Galatians Chapter 2
Paul Defends the Gospel of Grace
A. Paul presents to the leaders of the church in Jerusalem the gospel of grace revealed to him by Jesus.
Galatians 2:1–2
"Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain." (Galatians 2:1–2, NKJV)
1. Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
This marks Paul’s second significant visit to Jerusalem. His first, described in Galatians 1:18, took place three years after his conversion. This visit, fourteen years later, underscores the independence of Paul’s apostleship and message from the Jerusalem leadership. He was not dependent upon the original apostles for his theology or authority.
This trip likely corresponds with the Jerusalem famine visit noted in Acts 11:27–30, although it also connects directly with the greater doctrinal showdown detailed in Acts 15:1–21, when the issue of Gentile inclusion apart from Mosaic Law observance was formally addressed.
Barnabas, whose name means "son of encouragement" (cf. Acts 4:36), was a respected leader among the apostles in Jerusalem and had been instrumental in bringing Paul into the fold after his conversion (see Acts 9:27). His presence lent credibility to Paul’s mission.
Titus, a Gentile believer and close associate of Paul, was a test case. He was intentionally brought as an uncircumcised convert to challenge the legalistic demands of the Judaizers—those insisting that Gentile converts must be circumcised and come under the Mosaic Law.
Paul would later refer to Titus in deeply affectionate terms:
"Nevertheless God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus." (2 Corinthians 7:6, NKJV)
"If anyone inquires about Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker concerning you." (2 Corinthians 8:23, NKJV)
"To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior." (Titus 1:4, NKJV)
Titus stands as living proof of salvation by grace through faith apart from the Law.
2. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles...
Paul did not go to Jerusalem on a whim or because he was summoned. He went "by revelation"—by direct divine instruction. This demonstrates the supernatural direction of Paul’s ministry. His accountability was to Christ alone, not to any human authority.
This reveals the true nature of his mission: he was not checking in to receive approval, but rather obeying the prompting of the Holy Spirit to clarify and affirm the gospel of grace. He communicated to the apostles in Jerusalem the gospel that he had already been preaching effectively among the Gentiles.
As noted in Acts 15, the early church was divided on how to integrate Gentiles. Some from the Pharisee sect insisted on circumcision and law-keeping (cf. Acts 15:5). Paul boldly opposed this and defended the sufficiency of grace, highlighting that justification was through faith alone.
Acts 15:7–11 (NKJV) records Peter’s testimony during that meeting:
"And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: 'Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.'"
...but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.
Paul met with the key leaders—Peter, James, and John (cf. Galatians 2:9)—privately, showing strategic wisdom and humility. His goal was not to shame or confront them publicly but to ensure that the unity of the gospel was preserved.
He did this “lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.” This does not mean Paul doubted the truth of his message. Rather, he feared that any disunity between himself and the Jerusalem apostles could be exploited by false teachers to discredit his mission, hinder the spread of the gospel, and possibly split the Church along Jewish-Gentile lines.
This act reveals Paul’s spiritual maturity: he was uncompromising in doctrine, yet sensitive in method.
2 Timothy 2:24–25 (NKJV) echoes this attitude:
"And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition..."
Summary:
Paul’s visit to Jerusalem in Galatians 2:1–2 was not to seek approval, but to secure unity in the gospel message across Jew and Gentile alike. Titus, a Gentile convert, was presented as a living testimony of the gospel’s power without the Law. Paul met with the leaders in private, not out of fear or uncertainty, but out of love for the Church and strategic care to preserve the integrity of the gospel without division.
This moment anticipates the deeper doctrinal clarifications that follow in the rest of chapter 2 and sets the stage for Paul’s confrontation with Peter later in the chapter, where the very heart of justification by faith alone is defended.
Galatians 2:3–5
"Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."
(Galatians 2:3–5, NKJV)
2. The Issue Over the Circumcision of Titus
a. “Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised…”
Titus, a full-blooded Gentile and Paul’s spiritual son (cf. Titus 1:4, NKJV – "To Titus, a true son in our common faith..."), became a symbolic test case at the Jerusalem council. That the apostles did not compel Titus to be circumcised served as a powerful affirmation of the gospel of grace apart from works.
This is a vital turning point: the refusal to circumcise Titus shows that the Jerusalem leadership—Peter, James, and John—affirmed the sufficiency of faith in Christ for salvation without conformity to Jewish ceremonial law.
Circumcision, the physical sign of the Mosaic covenant, was required for any male to enter the religious life of Israel (see Genesis 17:10–14, NKJV: "He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations..."). For generations, it marked the boundary of “insiders” and “outsiders.” Paul is adamant that the gospel establishes a new identity in Christ, not rooted in the old distinctions of the Law.
This is the same Paul who said in 1 Corinthians 7:19 (NKJV):
“Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.”
“Of course, if any man was going to live a life in obedience to the law he must start by being circumcised.” (Leon Morris)
“Paul did not condemn circumcision as if it were a sin to receive it. But he insisted, and the conference upheld him, that circumcision had no bearing upon salvation and was therefore not to be forced upon the Gentiles.” (Martin Luther)
This is a theological watershed. If Titus had been circumcised under pressure, the gospel would have been compromised. It would have suggested that faith in Christ was not enough—a denial of justification by grace through faith (cf. Ephesians 2:8–9, NKJV: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.")
b. “And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in…”
The pressure for Titus to conform did not originate from the apostles but from false brethren—individuals who claimed to be Christians but were not. They stealthily infiltrated the ranks to undermine the liberty of believers and to reimpose Mosaic law.
These Judaizers were not mere theological nuisances. Paul calls them false brethren—spiritually dangerous infiltrators who were undermining the very heart of the gospel. Their intent was not evangelistic but subversive. As Paul had already warned in Galatians 1:6–9, anyone who preached another gospel—even an angel—was to be accursed.
They had “come in by stealth to spy out our liberty.” This is military language—espionage terminology. They were not openly debating doctrine; they were covertly attempting to impose legalism. As Chuck Missler puts it, these were religious infiltrators aiming to "entice Gentile believers into the Jewish system."
“This may mean either that they had no business to be in the church fellowship at all, or that they had gate-crashed the private conference with the apostles.” (John Stott)
Paul saw clearly: if these men were tolerated, the gospel would be compromised, the Church would fracture, and believers—especially Gentile converts—would be dragged into spiritual slavery.
Romans 8:15 (NKJV) affirms the opposite:
“For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, ‘Abba, Father.’”
“They did not come in with name badges that said, ‘False Brother.’ They did not come in with a purpose statement that said, ‘We have come to spy out your liberty in Jesus, and to bring you into bondage.’”
(Paraphrased for clarity)
c. “To whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”
Paul didn’t waver. He did not compromise, accommodate, or negotiate the gospel for the sake of peace or unity. He knew that even the smallest concession would render the gospel powerless. If salvation could be earned—even partially—then Christ died in vain (cf. Galatians 2:21, NKJV: "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.")
This wasn’t pride—it was pastoral protection. Paul was standing not just for Titus, but for every future Gentile believer in Galatia and beyond.
“If they had asked for it on the plea of brotherly love, Paul would not have denied them. But because they demanded it on the ground that it was necessary for salvation, Paul defied them, and prevailed. Titus was not circumcised.” (Martin Luther)
“The passage is grammatically difficult… Clearly Paul was deeply moved when he wrote this and was not greatly concerned with the niceties of grammar.” (Leon Morris)
Paul’s defiance was essential for gospel preservation. His resistance preserved the truth of justification by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone.
Summary:
In Galatians 2:3–5, Paul gives a snapshot of spiritual warfare in action—not against the world, but within the Church. Titus became a living banner of grace, and Paul’s unyielding resistance to false brethren preserved the gospel for all generations. This passage is a clarion call to defend the truth of the gospel without compromise, especially when legalistic infiltrators attempt to replace liberty with law, and grace with bondage.
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.”
(Galatians 5:1, NKJV)
Galatians 2:6–10
Paul’s Gospel Recognized and Approved by the Apostles in Jerusalem
Galatians 2:6
"But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me." (Galatians 2:6, NKJV)
3. Paul Summarizes His Point: His Apostolic Authority Came Directly from God, Not Man
a. “But from those who seemed to be something…”
Paul is referring here to the highly regarded leaders of the early Church—namely, James (the Lord’s brother), Cephas (Peter), and John (cf. verse 9). These men were acknowledged as the visible leaders or "pillars" of the Church in Jerusalem. However, Paul does not flatter them, nor is he intimidated by their reputation. His stance is rooted in the truth that God is no respecter of persons.
Romans 2:11 (NKJV):
"For there is no partiality with God."
Paul understood that outward status or reputation, even in the church, does not equate to superior authority when it comes to the gospel. Spiritual authority is not a matter of prestige or personality—it is grounded in the truth of divine calling and revelation.
As Paul later told Timothy:
2 Timothy 2:15 (NKJV):
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
b. “For those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.”
The Jerusalem leaders did not modify, correct, or supplement Paul’s gospel. They recognized its authenticity and left it untouched. Paul’s gospel was not subordinate to theirs—it stood on equal footing, because it came from the same divine source: Jesus Christ Himself (cf. Galatians 1:11–12, NKJV – “But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.”)
This statement demolishes any idea of apostolic hierarchy. Paul was not junior to Peter, James, or John; he was not the thirteenth apostle. He was the uniquely appointed apostle to the Gentiles (cf. Romans 11:13, NKJV – “For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry.”)
“Paul’s words are neither a denial of, nor a mark of disrespect for, their apostolic authority. He is simply indicating that, although he accepts their office as apostles, he is not overawed by their person as it was being inflated (by the false teachers).” —John Stott
Galatians 2:7–9
"But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." (Galatians 2:7–9, NKJV)
4. The Leaders of the Jerusalem Church Publicly Endorsed Paul’s Gospel and Mission
a. “When they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me…”
This acknowledgment by the Jerusalem apostles marks a critical moment of unity. Paul’s gospel—justification by grace through faith alone, without the works of the Law—was not only tolerated; it was approved and recognized. The gospel to the “uncircumcised” (Gentiles) had been divinely entrusted to Paul, just as the gospel to the “circumcised” (Jews) had been entrusted to Peter.
b. “(For He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles)...”
This clause affirms that one and the same God empowered both Peter and Paul in their respective ministries. It was not two different gospels, but one gospel applied in two contexts. God called Peter to focus on Jewish evangelism, and Paul to pioneer among the Gentiles.
Acts 13:47 (NKJV):
"For so the Lord has commanded us: 'I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, that you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.'"
“For the partition was not one that fixed hard and fast boundaries that they must not pass, like those of kingdoms, principalities, and provinces.” —John Calvin
This also serves as a refutation of Roman Catholic claims that Peter held universal primacy. If Peter’s apostleship was specifically to the Jews, and Paul’s was to the Gentiles, then the alleged papal succession from Peter cannot rightly claim jurisdiction over the Gentile world. As Calvin says:
“If the Pope of Rome claims the primacy because he is Peter’s successor, he ought to exercise it over the Jews. Paul is here declared to be the chief apostle of the Gentiles.”
c. “James, Cephas, and John… gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship…”
This symbolic gesture was more than courtesy—it was official recognition and partnership. They acknowledged Paul’s authority and endorsed his mission. The right hand of fellowship was an expression of unity, affirming the mutual legitimacy of their ministries.
Galatians 2:10
"They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do." (Galatians 2:10, NKJV)
d. “They desired only that we should remember the poor…”
The only practical concern raised by the Jerusalem leaders was care for the poor, particularly the suffering Jewish believers in Jerusalem, many of whom had endured persecution and poverty (cf. Romans 15:25–27; 1 Corinthians 16:1–4).
Paul was more than willing. He would spend years collecting aid from Gentile churches and delivering it to the saints in Jerusalem—an act that demonstrated not only charity, but unity between Jew and Gentile in the one body of Christ.
Romans 15:26–27 (NKJV):
"For it pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem. It pleased them indeed, and they are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to them in material things."
Summary:
In Galatians 2:6–10, Paul firmly declares that his gospel and his apostleship were independent of human authority and approval. He did not derive his message from Peter, James, or John—but when tested before them, his gospel stood vindicated. Not only did they add nothing to it, but they gave him the right hand of fellowship, officially affirming his ministry to the Gentiles.
The only request was practical: “Remember the poor”—a command Paul was already faithfully obeying. This passage makes it crystal clear that the gospel Paul preached is the authentic gospel of grace, sufficient for both Jew and Gentile, with no need for additions from the Law.
Galatians 2:11–13
Paul Rebukes Peter for Hypocrisy Regarding Gentile Fellowship
Galatians 2:11
"Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;" (Galatians 2:11, NKJV)
1. The Reason for Paul’s Public Rebuke of the Apostle Peter
a. “Now when Peter had come to Antioch…”
This event marks a dramatic shift. The same Peter who had welcomed Gentiles into the body of Christ in Acts 10—and who had defended their full inclusion before the council in Acts 11—now fell into serious error when he came to Antioch, the hub of Gentile Christianity. Antioch was Paul's home base of operations, a stronghold of gospel freedom and multiethnic unity (Acts 11:19–26).
Peter had previously affirmed Paul’s gospel (cf. Galatians 2:9) and had personally witnessed the Holy Spirit fall upon Gentiles without circumcision or law-keeping (cf. Acts 10:44–48). Yet now, he caves under pressure and backtracks from what he once knew and preached.
Galatians 2:12
"For before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision." (Galatians 2:12, NKJV)
b. “He withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision…”
Peter’s withdrawal from Gentile fellowship was not theological—it was motivated by fear. He had regularly shared meals with Gentile Christians in Antioch. The imperfect tense of “would eat” implies this was Peter’s habitual practice. But upon the arrival of some strict Jewish believers “from James,” he pulled away, out of fear of reprisal or loss of standing.
Acts 10:28 (NKJV) – “Then he said to them, ‘You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.’”
Peter had learned directly from God that Gentile believers were not to be treated as second-class citizens. God had made no distinction (cf. Acts 15:7–11). His sudden change was not a failure of knowledge but a failure of courage. This was not a doctrinal error—it was a relational and practical compromise with enormous implications.
“The withdrawal of Peter seems to have been quiet and tentative—‘the cautious withdrawal of a timid person who shrinks from observation.’” (Stott)
“Peter perhaps felt that if the members of the embassy went back and told the Jerusalem church that he was eating with Gentiles it would compromise his position with the leading church.” (Morris)
Peter feared “those of the circumcision”—Jewish believers who were still tethered to legalistic traditions. These men were not advocating justification by faith alone; they were legalists masquerading as Christians (cf. Galatians 2:4 – “false brethren secretly brought in…”).
Galatians 2:13
"And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy." (Galatians 2:13, NKJV)
c. “The rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him…”
Peter’s failure became a contagion. Other Jewish believers in the Antioch church followed Peter’s lead in separating themselves from Gentile Christians—not because they believed differently, but because they feared rejection or conflict.
This is the heart of hypocrisy—when one acts contrary to what one believes. These Jewish believers still affirmed salvation by grace, but their actions denied it.
The term “played the hypocrite” comes from the Greek συνυποκρίνομαι (sunupokrinomai)—used only here in the New Testament. It carries the image of putting on a mask or acting a part on stage. This was calculated behavior for the sake of social appearances.
“The sins of teachers are the teachers of sins.” —John Trapp
Peter, a spiritual leader, modeled division, and others—especially Barnabas—followed. When leaders falter, they rarely fall alone.
d. “So that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy…”
This is shocking. Barnabas, Paul’s long-time co-laborer, his advocate before the apostles (cf. Acts 9:27), and the one who sought Paul in Tarsus to help teach Gentiles (cf. Acts 11:25–26), abandons the truth under pressure.
Acts 11:24 (NKJV) – “For he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord.”
Yet even this good and faithful man was “carried away” (sunapēchthē)—a passive verb implying he was swept along by the actions of others. The danger of compromise lies not just in active sin but in passive participation. Barnabas didn’t initiate the division, but he followed it.
“The defection of Barnabas was of a far more serious nature with regard to Gentile freedom than the vacillation of Peter… Barnabas, the foremost champion of Gentile liberty next to Paul, had become a turncoat.” —Kenneth Wuest
This moment may explain the later rift between Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:36–39, where their disagreement over John Mark may have also carried lingering distrust from this incident in Antioch.
Summary: The Setting and Significance of the Confrontation
Paul’s confrontation with Peter in Galatians 2:11–13 reveals that gospel compromise often comes not through doctrinal corruption but through fear and social pressure. Peter knew better. Barnabas knew better. But the pressure to conform to legalistic expectations led them to act against the truth they professed to believe.
The implications were grave. The unity of the Church, the truth of the gospel, and the inclusion of Gentile believers were all at stake. This wasn’t just a squabble over dinner seating—it was a moment of gospel clarity.
Romans 7:18 (NKJV):
"For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find."
“No man’s standing is so secure that he may not fall. If Peter fell, I may fall… If he rose again, I may rise again.” —Martin Luther
This text is a sober reminder that even the strongest believers can fail when fear overrides faith. But it also proves the necessity of bold, gracious confrontation when the truth of the gospel is at risk.
2. (Galatians 2:14a) Paul confronts Peter publicly.
“But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all…” (Galatians 2:14a, NKJV)
a. “But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel…” – Paul immediately recognized that Peter and the others were not merely being socially inconsiderate — they were compromising the very heart of the gospel. This was not just a matter of etiquette or cultural sensitivity; this was about how a person is justified before God. The truth of the gospel was under threat, and Paul saw that the implications of their behavior would undermine the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith.
Paul understood clearly that when Peter, Barnabas, and others separated themselves from Gentile believers, they were effectively saying, “You are not fully saved unless you submit to the Law of Moses.” That is a direct attack on the sufficiency of the cross. Paul writes elsewhere, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9, NKJV). Their conduct introduced a works-based requirement into the equation of salvation — a false gospel.
Paul's rebuke shows that doctrinal compromise often begins with small, seemingly social choices that betray theological convictions. It is vital for leaders to remain theologically consistent even when under pressure. “Peter did not say so, but his example said quite plainly that the observance of the Law must be added to faith in Christ, if men are to be saved” (Luther). This error had to be confronted.
b. “I said to Peter before them all…” – Paul’s confrontation was public because the offense was public. This wasn’t a personal sin between two men that could be dealt with privately; it was a public misrepresentation of the gospel message, and it demanded open correction for the sake of the body. Paul followed the principle found in Proverbs 27:5, “Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed” (NKJV).
Furthermore, Paul’s courage in confronting Peter shows the strength of his conviction and clarity in doctrine. Peter was the most well-known of the apostles, the leader at Pentecost, the man whom many would look to as the foundation of the early Church (cf. Matthew 16:18). But truth is not subject to popularity or position. Even apostles could err — and must be corrected when they do.
Though Paul may not have had the same prominence at the time, he had a firm grip on what the true gospel was. His boldness was not arrogance; it was a protective zeal for God’s truth. Jude 3 reminds us, “Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (NKJV).
3. (Galatians 2:14b) Paul exposes Peter’s hypocrisy in appearing to live under the law.
“If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?” (Galatians 2:14b, NKJV)
a. “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews…” – Paul strikes at the hypocrisy. Peter had already abandoned strict observance of the Mosaic law in practice, especially when it came to food laws. Acts 10:13–15 records Peter’s vision, where God declared all foods clean: “And a voice came to him, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ But Peter said, ‘Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.’ And a voice spoke to him again the second time, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common’” (NKJV).
Peter had been living in Christian liberty, free from ceremonial law — until pressure came. Then he reverted to behavior that he no longer believed in, giving the false appearance of legalism. This is what made the offense so dangerous — it was dishonest and inconsistent. His personal convictions and theological understanding did not match his public conduct.
b. “Why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?” – Paul calls out the indirect coercion. Though Peter may not have verbally demanded Gentile believers to keep the law, his actions spoke louder. By separating himself and treating Gentiles as unclean or less than fully Christian, Peter was effectively compelling them to adopt Jewish customs in order to gain full acceptance.
This is contrary to the clear message of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. The Apostle Peter himself had proclaimed in Acts 15:11, “But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they” (NKJV). To now act differently was not only inconsistent, it was dangerous to the health of the Church.
Paul was defending the truth that salvation is not achieved through external law-keeping. Romans 3:28 says, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (NKJV). To add any requirement of the Law to the gospel is to deny the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement.
Summary Application:
This confrontation highlights a timeless warning for the Church: any compromise on gospel clarity must be met with firm correction. Even leaders can fall into error, and even good men like Peter and Barnabas can be swayed by pressure. But we must not waver on the truth — not for unity, not for popularity, and not for convenience. As Paul says in Galatians 1:10, “For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ” (NKJV).
Galatians 2:15–16
Paul reminds Peter that justification comes by faith in Christ, not by works of the Law.
“We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”
— Galatians 2:15–16, NKJV
a. “We who are Jews by nature… knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ”
Paul reminds Peter of their shared background. They were born Jews, raised with the Law, circumcised on the eighth day, brought up in the customs of Moses, and familiar with temple worship, sacrifices, and ceremonial purity. Yet, despite all that, they knew something critical: no one is made right with God — no one is justified — by keeping the law. Even the most devout Jew must come to Christ the same way as the Gentile: through faith alone.
This is the first occurrence of the word justified in Galatians — from the Greek word dikaioō, a forensic, legal term meaning to declare righteous. This is not about making someone righteous in behavior, but declaring them righteous before the bar of God’s judgment. It is the opposite of condemnation.
“He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.” — Proverbs 17:15 (NKJV)
But in the gospel, God justifies the wicked not by ignoring justice, but by placing their punishment upon Christ. Paul teaches this clearly again in Romans 3:28 — “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (NKJV).
b. “Even we have believed in Christ Jesus…”
Paul includes himself and Peter in this. Even they, with all their Jewish upbringing and adherence to the law, had to believe in Christ for salvation. Belief is not merely intellectual assent; the Greek indicates a full commitment — they believed into Christ (Greek: eis). It is the language of surrender, like a man fleeing into a fortress for safety.
“For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” — Romans 10:13 (NKJV)
The gospel demands not mere agreement, but trust and reliance upon Christ’s finished work on the cross. Paul says in Philippians 3:9 that he wanted to be “found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith” (NKJV).
c. “That we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law…”
Paul repeats his point for emphasis. Justification is only by faith. The repetition underscores how strongly Paul rejects the legalistic notion that one can earn favor with God. Peter’s behavior — distancing himself from Gentile believers — was a contradiction of this core gospel truth. It implied that their faith was insufficient without additional works.
Paul, as a former Pharisee, knew this trap intimately. He had zealously pursued righteousness through the law but found it worthless compared to knowing Christ (Philippians 3:4–8).
d. “For by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified”
This last statement is absolute and sweeping: no flesh — no person of any background — will ever be declared righteous before God by their own law-keeping. Paul likely draws from Psalm 143:2: “Do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for in Your sight no one living is righteous” (NKJV). The law condemns, it does not save.
“Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” — Romans 3:20 (NKJV)
This utterly refutes any effort to mix faith with works for salvation — whether it be circumcision, sacraments, dietary restrictions, or religious rituals. The only ground for acceptance with God is the finished work of Jesus Christ, received by faith alone.
Galatians 2:17–18
Paul addresses the objection: “Does salvation by faith promote sin?”
“But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.”
— Galatians 2:17–18, NKJV
a. “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin?”
Paul addresses the likely objection: “If you teach that people are justified by faith in Christ and not by works, then aren’t you encouraging people to live in sin? If Christians are still struggling with sin, doesn’t that mean Christ has failed to make them holy?”
This accusation has always been leveled at the gospel of grace — that it leads to license. But Paul strongly denies it. Certainly not! The fact that believers still wrestle with sin does not mean Christ approves of sin or causes it. It simply acknowledges the already-not-yet tension: we are declared righteous in position, though we still grow in holiness in practice.
“For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” — Hebrews 10:14 (NKJV)
b. “For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.”
If Paul were to go back to law-keeping as a means of righteousness, after having torn it down through the gospel, he would be the one committing transgression — not the Gentiles. Legalism is not holiness; it is rebellion against the grace of God.
Trying to earn salvation through works is not a safer path; it is a dangerous insult to Christ’s sacrifice. It denies the sufficiency of His atonement and says, in essence, “Christ is not enough. I must add something of my own.”
Paul puts it bluntly: to rebuild a system of works-righteousness is to commit sin. It is to turn from the cross and trust again in self.
“I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.” — Galatians 2:21 (NKJV)
Doctrinal Summary:
Justification is a judicial declaration of righteousness based solely on faith in Jesus Christ.
No amount of religious law-keeping contributes anything to salvation.
The gospel does not promote sin; it promotes liberty from the law and victory over sin through the Spirit.
To revert to legalism is to make oneself a transgressor and to insult the finished work of the cross.
Galatians 2:19–20 — Paul’s Permanently Changed Relationship to the Law
Galatians 2:19–20 (NKJV):
“For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”
Paul explains that he “died to the law” through the law itself. The law revealed his sin and condemned him—it served its purpose by making him aware that righteousness could never be achieved through works. The law wasn’t abolished, but Paul’s relationship to it was fundamentally changed. He was no longer under its dominion. The law’s role was to expose guilt and point to the need for a Savior, not to serve as a means of justification.
Paul died to the law so that he might live to God. As long as he pursued righteousness through law-keeping, he was spiritually dead. Only by dying to that old system could he truly live unto God.
He states, “I have been crucified with Christ.” This means Paul identified completely with the death of Jesus on the cross. In God’s eyes, Paul’s old self—his legalistic, Pharisaical identity—died with Christ. His new life is not his own; it is Christ’s life in him. This marks the doctrine of union with Christ: the believer is so united to Christ that His death becomes the believer’s death, and His life becomes the believer’s life.
“It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.” Paul is not suggesting that he has lost his personality or agency, but that the center of his identity is no longer self—it is Christ. The Christian life is not a self-improvement project but a supernatural transformation whereby Christ indwells the believer and empowers him to live a life pleasing to God.
The life Paul now lives “in the flesh”—that is, in his human body—he lives “by faith in the Son of God.” Faith is not a one-time act; it is the daily means by which the believer draws life and direction. Paul no longer relates to God through performance, rule-keeping, or ceremony. His standing before God is based entirely on faith in the finished work of Jesus.
He concludes with a deeply personal declaration: “who loved me and gave Himself for me.” The love of Christ is not merely theoretical—it was demonstrated in His sacrificial death. This phrase emphasizes the substitutionary nature of the atonement. Christ did not just die for the world in general; He died for Paul personally. Paul’s theology is rooted in the cross, not just as a historical event, but as the decisive act of love that redefined his life and standing before God.
Galatians 2:21 — The Importance of Grace and the Folly of Law-Righteousness
Galatians 2:21 (NKJV):
“I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”
Paul brings the argument to its climax. To return to the law for justification is to nullify the grace of God. Grace is unearned and undeserved; if righteousness could be achieved through the law, then grace would be unnecessary. To embrace law-keeping as a means of justification is to reject the sufficiency of Christ’s work.
Paul’s logic is airtight: if righteousness could come through the law, then Christ died needlessly. This would render the cross meaningless, a tragic mistake rather than the central act of redemption. Paul’s point is that grace and law are mutually exclusive paths to righteousness. If law could save, Christ would not have had to die.
This verse also destroys the false notion that grace merely “helps” us get to heaven after we do our best. Grace does not supplement our effort; it replaces it entirely. Justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
Peter’s withdrawal from fellowship with Gentiles was not merely a social misstep—it was a theological error that risked undermining the gospel. By confronting Peter publicly, Paul safeguarded the doctrine of grace and ensured the gospel remained clear and uncompromised.
