the whole matter before the church there. When these delegates arrived the church was gathered together and the question thoroughly discussed. The conclusion was that instead of forcing circumcision upon the Gentile believers, their faith alone should be considered sufficient. The discussion and its cause together with the final decision are fully recorded in Acts 15:1-31. The authority behind Paul’s gospel is shown also by his rebuke of Peter (2:11-21). Since the false teachers were supposed to represent Peter, Paul shows Peter’s fallibility in that he had to be publicly rebuked. As it was Paul who administered the rebuke, his authority as an apostle, instead of being inferior to Peter’s, was if any thing even higher. The occasion for the rebuke arose when Peter visited Antioch and had fellowship with the Gentile believers there. Apparently he was quite at ease in doing so as long as none from the Jerusalem church were present. But when some from the church at Jeru salem appeared, fearing what they might think and report, he withdrew himself. He would appear before those from Jerusalem as though he did not fellowship with the Gentile Christians (vs. 11-13). This called forth the severe rebuke from Paul which he now records. We should remember that Paul is quoting what he had said to Peter “before them all.” The nature of the rebuke shows first of all the inconsistency of law keeping. If it was right for Peter to live as the Gentile believers lived, why should he desire the Gentiles to live as the Jews? If Gentile-living under grace, apart from the law, was good enough for Peter, was it bad for the Gentiles themselves ? If Peter was free to live outside of the law, was it not lawful for the Gentiles to do the same? (v. 14.) In the second place, the rebuke shows the folly of law-keeping. If a Jew had to leave the law behind in order to be justified by faith, and not by the works of the law, why should the Gentile be brought under the law?
Could the Gentile find justification under the law when the Jew had proven that to be impossible? But as the Gentile believers were already jus tified by grace it would be folly for them to turn from that to the law which had been unable to justify the Jew (vs. 15-18). In the third place, the rebuke shows the error of law-keeping (vs. 19-21). The believer has become dead to the law; has passed out of its jurisdiction, out of its reach, beyond its sphere. The law had arrested, condemned, sen tenced and slain (v. 19), and that was all the law could do. It could only, in the very nature of the case, condemn and slay whoever stood under it, whether Jew or Gentile. This the law HOW HAVE YOU LIVED TH IS DAY If I have planted hope today in any hopeless heart If som eone's load has lighter grown because I did my part If happily I have caused a laugh that chased some tears away A n d if tonight my name be named where someone kneels to pray must do before any can live unto God. Therefore there could be no hope whatever of being justified by that which could only condemn and slay. The 20th verse states a fact which is true of every believer. It is not that we are to seek to be crucified with Christ, but we have been crucified with Him, and now the principle of living is not by the law (which had slain because it had found us guilty) but by faith. The death of Christ upon the cross was not only penal but substitutionary as well. He was not only the sacrifice for sin but the sub stitute for all who believe. Paul de clares that under the law he was tried, found guilty, condemned, and, in the Person of his Substitute, was slain. He therefore has nothing more to do with the law nor has the law anything more to do with him. He is as far from the law as Christ is. He has been crucified with Christ. 35 I claim my day has been well spent N ot lived in vain and I'm content.
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker