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