In our last segment, we had Paul leave off with the understanding that the apostles, the pillars of the faith, had extended their hand of fellowship to him and Barnabas once he laid out the gospel to them. It was agreed upon that it was the same gospel as Peter’s good news to the Jews, and it came with the same authority as The Twelve. Now, Paul turns to the event which turned into a confrontation between them especially with Peter. This encounter was not because Peter was necessarily preaching falsehood, but for lacking in courage to stand for the gospel without the law. He would not share a meal with the Gentiles out of fear of the Jews. These Judaizers were quite adamant that this could create a bad influence upon their testimony and ultimately be unlawful (Acts 10:28)[1] especially by sharing a meal with those Gentiles who’d not received the circumcision.
The Text
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, 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; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (Galatians 2:11-21)
Paul travelled to Antioch where Paul was residing at the time. There is no time indicators like in 1:18 or 2:1 etc. and so we are unsure of the timing. It in all probability happened before the Jerusalem Council but after the journey to Jerusalem in Acts 11.
An Apostolic Face Off
Paul reveals that he opposed him to his face. The term “opposed” (ανφιστημι) can be sometimes translated as “resist” or “withstand” but in this context is defining a face-off or confrontation. Peter wasn’t manifesting his actions in a backroom but publicly and in return, he needed to be challenged publicly.
The reason for Paul’s approach is going to be expanded upon in the following verses summarizes in this verse through the expression “he stood condemned”. But who condemned Peter? Was it God? Paul? himself? The term “condemned” is used in 1 John 3:20-3:21 and related to a person’s own heart condemning them and I believe this is the case in this expression also.
This leads us to another important question: Why focus upon Peter and not the other Jews or Barnabas? They all seemed in on polluting the gospel’s core message. It could be for several reasons, either because of Peter’s prominence, whether he should have known better than the others after having actually walked with the Lord or that the false teachers were giving a different version of this encounter in which Paul corrects.
The Social Chameleon
His condemnation is laid bare in that he, unlike Paul, cared about the opinion of men. While in Antioch, the elder apostle would eat at the table with the Gentiles in fellowship and treating them as equals. Peter had been sharing a meal with Gentiles in an ongoing process. When Judaizers, who were “from James” came to visit Antioch, Peter withdrew himself from that routine. It is challenging to determine who these men from James were. In what sense were these men associated with James? There are two options that most commentators assign to its meaning. The first is that they were representative of James and were conveying his message, while the 2nd is that they only alleged to have represented the Jerusalem apostle[2].
The other factor was that Peter feared those of the circumcision. This is generally how Paul and others identify Judaizers (Acts 10:45; 11:2; Romans 4:12; Colossians 4:11; Titus 1:10). Those men from James and those of the circumcision are not necessarily the same group. Many commentators believe that those of James were perhaps trying to steer clear of any animosity from those who were of Jewish ancestry because it might affect their gospel message in Jerusalem to the Jews. These men of the circumcision (possibly Zealots) were those who were trying to protect their Jewish ancestry (Acts 21:20-24). Paul wouldn’t let that happen because it would demean the Gentiles.
What was the most condemning part of Peter’s actions was that he bore even more responsibility than most in light of the fact that he’d had a vision from the Lord about this very thing (Acts 10).
Group Hypocrisy
But Peter wasn’t alone in his refrain. He was joined by the rest of the Jews, and even Paul’s travel companion Barnabas fell into this act. But in what sense were they hypocrites as Paul states? The term “hypocrisy” here essentially means to “play the part” and could indicate the fact that Peter was going against his convictions in his understanding of the status of the Gentiles in order to please the Jews who had visited the city.
To Live Like A Jew
Paul now describes his challenging Peter in more detail. Not only was the encounter with him “face-to-face” (v.11) but it was also public (in the presence of all). His public actions of treating the Gentiles like second class citizens of the Kingdom would be addressed openly. Paul describes them as “not straightforward about the truth of the gospel”. The ESV better translates this as: But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel. Paul will explain the truth of the gospel in vs. 15-21. Peter, Barnabas and the other Jews’ attitude towards the Gentiles could have persuaded them that they needed to be circumcised and follow the law to be able to be at equal par with their Jewish counterparts socially. If the Gentile had truly believed the gospel, then he had his sins washed away by the blood of the lamb, and in return, was not unclean at all (and especially not under the law) and in no way were they inferior to the Jews.
His words to Peter are related in his statement: “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? This is a similar point that Peter made in Acts 10:28:
And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.
His encounter with Cornelius demonstrates that Peter knew better. Peter was a Jew by nature yet had lived as a Gentile in that he had previously shared a meal with them yet now; by refusing to eat with the Gentiles, he was compelling the Gentiles to become Jews by his actions. He could only eat with them if they became Jews, and to do so, they needed to be circumcised and obey the legal requirements of the Torah to fit in that category.
Born A Sinner
Then, Paul continues describing his confrontation with Peter by stating that “we are Jews by nature (by birth), and not sinners from among the Gentiles”. This may have been a sarcastic point where Paul is contrasting the natural Jew from the sinner who is born a Gentile. The term “sinner” here is probably from the perspective of these Jews who refused to eat with the Gentiles because they were “unclean”.
Knowing Better
But, in contrast, Peter knew the message of Christ in that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Christ Jesus.
As Douglas Moo points out:
He is not arguing that Gentiles should be included, with Jews, in the people of God; he is arguing, rather, that Jews should be included, with Gentiles, in the mass of ordinary humanity. Jews are sinners just like the Gentiles, with the radical implication that follows: their obedience to the covenant stipulations cannot put them right with God; only a total reliance on Christ, by faith, can do so[3].
The often-overlooked term “knowing” demonstrates that not only Paul knew the truth of Justification by faith alone, but so did Peter. The idea of being justified is to be legally declared righteousness and the basis of this declaration is upon faith in Jesus Christ. Paul’s emphasis is that Peter, Barnabas and the Christians of Jewish descent have attained this knowledge. It wasn’t because of their works in fulfilling the Torah that placed them in this position. So, the Gentiles are seen before God as justified in His sight, since Paul uses the term “man”, (not Jew or Gentile) to show the universality of this theological reality.
Are we not supposed to be doers of the law?
I want to pause for a moment to address an objection that generally is appealed to when interpreting these verses. In Romans 2:13, we read that: it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. James has a similar message in his epistle (James 4:11). In this passage in Romans, however, Paul is spelling out the condemnation of those who are trying to justify themselves through the law (v.12). Paul will state in 3:20,28 that one cannot be justified by the law. So, the doers of the law in the Romans passage is Paul using their own standard to communicate that they can’t do it on their own. It takes more than just knowledge of the law or receiving the rightness of the law, but ultimately, they need to adhere to every single letter of it perfectly.
Self-Binding Obligor
Earlier in v.15, Paul states that “we are jews by nature and not sinner among the Gentiles. Now, he will build upon that by stating that they found themselves, while seeking to be justified in Christ, as sinners. They were just as much sinners as the Gentiles! Paul begs the question; Is Christ then a minister of sin? Does Christ administer sin if it is by faith in Him? If the Torah is God’s standard of righteousness, and we are justified without it, does that make Christ a servant of sin? Paul responds with “God forbid” or “may it never be”.
In v.18, he explains why. Because if one rebuilds (reinstitutes the law) in his life, which he had abandoned for the sake of being justified by faith, then he is a transgressor. It is not the one who has faith in Christ who is the sinner, but the sinner (transgressor) is the one who abandons faith alone and returns to the legal requirements of the law to be seen before God as justified. But not only this, perhaps it was also those legal requirements that separated the Jews from the Gentiles. Moo makes an interesting observation that the term “prove” (συνιστημι) refers to something seen by an action[4]. This is perhaps referring to his relationship with the Gentiles in refraining from them at the table while the Jews were around. It wasn’t Christ leading them as a servant into sin, but they were leading themselves.
Dead Man’s Law
The following expression, for through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God, much like the previous verse, is challenging to understand. What Paul is saying here is that through the law he died to the law. The law brings a man to the point of death and once dead, he is no longer under the law. The language is very much based upon resurrection theme where one dies and then lives to God. Paul elsewhere points out this idea:
And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 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. (2 Corinthians 3:4-6)
Reborn in Freedom
So, Paul is no longer bound by the requirements of the law since he has been reborn. There is a different relationship that occurs to the law. When Paul came to Christ, that was the end of his curse of the law (Romans 7:4-6). He has been freed from it all! The law in of itself wasn’t a bad thing (Galatians 5:14) because it spells out God’s righteous standard, but it also points out our sinfulness and how we cannot live up to that righteousness. We need to live to God in another way. The way of the Spirit that was sent by Christ at His ascension.
Now, in v.20, Paul gives the ultimate answer to his statement in v.19 in one of the most beautiful scriptural passages in all the bible. His freedom from the law is based upon his unity in the death of Jesus Christ. Paul states that he had been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me. Paul was not physically crucified with Christ, but his old spiritual self was put to death as we see in Romans 6:6: knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. Death was the only way to get out of a covenant obligation and if Paul had truly died, then the obligations that came from his circumcision and faithfulness to the Torah were wiped away. Later the apostle will continue on this theme describing what it means to be crucified with Christ. He states: And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Galatians 5:24) and But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world (Galatians 6:14).
This death however is not meant to be an end. Death in scripture is meant to convey a separation. There is no link anymore to the law in the sense of its demands. The believer in Jesus however is still required to live. He/She does so in living by faith because Christ lives within us. Paul elsewhere conveys this idea:
And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. (Romans 8:10)
The verb “alive” is used four time and all in the present tense which means that it was a present reality for them. They weren’t meant to die again and again but brought to life once and for all by their faith in Jesus Christ. Christ residing in us is probably a reference to His Spirit that dwells within a believer. We are the temples of the living God!
Christ gave Himself on our behalf is the idea of substitution. Failing to meet God’s standard of righteousness required that an individual meet the penalty for his sins for missing the standard. Christ’s perfection was what they needed and in light of this, God sent Jesus to take their place and in return die in that way. There is a hint of the idea of sacrifice here. He personally gave Himself up. He willingly sacrificed Himself for the sake of sinners and, as Paul reiterates in Colossians: having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross (Colossians 2:14).
An Unnecessary Death?
In v.21, Paul explains that his own experience demonstrates that he is not nullifying the grace of God. If Paul is living a life that is interlinked with God’s grace in the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, unlike the Judaizers who mingled in the law. This is precisely the point of the last part of the verse. If justification comes through the law, then Christ died in vain. There is no need for a sacrifice, just human effort of obedience. The proof that the law couldn’t save is in the fact that Christ died. This is, in a sense, a call to stop trying to justify themselves through the law (Galatians 5:4).
An Exhortation
Paul stands in these passages as a vivid example of our calling to guard the gospel with unwavering resolve. Even when peace is desirable—and Scripture certainly commends peace—we are never permitted to preserve peace at the expense of truth. When the message of Christ is distorted, diluted, or redefined, we are obligated to confront that corruption, no matter who is responsible for it.
The gospel that Jesus Christ died for sinners and that all who believe in Him will be saved must remain untouched. We cannot surrender even the smallest portion of this message—neither to the softening influence of universalism nor to the subtle pressure to add human effort to divine grace. The gospel is neither to be reduced nor expanded; it is to be proclaimed as God has given it.
And Paul reminds us of that fidelity to the gospel sometimes requires standing firm even when respected leaders, influential voices, or established authorities have compromised. Approval from those in high positions does not sanctify a false message. Our allegiance is to the truth of Christ, and when that truth is threatened, we must stand our ground with the same courage and clarity Paul displayed.
[1] See Moo Page 142 for two ancient examples that shows the mindset of the Jews in regard to contact with Gentiles.
[2] As Douglas Moo points out, James was certainly clear in affirming the status of Gentiles and including them in the church without circumcision (Acts 15). He could have fallen into the trap, like Peter and Barnabas, of their version on how a Jewish believer was to interact with a non-Jewish believer who they may have seen as impure because of their lack of circumcision, and they were putting barriers between them. (Moo Page 147)
[3] Galatians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Douglas Moo, Baker Academics, 2013, Page 157
[4] IBID P. 166