Galatians 2 Verses 11 to 21 Ready to Rumble January 28, 2024

Galatians 2 Verses 11 to 21 Ready to Rumble January 28, 2024

Class Presentation Notes AAAAAa Lesson 4 in “A Cry for Freedom”

Background Scriptures:

· 2 Peter 3:14-15 (NKJV) 14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider thatthe longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,

· 2 Corinthians 3:5-6 (NKJV) 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

· Colossians 3:1-3 (NKJV) 1 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

Main Idea:

· The Bible is full of great leaders who failed. That should give hope to each of us. God can still redeem our lives and use each of us for His Glory.

Study Aim:

· To understand that the secret to living the Christian life is dying to self (2:20).

Create Interest:

· Paul was declaring that “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter” (Rom. 2:28–29). Since the coming of Christ only Christians can be “heart circumcised.” “We are the true circumcision,” Paul explained to the Philippian believers, “who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3).

· In Galatians 2:11–21, the scene changes from Jerusalem and the council there to Syrian Antioch, where the first church in a Gentile area was established and where Paul and Barnabas served as co-pastors, with help from three other men (see Acts 13:1). Paul continues the defense of his apostolic credentials by reporting his exercise of authority on one occasion even over Peter, whom most believers in the early church considered to be the preeminent apostle. And Paul did not hesitate to correct him when he was out of line with the truth. First, he briefly explains Peter’s deviation from the gospel and then, from that platform, presents it in its true form.[1]

Lesson in Historical Context:

· The Galatian churches had been confused by Judaizers who taught that salvation required that Gentiles not only believe but also be circumcised. Much disturbed by this, Paul wrote to the churches.

· He emphasized salvation by grace through faith and denied that anyone could save him or herself by keeping the law. Faith in Christ means Christ living in you, enabling you to die to sin and self and to live unto God.

· If people could save themselves by obeying the law, then the death of Christ was unnecessary. Paul was challenged by these legalists, who said that the doctrine of grace encouraged people to sin even more. Class discussion!

· Paul vigorously denied this and pointed to the reality of death to sin and resurrection to new life. Baptism pictures the death and resurrection of Jesus, which by faith becomes believers’ death to sin and resurrection to new life. Jesus called Himself the vine and said believers were branches. All believers are to bear fruit for Him.[2]

o Paul’s narration has been punctuated by the words “then” (1:18, 21; 2:1) and “but when” (1:15; 2:11). The first one was for the better, when Paul encountered the glorified Jesus and was transformed from persecutor to proclaimer.

o The latter marks a turning point in the narration. The second one is for the worse, with the accord reached in 2:1–10jeopardized by subsequent events in Antioch, culminating in Paul’s public confrontation of Peter for betraying God’s vision for Christian community.

o The agreement struck in Gal 2:7–10 clearly left room for misunderstanding and conflict. Apparently, the question of table fellowship between Jewish Christians and gentile Christians did not come up, to be addressed by all parties face to face, as the sequel in 2:11–14shows. Each party might have had assumptions about what would be the practice in a mixed congregation, but the incompatibility of these assumptions emerged only later in a tense confrontation.[3]

· As you begin this study, keep in mind this is a continuation of the meeting Paul had with the leaders in Jerusalem, particularly James, Peter, and John.

Bible Study:

Galatians 2:11 (NKJV) 11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;

· Paul continues to present his relationship with the Jerusalem Christians to the Galatians. In the next verses he recounts an incident with Peter that occurred at Antioch. It is almost certain that the Galatians had already heard of this incident, for before describing it Paul declares the sides in the case (Paul opposedPeter to his face) and pronounces the verdict (Peter was in the wrong). But it seems that the Galatians have understood this incident from a different perspective—one in which Peter, not Paul, is the hero.

· If later church tradition is correct regarding Peter as the first bishop of the church at Antioch, Paul’s presentation of the incident becomes all the more impressive.

· Paul claims that at Antioch he demonstrated that Peter—the most eminent Christian—was in the wrong. The Greek participial construction translated “in the wrong” (kategnōsmenos ēn) expresses Paul’s perception that Peter had been “in the wrong” over a period of time but that when Paul opposed him Peter discontinued his actions.

· Consequently, Peter is now not condemned. Paul may be using this story in part to counter any rumors that he and Peter remain at odds after the incident. The record follows naturally from Paul’s record of his triumph at the Jerusalem meeting:

o at Jerusalem Peter and Paul are recognized as partners in the gospel;

o at Antioch Paul’s law-free gospel is accepted by Peter.[4]

Galatians 2:12 (NKJV) 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

· On arrival at Antioch, Peter found Jewish and Gentile Christians fellowshipping together at mealtimes without regard to Jewish dietary laws.

o Because of the vision Peter had received at the house of Simon the tanner (Acts 10:9–15, 28), he felt free to eat with the Gentiles, and did so on a regular basis.

o While it lasted, this was a beautiful demonstration of the unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ.

· But a breach occurred when some arrived from Jerusalem who were shocked at Peter’s conduct. These emissaries came from James and belonged to the circumcision party, but it is doubtful that they had James’ endorsement.

o Nonetheless Peter was influenced by their presence and slowly but surely began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles. The verb tenses (imperf.) indicate a gradual withdrawal, perhaps from one joint meal a day, and then two; or it may be that he began a meal with Gentiles but finished it with only Jewish Christians.

· By such actions Peter in effect was teaching that there were two bodies of Christ, Jewish and Gentile. And that was heresy.

o But why did Peter create this breach?

o Not because of any change in theology, but simply out of fear.

o Once, after preaching to Gentile Cornelius, Peter courageously defended himself before the Jerusalem leaders (cf. Acts 11:18); but this time he surrendered his beliefs/capitulated to some Jewish friends.[5]

Thoughts to Soak on about Peter and possibly see Grace more clearly.

· Vs. 12: eat with … Gentiles—as in Ac 10:10–20, 48, according to the command of the vision (Ac 11:3–17). Yet after all, this same Peter, through fear of man (Pr 29:25), was faithless to his own so distinctly avowed principles (Ac 15:7–11).

o We recognize the same old nature in him as led him, after faithfully witnessing for Christ, yet for a brief space, to deny Him. “Ever the first to recognize, and the first to draw back from great truths” [Alford].

o An undesigned coincidence between the Gospels and the Epistle in the consistency of character as portrayed in both. It is beautiful to see how earthly misunderstandings of Christians are lost in Christ.

§ For in 2 Pe 3:15, Peter praises the very Epistles of Paul which he knew contained his own condemnation.

§ Though apart from one another and differing in characteristics, the two apostles were one in Christ.[6] Discuss

Before moving on should we pause and discuss among ourselves/group if we have every “caved” on a very important issue from fear….Most likely if we are alive we have…So how do we recover from such a compromise?

Galatians 2:13 (NKJV) 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

· Before we criticize Peter, perhaps we had better examine our own lives to see how many familiar Bible doctrines we are actually obeying. As you examine church history, you see that, even with a complete Bible, believers through the years have been slow to believe and practice the truths of the Christian faith.

o When we think of the persecution and discrimination that have been practiced in the name of Christ, it embarrasses us.

o It is one thing for us to defend a doctrine in a church meeting, and quite something else to put it into practice in everyday life.

· Peter’s freedom was threatened by Peter’s fear. While he was in Antioch, the church was visited by some of the associates of James. (You will remember that James was a strict Jew even though he was a Christian believer.)

o Paul does not suggest that James sent these men to investigate Peter, or even that they were officials of the Jerusalem church. No doubt they belonged to the “circumcision party” (Acts 15:1, 5) and wanted to lead the Antioch church into religious legalism.

· After his experience with Cornelius, Peter had been “called on the carpet” and had ably defended himself (Acts 11). But now, he became afraid. Peter had not been afraid to obey the Spirit when He sent him to Cornelius, nor was he afraid to give his witness at the Jerusalem Conference. But now, with the arrival of some members of “the opposition,” Peter lost his courage. “The fear of man bringeth a snare” (Prov. 29:25).

· How do we account for this fear? For one thing, we know that Peter was an impulsive man. He could show amazing faith and courage one minute and fail completely the next. (Focus here for us to better understand Peter/us!)

o He walked on the waves to go to Jesus, but then became frightened and began to sink.

o He boasted in the Upper Room that he would willingly die with Jesus, and then denied his Lord three times.

o Peter in the Book of Acts is certainly more consistent than in the four Gospels, but he was not perfect—nor are we!

o Peter’s fear led to Peter’s fall. He ceased to enjoy the “love feast” with the Gentile believers and separated himself from them.

· There are two tragedies to Peter’s fall.

o First, it made him a hypocrite (which is the meaning of the word dissembled). Peter pretended that his actions were motivated by faithfulness when they were really motivated by fear.

§ How easy it is to use “Bible doctrine” to cover up our disobedience.

o The second tragedy is that Peter led others astray with him. Even Barnabas was involved. Barnabas had been one of the spiritual leaders of the church in Antioch (Acts 11:19–26), so his disobedience would have a tremendous influence on the others in the fellowship.

· Suppose Peter and Barnabas had won the day and led the church into legalism?

o What might the results have been?

§ Would Antioch have continued to be the great missionary church that sent out Paul and Barnabas? (Acts 13)

§ Would they, instead, have sent out the “missionaries” of the circumcision party and either captured or divided the churches Paul had already founded?

§ You can see that this problem was not a matter of personality or party; it was a question of “the truth of the Gospel.” And Paul was prepared to fight for it.[7]

Galatians 2:14-17 (NKJV) 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before themall, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 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 faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!

· Here at last the real root of the matter is being reached. A decision is being forced which could not in any event be long delayed.

o The fact of the matter was that the Jerusalem decision was a compromise, and, like all compromises, it had in it the seeds of trouble.

o In effect the decision was that the Jews would go on living like Jews, observing circumcision and the law, but that the Gentiles were free from these observances.

o Clearly, things could not go on like that, because the inevitable result was to produce two grades of Christians and two quite distinct classes in the Church.

· Paul’s argument ran like this. He said to Peter, “You shared table with the Gentiles; you ate as they ate; therefore, you approved in principle that there is one way for Jew and Gentile alike. How can you now reverse your decision and want the Gentiles to be circumcised and take the law upon them?”

o The thing did not make sense to Paul.

o Now we must make sure of the meaning of a word.

§ When the Jew used the word sinnersof Gentiles he was not thinking of moral qualities; he was thinking of the observance of the law. To take an example—Leviticus 11 lays down which animals may and may not be used for food. A man who ate a hare or pork broke these laws and became a sinner in this sense of the term. So Peter would answer Paul, “But, if I eat with the Gentiles and eat the things they eat, I become a sinner.”

· Paul’s answer was twofold.

o First, he said, “We agreed long ago that no amount of observance of the law can make a man right with God. That is a matter of grace.

§ A man cannot earn, but must accept the generous offer of the love of God in Jesus.

§ Therefore the whole business of law is irrelevant.”

o Second he said, “You hold that to forget all this business about rules and regulations will make you a sinner.

§ But that is precisely what Jesus Christ told you to do. He did not tell you to try to earn salvation by eating this animal and not eating that one.

§ He(Jesus) told you to fling yourself without reserve on the grace of God.

📷 Are you going to argue, then, that he taught you to become a sinner?”

📷 Obviously there could be only one proper conclusion, namely that the old laws were wiped out.

· This is the point that had to come. It could not be right for Gentiles to come to God by grace and Jews to come to him by law.

o For Paul there was only one reality, grace, and it was by way of surrender to that grace that all men must come.

· There are two great temptations in the Christian life, and in a certain sense, the better a man is the more liable he is to them.

o First, there is the temptation to try to earn God’s favor,

o Second, the temptation to use some little achievement to compare oneself with our fellow men to our advantage and their disadvantage. But the Christianity which has enough of self left in it to think that by its own efforts it can please God and that by its own achievements it can show itself superior to other men is not true Christianity at all.[8]

Galatians 2:18-21 (NKJV) 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the lifewhich I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

· It is a strange idea to most of us, but for some a very necessary one: that you might begin again from scratch to learn who you are. That is precisely what people who have suffered severe memory loss need to do.

o It is what people who have suffered other kinds of loss also need to do: the refugee without home, country or family is but one example.

o And it’s precisely this sort of exercise, losing one identity and reconstructing another, that Paul is explaining in this dense and complex passage.

· This is where he really gets to grips with the underlying issues between himself and the troublemakers.

o It isn’t a matter of a few twists and turns in the interpretation of the gospel, or for that matter of the Jewish law.

o It isn’t simply about one style of missionary policy as against another.

o It is a matter of who you are in the Messiah.

§ It’s as basic as that. Paul’s head-on clash with Peter in Antioch was about Christian identity.

§ His passionate appeal to the Galatians is about their Christian identity.

· Often Paul’s dense paragraphs, like this one, yield their secrets if you approach them from near the end, where he sums everything up in a single great climactic statement. In this case it is verses 19b–20:

o ‘I have been crucified with the Messiah!—I am alive, however, but it isn’t me; it’s the Messiah, living in me!

o And what about the life I continue to live in this mortal flesh?

§ Well, that is lived by the faithfulness of the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.’

§ This is the heart of Paul’s argument. One must lose everything, including the memory of who one was before; and one must accept, and learn to live by, a new identity, with a new foundation.

· The question Paul and Peter have run into, which was focused on whether Jewish and GentileChristians were allowed to eat at the same table, is the question:

o Who is God’s true Israel?

o Who are the true people of God?

o Is it all who belong to the Messiah?

§ Or is it only Jewish Christians (including proselytes, i.e., Gentiles who have converted to Judaism), with Gentile Christians remaining second-class citizens?

· Paul focuses his answer on the most basic point of all.

o God’s true Israel consists of one person: the Messiah.

o He is the faithful one.

o He is the true Israelite.

§ This is the foundation of identity within God’s people.

· The question then becomes: who belongs to the Messiah? How is that identity expressed?

· Paul answers this with one of his most famous beliefs, which remains difficult for modern Western minds to come to terms with.

o Those who belong to the Messiah are in the Messiah, so that what is true of him is true of them.

o The roots of this idea are in the Jewish beliefs about the king.

§ The king represents his people (think of David fighting Goliath, representing Israel against the Philistines);

§ What is true of him is true of them? The present paragraph doesn’t spell this out; it assumes it.

📷 Paul will return to it in more detail later on. His point here is quite simple: all who are ‘in the Messiah’ are the true people of God. And that means Gentiles as well as Jews.

· Paul speaks of himself, as a Jew who had become a Christian, to make the point.

o We Jews, he says, even though we were born into the covenant family, do not now find our real identity as God’s people through the things which mark us out as a distinctive people—that is, through the Jewish law.

o If we believe that Jesus is the Messiah (and without that there is no Christianity), we believe that the crucified Jesus is the Messiah.

o And if we are ‘in’ the crucified Jesus, that means that our previous identities are irrelevant.

§ They are to be forgotten.

§ We are no longer defined by possession of the law, or by its detailed requirements that set Jew over against Gentile. ‘I died to the law, that I might live to God.’ We must now learn who we are in a whole new way.

· Who then are we? We are the Messiah’s people, with his life now at work in us. Is possible that Martin Luther studied our Scriptures for today and had to settle in his own mind where he stood, and what would he do about it? I submit the following to soak on, chew on, and discuss😊.

History Point: Quote by Martin Luther when asked to recant his convictions, specifically relating to his 95 Theses nailed in 1517:

· “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted, and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.”

· Time passed after this and in 1521, Luther refused to recant his beliefs, was excommunicated, and declared an outlaw with a price on his head. Spending several years in hiding, Luther translated the New Testament into German, published other works, and his teachings were spread and accepted by a wide audience in Europe, igniting the Protestant Reformation.

o Ref. Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A life of Martin Luther (Nashville, TN; Abingdon Press, 1978) 182.

Pause here and look at Paul though the following lens

· In verses 18–19 Paul warns against trusting in Christ and then returning to live like your acceptance before God is based on following the law. In verse 19 Paul tells us why he died to the law: “so that I might live for God.”

o Not only are we justified by faith, but we live by faith. Paul had no room for a salvation that consists of praying a prayer, supposedly trusting in Jesus, and then living your life the same after that. Impossible.

o Faith isn’t just for receivingsalvation; it’s also for enabling us to live out salvation. We live every day, every moment, by faith. This follows from verse 20: “And I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”

· In verse 19 Paul spoke of dyingto the law, and now in verse 20 he speaks of living by faith. So are we dead or alive? To answer that question, we need to consider Christ’s death on the cross. There is obviously a sense in which this only involved Christ:

o He alone could pay the price for all our sin; He alone could bear the full weight of the wrath of God. But in another sense, we share in what happened on the cross. We have been crucified with Christ.

o Similarly, Paul says in Romans 6:3 that we’ve been baptized into Christ’s death, meaning that we have died with Him. So, what does that mean? It means we die to sin—its penalty, power, and dominion. All our sin—past, present, and future—has been paid for on the cross. Christ has taken all of it. So, when a Christian sins, God doesn’t say, “You’re not justified anymore.” No, your justification is sealed; you have died to sin. God’s declaration is final.[9]

o And since the central thing about Him is His loving faithfulness, the central thing about us, the only thing in fact that defines us, is our own loving faithfulness, the glad response of faith to the God who has sent his son to die for us. This is the very heart of Christian identity.

Let’s move on

· The words Paul uses as his shorthand for Christian identity, for belonging to God’s family, are usually translated ‘righteous’ and ‘righteousness’.

· This English word has different meanings to different people.

o For Paul, as we shall see in the next chapter, it is related to God’s promise to Abraham, now fulfilled in the Messiah, that God would create a single worldwide family, whose identity-marker would be faith.

o And it speaks of the family identity, the status of covenant membership, which God gives to all his family, to all who believe the gospel.

o Out beyond that, it speaks gloriously of God’s saving justice embracing and healing the whole unjust world, and rescuing in the present those men, women and children who trust his love revealed in Jesus. This is the people who are ‘declared righteous’, or ‘justified’.

· The point of it all, here in Galatians, is quite simple. Paul was demonstrating to Peter that even Jewish Christians have lost their old identity, defined by the law, and have come into a new identity, defined only by the Messiah.

· This doesn’t mean, as he says in verses 17–18, that by losing Jewish identity we are ‘sinners’, as the Jews had regarded the Gentiles.

o On the contrary, if like Peter you reconstruct the wall between Jews and Gentiles, all you achieve is to prove that you yourself are a lawbreaker. If the law is what really matters, then look out: you’ve broken it!

· But the law isn’t now the thing that matters. ‘If righteousness (covenant membership, justification) came by the Jewish law, then the Messiah wouldn’t have needed to die.’

· To have separate tables within the church is to spurn the generous love of the Messiah.

o One of the marks of Jesus’ public career was open table-fellowship. God intends it to be a mark of Jesus’ people from that day to this.[10]

As we prepare to close out this lesson, I found this quote from Scot McKnight that adds clarity to this challenging series of thoughts.

· One of my favorite complications in this passage is this. In 2:18, Paul speaks to Peter in terms of the first person: “If I [Paul and Peter] rebuild what I destroyed” means Peter backing up to the Moses Era as a requirement for gentile believers. It means rebuilding that wall that had been knocked down at the cross and resurrection. In fact, Paul says “I” have died to the Era of Moses when “I” was “crucified with Christ” in the Christ Era. That “I” of the Judean sole election privilege is now over, and Christ is now living in this “I.” The whole life is now lived by faith in Jesus, who came to rescue this “I” (2:20). Pause and discuss this!

· He now responds to what must have been a routine criticism of Paul. In moving from the Era of Moses to the Era of Christ, Paul is not abandoning the grace of God at work in the previous eras. No, the works of the law in the Moses Era never brought the grace now known in Christ.

· This event in Antioch changed history for the early church. While the struggle continued no doubt from community to community and from house church to house church, the pattern was set. Gospel life in the Christ Era means mixed table fellowship.

o Separation at the table denies the gospel.[11]

To think about and discuss

· In what ways can a Christian leader fail, as Peter did, in the area of courage?

· In addition to fellowship at the Lord’s Table, what are some of the ways in which our common enjoyment of justification should show itself in our relations with other Christians? What are some of the barriers to be overcome, and how are they to be overcome?

· How would you counsel someone who claimed to be justified but whose lifestyle gave no evidence of having been changed.[12]

· Explain the Christian ideal of open table fellowship.

[1]John F. MacArthur Jr., Galatians, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), 48. [2]Robert J. Dean, Bible Studies for Life, Spring 2012, Herschel Hobbs Commentary (LifeWay Christian Resources, 2012), 66. [3]David A. deSilva, The Letter to the Galatians, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse et al., The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018), 193–194. [4]L. Ann Jervis, Galatians, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book, 2011), 61. [5]Donald K. Campbell, “Galatians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 594–595. [6]Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 327. [7]Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 693–694. [8]William Barclay, ed., The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, The Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), 20–21. [9]David Platt and Tony Merida, Exalting Jesus in Galatians (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2014), 49. [10]Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2004), 24–27. [11]Scot McKnight, James and Galatians, New Testament Everyday Bible Study Series (Grand Rapids, MI: HarperChristian Resources, 2022), 149–150. [12]David Campbell, Opening Up Galatians, Opening Up Commentary (Leominster: Day One Publications, 2009), 48.