Chapter 2

In this chapter we have two battles against legalism. There are two spheres of legalism, generally speaking. Legalism has many aspects, many facets, but generally speaking there are two areas: a. Salvation by works; b. Spirituality by works. In salvation by works we have nine different illustrations to what is meant: believe and repent — anything you add to believing is legalism and wrong, believe and confess, believe and full surrender, believe and be baptise, believe and join the church, believe and beg God to save you, believe and give up something, believe and be circumcised, believe and keep the law. The latter has to do with our subject directly. The Judaisers have infiltrated the Galatian churches and they are teaching salvation by keeping the law and by circumcision. There are many others, of course, but anything that is involved in salvation where something is added to faith is legalism. To believe is the absence of works, the absence of human merit. There is no merit in believing.

There is a second area of legalism which will come out in the later chapters, and this is spirituality by works: spirituality by tarrying and fasting, etc. No one has ever been spiritual because they fasted and tarried.

In this chapter we have two different events: the Jerusalem incident, verses 1-10, which is a battle with regard to salvation by works; the Antioch incident, verses 11-21, which is a battle of spirituality by works. Remember that everything that God does for us, everything that God provides for us is, provided on the basis of grace. We don’t earn it or deserve it, we don’t work for it. Therefore regardless of which phase of God’s plan everything in the divine plan is provided for us apart from human merit. Everything depends upon the grace of the Lord.

We begin in verses 1-10 with the Jerusalem incident. In verse 1 we see the trip to Jerusalem. “Then fourteen years afterwards.” We can assume that 14 years had been used in Paul’s training in a rather limited ministry up to this point. Out in Arabia he had learned his doctrine. He had had a limited ministry in several cities and now, fourteen years after, Paul’s ministry begins with some prominence at this point. This is the Jerusalem conference, the first of the great church councils held at Jerusalem, and the great issue was legalism.

While this passage, verses 1-10, describes the behind the scenes activity of this council the first 31 verses of Acts chapter fifteen describe what went on as far as all the delegates were concerned. The outward side of the Jerusalem conference is covered there, and then Paul takes an incident which is not covered in Acts 15. All we know about this incident we find in Galatians 2:1-10. The occasion for the Jerusalem conference was fourteen years after Paul’s training began and when he went up to Jerusalem as a delegate from the church at Antioch.

Acts 15:1 — “And certain men which came down from Judea and they taut the brethren and said, ‘Except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved’.” Is that grace or legalism? Legalism! In other words, they have added something to salvation: works.

Verse 2 — “When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small discussion and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them, should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question.” Why Jerusalem? Because this legalism originated in the Jerusalem church and these people had come from Jerusalem to minister in Antioch and were teaching salvation by circumcision. Paul and Barnabas challenged them as any pastor should do when someone gets in his pulpit and starts teaching false doctrine.

Verse 5 — “But there arose up certain of the sects of the Pharisees (the religious crowd) who had believed, saying, ‘It is necessary to be circumcised, and to commend them to keep the law of Moses’.”

These were saying that to be saved you not only had to be circumcised but you had to keep the Mosaic law. That is legalism.

Verse 6 — “And the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter,” they held a council.

Verse 7 — “And when there had been much disputing,” which indicates that even among the apostles and the elders (pastors) there was still a lot of difference of opinion. Many of them agreed with the Pharisees who had been saved, that you had to be circumcised and keep the law for salvation.

Verse 9 — Peter responds. “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?”

Verse 11 — “But we believe that by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” Peter is the one who settles the matter. This happened before the entire council.

In the first 31 verses of this chapter we have the minutes of the meeting, but of course there was much activity behind the scenes. In Galatians 2:1-10 we have one glimpse behind the scenes of that Jerusalem council. The Galatians account was actually referring to Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem. The first was fourteen years before and was recorded in Galatians 1:18. This time he went up because all of the speakers coming out of Jerusalem were confused and were muddying up the water with regard to salvation. They were emphasising that you must do something beside believe for salvation.

“I went up again with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.” Titus was a Gentile who later on became one of the great leaders in the Christian church. He was the original troubleshooter. Years later he was the troubleshooter in Corinth and the Island of Crete. He would also be the troubleshooter to Dalmatia. Titus became the basis of a big fight during this council. Titus is a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. He goes up to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Paul. He is a Gentile, he is saved, but (and this is where the problem is) he has never been circumcised. This causes some of the members of the Jerusalem church to say he was not saved because even though he may have believed in Christ he had never been circumcised.

“and took Titus with me also.” “Took” is an aorist active participle. The action of the aorist participle precedes the action of the main verb. He took Titus before he went up. In other words, he deliberately took Titus along in order to make an issue out of Titus. Why? Since the action of the aorist participle precedes the action of the main verb and since the main verb is “he went up to Jerusalem” he had it in mind to take Titus long before he sent to Jerusalem. Titus was a new believer but he was an up and coming believer, a strong believer, and there was no doubt about his marvelous testimony, his tremendous discernment in the area of doctrine, and his ability to put a point over. Therefore, Paul took Titus as a proof that God saves people whether they have been circumcised or not.

Verse 2 — “And I went up by revelation.” That is, according to the standard of revelation. In other words, ‘I went under the will of God.’ It was God’s will for him to go and it was God’s will to take Titus because here is where a great issue is to be resolved; “and communicated unto them” — the word to communicate means to place before them certain things. ‘Unto them’ is dative of advantage. Whatever Paul placed before them by way of information it was to their advantage to hear it; “that the gospel which I preach [keep on preaching] among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation. lest by any means I should run or had run, in vain.” This word “privately” means that he had a private conference with the church leaders, and in it he explained exactly how he had been preaching the gospel — that Christ was the issue, not sin, and that salvation was by faith plus nothing, that he was not emphasising circumcision and, above all, he was not telling anyone to keep the law for salvation. As a matter of fact he was not bringing the law in at all. “To them which were of reputation” refers specifically to Peter, James and John, as we will see in verse nine. And why did he do it privately? He didn’t want to get into a public argument with some of the leaders because no good would come out of such a debate. People would take sides on the basis of leadership rather than on the basis of principle.

“Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.” There is a difference here. “I should run” is a present active subjunctive. The present tense refers to all of his service, the continuation of his service. The active voice: he does the running and the serving. The subjunctive mood, which indicates potential: these leaders may go back into Antioch and everywhere that Paul has been up to this point and discredit him. So all of Paul’s ministry could possibly be destroyed if these leaders take the other side, the legalism side, and therefore go behind his back and possibly destroy his ministry. He doesn’t say they will but the subjunctive mood indicates the possibility of having his ministry ruined by people going behind his back and saying that he is not teaching the truth. New believers who do not yet understand doctrine could very easily fall for that kind of thing.

Then he changes and says “had run”, and he goes to the aorist indicative active. He is referring now to this point of time. The first time referred to all of his ministry since he had been saved but the second time “run” is in the aorist tense which means at this point of time in Jerusalem.

Verse 3 — the test case. “But neither Titus with me (there is no verb there), being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.” “Was compelled” means that the pressure had been put on Paul: Now that he is here let’s have him circumcised, let’s get him saved. Paul refused to do it. “To be circumcised” is an aorist passive infinitive indicating that it was the purpose of the legalists to get Paul to have Titus circumcised.

Verse 4 — “And that because of false brethren” — the crowd that put the pressure on him; “unawares brought in” — which is not a verb although it appears to be one in the translation. Actually it is a verbal adjective referring to a system of secretly introducing enemies into a city in order to betray the city. The legalists had infiltrated the church for betraying the church to the devil through legalism. They were undoubtedly the spiritual bully crowd, but Paul knew doctrine and he stood up against their bullying; “who” a qualitative relative pronoun which means ‘men such as’, literally — “came in privily,” an aorist tense; in a point of time. The Greek word is an actor who plays a minor role which is not even a speaking part. It means that they slipped in just like a minor actor slips in on the stage; “to spy out our liberty” — to make a reconnaissance with the purpose of destroying any opposition. The purpose was to destroy Paul’s ministry called ‘our liberty’. ‘Our freedom’ is perhaps a better translation. What does Paul means by liberty or freedom? Liberty starts at the cross where we are freed from the slave market of sin. Our freedom is purchased by the Lord Jesus Christ and now we are in operation grace which is the basis of freedom. Grace always equals freedom. Bondage, by way of contrast, is any human merit system; any system of trying to gain the approbation of God by works, by good deeds, and so on. These people came in to spy out Paul’s freedom in the plan of God with the intention of destroying this liberty.

“which we keep on having in Christ Jesus” — present linear aktionsart; “that they might bring us into bondage.” It was their purpose to bring into bondage all of the grace crowd, including Paul. The word “to bring into bondage” means to enslave. The legalists are always trying to enslave, to bring the grace crowd into some kind of bondage to legalism. And legalists are very unhappy because they are slaves themselves to works. They are zealous and they are trying to bring the entire human race into the bondage of good deeds and good works to gain the approbation of God.

Verse 5 — Paul resisted. “To whom [the legalists] we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”

It must be remembered that these legalists are tough, they are vicious. The wonderful thing is that Paul stood right up to them. Where legalism is involved, and where legalism tries to infiltrate, there is only one answer and that is to get just as tough if not tougher than legalism, and stand up to it. That is what happened here. The words “to give place” means they didn’t yield to them on any point or at any time.

“That” introduces a purpose. Here is the purpose of standing up to legalism: “that the truth of the gospel might continue [aorist tense] with you.” The aorist tense means once and for all. The subjunctive mood here means whether the gospel continues or not depends on how much doctrine is learned and how much legalism is recognised and resisted. The word “with you” is literally, face to face with you.

In verses 6-10 there is now another issue. Paul that he will not have Titus circumcised. So now the rest of this particular incident is devoted by Paul to indicate how the leadership of the Jerusalem church recognised his authority .

Verse 6 — “But of these who seemed to be somewhat [somebody].” The idiom here means that they were the VIPs; “(whatsoever they were” — imperfect linear aktionsart: whatever they were in the past it doesn’t make any difference to me — “it maketh no difference to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seek to be somebody in conference added nothing to me.” They couldn’t add anything to what I had said. Everything that I said was right down the line. They did not have any information that I did not previously have, and completely apart from them.

What is Paul saying? He is saying that when he went through seminary he learned something. He knew more than they knew. In other words, one basis for leadership is knowledge of doctrine, and Paul knew more about doctrine than any living person on the earth at that time.

Verse 7 — “But contrariwise.” In the recognising of Paul’s authority and his message legalism was permanently crippled. The legalists went underground and bothered Paul for the rest of his life. That is why Paul had to write Galatians. These same legalists that Paul defeated in Jerusalem followed him into the Galatian cities, after he would leave. They were never able to face Paul, they always followed him, and many of the Pauline epistles were written because of the legalists. When Paul went to Corinth the legalists followed. When Paul went to Galatia the legalists followed. They never were there when he was, they waited until he left. They did everything they could to destroy Paul — “when they saw that the gospel of uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter.”

What is the difference between the gospel of uncircumcision and the gospel of circumcision? There is no difference, it is the same gospel. Circumcision and uncircumcision indicate the recipients — Gentiles and Jews. Peter was the leader in taking the gospel to the Jews; Paul was the leader in taking the gospel to the Gentiles. It is the same gospel. The gospel of the circumcision does not mean that you have to be circumcised to be saved.

Notice: “the gospel of uncircumcision was committed”. This word “committed” means to make a deposit. It was used originally in the Greek language for making a deposit in a bank. So the gospel was deposited with Paul. The gospel is also deposited with every believer. The word is in the perfect tense, which means that it was deposited in the past with results which would continue forever. The results which continue for ever: every person led to the Lord by the apostle Paul. When God makes a deposit of the gospel in you He intends for that deposit to bear interest. The passive voice in this verb: Paul has received the gospel. He learned the gospel through study. He learned to make the issue clear and to declare it so that people could understand that to believe in Christ is eternal life, and to reject Christ is eternal condemnation.

Verse 8 — explains a little more in detail the two different spheres of responsibility. “(For he that wrought effectually in Peter” — to communicate power. Aorist tense: it gathered up into one point of time every time that Peter studied and everything that Peter learned; “to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me.” The words ‘wrought effectively’ and ‘was mighty’ are exactly the same verbs in the Greek. So the one who committed power and knowledge to Peter was the same one who communicated power and knowledge to Paul to go out to the Gentiles — “toward the Gentiles.”

Verse 9 — “And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars” — Paul admits that these three men seemed to be the outstanding leaders operating in and out of the Jerusalem area. The word ‘pillars’ is a synonym for leadership. The words ‘seemed to be’ are present linear aktionsart: they were constantly, habitually, and continually the pillars; “perceived the grace that was given unto me.” They learned something. The word to perceive here means to know from experience. They learned from listening to Paul’s message, by watching Paul in action; “they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship” — shaking hands was a sign of recognition, recognition of authority. They recognised that Paul and Barnabas were on equal footing with them. Remember that Peter, James and John are the leaders of the leaders, the apostles of the apostles. In recognising Barnabas and Paul they are saying that they have equal status with themselves. This broke the back of legalism before legalism ever got started and that is why legalism had to dog Paul’s footsteps for the rest of his life, they couldn’t do any more at the headquarters in Jerusalem. They utterly failed in Jerusalem and therefore they spent the rest of their lives dogging the footsteps of Paul, and here is “all things working together for good”: these legalists were constantly putting pressure on Paul but out of their attacks, their hostility, their maligning, their sour grapes, all of the great Pauline epistles were written. So we profit by these legalists. The legalists meant it all to be cursing but God turned it all into blessing. They meant to destroy Paul and Paul’s teaching but all they did was to cause Paul to write letters which are a part of the Word of God, and instead of destroying Paul’s teaching they became the means of perpetuating Paul’s teaching for 1900 years. That is all things working together for good.

Verse 10 — “Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was zealous to do.” While there are two different spheres to be evangelised, Jews and Gentiles, and different personnel for these different spheres, it is still the same gospel, and there is one thing that Paul must remember even in his particular sphere or area. He should remember the poor. In other words, take up offerings to alleviate the sufferings of those who have become destitute through persecution. Paul was always careful to do so. Cf. Acts 24:17; Romans 15:25-28; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians chapters eight and nine — the great passage on giving was built around the fact that Paul was getting ready to come to Corinth to collect money to relieve the situation in Jerusalem where destitute believers were starving and needed help.

“which I also was forward to do [KJV].” This word “forward” which means to be diligent is actually used in seven different ways in the scripture. So, the seven uses of the verb to be diligent — stoudazw:

a. Charity toward believers — Galatians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 8:8.

b. Care of the saints — Hebrews 6:11; 2 Corinthians 7:12; 8:16,17; 2 Timothy 1:17.

c. In the faith-rest technique — Hebrews 4:11, we should be eager, zealous to function under the faith-rest life.

d. For the confirmation of our calling — 2 Peter 1:5,10. We should be zealous to confirm our calling [witnessing for Christ].

e. For the corporate unity of the body — Ephesians 4:3.

f. For the commendation of God — 2 Timothy 2:15.

g. To have a character, a life without spot or blemish — 2 Peter 3:14.

Paul’s concludes the verse by saying, “I was zealous to do.” “To do” is an aorist active infinitive of purpose. It was always Paul’s purpose to take offerings for the poor, for the destitute, for the persecuted, for those who had lost material goods because of their stand for Jesus Christ. Paul always remembered the other person.

There are two spheres of legalism which are brought out in the book of Galatians: salvation by works and spirituality by works. The first area of legalism is faith-plus, where someone comes along and says, Yes, you must believe in Christ for salvation but you must do something else before you can really be saved. The issue is always faith or unbelief in the matter of salvation. Legalism tries to add something. Under the principle of grace whereby God provides salvation for the human race deviser is perfect, the author of the plan is perfect, and a perfect plan means that God must not only design it but He must execute it. If man gets the energy of the flesh in anywhere then you have what we commonly call legalism, you have energy of the flesh, you have works, and man’s works cannot save him or make him spiritual.

The second great problem found in Galatians is spirituality by works, such as tarrying and fasting, tabooism, asceticism, ecstatics, and so on. None of these things will provide spirituality and yet most of them are acceptable in some spheres of Christianity today.

Verse 11 — the Antioch incident, the second historical illustration that sets up the precedent that legalism is never acceptable under the criterion of God’s grace. Legalism is never the modus operandi for any regenerate member of the human race and wherever legalism is found it must be removed by the declaration of the truth.

Legalism often puts those in leadership in the embarrassing position of having to stand up in front of other people, single out an individual, and tear him apart verbally. Peter, the great leader of the church outside of Paul, is going to be braced in front of the entire congregation at the church of Antioch. Antioch is one of the churches which was up and coming; a thriving, powerful church which has moved forward under the Bible teaching of Paul and Barnabas, a church where grace is understood and practiced up to this point. Therefore it is putting Jerusalem in the shade and is now becoming the outstanding church at that time historically with the result that all of the great missionary movements to begin with will be launched from Antioch. They are launched because they know doctrine. So Antioch is about to take the leadership over from Jerusalem. And since Jerusalem was still clinging by a thread at this point to their position of leadership they started sending VIPs into Antioch to find out what was going on.

The problem is Jerusalem was first of all legalism. Legalism was stifling the modus operandi of the Jerusalem church. Another problem was that since Jerusalem was the headquarters of Judaism, and religion is always sponsored by Satan, the Jerusalem church was under maximum persecution pressure at all times. So we have a combination of two problems — legalism plus pressure — and therefore the Jerusalem church was about to lose the ascendancy and the leadership position which it held since the Day of Pentecost. That leadership position is in the process now of transferring over to Antioch.

In verse 11 we have the denunciation of Peter. Here is a scene which took place, as it were, behind the scenes. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” Peter was one of the people who came up from Jerusalem — one of the better people because Peter understood grace, and it was Peter who took the position of grace in the Jerusalem council which eventually led to the decision to operate on the basis of grace.

“Was come” is an aorist indicative active, it took place at a point of time, and this point of time is going to be described in the rest of this chapter. The very first word in the verse is a conjunction of contrast, and so this scene is in great contrast to the previous scene where everyone was agreeing and understanding the concept of grace. Now, in contrast to that, where before Peter and Paul shook hands, now they are about to have a real brawl; “I withstood” is an aorist indicative active, and the word means to brace, to oppose, to stand up against, to resist. In other words, before the entire congregation Paul stood up to Peter and braced him. In this case Paul had to mind the business of Peter because it affected the entire congregation; “for he was to be blamed”, or literally, “he stood condemned.” We have a perfect tense here. He was judged and condemned in the past with the result that he kept on being condemned in whatever he did. Passive voice: he received condemnation. Paul has previously judged him. Paul came in, made an investigation of the situation, examined the modus operandi of Peter in Antioch very carefully, and condemned him. He has already previously decided, having tried the case. The passive voice is very important here, this was no sudden loss of temper but a very careful investigation in which Paul had all of the facts. Principle: Don’t move without the facts. Paul did not act upon impulse. He first of all judged the case, and the passive voice mean that Peter received condemnation because the judgement was based upon investigation. So Peter was first of all carefully investigated, was found to be wrong in the matter, and because it was such a critical issue and because legalism was spreading through Peter’s activities, immediately Paul stood up before the entire congregation and rocked him back.

What did Peter do? He was guilty of an act of legalism which caused legalism to spread throughout the entire local church so that Barnabas himself, a great man of grace, was taken in by it. It has to be something terrible for Paul to stand up and brace the chief missionary to the Jews — “he was to be blamed,” which means literally to be condemned on the basis of a thorough investigation. Passive voice: Peter received the condemnation, indicating that Paul did the investigating. What makes this worse is that we have already had the Jerusalem conference, and in that conference it was Peter who stood up for grace, along with Paul and Barnabas.

There are several great lessons which came from this incident and the problem of legalism versus grace.

Paul was right and Peter was wrong. Peter shows, once again, his tremendous greatness in the manner in which he took the rebuke. He did not argue with Paul, he did not split the church, and he examined what Paul said very carefully, accepted it, and later on he recommends the Pauline epistles. Peter, though one of the great leaders of the ancient world, was not infallible. No great leader is infallible.

Sometimes your greatness before the Lord and your greatness in the spiritual realm depends on how you take rebuke. You have to listen to what is said. Maybe your pride resents the one who is saying it but if it does you are going to miss the point of the rebuke. It doesn’t cost anything to listen to it. The second thing in taking a rebuke is to evaluate. Don’t get mad, don’t resent it, don’t say it isn’t true, just evaluate it. Can you profit from it? Then, after you have sifted it and analysed it, apply it to yourself. If you find according to your own understanding of it that you are not at fault, just relax. Remember that the battle is the Lord’s and you belong to Him, and since you belong to the Lord you can simply roll right on with the punch.

Verse 12 — Paul has a very clear picture of what has happened and he now states the case not only for Peter’s benefit but for the benefit of the entire congregation. There is a bad situation. The congregation is divided and split. Some are standing for grace, some are standing for legalism, there is a real back-and-forth struggle going on, and the congregation is about to blow sky-high. Therefore it becomes necessary to brace the ringleader. Paul doesn’t stand up and brace the whole congregation, it simply followed Peter. He simply braces Peter in front of the congregation. In a sense Paul’s activity means that the congregation has now become a legalistic mob, and in a legalistic mob you must clobber the leader.

“For before that certain came from James” — a reference to these VIPs who had been going up from Jerusalem to find out what is making this Antioch church so great, etc.; “he did eat with the Gentiles” — imperfect indicative active. The imperfect tense is linear aktionsart in past time, he habitually ate with the Gentiles. The indicative mood expresses the reality, and Peter himself did the eating with the Gentiles. Peter is a Jew and he was actually dining with the Gentiles which was a taboo of Judaism. ‘With the Gentiles’ is literally, in the company of the Gentiles — believers actually — “but” [conjunction of contrast], Peter now changes his habits when the legalists arrive — “when they were come”, aorist indicative active; “he withdrew” — imperfect tense. He began to gradually, secretly, quietly, subtly, withdraw himself. The word to withdraw is a military word in the Greek and it means to make a strategic withdrawal. He used a little strategy in getting out of this thing, “separated himself” — gradual separation. The only separation from believers which is authorised is found in 1 Corinthians 5:11 where believers are to separate from carnal believers on the basis that one rotten apple spoils all the apples in the barrel. If you know some believer that is way out of line stay away from him until he gets back in line because if you keep on associating with him you are going to be out of line too. It never works the other way. Therefore this separation at Antioch is not authorised. These Gentiles are walking in fellowship with the Lord and Peter is one hundred per cent wrong in making a strategic withdrawal.

Why did he do it? The answer is given at the end of verse 12 — “fearing them which were of the circumcision.” The word “fearing” is a present active participle, linear aktionsart. He kept on fearing them who were of the circumcision. The circumcision are the Jewish believers who came down from Jerusalem.

Verse 13 — the result of Peter’s legalism. “And other Jews [believers] dissembled likewise with him.” The word “dissembled” doesn’t mean much to us today but it has a tremendous meaning in the Greek. Peter fell into the trap of caring what people think. He was really pressurised by opinions and it leveled him to the ground. Many believers today fall into the same trap that Peter fell into: they allow the pressure of the mob to get to them. Deference to legalistic opinions of other people always leads to a course of evil — Proverbs 29:25. The evil results are seen in the mass withdrawal of Jewish Christians from eating with Gentile Christians. The church is split — Jewish Christians versus Gentile Christians.

The word dissembled means to be an actor in the dramas of the fifth century BC Athens. In the fifth century BC they had large audiences for their dramas. They usually had three, sometimes four, actors. They had very powerful voices and strong bodies . The put on a very large wax mask designed for the particular drama. Each actor had maybe half a dozen wax masks — for when he was supposed to be happy, to be sad, etc. So an actor was someone who spoke from behind a mask, and that is the Greek word here. It means to speak from behind a false face or to speak from behind a false front or to be a hypocrite. The Greek word is u(pokrithj. In other words, a hypocrite is someone who has two faces, his own and the one he puts on. The word to dissemble means to be a hypocrite, to have to faces. it can be seen now that Peter is two-faced. He is a legalist, he put on a legalistic front, but behind that is a grace man. So he dissembled — aorist tense — in a point of time when they put the pressure on him. Passive voice: he received a mask. In the passive voice the subject receives the action of the verb, he received this mask from the legalists. The mask was keeping the law.

“And the other Jews dissembled likewise” — when Peter did it, they did it too; “so that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.” Barnabas, along with the apostle Paul, was one of the greatest champions of grace of all time, and on one occasion later on it was Barnabas rather than Paul who stood for grace — Acts 15:35-39. Paul determined not to take John Mark with them again but Barnabas said that this man had rebounded and asked what right they had to hold it against him when God Himself had forgiven him. Barnabas took Mark and by doing so he delivered, as it were, the man from becoming disillusioned and bitter, and later on Mark becomes one of the greatest witnesses of the first century. Why? Because Barnabas operated on grace. Paul was wrong and later on admitted that he was wrong in Colossians 4 and 2 Timothy 4 — “Bring Mark with you when you come.” This time it was Barnabas who understood grace. Paul has his failure of grace in Acts 15; Barnabas has his failure of grace in Galatians 2. Even the greatest of those who understand grace have their moments of failure.

“with their dissimulation” is an instrumental case and it means “by means of their legalistic hypocrisy” — Barnabas himself became a dupe.

Principle: Legalism is the greatest enemy to grace and to the spiritual Christian. No one is free from its subtle attack.

Verses 14 — 21, What Paul said to Peter on this occasion: the apostolic rebuke of an apostle.

Verse 14 — “But when I saw [to observe, to perceive through observation] that they walked not uprightly” — Paul carefully observed the situation and saw that this was not right. To “walk not uprightly” means that they do not walk in a straight line. It is present linear aktionsart in the Greek, meaning they habitually do not walk in a straight line. Legalism is a deviation from the doctrine of God’s Word. The straight line is the Word of God. That is why the legalist always hates doctrine, why they always want to have an experience somewhere, why they always operate on legalism or traditionalism but never on doctrine; “according to the truth of the gospel.” ‘According to’ is a preposition which means face to face with the truth of the gospel. In other words, they did not face up to the truth of the gospel; “I said unto Peter” — aorist tense, a point of time, in the congregational meeting; “before all” — the situation is so critical that it demanded a public rebuke. A private rebuke would not work. Apparently Paul used a sermon to rebuke Peter and Barnabas and the other Jews who had fallen into the legalistic trap; “If” introduces a first class condition, if and its true — “thou, being a Jew [and you are a Jew], livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” This is the beginning of a series of debaters’ mouth traps. This poor man Peter is going to be tied up in knots by the expert of all time.

“If thou being a Jew” — the word ‘being’ is not our ordinary word for being, it means if you came into existence as a Jew, and you did. In other words, he was born a Jew — “if you keep on living after the manner of Gentiles [Greek: Gentilishly, an adverb], and not as do the Jews.” He has caught Peter immediately. Peter was born a Jew, lived like a Jew for years, and suddenly he switches and starts living like a Gentile, and now he is about to get caught. The implication: If Peter was wrong in living like a Jew then he was wrong the first part of his life before he was saved. If he was wrong in living like a Gentile then he was wrong in the latter part of his life, and no matter how you slice it he has to be wrong at one point, and Paul is saying, Make up your mind Peter. When were you wrong? Were you wrong under grace or were you wrong under the law? Either he was wrong in the first place in leaving the law or he is wrong now in going back to the law. “Why do you compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews?” The implication is that if you have left the law and that is right, why are you trying to make Gentiles who are not under the law and never were enter something that you have admitted was wrong by leaving it?

“Why compellest” — present linear aktionsart: “Why do you keep on forcing the Gentiles to live as Jews?” To live as Jews means to practice Judaism. So the trap is sprung and Peter finds himself mouth trapped by irrefutable logic. Peter’s action is tantamount to imposing the Mosaic law on believers who are no under a higher law and have nothing whatever to do with the Mosaic law.

Verse 15 — “We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles” — really a finish of the previous phrase, and it was a very poor place to put in verse 15. It is really a part of verse 14.

“We” is in the emphatic position, referring to Paul, Barnabas and Peter. What do they have in common? They are all Jews. So “we” is emphatic referring to their Jewish background. “Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.” When he uses the word “sinners” he is using something out of our old vocabulary. The Pharisees as the leaders of the Jews always referred to the Gentiles as sinners. This word “sinners” is the subject for verse 16. It is Paul, Barnabas, and Peter who know that a man is not justified by the works of the law. In effect Paul is saying, We understand that you can’t be justified by the works of the law. These Gentiles do not understand it so why are you trying to haul them under something whereby they could never be justified and whereby they could never be spiritual?

In introducing verse 16 we should understand five things about the law

1. The content of the Mosaic law is given in the Pentateuch. It is broken down into three parts: Codex #1, the moral law — the ten commandments, proving that man is a sinner and bankrupt and needs a saviour; Codex #2, a shadow Christology which anticipates the coming of Christ; Codex #3, Social law.

2. The law was given to Israel only, it was never given to Gentiles. It was given to the nation Israel specifically — Exodus 19:3; Leviticus 26:46; Romans 3:19; 9:4. The law was not given to Gentiles — Deuteronomy 4:8; Romans 2:12-14.

3. Christians are specifically not under the law — Acts 15:5, 24; Romans 6:14; Galatians 2:19. Why? Because of Matthew 5:17 where Jesus said, “I came to fulfill the law.” Here is the Mosaic law begging someone to keep it and Jesus Christ came into the world and kept the law. He fulfilled Codex #1 by living a perfect life; He fulfilled Codex #2 by dying on the cross, burial, resurrection ascension and session; He fulfilled Codex #3 by, again, living a perfect life. So Jesus Christ completed the law; He fulfilled it. Therefore the reason that we are not under the law is because of Romans 10:4 — “Christ is the end of the law for those who believe” — believers only. We as believers are now in union with Christ. Christ is the end of the law, Christ fulfilled the law, we begin where Christ stopped, as it were, we begin beyond the law. We are now in union with Christ, therefore we begin where He ended fulfilling the law. We are now under a higher law, a super law, which is “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus”, Romans 8:2-4. A new law has been substituted for the Mosaic law.

How can the righteousness of the law be fulfilled in us? We cannot keep the law and produce righteousness. The best we can come up with is -R. But the righteousness of the law can be fulfilled in us because Christ fulfilled the law and the character of Christ is produced in us by means of the Holy Spirit. The believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. When the believer is filled with the Holy Spirit the character of Christ is produced. So we are under a higher law, the law of the indwelling Holy Spirit, which is much higher than the Mosaic law. Christ has abrogated the law by fulfilling it and we now move to a higher law. The law was on the outside, the Holy Spirit is on the inside. It takes something on the inside to produce the Christian way of life, and that something is someone — the Holy Spirit. Galatians 5:22,23 — “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering … against such there is no law.” The higher law removes any other law. The Mosaic law still has a function with the unbeliever but Christ is the end of the law for those who believe — Romans 10:4. We are not under the Mosaic law in any sense of the word. We are under a law which is so much higher that the Mosaic law can in no way ever compare with it. We are under a law of grace, the Mosaic law is a law of works- even Codex #2 where the Lord Jesus Christ worked for us. The only gracious part of the Mosaic law is where God works for us. When we have to work for God in our own strength we are dead ducks! We are not under the Mosaic law, we are under a law we can keep: the law of the filling of the Spirit which produces the character of Christ.

4. The present purpose of the law is directed toward the unbeliever, to prove to him that he is a sinner and needs a saviour — Romans 3:20; 1 Timothy 1:9,10; Galatians 3:23,24.

5. The limitations of the law: a. The Mosaic law cannot justify — Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:20, 28; Galatians 3:10; Philippians 3:9; b. The law cannot give life — Galatians 3:21; c. The law cannot provide the Holy Spirit — Galatians 3:2; The law cannot, produce miracles — Galatians 3:5.

The subject of verse 16 is found in verse 15. The Greek of verse 16 says, “We knowing” or literally, “We know that a man is not justified by the works of the law.” “We” is in the emphatic position in verse 15, indicating that Paul, Barnabas, and Peter all very definitely understand the principle that you can never be justified by the Mosaic law.

Verse 16 — “We know [from verse 15]” — a perfect active participle for knowledge in the frontal lobe. We know it in the past with the result that we should be able to apply it to the present situation. Peter’s problem is failure to apply knowledge to experience; “that a man is not justified” — the word man is a generic term and it refers to homo sapien. It means mankind, not man male type but the human race. We now have the negative side: present tense, never justified at any time. Passive voice, the subject receives the action of the verb: this means to receive justification — literally, a man does not receive justification “by the works of the law”. The works of the law refer to all operation of the energy of the flesh, specifically to trying to keep the ten commandments for salvation. The works of the law include trying to keep Codex #2 for salvation. The purpose of the Levitical offerings and the other parts of phase two of the Mosaic law was to point the direction to Christ, to indicate that Christ as the solution to the sin problem but they were never intended to justify. No one is justified by killing an animal or bringing an animal to the altar and there having it slaughtered. Furthermore, no one is justified in Codex #3 by refraining from eating pork and shrimp and observing the other parts of the social code. So no one can be justified by any of the three phases of the Mosaic law.

This particular principle is emphasised in Romans 3:20 — “Therefore, by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Keeping the Mosaic law does not justify, does not provide salvation. The purpose of the law is to teach us that we are sinners and need a saviour. We will see that we are dead to the law because of the nature of the law. The law killed us. The law said, You are dead. And we are dead in trespasses and sins. So the law teaches us that we are sinners but the law cannot save us.

Romans 3:28 — “Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

In Galatians 2:16 — What Paul said to Peter on this particular occasion. When he said “We knowing” remember that “we” in verse 15 is the subject and it means Peter and Paul both understand this. Peter has failed to apply it to his experience with the result that he has become legalistic under the pressure of legalism, under the pressure of the Judaisers from Jerusalem. He has stopped dining with the Gentiles. Barnabas has been carried away by his hypocrisy and the church is now split and divided and Peter is responsible. Therefore Peter is now in the process of being taken to task. Now Peter already knows this. He knew it in the past with the result that he keeps on knowing it but he is not applying it, and therefore it is not doing him any good.

No one can be justified by the deeds of the law. Then we have a contrast: “but by the faith in Jesus Christ” — objective genitive, not the faith of Jesus Christ but by faith in Jesus Christ. “By” in front of faith is a preposition of instrumentality. Faith is the instrument or the means of justification. Remember that faith is the only system of perception that has no merit attached to it. All systems of perception apart from faith have merit attached to them. There are basically three systems. Rationalism and empiricism are meritorious systems of perception but faith or believing is non-meritorious. All members of the human race have faith. The verb to believe is the verb of the noun faith and it is a bona fide non-meritorious system of perception. This is the way we all begin to learn things. Long before rationalism or empiricism have crystallised within us through the academic pipe or through learning things in life we begin to pick up information by faith. We are told certain things and we accept them as true. Faith, then, is a bona fide system of perception, and the words “by faith” here is by the instrumentality of faith, by means of faith. Faith implies the absence of human merit and therefore it is in keeping with the concept of grace. In the verb “to believe” you must have a subject and you must have an object. The subject is “whosoever” — any member of the human race; the object in salvation is always Christ, never Christ plus the law, never the law, never circumcision; it is always the Lord Jesus Christ because He is the one who died on the cross for our sins and provided eternal salvation.

“even we” — he is referring to himself and to Peter. Both Peter and Paul are born again, both of them have received Jesus Christ as saviour, both of them have put their trust in Him, and “we have believed in Jesus Christ.” Paul is making a point. He is getting ready for a logical mouth trap. When he says “we have believed” it is aorist tense, referring to the point of time when he accepted Christ as saviour. The indicative mood, the mood of reality: it was a real things with them. Active voice: subject produces the action of the verb — Peter and Paul are the subjects. They have personally believed in Jesus Christ — “that”, introduces a purpose clause. They believed for a purpose — “that we might be justified by faith in Christ” — the positive part of the purpose. Aorist tense: once and for all justified. Passive voice: they received justification from the Lord. The subjunctive mood indicates that no one is justified apart from his own personal volition. Everyone must believe in Christ for himself — “and not by the works of the law” — Peter has been guilty of the works of the law. By separating himself from the Gentiles, by refusing to eat with them, by causing other Jewish Christians to withdraw from them he has been guilty of legalism or the works or the law or the energy of the flesh. Then the final conclusion: “for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” — ‘be justified’ is a future tense. This is true in the future. Never will the law provide justification for any person. The fact that it is in the future tense means that form the time that Paul braced Peter right down to the present, and as long as time exists, there will never be a time when the Mosaic law justifies anyone. After being saved no one can serve the Lord with one foot in the law and one foot in grace. This is exactly what happened to the Galatians. They were hamstrung by the Mosaic law. They had gone back to the law. “No flesh” means no member of the human race will ever be justified by the Mosaic law.

Verses 17-18, the second logical mouth trap. Remember that the legalists have charged Paul with promoting sin by making the Jews or anyone else abandon the law. This was one of the great criticisms of Paul. Paul’s very bracing of Peter proves that he understands the true purpose of the law and the false purpose of the law. Verse 17 is the first part of a logical mouth trap. If Peter was right in doing the law now then he was wrong and a lawbreaker during the time when he lived under grace. Verse 18 is the other side of the mouth trap: If he was right in eating with the Gentiles he is now wrong in going back to the law.

Verse 17 — “But if” — introducing a first class condition; “while we seek” — present active participle, we keep on seeking; “to be justified” — aorist infinitive of purpose. It was Paul’s purpose and it was Peter’s purpose to be justified by faith in Christ. And this is a passive voice which means that they received justification, they do not earn it or deserve it; “by Christ [literally, in the sphere of Christ, and we do, first class condition], we ourselves also are found sinners.” We are found” — aorist indicative active, in this point of time. The implication is that Peter’s actions believing Jews are sinners needing to live under the Mosaic law to get righteousness is the reason why he has cut off all of his contact with the Gentiles. He stopped eating with the Gentiles because he said in effect that in order to be justified we have to do more than believe in Christ, we have to keep the law and I’m going back to the law.

“is therefore Christ the minister of sin?” By this question Paul is speaking of those who abandon justification by faith and go back to the law. To go back to the law after you have believed in Christ, what does that make Christ? It makes Him the minister of sin. You start out by grace. You are saved by grace through faith, you have believed in Christ, Peter. You continue operation grace, then you come to a point where you start living under the law. Now you have abandoned grace and you have gone to the law, and when you go to the law for justification as you have at this point, you are saying in effect that what Christ did on the cross is not enough and that after accepting Christ as saviour you are still lost in sin and therefore you have made Christ the minister of sin. Here Paul has demonstrated to Peter in one phrase that by leaving grace and going back to the law he has actually said that Christ is not the minister of salvation, Christ is the minister of sin, and that is true every time that anyone tries to be saved by keeping the law, by being baptised, by walking an aisle, by raising their hand, by signing a card, by joining a church, by paying a fee, for salvation. They are saying that Christ is the minister of sin, and this is blasphemous and unthinkable. So Peter’s actions have implied that Christ is the minister of sin and His work on the cross is not efficacious, therefore Christ needs outside help from the law. Paul ends up by saying “God forbid” which is not God forbid at all. The word “God” does not occur here at all. There are two Greek words here: mh genoitw. The first one means “no” and the second one means “let it not become.” Putting the two words together it becomes “Let it not become so.”

Verse 18 — “For if,” another first class condition; “I build again the things which I destroyed” — and that is exactly what Peter is doing. For when Peter received Christ as saviour he destroyed the law. The law means works and Peter was saved by grace. No he is, picking up works, energy of the flesh, and he is building again the things he has already destroyed. “For if I build again” — present indicative active. It means “If I begin to build again.” Peter has just begun, he hasn’t finished it.” This is a reference to Peter going back to the law — “that which I destroyed.” The word for ‘destroy’ here means to abrogate, to deprive, and Peter deprived himself of the law for a system of justification or he abrogated the law by believing in Jesus Christ. Notice that if he starts to build it again the trap is shut, Peter is caught inside; “I make myself a transgressor.” Peter has a choice: Make yourself a transgressor or make Jesus Christ the minister of sin. Which will it be? And which ever way you jump, remember you are wrong. “I make myself” is literally, “I keep on establishing myself [present linear aktionsart] a transgressor.” Principle: Legalism is always characterised by hypocrisy. You cannot be legalistic without being hypocritical, and you are wrong one way or the other every way you turn through legalism. Legalism is the chief source of all hypocrisy and contradiction. Peter’s return to the Mosaic law is an attack on the principle of salvation by grace for he makes Christ the minister of sin and at the same time he makes himself a transgressor by building again that which is abrogated.

Verse 19 — “For I through the law” — ‘through’ is the preposition of instrumentality; “I by means of the law am dead to the law.” This is the principle which is amplified in the next verse. It means that as soon as you put yourself under the law you are dead, for the law says if you sin the wages of sin is death and you are dead as soon as you put yourself under the law. When you are spiritually dead there is only one answer, a new birth. We are all born into this world under the law and therefore we are born spiritually dead. So by means of the law we are dead. “I am dead” — aorist indicative active, referring to a point of time. The law makes Paul dead to the law because the law condemned him to death. The best thing the law can do for any member of the human race is to condemn him to death. Why is that the best thing? because then we can go outside of the law for life. In other words, we go to Christ who paid this penalty for us, who died as our substitute and took our place. The law is not dead to Paul but Paul is dead to the law. The law, because of the law, penalised him with death and therefore Paul can no longer serve under the law because the law killed him. You can’t serve under that which kills you. You cannot arrest a dead man for loitering in the cemetery! “That I might live” — ‘that’ introduces a purpose clause; “I might live unto God.” The Greek says, “that I might enter into life with God [in a point of time]” — an ingressive aorist. The point is when I believe in Jesus Christ. This is amplified in verse 20.

Verse 20 — death to the law is based on retroactive positional truth. Christ died with reference to the law, we are in union with Christ, we are dead to the law. The law first of all killed us when we came under it, now we look back and we are still dead to the law after salvation because we are in union with Christ. Christ died with reference to the law, we are in union with Him, therefore with reference to the law we have exactly the same position: dead. We are identified with Him in His death and therefore we are dead to the law.

“I am crucified” — erroneous translation. The Greek says, “I have been crucified with Christ in the past with the result that I keep on being crucified with Christ forever” — perfect tense, not present tense. In other words, Paul and Peter’s co-crucifixion with Christ is the basis of death to the law after salvation and deliverance from the law into a life of grace and liberty. Passive voice: I have received this crucifixion in the past with the result that I have received it forever. The believer receives retroactive positional truth, he does not earn it, he does not deserve it. The indicative mood: retroactive positional truth is a reality in the life of the believer. Paul is in union with Christ, Peter is in union with Christ, therefore both of them are identified with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. Hence, Paul is dead to the law, Peter is dead to the law, and for Peter to try to build the law again is a terrible mistake, as Paul has just pointed out to him. That is what Jesus meant in Matthew 5:17 when He said, “I have come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it.” The law says the wages of sin is death; He died for sin.” He fulfilled it by becoming our sin-bearer, by taking our place when He hung between heaven and earth.

“nevertheless I live” — incorrect translation. There is no “nevertheless,” in fact the Greek says. “I no longer live.” Translation from the start: “I have been crucified with Christ in the past with the result that I keep on being crucified with Him forever, and I no longer live” — this doesn’t mean to live physically, it means to live with reference to the law; “but Christ lives in me.” “I no longer live” is present linear aktionsart — ‘I no longer keep on living [in the sphere of the law].’ So how can Peter build again in that area where he no longer lives? When it says “Christ lives” it is present linear aktionsart, He keeps on living in me. There are two senses in which Christ lives in us. One is correct here and one is not. The first is that Christ indwells us. That is not the meaning here. It is true that Christ indwells us, that the person of Jesus Christ lives inside of us. We know this from Revelation 3:20; John 14:20; Romans 8:10; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Colossians 1:27, but this is not what is taught in Galatians 2:20. It is not the person of Christ living in me, it is the character of Christ produced in me. Since I am no longer under the law, what kind of a law am I under? I am under a new law whereby Christ is produced in me. Christ keeps on living in me. What does it mean? It means the character of Christ produced in the individual by means of the filling of the Holy Spirit; it means Galatians 4:19 — “Christ formed in you.” Christ formed in me by the filling of the Spirit, and this is the higher law. This very same factor is taught in a little different language in Romans 8:2. We are not lawless, we are simply under a higher law. We are under a law which covers the inside as well as the outside. The Mosaic law deals with the overt behaviour pattern and anything that simply deals with an overt behaviour pattern is never adequate because inside of the human race we have the old sin nature. Inside of the human race we have volition. Volition plus the old sin nature means that there is no solution to any law to any law which is merely a series of commandments which deal with overt behaviour patterns. You can never teach any such law because it is useless. The problem is on the inside with the old sin nature.

Romans 8:2 — “For the law the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” i.e. the law of the filling of the Spirit, “hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” That is because the Mosaic law is the law of sin and death. It is the law of sin because it teaches me that I am a sinner; it is the law of death because it condemns me to death.

Romans 8:3 — “For what the law could not do, in that it was weakened through the flesh” — the law is on the outside, the old sin nature is on the inside. Though the law in its concept is holy, just and good — the law is from God, the law is perfect — it cannot do the job of justifying and it can’t do the job of straightening me out inside. It is weak through the flesh; “God sending his own Son” — in other words, in order to rectify the situation God sent His own Son; “in the likeness of sinful flesh” — incarnation, hypostatic union; “and for a sin offering [literally], condemned sin in the flesh.” In other words, he fulfilled the law by paying the penalty of sin. The law says the wages of sin is death. Christ paid that penalty, so Christ took our place under the law. He died for us; He was judged by the law for us. He was sinless and therefore He became our substitute.

Romans 8:4 — Why? “That the righteousness of the law” — if anyone could keep the law a righteousness would be produced. No one can because of the indwelling sin nature, except Jesus Christ. And He did; “might be fulfilled in us” — aorist tense [in a point of time when we are filled with the Spirit]. It is possible to keep the law but you can’t keep the law by keeping the law, you can only keep the law by being filled with the Spirit; “who walk not after the flesh” — not according to the works of the law; “but according to the Spirit.” So there are two laws there: the Mosaic law and the law of the Spirit of life. And as it is very clearly stated in Romans 8:2-4 the law of Moses is set aside, it is abrogated, and we have a new law, the law of the Spirit of life.

We have exactly the same thing is Galatians 2:20 — “I have been crucified with Christ [in the past] with the result that I keep on being crucified with Him forever”. That means the law no longer has any control over me. I am out from under the law. The law can no longer condemn me and the law has no longer jurisdiction over me.

“nevertheless” is not found in the original; “and I no longer live [in the sphere of the law]”

(“yet not I” is not found in the original); but Christ liveth in me.” Christ living in us is Christ being formed by the Holy Spirit — Galatians 4:19; Ephesians 3:16,17; Philippians 1:20, 21.

“and the life which I now live in the flesh” — present linear aktionsart, I keep on living it in the flesh; “I live by means of faith in the Son of God” — the life that I have now I have because at one time I trusted in Christ as saviour. Because I have trusted in Christ as saviour I no longer live under the law, I live a new life. I am born again, I have a new life on the other side of that new birth; “who [once and for all loved me] loved me, and [once and for all] gave himself for me.” Love and gave are both aorist tenses. They mean once and for all He loved me, once and for all He gave Himself for me. And both of them are participles. The action of the aorist participle precedes the action of the main verb, and the main verb “I now live in the flesh.” So first of all He loved me, first of all He gave His life for me, and now I live Christ in the flesh. It is the Holy Spirit who produces Christ in us.

Verse 21 — “I do not frustrate the grace if God.” This is Paul’s last blow, the knockout punch. The Greek word for frustrate means void — I do not void, cancel, set aside the grace of God. The word frustrate is a present indicative active — “I do not keep on canceling God’s grace.” Peter is canceling God’s grace, and it is time for him to stop; “for if,” first class condition of assumption, “righteousness comes by the law [and for the moment let’s assume that it does], then Christ died in vain.” And Peter, you have made Christ the minister of sin. But that isn’t all, your action says that Christ died in vain, that Christ can’t save you by Himself dying for your sins, you have to have help from the Mosaic law. And Peter, by your actions you have said that the law is necessary for justification, and therefore you have concluded that Christ is the minister of sin and that Christ died in vain — both of which are blasphemy.

Principle: Legalism voids or cancels God’s grace. Since Christ died for a purpose, to give us righteousness (+R) apart from the law and apart from human merit, then the law is set aside and grace is the principle of divine modus operandi. The law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.