Paul Accepted by the Apostles
1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I 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. 3Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.
6As 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. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,[1] just as Peter had been to the Jews.[2] 8For 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. 9James, Peter[3] 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. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
Paul Opposes Peter
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before 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. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14When 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 and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
17"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! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I 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. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"[4]
We’re looking at verses 1-21 of chapter 2, the whole chapter, in which Paul continues to tell his amazing story, which establishes his authority to preach the one and only gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is this gospel that is being challenged by the Judaizers in the Galatian churches, and Paul has worked very hard to uphold it throughout the world. Let’s take a look at the rest of Paul’s life story.
1) V1-5 – 1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I 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. 3Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.
Vincent Cheung offers a superb summary so far and preview of what’s to come: “Paul has been narrating an account of his life that very likely counters the Judaizers’ accusations and misrepresentations. In the previous passage (Galatians 1:13-24), he recalled his condition prior to conversion and how God consecrated and transformed him, having revealed Christ to him and called him to preach the gospel. By the time he met the apostles, his theology and ministry were already established, so that as far as anything that has to do with this controversy is concerned, he was directly called by God and taught by Christ, and he owed nothing to Jerusalem. Paul continues his story and sets the record straight. Building on the previous verses, he describes another visit to Jerusalem. While maintaining his independence, he now shows that the other apostles are in agreement with him.”
At the beginning of Galatians 2, we read that Paul, “fourteen years later…went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas.” In Acts 11:25, Barnabas went to Tarsus, found Paul, and brought him back to Antioch. Acts 11:28 says that Agabus predicted a famine, and some commentators suggest that this was the revelation Paul speaks of in v2, though others disagree. As we’ve seen, Paul received much revelation directly from God throughout his ministry, so we need not be dogmatic on this particular instance. Acts 11:30 seems to indicate that Barnabas and Paul, then called Saul, took an offering for the suffering Christians of Judea in response to the prophesied famine, but no mention is given of the city to which they journeyed. (Most would say that city had to be Jerusalem.) Some commentators say this was Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem, with the third coming in Acts 15 for the council meeting, but others say Paul and Barnabas never went to Jerusalem with the offering but stopped elsewhere in Judea, making Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem the time of the council meeting. Still others conclude that Paul sees no relevance for including all the details of his life over the course of those fourteen years; thus, Paul may have visited Jerusalem for the second time in Acts 11 without mentioning it here in Galatians, and he may have come to Jerusalem for the third time in Acts 15, speaking of that here when he uses the word, “again.” “Again” could refer to the second visit to Jerusalem that had an impact on the Judaizer controversy; or it could refer to the third or fourth trip there since Paul’s conversion.
Anyway, moving on without over-speculation, after Paul and Barnabas went on a mission trip to Galatia (Acts 13-14), they returned to Antioch. Barnabas, originally named Joseph, was a Levite from Cyprus; his new name, given by the apostles in Acts 4:36, meant “Son of Encouragment,” and he was that, especially to Paul throughout his ministry and to his cousin, John Mark, who would later write the Gospel of Mark and be deemed helpful in ministry, even by Paul, who refused to put up with his homesickness on their first mission trip together (see Acts 9:27, 12:25, 13:13, 15:36-41; Colossians 4:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:11). Paul says here in v1 that Titus was with them as well, and though Acts doesn’t include his name, we know that Titus was very important (2 Corinthians 7:13-16, 8:6,16-17,23; Titus), especially given the context of the council to discuss the doctrine of Christianity regarding Jew and Gentile converts – the very issue the Judaizers promoted in Galatia. Titus was a Gentile convert to Christianity who was not circumcised but who served the kingdom of God better than Jewish converts to Christianity who had been circumcised. Vincent Cheung concludes with a comment on Titus: “Based on the biblical evidence, we must conclude that Titus was most likely a competent, fearless, and resourceful Christian. He was honest, loyal, and could follow instructions, and at the same time, one could hardly find superior leadership material. He was the one for the tough jobs. He was the one who got things done no matter how difficult the people or situation was, or how much pressure he would come under.” We would do well to emulate Titus. And the fact that he was not circumcised reveals that the Christian leaders in Jerusalem accepted Paul’s doctrine.
Moving on, Acts 15:1-2 says, “Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: ‘Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.’ This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas [accompanied by Titus] were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.” It was during this visit to Jerusalem to discuss the Judaizer issue that Paul was formally esteemed as an apostle, though his apostleship came long before by grace and the calling of God, and found to have doctrinal agreement with “those who seemed to be [Jerusalem church] leaders.”
This interesting statement, in v2, that Paul spoke privately with “those who seemed to be leaders” (James, Peter, and John, “those reputed to be pillars” from v9) about his gospel to the Gentiles, deserves more attention. Paul “set before them the gospel;” he did not do this to gain their authority, for if that were the case, then everything he’s been saying thus far in Galatians about his unique ministry would be refuted and instead uphold the Judaizers’ claims against him. Rather, Paul “went in response to a revelation,” meaning that, as Vincent Cheung notes, “he might not have gone at all if he had not been sent by a divine command.” But then we read that he did this privately, out of fear that he had run or was running his race in vain. At first glance, we might conclude that, despite having a preaching ministry for some 14-17 years, Paul was actually afraid that he might have been doctrinally wrong. We’ll be reminded in v6-10 that this is not the case. He told them the truth and waited to get their response to the truth. Calvin says that it’s as if Paul was saying, “That my former labors might not be thrown away and rendered useless, I have set at rest the question which disturbed many minds, whether I or Peter deserved your confidence; for in all that I had ever taught we were perfectly at one.” He continues, “If many teachers in our own day were as heartily desirous as Paul was to edify the Church, they would take more pains to be agreed among themselves.” And Cheung continues his thoughts to explain Paul’s fear that he was running in vain:
“If this means that Paul wanted a confirmation of the accuracy of his message, so that he would not have done all that he did for nothing, then certainly he would be undermining himself. He had just said that his message came to him by divine revelation, but if so, then there was no superior or even equal authority by which his message could be verified, and it would be strange to require human confirmation at this point. The same is true regarding his calling and authority.
“The context explains what Paul means. V5 says that he did not give in ‘so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you,’ that is, with the Galatians or with Gentiles in general. Although this statement is immediately applicable to v3-4, it also reflects his concern in v2 and in an upcoming passage, v11-14. Paul’s concern was not directly about solidarity, but about whether Jerusalem would consider his message and ministry legitimate so that his work would not be frustrated by a contradictory doctrinal pronouncement or contravening missionary effort from Jerusalem. Gaining Jerusalem’s official agreement was also an effective tactic against the Judaizers, although not a necessary one.
“That is, from an individual’s perspective, Paul wished to preserve his previous work and minimize hindrance for his future labor. From a broader perspective, he wished to protect the true gospel that so many among the Gentiles had already believed, so that they could hold fast to it and circulate it. He presented his message to the Jerusalem leaders, not hoping for a confirmation for his own assurance, but hoping for agreement so that the gospel – which he already knew to be true by revelation – would not be taken away or otherwise undermined and attacked among the Gentiles.
“Paul’s concern, then, was the effectiveness of his efforts, and not the truth of his message or the legitimacy of his ministry – he was assured of the latter by divine revelation. And precisely because he was sure about the truth of his message and the legitimacy of his ministry, if the Jerusalem leaders had disagreed with him and censored him, Paul would have defied them and went his own way. This would have produced a great schism between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, dividing Jerusalem and Antioch, so to speak, and might have severely undermined the effectiveness of Paul’s previous and future missionary efforts.
“Let us be clear as to what all of this means. If Jerusalem had rejected Paul’s message and ministry, he would have rejected them and continued with his work – he was not seeking their approval, since he had Christ’s command to preach and a revelation as to what he was to preach. Paul would have been in the right, and Jerusalem in the wrong. This would have added to the tremendous pressure that he was already experiencing from those who claimed to be believers. Keep in mind that the apostle Paul was not the apostle Paul that all Christians revere today. During his lifetime he constantly came under suspicion and criticism even from those who were supposedly his brothers in Christ. So we can understand why he did not want Jerusalem to work against him. He was not there to seek approval for his message and ministry, and based on v6-10, he did not even seek a close partnership. He knew he was legitimate, but he was there to make sure that Jerusalem would not get in his way.”
Taking all of this in, we conclude that Paul was vehemently opposed to forcing Gentile converts to Christianity to be circumcised (Galatians 5:12; Acts 15:1), as the example of Titus yielded – whether this example (v3-5) occurred parallel to Acts 11 or Acts 15, or even to some other time not mentioned in Acts. He notes that they – either Paul and those with him (if Acts 11), or Paul and the Christian leaders of Jerusalem (if Acts 15) – yielded to neither the “false brothers” – the Pharisaical (Acts 15:5) Judaizers who were professing yet not genuine Christians (the NEB translates this “sham-Christians”) – nor their false gospel. The Judaizers denied salvation “by grace through faith;” they thought Paul too liberal, but they also had motive to make slaves, so that “they may boast about your flesh” (Galatians 6:13). Theirs was a false gospel of enslavement, putting believers back under the law, in order, Cheung says, “to claim the Gentile as their own disciples and to subjugate their faith under their own customs,” whereas “the truth of the gospel,” affirmed here, was the good news of salvation, life, and freedom from the law’s condemnation. This was a matter of life and death, and Paul knew it. I like what Calvin says of this passage:
“Circumcision, being a matter of indifference, might be neglected or practiced as edification required. Our invariable rule of action is, that, if ‘all things are lawful for us,’ (1 Corinthians 10:23) we ought to inquire what is expedient. [Paul] circumcises Timothy, (Acts 16:3) in order to take away a ground of offense from weak minds; for he was at that time dealing with weak minds, which it was his duty to treat with tenderness. And he would gladly have done the same thing with Titus, for he was unwearied in his endeavors to ‘support (Acts 20:35) the weak;’ but the case was different. For some false brethren were watching for an opportunity of slandering his doctrine, and would immediately have spread the report: ‘See how the valiant champion of liberty, when he comes into the presence of the apostles, lays aside the bold and fierce aspect which he is wont to assume among the ignorant!’ Now, as it is our duty to ‘bear the infirmities of the weak,’ (Romans 15:1,) so concealed foes, who purposely watch for our liberty, must, be vigorously resisted. The duties of love to our neighbor ought never to be injurious to faith; and therefore, in matters of indifference, the love of our neighbor will be our best guide, provided that faith shall always receive our first regard.”
2) V6-10 – 6As 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. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles [or uncircumcised], just as Peter had been to the Jews [or circumcised]. 8For 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. 9James, Peter [or Cephas] 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. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
As we come to v6, it ties in exactly as you’d expect after understanding v1-5 as expounded above. Paul had the gospel revealed from Christ; it was the truth; he was going to preach it whether or not anyone else – even if deemed “important” by the Judaizers – agreed or not. Paul is quick to point out that “those who seemed to be important…added nothing” to his message. They may have “seemed important” – for example, James was Jesus’ half-brother, Peter had been given the keys to the Kingdom, and John was the one Jesus loved – but that didn’t matter for authority to preach the gospel as far as Paul was concerned, for “God does not judge by external appearance.” Paul is by no means mocking the other apostles, for he saw himself as the least of them, not worthy to be called an apostle (1 Corinthians 15:9); but he is downplaying his attackers claims that he is not a valid, “important” spokesman for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
So with a big sigh of relief, the climactic conclusion, we read in v9 that the Christian leaders of Jerusalem extended “the right hand of fellowship,” acknowledging that Paul and Peter had both been graced by God with the task of preaching the gospel (v7-8), and that Paul’s doctrine in no way conflicted with authentic Christianity. There would be no division this day, as long as the poor (namely the Jewish Christians in poverty in Jerusalem) were remembered (v10). Paul was eager to aid them, as seen throughout his ministry (Acts 11:27-30; 24:17; Romans 15:26; 1 Corinthians 16:1-3).
Vincent Cheung concludes here, “This in effect puts the Judaizers, who oppose Paul, outside of the apostolic circle and the main thrust of the Christian movement. Thus since Jerusalem agrees with Paul, and Paul disagrees with the Judaizers, this means that the Judaizers are in fact the real deceivers and false teachers, and the enemies of the gospel. By this point in the letter, Paul has provided more than sufficient refutation to all those arguments of the Judaizers that are based on personal attacks.” Nevertheless, all is not well that seems to end well, as we see in the next passage (and Acts 21:17-25). Sadly, orthodoxy – right doctrine – does not always lead to orthopraxy – right behavior. I think you can get a feel that Paul had his eyes and mind and heart set firmly on both; while perhaps the Jerusalem Christian leaders may have been lax at upholding the latter (orthopraxy), worrying more about the former (orthodoxy).
3) V11-14 – 11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before 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. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14When 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 and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? [Some interpreters end Paul’s quote to Peter after v14; others, after v16, or even v21.]
Notably, Antioch was the place where followers of Jesus Christ were first called Christians. The church of Antioch was the first to send missionaries to the Gentiles, namely Paul and Barnabas – most likely because it was also the first place where, under Paul’s teaching, Jew and Gentile worshipped together. We don’t know when – this event may have happened before the agreement reached by the apostles in Jerusalem – or why Peter came to Antioch, but Paul tells us clearly the reason for their confrontation. Peter was guilty of hypocrisy – living one way when “certain men” weren’t looking on, and living a different way when they were watching. Peter’s behavior did not match his doctrinal profession; and what was worse, his behavior as a leader in the church, led others – even Barnabas – astray. It appeared from their behavior that circumcision was needed for a Gentile to become a genuine follower of Christ, though they had previously professed otherwise, and even lived like Gentiles themselves (v14) before “certain men” entered the scene.
Now Peter had dealt with this issue prior to this episode in Antioch. In Acts 10, he acknowledged that his meeting with Cornelius was against the Law (in letter) but commanded by God (in spirit). Peter said to them, “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.” Peter was criticized for that right behavior by the Jewish believers (Acts 11:2-3), and that’s why Peter caved in (“he was afraid”) when those “certain men came from James” here. Nevertheless, he acted hypocritically, and Paul “opposed him to his face.” In Calvin’s words, “Peter was chastised and struck dumb.” We don’t know why Peter was afraid or what association these “certain men” had with James. James is named as one faithful to the gospel and in fellowship with Paul, so it appears that these “certain men” from “the circumcision group” were either in disagreement with James and Peter and Paul on this issue or acting hypocritically themselves, affirming the true gospel (orthodoxy) but, known to others, failing to live it out (orthopraxy).
It is worth mentioning here that evidence of sinful behavior does not require that we know the motive; outwardly wrong behavior is wrong no matter the motive. However, when outward behavior seems right and good, we need to know the motive in order to determine if that behavior truly is right and good.
Finally here, Paul confronts Peter publicly. Calvin declares, “This public offense must be publicly corrected.” Kim Riddlebarger says, “Paul’s very public rebuke of Peter becomes the basis for the public discipline in the church for public offenses, especially so in the case of elders (1 Timothy 5:20). Since this issue involved scandal which effected the preaching of the gospel, it could not be handled privately as in Matthew 18:15-20… The issue is content and the standard is fidelity to the gospel!” The mention of this episode wraps up Paul’s testimony that his message requires no authority from Jerusalem and opens the letter to deal with the Galatians’ legalism. Paul is right with his message, so much so that he confronts and is victorious with the most prominent apostle on the issue of hypocrisy; and Paul wants to make this the issue with the Galatians. The consequences of hypocrisy are dire, but not as dire as abandoning the true gospel, which the Galatians are, as Peter was, on the verge of doing. It is impossible to be dogmatic regarding where Paul’s statement to Peter ends and where his address to the Galatians specifically begins. But that doesn’t matter for us to understand the point.
4) V15-21 –15We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.’ 17‘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! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I 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. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!’ [Some interpreters end Paul’s quote to Peter after v14; others, after v16, or even v21.]
Vincent Cheung begins his commentary on this passage by saying, “Regardless of where Paul’s speech to Peter concludes, it is v15 that marks the transition from historical narrative to theological argument. Until this point he has been defending the original and authority of his message and ministry (Galatians 1:11-12), and only now does he begin to engage the actual doctrine that is at the center of the controversy… The current passage begins the theological portion of this letter, and both summarizes and assumes several key points in Paul’s theology. The main assertion here is that no one can be saved by observing the law or depending on his own works; rather, the only way that one is saved is by faith in Jesus Christ apart from the law or works.”
The central message of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians may be seen in v15-16 – “A man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.” Kim Riddlebarger says, “The key to understanding this passage is really two-fold. Negatively speaking, we have Paul’s unequivocal assertion that we cannot be justified by our obedience to the law of Moses. Positively speaking, we have Paul’s equally unequivocal assertion that we are justified only by faith in Christ.” Paul says that Jewish Christians, such as James, John, Peter, Barnabas, and himself, who have the law know this. Simply put, works do not save; faith in Christ Jesus does. But Paul’s argument is more extensive than that, especially in light of his Gentile audience. The phrase “observing the law” is translated “works of the law” in other translations, and it specifically refers to the very thing that separated Jew from Gentile. Paul brings it up primarily to note that there is to be no distinction between Jew and Gentile when it comes to the gospel. He is saying that Jews, who have the very Law of God as given to Moses, know that justification is by faith. That truth necessarily excludes justification by the Law, and even more, justification by any law.
In other words, if Jews can’t be justified by their God-given Law, then neither can Gentiles be justified by law of any kind or origin. Calvin paraphrases Paul’s thoughts, as if he were saying, “We, who appear to excel others, who, by means of the covenant, have always enjoyed the privilege of being nigh to God, (Deuteronomy 4:7) have found no method of obtaining salvation, but by believing in Christ. Why, then, should we prescribe another method to the Gentiles? For, if the law were necessary or advantageous for salvation to those who observed its enactments, it must have been most of all advantageous to us to whom it was given; but if we relinquished it, and betook ourselves to Christ, much less ought compliance with it to be urged upon the Gentiles.”
This passage is often compared and contrasted with James 2:24, Romans 3:19-22, and Psalm 143:2. The Psalm seems to indicate, as Vincent Cheung says, “The law itself testifies that no one can stand righteous before God if judged according to his own effort to follow the law.” The Romans passage shows that the Law was not a failure; we just misunderstood its purpose to reveal sin, silence us accountable before God, and drive us to Christ. And the James passage, which seems to contradict Paul at first glance, is speaking not of the fact of justification, but of the evidence of justification. Therefore, James is saying that works are evidence that a person has been justified by the faith in Christ that Paul asserts as solely sufficient.
V21 ties to v15-16, and Paul shows his passion on this important issue. Vincent Cheung says, “V21 is a condemnation against, not only the attempt to attain righteousness through observing Jewish laws and customs, but any other system of law, ethic, philosophy, or religion… Either Christ’s death is insufficient or unnecessary, or it is impossible to obtain righteousness through the law. To say this another way, one who preaches righteousness through the law is compelled to deny the sufficiency and necessity of Christ’s redemptive work. And by definition, to deny the sufficiency and necessity of Christ makes one a non-Christian. Thus it follows that the Judaizers were in reality non-Christians. They preached a non-gospel, an anti-Christian message. Therefore, having already believed on the gospel of Jesus Christ as preached by Paul, the Galatians had no reason to accept the Judaizers’ message.”
Before some concluding remarks on v17-20, which deserve attention, let’s explore the doctrine of justification by faith a little further. Vincent Cheung says:
“Justification is by faith not in the sense that you can save yourself by your faith; rather, the doctrine teaches that you can do nothing to save yourself, but that you must totally depend on someone else to save you. Therefore, the doctrine is teaching justification not by faith as such or by itself, but it is teaching that justification is by Christ alone. It is Christ who saves you, and not faith itself. Faith has a role because it is Christ who saves you by means of giving you faith in Him (Ephesians 2:8-9; Hebrews 12:2).
Further, the doctrine of justification by faith alone does not imply that we are justified before God because we managed to work up enough faith in and by ourselves to believe in Christ, which is impossible in the first place. Rather, the doctrine contrasts faith against works – which is why it is meaningful to speak of justification by faith in Christ rather than only justification by Christ – emphasizing that we are justified by God through faith apart from works. This faith is itself not a work – that is, not a work of man, but a work of God in man. Faith is a gift of God purchased by Christ for all those whom God has chosen for salvation. It is a gift even though it has been purchased by our Mediator because it is God who sovereignly decreed to save us through this Mediator in the first place. It is God who has sovereignly chosen those whom He would save by His grace through Christ, so that all of salvation is a gift of God – it is a sovereign gift of God, unmerited by man, that at the same time fully satisfies divine justice, since it has been merited by Christ. Thus salvation is from the grace of God alone, through the work of Christ alone, and by means of faith alone (that is, in contrast to works).
Therefore, when discussing the doctrine of justification by faith, we must not portray faith as a condition for salvation that God requires from us, as if we could produce faith in and of ourselves prior to regeneration and apart from the Spirit’s power. So, although it is correct to speak of faith as our necessary response to the gospel, this ‘response’ of faith is in fact one of the very things that Christ’s atonement purchased for His elect, and that God bestows upon His chosen ones by His Spirit. In other words, God is the one who produces this response of faith in His elect. This is another reason why it is incorrect to speak of faith as an inherent power… Salvation comes from God through Christ alone. We cannot boast about our faith, since it is a sovereign gift of God, merited by Christ for the elect.”
Paul refutes hypothetical arguments as we come to the end of chapter 2. According to Kim Riddlebarger, “Paul [offers] a negative assertion of what he does not mean in v17-18 and then…a positive statement of what he does mean in v19-21.” In v18, his point is to say that “the lawbreaker is not the one who turns from the law to Christ for justification; it is the one who turns from Christ back to the law,” for they are fighting against the gospel. And likewise in v19, Paul is saying, “Death to the law does not violate the law, for Christ met the law’s demands. It is therefore ‘through the law’ (Christ’s fulfillment thereof) that believers are released from the bondage and condemnation of the law.”
Finally, v20 gives a challenging yet beautiful image of how every true Christian can be described in their union with Christ. He loved and so He gave Himself. And Paul, united to Christ in that death, now lives through Christ in him. Vincent Cheung says, “Paul is referring to ‘a complete change in his way of looking at all things, a ‘reorientation of thought’, to use modern jargon, which involves a total change of life.’ Christ has replaced the law as his reference and motivation behind all his thinking and behavior.” John Piper says, “There is a new ‘I’ – I do still live. But look who it is. It is no longer an ‘I’ who craves self-reliance or self-confidence or self-direction or self-exaltation. The new ‘I’ looks away from itself and trusts in the Son of God, whose love and power was proved at Calvary. From the moment you wake in the morning till the moment you fall asleep at night, the new ‘I’ of faith despairs of itself and looks to Christ for protection and the motivation, courage, direction, and enablement to walk in joy and peace and righteousness. What a great way to live!”
And obviously, as we noted above, we are saved by grace through faith. But it is the object of our faith that saves, as long as that object is Christ, the God-man, fully divine and fully human, the crucified Christ, the risen Christ. Any professing Christian who denies the full divinity of Christ, the full humanity of Christ, the propitiatory and substitutionary, atoning death of Christ, and the justifying resurrection of Christ is a sham-Christian, a “false brother” from v4.
Cheung concludes his commentary on this passage by saying, “One commentator remarks that if Paul had ended his letter here, he would have already made his point. Indeed, he has answered his opponents regarding his personal history, his relationship with the Jerusalem leaders and their position on the doctrine at issue, his role in the Antioch incident, and the theological reasons for the gospel of justification by divine grace through faith in Christ as opposed to a doctrine of justification by human effort through the works of the law. Relative to the arguments of the Judaizers, it is not necessary for Paul to say more – he has already won by this point. Yet God inspired the apostle to provide additional clarifications and arguments… Subsequent passages will expand on the foundation now established, reinforcing Paul’s doctrine from several perspectives.”
Footnotes
- 2:7 Greek uncircumcised
- 2:7 Greek circumcised; also in verses 8 and 9
- 2:9 Greek Cephas; also in verses 11 and 14
- 2:21 Some interpreters end the quotation after verse 14.
Bible text from Gospelcom.net. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society.