Peter was in full theological retreat and it was brought about by fear of rejection and disapproval. How powerful those are when it comes to regulating personal behavior. Whether it is by parents, bosses, spouses or others, thee sense of rejection can have a profound long term impact on a person.
Paul is not rejecting Peter but rather publicly disapproving of his theological stance and behavior. I do find it interesting that in this entire scene, Peter has no response…quite probably because he knew he was in the wrong even before Paul confronted him.
The rest of the scene plays out with Paul giving an impassioned theological response to Peter’s behavior.
Galatians 2:15-21 says, “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 faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
17 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; 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 for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”
Paul begins with the use of an interesting phrase…’Jews by nature’ and ‘sinners of the Gentiles”. By Jews, Paul is referring to both Peter and himself. They were born Jews (not converted). In common Jewish terminology, Gentiles were all non-Jews and were always referred to as sinners. They were born as heathen and separated from God just by the fact that they were not born as Jews. Another was to put it is that Paul is using the Jews own terminology about the Gentiles.
But in the heat of the moment with Peter, Paul lays out a fascinating definition of the gospel and he does it in 3 different ways. I wish I could think as theologically well as Paul on a moment’s notice, but I guess that is why he wrote so much of the New Testament and I…well, didn’t.
He uses the gospel-tinged words ‘faith’, ‘law’, and ‘justified’ 3 times in 1 verse in 3 different contexts. The gospel is personal…’we believed’. The gospel is universal…”no flesh shall be justified”. The gospel is general…”works of the law to not justify flesh”.
By the way, the word ‘justified’ means to be declared or pronounced righteous.
This is not the end of Paul’s argument, though. If you seek to be justified (found righteous), what happens if it is determined that you are a sinner? Would Christ justify those who are in sin or would the4y need to be perfected through obedience to the law first?
Being justified by Christ means that there is no justification available through the law or by works. The realization has to come that you can’t do it yourself…you can never be good enough in God’s eyes for Him to accept you based on what you do or don’t do.
Does Christ then become a promoter of sin by causing us to abandon the law? Does following Christ instead of trying to be perfect and acceptable to God through the law make us lawbreakers instead? As Paul would say GOD FORBID!!!
Peter had effectively destroyed the Mosaic law by eating with Gentiles. By his actions, he was publicly declaring that the law as such had no more hold on him and he was no longer subject to it.
But by then refusing to eat with the Gentiles, he was then saying that the Mosaic food laws were fully in effect. He was building up again what he had already torn down. By the way, the ideas of building up and pulling down are favorite expressions of Paul’s.
Then that expression that is full of spiritual power comes out. Paul says that by faith in Christ he has been crucified with Christ. Because Paul is then dead (the old Paul) he now lives with the resurrected Christ. The life which he used to live in the flesh for himself he now lives for, in, and through Christ. It is faith that does this, not law-keeping.
In his conclusion in vs 21, Paul says that he not setting aside God’s grace (the strong implication is that was exactly what Peter was doing) and taking up a little of the law. This idea is voiding out the law.
If true spiritual righteousness could come through obeying the law, then the death of Christ was absolutely useless. The cross accomplished absolutely nothing which could not have been done by the law.
Leave a Reply