We’re all so perfect that we never get into arguments with anyone - aren’t we? You never had a fight with your spouse? You’ve never had a blow-up with any of your children? You’ve never disagreed with your boss or supervisor? Everything has always been perfect - you’ve moved through life without controversy?
Well, now that you’ve had a good laugh, we need to confess that we’re not perfect, that we didn’t marry someone who was perfect, and we certainly didn’t give birth to and raise perfect kids. My sons never agreed with me 100 %. There were times that Andrew would come home from getting a haircut, and his hair would be trimmed a little on the way side, and I never got upset with him - just let him wear it that way until the time came when changed it to something I would say, was more acceptable.
Controversy is nothing new in the Bible, either. The first controversy that made adversaries out of men, was the jealousy that Cain had with Abel because his offering to God was more acceptable. Cain was so made that he killed Abel, his brother. Not all controversies end in murder, but it certainly is possible. Jesus was constantly at war with the Pharisees and teachers of the law. Disagreements happen.
Today’s scriptures tell us that Paul, shortly after his departure from Jerusalem, found out that Peter had done an “about face” and behaved hypocritically toward the church at Antioch. The solidarity sealed by a handshake in Jerusalem just months earlier, was in danger of splitting the church. Paul had to do something quickly. Paul had to confront Peter about his hypocrisy.
Peter the Hypocrite
“When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray” (2:11-13)
Antioch had a large Jewish and Gentile community, strengthening the chance of a balance between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Peter at first acted appropriately and consistently with his earlier endorsement of Paul’s ministry by freely sharing meals with gentile Christians. Peter’s willingness to share meals with Gentile believers was consistent with Jesus’ practice and the vision he had received from God regarding Cornelius.
Mealtimes presented one of the most challenging situations for Jew-Gentile fellowship. For many Jews the purity laws relating to clean and unclean foods resulted in a reluctance to share meals with Gentiles. Sitting down at the table with the Gentiles, Peter provided and official stamp of approval on the oneness and equality of all believers, Jew and Gentile alike.
But after the arrival of “certain men from James,” Peter withdrew and separated himself out of fear of the “circumcision party.” Two questions demand a response: Who were the men from James? And why was Paul infuriated with Peter’s actions?
The “men from James” were probably Jewish Christians who were part of the Jerusalem church. Obviously they were hard-liners on the issue of circumcision, and likely sided with those who wanted Titus circumcised. Although Paul describes them as coming “from James,” it’s hard to imagine that James, the half-brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, had sent them so quickly after affirming that they need not be circumcised.
No, these men had probably exaggerated their credentials in order to give themselves the appearance of an official delegation with the power to command that Gentile Christians be circumcised. Peter likely feared what the repercussions might be for his ministry to Jews if the report spread that he mixed too freely with Gentiles.
Paul was outraged by Peter’s change of heart. Peter knew that Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians belonged at the same table sharing meals together and he had modeled it until opposition arrived. Rather than taking a stand and displaying courage, Peter acquiesced and displayed cowardice. Peter was a people pleaser instead of a God pleaser.
Peter also acted hypocritically, acting contrary to his true convictions; he knew better. The unity, equality, and fellowship of Jew and Gentile in Christ were central to God’s plan of redemption. Peter hadn’t made an honest mistake; he had deliberately and shamefully put on a mask of pretense. For Paul, people pleasing and hypocrisy were actions unbecoming an apostle.
And Peter’s hypocrisy didn’t affect just a few - it also had an effect on Barnabas and other Jewish Christians. They joined Peter in his hypocrisy. For over ten years Barnabas had served as a faithful supporter and fellow missionary of Paul. But now, carried away by Peter’s reversal, Peter, Barnabas, and the others stood condemned; Paul stood alone.
Paul the confronter
“When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, ‘You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?’” (2:14)
Paul left no doubt as to the implication of Peter’s action. If Gentile Christians wanted to be part of the one true people of God, they would have to undergo circumcision. Peter was siding with the troublemakers from Jerusalem. Paul says that Peter was himself, a Jew, living like a Gentile. This was the ultimate hypocrisy and made the situation worse. Peter had felt free to fellowship with Gentiles since his vision in Acts 10 and subsequent meeting with Cornelius the Roman. Peter had continued the practice until the “men from James” had arrived in Galatia.
“We who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.” (2:15-16)
These verses are probably the most important verses for under-standing the doctrine of justification by faith. Justification is the act whereby God imparts the obedience of Christ to believers, and in turn, imparts their sin to Jesus on the cross. This action creates a new people not limited by ethnicity, gender, or social standing. They have a new status - they’re now in a covenant relationship with God.
Paul is telling everyone that the wall of separation that existed between Jew and Gentile has been torn down by Christ. Though some are Jews by birth and others are Gentiles, all have been justified by faith in Jesus and not by the law.
Paul uses the term ‘justified’ three times in verse 16 and five times in this section of Galatians. The verb “to justify” had a judicial connotation - it evoked the image of a court of law where a person was declared to be in the right. In today’s terminology, the guilty person was acquitted. You see, all human beings are guilty before God, but believers in Christ are justified, “acquitted” of their sins. We are declared innocent before God. All who have been justified are a part of God’s covenant family and equally welcome at his table.
The family of God
“If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker.” (2:18-19)
You’ve been justified - acquitted before God. You now comprise the family of God without ethnic distinctions. Consequently, Jewish believers had the requirement to share meals with Gentile believers. To some in Jerusalem, these Jewish Christians were committing sin by defiling themselves with such table manners. If they did this out of obedience to Christ, someone might charge that Christ is a “promoter of sin,” a charge Paul refuted in the strongest terms.
To “rebuild those things that I tore down” referred to Paul’s transformed understanding of the law that prohibited fellowship with Gentiles. Paul is using the image of tearing down a wall as a way to speak of what had happened to his own former understanding of the Jewish law. If he were to go back and make a distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christians, he would be rebuilding the wall of separation and that would make him a transgressor of God’s will.
“For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (2:19-21)
Paul has employed the image of building and tearing down to describe his new life in Christ. Now he turns to a new metaphor, one of dying and living. For Paul, justification constituted a dying to his old identity in Christ defined by the death of Jesus. As a result of Paul’s faith in Jesus, he could claim, “I have been crucified with Christ.”
Paul identified so closely with Jesus’ death that he could speak as if he were ‘co-crucified’ with Jesus. Paul’s use of the verb tense to describe this experience indicated that it was not merely a one-time event, something that had happened in the past, but rather an ongoing experience - he daily died with Jesus.
The old Paul died daily; the transformed Paul could now live since Christ lived in him. This new life was possible for Paul because of the self-giving, self-sacrificing love of Jesus “who loved me and gave himself for me.” Christ now lived in Paul and supplied strength for his daily life.
Can you say that about your life? Do you daily die to self, to everything that you want, in order to live for Christ and do everything that he wants? Let’s repeat verse 20 together - in English, please: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
Will just saying that make it so? No. You’ve got to walk your talk. You’ve got to say it and do it. We all have to begin living more for Christ under the direction of his Holy Spirit, and less under the direction of our own selves. We can be strong-willed people, can’t we? We can insist that things be done our way, can’t we? We can quote that oft used phrase, “My way or the highway,” can’t we?
The pastor of a large church in Austin, Texas, told the story of his rebellious son. When the boy reached his teenage years, he started to let his hair grow long. That was the style at the time and many of his classmates were doing it. This was not acceptable to the pastor and he demanded, very strongly, that his son get his hair cut. The boy refused.
The father would not take no for an answer and so marched the boy down to a barbershop and had his hair cut reasonably short. And did this every time the boy would let his hair grow out. And this went on for several years until the boy graduated from high school
Then the son moved away from home, further rebelled against his pastor father’s demands, and stopped going to church. Did exactly the opposite of what the father would have wanted and expected from a pastor’s son.
Nearly ten years went by before the son came back home, repented of his rebellion, and rejoined the fellowship of his family and church. Two strong-willed men, butting heads until one acquiesced to the other. They both repented of the sin that had separated them, asked each other’s forgiveness, and became one happy family again.
Each had been governed by the expectations of their peer groups. The pastor, a leading figure in the Austin Baptist Association and the Baptist General Convention of Texas, wanted his son to con-form to what was expected of a preacher’s kid.
The son, governed by his high school peer group, wanted to show his father that he was old enough to make his own decisions, even about how to grow his hair. After I listened to this testimony, I determined that I would never let the hair styles of my sons come between us and cause a riff like this. There are more important things in life than hair styles - like how we live for Christ.
We’re all so perfect that we never get into arguments with anyone - aren’t we? You never had a fight with your spouse? You’ve never had a blow-up with any of your children? You’ve never disagreed with your boss or supervisor? Everything has always been perfect - you’ve moved through life without controversy?
Well, now that you’ve had a good laugh, we need to confess that we’re not perfect, that we didn’t marry someone who was perfect, and we certainly didn’t give birth to and raise perfect kids. My sons never agreed with me 100 %. There were times that Andrew would come home from getting a haircut, and his hair would be trimmed a little on the way side, and I never got upset with him - just let him wear it that way until the time came when changed it to something I would say, was more acceptable.
Controversy is nothing new in the Bible, either. The first controversy that made adversaries out of men, was the jealousy that Cain had with Abel because his offering to God was more acceptable. Cain was so made that he killed Abel, his brother. Not all controversies end in murder, but it certainly is possible. Jesus was constantly at war with the Pharisees and teachers of the law. Disagreements happen.
Today’s scriptures tell us that Paul, shortly after his departure from Jerusalem, found out that Peter had done an “about face” and behaved hypocritically toward the church at Antioch. The solidarity sealed by a handshake in Jerusalem just months earlier, was in danger of splitting the church. Paul had to do something quickly. Paul had to confront Peter about his hypocrisy.
Peter the Hypocrite
“When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray” (2:11-13)
Antioch had a large Jewish and Gentile community, strengthening the chance of a balance between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Peter at first acted appropriately and consistently with his earlier endorsement of Paul’s ministry by freely sharing meals with gentile Christians. Peter’s willingness to share meals with Gentile believers was consistent with Jesus’ practice and the vision he had received from God regarding Cornelius.
Mealtimes presented one of the most challenging situations for Jew-Gentile fellowship. For many Jews the purity laws relating to clean and unclean foods resulted in a reluctance to share meals with Gentiles. Sitting down at the table with the Gentiles, Peter provided and official stamp of approval on the oneness and equality of all believers, Jew and Gentile alike.
But after the arrival of “certain men from James,” Peter withdrew and separated himself out of fear of the “circumcision party.” Two questions demand a response: Who were the men from James? And why was Paul infuriated with Peter’s actions?
The “men from James” were probably Jewish Christians who were part of the Jerusalem church. Obviously they were hard-liners on the issue of circumcision, and likely sided with those who wanted Titus circumcised. Although Paul describes them as coming “from James,” it’s hard to imagine that James, the half-brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, had sent them so quickly after affirming that they need not be circumcised.
No, these men had probably exaggerated their credentials in order to give themselves the appearance of an official delegation with the power to command that Gentile Christians be circumcised. Peter likely feared what the repercussions might be for his ministry to Jews if the report spread that he mixed too freely with Gentiles.
Paul was outraged by Peter’s change of heart. Peter knew that Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians belonged at the same table sharing meals together and he had modeled it until opposition arrived. Rather than taking a stand and displaying courage, Peter acquiesced and displayed cowardice. Peter was a people pleaser instead of a God pleaser.
Peter also acted hypocritically, acting contrary to his true convictions; he knew better. The unity, equality, and fellowship of Jew and Gentile in Christ were central to God’s plan of redemption. Peter hadn’t made an honest mistake; he had deliberately and shamefully put on a mask of pretense. For Paul, people pleasing and hypocrisy were actions unbecoming an apostle.
And Peter’s hypocrisy didn’t affect just a few - it also had an effect on Barnabas and other Jewish Christians. They joined Peter in his hypocrisy. For over ten years Barnabas had served as a faithful supporter and fellow missionary of Paul. But now, carried away by Peter’s reversal, Peter, Barnabas, and the others stood condemned; Paul stood alone.
Paul the confronter
“When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, ‘You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?’” (2:14)
Paul left no doubt as to the implication of Peter’s action. If Gentile Christians wanted to be part of the one true people of God, they would have to undergo circumcision. Peter was siding with the troublemakers from Jerusalem. Paul says that Peter was himself, a Jew, living like a Gentile. This was the ultimate hypocrisy and made the situation worse. Peter had felt free to fellowship with Gentiles since his vision in Acts 10 and subsequent meeting with Cornelius the Roman. Peter had continued the practice until the “men from James” had arrived in Galatia.
“We who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.” (2:15-16)
These verses are probably the most important verses for under-standing the doctrine of justification by faith. Justification is the act whereby God imparts the obedience of Christ to believers, and in turn, imparts their sin to Jesus on the cross. This action creates a new people not limited by ethnicity, gender, or social standing. They have a new status - they’re now in a covenant relationship with God.
Paul is telling everyone that the wall of separation that existed between Jew and Gentile has been torn down by Christ. Though some are Jews by birth and others are Gentiles, all have been justified by faith in Jesus and not by the law.
Paul uses the term ‘justified’ three times in verse 16 and five times in this section of Galatians. The verb “to justify” had a judicial connotation - it evoked the image of a court of law where a person was declared to be in the right. In today’s terminology, the guilty person was acquitted. You see, all human beings are guilty before God, but believers in Christ are justified, “acquitted” of their sins. We are declared innocent before God. All who have been justified are a part of God’s covenant family and equally welcome at his table.
The family of God
“If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker.” (2:18-19)
You’ve been justified - acquitted before God. You now comprise the family of God without ethnic distinctions. Consequently, Jewish believers had the requirement to share meals with Gentile believers. To some in Jerusalem, these Jewish Christians were committing sin by defiling themselves with such table manners. If they did this out of obedience to Christ, someone might charge that Christ is a “promoter of sin,” a charge Paul refuted in the strongest terms.
To “rebuild those things that I tore down” referred to Paul’s transformed understanding of the law that prohibited fellowship with Gentiles. Paul is using the image of tearing down a wall as a way to speak of what had happened to his own former understanding of the Jewish law. If he were to go back and make a distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christians, he would be rebuilding the wall of separation and that would make him a transgressor of God’s will.
“For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (2:19-21)
Paul has employed the image of building and tearing down to describe his new life in Christ. Now he turns to a new metaphor, one of dying and living. For Paul, justification constituted a dying to his old identity in Christ defined by the death of Jesus. As a result of Paul’s faith in Jesus, he could claim, “I have been crucified with Christ.”
Paul identified so closely with Jesus’ death that he could speak as if he were ‘co-crucified’ with Jesus. Paul’s use of the verb tense to describe this experience indicated that it was not merely a one-time event, something that had happened in the past, but rather an ongoing experience - he daily died with Jesus.
The old Paul died daily; the transformed Paul could now live since Christ lived in him. This new life was possible for Paul because of the self-giving, self-sacrificing love of Jesus “who loved me and gave himself for me.” Christ now lived in Paul and supplied strength for his daily life.
Can you say that about your life? Do you daily die to self, to everything that you want, in order to live for Christ and do everything that he wants? Let’s repeat verse 20 together - in English, please: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
Will just saying that make it so? No. You’ve got to walk your talk. You’ve got to say it and do it. We all have to begin living more for Christ under the direction of his Holy Spirit, and less under the direction of our own selves. We can be strong-willed people, can’t we? We can insist that things be done our way, can’t we? We can quote that oft used phrase, “My way or the highway,” can’t we?
The pastor of a large church in Austin, Texas, told the story of his rebellious son. When the boy reached his teenage years, he started to let his hair grow long. That was the style at the time and many of his classmates were doing it. This was not acceptable to the pastor and he demanded, very strongly, that his son get his hair cut. The boy refused.
The father would not take no for an answer and so marched the boy down to a barbershop and had his hair cut reasonably short. And did this every time the boy would let his hair grow out. And this went on for several years until the boy graduated from high school
Then the son moved away from home, further rebelled against his pastor father’s demands, and stopped going to church. Did exactly the opposite of what the father would have wanted and expected from a pastor’s son.
Nearly ten years went by before the son came back home, repented of his rebellion, and rejoined the fellowship of his family and church. Two strong-willed men, butting heads until one acquiesced to the other. They both repented of the sin that had separated them, asked each other’s forgiveness, and became one happy family again.
Each had been governed by the expectations of their peer groups. The pastor, a leading figure in the Austin Baptist Association and the Baptist General Convention of Texas, wanted his son to con-form to what was expected of a preacher’s kid.
The son, governed by his high school peer group, wanted to show his father that he was old enough to make his own decisions, even about how to grow his hair. After I listened to this testimony, I determined that I would never let the hair styles of my sons come between us and cause a riff like this. There are more important things in life than hair styles - like how we live for Christ.
