Galatians: A Study of Christian Freedom
Lesson 5: The Unthinkable: What difference does it make?
Scholars debate about whether these next words were part of what Paul said to Peter when he challenged him in Antioch or if they are addressed to the Galatians.
We don’t have to have know with certainty because the answer doesn’t impact the meaning of the words. I think it makes the most sense to see the words as part of Paul’s rebuke to Peter. So, I’m going to treat them as such.
15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;
These words were spoken with tongue-in-cheek irony. While there might be some who would have seen the Gentiles as natural-born sinners while the Jews inevitably held the moral high ground, throughout the Old Testament there is support for the conclusion Paul would make when he wrote to the Romans that “all have sinned.” Of course, some behaved as if the indictment applied to some peoples more than others. While Peter would have never agreed to this assessment of the two groups, his behavior seemed to suggest, “Both Jews and Gentiles are sinners, but the Jews, not so much.”
Doubtless, Peter would have felt the sting of Paul’s irony and saw the folly of his behavior. The entire Jewish sacrificial system, much of the temple complex, the Day of Atonement all stood as reminders that even the Jews didn’t keep the Law.
Of course, Paul understood the Jews had an advantage over the Gentiles: the Law. Gentiles did not have the Law and so it shouldn’t be surprising they were sinners; the Jews had the Law but were still sinners.
Paul’s case is built on the fact that both Peter and Paul already accepted the fact that both Jews and Gentiles were sinners. Paul’s next words show the common need for both Jews and Gentiles to depend upon something beyond their obedience to the Law if they hoped to have a right relationship with God.
16 yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.
Again, Paul knows he is saying nothing Peter doesn’t already know. This serves as one of the fundamental axioms of Paul’s argument to the Galatians. We need to understand it.
For the first time the subject of justification by faith is brought up in this Letter. The term “justification” is of unquestioned importance in the New Testament and in all the history of Christian thought. It comes from the court system and means to be declared “guiltless.” It goes beyond acquittal as we have it in the American court system. In our system, the accused is to be acquitted if guilt cannot be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Though we wouldn’t change that standard, it has sometimes freed the guilty along with the innocent. As Paul and other Christian writers use the term, there is absolutely no doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. We all enter the courtroom guilty. Justification is the Divine Judge’s declaration that the guilty is to be treated as guiltless. Elsewhere, Paul will make clear that this declaration is made possible because of the work of Christ.
This justification by faith is crucial to understanding the appeal of the Gospel. Paul is saying that a person (any person, male or female, Jew or Gentile) does not have a right relationship with God through that person’s obedience to the Law (since that person doesn’t ever obey the Law); failing that, as we all do, a person’s only hope is in being “justified” or treated as righteous. That only happens as a consequence of placing faith or trust in Christ.
In his little commentary on Galatians, John Stott says, “All that is required of us to be justified…is to acknowledge our sin and helplessness, to repent of our years of self-assertion and self righteousness, and to put our whole trust and confidence in Jesus Christ to save us.” Paul Tillich puts it even more simply, “Justification by faith is accepting that we are accepted.”
This is something of a revolution. Right standing with God does not come from what we do but through simple faith in Jesus Christ. That is revolutionary because it runs contrary to what almost everyone thinks. To quote John Stott again:
[Salvation by self-effort] has been the religion of the ordinary man both before [Christ] and since. It is the religion of the man-in-the-street today. Indeed, it is the fundamental principle of every religious and moral system in the world except New Testament Christianity. It is popular because it is flattering. It tells a man that if he will only pull his socks up a bit higher and try a bit harder, he will succeed in winning his own salvation.”
Paul goes on to explore this foundational idea.
And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.
As Paul goes on he reminds Peter that they both have “come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ.” Despite the fact they both came from the people of the Law, they did not depend upon obedience to that Law as the avenue to a right relationship with God. They couldn’t because they were undeniably unable to keep the Law.
There is an implied question here. If the Law as a means to become righteous didn’t work for us, why would we ask the Gentiles to take the same fruitless path?
For Paul, that would end any suggestion that we must add following the Jewish Law to our faith in Christ if we would be justified.
[This may be the point where Paul moves from recalling the encounter in Antioch and begins directly addressing some of the issues facing the Galatian Christians but that’s not necessarily the case and scholars are in disagreement about the matter.]
17 But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant [or advocate] of sin? Certainly not!
This question suggests there was some kind of debate going on about the implications of the Christ-way of salvation. It is an objection that was raised early on in the church and raised again and again: Those who held so tenaciously to the notion of justification by self-effort saw the evangelical message as dangerous. In their minds, the way of grace would open the door to moral chaos, lawlessness, to men and women assuming they may sin without compunction. In their minds this danger was so great it would be better to exclude the notion of grace from our message.
Does the message of grace mean we can and, perhaps, should sin freely just to demonstrate the depth and breadth of God’s acceptance? Paul responds to that in the strongest terms. The King James Version and the earlier Geneva Bible (1599) renders his response as “God forbid.” That’s not a literal translation of Paul’s words and most modern translators use more restrained terms, like “certainly not” or “the accusation is frivolous” but not let that keep you from seeing how scandalous Paul believed the notion to be.
The notion that God’s gracious acceptance is permission to sin reveals a fundamental failure to understand the notion of God’s gracious acceptance.
God’s graciousness prompts us to a new way of living, as Paul will explain.
18 But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor.
Paul offers a kind of “circular” argument but not one that invalidates what he says. More precisely, it is a “vicious circular” argument; a Catch-22 situation.
The legalists argued that abandoning the law makes a person a sinner; Paul argues that returning to the law makes him a sinner. Why? Because the law showed him to be a sinner. His life didn’t measure up to its demands. He needed another way to a right relationship with God. Going back to the law with all its minute demands that he had already failed to keep certainly won’t negate the fact that Paul is a sinner; it will only demonstrate it once again. Nothing will change in going back to the law.
The resolution becomes clearer in the next few verses.
19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ;
What does Paul mean when he says “through the law I died to the law?” To die to the law means the law no longer has any claim on him; he is not obliged to keep that law. Why? Because the demands of the law had been met by Christ, with whom Paul had “been crucified.”
It is a recurring theme in Paul’s thought that the believer is so intimately linked to Christ that the believer may be said to have shared in his death and his resurrection. all the demands of the law were met when Christ died; Christ’s resurrection affirms that.
Paul (who stands for every believer) has no need to “build up” the law-system again because it has no claim on him.
Churches sometimes have “note burnings” when they have paid off a mortgage. Once the mortgage is paid, the bank can no longer demand that monthly payment. The obligation has been met.
As individuals, we have not met the law’s demands. Yet, through our relationship with Christ we may be treated as if we had met that obligation. But there is more.
20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me.
We not only share in Christ’s death, we also share in his resurrection. We have new life through him. The law (or attempting to win God’s favor through obedience to the law) could only result in death because we continually failed to keep its demands. But our relationship with the One who did keep all its demands brings us life.
Why would we want to return to such a death-dealing system? Why would we ask anyone else to do so?
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.
The legalist’s fear that God’s gracious actions on our behalf might lead us to live self-centered, immoral lives reveals a failure to understand God’s gracious actions on our behalf. Knowing that the Son of God “loved you and gave himself for you” inspires you to live for him; it is life on a different plane. The law-way to salvation prompted us to live in a certain way because we hoped to get something out of it; the grace-way to salvation liberates us to order our lives according to a different motive. Instead of living for ourselves we are living for Christ.
When salvation is rooted in grace, ethics can be rooted in gratitude.
With this Paul has responded to those who claim the gospel leads to lawlessness.
21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.
Paul’s final note, whether spoken to Peter or to the Galatians, is sobering. To return to the principle of salvation by works is to “nullify the grace of God,” something Paul refuses to do. Going back to the law would cancel God’s grace.
The very suggestion that we may actually earn salvation through self-effort has unacceptable implications. If we could earn our salvation, “Christ died for nothing.” The cross was unnecessary; his suffering was a tragic mistake, a travesty.
If these words were spoken to Peter, imagine how they must have impacted him. Peter had seen the Savior’s wounded hands and feet, he had certainly heard the story of the crucifixion from John and Mary, now Paul was suggesting his behavior implied that suffering was meaningless, purposeless.
Neither Paul nor Peter could accept that. Nor can we. It would be unthinkable.
OBSERVATIONS
This passage is central to the argument of the whole letter. There might be several observation I could make. Let me make the most important one by citing the words of Martin Luther as he speaks of the significance of justification by faith.
This is the truth of the gospel. It is also the principal article of all Christian doctrine, wherein the knowledge of all godliness consisteth. Most necessary it is, therefore, that we should know this article well, teach it unto others, and beat it into their heads continually. (Quoted by Stott)
I like that because in my years as a pastor I’ve discovered something. Because of our inclination to human pride, because of our cynical tendency to doubt that so great a salvation might be a gift, because of our fear that God might have made a mistake in being so liberal; it is necessary, from time to time, for this doctrine to be re-beaten into our heads—and into our hearts.
Questions for Later
Is is easy or difficult for you to picture God giving you salvation without having done something to earn it?
2. One critic said Christianity is a religion for weaklings because of its emphasis on grace. Why might a person say that? How would you respond? Can you put the idea of justification by faith in your own words?
3. Do you know those who believe God’s grace allows them to live without moral restraint? How do you think Paul would address them?
4. In our culture, the cross is sometimes used as a fashion accessory, even by those who have no particular commitment to Christ. On the other hand, some are incensed when co-workers wear a cross in the workplace to attest their faith. How would first-century Christians have viewed the cross? How do you think early Christians would have responded to the suggestion that the crucifixion was unnecessary?
