Salvation by Faith Alone, Part 2
Galatians 2:14-21
Tonight, we are continuing our study in the book of Galatians. What a blessed time it is going to be as we come into that second chapter again. In Galatians 2, we are considering the portion of Scripture that goes from verses 11-21. We began two weeks ago with our first look at these verses and this is our second one. We're calling this little series within the book "Salvation by Faith Alone."
Now, our generation has been asking in it's own way the very same question that Bildad asked centuries ago, in Job 25:4. He said this: "How, then, can man be righteous before God?" It's a very important question. How, then, can man be righteous before God? One of the universal human hurts is guilt. Every man feels it, every man, in some way or another, tries to alleviate his guilt. He may salve it over with self-confidence and positive thinking, and he may endeavor to escape from it through drugs or drink or some other escape. But every man deals, in one way or another, with guilt. Primitive man, for example, endeavors to look for relief in religious rites. In attempting to pacify some god that he assumes exists, he somehow feels that he is thus atoning for his sin and gains a measure of relief from guilt. The cultured man is a little different. Maybe cultured man looks for his 'out' in psychoanalysis. But both ends of the pole, whether cultured or primitive, shout that something is wrong. They need love, they need acceptance, they need forgiveness. It's at that point that the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ rings true to the heart of the aborigine and the heart of the university professor, and everybody in between. The voice of God comes and says, "There is love, there is acceptance, there is forgiveness for all who come to God through Jesus Christ."
Perhaps the key verses in the book of Galatians boil down to verse 16. "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ," and verse 20: "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me." This is really the message of Christianity, that a man can be just before God so that God will literally come and dwell within that man and live his life through him. This is the heart of Galatians, this is the heart of Paul's gospel, this is the heart of the New Testament, as well as the key to the particular rebuke of Paul against Peter as Peter attacked the doctrine of salvation by faith alone.
Now remember, as we said last time, the Apostle Paul was the apostle of grace. He was the great preacher of salvation by faith. It was he who said, "For by grace are you saved through faith, that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." It was he who laid down the tremendous doctrinal statement of grace that is defined so capably in Romans 3-4 and following.
Because Paul was the apostle of grace and because he was such a dominant figure and because he was so powerful, Satan knew that he must destroy his work. Satan knew that he had to do all he could to undermine the message of Paul, to destroy the efforts that Paul was vigilantly working on. Satan had some false teachers to try and do his work for him, and he sent them along. As we've seen throughout our study of Galatians, they dogged the steps of Paul and they were the Judaizers. They would come running along behind Paul and they would say, "No! You can't be saved through faith alone, you have to have works. You have to be circumcised, you have to keep the law, you have to obey the ceremonies, you've got to become a Jew first, then you can get into Christianity." They imposed upon the freedom of grace and faith a system of rules and ceremonies.
Paul had shed blood, and almost given up his life, in Galatia. He was stoned and left for dead in the dump outside of the city. It was at great peril and cost that he and Barnabas had founded those little churches in Lystra, Iconium, Derby and Antioch. Now he was gone, and he had heard about what happened. The Judaizers had come in and troubled the sheep, troubled the flock, stirred up problems in the church with their heresy. They had attacked Paul on three fronts. First, they denied his authority. They denied his authority and substituted theirs. Secondly, they denied his gospel of grace and substituted theirs of works. Thirdly, they denied his life of liberty and substituted their own life of legalism. So they hit him on his authority, his gospel, and his pattern of the Christian life. He writes Galatians to counteract those three things. Chapters 1-2 defend his authority, chapters 3-4 defend his grace salvation, chapters 5-6 defend his liberty living.
We're in the first section. We're in the section dealing with the defense of his authority, and we have seen three ways in which he defends his authority. First, he gives his apostolic credentials. He says, "What I got, I got directly from Jesus." Remember that? Galatians 1:10-24. Secondly, he says that,"I have not only apostolic credentials, but I have apostolic commendation." In 2:1-10, Paul shows that he went to Jerusalem and the leaders of the Jerusalem church commended him. So he defends his authority on the basis of his credentials and his commendation. Thirdly, he defends his authority because of his apostolic confidence. You say, "What do you mean by that?" I mean that when it came to a clash with Peter, who was considered number one among the apostles, Paul did not hesitate to take a position of authority over Peter. So he establishes his authority on the basis of his credentials, his commendation by the apostles, and his confidence in handling a heretical situation propagated by the leader of the twelve, Peter himself.
Now verses 11-21 are our consideration in the framework of his defense. We see the passage falling into two sections: verses 11-13 deal with Peter's deviation, verses 14-21, with Paul's doctrine. Peter's deviation comes in three sections, and we saw those last time, you'll remember. First of all, the clash came in verse 11.
"When Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face because he was to be condemned." Paul sets himself against Peter's aggressive attack on grace. That was the clash. The cause for the clash is in verse 12: "For before certain men came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles." He was doing fine. He was up there, and he wasn't hung up on dietary laws, he realized that the dietary laws of Leviticus 11 were gone, that the Lord had rubbed those out, that Jesus had Himself said in Mark 11, "It is not what goes into a man that defiles him, it's what comes out of him." Also, prior to his meeting with Cornelius, he had tried to take a nap on the roof of his house and found himself in a trance in which he saw a vision. Through this, God showed him there were no more ceremonial dietary laws. Everything was to be taken, "Rise, Peter, kill and eat." Peter said, "I can't, I can't touch that stuff. It's against the Jewish ceremony. It's established that I can't touch it, I've never eaten it in my life!" God says, "Don't you dare call 'unclean' what God has cleansed." So it's a new ballgame, a new world, a new day, Peter. So Peter understood that he could eat with Gentiles.
But watch: "But when they came from James," they came from the Jerusalem church, not under the authority of James, they just came from the church where James was sort of the leader, "He withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision." That's another term for the Judaizers who wanted to impose a legal salvation on everybody, where you get saved by works. So when they arrived, all of a sudden he withdrew from the Gentiles and started acting like a legalist. The reason he withdrew? It says simply in verse 12 that "He feared them." In other words, he was holding his reputation. He didn't want to lose his reputation among the legalists. The implication of the verbs here in the Greek tense is that he gradually withdrew himself. He isolated himself with the Jews. The fear in Paul's mind was that there are now two churches, we've created a monster with all the Jews pulling out, and there will be a terrible fractioning of the church.
The consequence came in verse 13. "The other Jews dissembled in like manner with him." Peter was a leader, insomuch that Barnabas, who was co-pastor of the church at Antioch, also was carried away with their hypocrisy. Why do I call it hypocrisy? Because they knew better. They knew they were free to eat what they wanted to eat. They knew that. They played the part of a hypocrite to gain a reputation with the legalists. They didn't want to offend them. Well, the hypocrisy spread and it split the church. This is the church over which Paul had labored and labored, so had Barnabas and three other pastors indicated in Acts 13. This was the fountainhead of Gentile churches. Paul was really upset, and in verses 14-21, we find the reaction that we'll call Paul's doctrine. First he reacts, then he teaches. Look at verse 14.
"But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before all, 'If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?'"
Let's untangle that statement. What Paul is saying is this, and you need to get this or you'll miss the whole point of his argument. He's saying, "Peter, you shared the table with Gentiles, you had no hang-ups. You ate in their homes, you shared the Lord's Table as well as meals with them. There wasn't any problem. You ate, you lived like a Gentile. You no longer showed any inclinations to Judaism, to legalism, to Judaizing, to the necessity of law for salvation or for the Christian life. Therefore, Peter, you approved of it. You agreed that it was right. You agreed that this was truth. As much as saying so, you have stated by your pattern that there is no more ceremonial, there is no more dietary separation, but we're one in grace. OK? That's what you said, Peter." That's what's implied in the statement, "If thou be a Jew and livest after the manner of Gentiles." In other words, "Peter, by the way you live, you approved of this. Now, how in the world can you reverse yourself and make everybody think that the only way to go is the way the Jews go? You were willing to live like a Gentile, now you want all Gentiles to live like Jews. How did you reverse so suddenly?"
I don't think Paul's motive was to lord it over Peter, I think Paul was fighting for the purity of the church, fighting for the truth of grace salvation and of liberty. Now, notice the verse and let's look at it in particular. "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly."
This is an interesting Greek word, a fascinating word. orthopodeo, from which we get 'orthopedics'. Orthos means 'straight' and podeo has to do with the foot. "You didn't walk with straight feet." In other words, here is the line of truth, and here's you. You didn't stay parallel to the truth. You didn't walk a straight course, an unwavering, sincere course of conduct according to truth. That's what he says, "You did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, you started drifting off from the line of truth." Now the amazing thing about it is that Peter knew the truth, didn't he? Sure he did, he believed it. He played the part of a hypocrite in order to gain popularity with the legalistic section of the Jerusalem church.
Now Peter believed he could eat, he had no problem with that. So he pretends that he doesn't believe it. What a hypocrite! He pretends "Oh, you Judaizers are so right, I'm going to come and eat with Jews." Phony. You know better than that. He didn't deal honestly, played the hypocrite. What an indictment.
Look what Paul does, I like this. He said unto Peter "before them all." You say, "But you just don't do that! Before everybody?" That's what he did. Augustine said this: "It is not advantageous to correct in secret an error which occurred publicly." Augustine was right. Unless you deal with the public sin on a public basis, you haven't fairly dealt with it and you haven't let the people know that you deal with sin. That's important.
Let me show you an interesting verse that talks about that as a little footnote. I Timothy 5:1: "Rebuke not an elder," (we don't have apostles today, but we do have elders), "but exhort him as a father, the younger man, his brother." In other words, be careful how you talk about elders. You say, "What if they deserve it?" OK, go to verse 19. "Against an elder, receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses." In other words, be sure that it's confirmed. Why? Because men who are in positions of spiritual leadership are targets for criticism, much of it unfounded, and should be substantiated before it becomes an issue. Notice verse 20. "When you do find out that it is true what that elder is accused of, them that sinned rebuke before all that others also may fear." In other words, you don't try to hide the rebuke of a person in a position of leadership, you make it just as public as was the display of his sin, in order that people might know that you truly believe what you say you believe.
I talked to a young man today about the situation in the church that we believe is so important, and that is that if we do not discipline within the church, there is a credibility gap in our preaching. In other words, our elders are convinced that if we preach against sin and preach for holiness, godliness, and purity, and don't enact discipline when we see sin, then people are soon going to think that we really don't mean what we say. It's like telling your child all the time that you don't want him to do something but you never do anything about it when he does it. Pretty soon, he knows you're just woofing him when you say you don't want him to do it. There has to be credibility established on the basis of discipline.
In this case, Paul set down a tremendous pattern in the church that is "I don't care who you are, when you're out of line and your out of line activity is public, it's going to be rebuked publicly that others may know the church doesn't tolerate that." It's a great reminder, just like Ananias and Sapphira, they sinned and what happened? They didn't disappear secretly, they dropped dead in front of the whole church. You can imagine the reaction. I imagine that was a revival. Later on, it says in chapter 5 that "none dared join himself to them." In other words, you keep the tears out if you discipline. The rumor running around Jerusalem was "Don't join that outfit. One false move and it's over."
So Paul unmasks the hypocrisy of Peter. Nobody is beyond the discipline of the Body, understand that. Paul unmasks hypocrisy in one who is really a supremely important individual in the eyes of the people. Notice the word 'live'. "He said unto Peter, before them all, that thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles." The other word is frenzao, and that doesn't mean life like the word bios, or biological life, it has to do with all of the externals of life. He was externally living like a Gentile and now he was going to trade that in. It is simply talking about not so much moral issues as it is just externals. Peter was doing great with the externals of the change, he had transferred his patterns into what was the one, single identity of the church with no hangups, but now, he had turned his sails to pick up the sudden wind that had blown in from Jerusalem. He was violating that which he had already established in his own mind and the minds of other people. Paul shot right at his inconsistency. Everybody in Antioch knew Peter, everybody knew what he had done. Everybody knew that he was living like a Gentile and having a great time. Now, the whole thing was very confusing and Paul could see this, a serious, serious rift. So Paul flat-out shoots both barrels at him in verse 14.
This becomes a premise on which Paul bases a tremendous theological statement in 15-21 and really takes off. In this little passage from 15-21, which could be studied and studied and studied and perhaps never plumbed, it is very, very difficult to untangle what he's saying for the reason that he is emotional, especially in the first part of Galatians. He's so emotionally involved that his grammar and his word choice is horrendous from a physical standpoint, although we know it was the Spirit's design all the way through. Humanly speaking, he was emotional at this point and that comes through.
In this little section from 15-21, we're introduced to some tremendous Pauline terms. For example, we run into the term pistis, or 'faith', which becomes such a dominating word in the vocabulary of Paul. Then we run into the word nomos, which translates 'law', another dominating word. But above and beyond those words, we run into another word, a word that becomes a cardinal word not only in Christianity, but in Paul's mind, heart and writing. That is the word 'justification'. I believe that no one understands Christianity who does not understand justification. You may not understand what that term means, but you have to understand the concept or you could never understand Christianity or be saved. The verb form of justification appears three times in verse 16, one time in 17, and the noun form appears in verse 21. So justification is at least five times in these verses stated.
This is very important, because here we have, then, a statement regarding justification. The great doctrine of justification by faith alone is introduced here. Notice, friends, that it is introduced in the context of his rebuke to Peter because it is the reason he rebukes Peter. He says, "Peter, I'm rebuking you because you're violating the cardinal doctrine of Christianity. By what you're doing, you're condoning legalism. You're condoning a faith /works system." He is saying, in effect, "Peter, listen. I'm not just asking you a question, I'm going to tell you why I'm posing this question to you." The why, of course, is based on the doctrine of justification. Martin Luther said, "If the article of justification be once lost, then all Christian doctrine is lost." So what is the doctrine of justification? It is the good news that sinful men and women can be brought into the acceptance of God, not because of their works, but simply through faith in Jesus Christ. That's the doctrine of justification. The word comes in many forms: dikios, dikaioo, dikaiosune, but it's the same thing. It's translated in the Bible justification, just, right, righteous, righteousness, justify, justified, all those terms translate the same word for the most part.
Let me give you a definition of it. It is a legal term, and stay with me because this is going to get somewhat theological, but it is a legal term. It comes from the law courts. To give you a definition, I should start with a contrast. The opposite of justification is condemnation. Does that help you understand it? The opposite of justification is condemnation. For example, to condemn is to declare someone guilty. To justify is to declare someone not guilty, innocent, righteous. In the Bible, justification refers to God's free and gracious act by which He puts a sinner right with Him, forgiving him, pardoning him and accepting him not on the basis of anything that sinner does but solely and only on the basis of the perfect work of Jesus Christ. That's justification.
This is the core, really, of the Scripture because this is the core of the human dilemma. The human dilemma is this: God is righteous and I am sinful. How do I get to Him? That's what Bildad said. "How, then, can man be righteous before God?" (Job 25:4) That was the pain that was eating at him. How, then? How can a condemned sinner be declared righteous and accepted by the God of the universe? How? We know that it's by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and Peter had adulterated and prostituted that fact, and Paul was attacking back, and his attack was premised on the doctrine of justification.
Let me give you two thoughts on this. First of all, he makes the statement of justification in verses 15-16, he simply states what it is. Then, in verses 17-21, he defends it. This is powerful, clear, and potent. The words are a contrast in verses 15-16 between the Judaizers' doctrine of salvation by law/works and the apostles' doctrine of justification by faith. The argument is Jewish, and we have to think of it in that context. Look at verse 15 and we'll unscramble some things that are probably running around lose in your head.
"We who are Jews by nature, [not sinners or Gentiles] knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law. For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
Now, in case you didn't get it, he said the same thing three times. Three times. Let's back up to the beginning. First word: we. Who's he talking about? Jewish Christians. Such is Paul, Peter and the other Jews at Antioch, Jewish Christians. "We, though Jews by nature..." So why is he making that point? Look, he's saying that "though we are Jews by nature...even we have believed in Jesus Christ." That's the point; he's saying this: "we are Jews by nature, we know the law as a way of life from the time we were born. We were circumcised the eighth day, that whole thing. We know what it is to live under the system of law. We know what it is to endeavor to gain approval, we know what it is to be restrained by certain forbidden things under the Mosaic economy, we know what it is to obey ceremonial ritual, we're not [verse 15] like the sinners of the Gentiles." There, the word 'sinners' (hamartaloi) is not so much a moral term as it is a legal one. The word 'sinners' is synonymous with 'Gentiles'. In the sense that the Gentile had no law, not that he's a moral sinner but that from a legal standpoint, the Gentile, not having law, therefore lived in violation of it, at least in the mind of a Jew. For example, if a Gentile didn't have all the ceremonial laws, he couldn't obey them, right? So in the Jew's mind, he was automatically a sinner, legally. It's not a moral thing, it's a legal thing.
So Paul's saying, "Look, we're Jews by nature, we're not even like Gentiles, we're not apart from law, we know the law. We live by the law. Gentiles are born without the law. They didn't have the Mosaic system, so legally, they're violators of it. We don't expect them to put confidence in the law, they never had the law. But we Jews, who all our lives had the law, found out that there's only one way to be saved and that is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ." That's what he's saying. Look at the middle of verse 16. "Even we, who all our lives had the law, who know all about the law, unlike the Gentiles who don't even know. With all the law we've had, we find out that we believe in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by works of the law." He says, "We're legalistic experts and we found out one thing through our law: it doesn't work. It doesn't bring you to God."
Remember what happened in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15? Peter was the preacher there, defending grace. Oh, Peter. Peter, the apostle with the foot-shaped mouth. Acts 15:10. He says, "Now look, we don't want to put law on the Gentiles. Listen.
"Now, therefore, why put God to the test? To put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"
Peter admits that the legal system never got anybody to God. Paul is setting up his argument. "We Jews, we've always had the law, always obeyed the law, always known what it does, unlike those Gentiles."
Verse 16. "Nevertheless, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law." The position of the Judaizers was that the only way to be saved was hard work. That's right, hard, work; you sweat it out and someday, maybe you'll find out whether you made it or not. You say, "Did the Jews believe that?" Yes, they did believe that. Remember the rabbi I read from a few weeks back who died crying because he didn't know whether God would accept him? He spent all his life trying to obey the law. The Judaizers say, "You've got to work at it. If you love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength" (and I don't know how you grunt and groan and conjure that up), "if you keep the commandments, if you're circumcised, if you accept Judaism, if you fast and pray and give your alms, if you do all those things, you'll make the grade. Then you'll be justified by the works of the law." Paul said they were doing this, Romans 10:3, he says, "Yes, they're going about seeking to establish their own righteousness." Paul says that it's a lie. A man is not made right with God by his own works, it can't be done, no way.
Jesus pointed that out in the Sermon on the Mount. They were all there sort of basking in their law-keeping and Jesus said, "Oh, that's real good; you haven't killed anybody, you haven't committed adultery. But I say to you, if you've ever lusted after a woman, you've committed adultery." Zap. "I say to you, if you ever hated anybody, you're a murderer." Now that shot down their little ivory tower mighty fast. He destroyed legalism as a way to God in the Sermon on the Mount. Murderous thoughts make us murderers, adulterous thoughts make us adulterers. It's astonishing that anybody could ever think that he could get to an absolutely holy and perfect God by his good deeds. I mean, you can't be that good!
So Paul admits with all the racial superiority of Judaism, with all the legal benefits of having the law, that the one thing the Jews have found out is that it doesn't work to get you saved. You say, "Well if it isn't by the works of the law, what is it?" Look at verse 16, it's by "the faith of Jesus Christ." On the cross, He died for all lawbreaking; He paid the penalty of death for us. All that is required for a man to be justified is to accept what Jesus did, to acknowledge his sin, his helplessness, to repent, to cast himself at the feet of Jesus Christ who alone can save.
I should make this point: it's not just an intellectual conviction, but it has to be a personal commitment. Notice verse 16. "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed." The little preposition in the Greek is ase and it means 'into'. "We have believed into Jesus Christ." There is an act of commitment, of committal. Not just agreeing that Jesus lived and died for you and saying, "That's fine, I believe it all," but believing into Christ, committing yourself to Him.
Let me give you another little look at the same doctrine in Romans 3 for just a second, because I think it's important. Romans 3:20, and I'm going to pick out a few verses at random. Paul says the same thing, essentially, just to give you some Scripture to compare with it. Romans 3:19.
"We say that whatever things the law said, it said to them who were under the law in order that every mouth may be stopped and all the world would become guilty before God." The law is around to show you what a sinner you are. Verse 20. "Therefore, by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight." Nobody gets right with God by his good deeds. "For by the law is the knowledge of sin." The law is the thing that makes you a sinner. As I've said before, the law is like a mirror. The mirror can't help you, it only reveals you. You look in the mirror and it's sad, you can do all you want to change the position of the mirror and it won't help. The mirror isn't the problem, you are.
Verse 24. "Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Verse 26. "The justifier of him who believes in Jesus." Verse 28. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." Verse 30. "Seeing it is one God who shall justify the circumcision by faith," that is Jews, "And the uncircumcision through faith," that is Gentiles. There is no other way. Romans 4:3. "For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him as righteousness." Romans 5:1. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with G