1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
These few meetings between Paul and the other Apostles demonstrate that there was neither collusion nor rivalry among them. We are impressed with the fact that the Spirit revealed the Gospel to Peter and Paul independently. It is commonly thought that Paul and the Apostles got together often to discuss matters of the Kingdom, but the truth is that Paul was rarely in Jerusalem and never for any length of time. This squares with his own testimony (Gal 1:20) that no man taught the Gospel to him (Gal 1:12).
Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem was right after his conversion. It can barely be called a trip, for according to his testimony in Acts 22:17-21, it was a discrete step in his search to know this Jesus who had appeared to him. While praying in the temple, he was advised by the Spirit to make haste and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, which makes this temple visit a stopover on his journey from Damascus to Arabia. For that reason Paul does not mention this time in Jerusalem here, nor does it conflict with Galatians 1:17, because he did not meet with the Apostles. The Damascus road experience probably took place in A.D. 33, about six months after Jesus’ death (see note for Gal 1:1).
Paul’s second Jerusalem visit was three years after his conversion and after returning to Damascus from Arabia, when he met with Peter and James for fifteen days (Gal 1:17-22; Acts 9:26-30). This important meeting (c.a. 37) served to integrate Paul into the group of the Apostles. Then, about 6 years later (using Herod Antipas’ death in Acts 12:21-25 as a marker), the church at Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem with an offering of money for the poor (Acts 11:27-30). Peter was apparently in prison when they arrived, but Paul stayed until he was released (Acts 12:25). This tumultuous trip to Jerusalem, Paul’s third, is not mentioned in the book of Galatians. Upon their return to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas were sent by the Spirit on a 2-3 year evangelistic journey into the Gentile world (Acts 13:1-2).
Returning again to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28), the churches of Judea and Syria suffered the growing pains that the book of Galatians describes and which occasioned the Jerusalem trip that is related in the present chapter (Gal 2:1-10). Fourteen years after his conversion would place this journey about A.D. 48, making it very near the time that Paul and Barnabas went up to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). Paul probably made this “private trip” the year before the Jerusalem Council and that he wrote the book of Galatians between those journeys. This would explain why Paul makes no mention of the famous “letter” that the Jerusalem Council sent out to the churches (Acts 15:22-31). It also explains why Paul says in Galatians 2:13 that Barnabas was carried away by Peter’s dissimulation in Antioch, when Luke says that Barnabas supported Paul at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:2).
Paul’s final trip to Jerusalem, purposed for quite some time (Acts 18:21; 19:21; 20:16; 20:22; 21:4-15), ended with him sent to prison (Acts 21:15). The statement of Acts 18:21 could reference a different Jerusalem visit. In all, Paul made six or seven trips to Jerusalem after his conversion. The fourteen years probably date from the time of Paul’s conversion, for his purpose is to demonstrate that his Apostleship and Gospel came directly from Christ (Gal 1:11-12), with only sporadic interaction with the other Apostles. Alternatively, the fourteen years count from the time of Paul’s visit with Peter (Gal 1:18).
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
Paul did not go up to Jerusalem to be “re-authorized” by the Apostles of reputation, nor to “compare notes” with them. He went up by revelation, because the Spirit told him to go. The Gospel was in danger of being perverted by false brethren (Christian Jews from Jerusalem) who had joined themselves to the church at Antioch to spy on them and more.
Verse three is a parenthesis that connects with verse six. Paul’s reason for going to Jerusalem was to communicate unto them that Gospel which (he preached) among the Gentiles (v2), so as to counteract the haughty activities of these false brethren who had entered the church of Antioch unawares and were now trying to subjugate the Gentiles to keep the Law (v4). Paul did not give in for one moment to these men because their doctrine was against the Gospel (v5). In Jerusalem, the Apostles and brethren who seemed to be somewhat (v6) gave their support to Paul preaching to the Gentiles (v7-9) and did not even attempt to compel Titus to be circumcised, although they knew that he was a Greek (v3).
Lest I should run in vain. Ponder Paul’s meaning after digesting the events of this chapter. The Gospel was under grave, dangerous attack by the Judaizers. If they succeeded in spreading their persuasion to all the churches of Christ, its message of salvation for all men would fail; Paul would have preached the Gospel in vain and the churches of of Galatia would have received it in vain (Gal 3:4). To this point in his life, Paul’s only serious contact with the Apostles was that 15 day visit with Peter (Gal 1:18) about 11 years earlier (see note Gal 2:1). During all those years, Paul was preaching the Gospel that Christ had revealed to him in far-off regions beyond the borders of Israel. This separation of revelations and ministries is a validation of its divine source, for one Spirit communicated the same truth to both Peter and Paul – that the door of salvation had been opened to Gentiles as well as Jews. Yet, the same fact led certain false brethren to charge that Paul was preaching a different Gospel from the Apostles. And so Paul went to Jerusalem to meet privately with Peter and others which were of reputation. If he did not expose the falsity of this doctrine and stop its spread, it would terribly divide the new Church of Christ and do great damage to the message of the Gospel. The Apostles of reputation agreed with him – as proof of that, Paul says, they did not compel Titus to be circumcised.
False brethren. These were Jews who refused to accept that Jesus Christ had fulfilled the Law (Mat 5:17; Rom 10:4) and that justification could not be found by keeping the Law (Gal 2:16). The Old Testament economy of ceremonies, feasts and rules had ended; they now served as validation signs and types of Christ and His new Gospel. A vail was blinding the minds of these Jews to this new truth (2Cor 3:14). Nobody could better empathize with such people than Paul, who once lived behind the same vail. Yet, these men were supposed to be Christians – and the vail (should be) done away in Christ. Sadly, they were working to undo the truth of the Gospel and put men back into bondage to the Law. Apparently not all of the law (Gal 2:14; 6:12-13), but certain parts that they deemed essential, circumcision being one of them.
Paul’s motto was to be all things to all men, that I might by all means save some (1Cor 9:19-22). He was willing to become a Jew to save the Jews, a Gentile to save the Gentiles, and without law to save those. Living according to this rule, but some years after writing the Galatian epistle, Paul recommended that Timothy be circumcised (Acts 16:1-4). He entreated Christians to not judge other Christians over eating unclean foods or keeping feast days – those were decisions for each conscience (Rom 14). Nevertheless, to require the churches themselves to return to the bondage of the Mosaic Law was a step too far from the truth. Paul could not accept this doctrine. Messianic Jews should learn from this.
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
These verses show that Paul was not acting under Peter’s authority; his orders and doctrine came directly from the Spirit of Christ. This was clearly revealed in Paul’s conference with them, for they had no new revelation to add to what he had already received from Christ. On the other hand, far from being rivals, Peter and Paul realized that God was effectually using them both. Peter’s apostleship was to the Jews, while Paul was called to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. Recognizing this, they enjoyed mutual encouragement in the Gospel of Christ.
Seemed to be somewhat – referring to James, Peter, John and the other brethren in the mother church of Jerusalem. Paul does not diminish their apostolic importance (as the KJV implies), but is saying that he was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles (2Cor 11:5). The grace that God had given him (v9) and the authority of his apostleship was no less than theirs. The verb seemed (dokeo) is used four times in these verses, but is not consistently translated. Earlier it was rendered, to them which were of reputation (Gal 2:2). The YLT has translated them alike using the word, “esteemed.”
God accepteth no man’s person. This truth was relevant to the contentious situation at hand and the Jews, as usual, were on the wrong side of it. Perhaps Paul is subtly reminding them of their Apostle’s own affirmation to the Gentile Cornelius. Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34).
Did Paul have a reason for referring to Peter as Kephas in this one verse? Before and after, he used Peter’s normal Greek name, Petros. Outside of this occurrence, Peter is called Kephas only in Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians and once in the Gospels (John 1:42), when Jesus beheld him and said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Kephas, which is by interpretation, A stone (petros). In the New Testament, Paul is the only one to call him by that name. Peter’s given name was Simon, and his friends called him that often (Acts 15:14; Mat 4:18; Mark 1:29; Luke 22:31; John 13:6; Acts 10:5; 2Pet 1:1). Interestingly, the common word for a rock or stone in the Hebrew Bible is not keph, which occurs only twice (Job 30:6; Jer 4:29), but tsuwr, which is used often as a name for God (Ex 33:22; Deut 32:4; 2Sam 23:3; Ps 18:31; Is 48:21). Maybe Jesus used the word keph instead of tsuwr because of the former word’s similarity to kaphar (see note on Rom 5:11).
I fail to understand the translators’ rationale in rendering ethnos as Gentiles in verse 8, but heathen in verse 9. And in Galatians 3:8, they translated it first as heathen and then as nations. This apparently arbitrary rendering of ethnos is the rule and not the exception throughout the New Testament (see note Gal 1:16).
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
In the Judaism of Paul’s day, it was a terrible sin for any Jew to associate commonly with non-Jews (John 4:9; Luke 15:2). God had chosen only the children of Abraham to be saved, so the Jews treated the Gentiles with outright scorn, calling them dogs, and sinners, and unclean (Mat 15:26-27; Gal 2:15). Peter told Cornelius, It is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation (Acts 10:28). And sure enough, Peter faced immediate criticism upon returning to Jerusalem. They that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them (see Acts 11:1-9). Actually, this rule is an example of the Pharisees’ over-extension of the Mosaic Law, which did not specify that Jews couldn’t eat with Gentiles, but that they should not intermarry and make covenants with them (Ex 34:15; Deut 7:2).
The Apostle Paul worked mightily to show the Jewish Christians that they must throw off their confidence in the flesh, their arrogance, conceits and spiritual vanity. The religion of the Pharisees had fostered these bad attitudes unto very rude and despicable actions which are evident throughout the New Testament (1Thes 2:14-15). One particularly raw example is how the Jews listened to Paul’s testimony for a good while, until he mentioned being sent to “the Gentiles.” At that word they lost all control of their senses. They cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust in the air…and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth (Acts 22:21-24). What an embarrassing sight. Saul the Jew was once a part of that group (Php 3:1-8).
Down to this day, many Jews hold themselves separate from other peoples and nations, as though not approving of them. Anti-semitism is largely a product of the Jews’ own obnoxious, separatist behavior over the last 4,000 years. Of course, they do have somewhat to boast, for their ancestors were favored to receive the covenants, promises and oracles of God. Yet their haughtiness and pride have taken them far from God and the truth of the Gospel. See my note for Rom 11:28.
Peter, the chief Apostle judging by his position at the head of every list (Mat 10:2; 17:1; Mark 14:33; Luke 6:14; 8:51), was chosen by God to open the door of salvation to the Gentiles (Mat 16:17-19). It was a monumental, earth-shaking truth, revealed to him by special revelation in a trance and confirmed by several miraculous signs from God (Acts 10). After some initial doubts, the Jewish Christians accepted God’s choosing of of the Gentiles (Acts 11:1-18), but their fondness for the Law of their fathers would not die easily. Slyly, the old prejudices began to creep back into the churches of Christ, especially among those in Judea. Many Christian Jews simply balked at accepting Gentiles as equal fellowheirs (Eph 3:6). They wanted them to follow the customs of the old Law, like circumcision, not eating unclean foods and keeping the Sabbath day (Saturday).
In Antioch, this situation came to a head when Jewish Christians separated themselves and would no longer eat with the Gentile Christians. This must have happened before the Acts 15 council in Jerusalem for it cannot be considered that Peter would have acted this way after that definitive meeting. It would be difficult to overestimate the seriousness of this development. It was no minor dissension, but the beginnings of a full-blown, pulsing schism. At this time in Christendom, the church at Antioch was second in importance only to the church at Jerusalem. If these two churches decided that Gentile Christians must keep certain parts of the Law in order to be saved, then the rest of the churches must follow or the Church of Christ would splinter.
The church in Antioch, the third largest city in the Empire after Rome and Alexandria according to some historians, had been established quite early with help from the church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-24). The influence of the latter was significant in the large Jewish population of Antioch and in spite of the distance barrier, there was considerable interaction between them (Acts 11:25-27; 15:1-3). During the decades before the Jewish-Roman war of A.D. 68-70, Jerusalem was the unofficial center of Christianity, so when Peter, James and other brethren from Jerusalem applied pressure to the church at Antioch, the Jewish Christians followed their lead. Even Barnabas, the early leader in Antioch (Acts 11:22), was carried away with their dissimulation.
Peter, visiting Antioch during those days that prophets came from Jerusalem (Acts 11:27; 15:1), somehow failed to see the severe dangers of his vacillation. First, it was false doctrine, directly opposed to the truth of Christ’s everlasting Gospel. Second, it was obvious hypocrisy to require the Gentiles to live as the Jews when the Jewish Christians were already living like Gentiles (in some aspects at least). Third, it was a purely divisive course that could not but tear apart the world-wide Kingdom of Christ.
Peter’s judgment was clouded by the fear of man. He remembered how those of the circumcision had contended with him on this very subject and not just a little (Acts 11:2-3). And so he capitulated to the Jewish segregationists and abetted their actions in spite of his earlier conviction to not call any man common or unclean (Acts 10:28).
We cannot help but be surprised that Peter, of all people, failed to stand up for the truth of the Gospel in his customary boldness of action. Peter, who had heard the voice from heaven declare all men to be “clean.” Peter, who earlier had defended his “eating with Gentiles” because God had told him to do so (Acts 11:1-9). Peter, who had narrowly avoided death several times at the hands of his Jewish countrymen. On the other hand, it was Peter that had been unwittingly used by Satan to tempt Jesus to avoid going to the Cross, and the situation here is no different. In trying to assuage the discontent of his Christian countrymen he presented the churches of Christ a very erroneous doctrine that would have changed Christianity forever.
Fortunately, Paul was able to see the undesirable fruits of this dissension and confronted Peter in the presence of all (1Tim 5:20). And we are greatly impressed by Peter’s response. He accepted this correction in all humbleness of mind and later he gave crucial support to Paul at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:7-11). He also wrote favorably in his epistle of our beloved brother Paul and acknowledged the wisdom given unto him (2Pet 3:15).
This episode teaches an important lesson: Do not accept a particular judgment simply because it comes from your church leader. Yes, esteem them highly in love (1Thes 5:12-13), but if Peter could err in judging a matter, then ANY leader can similarly err. In a weak moment, Peter let himself be swayed by social politics instead of standing firm on the rock of Justice, Righteousness and Truth. And many, many Christian leaders have followed his spineless example, allowing themselves to be influenced by powerful families, or intimidated by their fellow ministers, or pressured by family members. Oh thou man of God, in that difficult moment in the valley of decision, wilt thou take the mind of Peter or Paul?
The timeline of events (in my view) is the following:
- Paul and Barnabas return to Antioch after their mission trip into Galatia. Peter is there in Antioch, maybe on account of bishop Barnabas’ absence.
- Some Jewish brethren from Judea arrive and claim that according to James and the other Apostles, all Gentiles must be circumcised.
- Peter concedes to these men and Barnabas joins him along with the rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch in withdrawing from all uncircumcised Gentiles.
- Paul alone stands up to show that this action does not accord with the truth of the Gospel.
- Peter and Barnabas are persuaded by Paul, but many of the visiting Jews from Judea are not.
- Peter returns to Jerusalem, but the false brethren send men into Galatia to “warn” the churches that Paul is teaching a different gospel.
- Paul realizes that this false doctrine poses a serious threat to the Gospel, so he travels to Jerusalem to meet privately with those of reputation.
- Returning to Antioch, he finds the situation unresolved. Then word comes that the churches in Galatia have also fallen prey to the false brethren.
- Paul writes the epistle of Galatians to quickly counter-attack the erroneous doctrine of the Judaizers.
- The church in Antioch decides to send Paul and Barnabas back to Jerusalem to meet with all the elders and apostles there.
- After much intense discussion, the Apostles and elders finally agree to require the Gentiles to respect only four Jewish laws (see Acts 15).
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Peter’s lack of fortitude surely surprised Paul, but the defection of Barnabas, who was Paul’s closest friend and long-time companion, was an outright betrayal. Barnabas first appears in Acts 4:36-37 as a Jewish Christian of high reputation. Early on, he trusted Paul and introduced him to the Apostles in Jerusalem three years after his conversion. He may have become acquainted with Paul in Damascus (Acts 9:25-28), which was located on the road to Antioch, where Barnabas was an early leader in the church (Acts 11:22). Several years later, Barnabas and Paul were sent by the church in Antioch to Jerusalem with an offering for the poor (Acts 11:27-30). The two then embarked upon Christianity’s first major evangelistic trip to the Gentiles, spending several years in the east Asia region of Cilicia and Galatia (Acts 13:2). They returned to Antioch where they found Peter, who had probably come to help the church during Paul and Barnabas’ absence. It was then, according to my understanding of Acts 14:26-15:2, that the Peter incident took place in Antioch.
At first, Peter communed normally with the Gentile Christians in Antioch, but then some men (Paul calls them false brethren) from Jerusalem arrived who insisted that circumcision was necessary for salvation and deviously claimed that James (v12) had sent them with this message (but see Acts 15:24). Very likely, they were also disturbed by the fresh news of Paul’s journey into the Gentile world and how the Gospel had been joyfully received by “the heathen.” These were men of convincing, authoritative personality for in short order the whole Jewish contingent rose up and effectively excommunicated the Gentile Christians in the church of Antioch. They wouldn’t eat with them – whether that refers to the church’s weekly communion/love feasts or to sitting down to regular meals does not change the situation, for the large fact is that the Jews withdrew and separated themselves.
Paul, recently arrived from his mission trip into Galatia, was shocked at the fiasco and particularly at Peter, who had received the divine revelation to call no man unclean, and also at Barnabas, who had seen the Holy Spirit favorably descend upon those uncircumcised Gentiles. He stood up to Barnabas and Peter before them all and contended earnestly for the truth of the Gospel – that not only had God chosen the Gentiles, but that Christian Jews were living in many respects as Gentiles already. To his good credit, Peter corrected his hypocritical stance and Barnabas followed suit. Sometime thereafter Peter returned to Jerusalem, but the Jewish/Gentile question continued to brew in Antioch. Finally the church sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to consult with the Apostles and elders there. And Peter was the first to stand up alongside Paul. James agreed and eventually the elders too (see Acts 15).
Let’s finish the story of Barnabas. Soon after returning to Antioch from the Jerusalem Council, Paul asked Barnabas to go with him to revisit the churches they had established on their first missionary trip. Barnabas was willing but wanted to take with them John Mark, his cousin (Col 4:10). Paul thought it not good to take Mark because he had abandoned them during their first journey. Neither man would change his mind. And so these two close friends separated – Paul chose Silas to accompany him, while Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus (see Acts 15:35-41). Before researching this chapter of Galatians, I had always thought that Paul showed a certain petulance of character in this episode. Now my mind is changed. I believe that a likely seed for this split was Barnabas choosing to follow the error of the Jewish Apostles instead of righteous Paul, his long-time companion in the Gospel. In the Peter incident, Barnabas stands out as a wavering, inconstant soul, leaving Paul for Peter and then coming back to Paul. No wonder Paul mistrusted Barnabas’ judgment concerning his cousin.
Nevertheless, history bears out that John Mark did redeem himself from his earlier faulty actions, even in the eyes of Paul the Apostle. At the end of his life, Paul asked for Mark, for he is profitable to me for the ministry (2Tim 4:11). In this situation and many others, Paul rises head-and-shoulders above his peers in judging rightly; in humbling himself to gain Christ and so save some; in forgiving offenses, false criticisms and injustices; and in standing up for the Truth even when he was absolutely alone.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Peter and Paul had separately received the powerful revelation that God had chosen the Gentiles. Now fourteen years later, Peter ignored that revelation and refused to accept the Gentiles unless they received circumcision. It was difficult for many Christian Jews to “count it loss to do the works of the Law.” After so many centuries of viewing the Gentiles as “unclean,” they struggled to accept them as co-heirs of the grace of God. Paul engaged Peter openly, for this new faction was threatening the whole church. Before them all (Peter, the Jews, the Gentiles) he pointed out their hypocritical logic (1Tim 5:20). They themselves lived after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews (the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc). Why then do you compel the Gentiles to become Jews?
Their example was entirely inconsistent. They had decided it was necessary to observe Jewish sabbaths and feasts (Gal 4:10) and to be circumcised (Gal 5:2-6), but thought it unnecessary to keep the rest of the Law, such as the countless animal sacrifices, the constant washings, ablutions and rules for uncleanness, etc (Gal 6:12-13). In the book of Galatians, Paul contends that this is an either/or subject. It is not a matter of choosing the “best” among the two Covenants. He that chooses to keep the Law becomes a debtor to do the whole Law (Gal 5:3). He that chooses Christ becomes a debtor to the Law of Christ.
Before embarking on those lines of logic, Paul first appeals to the in-your-face hypocrisy of the Jewish Christians with regard to the Gentile Christians. They themselves were not living as Jews according to the Law. And they think to compel all to live according to their half-Jewish standard? The picture they presented was not a pretty one. Who had decided which rules of the Law they should keep? And by what authority? Peter apparently changed his stance immediately after hearing Paul’s public rebuke. His conscience must have been pricking him already, for his actions were not based on his own convictions but on his fear of the circumcision party (Gal 2:12).
Paul taught that church members should respect differences in matters of conscience and that we cannot judge another man’s conscience by our own conscience (Rom 14; 1Cor 10). The Jews were holding the Gentiles to the standard of their own conscience.
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Building upon his statement in the previous verse that Christian Jews should not keep the Law of Moses anymore, Paul goes on to prove why that is. “We natural-born Jews, who all our lives were keeping the Law of our fathers, have come to this new knowledge of Christ: we cannot be justified by the works of the Law, but we CAN be justified by the faith of Jesus Christ. This revelation came to we who are Jews by nature, and not to sinners of the Gentiles.”
This verse cannot be more emphatic in presenting the two Covenants as an either/or choice, with only one resulting in justification (as also in v21). Paul enlarges this argument in the book of Romans, where he states, By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified in His sight…we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the deeds of the Law (Rom 3:20, 28). See our notes there. Paul preached these same words in Acts 13:39, not long before he wrote the book of Galatians.
The faith of Christ. We often read of having faith in Christ (Gal 3:26; Col 2:5), but here faith is a euphemism for the Gospel of Christ, the New Covenant (Acts 6:7; 2Cor 13:5; 1Tim 1:2; Titus 3:15; 1Pet 5:9; Jude 1:3). The works of the Law and the faith of Jesus Christ are different “religions” or Covenants. The contrast continues into the next chapter (same usage of the faith in Gal 2:20; 3:23).
The words faith (pistis) and believed (pisteuo) are in the same Greek word family. The former is the noun and the latter the verb form. The relation is common in English also: a speaker (noun) speaks (verb), a runner runs, and prayer is praying. However, the connection of faith (noun) to believing (verb) is not as readily obvious in English as in the Greek. I do not mean to make faith and believing to be equals, for the Bible meaning of Faith is clearly much more complex than just believing, but the foundation of faith is believing (see notes for Heb 3:12; Rom 3:3).
The result of being justified is to be saved from wrath by His blood (Rom 5:9). It is to be washed clean of iniquity and sanctified by the blood of Christ (1Cor 6:11); it is to have your sins taken away (1John 3:5). The Law could do none of these things, so returning to Judaism is becoming a sinner again. Calvinist theologians dangerously slant the definition of justification, saying that it means “to be declared righteous.” This makes it fit their idea of man’s inability. To the Calvinist, a saved person is just as unrighteous as he was before he was saved. The only difference is that he has been “declared” righteous. This notion does not conform with many Scriptures, for instance, those that present salvation as a new birth, a new creature, a new life. The Anabaptist belief is that at salvation a man is truly and entirely washed, justified and sanctified on account of the sacrificial death of Christ (John 1:29; Is 53:4). See my note for Rom 2:13.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
These verses contain a subtle warning for Judaizing Christians. Paul had just called the Gentiles, sinners (v15); now he warns, we ourselves also are found sinners if we think to be justified by the works of the Law (v16). Effectively he says, “If we Jews (who now see that justification is by Christ) go back to keeping the Law, we show ourselves to be sinners by participating in that which cannot justify. For if we build Judaism again, we become transgressors again. And Christ becomes the minister of sinners. God forbid.”
The only other time Christ is called a minister (diakonos) is in Romans 15:8. The word signifies a servant and is used for deacons in the churches. However, Jesus said He had come to minister (diakoneo), and to give His life a ransom for many (Mat 20:28). If Christ were a minister of the Law, He would be a minister of sin, for the Law cannnot take away sin (Heb 10:11).
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
To the natural Jew, nothing could be more contemptible and shameful than being crucified by the unclean Gentiles. Christ crucified (was) unto the Jews a stumblingblock (1Cor 1:23). I wonder if this was not the very reason that Saul, that blameless Hebrew of Hebrews, rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah. However, Paul learned to rejoice in the crucifixion of Christ, he learned to count himself crucified with Christ. And if Christ was made a contemptible curse by the Law, then Paul would become one too. Judging by the standards of the Law, Paul had everything, but when he chose the faith of Christ, he died to all those old confidences (Php 3:4-8). He chose to be crucified with Christ and have nothing of himself (Php 3:9).
These timeless, moving words reveal Paul’s mind – the world was crucified unto him and he unto the world (Gal 6:14). This concept is a key feature of the Gospel which Paul preached, for a few verses later he says, O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the Truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? (Gal 3:1). Paul’s message was Christ crucified (1Cor 2:2; Gal 5:24). To many it was a serious rock of offence, a stone of stumbling (1Pet 2:7-8; Rom 9:30-33).
In a remarkable analogy using the marriage law of the Old Covenant, Paul explains that we have died to the Law by the body of Christ in order to be married to the risen Christ (Rom 7:1-12). The Jews had been bound in marriage to the Law and of course Christ came under the Law (Gal 4:4). But when Jesus the fulfillment of the Law died, the Law and its people died with Him, releasing the Jews to be married again, even to Him who is raised from the dead (Rom 7:4). These Jews who thought to live according to the Law and thus show themselves approved before God were trying to stay married to a dead person. Paul testifies that he died to the Law with Christ and that now Christ is alive within him, moving him to live by faith in the Son of God.
Note the same translation detail we saw in v16 – the faith of Christ, and the faith of the Son of God. These are euphemisms for the Christian religion.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
The Old Covenant Law cannot justify a man unto righteousness. The problem isn’t the Law, but Man’s inability to perfectly keep it. Not one man was able to keep the Law and so be righteous. Yet, if there had been a Law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law (Gal 3:21). The New Covenant of Christ solved the problem with the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which opened the doors of God’s grace; that is, pardon for Man’s shortcomings and power to keep the Law of Christ. By these two works of grace, man is justified, is made holy, is truly made righteous (1Cor 6:11).
To go back to keeping the Law of Moses is to frustrate (reject, despise, cast off) the grace of God, for that Law provided no remedy for the man that sinned. Those who put themselves under the Law make themselves to be sinners along with the Gentiles, while those who are in Christ are under grace (Gal 2:17; Rom 6:14). One branch of theology makes Grace to be a way that God sanctions or concedes the unrighteous acts of Man, which is an idea emphatically opposed by the Scriptures (i.e. Rom 6:15-18). The purpose of the New Covenant is to stimulate Man to do righteousness (Mat 6:33; Eph 2:10), to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world (Titus 2:12). Grace is God’s power and pardon working to accomplish this within us. It is His mercy, and…help in time of need (Heb 4:16). By the grace of God we are enabled to do His will (2Cor 9:8) and are forgiven from our sins.
This grace does not come to all indiscriminately, but upon those whose hearts are inclined to truth and righteousness (Acts 10:1-4). God does offer grace to all, but unless a person submits to the authority of Christ, God’s grace will fall unused (Gal 5:4). God does not pardon a man against his will, nor does He force him to receive His power. Calvinist claim it is otherwise; that God’s grace is irresistible and that a man cannot refuse it. This verse and others show that a person can frustrate, reject, despise and come short of God’s grace (2Cor 6:1; Heb 10:29).