Resisting the Pressures of Legalism

Galatians 1:10-2:14

It’s hard to choose between people or views who compete for our attention, loyalty, and support, especially when they offer incompatible options. Such “cross-pressure” occurs:

• at a shallow level when we choose between brands, restaurants, and sports teams
• at a deeper level when we’re pulled between political parties, social causes, and family/work priorities
• at an even deeper level when we’re torn between people with whom we’re in a close relationship (parents or spouse, spouse or child, one child or another, one parent or another, one sibling or another, one church member or another, one friend or another)
• at the deepest level when we must choose between what God teaches in Scripture and a differing view promoted by a person you love and value, or when people you respect insist on two conflicting interpretations of Scripture

The young churches in Galatia faced cross-pressure at the deepest level. Paul had told them to trust and live for Christ by faith alone. When he left them to return to his sending church, Jewish teachers (Judaizers) showed up and taught them differently – that genuine faith must follow OT traditions and laws. Who was right? Who should they believe?

• Paul: no official endorsement from religious leaders and emerged on the scene quite recently, but he had invested heartfelt effort into starting and teaching these churches
• Jewish teachers: invested no effort into starting or teaching these churches but were endorsed by the religious establishment and represented a longstanding tradition

Paul wrote this letter to resolve the cross-pressure that churches in Galatia were facing. To resolve this pressure, he first offered a helpful explanation of his motives in this disagreement as demonstrated by his movements in ministry after his conversion. His explanation establishes two important realities:

• This disagreement was not a personal tug-of-war between Paul and some competing teachers, nor was it a disagreement between Paul and the Old Testament (OT) Scriptures; it was a disagreement between the gospel that came from Christ and the false teaching that had come from misguided people who practiced legalism.
• For insisting on a proper understanding of the gospel, whether for initial salvation or the ongoing Christian life that follows, Paul experienced intense pressure from well-meaning people (both believers and nonbelievers) who themselves faced the pressures of legalism.

In both cases, we see that Paul was addressing the problem of legalism:

• For those who have not yet believed on Christ for salvation, legalism adds OT laws, rules, and traditions to the gospel message which we must also supposedly believe to be saved.
• For those who have believed on Christ, legalism requires laws, traditions, and superficial, man-made rules for the Christian life which Jesus does not command.

Legalism is a serious problem for both nonbelievers and believers because:

• Nonbelievers who embrace a legalistic gospel will remain unsaved and die in sin.
• Believers who embrace a legalistic gospel will live discouraging, unfruitful lives.

Paul saw the significance of this problem. That’s why he gave an extended explanation of why we should choose his “version” of the gospel over legalistic alternatives, which are not legitimate alternatives though they may seem to be at first (Gal 1:7).

Let’s trace Paul’s explanation from Gal 1:10-2:14 and respond with two key observations:

• First, a legalistic gospel and approach to the Christian life is not from Christ.
• Second, we should resist the pull to practice legalism in our own lives, whether it comes from our own hearts or from the influence of other people in our lives (or both).

Before we make these observations, let’s take a closer look at what Paul has to say about his motives and message in teaching the gospel and confronting legalism in the first place.

Paul valued God’s approval over other people’s approval. (Gal 1:10)

“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.” With these two questions and the explanation that follows, Paul makes it clear from the outset of his explanation that whatever he taught them, he taught it because he wanted to please God rather than man. Whenever he taught the gospel message, it was his goal to say what God wanted him to say, not what other influential people wanted him to say.

Paul faced great pressure to respect to the Jewish tradition by requiring non-Jewish people to practice the Jewish tradition of circumcision and OT laws pertaining to sabbath observances and kosher food laws. Though Paul was keenly aware of this pressure, he didn’t allow it to affect what he taught about salvation and the Christian life.

Paul taught the gospel exactly as Christ had told him. (Gal 1:11-12)

“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.” Here Paul claims that the gospel he taught had not been influenced or shaped by input from any other person because he didn’t get it from any other person. If he had learned it from another person, then the version he had been taught might have been influenced by that other person’s opinions.

Instead, the gospel which Paul taught, he had received it from Christ himself by direct revelation. This means that Paul had enjoyed the unique experience of learning about the gospel message directly from Christ – with no middleman to mess it up or change it.

Paul understood the dangers of legalism firsthand. (Gal 1:13-14)

“You have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” Paul reminded the Galatian churches of his reputation before he believed on Christ. In fact, he had been so insistent on practicing circumcision and OT laws that he persecuted (which means “to pressure, pursue, or persecute”) followers of Christ (Acts 9:1). He even ordered the execution of Stephen, the first martyr in church history (Acts 7:54-60).

Because he had been such a committed legalist, he had climbed high in the ranks of the Jewish religious and political establishment, beyond most of his peers. He achieved this prestigious status because he was more passionate about upholding Jewish customs and laws than his peers had been. This is how legalism works. The more strict and conservative you are, the more respect you get. Paul experienced dynamic this firsthand.

God called Paul based on grace not performance. (Gal 1:15)

“When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles.” Paul contrasts the way he became an apostle for Christ with the way he became a respected leader in Judaism. As a legalist who enforced a strict adherence to the law, Paul had climbed the social ladder by his dedicated performance. But when God pulled him away from all that, he chose Paul apart from his performance.

God had chosen Paul “from my mother’s womb” (so Paul had done nothing to earn this call yet), and God had chosen him “through grace” (so God’s choice was free and unearned). The Jewish teachers would say, “Listen to us because we deserve your respect.” Paul would say, “Listen to me because God has given me a message, even though I don’t deserve to be telling you.” Who is a better accrediting agency? Jewish political and religious leaders who selected people that impressed them by outward performance or God who chose people because he wanted to?

Paul relied on God alone for affirmation. (Gal 1:16-2:10)

He gives the most space to this part of his explanation because he makes his point by describing his early itinerary as an apostle. By walking through his itinerary, he proves that he didn’t rely on the endorsement of his ministry from the early leaders of Christianity. He also shows that he didn’t get his message from them either.

As a legalistic Pharisee who had climbed the ranks of power through strategic relationships and aggressive performance that impressed important people, Paul could have carried the same approach into his Christian life by buddying up with the important church leaders instead, but he didn’t do that. He said, “I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.”

Once Paul believed on Christ, he didn’t go back to Jerusalem to network with important church leaders. He stayed away for three years, spending time alone in the outlying region of Arabia where he received additional instruction from Christ, after which he returned to Damascus to begin his teaching ministry.

That’s when Paul returned to Jerusalem to “see” key church leaders there. Even then, he visited Peter for 15 days (not very long) and met no other church leaders except James, the stepbrother of Christ and pastor of the church there. The point is that though Paul has a good relationship with Peter, he didn’t derive any authority or insights from him.

Why did Paul make this visit? To see means “to become familiar” with him. An ancient church father, Jerome, is right when he said Paul didn’t go to Jerusalem “to look at Peter’s eyes, cheeks, and face, to see if he was fat or thin, whether his nose was hooked or straight, whether he had a fringe of hair across his brow or was bald.”[1] The purpose of this visit wasn’t to “look at” Peter, yet neither was it receive an endorsement from him or to receive correction and insight from him. It was a time to meet Peter face to face so the two of them could get to know each other better. Nothing more, nothing less.

“Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.” Paul affirms the truth of what he’s saying in the strongest possible terms. Peter was a Jew and the apostle to the Jews, and even he occasionally struggled with the pressures of legalism. Paul, however, was the apostle to the Gentiles, so he wanted the Galatian (mostly Gentile) churches to know that the gospel he taught wasn’t influenced or shaped by Peter but, in fact, had come to him directly from Christ.

After this brief visit to Peter, Paul traveled north again, this time farther north than Damascus to “the regions of Syria and Cilicia,” expanding his missionary influence for a period of 10 yrs. (Gal 1:21-24). So, for all this time, though some people in Jerusalem had seen Paul as an apostle, none of the churches in the immediate surrounding, predominantly Jewish area of Judea, had seen or heard from him. That’s how much distance he’d kept from Judaism. Even so, people in that region had heard reports of what God was doing through Paul’s ministry “up north” and praised God for it.

After this 10-yr. ministry, Paul traveled back to Jerusalem for only the second time since his conversion 14 yrs. before. Again, that’s how much distance he’d kept from the influence of both Judaism and the other apostles.

For this visit, he traveled with Barnabas (a Jewish comrade) and Titus (a Gentile comrade). He went on this visit “by revelation” (meaning God told him to go) and met privately with church leaders to explain how he was teaching the gospel to the Gentiles up north (Gal 2:1-3). This would allay any of their worries that he might be preaching a wrong gospel.

Why would he do this? Because he didn’t want his 10 yrs. of labor up north to be undermined by a legalistic gospel coming from Jerusalem (“lest by any means I might run or had run in vain”). To help this cause, Barnabas was a respected Jewish witness to the authenticity of Paul’s ministry, and Titus was a respected, compelling witness to the effectiveness of Paul’s teaching in a Gentile’s life (a person who’d not be circumcised).

When Paul presented his case, some men snuck into the group of church leaders with a legalistic agenda (Gal 2:4-5). They identified otherwise so they could hear what Paul said, then they pressured Paul to change. Paul assured the Galatians that he didn’t given these men any serious attention and stood by the “grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone” gospel he had preached to the churches up north.

Paul only took seriously what the actual church leaders (apostles, pastors, etc.) said (Gal 2:6). Even then, nothing they said added anything to his message. He left that meeting preaching the same gospel message as when he went he arrived.

Paul had been able to reach an agreement with the other apostles by which both sides recognized each other as fully legitimate apostles called by Christ, establishing that they were indeed preaching the same, true gospel message from Christ (Gal 2:7-9).

Paul didn’t rely on the Jerusalem church but he appreciated them. (Gal 2:10)

The only thing they requested of Paul (and this didn’t change his message or give him some kind of needed endorsement) was that he and his partners agree to “remember the poor,” something Paul was very glad to do! Poor refers not to poor people in general but to encouraging Gentile churches to send financial aid to the Jerusalem church who faced financial trials due to the persecution they experienced in Jerusalem.

In fact, Paul had already brought financial assistance from the Gentile churches on this current trip (Acts 11:27-30) and would do so again later in his ministry after gathering offerings from churches not just in Syria and Cilicia, but from Asia Minor and Greece/Eastern Europe, too (1 Cor 16:1-4; 2 Cor 8:1–9:15; Rom 15:14-32). This ministry of benevolence to the struggling church at Jerusalem showed that:

• Though Paul did not rely on the church at Jerusalem to endorse his teaching, he viewed them as a very special church who deserved nothing but love, respect, and support from other churches.
• It also showed that there was no animosity or division between these two churches, even as they worked out the finer points of doctrinal agreement and difficulty between them. They were partners for the gospel not opponents.

We can learn a lot from this lesson in camaraderie between churches today.

Paul even helped other apostles resist the pressure of legalism. (Gal 2:11-14)

After this second visit to Jerusalem, Paul traveled even farther northwest to Galatia, which is when he planted churches there. After abt. 2 yrs., he returned to his home church in Antioch of Syria. That’s when something unusual happened (Gal 2:11-14).

Peter traveled up to meet him there – so this time Peter traveled north to check on Paul rather than Paul going south to Jerusalem. Peter probably wanted to see how things were going with Paul’s ministry. but while he was there, they were eating a meal together and Peter was enjoying some good fellowship with some Gentile believers. But some Jewish believers from James’ church in Jerusalem also joined the meal and sat down at another place to stay separate from the Jews. (Jews considered it unclean or inappropriate to eat with Gentiles or to eat Gentile food.)

So as not to offend these Jewish believers, Peter left eating with the Gentile believers to join the Jewish believers instead, showing respect to their legalism. Paul realized the impact Peter’s action would have on the gospel, so he confronted Peter publicly to make clear that he was catering to the wrong issue, giving the impression that Jewish dietary and cleanliness laws were an important concern. Paul didn’t want his Gentile converts to feel like they were outsiders or feel pressured to practice OT laws to be accepted by Christ or the church, so he spoke up publicly and confronted Peter’s poor choice.

Paul viewed this difficult confrontation as a defining moment in the history of the church. For one, it showed that whatever struggles Peter still had with legalism, those hadn’t affected Paul’s gospel. For another, it showed that what Paul said to Peter turned out to be the correct, definitive mindset for the church to take towards legalism in the church.

Key Takeaways

Let’s respond to Paul’s experience dealing with legalism in the church by making two key observations:

A legalistic gospel and approach to the Christian life is not from Christ.

From the way Paul was converted to Christ and received his teachings from Christ in a direct and personal way, far removed in time and space from any interaction with the Jewish leaders or even with church leaders in Jerusalem, we should agree that whatever Paul says about the gospel is true. It was neither (1) his own personal take on the gospel nor was it (2) some form of the gospel influenced and shaped by legalistic Judaism.

Wwhen Paul speaks about the gospel, he is telling us what Christ himself told him to say, and that’s nothing to disagree with. If any teacher or religion gives you a version of the gospel that differs from what Paul has said, then they are giving a wrong form of the gospel, one we refuse to embrace. This includes:

• the kind of legalism that adds additional works and religious performance to receiving Christ alone by faith alone for salvation
• the kind of legalism that requires OT laws and superficial, man-made rules to our daily growth and behavior as Christians

We must understand the gospel clearly and let the gospel guide our lives as we trust in and follow Christ by faith.

We should resist the pull legalism in our own lives as Christians.

As Paul has demonstrated, the pull towards legalism can come from two sources, (1) our own hearts within or (2) the influence of other people around us.

Regarding our own hearts, Paul explained how he himself had been driven by legalism before he believed on Christ for salvation. He also revealed how certain believers from Jerusalem and even the apostle Peter himself felt drawn towards legalism to some degree. If Peter gave in to the pressures of legalism sometimes, then certainly we may do the same unknowingly. As one pastor has helpfully observed, “The trap of Christian legalism is that it never feels like legalism in our own eyes. It feels like godliness.”

The trap of Christian legalism is that it never feels like legalism in our own eyes. It feels like godliness.

Curtis Jones

Regarding the people around us, we should recognize how legalism creates a tense, high-pressured, political situation fueled by the fear of man. It has more to do with pleasing the people around you than pleasing God. Paul demonstrates this by his reference to the struggle between pleasing God and pleasing man, as well as by his back-and-forth explanation of his dealings (or lack thereof) with the influential leaders in Jerusalem.

Jerusalem was the founding city of the first church and the center of initial church operations, but it was also the “mecca” of traditional, Pharisaical Judaism. As such, the city featured some intense, somewhat “political” dynamics that Paul handled with great care. On one hand, he didn’t acquiesce to those pressures and seek the approval of key figures, nor did he disregard genuine leaders in the church who were there.

As one commentator observes: “We have much to learn from how Paul handled himself in this controversy … It is always wrong to provoke controversy in a belligerent, un-Christlike manner. Paul sought to avoid such a situation by sharing confidentially with trusted leaders of the church. There are occasions, however, when in order to be faithful to the gospel it is necessary to speak out publicly and even bluntly on matters that cannot be compromised. This Paul would do in his open rebuke of Peter at Antioch.”

We have much to learn from how Paul handled himself in this controversy.

Timothy George

Today we need the Lord’s wisdom to guide our church forward in a faithful understanding and application of the gospel to our lives, while navigating our individual consciences, cultural sensitivities, personal preferences, and the outside influences of legalism upon our lives. But one thing is certain – we should depend upon God to be a church where the crippling, frustrating, and even sinful attitudes and demands of legalism are not allowed to fester or gain a hearing.

To move forward with this goal in our hearts would continue the original, foundational, even difficult efforts of Paul to preserve the gospel of faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone for salvation and the Christian life.

---

[1] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 127