Peter, Paul, and a Getile Walk into a Bar (Mitzvah)...

Read/Have Read

Galatians 2:11–21 ESV

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

What do Peter, Paul, and us Gentiles have in common? This is the thing that Paul is seeking to highlight in this portion of our text in Galatians. During our last look at Galatians, we saw that Paul’s Gospel was confirmed by the Jerusalem “pillar” apostles, which gave a practical help to the preaching of Paul’s Gospel, by giving vocal and public affirmation and unity between the apostles. But here, Paul wants us to see what happens when that vocal affirmation doesn’t carry over into practice, and what that means.

Paul begins by telling us that Peter came to Antioch. We don’t know the time frame here, all that we know is that he came to Antioch. Paul enters this position abruptly: beginning this story he tells us that when Peter came to Antioch, Paul opposed him to his face because he stood condemned. I want to spend a bit of time today looking at why Paul faces this situation so seriously.

Paul tells us that before some men came from James, that Peter used to eat with the Gentiles, but when they came, he withdrew himself because he feared those of the circumcision. Paul says that even Barnabas was led astray by Peter’s actions of withdrawing from the Gentiles. Paul is so bothered by this that he called Peter out in front of them all. “If you, being a Jew, are living like a Gentile, how then can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

So there isn’t much to go over in verse 11-14. Well, there is, but the remainder of our passage is commentary on this situation, so we don’t need to spent time explaining much more about the situation. There are only two things worth mentioning here that we won’t touch on in the rest of the passage. First, it’s important to note, that while people like to use this to pit Paul and James against one another here because of the “men of James” who showed up before Peter began his hypocrisy, it’s not likely that they were the ones who were critical of Peter. It’s possible, but it doesn’t seem that the text points that way. To that effect, we can note that Paul doesn’ criticize James. We don’t know why these men came from him, or what they said, but we do know that Paul doesn’t criticize James here. Some have suggested that they brought news of persecution from unbelieving Jews, which would have cause Peter to try to look more like a regular Jew. Again, we don’t know what they said that caused this, Paul simply focuses in on Peter’s change in behavior.

Next, when Paul tells Peter “if you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile.....” what does Paul mean that Peter was doing? I’ve heard pastors say that Peter didn’t want to be caught chowing down on his pulled pork sandwich. But what exactly are we to think that Peter was doing when the men from James showed up?

I don’t think it’s far off to say that he was eating a pulled pork sandwich. Those who would argue for the observance of the Mosaic law for believing Jews in the New Covenant would find this abhorrent. Now, it merely says that Peter would eat with Gentiles. So why should we think that he was eating “unclean” foods? There are a few reasons. Primarily, Paul says that Peter was living like a Gentile. One large concern for Jews living in this time period was the food which their Gentile neighbors would eat. There isn’t much evidence that Jews would eat with Gentiles (though this was not forbidden by the Torah) in this era, simply because of the risk of eating something unclean. So in this context it is likely that Paul is saying that Peter allowed himself to live as a Gentile, and eat as a Gentile would eat, which Paul doesn’t frown upon, in fact, Paul is taking an issue when Peter reverses this decision. We also know that this was a major concern for Jews particularly from apocryphal writings. 4 Maccabees identifies the repudiation of Judaism with eating unclean foods.

So as Peter hides his pork sandwich in his napkin, Paul lets him have it, because Peter is not walking in the truth of the Gospel, and his error is publicly causing others to stray with him. So now Paul begins introducing his Gospel. Paul says, likely still talking to Peter, that they are Jews by nature, and not Gentile sinners, and they know that no one is justified by works of the law, but by faith in Christ. Paul reiterates this concept 3 times in verse 16 - No one is justified by works of the law, but by faith in Christ - We have believed in Christ so as to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law - No one is justified by works of the law.

So at this point, we must ask, “What does Paul mean by works of the law and justification?” As I mentioned in my first couple sermons, one view I want to examine as we go through Galatians is that of the New Perspective on Paul. These are the two main areas which the New Perspective has given new interpretations. Now, it should be noted that this shouldn’t be called the “New Perspective” but “New Perspectives”, plural, because the primary thing they agree on is that Luther was wrong about justification. There is no consensus in the New Perspective as to what these things mean, simply what they do not mean. But there are some foundations that we will think about with our text here.

First, we will look at what Paul means by “works of the law”. The New Perspective typically sees the “works of the law” as being those things within the law, that a Jew does that distinguishes them from Gentiles, so particularly, Sabbath keeping, Kosher eating, and circumcision. Now, looking at the surrounding context of Galatians, this may seem to have some validity. Paul has been dealing with things like circumcision and Peter eating pork. So maybe they’re onto something.... However, we will see this later in Paul, and we see this in other places in the New Testament, that the New Testament authors view the law as a whole unit. There are not various parts. There is no “ceremonial law” against a “moral law” against a “civil law”.

This tradition has held its ground since, particularly, the time of Thomas Aquinas. But how does Paul view this idea? Paul tells his readers in chapter 5, that every man who accepts circumcision is required to keep the whole law. If you submit to a part of it, you must submit to the whole. James gives a sort of negative form of this, that if you have broken one command, you have broken the law - it is a unified unit. And given Paul’s view of a unified law, I don’t think he has in mind “works of the law” that are devoid of “moral” or “civil” use, but the use of the law, as a whole, for the purpose of justification.

For the New Perspective, the primary focus of Justification, is answering the question of “how does one enter the Covenant”, not “how does one get saved”. Therefore, this text plays an enormous role in the formulation of the New Perspective’s view of justification.

Here, say New Perspectivists, is the heart of the primary text from which we get Paul’s doctrine of Justification. And what is he talking about? He’s talking about Jews and Gentiles! He’s talking about how Gentiles get into covenant with the God of Israel! Now, I don’t want you to miss this. They’re absolutely right on that point. Where they go wrong, as we will see later in the book, is what the implications of this are. They are right, and this is something that is often overlooked - especially within evangelical dispensationalism. Right here, Paul is drastically concerned with the implications of having two separate peoples of God, one Jewish, and one Gentile - one of circumcision, and one of non-circumcision - one of law and one of faith. Beginning in Chapter 3, as we will start to see in the next sermon on Galatians, Paul begins to lay out his case for who are the true children of Abraham, and who inherit the promises given to Israel. If we miss the fact that currently, Paul is concerned with the unity of God’s people by faith in Christ, his arguments later will escape us entirely, and we will miss the entire point of what he is trying to get at.

But the burden of proof does rest on the traditional or common understanding of justification. What makes us think that Paul has more in mind than just simply uniting Jews and Gentiles? That may be his end goal, but why do we think he includes so much more in the privileges of those who have faith in Christ when he defends it? Primarily, I would argue that Paul is arguing from the stronger here, that if God accepts Gentiles on the basis of their faith, the same as He accepts us, and grants to them the same promises that He granted to you and I as Jews, seed of Abraham, uniting us to Messiah that we may inherit everything promised to Him in union with Him, then you also should certainly do something so weak as eat with Gentiles.

Paul is arguing a Fortiori here, that if God accepts Gentiles on the basis of their faith, the same as He accepts us, then you also should accept Gentiles.

Now. I’ve just made some claims that need to be grounded in Scripture, and we will get there - the next chapter and a half are where Paul brings out these assertions, and we will get there. But today, we will only look at one of these things, which Paul begins to lay as the foundation here, for the rest of his argument in this book, and indeed, I would argue that in this is found the way in which justification brings much more than mere entrance into the covenant and unity between Jew and Gentile. This is by union with Christ.

Toward this point Paul says “But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God.” Paul here tells his readers that Christ is not a servant of sin, because he does not rebuild what he tore down - that is the law. Verse 18 is Paul explaining how one is found to be a sinner in this regard, by rebuilding what they tore down, and in verse 19, he tells us that “through the law, I died to the law, so that I might live to God.” Paul rejects the claim that they are “sinners” in endeavoring to be justified in Christ, because they do not rebuild what they tore down, for it was done with the purpose of living to God. Now, we might ask what Paul means by “through the law I died to the law”. Here, Paul begins what is often one of the most memorable portions of the book of Galatians.

In Jewish writing, often the same idea would be expressed in parallel ways. We see this often in the Psalms and the proverbs, where a single idea is expressed in multiple ways, to show it from different angles. And I think this is what Paul is doing here. Whether he is or not, Paul is very obviously drawing a link to his union with Christ. He says “through the law, I died to the law, that I might live to God”. So there is our first statement. Now, Paul is going to restate this whole idea - “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” So it is through Paul’s (and our) unified death with Christ, and crucifixion with Him, that we die to the law, and this is “through the law” because Christ, the one with whom we are crucified, was born under the law, and the law had as its goal, this event. But this was its end, its telos, the thing that it pointed to, and led to.

So in this way, we Paul says he died through the law to the law, that he might live to God. So his dying to the law is paralleled with Crucifixion with Christ, and the goal of that, “that I might live to God”, is expressed again in Paul’s joint life with Christ, the manner in which he lives to God, is by Christ living in Him, his life by faith in the Son of God. This is a real, and true union. We reap the benefits, and Christ took the punishment. The law revealed us to be sinners, but Christ bore our transgressions, and now lives through us, that we might become the righteousness of God, as says. Paul says that if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. Where does righteousness come from? It doesn’t come from the law. “Now!” someone might say, “it may not come from the cultic sacrifices and rituals of the Old Covenant, but it certainly can come from doing right before God!” Dear friend, if this is your stance, you have just spat upon the holy law of God. If you think that there is any good to be done that God requires, which is not found expressed in the law of God, then I’m not sure what law you’re looking at.

Simply because the law cannot produce righteousness, doesn’t mean that it is deficient, or lacking in what is good. It simply has no power to produce that which it requires! We agree with Paul as he says “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.” So, if we are justified before God, by what basis? If the commandment is holy, and righteous, and good, then if we have transgressed it, and it will not justify us, on what basis? If you have put your faith in Christ, though the law has been transgressed, you have been crucified with Him - indeed you were crucified when He was crucified. That transgression has been paid, and if you have been crucified with Him, you can say with Paul, that indeed, Christ lives in you, and your life in the flesh is lived by faith in Him. And if you live life through faith in Him, then he certainly did not die for nothing, for you have obtained righteousness through him, apart from the law.

So how is it that justification is much more than simply entrance into the covenant? Because when we are unified with Christ, we receive what He receives, and we go where He goes. Paul may not be setting out to address the question of “how do I get saved”, but he inadvertently answers it! We are granted entrance into the covenant people, we are put into covenant with the God of Israel, on the basis of faith in His Son, who loved us, and gave Himself for us, that we might be Crucified with Him, and that He might live through us, and to the glory of the Father, justify us and count us righteous before Him. Let’s pray.