DECEMBER 11, 2022
THE APOSTLE’S DEFENSE OF HIMSELF AND HIS OFFICE (PART III)
INTRODUCTION:
1. Paul here continues his defense of himself and his office against charges that were made by Judaizing teachers, who insisted that he was not a true apostle. As we saw in our last lesson, these Judaizers held the Apostles at Jerusalem (the original Apostles who were taught by Christ during His earthly ministry) in very high esteem, but not Paul, who to them was less than an apostle.
2. To counter such thinking, Paul had shown that he and his Gospel had the full endorsement of the Apostles at Jerusalem.
3. In the succeeding passage (Verses 11-21) Paul shows from an incident that took place at Antioch, how far he was from being only a secondary apostle. While his own doctrine and practice had remained true and consistent, he had not hesitated to reprove Peter, the chiefest of the apostles, when his conduct was not according to the truth of the Gospel.
4. This defense began at Verse 10 of Chapter 1, and it continues through to the end of Chapter 2.
I. THE APOSTLE ENDEAVORS TO PROVE THAT HE WAS A GOD-CALLED, GOD-TAUGHT APOSTLE WHOSE PURPOSE WAS TO PLEASE GOD AND NOT MEN. (CH. 1:10-12)
II. THE APOSTLE OFFERS THE HISTORICAL PROOF OF HIS DIVINE CALLING AND COMMISSION. (CH. 1:13-17)
III. THE APOSTLE RECORDS HIS VISITS TO JERUSALEM AND THE APPROVAL THAT HE AND HIS MINISTRY HAD RECEIVED. (CH 1:18-2:10)
IV. THE APOSTLE TELLS OF HIS REPROOF OF PETER FOR HIS DISSEMBLING AT ANTIOCH.
(CH. 2:11-14) It is still in the context of his defense of himself and his office that this report is made. He who had effectively reproved “the chiefest apostle” could not himself be one of secondary office. Not only did Paul thereby demonstrate his authority as an apostle (which Peter clearly recognized, receiving the reproof) but more than that, he confirmed the truth of the Gospel which he preached, by showing that Peter’s actions were not in accordance with it.
A. THE OCCASION OF PAUL’S REPROOF OF PETER. (VERSES 11, 12)
1. “When Peter was come to Antioch.” This visit of Peter to Antioch was most likely made after the aforementioned council held at Jerusalem. (Acts 15) At that meeting Peter himself had powerfully spoken out against the Judaizers who were insisting that Gentile converts must be circumcised, etc. (See Acts 15:6-11)
2. Paul and Barnabas came from Jerusalem to Antioch to deliver the decrees of the council. While Paul and Barnabas were still together at Antioch, before they separated, (Acts 13:39) Peter came for a visit. He had effectively spoken out in defense of Gentile converts, after which he desired to go to Antioch and have fellowship with them, and to encourage Paul and Barnabas in their Gentile outreach.
3. All went well for some time, Peter had communion with the Gentile Christians until there came from James, i.e. from the church at Jerusalem, some who were zealous for the Jewish rites. Suddenly, Peter was no longer eating with the Gentiles, (Acts 10:9-15 notwithstanding) but separated himself unto these Judaizers.
4. This was sending a wrong message respecting a most vital issue, and therefore Paul “withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed.”
5. Clearly, Paul rebuked the erring Apostle openly, and face to face, before all of the Jews whose favor he was trying to court.
6. That Peter received the rebuke without protest and none rose up to challenge the action proves that Peter and all recognized Paul’s apostolic authority, and submitted to it.
B. THE NEGATIVE EFFECT OF PETER’S ACTIONS. (VERSE 13)
1. “And the other Jews dissembled.” Those Christians at Antioch which were native Jews followed Peter’s example and made a separate party. How deserving was Peter of the public reprimand! Rather than promote the Gospel of unity and oneness, (Ch. 3:28) he had sided with those whose gospel caused divisions.
2. Not only that, but “Barnabas also was carried away with dissimulation.” Barnabas, who with Paul, brought the decree from the Jerusalem council which was intended to prevent this very sort of thing, was adversely affected by Peter’s example.
3. Certainly Peter, and also Barnabas, Paul’s missionary partner in reaching the Gentiles, were blameworthy in this matter. Those who are ministers of the Gospel must be doubly careful that they not allow themselves to become a negative example.
C. THE INCONSISTENCY OF PETER’S ACTIONS. (VERSE 14)
1. “…they walked not UPRIGHTLY.” This word means straight footed; to move forward; not halting. Peter, and now Barnabas, seemed to be “halt between two opinions.”
2. Their actions were not straight forward according to the truth of the gospel.” (Verse 14a; See Heb. 12:13)
3. To Peter, Paul said, “…before them all,” (because he had sinned openly, and had offended the whole church
(I Tim. 5:20)) “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and do not as do the Jew.” If you as a Jew by birth formerly had communion with Gentiles, omitting the observance of Jewish rites (as Peter had done at Antioch before these Jews came) “…why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Why by example do you compel Gentiles to observe Jewish rites? Peter by his example, and possibly by his words, had given forth a message, which was “not…according to the truth of the gospel.”
4. What we do must be in accord with what we profess and preach, because inconsistency sets a bad and detrimental example.
V. THE APOSTLE POWERFULLY ASSERTS AND DEFENDS THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL. (CH. 2:15-21)
A. THOUGH PAUL AND PETER WERE JEWS BY BIRTH, THEY HAD LEARNED AND CONFESSED THAT JUSTIFICATION IS NOT BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW, BUT BY FAITH ALONE.
(VERSES 15, 16)
1. “We who are Jews…and not sinners of the Gentiles.” Both Peter and Paul were Jews; they belonged to God’s peculiar people, who were separated to God from all other nations. They were not “sinners of the Gentiles,” whom on account of their idolatry and other vices, the Jews referred to as “sinners.” Paul is obviously not implying that Jews were not sinners. (Rom. 3:22, 23)
2. All of the men in question here had renounced all confidence in their own obedience, and trusted for justification exclusively to Christ, without any reliance on the works of the Law, whether moral or ceremonial. “For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” (Verse 16c; Rom. 3:20)
B. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, AND NOT BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW, DOES NOT OPEN A DOOR OF LIBERTY TO THE FLESH. (VERSE 17)
1. There is the age old objection to justification by faith alone. It is that such a doctrine gives license to sin.
(Rom. 6:1, 2)
2. Being justified by faith in Christ does not relax man’s obligation to keep God’s moral law. If it did, that would make “Christ the minister of sin.” To that notion Paul says, “God forbid.”
3. The truth is that God’s regenerating grace, from which this faith comes, also works a change in the sinner’s heart so that he now loves God’s law, and obedience to it is no longer grievous. (Ezek. 36:26, 27; I John 5:3)
C. PAUL’S AIM IN PREACHING THE TRUTH WAS NOT TO LICENSE SIN, BUT RATHER TO DESTROY IT. (VERSE 18)
1. If he should teach a doctrine that would encourage sin, or if he should himself live a life of sin, these are things which a minister of Christ, in his preaching and doctrine intends to destroy. We preach that, not only the guilt of your sins was removed upon your justification by Christ, by the dominion of sin also destroyed (Rom. 6:9-14)
2. Paul says that if he should do such a thing he would make himself a transgressor. His argument seems to be the same as in Rom 6:2, “How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?”
D. BY MEANS OF THE LAW COMES THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN, WHICH RENDERS US DEAD TO THE LAW AS A COVENANT OF WORKS. (VERSE 19)
1. “I am dead to the law,” as to any expectation of being justified by obedience to it.
2. “That I might live unto God,” not that I might live in disobedience to God’s law, for it is a rule of life, but that I might live more holily unto God.
E. SAVING FAITH NOT ONLY MAKES BELIEVERS PARTAKERS OF THE BENEFITS OF JUSTIFICATION BY CHRIST, BUT ALSO BRINGS US INTO COMMUNION WITH HIS DEATH IN THE MORTIFICATION OF SIN. (VERSE 20)
1. To this compare Romans 6:6.
2. This death we have the figure of in baptism. (Rom. 6:4)
3. “I am crucified with Christ…” We have been buried with Him by baptism unto death. “…nevertheless I live.” Though dead to the law, and though dead with Christ, we have spiritual life; His life; new life. “…yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” Christ, by His Spirit lives in us.
4. And though, Paul says, “I live in the flesh,” in a body of flesh, “I live by the faith of the Son of God;” all natural, moral, and civil actions being principled in faith, and done according to the guidance of the rule of faith in Christ. “Who loved me, and gave Himself for me.”
F. TO SEE JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH AS GIVING LIBERTY TO SIN IS TO DESPISE THE GRACE OF GOD; SO ALSO IS ADDING TO IT LAW-WORKS. (VERSE 21)
1. The word here translated “frustrate” is elsewhere rendered despise, reject, make void. (Mark 7:9; John 12:48; Gal. 3:15; Heb. 10:28)
2. Those who find in the free love of God in giving His Son to die for our sins a freedom to live a loose, sinful life do contemn and despise the grace of God.
3. Those who would add the works of the law to Christ’s free justification also show contempt for the grace of God.
4. Paul concludes by saying, “For if righteousness come by the law, then is Christ dead in vain.”
5. Let us ever hold the balance that Paul here sets forth.
a) Salvation is by grace through faith, and nothing is to be added to it, by way of being meritorious.
b) Salvation, which is not in any part dependent upon law works, does not liberate the believer from his duty to walk in obedience. (Tit. 2:11-14)
Speak Your Mind