Galatians 2:11-14

  • David Fairchild
  • Jun 18, 2006
  • Series: Galatians

Galatians 2:11-14 “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 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. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 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?’"  

As I have mentioned for the last couple of weeks, chapter 2 contains two very significant visits to two cities (Jerusalem and Antioch) that would determine the trajectory of the Gospel and the early church, and would affect how we view God and life in Christ to this very day.   

We have already discussed Paul’s visit to Jerusalem (2:1-10) as he took with him two examples of unity that the Gospel produces in the persons of Barnabas and Titus—a Jew and Greek, one circumcised, and the other uncircumcised.  In this first visit we see a very important truth laid down about what the Gospel is and what it is not.   

The “false brethren” who named Christ, but did not have His grace, were attempting to preach another gospel, which is no Gospel at all (Gal. 1:7), and teaching that believing in Jesus Christ was essential to salvation (they were not opposed to Jesus), and that Jesus’ work and His love, and faith in His work and receiving His love, was not enough to cleanse and beautify you.  They taught that you must believe in Christ and you have to add something.  It was not sufficient to trust in Jesus, but to trust in Jesus plus keep all the ceremonial and moral laws so that God would accept you.  In other words, Christ is needed to make you beautiful, but He can’t simply make you clean and beautiful without your work of self-restoration.  You need to make yourself clean while you trust God, and then your work plus Christ work will make you whole.  This was their essential message, and it was damning.     

But the real issue wasn’t what they were adding but that they were adding at all.  What is at stake in this disagreement is nothing less than life and death, for to get this doctrine wrong, is to place our souls in danger.  

The order of the Gospel is absolutely critical and will ultimately affect the effect of the Gospel in our lives.  For example: 

1- Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 2- Perform good works or keep certain rules, then, 3- Have favor with God and be accepted = Works based legalism which forces you act functionally as your own savior.  This will breed either a pride or insecurity. Pride because you have lowered God’s standard and elevated your own works to the level of Christ’s works.  Or, insecurity because if you are honest with yourself, you know you will never live up to the perfect work of Christ and when you fail, which you will, you will be in utter and constant despair since you are not acting as an effective messiah. 

Or  

1- Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 2- Realize in doing so by faith, we have favor with God and are already accepted, then, 3- We keep the law because we are growing closer and closer with Christ and desire to conform to His image more and more each day.  We keep the law because we are accepted, not to be accepted.  We keep the law as a way of thanking God for all that He has done for us in Jesus who kept the law perfectly in our place.   

This is the difference between Paul and the false brethren.  Paul taught believe, you’re saved, then keep the law; the teachers taught, believe, keep the law, then you’re saved.  They both believed in Christ, they both believed in His deity, and that He was the Son of God.  They believed He was the Messiah that came from Heaven.  They believed He died on a cross for our sins, and that He rose from the dead.   

Paul is saying that the difference between the order of: believe, obey, saved, or believe, saved, obey, is the difference between two religions.  Paul isn’t saying that these are nothing more than two opinions, or two perspectives, or two denominations.  These are two totally different religions, and never the twain shall meet.  But here is the frightening truth: 80% of modern evangelicals will say that Jesus saves them, but then when pressed to describe how that actually happens, they end up with a salvation package that essentially says that Jesus plus our lives will save us in the end.  Jesus is our help so that we can ultimately save ourselves through our effort.  Rather than, Jesus does all the work, gets all the credit, and does not cooperate in a shared effort to bring us to the Father.  These individuals are not in line with Paul’s Gospel, but rather the teacher’s gospel which claims it is Christ plus our effort.      

The problem with their view is that it is the wrong religion according to Paul.  They don’t really believe that Christ’s work and Christ’s love is really enough to cleanse and beautify them, so they attempt to help Jesus out by adding to His work.   

This Gospel of we believe, are saved, then obey, was agreed upon by James, Peter, John, and Paul in Jerusalem on the first visit and should have put to rest any other view of how we are saved or how we grow as Christians.  However, Peter comes up to Antioch to visit Paul and the Gentile church   

Verses 11-12-  “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 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.” 

This second visit doesn’t tell us so much about what the Gospel is, though we learn more about it from this passage, but more so how the Gospel changes us and works in us.   

Now, for many of us here this morning, we might be thinking when we hear that 80% of evangelical Christians have the order of the Gospel wrong, that you are part of the 20% who has it right and can’t understand why the others are so dense.  Here’s the rub: by saying that, what you are demonstrating is that you have an intellectual understanding of the Gospel and its truth and order, but even though you believe and subscribe to its truth, you are showing it is not the controlling reality in your life. 

Paul stood before him in confrontation and not behind his back.  Paul had the courage to confront the most powerful Apostle at this time.  Paul would have been considered the “late bloomer” and the earliest of the Apostles.   

Certain individuals came and poorly represented James and the church in Jerusalem.  We are not told they even confronted Peter, but that when they came, Peter was afraid of them.  This fear, cowardice, and hypocrisy all contributed to Peter drawing back and separating himself, but these are all symptoms of a greater problem: pride.  Peter didn’t want to look poorly, and so he “drew back,” a word that means to carefully creep away, and quietly separated himself.  This also shows us that Peter knew what he was doing, since he tried to do it quietly.  Peter had forgotten that we are accepted by God and don’t need to find our identity in the acceptance of others.  We are not held captive by the frowns or smiles of men! 

Verse 13- “And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.”  

The very trophy of God’s unifying Gospel, Barnabas, was caught up in this hypocrisy and “led astray” with them. 

This must have broken Paul’s heart.  Barnabas was a sweet man, someone who was humble and gentle.  He was a loving servant of Christ.  Yet, even this gentle and humble friend and co-laborer of Paul, was affected by the pressure of the moment. 

What does this tell us?  It tells us that the besetting sin of humble and gentle people, if they are not in tune with the Gospel, is compromise for the sake of peace.

Peter’s withdrawing was due to his pride of reputation.  Barnabas was a man of peace, and he placed peace before the Gospel and did not have courage. This is the importance of Gospel courage.  It allows us to withstand the pressure to compromise for the sake of the Gospel.  Peace without the Gospel is not peace.  Only the Gospel can bring peace, and sometimes this means through confrontation.     

Verse 14- “But when I saw that their conduct was not in step (Gk. orthopodeo- means to be straight ‘ortho’ footed ‘podeo’) 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?’” 

This teaches us that the Gospel is a “truth.”  It has a set of claims.  It includes facts.  It isn’t merely a story.  It is news that contains true statements about history, our condition, and the person and work of Jesus.  It isn’t advice to be followed but news to be believed. 

Also, since these claims are true—we are sinful and unclean, but Christ kept the law perfectly and was fulfilled by Him, through His life, death, and resurrection, and by faith we are forgiven of our sin and covered in His righteousness so that God accepts us now, not later after we’ve done a bunch of good works—the Gospel has a multitude of applications for every area of our lives.  Our life is then spent bringing everything in line with the Gospel.  Our goal is then to see the trajectory of our life following this Gospel line.  We are to “walk the line.”  Our thinking, our feeling, our behavior, is to all be according to this Gospel line.  Everything is to be “in step” with it.     

HEALING RACISM WITH THE GOSPEL 

1. The "Moralyzing" Approach.

Basic analysis: Your problem is that you are doing wrong. Repent! 

This focuses on behavior, but doesn't go deep enough. We must find out the why of our behavior.   Why do I find I want to do the wrong things? What inordinate desires are drawing me to do so? What are the idols and false beliefs behind them? To simply tell an unhappy person (or yourself) to, “repent and change behavior,” is insufficient, because the lack of self-control is coming from a belief that says, “even if you live up to moral standards, but you don't have this (value from race/culture), then you are still a failure.” You must replace this belief through repentance for the one sin under it all, your particular idolatry. 

2. The "Psychologizing" Approach.

Basic analysis: Your problem is that you don't see that God loves you as you are. 

Rejoice! 

This focuses on feelings, which seem to be "deeper" than behavior, but it also fails to go deep enough. We must also find out the why of our feelings. Why do I have such strong feelings of despair (or fear, or anger) when this or that happens? What are the inordinate desires that are being frustrated? What are the idols and false beliefs behind them? To simply tell an unhappy person (or yourself), “God loves you, rejoice!" is insufficient, because the unhappiness is coming from a belief that says, “even if God loves you, but you don't have this, then you are still a failure.” You must replace this belief through repentance for the one sin under it all, your particular idolatry. 

3. The "Gospel" Approach.

Basic Analysis: Your problem is that you are looking to something besides Christ for your happiness. Repent and rejoice! 

The Gospel confronts a person (like Peter) with the real sin under the sin. Our problem is that we have given ourselves over to idols. Every idol-system is a way of our-works-salvation, and thus it keeps us "under the law."  Paul tells us that the bondage of sin is broken when we come out from under the law—when we begin to believe the Gospel of Christ's-work-salvation. Only when we realize in a new way that we are righteous in Christ will the idol's power over us broken.  “Sin shall not be your master for you are not under law, but under grace” (Rom.6:14). You will only be "under grace" and free from the controlling effects of idols to the degree that you have both: (1) repented for your idols, and (2) rested and rejoiced in the saving work and love of Christ instead. 

This is really important to understand.  Paul’s view of racism is unique in that he doesn’t just tell Peter that racism is a sin and it is breaking the rules (though it is).  He confronts Peter with the Gospel to show his error is not only outward, but it is more importantly a spiritual, heart issue.   

This is an excellent principle for us, because without the Gospel as the standard and the knowledge of its significance in each situation, we are left without any ability to change.  There is no hope if the Gospel is not the standard to correct us.  Paul tells Peter that his racism, which causes him to “draw back” and act hypocritically, is a resistance to the Gospel of salvation by grace alone.   

This racism came to the surface in Peter, and rises in our own hearts, because we are still opposing grace and are attempting to find ways to justify ourselves.  Racism is nothing more than attempting to find a way to feel cleaner than others.  Peter did this by making many of his cultural and traditional norms an absolute standard.  He idolized his culture and it became a more important standard than the Gospel.  Like Peter, each of us does this in varying ways in our own day.  We all try at some point to use our culture, race, or nationality to feel superior to others. 

This kind of Gospel analysis of racism shows us that whether you are a racial majority or minority, you can both forget the Gospel and put your pride in justifying yourself through your race.  The dominant group thinks it’s superior to the minority race. And the minority race can act superior by holding on to the fact they have suffered more than the majority race, and they are not oppressors like the others. 

Yet, in this conformation and opposition to Peter, Paul was still trying to bring him back in line with the truth of the Gospel.  Paul didn’t fight legalistic pressure with more legalistic guilt.  He didn’t simply tell Peter to stop sinning, or stop being a racist.  He could have, and he would have been absolutely correct.  Peter did need to repent of his racism, but the only way we can give advice that would compel another Christian to repent of this kind of sin is to show them that they need to repent of forgetting that they have been saved by grace and welcomed by God based not upon their skin color, race, or nationality, but purely by God’s grace alone.  Paul didn’t simply target Peter’s behavior, but the sin of self-righteousness behind his racism. 

By opposing Peter in this way, Paul was motivating and urging Peter to see that his value and dignity didn’t come in external culture, but through Christ’s righteousness.  This is how we should confront our brothers and sisters who are in sin.  We need to point to the depth and riches of Christ’s love for them, so that they stop trying to get it from their sinful actions.  This takes more courage, and it takes more humility, but the results are more profound.  If you attempt to motivate and change someone by threatening them with the law alone, you will not only feel superior to them, you will not be acting as if you are for them.  By using the Gospel of grace to confront, we can speak directly and truthfully, and if the other is humble enough to receive the counsel, they will feel that we are on their side.  Peter was gripped with fear, and what he didn’t need was more fear motivation from Paul.  He was not only acting like a racist and hypocrite, he was acting like a coward.  Had Paul only addressed him by the law, his fear and cowardice would have not been dealt with.  How much we have to learn about the Gospel so that we can lovingly confront each other in this way.  How incredible would this community be if it were motivated by the Gospel to give loving rebukes based upon grace and humility and not guilt?  This would free us to have the courage to confront, yet humble us because we know all along we are one of them, we are sinners saved by grace, too.    

0 Comments | Login to Post Comments