Mere Cognition

When the crystal waters of grace
shatter into the shards of lost innocence
We will wonder
We will wonder
Should we have left it this way

But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Corinthians 12:9-10, ESV)

🙂

Part 3 of the study on Galatians, covering Galatians 2:11-21

This section of Galatians is titled in different ways - Paul's apostolic confidence, Paul confronts Peter, Paul opposes Peter... there is a significant amount of church history and theological significance to unpack from this rather short section of scripture.

Grace to You has an article, entitled "Is Truth Worth Fighting for?" that talks about Paul in this way:

Take the apostle Paul for example. Paul was certainly fair with his opponents in the sense that he never misrepresented what they taught or told lies about them. But Paul plainly recognized their errors for what they were and labeled them appropriately. He spoke the truth. In his everyday teaching style, Paul spoke the truth gently and with the patience of a tender father. But when circumstances warranted a stronger type of candor, Paul could speak very bluntly—sometimes even with raw sarcasm (1 Corinthians 4:8-10). Like Elijah (1 Kings 18:27), John the Baptist (Matthew 3:7-10), and even Jesus (Matthew 23:24), he could also employ derision effectively and appropriately, to highlight the ridiculousness of serious error (Galatians 5:12). He was a sacred-cow tipper in the mold of Moses or Nehemiah.

Paul didn't seem to suffer from the same overscrupulous angst that causes so many people today to whitewash every error as much as language permits; to grant even the grossest of false teachers the benefit of every doubt; and to impute the best possible intentions even to the rankest of heretics. The apostle's idea of "gentleness" was not the sort of faux benevolence and artificial politeness people today sometimes think is the true essence of charity. We never once see him inviting false teachers or casual dabblers in religious error to dialogue, nor did he approve of that strategy even when someone of Peter's stature succumbed to the fear of what others might think and showed undue deference to false teachers (Galatians 2:11-14).

Paul understood that truth is worth fighting for. He stood for the truth even when it was unpopular to do so.

As we remember, Paul was converted on the road to Damascus by Jesus Himself. He was directly affected by the risen Christ, and discipled for three years - three years for the other apostles, three years for Paul (Galatians 1:15-18). This direct intervention by our Lord gave him a confidence and boldness that is not so often exemplified in our western society today. Paul knew the truth, because the truth was set forth in front of him directly by Christ Himself.

PAUL CONFRONTING AND OPPOSING PETER

Galatians 2:11-14

This section gives a brief account of how willing Paul was to fight for truth. When Peter arrived at Antioch (Cephas in Aramaic), he was freely sharing meals with the Gentiles. This account lays out the basics of the dispute - Peter withdrawing from the Gentiles due to pressure.

This sounds familiar for Peter, doesn't it? As John MacArthur put it, "Peter just can't seem to get out of his own way." At one point Peter was fellowshipping and eating with Gentile believers without issue. Then, when false teachers (the Judaizers) came claiming to be sent by James, he removed himself from the Gentiles in fear of them. This fear may have been fearing to offend them, fearing to be seen not following Mosaic regulations, or even fearing them directly. It's not entirely clear - but there was fear, nonetheless. Sadly, the Jewish believers followed Peter's example, and likely began to shun their Gentile brethren.

Paul confronts Peter directly, noting in verse 14 that he and the Jewish believers were not "walking in step" with the truth of the gospel - literally, not walking "straight" or "uprightly". By removing themselves from the Gentiles, they were quite literally not walking in line with God's word. Paul points out this hypocrisy to Peter, effectively asking him, "How do you reconcile living like a Gentile while being a Jew, and then forcing Gentiles to live like Jews?" It's assumed (e.g. Acts 10:13-15) that Peter was disregarding Mosaic regulations, regarding kosher and non-kosher foods for example. Suddenly going out from the Gentiles after fear and pressure from the false teachers of circumcision was a direct example of fear of man - directly from an apostle!

This should both concern us and encourage us. On one side, if the one Jesus renamed "rock" can be shaken in his faith this easily, what sort of hope is there for us? Yet, this example shows that the apostles were also men - sinners the same as you and I, no better or worse. They were just as capable of sin and lack of faith as we are. We should be encouraged that even though we may fail continually, there is hope. This story of Peter being rebuked, with the assumed repentance and transactional forgiveness, is a great lead-in to the next section, where Paul makes the case for justification by faith.

PAUL'S ARGUMENT OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH

Galatians 2:15-21

Paul's rebuke of Peter, and Peter's apparent repentance, was acknowledging and affirming Paul's apostolic authority, as well as Peter's own submission to the truth. The previous evidence and arguments of Paul culminate in this passage. The Reformation Study Bible notes that Galatians 2:15-16 are central to the entire epistle, going so far as to positing that it's basically the work's thesis statement, more or less. To rephrase, Paul is effectively saying that no one at all, whether Jew or not, is put in a right relationship with God through anything other than faith in Jesus Christ alone - "because by works of the law no one will be justified" (v. 16). To recap, the word justify here means, "to declare to be right." Several words used for this concept, such as righteous, righteousness, justify, and justification, all come from the same Greek root in the New Testament and thus have related meanings. Justified is used three times in verse 16, all referring to faith (belief) in Christ being the manner of being declared righteous, while simultaneously denying and excluding works of the law.

Matthew Henry adds color to it this way:

And, if we have thought it necessary to seek justification by the faith of Christ, why then should we hamper ourselves with the law? What did we believe in Christ for? Was it not that we might be justified by the faith of Christ? And, if so, is it not folly to go back to the law, and to expect to be justified either by the merit of moral works or the influence of any ceremonial sacrifices or purifications? And if it would be wrong in us who are Jews by nature to return to the law, and expect justification by it, would it not be much more so to require this of the Gentiles, who were never subject to it, since by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified?

Verse 17 is referencing the Judaizers' consideration that, because the Jewish believers were breaking Jewish law (in this case, dietary law), it meant that they were unclean and thus falling back into sin. Paul uses one of the strongest negatives in Greek here - translated as "certainly not!", but it wasn't simply referring to them falling back into sin. Christ himself taught that food cannot contaminate a person (Mark 7:18-20), therefore this would effectively accuse Christ himself of lying and make him a servant of sin. To reiterate, in endeavoring to have faith in Christ and follow His teaching - if Peter, Paul, and the other Jewish believers were sinning, then that effectively accuses Jesus himself of being a purveyor of sin. Hence Paul using one of the strongest negatives he could.

Verses 18-21 further elaborate and exemplify the logical outworking of Peter's disobedience in fear: Paul refers to rebuilding what was torn down, using the Greek word that means the tearing down of an edifice. The Reformation study bible hypothesizes that Paul is likely making an analogy to rebuilding the "wall of the law" in front of justification by faith, thereby making himself out to be a transgressor of the law. Verses 19-20 exhort that through the death of Christ and Paul's faith in Christ, Paul has died to the law through Christ's death on the cross in his place. This satisfied the justice needed by the law. By Christ's love for the believer through His sacrificial death on the cross, the believer's old self is effectively dead and his new self in Christ is free from further penalty. To end, Paul points out the basic fact that if the law were still to be observed, rather than fulfilled in Christ's death on the cross, then Jesus died for no reason. Many atheists and wayward denominations like to implicitly and explicitly make this sort of argumentation that Paul refutes in this epistle.

FAITH AND WORKS

Many people also like to play around with semantics regarding justification by faith and/or works by interpreting scripture to include or exclude one or the other. The New Testament often talks about "fruits", which some interpret to mean that we need works in order to be justified. I am not convinced of this argumentation at all. Christ's death on the cross, and faith in Him, is the only way we are justified in the sight of God. It logically follows that, if we are justified, there will be an outward manifestation of this change - "fruits of the spirit", as it were. It's not that we try to do works because we are required to; rather, works spring forth out of us naturally, due to the head and heart change that comes from a saving faith in Christ.

This can lead believers to fall into yet another ditch, placing too much emphasis on certain fruits, or lack thereof. I can attest in my own walk with Christ that I spent a very long time in full faith belief, yet still walked in disobedience due to multiple sins, from self-deceptively holding on to unbiblical worldviews despite it being pointed out to me rather clearly, to having a measure of unbelief by continuing to carry a fear of man alongside my faith in Christ. I bore very little fruit during this time, and sowed much discord. However, there were fruits nonetheless - just very small, and somewhat shriveled. I would go so far as to even call them partially diseased by the sin I still carried.

Proper discipleship, a proper hermeneutic, and deep-diving into the truths of the Bible by first letting scripture interpret scripture is one of, if not the only way that I have found that helps minimize these sinful errors we are prone to in our walk with Christ. Commentaries and other resources are great - but we can't get our theology primarily from the interpretation of man - this is a similar problem that led to Judaism effectively becoming based on rabbinic tradition rather than scripture itself. Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, through scripture, prayer, and the Holy Spirit. Then add on other resources for context.

Be blessed.