teaching that I would like to espouse.

5. Life Application Bible notes suggest three ways in which the law is good for the believer.

First, it gives us the proper standard to follow so allows us to live properly. Secondly, when we view it we are convicted of sin and are able to know our path is to seek God and his forgiveness. Thirdly, it requires us to trust wholly in Christ and Christ alone, because we can never keep the law and even if we could it could not save us.

6. It seems to me that Paul says Peter was eating with Gentiles, then when the Jews came he started eating with them, and the Gentiles, if they wanted to eat with Peter, would have to live as Jews. This seems the crux.

Today, when someone is saved what do we do - mold them in our image. I have fought this all my life and seemingly have lost. Glad Paul got away with the truth.

I was born and raised in a little farming town in the middle of Nebraska. I was raised as a common sort of person. My parents had education, but they lived as everyone else lived in town. When I went into the ministry, I found there was great pressure to conform to a certain, "stuck up" in my mind, image of a minister. Clean cut, proper English, proper manners, and all that stuff.

I am from Nebraska. Though not an official redneck, I am somewhat of that mentality. Why should I become something that I am not? I'm sure if I were to go to a class reunion the classmates would see the drastic changes in my manner, even though I have attempted to remain as I was - a simple Nebraska kid at heart. I have never taken on the holier than thou rhetoric, I have not always followed the crowd and as a result I have been on the outside most of my life.

Not to worry, I have done what God has called me to do and it is He I attempt to please not those that are around me.

When we see someone that lives a little differently, if it is not sinful, then what business is it of ours to try to make them to be like ourselves - in a word or two, isn't that a little arrogant?

7. A further problem or possibly the main problem, the eating only being a symptom, is the implied superiority of the Jew. They ate separately, they separated from the Gentiles. This was the real problem and that is what Paul addressed next.

I mentioned I am the Nebraska kid, well this Nebraska kid has always felt that I should dress in my best clothes to go to meet in God's house. I have always done this even though I did not have a suit for many years, but I always wore the best clothes I could afford.

At one point I was judged, by some super saints that wore suits, as having spiritual problems because I wore cowboy boots (the best I had - only footwear I owned) and dress slacks and sweaters over white shirt and tie. It ultimately lead to the pastor confronting me with my spiritual problems.

Now, it seems that there had to be a little arrogance on the part of some in this situation, in that they were trying to require me to go buy a suit that I definitely could not afford so that I could be as spiritual as they. I might mention in passing that when we had a couples get together for the church nobody showed up - seems they, like Peter, separated themselves as well - we had no fellowship with the people in that church though we tried very hard.

Now, that casual is in for church dress, I have bought a couple of suits over the years, and find that I am now on the outs with the casuals. One assistant pastor came to me one morning, looked me up and down, and said, "Boy you make me look like a scrounge." His assessment, not mine. His comment as well as others he made over a few months seemed clearly to say, you really aren't dressed properly, you really ought to dress like me.

I don't wear suits to make others uncomfortable; I wear suits because that is the best I have to wear when I go to church.

Oh well, Nebraskans aren't known for their fitting into ........... Enough said :-)

8. The believer today can deny the gospel by the way he lives. This is what Peter was doing.

9. We should look forward to our most basic beliefs and practices being tested. Peter walked into this test of his lifestyle and came out changed because he was in error. I trust that we will be open to change our belief/practice if we find it to deny basic truth from the Word.

I have a particular doctrine in which I hold to a little different view than most. I have put it on the internet for people to consider and question. I am not saying categorically that I would teach this doctrine as truth, since I am still comparing the Word to that belief to see if it really stands up to the Word.

A few years after putting the file online I was contacted by one of the internet writers that seems to know all, see all, and tell all, especially the tell part. He started blasting me about the teaching, which was okay - I had asked for input. As I countered many of his points, he would suggest many more. It was obvious that he was discussing this from the point of view that he was right and that I was wrong. There was no thought to the fact that he might be in error, or that I might have some valid points.

I didn't mind the testing, but I minded the closed mind at the other end. There was no real thought as to the possible validity of my point. I further, in my file raised a number of items in Scripture, problems if you will, that my line of thought answers most perfectly.

I asked that he respond to the problem areas with his answers to them. There was never any mention of these questions, totally ignored went they.

Know the Word, know the Lord and know your heart, and from there give thought to criticism from others. It will come, consider it and make your decision, then be comfortable in that decision. If change is needed, do so; if not then go forward in your life knowing that you have considered the possibles.

10. Giants fail - Peter did wrong, and he was confronted on the issue.

11. Confrontation of public wrong should be public, not private. I have been told that when one of the seminar people was in his prime some of his teaching was found wanting. Someone asked to discuss the teaching openly, and he refused calling up Matthew 18 as the reason - he said he would be glad to discuss it privately.

The accuser stood firm and pointed out that his teaching was public and that some of his students were taking his teaching to extreme limits and it was wrong. Since the supposed wrong was in public, the discussion should be in public.

Right on! That accuser stood for truth. He gained that discussion and from what I am told there was public recognition of wrong teaching.

Sin needs to be confronted - it should be confronted personally if it is personal and public when it is public. Confrontation is very important. If we don't do it we gain a church as we have today - one that is full of sin - open sin - and nothing is being done about it. How in the world can we be a witness to the world of sinners when we are being a witness of open sin? Never can we be the light of the world. The church must purify itself before we can be a witness for our Lord.

12. Courage strengthens the church. This incident was one that straightened out a problem in the early church. It took courage for Paul to confront Peter, the leader of the church, the one that preached the first sermon of the church, the one that Christ seemed to favor - how does one gather enough courage to say, hey, you, you are doing wrong?

I fear - good choice of words - that I have been very weak in this area of Christian life. I find it easy to confront the wrongs I see in the church in the printed page, or online, but when it comes to face to face, nose to nose, and toes to toes confrontation I find it terribly hard to muster enough courage to do what is called for.

Those few times I mustered courage enough, the one I confronted was in no spiritual condition to see the truth of what I was saying, or just didn't care to be logical and spiritual.

The fact is that God wants us to confront, whether we are rebuked or if we are accepted - our responsibility is to confront wrong, it is up to God to deal with the result.

13. I wonder if part of the problem was that Peter was raised in Judaism and all that Judaism was at this time, thus when he accepted Christ he had that struggle of how to change his life to properly picture the change in direction of his life and belief.

It doesn't take long to think of the Roman Catholic that accepts the Lord. Some never leave the Roman church - not that it is right for them to stay, but it is understandable when you realize the life long indoctrination and habit that they have had and still have.

I don't see Peter as looking at this situation and deciding "I am going to offend the Gentiles and fellowship with the Jewish boys because they are my kind. Rather, I envision Peter just doing what he wanted to do and not thinking of the implications of how it looked and what message it was sending.

A strong point to remember - think about how you live your life and how it appears to others.

14. The question to be asked at this point: If a person accepts Christ then begins to add the law because he thinks it will help in his salvation, is he really a Christian. Another question that automatically comes up is this; if a person that is keeping the law in Judaism accepts Christ and continues to obey the law, is he really a Christian. One further question is if a person has been a Christian for several years and comes to believe that obedience to the law is required for his salvation, is he a person that was lost as we all were, and became a Christian, then by accepting the law became lost?

God will sort it out is the proper attitude, but let us see if we can sort it out a little more for our own minds.

I think it is clear that Paul is speaking hypothetically to prove a point - that the Judaizers are not correct in their doctrine. He is using logic to show that adding the law to grace has all sorts of illogical conclusions. In reality you can't add law to grace. Grace is complete in its work and no matter how hard you try you cannot assist it to its end.

In conclusion, I would suggest that if a person accepted Christ and later added the law, that he probably did not truly accept Christ unto salvation. A person can make a mental assent to the gospel without really accepting the reality of it within their life.

Years ago we met a Jewish woman that had been "led to the Lord" by a pastor. She had a glowing testimony for several months, but soon started seeking further spirituality. She ended up falling into the trap of the charismatic movement - seeking the baptism so she could be really complete.

Ultimately she happened into a little Baptist church and heard the gospel in its simplicity and reality and accepted Christ as payment for her sin. Some suggested that she was saved the first time and just didn't understand her salvation; others felt that the pastor did not clearly share the gospel with her.

Today, we have a watered down gospel that lets everyone accept - the gospel is so broad that anyone can believe it. We need first to get them lost in their minds, and then they can be saved.

Now, back to the question. I, at this point in my study of the Word, believe that a person that is truly saved that adds obedience to the law is not really adding anything to grace. They are only adding bondage to their living. Are they lost, I don't believe they are. Do they mock grace in their lives, very definitely. Does their obedience to the law detract from grace, now, how could it, grace is complete.

Do they hinder their ability to evangelize? Definitely, they are preaching a polluted gospel - however it is no more polluted than the easy believism that evangelicals have allowed themselves to slide into.

I do believe that it is God that will have to sort things out in the end. To clarify, if I may, to work after salvation is good, but if you do it for salvation, you work in vain. If at any point you are truly trusting in your works for salvation, then you are not trusting God for them and you probably are not saved.

If a saved person is swayed into believing they must work to be saved, I do not believe that they have lost their eternal salvation, only the peace that grace can give. That person is not being overly nice to God in suggesting that He didn't do it right, but once a person is saved they cannot move themselves out of that personal relationship with God.