Justified by Faith,
Not by Law

a study of Galatians 2

An agreement between Peter and Paul

Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also (Gal. 2:1). Grammatically, it is not clear whether this is 14 years after Paul’s conversion, or 14 years after his first visit with Peter (1:18). It may have been A.D. 48—probably the famine-relief visit that Luke describes in Acts 11.[1]

I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain (Gal. 2:2). Paul described his message to the leaders in Jerusalem—he was not asking them for instructions or orders (contrary to what the opponents in Galatia apparently said). Was Paul afraid that he was preaching the wrong message? Apparently not, but he feared that the apostles might undercut his work if they disagreed with his gospel.[2]

Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek (2:3). Paul hints that there was some controversy, but the apostles agreed with him on at least this much: that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. Unfortunately, they did not seem to communicate this conclusion to the lay members, and that lack of communication later led to problems. People from Jerusalem traveled to other church areas and took it upon themselves to demand that other churches conform to their standards. The church visits may have been authorized by the apostles, but the specific requirements probably were not.

Paul says that the controversy arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves (2:4). These people claimed to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but at least from Paul’s perspective, they had missed the message. They did not just want to “spy on” believers’ freedom—they wanted to eliminate it. They wanted the new faith to be just as demanding as the old one. In Judea, tensions with Rome were rising, and some zealots were quick to accuse others of religious compromise.[3] Paul says this pressure for conformity amounts to slavery. (He will use the “slave” language again in chapter 4.)

We did not give in to them for a moment—despite some pressure to do so, Paul implies—so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you (2:5). Paul stood against the pressure not just for the convenience of his people, but for the truth of the gospel. The gospel is not just a message of how people are saved—it requires that people be freed from obsolete obligations and social barriers.

Did the leaders tell Paul to add some requirements to his gospel? No: As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message (2:6). Paul seems indirectly acknowledge that the other apostles were important in some way, but they were not essential for his mission. Although they eventually gave their approval, he did not need their approval in order to preach the message Jesus had told him to preach.

On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles  (2:7-8). They recognized that Christ had given Paul a mission, and they let him do it. Paul gives Peter a positive word here, but implies that he has authority only over Jewish churches, and not the Gentile church in Galatia.

So they agreed to go their separate ways: James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews (2:9). Implied in this division of labor is that the leaders would not meddle in each other’s ministry—an agreement being broken by Paul’s opponents in Galatia, who were claiming to act with authority from Jerusalem.

All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do (2:10). Paul had come to help the poor believers in Jerusalem, and his letters show that this continued to be part of his ministry (Rom. 15:25-27; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-4). It was a humanitarian effort not to poor people in general, but to the poor members of the Jerusalem church. To Paul, it had theological significance, for it illustrated the unity of Gentiles and Jews.

So they agreed: Peter would go to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. But the plan failed to address one circumstance: what should be done in churches that contained both Jews and Gentiles? That is the next step in the story.

A disagreement between Peter and Paul

Paul’s next words are: When Peter came to Antioch… Paul introduces this topic as if the readers already knew that Peter had gone to Antioch, and that they knew what Peter had done there. Paul’s opponents had probably told the story; now Paul tells his side: I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong (1:11).

Paul backs up to give the context of the story: Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group (1:12).

Old Testament laws did not require Jews to eat separately from Gentiles, but Jewish custom did (cf. Acts 11:3). Peter knew that this custom was not biblical, so he ignored it. However, when representatives of the Jerusalem church arrived, he changed his behavior.[4] It was a change of behavior based on a desire to please people—the very thing Paul had been accused of (1:10).

However, this separation implied that the Gentiles were second-class citizens, that they would not be fully acceptable unless they conformed to Jewish laws. Paul saw this as a violation of the gospel. If God was willing to live in these people, then the Jewish believers ought to be willing to eat with them.

Other people followed Peter’s example: The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray (2:13). The change in behavior was not consistent with their beliefs, and was not consistent with the gospel, so Paul spoke to them all by addressing Peter, who had set the example:

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile[5] and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (v. 14). Peter had been living like a Gentile, and he should not pretend that he didn’t. He had been ignoring the rules that separated Jews from Gentiles, but his change in behavior implied it was wrong to be a Gentile. “Peter is in effect requiring the Gentile converts at Antioch to adopt a higher standard of Torah observance than he himself would normally follow.”[6] Social discrimination violates the truth of the gospel.[7]

Unity in the church does not require that everyone follow the strictest opinions. God does not require Gentiles to live like Jews—and he does not require Jews to do it, either! Even the Jews are allowed to live like Gentiles, and the church should not let itself be tyrannized by overly conservative critics.

Paul explains that Jews are saved by faith, not by keeping the law: “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’[8] know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.[9] So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ[10] and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified (vv. 15-16).

Paul’s first statement about “justification” is that it does not come through the law. This negative way of introducing the term suggests that it was not Paul’s original way of explaining the gospel. Rather, the Judaizing opponents were using the word, saying that people could be justified (or declared righteous) only by keeping the law.[11] Paul uses their terminology, but turns it around. Even those who try to keep the law cannot be justified by doing the law, because everyone fails at some point or another.

We cannot claim to be righteous on our own merits—if we are going to be declared righteous, it must be on some other basis. That is why the Jewish believers, like the Gentiles, put their trust in Christ, not in themselves. The implication here is that since Jews and Gentiles are accepted by God on the same basis, for the same reason, then they ought to accept one another. Jews are not required to eat Gentile foods, but they should be willing to sit down at the same table!

A perfect source of righteousness

We are not justified by keeping the law. Does that mean that God doesn’t care whether we sin? No. Paul asks, “If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not!  (v. 17).[12] We are justified in Christ, by being united with him, so that he shares his righteousness with us. When we trust in Christ rather than ourselves, we admit that we are sinners, and that we cannot be declared righteous on our own merits. God accepts us even though we are sinners, but his pardon should not be interpreted as permission to sin. (The Judaizers were apparently saying that Paul’s gospel encouraged people to sin.)

Paul’s next statement is puzzling: If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker (v. 18). It seems that Paul was accused of inconsistency, but it isn’t clear what he is referring to.[13] An inconsistency would prove that Paul broke the law either before or after his change.

His point seems to be about sin and the law, for his next statement is: For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God (v. 19). Elsewhere, Paul explains that people die to the law through Christ (Rom. 6:3; 7:4). Christ suffered the worst penalty of the law on our behalf, and it has no further claim on us. Since we died with Christ, the law has exacted its penalty on us. But this does not mean that we are free to live however we please—rather, it means that we are to live for God. Paul will elaborate on that in the last third of his letter.

Paul explains his new outlook on life: I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (v. 20). Paul no longer views himself as an individual trying his best to keep the laws of God. That old approach was flawed, and it died with Christ. Paul considers all his previous merits as good as dead (see Phil. 3:7), and his life has value now only as it is empowered by Christ, only as it is in union with Christ.

He was united with Christ in his crucifixion, and he is united with Christ in his resurrection. Whatever good he does, even his faith/fulness, is from Christ living in him. The reference point for Paul’s life is not the law, but the fact that the Son of God[14] loved Paul and gave himself to save not just the whole world, but for Paul himself. It became personal for Paul. Christ gave himself to save Paul, and when Paul started to believe that, he abandoned his own agenda for life and began to live for God, letting his life be directed by Christ. This emphasis on Christ does not promote sin—it promotes a radically God-centered life.

Paul concludes: I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (v. 21). There is a contrast: Either righteousness is based on the law, or it is based on grace. Either it is earned, or it is given. And Paul figures that if there was any way on earth that people could get righteousness by keeping laws, then Jesus died in vain—and that is simply unthinkable.