Now, in this passage, for those
on the tapes, chapter 2 of Galatians, verse 11 and following, and our
subject, Paul confronting the apostle Peter. Here's our text. Watch as we read. But when Peter
was come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face because he was
to be blamed. But before that certain came
from James, he did eat with the Gentiles. But when they were
come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were
of the circumcision. And the other Jews distembled
likewise with him, inasmuch that Barnabas also was carried away
with their dissimulation. When I saw that they walked not
uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter
before all, if you, being a Jew, lived after the manner of Gentiles
and not as do the Jews, why compelest thou the Gentiles to live as
do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature and
not sinners of the Gentile, knowing that a man is not justified by
the works of the law, But by the faith of Jesus Christ, even
we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by
the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law. For by the works of the law shall
no flesh be justified. But if while we seek to be justified
by Christ, we ourselves also or found sinners. Is therefore
Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again
the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I, through the law, am dead
to the law that I might live unto God. I am crucified with
Christ. Nevertheless, I live. Yet not I, but Christ liveth
in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by
the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself
for me. I do not frustrate the grace
of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ
is dead in vain. Now Paul said that he confronted
Peter because he was to be blamed. Now let's work our way under
that this morning. This is a very interesting and
unusual passage of the scripture in that we find one apostle of
the Lord refuking and facing and confronting another apostle
of the Lord. And I might add that neither
one of these were what we might call low level. or unknown apostle. But both
of them were leading apostle of our blessed Lord according
to their calling and to their ministry. One of them toward
the Gentile principally, the other toward the Jew principally. One an apostle from the beginning
of the Lord's ministry and had been with him, accompanied with
him all of that time. and the other describes himself
as one that was born out of due time. Now, we will want this
morning to consider such questions as these. What caused Paul to
confront and speak to Peter in this manner? What had Peter done? What had Paul seen or perceived
that Peter needed this correction? What was the issue that was at
stake in the action of Peter and the rebuke of Paul? What
were the implications of the behavior of Simon Peter on this
occasion in Antioch? Or is Paul just trying to build
up himself with a large ego? Knowing Paul, we don't charge
that upon him. Now before we come to all of
that, let's get our contextual bearing concerning the flow of
thought of this Galatian epistle, and how it is that our present
text fits in to the overall message of the epistle. Because we notice
something in verse 11, and that is the word far or but. for or but Peter did act in a
certain way. And that gives verse 11 and following
some relation, some connection to what has gone before, and
some example, some point that is to be made, some contract,
or some expansion upon the record that Paul is writing. Now the
Galatian epistle, have you noticed it, is different from Paul's
other epistle in one certain way, and that is usually there
is a warm opening invitation from the Apostle Paul, a combination
of some sort. or the other, a blessing, a wishing
them well, that he's praying for them, and that he does so
all of the time. And he calls them other saints,
or sanctified, or the elect, or the chosen in the Lord Jesus
Christ. He doesn't do that here in the
Galatian epistle. He begins to very quickly come
to the issue, and that is to defend concerning himself two
things. Number one, his apostleship,
and number two, the gospel that he had preached among them. And his gospel in chapter one,
verse 11 and 12. that the gospel that he had preached
was not of human origin. He received it not from men,
not from the school, not from the seminary, but by direct revelation
from the Lord Jesus Christ. And in Paul's condition, these
two things, his apostleship and his gospel, stand or fall together. If one of them can be diminished,
so then can the other. Now, Paul would explain something. As for his being called a traitor
and turning on Moses by his fellow Jew, he says that of his change
from Judaism under Christianity. He discusses that in chapter
1 verse 13 through verse 16. His persecution of the Christian
church was well known. He had been an enemy of of the
church. The church was well known that
he persecuted it and that he was a fanatic follower of Judaism
and practiced the Pharisee religion. And in that, he excelled his
peers. Those his own age, he outstripped
them and was far ahead of them, living as a strict Pharisee until
his encounter with the Lord. He had fought against Christ
with all of his might and all of his energy, being zealous
of the tradition of the fathers and of Judaism. But he said in
verse 15 of chapter one, God called me by his grace and he
revealed his son in me that I might preach him among the heathen. In other words, he would never
have made the change. except for the work, the power,
and the providence of God in his very life. But God had called
him, and that, he said, from his mother's womb. And if you
look in the end of verse 16 of chapter 1, I did not immediately
confer with flesh and blood. When that occurred, when Christ
encountered me, I did not confer immediately with flesh and blood. Verse 17, neither did I go up
to Jerusalem to them that had been apostles already. But I went into Arabia. In verse 18, he had made a short
visit to Jerusalem, and on that visit, he had seen Peter and
he had seen James. When we come over into chapter
2, In verse 1 through verse 10, he tells of another later visit
to the city of Jerusalem. And on that occasion, he had
with him Barnabas and he had with him Titus, who was identified
as a Greek, that is, as a Gentile, a full Gentile, and an uncircumcised
one at that. And he relates two things about
his visit to Jerusalem on this occasion. Number one, in verse
1 through 5 of the second chapter, he refused to have Titus circumcised
because in verse 5, a principle of the gospel was at stake in
the circumcising of the Gentile Titus. And he called the antagonist
spy. spies who have come to spy out
our liberty that we have in Jesus Christ. But he stood fast against
them in the case of Titus and would not, therefore, that he
go under the knife. And that for the sake and the
truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ that it might remain. Then, in verse 6 to verse 10
of chapter 2, he tells of his experience with the Jerusalem
apostle. Those who, verse 6, seem to be
somewhat. It appeared that they were leaders
and outstanding men. in that James and Peter and John
are mentioned by name by the apostle and back in verse 2 them
of reputation they seem to have a higher reputation and so I
when he said to Jerusalem by revelation and hear this I communicated
to them I laid out before them I explained to them, I set forth
in the hearing very clearly the gospel which I was preaching
among the Gentiles." Now it seems from the second verse of chapter
two that he did this in a private conference with those who seem
to be somewhat and who seem to be pillars. And we see the reason
that he gives also in the second verse. Why would he do that?
Go to those apostles if he was not dependent upon them, if they
were not his mentors or his instructor. And he said this, lest I should
run or had run in vain. should those pillars and men
who seem to be somewhat opposing and stand opposing to the gospel
that he had preached, it would add to his difficulty as to his
ministry among the Gentile where he preached. So, if he had the
support of them in Jerusalem, particularly the leaders Peter
and James and John, and he did, they did not oppose him. And
Paul claims out of this a two-fold victory for his cause, for his
work, and his ministry. Number one, he said, in that
conference with them, who seemed to be somewhat and pilous, they
added nothing to me. They added nothing unto me at
all. Verse six, those who seemed to
be somewhat added nothing in conference, nothing to me. He
received nothing new concerning God or the gospel or the revelation. They gave no additional instruction
or a revelation unto him. Even these honored leaders did
not do that. They added nothing to Paul. Further
confirming Paul's claim in verse 11 and 12 of chapter 1. that the gospel that he preached
was not after man or from man. but that it was a revelation
of or from the Lord Jesus Christ. And he emphasizes again the high
place that they held in the Jerusalem church or assembly. And another
thing, though Paul does not insist on it, as they added nothing
to him, so they subtracted nothing. took nothing away from the gospel
that he was preaching. Now the second thing is, they
endorsed the ministry of the Apostle Paul among the Gentiles. Verse 7, when they saw that the
gospel was committed unto me. Again in verse 9, They perceived
the grace that was given unto me. And also in the ninth verse
of chapter two, they gave unto us the right hand of Christian
fellowship, a sign of blessing. and agreement, and brotherhood,
and such like. And they endorsed the gospel
that Paul was preaching there among the Gentiles. And if I
might, let me read verse 7 through verse 9 again of chapter 2. Contrary-wise, when they saw
that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me as the
gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter. For he that wrought
affectionately in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision,
the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles. And when James,
Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the
grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas
the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the heathen
and they unto the Gentile." Now, with that in mind, let's not
err here, for some have made an error here, as if there were
two different gospels, one for the Jew and the other for the
Gentile. So let's not err in thinking
either apostle was confined to preaching only to one group and
not unto the other. For the gospel is the power of
God unto salvation to the Jew and also unto the Greek. Romans 1, 16 and 17. So Paul preached to a mixture
of Jew and Gentile in the synagogue in particular places. And let's
not forget, it was Peter that actually opened the door of the
gospel to the Gentile, to the house of Cornelius, in the 10th
chapter of the Book of Acts. It is that their respective labors
were blessed by God. Peter's principally among the
Jew, Paul's principally among the Gentile. J.B. Lightfoot said
of these two gospels, they refer not to a difference in type,
but to a difference in sphere, one among the Jew and the other
among the Gentile, that their spheres of labor were to be carried
on in their separate fields that God had called him to. Now, beginning at verse 11 that
we read this morning, Paul tells us of an incident that occurred
at Antioch when he confronted the Apostle Peter to his face
and that personally in verse 11 and publicly in verse 14 before
all of them that were assembled. These two great giants of early
Christianity, one verbally chastising and exhorting the other. the
younger rebuking the elder, in this case, as it was. So let's
consider these two men for a moment, if we might. Let's look at their
resume with regard to their Christian work and calling, their qualification,
if we might. Peter, called by the Lord personally,
personally the Lord in the flesh. He covenanted our Lord for the
three years or so of his ministry in the world. He was a convert
before Paul was ever called. He was an old apostle, if I may
use the term, And he saw the many miracles, the great works. and heard the wonderful teaching
of our Lord. It was Peter that made what I
think is the most outstanding confession in the New Testament. And you find that in Matthew
chapter 16 and verse 16, and again in John chapter 6, verse
68 and 69. He made it by revelation, thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Not only that, but
Peter saw the transfiguration of our Lord. And Peter raced
to the empty tomb and saw no body but the grave cloths laying
by. Not only that, but in that passage
in Matthew chapter 16, the Lord gave unto him the keys of the
kingdom of God as it is put. Now with that in mind, It was
Peter who guided the Jew through Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. It was Peter that was sent down
to the house of Cornelius in Acts chapter 10 to preach to
the Gentile. Not Paul, though he was already
called and converted, but it was Peter. Not only that, but
Peter stood in Acts 1 and he saw the Lord ascend out of their
sight and into heaven again. Pretty impressive resume on the
part of the Apostle Peter. Yet no evidence in the scripture
at all that Peter was either a Pope or that he was ever in
the city of Rome. And yet here is one receiving
end of a very strong admonition from a fellow apostle and that
in public before the other people assembled there. Now, let's notice
now where it happened. It happened not in Jerusalem,
where principally Jews worship, but it happened in Antioch in
verse 11. Peter came. Why, I cannot tell
you. But he came to pay a visit to
the church at Antioch. Now please understand, there
are two Antiochs in the New Testament. Two Antiochs where the gospel
was preached and believers were made. There is that Antioch up
in Pisidia, the region of Pisidia, and you find that in Acts chapter
13 where Paul was there. Then there is this Antioch, Antioch
in Syria. In fact, it was the largest city
in that region and was also the capital city of that region. It had a very diverse population,
nationalities of all kind were there in that city, and it had
a strong Jewish community, I believe they call it today, that dwell
there, and a synagogue. And there was a good and a strong
Christian church that was there because some Jews who fled Jerusalem
under the persecution of Stephen went as far as Antioch, Acts
11 and verse 19. and they preached the gospel
exclusively unto the Jew, they that fled out of Jerusalem. Then some Jews began to preach
the gospel unto the Gentiles there in chapter 11 and verse
20 of Acts. And then the church at Jerusalem
heard about Antioch and they sent Barnabas down in Acts chapter
11 and verse 22. Then Barnabas left for a while
and went and found Saul and fetched him to Antioch that he might
minister there among them. Acts 11 verse 25 and verse 26. And then came prophets from Jerusalem
to Antioch, chapter 11, verse 27 of Acts, and the church was
well stocked or supplied with Christian ministers. It had very
talented and inspired teachers to teach the gospel and to minister
unto them. And in this place, In Antioch,
Jew and Gentile were worshiping together in harmony and in peace
for a time. And then let me say something
else about this Antioch. Because it was here at Antioch
that two or three first were first discovered are practiced
in this place. A, we read that the disciples
were called Christians first at Antioch, first in this city
and in this church. The followers of Christ began
to be referred to as Christian. Acts 11 and verse 26. By whom, whether born, whether
they gave themselves that name, or whether it was put or attached
to them by the outside, we do not know. Whether complimentary
or derisive, we do not know. But they were called Christian
there in that first place. Also be, it was here, that Saul
first began to be referred to as Paul in this place and time. And then, see, from here went
out what we now call missionary. And the first missionaries were
sent out from this church at Antioch. And Paul left here three
times on three missionary journeys. This was kind of his home church. And he left for his missionary
tours from Antioch. twice returning, the third time,
you remember, making his way unto Jerusalem. Now, the question,
why did Paul withstand Peter? It must have been a humiliating
experience, perhaps embarrassing for the Apostle Peter, who was
a pillar and somewhat in the church in Jerusalem. Why in verse
11 did he therefore withstand him? Listen to Paul. I withstood
him to his face because he was to be blamed. Now, this might
be too weak of a word to express it, for many commentators agree
that it means that Peter was condemned, not just to be blamed,
but Peter was condemned by the action that he took. Not condemned
out of grace, of course. not condemned out of salvation,
but guilty for the way in which he behaved. And they say also
that the tense here is he had been condemned. Some see it as
self-condemned because of the thing that he had done. Then
the question again comes back unto it. What had Cephas done? What did he do? What action did
he take? that Paul looked at it and could
not let it pass. What did Paul see? That he felt
that he must speak out about it for the sake of the church,
its purity sounded, and the gospel. That he dared not keep silent
and let it pass by. Verse 14, that was not upright
and according to the truth of the gospel. What he saw was that. It was not according to the uprightness
of the gospel. It violated the truth and the
spirit of the gospel that that church was established on. What was Peter's transgression
Therefore, let's look at it in verse 12 and read it again. For before that certain Jews,
for before that certain came from James, he did eat with the
Gentiles. But when they were come, he withdrew
and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. Now here we have a before and
after in connection with Peter. Before some Jews, and they were
Jews, that came from James in Jerusalem, Peter was quite friendly
and close with the Gentiles in Antioch. He did eat and he did
fellowship with them and that very freely. He disregarded any
distinction that there had been with regard unto the Gentile. He disregarded the distinction
about foods and drink and eat and meet and such like. And he
also disregarded their nationality, that they were Gentiles. He learned that in his vision
in Acts chapter 10 verse 9 through 15. And also in verse 28 of that
chapter, he ate a ham sandwich with the Gentiles here in Antioch,
putting no difference between the Jew and the Gentile in the
Lord Jesus Christ. It was a thing he endorsed in
the council in the 15th chapter of Acts. He also approved of
the gospel that Paul preached among the Gentiles in Galatians
2, 7 through 9, as had James, another leader, in Acts 15 and
at verse 13 through 21. Now Peter called the law an unbearable yoke in Acts 15
and verse 10. Why put we an unbearable yoke
on the Gentiles which neither we nor our fathers were able
to bear? But after the Jerusalem Jews
arrived, Peter ceased fellowship with the Gentiles in the church
at Antioch. He withdrew from freely mingling
and fellowshipping with them and drew aside. Probably had
been eating with them as well, maybe in their private home.
In full and free fellowship, in the Lord, perhaps taking the
Lord's supper together with them too in the church at Antioch. Now he began to snub them and
to withdraw and have nothing to do with them. And what motivated
the apostle to act like that? What brought him to take that
action totally contrary from his former manner of fellowship
with them? Verse 12, the last part. Fearing
them which were of the circumcision, that's Jews, I guess you know. Fear of the visiting Jews from
Jerusalem. We wonder, therefore, that Peter
took such a decided action. Did they revive the old prejudices
again against the Gentile that the Jews had no dealing with
other non-Jew people. John 4, 9 and Acts 10, 28, that
Gentiles were unclean. They were great sinners. They
had been idolaters. And worst of all, they were uncircumcised
in the flesh. This charge once laid against
Peter. You remember in Acts 11 and verse 3, after he had been
to the house of Carnelian, some Jews and Pharisees confronted
him about his action. And they said this, you went
into men uncircumcised and did eat with them. And they faulted
Peter for that. Consider a charge brought against
our Lord of like manner. You'll find it in Luke 15 and
verse 2. This man receives sinners and
eats with them, they said of our Lord. And so when those Jews
came and began to look it over in all their smugness, Looking
it out, Peter began to withdraw and he separated himself from
the Gentile brethren that were there. And Paul notes in our
text the ripple effect that this had throughout the church. Peter's
action, an example. Other Jews in the Antioch assembly
followed his lead and did the same. Also ceasing communion
with their Gentile brethren that they formerly had been in harmony
with. Ending fellowship with them. Nor is that all, verse 13, and
the last part, look, insomuch so that to the extent even Barnabas
Even Barnabas was swept up in their dissimulation. Even, which
can signify that the thing is out of the ordinary, out of the,
even Barnabas, and produces an effect. Even Barnabas began to
dissemble from them and separate himself and to dissuade. The word means hypocrisy, I understand. Paul uses the word to describe
a stage player here, their dissimulation. who uses dialogue, uses pretense,
speaks feigned words which are not really real. They're just
rehearsed and like a player on the stage. But here it is, and
it must have cut Paul to the heart. Even Barnabas. Barnabas was the one who went
and got Paul and brought him to Antioch to be a teacher there
among the church, Acts 11, 25 and 26. It was him who had stood
with Paul against the circumcision of Titus in Galatians 2, 1 through
5. Even Barnabas. who in Acts 11 and verse 24 is
described, and I quote, a good man, full of the Holy Spirit
and of faith, and much people were added to the Lord, unquote,
under the ministry of Barnabas. A good man, full of faith, successful
in his ministry. So Paul must act. A cancer has broken out in the
church. And so in verse 14 he said, when
I saw, when I beheld, when I discerned that they walk not uprightly
according to the truth of the gospel. Now this right here strikes
at the very heart of the matter. This is what it's all about.
A principle of the gospel is being violated in the behavior
of Peter, the other Jew, and even of Barnabas. What they were
doing, they, for he includes all three that are mentioned
by name, Peter, the Antiochian Jew, and those from Jerusalem. What they did was a direct violation
of the gospel of the grace of God. How? We'll see if we can
figure it out. Lightfoot called it an abandonment
of the true principle of the gospel Now the word uprightly,
as it is translated in the King James Version, or literally,
to walk in a straight path, is its meaning. I saw that they
did not walk in a straight path. They did not walk straightly
with regard unto the gospel. They did not progress to the
truth as it is in the gospel. And Peter, who once denied the
Lord. now denies the gospel, both from
which our Lord in mercy recovered him. Paul takes it to be a violation
of the gospel. Now we must ask, how so? How was this dissimilation or
hypocrisy a violation of the gospel? Now, Methinks that Paul
will make it clear in the following verses. That it involved the
great principle of justification by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And it would bring the Gentiles
under the ceremonial law if followed to its ultimate conclusion. For one cannot be partly under
the law. One cannot be part under and
part out. Part in law and part in grace. As Paul would show in chapter
5, verse 2 through 3, that anyone who gets himself circumcised
as a means of gaining justification before the Lord God will find
two determinant or detrimental things. Number one, he's a debtor
to keep, quote, the whole law. Take part of it, assume part
of it, you become a debtor to keep the whole law. Galatians
5 and verse 3, that if he keeps the whole law, And yet offends
or stumbles in one point, he's guilty of all. James chapter
2 and verse 10. Keep the law in all points except
one and be guilty of it all. As stated in Galatians chapter
3 and verse 10, as many as are of the works of the law are under
the curse as it is written. Cursed is everyone who continueth
not in all things that are written in the book of the law." Paul
quotes that. from Deuteronomy chapter 27 and
verse 26. Cursed is everyone that continues
not in all of the law. So let's restate what the Apostle
Peter did in verse 12. He cut off communion and fellowship
with a Gentile when outside Jews from Jerusalem came in. and others followed his example,
and I think I can safely say, to the wounding of the conscience
and the feeling of the Gentile brethren. And how did Paul see
that? Well, look at verse 14. As a
deviation from the truth of the Gospel. When I saw that they
walked not uprightly, they did not act, they did not live, then
in verse 14 and the last part, I said unto Peter before all. If we might, let's read again
the last half of verse 14. If thou, being a Jew, lived after
the manner of the Gentile, and not as do the Jew, why compelst
thou the Gentile to live then as do the Jew? Let me give you
an expanded paraphrase of that statement from J. B. Lightfoot. Quote, I remonstrated
with Cephas, publicly saying, you being a born, bred, raised
Jew, lay aside the Jewish custom and lived as a Gentile, ate what
they ate, disregarding the dietary laws, upon what ground then Do
you constrain the Gentile to adopt the institution of the
Jews?" Here's what Peter was guilty of. So let's expand upon
Peter as Paul says, living as a Gentile. You lived as a Gentile. You ate with them. You made no
distinction in their nationality. You fellowshiped with them freely.
You lived as a Gentile. I take you back again to his
vision in Joppa. He's up on the housetop waiting
for the ladies to get supper ready. He's hungry. And he's
up on the housetop in Joppa. Acts chapter 10, verse 9 through
17. And he fell into an ecstatic
trance there on the rooftop. And he saw a great sheet let
down out of heaven, held by four corners. And in that sheet were
all manner of unclean beasts, all manner and all sort. And
a voice out of heaven said to him, Peter, arise, slay, and
eat. And he remembers protest, Lord,
Nothing common or unclean have I ever eaten, even though at
the time he was very hungry. And the sheet came down again
and then it went away. And the scripture said in Acts
10, 17, Peter was perplexed about that. He didn't know what to
make of it. He didn't know what it all meant,
but he learned the meaning of the lesson of the vision when
he got to the house of Cornelius in Caesarea. There his eyes were
opened. where were gathered a large number
of Gentiles, Acts 10, 24 through 28, ready to hear, eager to hear.
Come in, preach, tell us what must we do. And as Peter tells
them in verse 20 of that chapter, he said, you know, it's not lawful
for me, being a Jew, to go into people of another nation or to
eat with them, but God showed me that I should call no man
common." He learned that lesson in Acts chapter 10 and verse
34 and 35. I want to turn there and read
it if you would. Peter at Cornelius' house, he
opened his mouth, Acts 10, 34. and said, of a truth I perceive
that God is no respecter of person. But in every nation, he that
fears him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him. And Peter preached, the Holy
Spirit fell, and Peter suggested they be baptized. And he oversaw
their baptism. But then at Antioch, when Jews
came from Jerusalem, he drew back and shut off his fellowship. So here, Paul, if you would,
in Galatians 2, 15 and 16, and this is something for us to do
our best to understand if we can. Galatians chapter 2 and
verses 14 and 15 and 16, I'm sorry. We who are Jews by nature, not
sinners of the Gentile. In other words, the question
is, we Jews, what have we done? And verse 16, knowing that a
man is not justified by faith, by works of the law, but by the
faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ,
that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, not by the
works of the law, for by the works of the law shall no flesh
be justified in his sight. What's he saying? We, Peter,
you and I, and Jews, we have abandoned the law in our search
for justification, we have fled to and embraced the Lord Jesus
Christ. By faith, not by the law, are
we justified. Now look at verse 17. It's a
very difficult verse for me. I still don't fully understand
what to make of it, but it's difficult, but I'm persuaded
that it is relevant to the conduct of Peter and that it is a part
of Paul's rebuke. Does believing on Christ still
leave us sinners? Does abandoning the law still
put us in the class of the Gentile? If we abandon the law, does that
make us ungodly like the Gentile? Whatever be Paul's meaning, his
answer is, God forbid. Does this make Christ a minister
of sin? What we have done, God forbid. Verse 18 is connected to verse
17 by the word for. For if I build again the things
that I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. Notice something. Paul has been speaking in the
plural, we, we, we Jew. Now he begins to speak in the
first person singular, I. And Methinks that Gil was right,
that the words regard Peter and his conduct, and by Peter, by
his conduct, was building up again what he had been instrumental
in tearing down. That middle wall, a partition.
in Ephesians 2, 14, and 16, the ceremonial law, the enmity between
the Jew and the Gentile again, the carnal ordinances brought
back before them again, the old covenant reliance upon works
and law keeping, giving Phariseeism a new life, and a new breath,
self-righteousness arising out of these actions, and most of
all, most of all, impugning free justification by the faith of
the Lord Jesus Christ. What really was at issue here
and at stake is this. For his actions could be taken,
Peter's actions, could be taken to mean that the old law keeping
was a necessary part of justification and salvation. Look at verse
19. Paul said, I through the law
am dead to the law that I might live unto God. Not just dead
to the law as by the body of Christ as in Romans chapter 7
and verse 4, but by the law I'm dead to the law. And that makes
us scratch our head. Our death to the law is said
to be by the body of Christ in Roman, by his death, by his bearing
our sin in his dying, by his being the curse of the law. But
then Paul goes on in verse 20 of Galatians 2, I am crucified
with Christ, not literally, But he wasn't nailed literally to
a cross, but mystically, Paul was crucified with the Lord Jesus
Christ. Spiritually, the death of Christ
to sin was the death of Paul unto sin. I do not set aside,
I do not nullify, says Paul, the grace of God, for if righteousness
come by the law, Christ is dead in vain, says verse 21 of Galatians
chapter 2. I do not frustrate I do not know,
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness
comes by the law, Christ has died for nothing. If justification
can be had by keeping the law, why then has Christ died? And I'll just close, running
a little bit late. Much today of Christendom is guilty of exactly
what Peter practiced in that particular place. By that I mean
adding something to Christ. Adding something in addition
to Christ. Oh yes, believe on Christ. Oh
yes, accept Christ. But also, you need to be in our
church. You need to be baptized. You
need to speak in tongue. You need to keep the law. And
on and on. Some people, I describe them
like this. They have one foot in the old covenant and one foot
in the new covenant, many today, in the churches. And they do
not realize that they are standing very close to the offense of
Peter here in this particular place, adding something to Christ
for our justification and for our salvation.