Galatians 2:11-21 "Justified by Faith" Last week we heard the story of Paul's conversion, and his early contacts with the Jerusalem apostles. Paul insists that he is not dependent upon the Jerusalem apostles, but was commissioned directly by Jesus Christ to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. And, what is more, the Jerusalem apostles agreed with his gospel. Galatians 2:11-14 recounts a key turning point in the history of the church a moment that could have resulted in the fragmentation of the apostolic witness but for the grace of God! 1. The Confrontation with Peter (2:11-14) Paul and Barnabas had been leaders in the Antioch church. This was a church that had been on the forefront of the Gentile mission. And when Peter first came to Antioch, Jews and Gentiles had close fellowship even table fellowship where Jewish Christians ate in the homes of Gentile Christians. And Peter participated in this. But when "certain men" from James arrived, Peter separated from the Gentiles and even Barnabas joined him in refusing to eat with Gentiles. Barnabas who had been Paul's closest associate in preaching to the Gentiles. It is not at all clear what exactly happened. What did the "certain men from James" say? Was James aware of what was being said? We don't know. But whoever these men were and whatever they said, the result is clear Peter withdrew from table fellowship with Gentiles. Is this ordinary meals? the Lord's Supper? Both? Possibly both. Certainly it includes ordinary meals but the implication of refusing table fellowship would eventually carry over to the Lord's Table as well. Does this mean that Jewish Christians and Gentile Christian were worshiping separately? That is certainly the direction it would have gone. But an even more important question is "whom did Peter fear?" "The circumcised" In 2:7-9 "the circumcised" refers to all Jews (and perhaps especially those who are devoted to Jewish custom and law). But in 2:12 it is those "of the circumcised"-- in other words, a certain subgroup of Jews. Those "of the circumcised" would appear to be Jewish Christians. We hear Paul talk about a few faithful followers among those "of the circumcised" in Colossians 4:11, so those "of the circumcised" are not necessarily "Judaizers." Rather, they are Jewish Christians who themselves maintain Jewish custom and law. Paul is not going to fight about whether Jews observe Jewish law. What he objects to is requiring Gentiles to observe Jewish law. First century Judaism had developed a strong national identity that was bound up with the law. For that reason it is sometimes called "nomism" from the Greek word "nomos" (law). Scholars often refer to it as "covenant nomism," because it was rooted in God's covenant promises to Abraham and Moses. Covenant nomism strongly emphasized fidelity to the Mosaic law, including the dietary restrictions, circumcision as well as the ethical commands. They understood grace. They recognized that it was the grace of God that had resulted in the election of Israel. They knew that God had graciously given them the promises to Abraham, the covenant with Israel, and even the law was a gracious gift from God. And they believed, according to their understanding of the law, that if Israel was faithful to the law, then God would restore and exalt Israel. The glory of Israel would come as the people of God were brought through suffering. And Gentiles were welcome so long as they were circumcised and kept the law of Moses. The first Christians were Jews. There were many who believed in Jesus, who simply added Jesus to covenant nomism. Jesus is the Messiah who has started the restoration of Israel. Jesus has restored Moses. You can imagine the apologetic value of this message when preaching to Jews! Jesus does not do away with Moses, he exalts Moses! You don't have to change anything just add Jesus! And in fact there was a group called the Ebionites who eventually broke away from the church attempting to maintain a Mosaic form of Christianity. So what happened in Antioch seems to be something like this: Peter knew that there was no distinction between Jew and Gentile (Acts 10 with Cornelius and the vision of the unclean animals) There was no question on that score. But the Judaizers (who eventually became the Ebionites) were objecting loudly. And so in the face of pressure from the circumcision party, Peter caved in. Perhaps he thought of it as a temporary concession while he tried to teach them better He was probably trying to keep peace among the warring factions in the Jerusalem church. You have to remember, the Jewish Christians were still Jews. They all had family members who did not believe in Jesus. They were steeped in covenant nomism the conviction that observing the law of Moses was central to a faithful life before God. You can easily imagine Peter thinking, "Maybe if we slow down a little, we will be able to reach the Jews more effectively." And so Peter stopped eating with Gentiles. He started observing Jewish food laws again. And so all the Jewish Christians followed suit After all, Peter was the leader of the apostles. He was the one who had launched the mission to the Jews in Acts 2. He was the one who had confirmed the mission to the Samaritans in Acts 8. He was the one who had opened the door to the Gentiles in Acts 10. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Jew, Samaritan, and Gentile had come through the preaching of Peter, confirming the word that Jesus had spoken in Matthew 16, that Peter was given the keys of the kingdom in a unique sense. So when Peter sets an example, it is not surprising that everyone follows. But what's the big deal? So what if he doesn't eat pork? So what if he makes sure that all his meat is kosher? So what? Paul says that Peter's refusal to eat pork was tantamount to a rejection of the gospel, because Peter was implicitly saying that in order for Gentiles to become Christians (to have table fellowship with Jewish Christians) they must observe the dietary restrictions of Moses. In other words, by his actions Peter was saying that the gospel is Jesus plus Moses. Paul says that he saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel. The truth of the gospel demands a certain kind of conduct. Paul is not an antinomian he is not "anti-law-in-general." But the conduct demanded by the gospel is not Moses-centered, but Jesus-centered. And so Paul rebuked Peter in the presence of the whole church: "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, Peter had already said in Acts 10-11 that he recognized that the food laws were no longer in force how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" (Or perhaps better, "to become Jews.") Public rebuke is rarely a good idea. Especially the public rebuke of someone like Peter-- the chief apostle. But Paul saw that the gospel was at stake. Paul may have been troubled that the apostles in Jerusalem hadn't put a stop to the Judaizing crowd, but when it spread to Antioch and even Barnabas was led astray Paul could not remain silent. Notice that Paul does not tell us the outcome. We would like to believe that Peter immediately repented, but we simply don't know. What we do know is that by the Jerusalem Council (recorded in Acts 15) Peter and Paul were reconciled, and the united church agreed that the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised, or follow the Mosaic dietary regulations. 2. Basic Agreement: Justification by Faith (2:15-16) Verses 15-21 set forth the heart and soul of Paul's response to Peter and to the Galatians. It is probably not a direct report of Paul's rebuke. Paul seems to be taking the essence of what he said to Peter and saying, this is also what you need to hear. In verse 15 it is almost certainly still a quotation: We ourselves, Peter, are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners... It was common for Jews to refer to Gentiles as "sinners," as opposed to the "righteous" Israel. They would acknowledge that some Gentiles would be saved, and some Israelites would be apostate, but for Jews the world was divided into the two camps of "Jews" and "Gentiles" "the righteous" and "sinners" and everyone knew who fit in what camp! Paul uses this way of speaking to say, "Hey, Peter, we are in the "in" group and yet We know that a person is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. This is Paul's statement of what every Jewish Christian already understood. "We know" these things are undoubted and affirmed by all. Peter would have shouted, "amen, preach it brother!" In verse 16 there are several terms that we need to understand: a) "Works of the Law "Works of the law" does not refer to "good works" or an attempt to "impress" God with your own goodness. All Jews knew that you cannot "impress" God. But covenant nomism (the basic attitude of Judaism) believed that through faithful observance of Torah including repentance and offering sacrifices when you sinned God would restore and exalt Israel. Judaism admitted that you cannot please God in the abstract, but God has entered into a covenant with his people, and those who keep his covenant who are faithful to his covenant will be justified. It is this attitude toward the law that Paul finds repugnant. As we will see in chapter 3, "the works of the law" refers to the whole Mosaic economy in other words, the whole religious system instituted under Moses. Paul is not attacking legalism or works-righteousness, per se: he is attacking the idea that justification comes through the Law through Moses. Paul says that the "works of the law"-- which would include circumcision, dietary laws, as well as the whole ethical code, simply cannot justify. Moses cannot make you right with God. B) "Justified" We must then ask what Paul means by "justify"? "To justify" is a forensic or legal term. It means "to declare righteous." It is a term used in the court room. When the judge pronounces his verdict you are either acquitted or condemned. We often use the word "vindicate" to refer to an innocent person who was acquitted. To justify is to declare innocent. To justify a person is not to declare that he is actually innocent. Rather, it is a legal standing. You all know of legal cases where a person was declared innocent, when you are pretty sure that he is really guilty! Nonetheless, in the eyes of the law, that person is justified. Well, we can easily imagine how that happens in an earthly courtroom, but in the court of heaven, before the judge who not only sees all that you have done, but also knows your very heart, rest assured that the guilty will never be acquitted. How can you be acquitted, or justified, before the throne of God? (Or, as Paul puts it in Romans, how can God be just and justify the ungodly?) How can God bring a bunch of smelly, stinky, sinful Gentiles into the privileged legal relation reserved for Abraham's children? [Paul will later challenge the idea that Jews have an exclusive right to be considered Abraham's children but for now he is content to remind his hearers of something they already know:] How are you justified? Is it by the works of the law? Or is it by faith in Christ? c) "through faith in Jesus Christ" There are two different ways that Paul relates faith and Christ. If we were to translate this literally we would read, "We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through the faith of Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by the faith of Christ..." There is some question here as to what "the faith of Jesus Christ" means. The word "faith" can mean "faithfulness" so some say it means "faithfulness"-- while others say that it refers to the faith that has Jesus Christ as its object. Either one is grammatically possible. And neither one would substantially change the meaning of the passage! If you say that it refers to the faithfulness of Christ, the Paul is saying that the objective foundation of your justification is not the works of the law, but the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. You are not justified by your faithfulness to the law, but by Jesus' faithfulness. This fits exactly with what Paul is saying about the Jesus-centered character of the gospel. The story is not Israel plus Jesus. The gospel is not Jesus plus anything else! The gospel is that all that God had promised to Israel has happened to Jesus. Jesus is the faithful one. Jesus is the righteous one. And therefore justification God's verdict of righteousness comes only to the one who believes in Messiah Jesus. If you say that it refers to the faith that has Jesus as its object or "faith in Jesus Christ" (as does the ESV) then Paul's point is focused on the subjective reception of justification. You do not receive justification through your works, but through believing in Jesus. As I read the arguments on both sides, I find myself wondering what the big deal is. Either way, justification is grounded in the finished work of Jesus Christ. Either way, justification is received by faith because both sides agree on the translation, "we also have believed in Christ Jesus in order to be justified." Paul sets forth no other way to be justified, except through believing in Jesus. Given the context, I am slightly in favor of the objective approach (the faithfulness of Jesus Christ). What is the objective ground of your justification? Is it the "works of the law" (i.e., the Mosaic economy)? Or is it the work of Christ? And the very language of the contrast is crucial: is it the law's work, or is it Christ's faithfulness? Covenant nomism had said that it was through Israel's faithfulness to the covenant that righteousness would come to the people of God. Paul says that it is through Christ's faithfulnesss that righteousness comes to the people of God. How does God justify the ungodly? Through Moses? Or through Jesus? Remember that Paul is starting here in verse 16 with something that every Jewish Christian already knows. "We know..." The apostolic preaching has been very clear on this point. God's verdict to Jesus was to vindicate him and exalt him, giving to him the promised Holy Spirit (as Peter had preached in Acts 2). 3. The Implications of Justification (2:17-21) But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Remember who the "we" is. "We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners" The Judaizers claimed that the way to live a godly life was to observe the Mosaic Law. Gentile "sinners" can become godly Christians only by observing Torah just like Jews. Paul responds by saying, look, all Jewish Christians agree that we are justified in Christ, but if, while we seek to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners (in other words, we lived like Gentiles the charge against Paul is that in his attempt to convert the Gentiles he has thrown out Moses he is, in effect, an antinomian he is against the law) is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! Paul says, For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself a transgressor. I have been saying that Moses is not the answer so then how could I rebuild a Mosaic foundation? I have been preaching that Jesus is the ground of our justification. How could I then preach some other ground as well! For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. The law cannot bring life. The law can only bring death. To revert to the law as the way to live the Christian life is to nullify the law's own intent. (We'll look more at that in a couple weeks) But if I am dead to the law, then how can I be bound to the law? Can a corpse respond? Even so, I died to the law! But how is it that "I died to the law"? I have been crucified with Christ. Paul will go on in chapter 3 to say that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. No longer am I under the curse of the law because I have been crucified with Christ. How is it that I am justified by faith? It is because I have been identified with Christ in his crucifixion. The death that he died, he died to sin. And now God has declared Christ's death to be my death. I have been spiritually identified with Christ in his death so much so that It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life that I live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. All of this will be unpacked more in the following chapter. But the point we must take home is that Christ, the objective ground of our justification is not simply some distant heavenly figure. The Jesus who appeared to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus was not just a heavenly messenger. Paul goes so far as to say that I have died. It is no longer my life that I live. It is Christ who lives in me. The principle of life that energizes my being is no longer me. It is the Messiah. This is how Christ-focused Paul is! It is not just that you cannot tell the story of the gospel without Jesus at the center, you cannot tell the story of Paul without Jesus at the center. My life isn't mine anymore! And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. It is by faith, from first to last. Paul closes this basic statement of his position with a denial: I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification [or righteousness] were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. The implication is that if you do not accept Paul's teaching, then you are implicitly nullifying the grace of God. If righteousness could come through the law, then the death of Christ was pointless. What was the point of the death of Jesus? Why did the Messiah have to die? Messiah had to die in order to redeem us from the curse of the law! So then, having been redeemed from the curse of the law, why would you want to go back to the law?! How can you 'nullify' the grace of God? How can you make the death of Christ pointless? By adding something to it. If you say "Jesus PLUS" then you are nullifying the grace of God. If you say that people need to become "like us" before they can join the church, then Christ died for no purpose. If you say that people need to get their life together before they can join the church then you nullify the grace of God. God justifies sinners strictly and solely through the work of Jesus Christ, received by faith alone. Add anything to that and you lose the gospel.