Commentary on Galatians (35)
Rick Joyner, who claims to be a prophet, published a book in which he recounts a vision he had received about "the final quest" of the church – its journey, growth, triumph, and so on. It pictures the church as a group of warriors marching against the enemies of Christ. At one stage in the story, as this army climbs a mountain on its way to the destination, it reaches a plateau called "Galatians 2:20," and the interpretation is that the church will not succeed in its mission until Christians finally attain to the advanced spirituality described in that verse.
This false prophecy reflects a common misuse of the verse, which describes the condition of anyone who has been justified in Christ through faith, rather than an advanced stage of spiritual maturity to be attained by one who is already a believer. That is, unless a person has been crucified with Christ, and unless Christ lives in him, he is not just an immature Christian, but he is not a Christian at all. The irony is that there is in fact some truth to Joyner's claim, although in a completely different sense than his alleged revelation intends. And that is the fact that the way for the church to move forward today is for professing believers who are not truly believers to become converted.
For a long time the church has been advocating false doctrines, employing false methodologies, and refraining from harsh reprimands and excommunications. Because of this massive failure, millions of false converts have gathered in our congregations. The only corrective is to reverse these three tendencies – to preach sound doctrines, enforce proper methodologies, and cleanse the church by confronting wickedness and expelling the unrepentant. Then a greater part of the church will have attained to Galatians 2:20 – that is, they will be Christians.
Perhaps the verse has been so easily misused because of its profound expressions and its elevated concepts, so that although they have already been converted, even true believers feel as if they have not yet attained to it. Even for Christians, its Christ-centered emphasis presents a sharp contrast against our self-centered thinking and behavior. Nevertheless, we cannot use our diverse and fickle feelings or our struggles in sanctification as controlling factors in biblical interpretation. Galatians 2:20 describes a person who has been justified in Christ through faith – that is, it is a description of any Christian at all.
One commentator remarks that if Paul had ended his letter here, he would have already made his point. Indeed, he has answered his opponents regarding his personal history, his relationship with the Jerusalem leaders and their position on the doctrine at issue, his role in the Antioch incident, and the theological reasons for the gospel of justification by divine grace through faith in Christ as opposed to a doctrine of justification by human effort through the works of the law. Relative to the arguments of the Judaizers, it is not necessary for Paul to say more – he has already won by this point. Yet God inspired the apostle to provide additional clarifications and arguments. In any case, this is the reason for our extensive exposition on this first major portion of the letter. Subsequent passages will expand on the foundation now established, reinforcing Paul's doctrine from several perspectives.
This is as good a place as any to make one point about the use of this doctrine of justification by faith in Christian apologetics. It is sometimes argued that Christianity is the only religion that does not advocate in some way salvation by one's own effort and good works. It is the only message of salvation that insists on a total dependence on divine grace and mercy, and faith in a sacrificial atonement. And this is somehow supposed to indicate that Christianity is a superior worldview or even the only true religion.
However, although uniqueness (and uniqueness on this issue) might have its place in some contexts, it is hardly a convincing argument here. For one, unless additional and convincing arguments are supplied, its uniqueness does not necessarily indicate a positive, but it can very well mean that it is an inferior worldview or religion, so peculiar and problematic that it occupies a place by itself below all other alternatives.
Moreover, the uniqueness of Christianity on this matter, if it is indeed unique, can be quickly destroyed by anyone who invents a religion that mimics its doctrines of atonement and justification. Of course, we can argue that, unless it copies Christianity completely, in which case it is Christianity, such a religion will have insuperable problems. But then we are already defending Christianity apart from its alleged uniqueness on this matter of justification.
Likewise, it begs the question to argue that a religion invented by mere men will always advocate salvation by works, so that the Christian gospel of justification by faith suggests its divine origin. Unless additional and convincing arguments are supplied, the fact that Christianity advocates justification by faith could very well mean that it is the only system that cannot save anyone even before we examine other doctrines in the system. Just because Christianity insists on salvation by grace in itself does not make it a true religion, let alone the only true religion.
Of course, the above is not to be taken as a denial of the truth of any part of the Christian faith, or even its uniqueness. Rather, in the interest of promoting sound arguments and superior apologetics, it presents a challenge against the suggestion that Christianity's uniqueness or emphasis on grace as opposed to works somehows prove that it is true. But truth is not vindicated by mere comparison. Christianity is not true because it teaches justification by faith – this reverses the proper order of reasoning. Rather, justification by faith in Christ is true because Christianity is true, and we show that Christianity alone is true on the basis of some other arguments.
Commentary on Galatians (34)
However, Paul did not remain dead. As the penalty of sin was carried out and divine justice was fully satisfied, God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, and in him, all the chosen ones as well. Thus Paul writes, "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." The Christian message, therefore, does not make "sinners" out of people, whether in the legal sense or the ethical and moral sense; rather, it enables believers to "live for God."
This identification with Christ in his crucifixion and resurrection is often subsumed under the doctrine of our "union with Christ." While this expression is convenient in some ways, it has at times framed discussions on "in Christ" passages such that theologians have been forced to give a satisfactory account of our relationship with Christ, not in terms of the biblical verses, but in terms of this "union" that we have with Christ. Failing this, the relationship has been relegated to a "mystical" union. But to consider our identification with Christ – or this union, if you will – as mystical is often premature, if not false altogether.
Rather, once we cease to think of this "in Christ" relationship in almost physical or spatial terms, the mystical aspects are lessened, if not eliminated. It is a relationship in which our federal head represents his chosen ones (those whom God has placed "in" him) in his humiliation, obedience, crucifixion, resurrection, and glorification (Romans 5:12-19). And this relationship is maintained, not by a co-occupation of space, whether in the spatial or mystical sense, but by faith, which is a sovereign gift from God. By this same relationship, Christ is said to be "in" us, that is, directing and enabling us to live for God in holiness, boldness, and obedience by his Spirit (1 John 3:24). Let us not call mystical what is rather easily understood and believed.
Paul says that he is dead to the law, having been crucified in Christ, and now he no longer lives, but it is Christ who lives in him. We must not take this and run away from the passage so that we can make a mystery out of it, because Paul has not finished speaking about this. He continues, "The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God." This statement offers at least two important implications for the doctrine of our so-called union with Christ, or to the doctrine of salvation in general.
First, the "self" and the body have not been dissolved into nothing, or even into "Christ" in a sense that makes them disappear. Paul's self and body are still present, living, and relevant. His relationship to his former way of living has so changed that he is now said to be dead to it. The present passage addresses how a person can obtain forensic justification before God, or more generally, salvation. However, if this so-called union with Christ results in a destruction of the personality, or so complete a dissolution into the divine that the self is no longer said to remain as a distinct entity, then the person in fact does not receive justification or salvation – he is simply annihilated. If this is what "salvation" means, then God in fact saves no one. But God performs what he promises through the gospel – he justifies and saves anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ.
Second, Paul's relationship with Christ is now such that he is said to be "in" Christ and Christ is said to be "in" him. Yet there is nothing mystical, at least in this passage, as he describes the nature of this relationship as living "by faith in the Son of God." There is no reference to a spatial or ontological interpenetration of beings, but a spiritual relationship of faith in Christ. Paul is referring to "a complete change in his way of looking at all things, a 'reorientation of thought', to use modern jargon, which involves a total change of life." Christ has replaced the law as his reference and motivation behind all his thinking and behavior.
Thus to answer the concern raised in verse 17, the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ does not promote sin or make us sinners. We have been crucified in Christ, and having died to the law, we have been raised to new life in him, so that we now live for God and pursue holiness by his life and power.
Commentary on Galatians (33)
As mentioned, we agree with commentators that verse 17 does not represent an objection that Peter leveled against Paul. This is because the objection amounts to a rejection of the very gospel that Peter himself preached and believed, but he is here charged with hypocrisy and not consistency. That is, Peter behaved in a way that contradicted the true gospel, which means that he continued to affirmed the true gospel. The objection is posed as a rhetorical question, which Paul proceeds to answer himself.
If the word "sinners" is used in the same sense as it is in verse 15, then it is not mainly referring to sinners in a broad sense, but in the narrower sense, as in those who do not follow Jewish laws and customs. Thus the objection is that if Christ instructs men to stop observing the law, then it seems to follow that Christ encourages them to sin. The doctrine of justification by faith, therefore, permits Gentiles to remain as "sinners," and even Jews to become the same.
An extension of this objection would be the charge that justification by faith promotes antinomianism, or lawlessness, and licentiousness. In other words, the charge is that if we preach that a man is made righteous before God solely because of the work of Christ, then this appears to permit, if not encourage, a complete abandonment of all human effort to live in a holy and moral manner. It would seem that the man could continue in sin, if not become even more sinful, and still be saved.
Ryken says, "This is a fair question," but Paul seems to think otherwise when he answers with an indignant "Absolutely not!" We must never compliment any question or objection that "sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:5), and that challenges God's rationality or righteousness. Cursed be all non-Christian standards of social propriety and rules of interaction, if they forbid us to reprimand unbelief, when appropriate, with fierceness and authority. Our first concern is not to appear polite and respectable by the world's standard, but to represent our God in righteousness and with all boldness.
Elsewhere when Paul anticipates an objection to the doctrine of election, he does not say, "This is a good question" or even "I am glad you asked that." Instead, he writes, "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" (Romans 9:20). Because God is perfectly rational and righteous, and the very standard and definition of such, all questions and objections against what God has revealed are necessarily irrational and unrighteous. There is no such thing as a fair, good, or rational challenge against Christianity. Rather, all such questions and objections must necessarily be stupid and sinful. This does not mean that we avoid answering them – the point is that we must not honor that which is stupid and sinful because we cater to a non-Christian standard for conversation and debate.
Paul proceeds, then, to address this ridiculous, irrational, and irreverent question. Again, the objection is whether we make Christ a promoter of sin when we abandon the works of the law as a way to be justified before God, so that we become "sinners" by the standards of Jewish laws and customs, if not godless and lawless sinners altogether (v. 17). But Paul replies that it is to rebuild what he has destroyed – that is, the legalistic way of life, and to seek justification by observing the law – that would prove him to be a lawbreaker (v. 18). "The real sinner is the one who is justified and then returns to the law. Ironically, that person is actually a lawbreaker. People under the law are more precisely described as lawbreakers than as law-keepers!" This is because such a person cannot in fact keep the law, and also because by reinstating the law, he sins by renouncing and working against the gospel of Christ.
He continues, "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God" (v. 19). Paul realized through the law that he was a sinner and that he was unable to justify himself by observing the law. So he learned through the law that he must abandon the law as the way to obtain justification before God. One function of the law, therefore, is to point away from itself as the way to justification – it was never given for justification (3:21) – partly by causing those under it to despair of their own efforts to follow it. Thus Paul writes, "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith" (3:24; also 4:1-5). Paul died to the law as a way of life, as a way of justification, or obtaining righteousness with God.
There is another sense in which Paul died to the law through the law that is probably even more meaningful in the context of this passage (v. 15-21). The law's demand for perfect obedience is accompanied by the penalty of death for failing to follow it. Thus when Paul failed to render perfect obedience to the law, even a single infraction earned for him the ultimate punishment. However, as he will proceed to announce, the curse of the law was nailed to the cross with Christ as he, though without sin, took upon himself the punishment against sinners. As Paul has been chosen by God and united with Christ through faith, as far as the law was concerned, when Christ was crucified, Paul was crucified with him. And because the death penalty of the law has already been carried out against Paul in Christ, he has died to the law and severed his former obligation to it (Romans 7:2-4). Now there is nothing else the law can do against him. And thus through the law, he died to the law.
Commentary on Galatians (32)
When Scripture says that salvation is by faith and not by works, it is not throwing out works just to make faith a condition that man must fulfill in order to obtain salvation from God, although this is precisely how the doctrine is frequently but mistakenly portrayed, either by explicit statements or by implication. Faith is not a good work or a condition for salvation that God requires from us before he would do anything to save us; instead, God has already decreed and performed all that is necessary to secure the salvation of his chosen ones, and faith in the gospel is precisely one of those things that he has secured for the elect by the work of Christ, and that he sovereignly produces in their minds when he commands them to believe and summons them to himself by the gospel. There is therefore no place for boasting. Salvation comes from God through Christ alone. We cannot even boast about our faith, since it is a sovereign gift of God, merited by Christ for the elect.
Again, when we refer to justification by faith, we are emphasizing the contrast between faith and works. But works do not occur independently of persons – a work is performed by someone. Therefore, to seek to be justified by our works is not to depend on works as such, but it is in fact an attempt to save ourselves by ourselves. Likewise, just as there is no work without a subject, there is no faith without an object. We are not saved by faith as such, as if we can just "believe" with no object in view, or as if we can believe in just anything and be saved, just as long as we believe. No, rather, our faith must be directed to the proper object, and it is this object of faith that saves us.
This object, of course, is Christ. And since faith is intellectual assent to true propositions, when we say we have faith in "Christ," this object is represented by "the gospel," which is a set of propositions about the person and work of Christ. And however simple or limited in its presentation, this is theology. This also means that theology is necessary if we are going to have faith at all. And herein is the relation between salvation and theology – we do not say that one must become a professional or academic theologian to be saved, but we must say that no one can be saved without believing the correct theology, and one believes the correct theology because God causes him to do so by divine grace and power, according to the eternal decree and election.
Our short passage by itself contains and implies several essential things that one must believe about Christ.
Regarding his person, Paul states that Christ is "the Son of God," but he was also "crucified." In these two ideas are contained the doctrines of the divinity and the humanity of Christ. That he is "the Son" assumes the biblical doctrine of the Trinity (although the entire teaching cannot be deduced from this alone), and that there is a filial relationship between the Son and the Father. That he could be crucified assumes that he took upon himself a human body, so that he appeared on the earth not merely as a phantom or apparition. His suffering included genuine physical pain and death.
Because Scripture reveals these two truths concerning Christ's person, it is necessary to understand and affirm both of them. By definition, anyone who rejects either doctrine cannot be a Christian. And by definition, any message that neglects either doctrine cannot be the Christian gospel. Such a man is not saved, and such a message cannot save. Thus the proper objects of faith, in terms of doctrines and propositions to be affirmed, include the Trinity of God, the divinity of Christ, and the humanity of Christ. Even if we go no further, it is obvious that all non-Christian theologies, philosophies, religions (including Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on), and all cults and heresies claiming a Christian basis (such as Catholicism, Islam, Baha'ism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so on) convey no saving message and will doom all its adherents to eternal condemnation in hell.
Regarding his work, Paul writes that Christ "loved me and gave himself for me." In the Gospel of John, we read, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). Likewise, the Son "loved" and therefore "gave himself." Paul does not say Christ "owed me and gave himself for me," but that he "loved me and gave himself for me." The Father decreed redemption out of divine love, and the Son executed the decree also out of love. Man initiated nothing, and nothing depended on his worth or merit. In other words, salvation is of divine decree and grace, not human desire and effort.
Because he "loved me," Paul writes, Christ "gave himself for me." In context, the giving of himself refers to Christ's crucifixion and death, which from the rest of Scripture we understand to be a sacrificial and substitutionary atonement. The contrast between the impossibility of being "justified by observing the law" and the necessity of being "justified…by faith in Jesus Christ" suggests the doctrine of the imputation of righteousness from Christ to the Christians, a teaching even more obviously asserted elsewhere in Scripture. And this doctrine or proposition is also part of the object that true faith affirms.
Our point, then, is that justification by faith stands as a proper contrast against justification by works, and thus the term is accurate and meaningful when the background against which it is used is understood and assumed. Yet faith itself saves no one, but it is the object of faith that saves through the faith that this object generates in the person. And this faith's object is "Christ," which as an object of intellectual assent consists of true propositions regarding his person and his work, including the Trinity of God, the divinity of Christ, the humanity of Christ, sovereign grace, divine election, the substitutionary atonement, and the imputation of righteousness to the chosen ones, whose salvation are revealed through the faith that God provides and generates in them. Justification by faith is an accurate and meaningful term as long as it represents justification by Christ, who saves us apart from our works but by giving us faith in him.
Commentary on Galatians (31)
So a man is justified not by law (or works), but by faith. But many scholars are inaccurate when it comes to the idea of faith. For example, Jervis writes, "For Paul the power of the Christian life resides not in the intellectual assent to truth, nor in personal rigor, nor even in the simple power of confidence in God, but in recognizing that one has become incorporated into Christ." We may agree with and then discard the part about "personal rigor" for our present purpose. However, what about "the intellectual assent to truth" and "the simple power of confidence in God"? If the question is where "the power of the Christian life resides," then we may agree that assent and confidence carry no inherent power to sustain the Christian life.
But then her statement is misleading, since she proceeds to assert that this power "resides…in recognizing that one has become incorporated into Christ." How is this different from an "intellectual assent to truth"? All she does here is to specify the truth to which one gives assent, the truth that "one has become incorporated into Christ." The only way she can make a distinction here is if she intends for the act of "recognizing that" to be a non-intellectual (non-mental) recognition or assent. If this is what she means, then she has failed to defend the idea that it is possible to give non-intellectual recognition to a proposition, or to explain the kind of recognition she intends to convey.
More likely, however, she is merely following the unbiblical and annoying habit of many Christian believers and scholars to avoid exalting intellectual assent in the Christian life. She thinks that this is what she is supposed to say. Yet intellectualism is unavoidable, since the truth is that faith is mental assent, no matter how repugnant this sounds to an anti-intellectual or mystical mindset. Thus she turns from advocating an "intellectual assent" or a "simple confidence" to "recognizing that" a proposition about one's relation with Christ is true. So what do we have? Intellectual assent to truth.
In addition, if we are going to be strict about it, the whole idea conveyed by her statement is false in the first place. The question is where "the power of the Christian life resides," particularly in the theology of Paul. She denies it to assent and confidence, but grants it to recognition. We have shown that she fails to distinguish these terms, but that all three of these mean the same thing. For the sake of both accuracy and simplicity, we may identify them with what Paul calls faith.
But now, does "the power of the Christian life" reside in a person's faith in one thing or another, or does it rather reside in a proper object (of faith)? What should we mean when we assert the doctrine of "justification by faith"? I answer this question in my Commentary on Philippians as follows:
Justification is by faith not in the sense that you can save yourself by your faith; rather, the doctrine teaches that you can do nothing to save yourself, but that you must totally depend on someone else to save you. Therefore, the doctrine is teaching justification not by faith as such or by itself, but it is teaching that justification is by Christ alone. It is Christ who saves you, and not faith itself. Faith has a role because it is Christ who saves you by means of giving you faith in him (Ephesians 2:8-9; Hebrews 12:2).
Further, the doctrine of justification by faith alone does not imply that we are justified before God because we managed to work up enough faith in and by ourselves to believe in Christ, which is impossible in the first place. Rather, the doctrine contrasts faith against works – which is why it is meaningful to speak of justification by faith in Christ rather than only justification by Christ – emphasizing that we are justified by God through faith apart from works. This faith is itself not a work — that is, not a work of man, but a work of God in man.
Faith is a gift of God purchased by Christ for all those whom God has chosen for salvation. It is a gift even though it has been purchased by our Mediator because it is God who sovereignly decreed to save us through this Mediator in the first place. It is God who has sovereignly chosen those whom he would save by his grace through Christ, so that all of salvation is a gift of God — it is a sovereign gift of God, unmerited by man, that at the same time fully satisfies divine justice, since it has been merited by Christ. Thus salvation is from the grace of God alone, through the work of Christ alone, and by means of faith alone (that is, in contrast to works).
Therefore, when discussing the doctrine of justification by faith, we must not portray faith as a condition for salvation that God requires from us, as if we could produce faith in and of ourselves prior to regeneration and apart from the Spirit's power. So, although it is correct to speak of faith as our necessary response to the gospel, this "response" of faith is in fact one of the very things that Christ's atonement purchased for his elect, and that God bestows upon his chosen ones by his Spirit. In other words, God is the one who produces this response of faith in his elect. This is another reason why it is incorrect to speak of faith as an inherent power.
Commentary on Galatians (30)
This in turn means that we can infer a broader contrast than the immediate context presents. That is, the contrast is not only against justification by observing the law of Moses, but by observing any law or ethic (Romans 9:11-12, 16; Titus 3:5). In other words, the contrast is between justification by works and justification by faith. Although it is important to keep in mind that the "law" in this letter mainly refers to Jewish laws and customs, it is legitimate and necessary to make this wider application of the principle. More will be said in support of this in a moment.
This is something that the Gentiles need to hear in the context of this controversy. They are already believers in Jesus Christ, but now the Judaizers tell them that they must also observe Jewish laws and customs, including circumcision. Paul points out that even those who are Jews by birth must themselves turn from reliance on their own works to faith in Jesus Christ in order to be justified. He writes, "by observing the law no one will be justified." This could be an allusion to Psalm 143:2, offering one indication that the law itself testifies that no one can stand righteous before God if judged according to his own effort to follow the law.
As Paul writes elsewhere, "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe" (Romans 3:20-22). The law is not a plan that has failed, to be replaced by faith. Rather, it has never been its function to justify anyone at all, only that by it "we become conscious of sin," and "so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God" (Romans 3:19). The Law and the Prophets themselves testify to a righteousness from God that comes "apart from law," but it "comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."
Then in verse 21, Paul makes the statement, "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" The idea here is not that Christ's death would be "useless" (NCV), as in ineffectual, but that it would be unnecessary (NLT: "there was no need"). Again, keep in mind that Paul is dealing with professing Christians, so that he is not responding to a direct attack against Christ. The necessity of Christ's work is here assumed, and once assumed, it is evident that it is incompatible with the idea that righteousness could be gained through the law. If righteousness could be gained through the law, then one must deny the necessity of Christ's work. In other words, if men could achieve righteousness before God by their own effort to observe the law, then it would have been unnecessary for Christ to come and die for them in order to win that which they could have obtained by their own effort.
Either Christ's death is insufficient or unnecessary, or it is impossible to obtain righteousness through the law. To say this another way, one who preaches righteousness through the law is compelled to deny the sufficiency and necessity of Christ's redemptive work. And by definition, to deny the sufficiency and necessity of Christ makes one a non-Christian. Thus it follows that the Judaizers were in reality non-Christians. They preached a non-gospel, an anti-Christian message. Therefore, having already believed on the gospel of Jesus Christ as preached by Paul, the Galatians had no reason to accept the Judaizers' message.
There is a broader principle that stands behind verse 21. The current controversy concerns works and faith, law and Christ, and that is the contrast presented in the verse. The established assumption here is the necessity of Christ's death. But this assumption excludes not only the possibility of attaining righteousness through the law; rather, if it is held constant, it must exclude every other method of attaining righteousness. This is because if there is any other way of attaining righteousness, Christ's death would have been unnecessary. If salvation can come any other way, then Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary. But since Christ's death was indeed necessary to save men, this means that it is impossible to attain righteousness through any other means. Therefore, it follows that verse 21 is a condemnation against, not only the attempt to attain righteousness through observing Jewish laws and customs, but any other system of law, ethic, philosophy, or religion.
Commentary on Galatians (29)
GALATIANS 2:15-21
"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
Regardless of where Paul's speech to Peter concludes, it is verse 15 that marks the transition from historical narrative to theological argument. Until this point he has been defending the original and authority of his message and ministry (1:11-12), and only now does he begin to engage the actual doctrine that is at the center of the controversy. Of course, the first readers were aware of this context and background as they read the previous sections of the letter. On the other hand, we were able to read them with the topic of justification by faith in mind because Paul now explicitly introduces it.
The current passage begins the theological portion of this letter, and both summarizes and assumes several key points in Paul's theology. The main assertion here is that no one can be saved by observing the law or depending on his own works; rather, the only way that one is saved is by faith in Jesus Christ apart from the law or works. This qualification at the end is essential and necessary, since the opposition here is not preaching salvation apart from Christ, but a faith in Christ that fails to exclude, and in fact requires, obedience to Jewish laws and customs (including circumcision) in order to attain full acceptance with God. Paul shows that this is in reality an attack on and rejection of Christ and the gospel.
It is important to keep in mind that Paul's opponents do not say that no one should believe in Christ, or that they should rely on their own works instead of Christ. Rather, the trouble is in their insistence that "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5) in addition to believing in Christ. They are telling Gentile Christians, "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1).
So as Paul begins verse 15, he is not speaking to or about people who profess to be non-Christians. It is assumed that Christ is the awaited Messiah. Of course, Paul could present the case for this (Acts 9:22, 17:3, 18:5, 28:23), but the center of the current controversy rests on this other issue.
Since in verses 15 and 16 Paul appears to be speaking to or about those who understand that "a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ," it would seem that the Jews he has in mind primarily refer to professing Jewish Christians, such as the likes of Peter and Barnabas. And so, whether or not verse 15 continues Paul's speech to Peter, some connection is maintained to the Antioch incident as a whole and what he says in verse 14 .
About these Jews, Paul himself being one of them, he says although they possess the law, including the rite of circumcision, they know that no one is justified before God by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. He does not say that no one is justified by just observing the law, but that he needs Christ to make up for his shortcoming. Rather, he says that no one can be justified by observing the law at all.
Here Paul sets up a contrast between justification by law and justification by faith. Now, if a man could be justified by observing any system of law, it would have to be the law of Moses. Unlike other systems of law, religion, or personal ethic, it is an extensive revelation from God. Thus if no man can be justified before God by observing the law of Moses, then a fortiori a person cannot be justified by observing any other system of law or ethic.
Commentary on Galatians (28)
Some bizarre remarks are associated with this passage in the commentaries, and there is some educational value in taking a quick look. We will limit our examples to the ones found in the commentary by Jervis.
Commenting on 2:12, she writes:
One function of this story is to acknowledge the difficulties of a situation in which, even though there was an agreement at Jerusalem (2:1-10), people from Jerusalem who did not accept the law-free gospel for Gentiles have a continuing and formidable influence, even over the likes of the apostle Peter. The "men from James" are a fearsome group. By recounting the story Paul lets the Galatians readers know that their experience of being persuaded by the rival evangelists is neither unprecedented nor shameful.
However, even if it is legitimate to infer these "difficulties" from the incident, there is no indication that it is Paul's intention to "acknowledge" them. We may agree that those of "the circumcision group" were able to apply considerable pressure on Peter, since he separated himself from the Gentiles "because he was afraid" of them. The reason for this fear is of no final importance, since Paul's point is that Peter did not act in line with the truth of the gospel, and not whether he had a good reason to do so. The passage is clear that there was no acceptable excuse.
Then, there is the disturbing claim that by recounting the incident with Peter, Paul lets the Galatians know that their apostasy is somehow not shameful. Part of the assumption seems to say, "If some great and prominent person did it, then it is not so shameful that you are also doing it." But there is no indication that this is what Paul intends; rather, every passage in this letter seems to push toward the opposite. And Paul's recounting of the incident has the effect of saying, "This gospel of justification by faith apart from the works of law comes from the revelation of Jesus Christ and carries ultimate authority. When Peter did not act in line with it, even he stood condemned. You Galatians are now participating in the same shameful doctrine that he compromised with because of his fear and hypocrisy."
The idea that other people's sins somehow make ours less shameful is nowhere suggested by the text. But if this is the way that Jervis thinks about sin, then we wonder if she thinks that any sin is shameful at all, since how often do we really commit sins that are "unprecedented"? Rather than a commentary on the implications of the text, her remarks appear to betray only her alarming view on sin.
She continues on the next verse, 2:13:
Peter and those who followed his lead changed their direction out of hypocrisy and fear. Paul's comment that even Barnabas was swayed by Peter's response to the Jerusalem Christians may give the Galatians a means of retreating in a dignified fashion from the position they have now put themselves in. The fact that even Barnabas – who along with Paul had convinced the Jerusalem Christians of the validity of Gentile Christianity – could be led astray makes the Galatians' temptation to follow the rival evangelists at least understandable.
The assumption is that someone else's sin – perhaps a greater man, or one who should know better – somehow restores dignity to the sinner and demands understanding from others. There is no indication of this in the text, or in any other part of Scripture.
If Jervis is correct, then against the background of human history, anyone would be able to retreat from any sin "in a dignified fashion," and any sin would be "understandable." But this passage and the rest of the letter, along with Paul's general attitude toward sin in his other writings, all point toward the opposite interpretation. All signs point toward the understanding that what Peter and Barnabas did was entirely hypocritical and shameful, and no sympathy or understanding is extended toward them or the Galatians. Jervis again betrays her dangerous view on sin in these statements, and it is difficult to shake the suspicion that such a skewed interpretation can only come from a spiritually defective mind.
But there is more. She continues: "The Greek verb orthopodousin, translated in the phrase not acting in line, gives the impression that Paul was willing to allow some room for error to those who had not had such a direct revelation of the truth of the gospel as he had been privileged with, as long as they were heading on the right course." This claim is doubtful, and it is contrary to the emphasis of the passage. We do detect, however, her repeated attempts to present Paul as one who is soft on sin. Perhaps this reflects her preference as to how sin should be addressed, so that she is determined to portray this letter as much gentler than it is, and in doing so has become quite out of touch with what the text says.
However, the fact is that Paul's letter to the Galatians is very harsh. In it the apostle repeatedly rebukes and condemns his adversaries and those who are swayed by them. Rather than trying to derive the opposite from the text, we should learn that this is exactly the correct thing to do, and the correct tone to take in such a situation.
Today, as we face analogous challenges to justification by faith and other aspects of the gospel, do we confront them as Paul did, or do we adopt the non-Christian style of academic detachment? Do we invoke the divine curse against the enemies of the gospel (Galatians 1:6-9)? Do we call them foolish and bewitched (3:1)? Do we mock and insult them (5:12)? If we are still trying to please men, still trying to sound scholarly and respectable by non-Christian standards, then we are not the servants of Christ (1:10), but a disgrace to his kingdom.
Commentary on Galatians (27)
As for Paul's purpose for including the passage, although there might be other reasons for mentioning this incident, we will consider it only in its most obvious context as provided by 1:11-12. And in this context, this passage concludes Paul's argument for the authority and independence of his message and ministry. He showed that he not only received Christ's direct revelation and commission, but his message and ministry were also recognized by the Jerusalem leaders, although he did not require this recognition to proceed.
Now he completes his case by showing that he did not hesitate to confront even Peter – the most prominent of all apostles – when he failed to behave "in line with the truth of the gospel." Thus no one can say that Paul was in any sense inferior or subjugated to the Jerusalem leaders. Neither can anyone claim that they endorsed another gospel, since they agreed with Paul, granting him the right hand of fellowship, and Paul could even correct Peter with its truth, demanding him to act in line with it.
While the passage indeed advances such a purpose, its effects are broader than this. Notice that Paul did not initiate the confrontation purely on the basis of his authority as an apostle, but he opposed Peter "because he was clearly in the wrong," and because he and the other Jews "were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel." But if the truth of the gospel was the basis for such a confrontation, then in principle any believer could have opposed Peter and the other Jews in this instance, holding them accountable in the name of Christ.
This restores a proper perspective regarding human authority and association to the controversy. The Judaizers could make false claims about what the Jerusalem leaders believed, or false claims about their association with them; however, in fact all of this had no ultimate significance, for even these leaders must submit to the truth of the gospel as revealed by Christ to the apostle Paul. Of course, the Jerusalem apostles had learned the same gospel from Christ, and it is also this gospel that they preached and practiced. And if any of them deviated from this gospel, it meant only that they had to get back in line with it.
Commentary on Galatians (26)
Nevertheless, religious politics often affect even churches that profess the true gospel, and believers are naïve who ignore the political ramifications of their doctrine and behavior. Pressure resulting from ecclesiastical politics is intense even in those institutions that appear to be more pure than the rest. It is not unheard of for some, when they cannot maintain their own views on the basis of Scripture, to use their influence and positions in churches, seminaries, denominations, and ecclesiastical courts to settle theological controversies. Thus Scripture is silenced, and tradition is maintained, along with these individuals as its established defenders.
Christians do not become immune to this pressure by pretending that it is not there; rather, they ought to recognize and understand it, and then in the face of it, persist in faithfulness to biblical doctrine and practice by the wisdom and power that come from the Spirit. And this is what Paul did in this instance. He was not naïve concerning the prominence of Peter, the significance of the men from James, or the political factors associated with the doctrinal controversy, along with its implications in practice and in the fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. But the spiritual ramifications of the situation had to override any political risks.
Under pressure, Peter separated himself from the Gentile Christians. Reversing his prior practice, he withdrew table fellowship from them. His original behavior acknowledged God's full acceptance of Gentiles through their faith in Christ apart from observing Jewish laws and customs. But now his action signaled the opposite, as if the Gentiles remained unclean without observing the Jewish laws and customs, even though they were believers in Christ. And to state the obvious, the reversal was also an insult against the Gentile Christians.
Peter's compromise implied an outright renunciation of the gospel, although this was not his intention, nor was it consistent with his own conviction on the matter, and thus the charge of hypocrisy from Paul (v. 13). Because Peter's offense was public, leading other Jews astray and slighting the entire Gentile population in the church, it was appropriate and necessary for Paul to confront Peter "in front of them all." To publicly humiliate Peter in such a manner also served to restore honor to the Gentile Christians in the church. Paul's drastic reaction reflected the fact that these were not second-class Christians to be insulted and abused by the Jews.
So Paul said to Peter, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" Again, the charge was hypocrisy (v. 13). Peter was not acting according to his own convictions; rather, he himself had ceased to observe Jewish laws and customs, and did not depend on them to find salvation or acceptance with God. He even preached the same gospel that Paul preached. However, when he separated himself from the Gentile Christians, his action implied that they were unclean and unaccepted even though they were already believers in Jesus Christ, but that they had to observe Jewish laws and customs to gain full fellowship.
There are three applications from this passage that we will mention, although we will not take time to develop them.
First, despite Peter's grievous failure, the authenticity of his apostleship and the inspiration of Scripture are unaffected. It is a fallacy to assume that errors inherently and necessarily pervade every human action so that it is impossible for a perfect sacred text to come about if men have anything to do with it. Divine inspiration ensures the perfection of Scripture. Peter's behavior in this instance was obviously not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Moreover, Peter was charged with hypocrisy and not consistency. This means that he never wavered in his profession of the true gospel, and when he was rebuked, he was in fact confronted with what he himself believed and preached. Thus even in this incident, there is maintained a consistent testimony for the gospel message as presented by Paul and the rest of Scripture. In other words, Peter's hypocrisy – that it could be called hypocrisy – reinforces the unity of the apostolic testimony regarding the nature and content of the true gospel.
The second point concerns the effect of hypocrisy. Preachers often incite their people toward holy living by stating that if their practice contradicts their profession, then no one would believe the gospel. This is not only untrue and unbiblical, but it is a blasphemous assault against the work of the Holy Spirit. Do we think that our holy actions directly influence men's minds and remove their resistance? No, in every case, the Holy Spirit is the one who acts on the hearts of men. Our holy actions at best provide him with the occasion by which to work. But he can certainly, and in fact does constantly, convert the elect despite the hypocritical behavior of those who profess the faith.
This is not to condone hypocrisy, for God will hold every person accountable, but it is to properly honor the power of the Word and the Spirit, and to remove any excuse from the unregenerate, some of which claim to reject the gospel because of the deplorable examples of believers. Whether someone else is a hypocrite is irrelevant to the nature of the truth or whether one should believe it. Spiritual weaklings will use some else's hypocrisy as an excuse to sin and rebel, but one who is spiritually zealous and mature is instead provoked to defend the truth against apostasy and compromise.
Third, this passage reminds us to maintain and protect full fellowship with every race and class of Christians, even when there is much less at stake than the situation described here. There are those who claim to be victims of racism, but then they segregate themselves in their churches, gatherings, and circles of friendship. They do not take seriously their Christian identity, and the common Christian identity shared by believers of all other races and groups, so that they stand condemned by their prejudice and hypocrisy. Their complaint of racism has become an excuse to extort uncritical sympathy, undeserved respect, and unfair advantages.
Commentary on Galatians (25)
As for the significance of eating together, joining someone at the meal table is a sign of fellowship. To refuse meal fellowship then, of course, would signal some sort of distinction or even rejection. For example, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 5:11, "But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."
Elsewhere Peter was criticized by "the circumcised believers," who said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them" (Acts 11:3). On that occasion, Peter did not compromise the gospel but gave them an explanation on how it was revealed to him that God would save the Gentiles by the same gospel (v. 4-18). It is significant that Christ himself was attacked by the Pharisees for eating with tax collectors and other "sinners" (Matthew 9:10-11).
At Antioch, Peter ate with the Gentiles in the beginning. This was consistent with his profession of the gospel, that both Jews and Gentiles were accepted by God through Christ without the observance of Jewish laws and customs, including circumcision. But then "certain men from James" came, and Peter separated himself from the Gentiles "because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group."
We do not know the precise relation that these men had with James, or what they were there to accomplish, only that they disapproved of Peter's practice due to their rejection of the gospel. However, since James affirmed the true gospel (otherwise he would have been a reprobate and false apostle; Galatians 1:6-9), it is certain that whatever relation these men had with him, they did not represent his doctrinal views on the gospel, or how Jews and Gentiles are saved, and how they should conduct themselves as believers (Acts 15:24).
Moreover, we do not know why Peter was afraid of "the circumcision group." If what he felt was more than mere social pressure, then there could have been elements of religious politics behind the situation that we cannot discern from the text. There are theories suggesting that Peter's action resulted from his fear of becoming a stumbling-block to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, or that he even feared for their safety, as his behavior in Antioch (eating with the Gentiles) could have aggravated persecution against the Christians there.
However, even if there is any truth in them, all such speculations are irrelevant to an accurate understanding of Peter's motive. This is because, under divine inspiration, Paul declares that "he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group." There was no recognition of any noble reason or selfless concern. There was no excuse for Peter's hypocrisy – "he was clearly in the wrong." And to the extent that they attempt to beautify something that Scripture condemns, all these theories run counter to the truth and spirit of Paul's inspired letter.
Likewise, it is outright sinful for Cole to write, "To Barnabas, no doubt, this was simply a matter of love." "No doubt"? But there is nothing in the text to support this idea. Fear and hypocrisy are the only stated reasons. "A matter of love"? But this suggests a definition of love that is foreign to and subversive of Scripture. Does the Bible define love in a way that calls for disobedience against itself? Any idea of "love" that leads one to become an enemy of the gospel cannot be the kind of love that Scripture teaches. Cole's idea of love here is social and humanistic, and not derived from biblical precept. Besides, where is the love for the Gentile Christians? It seems that Barnabas and Cole have forgotten about them. Thus this is just another attempt to beautify what Scripture condemns as sin and hypocrisy.
Commentary on Galatians (24)
What is it then? Perhaps this incident is so appropriate as a launching point for the theological arguments in the rest of the letter that, even if there is such a transition in Paul's mind, one overlaps into the other so smoothly that it is not so obvious. And if it is because of this reason that the transition is not obvious, then neither is it important to discover the precise point where it takes place, that is, if there is such a point at all. Many commentators agree with this, even as they attempt to advance one view over the others.
We will divide our discussion of verses 11-21 into two sections – verses 11-14 and verses 15-21. Although the view that verse 15 marks a new section in which Paul turns from his confrontation at Antioch to directly address the Galatians can make good sense, our discussion is divided in this manner not because we insist on this view as true. Rather, the passage is divided this way here mainly because it contributes to convenience in exposition. Indeed, even if it does not mark a transition in whom Paul addresses, verse 15 marks a transition from a historical narration to a theological argument.
Although debate surrounds some of the details, Paul's account of what happened is straightforward, and the main points are unmistakable. When Peter was at Antioch, at first he joined the Gentile Christians in their meals. But when certain Jews arrived there as well, Peter withdrew from the Gentiles, and other Jews followed, including Barnabas. Paul publicly confronted Peter and charged him with hypocrisy.
It is impossible to know why Peter was at Antioch, or when this incident occurred relative to the other events recorded in Scripture. It is perhaps natural to assume that the events in 1:11-2:14 are recounted in their chronological order. But even if this assumption is correct, it offers limited assistance in dating the event in this passage.
For example, some have concluded that if 1:11-2:14 follows a chronological order, then the visit to Jerusalem in 2:1-10 must refer to one that occurred before the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. This is because Peter openly defended Paul's understanding of the gospel – that is, the gospel itself – in Acts 15:7-11. Some interpreters find it difficult to accept that Peter could behave as he did in Galatians 2:11-14 after making his speech in Acts 15.
However, the reasoning is fallacious, and rests on an assumption about human nature that amounts to a rejection of the biblical doctrine of sin. Hypocrisy was the charge that Paul leveled against Peter, precisely because the latter's behavior contradicted his own profession. So to say that Peter could not have behaved in this manner after he had made such a bold profession of the gospel is worse than to beg the question, but it is an outright rejection of what Paul states in our passage.
Moreover, if it seems that Acts 15 makes any such subsequent compromise of the gospel unthinkable, then what about Acts 9? There God told Peter in a vision, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean" (v. 15). And when Peter visited Cornelius and became his guest, he explicitly acknowledged that he was acting against Jewish customs, but that he was acting according to God's command (v. 28). What Peter did at Antioch contradicted both his profession and behavior in Acts 9.
Besides, there is no need to look at Acts 9 or 15 for the charge of hypocrisy to apply, since our passage mentions that Peter was eating with the Gentiles before the Jews came. Thus his behavior was hypocritical not only relative to some bold profession that he made long before the incident, but even relative to something that he had been saying and doing at Antioch itself.
Thus we cannot date the events in Galatians 2 by the assumption that Peter could not have been as hypocritical as he appears in verses 11-14. The result is that assuming a chronological order for the events in 1:11-2:14 still does not help us ascertain their dates with precision.