Orthopedics is a branch of medicine, according to Webster’s Dictionary, that is concerned with the correction or prevention of skeletal deformities and disorders.

Many have used orthopedic surgeons to replace knees or to work on shoulders, some have used orthopedic doctors to aid with feet problems.

You might find it odd that I would refer to Orthopedics, but it really is a good introduction to our passage in Galatians chapter two, especially 2:11-14.  Our passage today will teach us about Orthopedic Christianity.

Sounds odd, doesn’t it? Well, let me define it for you and then let me show it to you from the text. Orthopedic Christianity is concerned for the correction or prevention of Christians straying from the Lord. That is my own definition, but it seems to be a good one. I came up with this term by studying verses eleven through fourteen of Galatians chapter two. What takes place in these verses is orthopedic Christianity: one Christian correcting another in his walk with the Lord.

One of the evidences of Divine inspiration of the Scriptures is found in the honesty concerning the lives of the men and women recorded in the Bible. If the Bible was of human origin, then we probably wouldn’t see all the imperfections of so many people. We humans have a tendency to gloss over our faults.

Our passage of Scripture is one of those passages where we see the failing of a man of God; not just any man of God, but the apostle Peter.

I will admit to you that passages like this one in Galatians encourage me. It is not that I revile in one man’s failure, but that I realize that even the godliest of people have moments of failure.  Let’s look at the commentary on this passage.

2:11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.^NIV This Antioch was in Syria (as distinguished from Antioch in Pisidia). Antioch was a major trade center in the ancient world. Heavily populated by Greeks, it eventually became a strong Christian center. In Antioch the believers were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). Antioch in Syria became the headquarters for the Gentile church and was Paul’s base of operations.

When Peter made this trip to Antioch is uncertain; there is no reference to it in the book of Acts. It may have occurred soon after Paul, Barnabas, and Titus had returned to Antioch from Jerusalem after delivering the famine relief. Perhaps Peter wanted to see for himself the ministry taking place in Antioch. Paul’s narrative style does not require this event to be in chronological order with Paul’s visit to Jerusalem recorded in previous verses, but it is the most likely conclusion.

In any case, Paul opposed him to his face. Paul began his account with the climax of the event. In verses 1-10 Paul had illustrated his unity and cooperation with the other apostles. This one begins with a claim that he was even willing to challenge another apostle. Why he did so is recorded in following verses. Clearly, Paul had already had a great deal of practical experience in applying his theology when it came to dealings with the Gentiles. But Peter’s actions were clearly in the wrong (kategnosmenos en, “he was condemned”), and Paul, an apostle with the right to speak with authority, had to confront Peter. The event involved an emotional, face-to-face showdown. Peter was caught in a glaring inconsistency that might have gone tragically unresolved if not for Paul’s boldness. He always focused on the purity of the gospel truth; whenever it was threatened, Paul acted. The results were dramatic.

LIFE APPLICATION – CONFRONTATION

All conflicts are not the same. Paul’s confrontation of Peter is not meant to be a model for every disagreement in the church. A layperson, questioning a point in the pastor’s sermon, probably should not “oppose him to his face” publicly! Conflicts may be similar in emotion and damage caused, but the issues vary greatly in their importance. Churches, families, and friendships can be shattered over trivial matters. Often a simple church decorating or furnishing idea has nearly led to a church split. Such conflicts occur all too often, to the shame of the gospel.

At times, confrontation must take place. The issues ought to be clear and compelling. We must seek to preserve the unity of the body of Christ and faithfulness to God’s Word. Whether the issue is a minor disagreement over taste or a major crisis regarding the truth, love must be communicated to all involved.

This instance may be another reason for Paul’s usage of seemingly disparaging remarks about the church leaders in 2:2, 6, and 9. Although the apostles were to be held in high authority, they were still humans, capable of mistakes, errors in judgment, even hypocrisy. No Christian leader should ever be above correction. No person, no matter what he achieves or how long he serves, should be exempt from rebuke and guidance. We need accountability as much today as it was needed in Paul’s day. Paul was not trying to lower their position; he was pointing out to the Judaizers that they were wrong to refuse anyone else (namely himself) the position of apostle. The story itself indicates that their teaching also was incorrect.

2:12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles.^NIV When Peter arrived in Antioch, he saw that Jewish and Gentile Christians enjoyed fellowship at mealtimes without concern over Jewish dietary laws. His setting aside long-established taboos against Jews sharing board and room with Gentiles showed nothing less than his acceptance of freedom in Christ. Peter accepted these practices; he himself had received a vision from God (actually one vision and two instant replays) about food laws and Gentiles in the new world of the gospel. Indeed, Peter had been the first to receive the understanding about God’s acceptance of the Gentiles, and he was the first to preach to Gentiles. Acts 10 records Peter’s vision of a large sheet falling to the earth, filled with all kinds of animals, reptiles, and birds—many of them on the Jewish forbidden food list. “Then a voice told him, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’ ‘Surely not, Lord!’ Peter replied. ‘I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.’ The voice spoke to him a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean'” (Acts 10:13-15 NIV).

Peter understood from this vision that he should not look upon the Gentiles as inferior people whom God would not redeem. After Peter had this vision, a Gentile Roman officer named Cornelius asked him to come and share the gospel message with him and his household. Peter did so, without the hesitation he would have felt before the vision, and Cornelius and his household became believers. The Holy Spirit came upon them, they were baptized, and “they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days” (Acts 10:48 niv). Peter knew firsthand about fellowship with Gentile believers. While he stayed with Cornelius and his family, Peter probably did not adhere to the strict Jewish dietary laws—it would have been difficult and may have insulted these new believers who were his gracious hosts.

Thus, when Peter arrived in Antioch, he already knew that God had broken down the barriers between Jews and Gentiles, and he understood the true meaning of Christian freedom. So he would gladly eat with the Gentiles. The imperfect tense of the verb indicates that this was not one occasion but a repeated pattern, meaning that Peter joined with the other Jews in eating with their Gentile brothers and sisters in Christ on a regular basis. This pattern undoubtedly went beyond sharing common meals and included taking the Lord’s Supper together.

But all that was before certain men came from James. These men were the legalists, members of “the circumcision group” (see below), and most likely not sent by James. The wording here means they came “from James’s group,” that is, from the Jerusalem church. James, as leader of the Jerusalem church, had a vast range of people to deal with, and these men were part of the legalistic group of his church (almost every modern-day church has its own group of these!).

Among the entourage from Jerusalem, there must have been “certain men” who frowned on fraternizing with Gentiles. These may have been rigid and legalistic Jewish Christians, but they were probably associated with the same “false brothers” that had disrupted Paul’s visit to Jerusalem.

The fear of others lays a snare, but one who trusts in the Lord is secure. King Solomon (Proverbs 29:25)

Though this group probably tried to trade on James’s authority, he later firmly denied sending them. In the letter sent back to the Gentile Christians in Antioch after the Jerusalem council, James wrote,

“We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said” (Acts 15:24 niv).

How difficult it is to avoid having a special standard for oneself! C. S. Lewis

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.^NIV Apparently, the mere appearance of this group caught Peter by surprise. When these legalists arrived, they may have expressed shock at Peter’s conduct. Peter surely knew these men, as they came from the Jerusalem church, and he was influenced by their presence to the point that he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles with whom he had been eating and fellowshiping. The imperfect tense of the verbs indicates a gradual, awkward withdrawal.

Why was this action “clearly in the wrong” (2:11)? By his actions, Peter was implying that there really was a difference between Jewish and Gentile believers—a difference that could not be bridged. The notion that the body of Christ had to be divided between Jews and Gentiles was nothing other than heresy. Peter was being hypocritical. Perhaps he was motivated by the desire to keep peace between the legalists and the law-free gospel group. Peter’s error was that he gave in to them. Peter must have known that he had gone against God’s revelation. By the very nature of Peter’s stature as an apostle, his actions confused and hurt other believers—thus Paul’s strong face-to-face opposition to Peter’s actions.

LIFE APPLICATION – FEAR OF FAILURE

Paul identified fear as the motivation behind Peter’s erratic behavior in Antioch. Peter’s intentions may have been honest or merely confused, but his actions had undermined the gospel. Peer pressure led him to compromise his convictions; in so doing, he compromised the gospel itself (see 2:14). Because personal blunders were such a part of Peter’s past, this was probably in some way a response to the fear of making another mistake. Because, in this case, Peter had acted in response to fear, the actions were ill-chosen. How often do we fall into the same trap in order to be accepted by others? Although we recognize that fears of various kinds will usually affect our emotions, we should always base our actions on what God wants rather than the negative motivation of fear of rejection.

What did the circumcision group say to Peter to cause him to change his actions for a brief time? One explanation suggests that they may have argued that Peter was encouraging the Jewish believers to disregard their heritage and its laws. They may have played on Peter’s emotions; after all, he too was a Jew. It is likely that Peter tried to keep peace by his actions—not wanting to offend these legalistic Christians. After they left, he would resume his fellowship as before. But this sort of playacting was unacceptable to Paul. That was too high a price to pay for peace.

Another explanation points to Peter’s pattern of not handling surprises very well. Caught unawares, he tended to overreact (as when he hacked the servant’s ear off in John 18:10 or when he denied knowing Jesus in Luke 22:54-62). Circumstances arose in Antioch that he had not faced previously. Up until then, his dealings with Gentile Christians had been totally separate from his dealings with fellow Jewish Christians. Peter was alone with Cornelius and on his own in Antioch, both situations dominated by Gentile Christians. But with the arrivals from Jerusalem, he was suddenly faced with a diversity of extremes. His immediate action was unwise and required Paul’s intervention.

But then the question arises, why was someone of Peter’s stature afraid of those who belonged to this group in the Jerusalem church? That question probably cannot be answered any more than we could answer why he denied Jesus. At times, Peter would act courageously: when he gave the incredible speech at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41); when he and John stood before the Sanhedrin and refused to follow the command to stop preaching the gospel (Acts 4:1-20); when he had to defend to the other apostles his own actions after his visit to Cornelius’s home (Acts 11:1-18). Yet at times, he would seem very weak. How human Peter was! We should be thankful that Scripture records for us the courage and failings of so many of God’s people. Many times we also find ourselves amazed at our courage in some circumstances and then embarrassed by our weakness in others. Peter demonstrated the conflict between Spirit and flesh (sinful human nature) that Paul would discuss in 5:13-26. When Peter was motivated and led by the Holy Spirit, he was wise and courageous.

	When he gave in to the influence of his human nature, he was fearful, ambivalent, and hypocritical. Everyone makes mistakes, so we must live each day in close communication with God and under the control of the Holy Spirit.	If War is ever lawful, then peace is sometimes sinful. C. S. Lewis
LIFE APPLICATION – DON’TS AND DOS
Goal setting and decision making based on “what we don’t want to do” rather than “what we want to do” will result in poor choices. “What we don’t want to do” responds to pressure and tends to avoid discomfort and inconvenience; “what we want to do” responds to values and convictions. In attempting to avoid an uncomfortable problem, Peter almost undermined his own convictions. His instinctive solution to the local conflict over Jewish/Gentile relations in the church would have opened a wound in the church that might have never been healed.
Our freedom in Christ must lead us to positive goal setting and behavior reflecting God’s truth. Following Jesus rarely involves a convenient or comfortable way. In fact, to use Christ’s own words, the way will be narrow and straight. Our single-minded pursuit of “what we want to do” for Christ will put most of “what we don’t want to do” in its proper place.

2:13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.^NRSV As Peter acted on his fear, the other Jews, meaning those not already committed to the policy of separation, went along with his hypocrisy. They, too, gradually stopped joining with the Gentiles in eating and fellowshiping. These “other Jews” were the Jewish believers who lived in Antioch and were members of the church there. In that setting, they were most likely in the minority.

LIFE APPLICATION – CLOSELY WATCHED

Christians don’t live as isolated individuals. Their actions and attitudes affect other Christians. The way Christians treat each other has a particularly strong attractive or repelling effect on outsiders. Jesus said that the world would recognize his disciples by their love for one another (John 13:35). Leaders should be especially careful to be good examples because others may stand or fall because of them.

Paul mentioned Barnabas separately, probably because Paul was especially surprised that Barnabas would be led astray by their hypocrisy. Barnabas was Paul’s traveling companion; together they preached the gospel to the Gentiles, proclaiming Jews’ and Gentiles’ oneness with Christ. Barnabas was not from the Jerusalem church and would not have had the personal and relational stake in this that Peter had. And Barnabas should have known better (in reality, so should Peter have known better). Yet, like Peter, Barnabas was human, and for some unknown reason he followed Peter’s example.

Paul boldly told the truth—this was sheer “hypocrisy.” A hypocrite says one thing but does another. Peter, Barnabas, and the Jewish believers knew that God accepted everyone equally, that salvation was available to all, that there should be no separation in the body of Christ. Yet their actions implied just the opposite. If Paul had opted for peace and allowed these actions to go unrebuked, the Christian church would have divided into two distinct groups going their separate ways. But this was not God’s  plan, nor was it consistent with “the truth of the gospel,” as Paul would explain in the next verse.

LIFE APPLICATION – FACE-TO-FACE

Although Peter was a leader of the church, he was acting like a hypocrite. He knew better, yet he was driven by fear of what the legalistic Christians from his home church would think. Paul knew that he had to confront Peter before his actions damaged the church. At stake were, not only conditions in Antioch, but the future of the gospel in the Gentile world. So Paul publicly opposed Peter. Note, however, that Paul did not go to the other leaders, nor did he write letters to the churches telling them not to follow Peter’s example. Instead, he opposed Peter face-to-face. Sometimes sincere Christians, even Christian leaders, make mistakes. And it may take other sincere Christians to get them back on track. If you are convinced that someone is doing harm to himself/herself or the church, try the direct approach. There is no place for back stabbing in the body of Christ.

2:14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel.^NRSV This was the crux of the matter—they (Peter, Barnabas, and the Jewish believers there in Antioch) were not behaving consistently (orthopodousin—walking correctly, (Orthopedic Christianity)  being straightforward, acting rightly) with the truth. In other words, their application was in error; their orthodoxy was not leading to orthopraxy. Paul had heard one thing, but then he saw just the opposite!

Paul’s agitation was over the truth of the gospel. This truth was that Jesus Christ had died and had risen again to offer salvation to all people—Jews and Gentiles alike. Both groups are equally acceptable to God; thus, they must be equally acceptable to each other. Jewish believers separating themselves implied that they were superior because of their race, traditions, or law keeping. The gospel clearly shows, however, that people do not become accepted by God for anything they do but only by God’s grace.

Paul was not interested in a power play. He did not oppose Peter in order to elevate himself. Paul recounted this story in this letter to the Galatians to show that he was a full apostle and could speak authoritatively, even in opposition to another apostle if the truth of the gospel were at stake, as was the case at that time. This was not a secondary issue blown out of proportion. The confrontation fit the crisis.

LIFE APPLICATION – JUST DO IT!

Actions usually speak more loudly than mere words. The goal, of course, must be to have agreement between the way we live and what we say. Hypocrisy exists when what we say professes more than how we live. Paul gave Timothy some effective counsel in this area in 1 Timothy 4:15-16. The following questions can help us avoid hypocrisy:

Am I participating in behaviors that I know Scripture does not condone?

What parts of my life would I not want my children to imitate?

What specific commands in Scripture have I not applied to my life thus far? Why am I refusing to consider their truth?

Has God given me responsibilities that I have been ignoring?

The recognition and acceptance of God’s help often comes when we finally see our own shortcomings.

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?”^NIV Paul spoke to Peter publicly, in front of them all—that is, in front of the Jewish believers, the Gentile believers, the circumcision group, and Barnabas. Those who want to attribute other motives to Paul might ask why he didn’t go to Peter privately. Wouldn’t that have been more “peace loving”? more “Christian”? But Peter’s actions had started a domino effect; and, because of his authority as an apostle, his actions had confused the believers. A private solution to this problem was not an option. Peter’s action was public, with public consequences; thus the rebuke had to be public.

Was Paul acting inconsistently and unbiblically with his treatment of Peter? Some who attack the way Paul handled the issue back up their case by using Galatians 6:1, where Paul urges gentle restoration in dealing with conflict. They raise the possibility that Paul was violating Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 18:15-17 regarding the private handling of conflict. They also use 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, where Paul treated people in different ways at different times.

The Bible doesn’t say whether or not Paul met with Peter privately; perhaps he did. Paul also wrote, “Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning” (1 Timothy 5:20 niv). Paul’s public confrontation was respectful, forthright, and honest. As a leader of the Jerusalem church, Peter was setting public policy.

LIFE APPLICATION – CONVICTIONS AND COMPROMISE

The Judaizers accused Paul of watering down the gospel to make it easier for Gentiles to accept, while Paul accused the Judaizers of nullifying the truth of the gospel by adding conditions to it. The basis of salvation was the issue: Is salvation through Christ alone, or does it come through Christ and adherence to the law? The argument came to a climax when Peter, Paul, the Judaizers, and some Gentile Christians all gathered together in Antioch to share a meal. Peter probably thought that by staying away from the Gentiles, he was promoting harmony—he did not want to offend the Jewish Christians. Paul charged that Peter’s action violated the gospel. By joining the Judaizers, Peter implicitly was supporting their claim that Christ was not sufficient for salvation. Compromise is an important element in getting along with others, but we should never compromise the truth of God’s Word. If we feel we have to change our Christian beliefs to match those of our companions, we are on dangerous ground.

Paul recorded his exact words here. Obviously, everyone knew Peter’s Jewish background; Paul’s wording indicates they also knew that Peter had set aside Jewish rituals and ceremonial laws (especially the food laws that made fellowship between Jews and Gentiles almost impossible) because of his freedom in Christ, thus living like a Gentile and not like a Jew. Certainly the visions Peter had seen and his experience with Cornelius had cured him of any prejudice against Gentiles (see Acts 10).

Paul’s actual guidelines for situations like the one in Antioch (see 1 Corinthians 8:1-13; 10:23-33) flowed from the proper role of host and visitor in various cultural contexts. When in someone else’s home, a Christian was free to find common ground with that family by accepting their hospitality and food without question. The key to guidance was in keeping the “weaker brother” in mind. Neither Peter nor the Judaizers were in that category in Antioch. In this case, the “weaker brothers and sisters” were being abused.

But how could Paul say that Peter wanted to force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? By siding with the Judaizers who were visiting Antioch, Peter was playing into their hands, appearing as if he agreed with them and actually supported their insistence that Gentiles should follow Jewish customs. By separating himself from the Gentiles, Peter was supporting the Judaizers’ claim that Jews still were better than Gentiles.

Alongside the theological problems that Peter’s actions caused, a practical question must have surfaced. While Peter’s change in policy about having meals with Gentiles was harmful, the change in the policy for the Lord’s Supper must have been disastrous. If this group was divided over the sharing of common meals, it is inconceivable that they would be able to assemble together for the Lord’s Supper. Without Paul’s immediate and forceful intervention, the church in Antioch might have been crippled and destroyed.

Some commentators struggle over where Paul ends his actual self-quotation in the confrontation with Peter. The niv text ends Paul’s speech to Peter with closing quotes at the end of verse 21, making his words fill a couple of paragraphs; the nrsv text puts the closing quotes at the end of verse 14. Based on tone alone, the exact exchange probably ended with Paul’s direct question to Peter. What follows summarizes the reasons behind Paul’s insistence on consistency. In any case, Paul moves away from the confrontation with Peter and on to a magnificent sketch of the gospel and then back to his concern over the Galatians themselves in chapter 3.

2:15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners.^NRSV Both Paul and Peter were Jews by birth, as were, obviously, all the Jewish Christians. Yet being Jews by birth was not enough for salvation.

Paul’s phrase Gentile sinners was said ironically because this was the scornful name Jews applied to Gentiles. Peter’s actions had conveyed some sort of “holier than thou” attitude in line with the teaching that Gentiles were still “sinners” unless they became Jewish. But both Peter and Paul knew better.

Yes, pride is a perpetual nagging temptation. Keep on knocking it on the head, but don’t be too worried about it. As long as one knows one is proud one is safe from the worst form of pride. C. S. Lewis

2:16 Yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.^NRSV All people stand as condemned sinners before God: God-fearing, law-keeping Jews, and “Gentile sinners” alike. But all have hope in the same source: through faith in Jesus Christ. Paul was speaking from within the context of his Jewish upbringing. He contended with his compatriots that their traditions did not solve the problem of sin. Paul’s appeal is similar to Jesus’ confrontations with the Pharisees and teachers of the law. Jesus said, “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering” (Luke 11:52 niv).

In this verse, three profoundly significant terms occur for the first time in this letter: (1) justified (dikaioo, in three forms); (2) works of the law (ergon nomou); and (3) faith in [of] Christ Jesus (pisteos Iesou Christou).

First, let’s look at the word justified. In a single word it represents the effect upon us of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. There are two views to interpret its meaning. One view, generally represented in Roman Catholic theology, takes justified to mean that people’s past sins have been wiped out so that they have been “made righteous” in and of themselves. This approach emphasizes the ethical aspects of a person’s relationship to a holy God. It moves from acquittal of past sins to ethical renewal and moral uprightness in the present; final and complete righteousness is not conferred until the last judgment.

The other view, held by many Protestants, takes justified as a legal word, literally meaning “to declare righteous” (the opposite being “to condemn”). To use a familiar but helpful explanation, the person who is justified can claim that his condition before God is “just as if I’d never sinned.” This view emphasizes the status conferred or relational aspect of God’s dealing with us. The reality of past sin, the potential to sin in the present, and the on-going need for repentance tend to give this view of justification a more intimate and personal sense than the first, which tends to be formal and structured.

When defining theological positions, sometimes alternative views simply emphasize different aspects of a single reality. Recently, scholars show that Paul had in mind both the ethical renewal and the new standing in Christ. One benefit of the first view is that it provides the believers a solid, ethical view of the transaction between themselves and God. But this needs to be held alongside the equally important and probably more foundational understanding of a personal, ongoing relationship with Christ.

Justification, as used in Scripture, always begins with God alone, acting in grace. God justifies people despite their guilt, pardons them, and then makes them his children and heirs.

To be declared righteous could never happen as a result of the works of (or by obeying) the law—the second term Paul introduced here to the Galatians. The law to which he was referring could mean Jewish Scripture, plus the laws added by the Pharisees. If that were the case, the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy and constant interpretations by the Pharisees would be all that was needed for salvation. The possibility of self-achieved righteousness would mean that Christ did not have to die. But, the law could also have a more general meaning—the idea that just by being good and doing good works a person can be justified. While this passage does not conclusively teach how Paul felt about the law itself, there is little doubt about the effectiveness of the “works of the law” (ergon nomou). Paul directs the force of his argument toward those who would mistakenly hope to “work” or observe the law in order to merit or earn God’s approval. Jesus said, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matthew 9:13 niv). Those who were righteous in their own eyes did not think they needed Christ; those who saw their true status as sinners could find their hope in him.

Paul, Peter, and the Jewish believers obviously knew this; otherwise, they would not have converted to Christianity. They understood that trying to follow and obey all of God’s laws (let alone all the laws the Pharisees heaped on them) could not give salvation. This came “through faith in Jesus Christ” alone. “Faith” is a personal act of commitment; it means believing and accepting that Jesus came, died on the cross to take the punishment our sins deserved, and rose again. This faith opens the way to a relationship with God the Father, and the promise of eternity with him.

LIFE APPLICATION – LAW AND ORDER

If observing the Jewish laws cannot justify us, why should we still obey the Ten Commandments and other Old Testament laws? We know that Paul was not condemning the law, because in other letters he wrote: “the law is holy” (Romans 7:12 nkjv); “the law is spiritual” (Romans 7:14 nkjv); “the law is good if one uses it properly” (1 Timothy 1:8 niv). Instead, he was saying that the law can never make us acceptable to God. The law still has an important role to play in the life of a Christian. The law:

reveals God’s nature and moral goodness;

guards us from sin by giving us standards for behavior;

convicts us of sin, leaving us the opportunity to ask for God’s forgiveness; and

drives us to trust in the sufficiency of Christ because we can never keep the Ten Commandments perfectly.

The law cannot possibly save us. But after we have become Christians, it can guide us to live as God requires.

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.^NIV The third phrase introduced in this verse by Paul is faith in [of] Christ (pisteos Christou), which he used twice (the earlier one being pisteos Iesou Christou). The phrase pisteos Iesou Christou occurs seven times in the New Testament: twice in 2:16, and once in 3:22; Romans 3:22, 26; Ephesians 3:12; and Philippians 3:9. Scholars differ over an issue of Greek grammar. If “faith in Jesus Christ” is an objective genitive, then it means faith in Jesus Christ. If “faith in Jesus Christ” is a subjective genitive, then it means the faith or faithfulness of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament word for “faith” is a Hebrew term emuna, which can mean either the faithfulness of God or a person’s response. If Paul merely substituted emuna for pisteos, then the evidence would point toward interpreting this phrase as “the faithfulness of Christ that saves us.”

The “faith in Christ Jesus” phrase that begins this part of the verse actually translates eis Christon Iesoun episteusamen (“in Christ Jesus we have believed”). While all three phrases have often been translated as if they were the same, they clearly are not. The first and last phrases, while difficult to understand, probably describe the operation of justification, leading to a suggested translation of “Christ-faith” or “faithfulness of Christ” or even “Christ-centered faith.” Meanwhile, the center one of the three phrases describes the application of faith on the part of those who allow themselves to be justified by faith. The ambiguity maintains the truth that faith must be exercised but does not “save us.” Rather, it is Christ who faithfully applies to us what he provided at the Cross, our justification.

The significance of the different viewpoints can be brought out in this example. Two rock climbers are working together. One person falls and will die if he is not rescued. The top climber drops a rope to save him. The bottom climber responds and grasps the rope. How was he saved? Did his grasp save him, or did the faithful work of his rescuer save him? We are not the source of our salvation. No matter how strong the rope, if you don’t grab it, you’re dead. No matter how strong your grasp, if there is no rope, you cannot be saved.

Because Paul expected his readers to agree with the “we know” that begins this verse, he could then conclude that we have exercised our faith so that the way is now open that we might be justified by faith. Whether Paul was still recalling his speech to the group at Antioch, or if he was addressing the Galatians, the truth of this statement remains. Believers today are also part of the “we.” Because we believed, because we put our faith in Christ Jesus, we have rejected the idea that human endeavor or observing the law can make anyone acceptable to God. We have understood that we are justified by faith; thus, we know that keeping all the Old Testament laws and trying to do good works could not, cannot, and will not save us.

LIFE APPLICATION – NO SUBSTITUTE

By studying the Old Testament Scriptures, Paul realized that he could not be saved by obeying God’s laws. The prophets knew that God’s plan of salvation did not rest on keeping the law. Because all people are sinners, we cannot keep God’s laws perfectly. Fortunately, God has provided a way of salvation that depends on Jesus Christ and not on our own efforts. Even though we know this truth, we must guard against using service, good deeds, charitable giving, or any other effort as a substitute for faith.

Paul appealed to the Jewish Scriptures to emphasize his point, for his words echo Psalm 143:2, “Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you” (niv). No one is righteous, nor can they become righteous by doing good deeds and by obeying the law. This was not a new idea, certainly not one created by Paul. The doctrine of justification by faith goes back to Abraham who, “believed the Lord, and [God] credited it to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:6 niv).

2:17 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!^NIV Because most of Paul’s letters were dictated, sometimes one idea springboards to a related point or answers a foreseen, potential problem. In this verse, Paul responds to one objection that might be raised by his opponents. They might say, “How could Paul claim that justification by faith is effective when Christians still sin?” Or, “If you have invalidated the importance of living by the law, how will you escape the charge that you are promoting sinful living? Doesn’t that make Christ the founder of an ineffective system (or less effective than the law), and shouldn’t the law be added for justification?”

Paul moved directly to his answer. If we refers to Jewish believers; the word for sinners in the Greek is the same word used in the phrase “Gentile sinners” in 2:15. The neb translates the first part of the verse, “We ourselves no less than the Gentiles turn out to be sinners.” Paul was answering an objection to his message, an objection that would probably be leveled against him by the Judaizers among the Galatians. They claimed that to say the law doesn’t matter is to say that standards and morality don’t matter. This leaves the door open for people to become believers and then live any way they choose. The freedom that the Gentiles had led them to break some of the legal restrictions and thus, in the eyes of the Judaizers, to “sin.”

Of course, Paul did not mean that. If Jewish believers became justified in Christ, gained freedom from the law, and then committed a sin, does that mean that Christ promotes sin?

Paul’s reply is vehement: Absolutely not! Sin does not result because people are justified; therefore, Christ is not responsible for promoting sin. Obviously those who have been justified—Christians—can and do sin, for that, unfortunately, is part of our human nature (Paul details his own struggle with sin in Romans 7). But the sin led to the need for justification, not the other way around. The Judaizers saw justification as a “theological” excuse to get out from under Jewish law (that is, changing from Jew to Christian). But Paul (and the Jewish Christians who had experienced justification) knew that while offering freedom from the restrictive law, justification by faith demanded lifestyle and behavioral changes. When God truly gets hold of a life, nothing can remain the same. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” (2 Corinthians 5:17 niv). At the end of this letter, Paul wrote, “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation” (Galatians 6:15 niv). Grace does not abolish the law with its standards and morality; rather, it moves it from an external standard impossible to keep to an inner motivation for living a pure and God-honoring life.

Paul appealed to the Galatian’s knowledge that having the law and trying to obey it had not brought assurance of justification. The legalists were doomed to failure, handicapped by human tendency to sin even when they knew better. But the group that Paul was confronting added a twist to the problem. If they agreed with Paul about their inability to be justified by the works of the law, then why did the law remain so important? Because having the law was a label of status and significance. Possession of God’s own laws was a matter of great pride. Even if the laws were not obeyed, they were revered.

But Paul could see that the gospel was the way of freedom from the slavery of legalism on the one hand and the pride of ownership on the other. We are still faced with the challenge of following Jesus between these two errors—becoming bound to a set of rules or becoming proud over our spiritual status. Liberation in Christ bears the sign of humility.

2:18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker.^NIV Justification by faith destroyed the Jewish “merit system” with all its laws and good deeds that attempted to rack up points with God. To rebuild that, to be justified by faith and then return to that legal system as a basis for one’s relationship with God, would erroneously imply that Christ’s death was not sufficient. The truth, however, is that it was not necessary for the Gentiles to place themselves under the law in order to discover that the law could not add to their justification. Paul saw the situation in Antioch with Peter as a clear illustration of the unnecessary burden that some wanted to place on Gentile believers. Peter, through his act of pulling away from the Gentile fellowship, was giving law a place of authority that it no longer held.

Justified people will sin, but they are moving onward and upward. The real sinner is the one who is justified and then returns to the law. Ironically, that person is actually a lawbreaker. People under the law are more precisely described as lawbreakers than as law-keepers! The law cannot give salvation because no one can keep it perfectly. The best the law can do is prove our sinfulness and how much we need the Savior and his gracious offer of justification by faith.

2:19 For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.^NIV Paul changed his wording from “we” to I here, relying again on his personal experience. His phrase through the law embodies much of what he would write regarding the law’s purpose several years later in his letter to the Romans. The law itself could not save because no one can keep its perfect standards. The law thus cannot give eternal life; instead, it offers only failure and death. So what is its usefulness? The law was a necessary instrument to show people the ultimate futility of trying to live up to God’s standard on their own. But that very hopelessness created by the law can have a positive impact if it leads a person to the true hope, Christ himself. Christ took upon himself that death penalty—the death we deserved for being lawbreakers. His action freed us from the jurisdiction of Moses’ law. When Paul understood that the law was completely incapable of giving salvation, and when he embraced the one who

could give salvation, he knew he could never go back to the law. Paul felt this so intensely that he expressed it in terms of death, I died to the law. Paul went from a law-centered life to a Christ-centered life.

The law’s purpose was to work itself out of a job and point us beyond itself to a fuller relationship with God. Richard Longnecker

Years previously, Paul had been at the height of his determined service of the law when Christ had interrupted his life on the road to Damascus. His efforts were weighed and found lacking. Seeking to pursue “spiritual justice,” in reality he had been persecuting God’s Son. “Death” may well have been the most appropriate description Paul could choose to capture the effect of that encounter. But it was a death that opened the way for new and real life!

Paul knew he had to die to the law before he could live for God. There can be no middle ground. It makes no sense to accept salvation by faith and then work for it, just as it makes no sense to accept a gift and then offer the giver money for it. We must deny that our own efforts can accomplish anything in order to be able to humbly accept the gift that Christ offers. By identifying with Christ, we can experience freedom from the law that he procured for us by dying on our behalf.

Some scholars think the next phrase should actually be attached to this verse in order to round off Paul’s thought, rather than place it at the beginning of verse 20. Thus Paul would have been saying, “In order that I might live for God I have been crucified with Christ.” This parallels other passages such as 2 Timothy 2:11, “If we died with him, we will also live with him” (niv).

2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.^NKJV In several short phrases the apostle captured the breathless wonder believers experience as the realization dawns that we are no longer living “our” lives, but have surrendered to the author of life, who now lives his life in and through us.

Paul continued his thought from verse 19. The perfect tense of the verbs indicates something that happened in the past but influences the present. Paul “died to the law” by being crucified with Christ. Christ completely fulfilled the law (past tense); this act influenced Paul in the present (who, as an imperfect human, could not keep the law). Yet because of Christ’s death, the law no longer had a hold on either of them. What profound relief Paul must have felt! He no longer needed to fear that, after spending his entire life studying and trying to keep the law, somehow he might still miss God. The Cross of Christ shows that although the law had to be kept, it was fulfilled by a perfect human. Christ paid sin’s penalty for imperfect humans.

Being crucified with Christ refers to the conversion experience, a once-for-all transaction that has ongoing results. We do not have to be crucified with Christ again each day. As Christians, we must daily take up our cross to follow him, but this refers to the responsibilities of discipleship. We are required to daily withstand our sinful human desires. (This will be discussed in detail in 5:16-25.)

Scholars have looked at Paul’s phrase “I have been crucified with Christ” in different ways. This could mean that

• all believers participate in the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection;
• all believers experience death and new life because Christ did so on their behalf;
• all believers will have experiences like those Christ endured (Romans 8:17; Philippians 3:10); or
• all believers actually participate in Christ’s death and resurrection because of the mystical union that believers have with the Lord (see also Romans 6:4-8; Colossians 2:12-14, 20; 3:1-4).

This statement holds in its simplicity the incomprehensible depth of each believer’s union with Christ. Each of the above suggestions actually emphasizes an aspect of the workings and benefits of Christ’s death on our behalf. Our biggest danger is in trivializing Christ’s death. Being a part of the “body of Christ” means more than just church membership. Union with Christ means that believers share his death, burial, and resurrection. Believers are so united with Christ that Christ’s experiences become their experiences. Paul would later write to the Romans:

• Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. (Romans 6:3-5 niv)

Paul claimed he had been “crucified,” but he found himself still alive. Paul had died with Christ, but it was his “old self” that had died: it is no longer I who live. The self-centered, Jewish Pharisee, Christian-persecuting, law-abiding, violent, and evil Paul “no longer” lived. That person’s sinful life had been crucified with Christ on the cross when Paul was saved. This is the “I” of the flesh (see 5:13-24), of sinful human desires, of works and pride. Paul was released, not only from the tyranny of the Mosaic law, but also from the tyranny of self. Thus, this verse could read, “I no longer live I myself” or “I no longer I the old self in the flesh live.”

Instead, Paul was a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17) because, he explained, Christ lives in me. In other words, Paul had turned over his life to Christ. Each of the phrases is a crucial aspect of the sequence of salvation: We relinquish our old life and turn to Christ for his life. The self-centered self now becomes the Christ-centered self. It is as if Paul was saying, “My old life, my old goals and plans, even old relationships were nailed to the cross with Christ. Now I have a new life because Christ came in and filled the empty spaces all those old pursuits could not fill. Now he lives in me and is the focus of my life.” To accomplish this, there must be a radical cleansing of our old selfish nature. But there must also be a turning to the empowering of Christ. Just as in repentance we turn away from sin and toward Christ, we must turn from the self in the flesh to the self hidden in Christ.

Mystical? Yes. Difficult to understand? Certainly. True? Beyond a doubt—ask any Christian. And that is precisely Paul’s point in the following section. Although mystical, this resurrection life is not beyond anyone’s reach, for the key to living it is by faith.

Paul no longer focused his life on trying to please God by obeying laws; instead, with Christ in him, the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. Believers’ lives are still lived “in the flesh” (in their bodies prone to sin) while they remain on earth. But with Christ in charge, they are new creations, living life “by faith.” This faith is not a one-shot deal—have faith, be saved, end of story. Rather, it is an attitude, a lifestyle. This new life is lived every day, every moment, through every situation “by faith.”

What is the object of that faith? Our Lord Jesus Christ. We have faith in his act of loving us and giving himself (dying) for us. In other words, “Because he loved me and died for me, he can live in and through me.”

LIFE APPLICATION – DYING TO LIVE

How have we been crucified with Christ? Legally, God looks at us as if we had died with Christ. Because our sins died with him, we are no longer condemned (Colossians 2:13-15). Relationally, we have become one with Christ and identified ourselves with him, and his experiences are ours. Our Christian life began when, in unity with him, we died to our old life (see Romans 6:5-11). In our daily life, we must regularly crucify the sinful desires that keep us from following Christ. This too is a kind of dying with him (Luke 9:23-25).

And yet the focus of Christianity is, not dying, but living. Because we have been crucified with Christ, we have also been raised with him (Romans 6:5). Legally, we have been reconciled with God (2 Corinthians 5:19) and are free to grow into Christ’s likeness (Romans 8:29). And in our daily life, we have Christ’s resurrection power as we continue to fight sin (Ephesians 1:19-20). Relationally, we are no longer alone, for Christ lives in us—he is our power for living and our hope for the future (Colossians 1:27).

2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!^NIV Paul returned to his argument with the legalistic and “labelistic” false teachings begun in chapter 1. Paul’s message of salvation by faith (without works of the law) did not set aside the grace of God. Instead, that is exactly what the Judaizers’ teaching did—they “set aside” or “nullified” God’s grace. For if people have to follow laws in order to earn their salvation—if righteousness could be gained through the law—then the logical conclusion is that Christ died for nothing. Christ did not need to die if we could have obtained salvation by obeying the law. However, it was because no one could obey God’s law perfectly that Christ came to both obey it and then set it aside as a means to salvation. That was the ultimate picture of God’s love and grace for sinful humanity. The basis of Christianity is God’s grace and Christ’s death for sin. Without these there is no faith, no gospel, and no hope of salvation.

LIFE APPLICATION – LEGAL EAGLES

Believers today may still be in danger of acting as if Christ died for nothing. How? By replacing Jewish legalism with their own brand of Christian legalism, they are giving people extra laws to obey. By believing they can earn God’s favor by what they do, they are not trusting completely in Christ’s work on the cross. By struggling to appropriate God’s power to change them (sanctification), they are not resting in God’s power to save them (justification). If we could be saved by being good, then Christ did not have to die. But the Cross is the only way to salvation.

www.Upwards.Church

Message Audio/Video and Outline: https://upwards.church/watch-now/leander-campus-videos

Watch Messages: YouTube-Upwards Church

Facebook: Upwards Church

Read Along Daily Bible Reading: YouVersion (https://www.bible.com/organizations/370f8a6e-16bc-464f-8c43-0b7623fd2952)

Additional Source: Bruce B. Barton et al., Life Application Bible Commentary – Galatians, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1994), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: “GALATIANS 2”.