Galatians 2:11 - Meaning and Application

Paul’s account of what happened in Jerusalem showed the Galatians that his enemies were wrong about him. It also exposed how foolish it was for them to turn away from the gospel he had preached. To strengthen that point even more, Paul told them about another meeting, this time with Peter, the apostle, at Antioch, and what happened there (Galatians 2:11-14).

Antioch was one of the main churches made up of Gentile believers, while Jerusalem was a leading church among Jewish believers who had come to faith in Christ. There is no good reason to think Peter was the bishop, or main leader, of Antioch. If he had been, Paul would not have openly opposed him there as he did. Instead, this seems to have been only an occasional visit by Peter.

In their earlier meeting, Paul and Peter had been in full agreement. Peter and the other apostles had recognized Paul’s calling and approved his teaching, and they parted as friends. But here Paul had to stand against Peter, because Peter was clearly in the wrong. That shows Paul was not below Peter in authority, and it also weakens the claim that the pope, as Peter’s successor, has supreme authority and cannot err.

Peter’s mistake was this: when he was with Gentile believers, he ate with them, even though they were not circumcised. That fit the instructions God had given him in Acts 10, when the heavenly vision taught him not to call anything common or unclean. But when some Jewish Christians came down from Jerusalem, Peter became cautious around the Gentiles. He did this to please the men from the circumcision party, and out of fear of offending them. This must have deeply hurt and discouraged the Gentile churches. Then Peter pulled back and separated himself.

His example affected others too. The other Jews joined him in pretending to be strict about this matter. They acted as if they could not, in good conscience, eat with Gentiles because the Gentiles were not circumcised. Even Barnabas, a trusted coworker of Paul and one who had helped plant and strengthen Gentile churches, was carried along by their false show. This teaches us two things: even the best people are weak and unstable when left to themselves, and bad examples have great power, especially when they come from respected and honorable people.

Paul then rebuked Peter for this sin. Peter’s position did not keep Paul from correcting him, because Peter’s behavior was harming both the truth of the gospel and the peace of the church. Paul held firmly to what he believed, even when others were wavering. He was as fully Jewish as any of them, yet he valued his work as apostle to the Gentiles and would not allow Gentile believers to be pushed down or discouraged.

When Paul saw that they were not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, he spoke to Peter in front of them all. The gospel teaches that Christ’s death has removed the barrier between Jew and Gentile, and that the law of Moses is no longer binding as before. So Paul asked him, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force Gentiles to live like Jews?” Peter’s actions contradicted themselves. If he, as a Jew, could set aside the ceremonial law and live like Gentiles at times, then he was showing that he did not think that law was still necessary, even for Jews. For that reason, he could not rightly require Gentile Christians to follow it. Paul’s charge that Peter was “forcing” Gentiles to live like Jews does not mean Peter used violence. It means his actions pressured them in practice, as if they could belong in Christian fellowship only by taking on Jewish customs.

Paul then moved from Peter’s correction to the heart of the gospel: a person is made right with God, or justified, only by faith in Christ, not by works of the law. Some think that everything Paul says to the end of the chapter was part of what he said to Peter at Antioch. In any case, this truth stood against Peter’s actions, because Peter had been acting as if faith in Christ needed to be joined with the law for acceptance with God.

This was the same teaching Paul had preached among the Galatians, and he still held to it. He wanted to make that teaching clear and strong in this letter. He reminds them that even Jewish Christians had come to believe this. “We,” he says, “who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, know that a person is not justified by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we ourselves have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law.”

And if we have believed it necessary to seek justification through faith in Christ, why would we burden ourselves with the law? Why did we believe in Christ at all, if not to be made right with God through faith in Christ? If that is true, it is foolish to go back to the law and expect to be justified either by the value of moral good works or by the power of ceremonial sacrifices and purifications. And if it would be wrong for us, who are Jews by birth, to return to the law and expect justification by it, how much more wrong would it be to require this of the Gentiles, who were never under it? No one will be justified by works of the law (Galatians 2:16).

To give this greater force, Paul adds, “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves are found sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin?” (Galatians 2:17). If we seek justification by Christ alone, and teach others to do the same, yet we are treated as sinners, or as unclean Gentiles who should not be received unless we also keep the law of Moses, does that make Christ a promoter of sin? Would that not mean he leads us into a teaching that gives freedom to sin, or leaves us still impure and unfit for fellowship? That is the charge his opponents would force on him, and he rejects it with horror. “God forbid,” he says. He will not think such a thing of Christ or his teaching, as if Christ gave a way of justification that fails and leaves believers still unjustified, or as if his gospel encouraged sin and sinners.

That would bring shame on Christ and harm on believers. “For,” he says, “if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself a transgressor” (Galatians 2:18). If I, or anyone else, who has taught that keeping the Mosaic law is not needed for justification, now teach or suggest by word or practice that it is needed, then I show myself to be a sinner still. I also leave myself open to the charge of deceit and inconsistency, as if I were acting against my own teaching. In this way, Paul argues for the great truth of justification by faith apart from the works of the law, drawing on the beliefs and practice of Jewish Christians themselves, and on the results that would follow if they turned away from it. So Peter and the other Jews were clearly wrong to refuse fellowship with Gentile Christians and try to bring them under the law’s bondage.

Paul then explains his own judgment and practice. First, he was dead to the law. Whatever others thought of it, he was done with it. He knew that the moral law pronounced a curse on everyone who does not keep all that is written in it (see Galatians 3:10), and so he was dead to it as a way of being made right with God or saved. As for the ceremonial law, he knew it had been set aside by Christ’s coming. When the reality had arrived, he no longer valued the shadow. He was dead to the law through the law itself, because the law showed that its own purpose had ended.

By looking carefully at the law itself, Paul saw that justification could not come through its works, since no one could obey it perfectly. He also saw that the sacrifices and purifications were no longer needed, because Christ had put an end to them by offering himself for us. So the more clearly he understood the law, the more he saw that there was no reason to keep giving it the place the Jews claimed for it. Yet being dead to the law did not mean he was free from duty to God. He had given up all hope of being justified by the law and refused to stay under its bondage, but he was far from thinking that God’s claims on him were gone. On the contrary, he was dead to the law so that he might live to God.

The gospel he embraced did not weaken duty. It strengthened and confirmed it. So although he was dead to the law, that was only so he could live a new and better life to God, as Romans 7:4 and Romans 7:6 also teach. This is a life more pleasing to God than keeping the Mosaic law could now be, namely, a life of faith in Christ and, through that faith, holiness and righteousness toward God. In line with this, Paul says that, as he was dead to the law, he was alive to God through Jesus Christ (Galatians 2:20): “I have been crucified with Christ,” and so on. In his own life, he gives a clear picture of the hidden life of a believer.

The believer is crucified, and yet he lives. The old self is crucified (Romans 6:6), but the new self lives. He is dead to the world and dead to the law, yet alive to God and Christ. Sin is being put to death, and grace is being made alive. He lives, and yet it is not truly he alone who lives. That is a strange saying: “I live, and yet not I.” He lives by grace, and he enjoys the comfort and victory of grace, but that grace does not come from himself. It comes from another. Believers know that their life is a life of dependence.

He is crucified with Christ, and yet Christ lives in him. This comes from his spiritual union with Christ. Through that union, he shares in Christ’s death, so that he dies to sin by its power, and he also shares in Christ’s life, so that he lives to God by its power. He lives in the flesh, and yet he lives by faith. Outwardly, his life looks like that of other people, and his natural life is supported like theirs. Yet he is guided by a higher principle, faith in Christ, especially faith that looks at the wonder of Christ’s love in giving himself for him. So even though he lives in the flesh, he does not live according to the flesh. Those who truly believe live by that faith, and the main thing faith holds onto is Christ loving us and giving himself for us. The clearest proof of Christ’s love is that he gave himself for us, and this is what we should especially trust in if we are to live for him.

Finally, Paul ends this part of his argument by showing that the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, apart from the works of the law, avoids two serious problems that the opposite view creates. First, it does not set aside the grace of God, as justification by works does. As he says elsewhere, if it is by works, then it is no longer by grace (Romans 11:6).

He did not make Christ’s death useless. If right standing with God comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. If we expect to be saved by the law of Moses, then we make Christ’s death unnecessary. Why would he be appointed to die if we could have been saved without his death?