Dear Friends,
Visitors who were “Judaizers had come to Antioch and taught in the Church that along with man’s justification and salvation before God, that man had to be “circumcised” according to the old Jewish law. “Except ye be circumcised,” was their theological stance, “ye cannot be saved,” (Acts 15:1) “You must have Christ for your soul’s salvation,” they were saying, “and you must exercise faith in Christ for your soul’s salvation; however, along with Christ, you must have some other things, as well: you must have some of the rites and rituals of the old Mosaic Laws, and in particular, you must have the mark and operation of circumcision in your flesh to make your salvation full and valid.” Such was their eloquence that the Apostle Peter was taken in by their arguments. So much so that Paul had to “withstand Peter to the face” because “he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11)
The reasoning of the Judaizers ran. And what it simply amounted to was this: that a man was not justified by faith alone in Christ alone, but must have some other things with Christ and on top of his faith in Christ. And of course, that classical “Judaism” that so much troubled the Church in the early days of the apostles and the gospel of “works” and sacraments expounded by the Church of Rome and apostate Protestantism, are identical! They both say, “Jesus!” But they both say, “Jesus PLUS!” Jesus – plus circumcision; Jesus – plus works, and absolutions, and sacraments, and so forth. Identical! And it was over this issue of Jesus, plus, that Paul withstood Peter to the face at Antioch, because, as he says, “he was to be blamed.”
Now, wherein did Peter’s blame lie at that time? What had he done to merit that withering rebuke from his fellow-apostle Paul? And, in a word, he had acted in such a way as to give credence to that false gospel that those Judaizing men were spreading, and thereby also obscure the true gospel of justification by faith alone in Christ alone. And to Paul’s mind, nothing could be more blameworthy in a professing child of God.
But what exactly had he done? Had he himself begun to preach this false gospel that said that with Jesus Christ for our soul’s salvation we must have something else besides. Had he himself given a paper at a conference, or written a best-seller on the merits of this “other gospel?” Indeed, no; Peter had done none of these things. What had he done then? My friends, he had attached himself to these other men and their gospel, and by so doing had cast a blanket of obscurity over what the one and only true gospel in Christ really is; and had also held-up the possibility to the rest of the Church at Antioch that there was, perhaps, some truth in what these men were saying. “For before those certain men came from James (i.e., from Jerusalem) Peter did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.”
And this behaviour, as the whole of the epistle to the Galatians shows, was tantamount in Paul’s eyes to giving credence to the false gospel then in circulation, and lending obscurity to what the true gospel in Christ was really all about.
Surely B. B. Warfield assesses rightly when he states that in the epistle to the Galatians above all others, the apostle Paul exercises, what he calls, “The Dogmatic Spirit.” The dogmatic spirit, of course, is not to be confused with the “Goliath” spirit, that is always shouting, “Send somebody out to fight me,” No, no; it is nothing like that. The dogmatic spirit is being able to perceive aright where a certain cause is going to lead, and act accordingly. Where a certain deviation from the truth of the gospel, or addition to the truth of the Gospel is going to end and affect the clarity of the Gospel.
Take a few minutes, my friends to read over and ponder these words from Warfield’s writing on that subject of Paul’s Dogmatic Spirit in relation to those men at Antioch and Peter’s misplaced involvement with them. Read the words a few times, if necessary; but grasp the inevitability” of what they are saying.
“They preached Christ as the promised Messiah of Israel to them too. The promised redemption was unattainable save through the promised Messiah. But though they preached that only in His name could salvation be had, they denied that it could be had in His name alone.”
“In Christ alone is there salvation. In Christ alone; and that in both senses of the word, alone. Not only is there no salvation except in Him; but in Him is all that can be needed for salvation. Jesus only!”
“To depend on aught else along with Him, is as truly to lose Him, as to depend on aught else instead of Him.” Jesus only; only Jesus!”
And it was that issue that Paul saw clearly at Antioch – not only in the purveyors of the false gospel, but in the misbehaviour of his dear brother Peter in attaching himself to those purveyors. The gospel, indeed, says, Jesus only and only Jesus; but what are we to say when professed evangelicals stand side-by-side and shoulder-to-shoulder with those who say the opposite? Are they not obscuring that Jesus only and only Jesus? Are they not giving credence to that Jesus plus? This is the real issue. We need only read Peter’s presentation of the truth at Jerusalem following Paul’s rebuke (Acts 15), and then his two glorious epistles, to see how he soon regained his gospel clarity. But this is the real issue. May God grant the church in our day to see it.