HYPOCRISY IN THE CHURCH
When I was younger, the church pretty much had the corner on hypocrisy, at least as society told the story. People didn’t want to go to church because it was full of hypocrites. To which we sometimes replied, come on in then, we’ve room for more. And that’s not an unfair accusation.
Recently there has been a whole raft of moral failings by high profile Christian leaders. But it’s not like Christians have a corner on the moral hypocrisy market anymore. In fact, in many ways, parts of society seem to be more moralistic than Christians ever were. There’s love and tolerance for all, unless you don’t accept the dominant ideology. Whether you’re on the right or the left, it’s not enough to treat people well, you have to have the right views lest you get cancelled.
It seems that the more strongly we hold moral views the more we insist others hold them as well, because the results will be catastrophic if we don’t.
It seems that the stronger we hold onto these morals, the harder it is to live by them, as well, and we get into this cycle of bullying, hypocrisy and moral failure.
So how can we be good without being a hypocrite. Or a bully?
This was the kind of problem that the early church was grappling with. For the Jews, the rules, or the Torah Law, were, and still are, vitally important. The Law is the means by which we can live a godly and righteous life and avoid sin.
Paul was arguing that the Christian’s freedom in Christ means the Christian, even the Jewish Christian, is no longer subject to the Law and that the Law could not make us righteous. This opened him up to the charge of lawlessness and promoting sin.
The fear for some of his opponents seems to have been that, just as a game without rules leads to chaos and injury, life without the Law will do the the same.
2.11-14: PETER’S HYPOCRISY
Paul begins this section by recounting a conflict he had with Peter, in verses 11-14. Peter came to Antioch, which had a mixed Jewish and Gentile church, and happily ate with his Gentile brothers and sisters until some members of a strict Jewish-Christian faction arrived. Paul was committed to unity between Jewish and Gentile Christians so, when it became obvious that Peter’s action was going to cause a real division in the church, Paul acted decisively and publicly. Peter was being a hypocrite. His going back to strict Jewish food laws was just people-pleasing and Paul called him out.
Have you ever been called out for something in front of others? You can imagine how Peter felt. As Christians, the rule is usually that we go to the person individually, but Peter’s actions were very public, and Paul deemed the confrontation should be public for the sake of the church. And this was doubly so since Peter held such a high and influential role.
2.15-16: THE INADEQUACY OF THE LAW
Paul then launches into an explanation of why Peter’s actions – and the legalists – were wrong.
In verses 15-16, he says that Jewish Christians had come to realise that they cannot be made righteous by the Law because they simply cannot keep all of its requirements. Just as the Gentiles need to trust in Christ to be made right because they don’t have the Law, so the Jews need to trust in Christ despite having the Law because they can’t be made right by the Law.
2.17: THE DANGER OF LAWLESSNESS
In verse 17 we come to the crux of the problem for the legalists.
We have to fill in the blanks a bit because we only have Paul’s side, not theirs. But the argument seems to be that if we abandon the Law, how are we going to stop sinning?
If you want to play a game, you have to follow the rules. If you take away the rules, it leads to chaos. (Soccer becomes rugby. Which is not a bad thing, but I digress.)
Without the Law, you can call it justification or being made right all you like, but if we abandon the Law, aren’t we Jews going to be just as bad as those Gentile “sinners” who don’t have the Law in the first place?
And what’s worse, if that’s the case, doesn’t that mean we’re accusing Christ of promoting sin, since he’s the reason we’re doing this!?
And when you put it that way, you can see why these legalists are so keen on the rules! And you want to make sure you nail down those rules good and tight.
2.18-21: THE END OF THE LAW
But, of course, Paul gives and emphatic, no!
He says rather enigmatically, “If I rebuild those things that I tore down, I show myself to be a lawbreaker.”
What on earth does that mean? Scholars aren’t entirely agreed, but here’s what I think is happening…
In the next verse he says that through the Law he died to the Law. So, the thing he tore down is the Law, and he tore it down because the Law itself did so! How can this be so?
A SUNSET CLAUSE
Sometimes when the government wants to put through controversial legislation, they have to add a sunset clause. That means that that particular law will automatically come to an end on a specific date unless parliament renews it. Effectively, the Law ends itself and if you keep doing what that Law said after that date, you’re breaking the Law! This is why state governments have to renew their states of emergency every two weeks during the current pandemic.
The Torah Law is a little bit like that. God added a sunset clause so that the Law looked forward to Christ and when Christ died and made a new Covenant, the First Covenant came to an end. Consequently the Law is no longer in effect – the sunset clause was triggered – and if I keep trying to live by the Law, ironically, I break it!
But does that mean I live in a state of lawlessness, then? That’s what the Judaizers worry about and what they accuse Paul of.
Life Replaces Law
And the answer is, no, because dying to the Law is not the end of the matter. Paul says, I died to the Law so that I might live to God.
In fact, I didn’t just die to the Law, I died to myself, and in doing that I died to sin. Now the life I live is Christ’s life in me. I no longer live to the Law through my own effort, I now live to God through Christ’s power.
The Law is replaced by Life!
In a sense, rather than having to go through a mediator for righteousness (the Law), now I go straight to the source of righteousness, God.
GRACE THROUGH CHRIST NOT THE LAW
Then Paul gives this strange comment, “I do not set aside (or nullify) the grace of God…”
To the Jews, the Law was God’s grace to Israel because it brought them into covenant relationship with him. That’s a really privileged position to be in among all the nations of the earth. So, Paul could be accused of setting aside that grace by rejecting the Law. But, of course, he is not. He is now in covenant relationship with God through faith in Christ rather than Law. It’s all of grace – a grace so big that it encompasses Gentile as well as Jew.
So in fact, it’s those who embrace the Law that nullify grace because they’re despising the death of Christ.
POINT
And this is the crux of Paul’s argument. That in tossing out the Law I am not becoming lawless, nor am I moving out of covenant with God. Rather, I’m moving into a better, more secure covenant. One that’s entirely reliant on God’s grace and fuelled by the life of Christ in me rather than my own effort. In effect, God has cut out the middleman, the Law, and given me direct access to himself through Christ.
I’ve noticed that as society moves away from a common, largely assumed morality, our governments are having to legislate things more and more. This is particularly the case around sexuality. There is a huge discussion happening around consent, and I read that the NSW law reform commission had recommended the government make it illegal to lie in order to trick someone into sleeping with you, a crime. People no longer internalise morality, so the government has to make a law to curb behaviour instead.
But as one lawyer said, you can’t legislate morality. It’s a terrible thing when you have to coerce people to be decent.
So what do you do?
APPLICATION: PURSUE THE SOURCE OF LIFE
It is so easy for us as Christians to constantly want to go back to relying on some kind of rules. Of course, we have a moral code and as God’s people we need to live godly lives. But when we do it as rules enforcement – whether towards ourselves or others – Inevitably, the things that are meant to bring life become a burden.
EXAMPLES OF CHRISTIAN RULES
For us it might look like, ‘I have to go to church’ or ‘I have to read my Bible’ or ‘I can’t get drunk’ or ‘I can’t sleep around’. These things can sound like a vegan diet if they’re just rules and it’s no wonder some Christians struggle with even these.
I died to these rules. But I also died to myself and my sin, so it’s not like I am free to just keep sinning.
ABIDE IN CHRIST
And the answer, of course, is Christ.
What I find is that the more I’m filled with the life of Christ, the more I want to live a godly life regardless of the rules.
I don’t go to church because that’s what I should do as a Christian, I go because I find God there.
I don’t tithe because the Bible says to, I tithe because God has given me a generous, grateful heart.
I don’t want to be chaste because I have some out-dated and impossible purity code but because I want to honour my wife and am filled with a holy God.
You can argue that I don’t need to be a Christian to do these things, but the point isn’t just that I know what I should and shouldn’t do, it’s that I’m motivated and empowered to do them, not out of fear or obligation, but out of the life of Christ in me – a new heart.
Now, there are things I do to cultivate the life of Christ in me. I come to church and read the Bible and pray and avoid the things that grieve him. But I don’t do them because they make me right with God, I do them because I am right with God and I want to abide in him, and I want his life to become more abundant in me.
NO RULES MEANS NO HYPOCRISY
So how does this stop me from being a hypocrite and a bully?
Well, if I am dead to the rules, so to speak, I no longer have rules I have to live by. I cannot break the Law because it doesn’t apply to me. And I don’t have to enforce it on others, either, because, frankly, it’s irrelevant. I know neither they nor I can live up them and I certainly can’t find God’s grace through them. So rather than offering morality and rules, I present Christ and him crucified. Christ in whom I abide and who dwells in me.
And so may we count ourselves dead to law and press into Christ and let the life of Christ flow richly in us.
