Arguing with an Apostle (Galatians 2:15-24)

As we know, Paul’s purpose in this letter is to recover the Galatian churches to the true faith. At the same time, the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write the letter to help believers in all periods appreciate the spiritual dangers that will arise when one leaves the gospel or adds something to the gospel. Therefore we should realise that it is important to understand the gospel, and Paul in this letter describes several features connected to the contents of the gospel. And we can see that in this section of his letter he is dealing with the doctrine of justification, which is central to the gospel because it certainly details good news. It is obvious that accepting the doctrine of justification by faith required certain outlooks for his readers and it does so for us as well. We can attempt to understand this passage by asking several questions.

Who are the ‘we’?

Who does Paul have in mind when he uses the pronoun ‘we’ in these verses? He tells us that he means Jews. There are three possible options. One is that he is recording what he said to Peter when he rebuked, which makes this set of verses follow on from the previous one. A second possibility is that Paul has in mind the Jews in the Galatian churches, but that seems unlikely because he does not find fault here with how those particular Jews misunderstood the law. A third option is the Jews that were with him when he wrote the letter, probably in Antioch. The problem with this suggestion is that we don’t know that it was only Jews who were with him. So it is best to regard him as recording what he said to Peter, and that fits with the details in the passage.

What did Paul and Peter know about the relationship between the ceremonial law and God’s method of justifying sinners? Although they were Jews by birth, they had discovered that keeping the ceremonial law was not the way by which they could be justified in the sight of God. Instead, the way of justification was by believing in Jesus.

Who can be justified?

Paul answers that question in verse 15 when he mentions Jews and Gentiles. We may not regard that statement as too surprising because we are accustomed to hearing it. In order to appreciate the astonishing aspect of it, perhaps we could rephrase it to say, ‘those who belong to the most orthodox church in our city and the worst sinner in the community.’ Those who have great spiritual privileges need to be justified as much as does the worst person around. In fact, they are all equal in that regard. Therefore, it would be wrong for a person with greater privileges to imagine that they brought him closer to the state of justification, and it would be wrong for the worst sinner to assume that justification was further away because he did not have the other privileges. It means that we can go to anyone with the gospel and say to them that they can be justified immediately should they believe in Jesus.

What is meant by the law? 

The problem in the churches of Galatia was connected to how one should use what Paul calls the works of the law. What does Paul mean by that phrase? Traditionally, the Old Testament law that was given to Israel has been divided into three areas: the moral law (the ten commandments), the civil law and the ceremonial law. 

Obviously, there was overlap between those areas. For example, the civil law included the necessity of a householder making sure his roof was safe because people would sit on it, perhaps in order to have a meal on it. There is an obvious connection between that detail and the sixth commandment which requires all lawful attempts to preserve life. Another example concerns the worship of God. Not only does God say that he alone should be worshipped, he also stated several matters connected to sacrifices and what should be done with them during times of worship. So there was a connection between the moral law and the ceremonial law. 

We know from reading the letter to the Galatians that one aspect of the law that Paul has in mind is the ceremonial law. He had been so concerned about the possibility of Gentiles bring compelled to adopt the practice of circumcision that he had called for a special meeting of the apostles in Jerusalem to discuss the matter, and Luke gives an account of that meeting in Acts 15. At that meeting the apostles and elders had confirmed that the Gentiles were not required to practice the ceremonial law. Having said that, there are occasions, including the passage we are considering, where Paul seems to mean the entire range of the Jewish law when he refers to law. 

What does it mean to be justified?

Justification, in the sense that we have in mind here, is not part of everyday speech. You are not liable to find it a matter of discussion in a café. Yet at one time it was, as for example at the Reformation. But that was a serious age when people talked about things that really matter. Today we live in a silly age when people speak about trivia in general and never speak about their spiritual state before God or ask one another about the spiritual life.

Justification is concerned with having a right standing before God. It does not refer to an inner change in our hearts, but to a new position that believers in Jesus have been given before God’s justice. Most of us have heard many times that God requires two things of us – a life of obedience and payment for our sins. We can do neither, but Jesus has done both on behalf of sinners. When we believe in Jesus, God reckons to our account the perfect life of Jesus and the penalty he paid.

It is important to remember that we are justified by something outside of us and not something within us. Although we are justified by faith, we are not justified by our faith. Faith is the instrument that brings us into contact with the cause of our justification, which is the earthly life and death of the risen Saviour.

What does it mean to believe?

We all know that the word ‘believe’ has different meanings. If I say, ‘I believe London is the capital of Britain,’ I am expressing an intellectual faith about a statement of fact. If I say, ‘I believe London should be the capital of Britain,’ my statement is now a matter of conviction. It is possible to say ‘I believe Jesus is the Saviour’ in a way that it is merely a statement of fact. True faith moves beyond an intellectual knowledge and includes conviction that we must be saved by Jesus.

In addition to having conviction about him being the Saviour, faith in Jesus is also marked by contrition for our sins. It is common for faith and repentance to be called heavenly twins. Both of them are beautiful experiences in a believer. If I am reluctant to confess my sins I am heading for legalism. The gospel invitation calls sinners to repentance as well as to faith, or to a faith that is contrite. What other kind of faith would one want to have when drawing near to Jesus for mercy?

A third feature of believing in a Gospel sense is that it results in contact with Jesus. This is obvious, but true faith is the start of a life of communion with Jesus in which the sinner speaks to the Saviour. It is automatic. Faith in Jesus, in a moment, brings about a permanent relationship with him. It does not mean that believers are perfect, but it does mean that their faith is real. 

Is the doctrine of justification dangerous?

It has often been said that the most powerful things in the world are not military weapons but ideas. There is no doubt that some people would regard the idea of justification as dangerous because from one perspective it seemed to trivialise sin and minimise the need of holy living. By focusing on justification through the work of Jesus and saying that pardon through him was paramount, the apostle seems to have asked Peter to consider three things.

First, Paul says that if he resumed living according to the law, his resumption would only prove that he was a lawbreaker. We see an example of this in the behaviour of Peter when he refused to eat with Gentiles in Antioch. He had resumed practising the ceremonial law’s instruction about separation from Gentiles, but in doing so he had sinned. Peter’s rebuilding of the law had been pointless at that time. Paul himself knew that he could not keep God’s commandments perfectly. At the same time, such a resumption would prevent Paul from living for God. The law showed Paul that he could not use the law as a means of finding a relationship with God, therefore he died to the law as a means of finding life. This discovery did not mean that the law was bad, only that it was powerless.

Second, Paul explained the kind of death he had experienced, which he knew Peter had also experienced. We can say that it was death by identification. His opponents were saying that Paul needed to identify himself with the law, especially its ceremonial aspects. Paul’s reply was that the way to life was to identify with the Christ who had been crucified, but who was now alive. When he became a believer, Paul discovered a new power for living for God. When he says this, we have to remember that he had been a very zealous man, full of natural energy, eager to keep the law. Yet he discovered that he was unable to live for God. Then when he believed in Jesus, Paul discovered that he had the power through Jesus living in him. He means by that description that Jesus lived in him by the Holy Spirit. Peter’s action in Antioch had not been caused by the Holy Spirit’ guidance or influence. Instead, it suggested that he had forgotten for a short while his identity, that he was united to the risen Saviour, who had died to set him free from methods that could not work. 

Third, Paul explained that the Christian life is lived by faith in the crucified Saviour. We see something of what Jesus meant to Paul when he personalises the cross in the sense that he affirms that Jesus died for him. In order to stress the wonder of it all, he mentions the identity of Jesus – he is the Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity, the One who spent eternity in fellowship with the Father and the Holy Spirit. As the Son of God, he has all the attributes of God and is involved in all the actions of God. Moreover, he is familiar with all the aims of God. This is who I have faith in, says Paul.

But we can say that Paul narrows down the focus he has on Jesus to what he did at the cross. There he actively loved Paul. It is important to note that Paul does not say here that Jesus loves him, although it would have been a true thing to say. Rather he is pointing to the time and place where Jesus’ love was revealed at its deepest and most amazing manner. What was there about his love there that was so different? The answer is obvious – he gave himself for me. We should not forget that, in the context, it is only a justified sinner that can say that with understanding.

Fourth, Paul points out that if he could have achieved righteousness by his own obedience to the law, what was the point of Jesus going to the cross? It is not a sign of living by grace to practice something that can never bring righteousness, whether in connection to being right with God or developing inner holiness.

Applications

One obvious application is that church leaders are reminded that they must be right examples to others. Peter failed to be so on that occasion and Paul reminded him of his responsibility not to do anything that contradicts the message of the gospel.

A second application is to remember the reality of union with the Saviour who went to the cross. Errors occur in faith and practice when we take our eyes of