If you would, go ahead and take your Bibles and turn with me to the NT book of Galatians. Today, we’re in Galatians 2:11–16.

Several years ago I got an email from a person who wrote me after preaching a message on legalism. And here’s what he wrote. “I would like a prayer session for legalism of marijuana. God made it, so its perfectly fine. Oh and I would like a prayer for open-mindedness, of which most religious people are not. Study other religions, read their sacred books, and you will find that the American view of God is not the correct view, when billions of people across the world believe something completely different. Anti-theism is the only way to save humanity from becoming any more ignorant. Religion hinders the progress of society.”

Now obviously this person was being playful. But this person’s comments did get me thinking about grace. The title of our series is “AWOL from Grace.” And there is a non-biblical view of grace that lends itself to a kind of willy-nilly theology, where we can do anything we want without fear of repercussion. And grace enables all of our bad behavior. 

But in reality, God’s grace doesn’t work like that. Actually there are some pretty heavy ramifications of God’s grace. Yes God’s grace is free and it’s available to all of us who embrace Jesus Christ as their savior. But that doesn’t mean that God’s grace is cheap. God’s grace is free, but it’s still costly. It’s unearned, but it’s demanding. There is an expectation from God when we receive his grace that we will grow in holiness and sanctification. And that growth takes place through pain and struggle as the Holy Spirit brings conviction into our lives. 

Now I say this because we’re going to see in the text today that God’s wonderful grace is a free gift from God. We are saved by grace and not through good works. Nevertheless God’s grace is not some soft, watered-down, anything-goes leniency for sin and stupidity. No, actually God’s grace is intolerant of some things. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The title of today’s message is “Intolerant Grace.” That might sound like an oxymoron in our world today, but in actuality there are a few things that God’s grace is intolerant of. And here’s the first thing. Write this down as #1 in your notes. 

1) God’s Grace is intolerant of religiosity (2:11–12)

Starting in verse 11, Paul writes, 

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, 

Alright, stop right there. Let’s answer three questions: 1) Who is Cephas? 2) Why did he go to Antioch? And 3) When did he go to Antioch?

The answer to the first question is easy. Cephas is Peter. We’ve seen Paul call him that before in 1:18. Cephas is the Aramaic word for “rock” and so it is roughly equivalent to Peter (or Πέτρος) the Greek word for “rock.” Peter is the “rock-man.” And Paul uses these names (Peter and Cephas) interchangeably in Galatians. 

Secondly, we need to answer the question: why did Peter go to Antioch? It’s difficult to answer this question, but the best sense that we can make of the situation is that Peter went to check on the ministry in Antioch that was prospering under Paul and Barnabas. And he may have even gone to avoid the persecution that was erupting in Jerusalem. 

And that leads to a third question, when did this happen? Just by way of reminder, Paul is recounting for us some historical details of his conversion and ministry in Galatians 1–2, and he’s continuing that narrative here. This visit from Peter was an important part of the narrative. When comparing Galatians with the book of Acts we get the following biographical sketch of Paul’s life and ministry: 

Paul got saved on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1–19; Gal 1:15–16). This was roughly AD 34.

After that, he went to Arabia and then to Damascus (Gal 1:17). 

He then returned to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, and he stayed with Peter for fifteen days (Gal 1:18). This was roughly AD 37.

Then he travelled to Syria and Cilicia to plant churches and preach the gospel (Acts 11:19–26; Gal 1:21). He partnered with Barnabas during this time.

And “fourteen years later” Paul came to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus to argue theology with Peter, James, and John and to bring a financial gift to the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:27–30; Gal 2:1–10). That was roughly AD 47.

Sometime after that, but before the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), Peter came to Antioch to meet with Paul (Gal 2:11–14).

How does this link up with the Apostle Peter? Well, Peter was active throughout the first half of the book of Acts. And an important moment took place when Peter was drawn by the Lord to the Gentile Cornelius in Acts 10, and he confirmed salvation among the Gentiles. If you remember, Peter had that vision where the Lord brought down a sheet full of animals that were unclean and the Lord told Peter to kill and eat. Peter said, “No, Lord I’ve never eaten anything unclean.” The Lord says in response to that, “Do not call anything unclean that I’ve made clean.” This was the Lord’s way of showing Peter that the gospel was now progressing to unclean Gentiles. And also that food laws had been fulfilled in Christ and were no longer in effect for the people of God (see also Mark 7:19).

Later in Acts 12, Luke records the events of Peter’s imprisonment by Herod and his subsequent miraculous deliverance through the help of an angel. After Peter was rescued, he went to the house of other believers and “motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, ‘Tell these things to James and to the brothers.’ Then he departed and went to another place” (Acts 12:17). Possibly this other “place” was Antioch, which was well outside the danger zone of Jerusalem. Also Antioch was a place where the ministry of Paul and Barnabas was becoming increasingly fruitful. Whatever the case, Peter made his way up to Antioch at some point, and he had a fascinating confrontation with Paul.

Now pay attention here, because these two great Apostles are about to lock horns. This is going to be an apostolic altercation. And Paul is going to experience what you might call apostolic apoplexy. Look at verse 11. 

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 

Yikes! Does everybody’s Bible say what my Bible says? Paul “opposed” Peter to his face. This is quite an encounter. Here we have one apostle taking a stand against another apostle, mano a mano. What in the world could have happened to have Paul confront Peter in this way? 

And remember, we just saw last week that Peter extended to Paul the “right hand of fellowship” (Gal 2:9). These guys are on the same team. They agree on what constitutes the gospel. And they are working together against “the false brothers” who are trying to pervert the gospel. So it’s intriguing here that these apostolic teammates, Paul and Peter, get into a little scrum here in Antioch. What’s the issue here? Why does Peter “stand condemned?”

Let’s keep reading. Look at verse 12.

12 For before certain men came from James, [Peter] was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.

The reason that Paul was so upset at Peter… so upset in fact that he confronted him face to face… was that his actions were legalistic. Paul chose religiosity over relationship. And you might wonder where this religiosity came from with Peter. Why would he be persuaded to switch tables?

Well, it’s possible that the Gentiles didn’t ceremonially wash their hands before they ate. Or maybe they were eating food that was not properly drained of blood according to the Law of Moses (Lev 3:17; 7:26–27; 17:10–14). Or maybe they were eating pork or shellfish or something else that was forbidden. Or maybe it was a misguided requirement of some Jews to not even eat with Gentiles.

Whatever the case, before these “certain men came from James,” Peter was like, “Pass the baby back ribs! I just love hanging out with Gentiles.” And then when the circumcision party showed up, he segregated himself from them. He reverted to Jewish custom. It’s as if Peter switched into Jewish auto-pilot when they showed up, and Paul “opposed him to his face” for this.   

Now this action might seem heavy-handed by Paul, but he probably was acting out of frustration because the Gentiles were being treated like second class citizens. Can you imagine if we had a church pot-luck and we separated people according to their “spirituality?” “Okay you guys sit over here at the ‘new-convert table.’ And we’ll sit over here at the ‘seasoned saint table.’” Would you tolerate that? Or what if we segregated people according to age? Or according to socioeconomics? Or according to race? That wouldn’t go over well. 

And that’s part of the issue here, because the church in Antioch was a multiethnic, multiracial church. And Peter is allowing the church to be divided by ethnicity: “Jews, you go to this table and Gentiles go to this one.” 

By the way, Antioch was the third largest city in the Roman Empire, boasting a population of something like 250,000 people. And 25,000 of those were Jews. And this church was multiracial, just like the city as a whole was multiracial. And now Peter has done something that has threatened the unity of the church, and Paul says that Peter, “stood condemned.” 

Now, let’s be clear about something here. Peter’s sin was not an unforgiveable sin. But it was something that was intolerable. It was something that needed changing. And I don’t want to be too hard on Peter. He just recently got attacked and imprisoned for his faith (see Acts 12:1–5). He’s preached the gospel and has seen many people come to Christ. He’s even suffered greatly for the gospel. He’s a good man! But he is clearly in the wrong here. 

And Paul was right to call him on the carpet for his actions. Peter is probably still trying to reconcile how this gospel for Jews and Gentiles operates in the world. Just recently God had shown him, in a dramatic vision of clean and unclean animals, that he should not call any Gentile person unclean (Acts 10:27). The gospel was for all people and all nations. Peter knew that. But he still has old habits that die hard. And Paul needed to remind him that God’s grace is intolerant of religiosity. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And it’s not only the religiosity of Peter that Paul had a problem with. Write this down as #2 in your notes. God’s grace is intolerant of religiosity but also… 

2) God’s grace is intolerant of hypocrisy (2:13)

 You know Peter is a fascinating and fun character in the NT. He’s someone who exhibits extraordinary faith. He even at one time said to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matt 16:16). But Peter is also someone who fails miserably before Jesus. Jesus actually rebuked Peter harshly for setting his mind on the things of man, not God (Matt 16:23). Peter denied Christ three times. And in this incident, in Antioch, this is another moment of failure for Peter. Instead of embracing the unifying work of Jesus at the cross, Peter allows divisiveness to fester within the church. 

And you know this is oddly encouraging, that even the great Apostle Peter makes mistakes. I’m not Catholic, so I don’t think of Peter as the first pope. And I don’t feel obligated to protect Peter’s infallibility. It’s interesting if you study church history, because some of the church fathers just couldn’t handle this. So they came up with these goofy theories. One church father, Clement of Alexandria, said that this Cephas wasn’t the Apostle Peter but another Cephas. Yeah, that doesn’t work. Another church father, John Chrysostom, said that Peter intentionally did this as an object lesson for the other Jews. He was showing them the foolishness of their actions, and he allowed himself to be rebuked by Paul. Such interpretations are desperate attempts to salvage Peter’s reputation. It is better to acknowledge that even Apostles sin and fall short of God’s glory.

How do I read this text? Let me just say, that I read it according to Occam’s Razor—the simplest explanation is usually the most accurate. The simplest way to read this is that Peter made a mistake. He’s human. It happens. I don’t believe in Papal Infallibility. That doctrine is fallible. Peter made a mistake. He sinned. He was a hypocrite. He stood condemned because of it. But he’s a sinner saved by grace.  

And notice what Paul says in verse 13, 

13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 

You can feel the pain in Paul’s voice as he says this. Even “Barnabas” was led astray! Even trusty Barnabas, the son of encouragement… the guy who looked on me with favor when everyone else was suspicious of me… the guy who helped me start this work among the Gentiles… even that guy was led astray by this. Barnabas was Paul’s right-hand man. They served faithfully together. They planted churches together in the Gentile world. Paul’s upset with Peter for his hypocrisy, but he’s also upset with him because his bad leadership is infectious. He’s setting a bad example for others. 

One of things that is universally condemned by Jesus and others in the NT is hypocrisy. Just look up some verses where Jesus is talking about hypocrisy. It’s not that hypocrisy is unforgiveable according to God’s grace; it’s that hypocrisy is intolerable before the God of grace. God’s grace is antithetical to hypocrisy. The two are incommensurate. Once you experience the grace of God, you are less and less inclined to mix it with hypocritical actions.  

By the way, the word “hypocrisy” at the end of verse 13, is the Greek ὑπόκρισις (hypokrisis). It’s derived from a term that was used for play-actors on the stage. The word has the idea of wearing a mask and presenting oneself as something other than what you are. That’s what was so intolerable to Jesus. It was the fakery and the play-acting of the Pharisees. And this is what Paul accuses Peter and the others of doing.  

And Paul tells us why he did this in verse 12. Paul says that Peter was fearful of the circumcision party. The word for fearful here is φοβέομαι. Why was Peter acting hypocritically? Because he was afraid. There was this group of people going around and telling people that they needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. Paul was defying their bad teaching. But Peter, instead of standing up to them and taking a stand for Christ, he capitulates before them because of fear.

 I got an email once from another person several years ago. [Someday I’m going to write a book and just publish all the crazy emails that I’ve gotten as a pastor over the years.] This particular email was more sad than aggravating. In this email, a woman tried to convince me that salvation was a combination of grace plus works. And she was adamant about her beliefs. I could tell that she had been trained by a group of people to misread and misinterpret her Bible. 

And you know it would have been so nice to say to this person with compassion, “O yeah, that’s great. We’re on the same team. Let’s be friends. You do your thing for God. I’ll do my thing.” But I knew I couldn’t say that. So I told this person, “I’m sorry, I can’t agree with you. Salvation is by grace through faith alone, not by works lest any man should boast (Eph 2:8–9). And I told her, “Please don’t make the mistake in thinking that salvation is accomplished by ‘good works.’ This is a matter of life and death. It’s a matter of heaven and hell. You can’t get this wrong.”

You know false teaching and false beliefs are not things that you can mess around with. You can’t capitulate before it, and you can’t be rendered powerless by fear. You’ve got to stand up to it. And that’s what Paul did in this instance. Peter, on the other hand, played the role of a hypocrite. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul says this in verse 14, 

14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, 

This statement here is very important. Because I want you to notice that it wasn’t that Peter was a heretic denying the truth of the gospel. No, Peter knew the truth and he preached the truth. In fact Peter and Paul shook hands in Jerusalem according to Galatians 2:1–10 signifying their agreement on what constituted the gospel. 

But the issue here is that Peter’s actions “were not in step with the truth of the gospel.” In other words he wasn’t practicing what he was preaching. That’s the issue. They both agree on the truth of the gospel, but Peter’s “conduct” wasn’t in step with the truth of the gospel. 

Let’s keep reading…

14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” 

Notice that Paul addressed this group publicly, and rebuked Peter publicly. Why would Paul do this publicly instead of privately? Didn’t Jesus tell us to go to a person privately if they sin against us (Matt 18:15–20)? Yes, but this wasn’t a sin against Paul. This was a public sin. And public sins need to be addressed publicly. And so that’s what Paul does. 

And why was this issue such a big deal to Paul? Well Paul thinks their actions are not in step with the truth of the gospel. The gospel says that all stand before God condemned, Jew and Gentile alike. And Jesus died on the cross to save us all from our sins, Jews and Gentiles both. It doesn’t matter if you’re black, brown or white. It doesn’t matter if you’re male or female. It doesn’t matter if you are upper-class, middle-class, or lower class. It doesn’t matter if you are African, Asian, or European. All nations and all people are offered forgiveness through Christ’s blood. And there’s no division before God between Jew or Gentile. The only division before God is a division between sheep and goats. That’s the great divide in the eyes of the Lord—between saved and unsaved.  

So in light of this truth, why is Peter dividing the fellowship along ethnic lines? They’ve all embraced Jesus, haven’t they? They are all members of the church united in the body of Christ by Christ’s blood. 

Let me read Paul’s public statement to Peter again. Look at verse 14. 

“If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” 

“If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew…” In other words “If you, Peter, though a Jew, live like a Gentile who is saved by grace and not by the Jewish system of law-adherence… How can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” Literally, Paul says, “How can you force Gentiles to Judaize themselves?”

You know something’s going on here behind the scenes and it is coming to the fore with this final statement. We’ve talked about how God’s grace is intolerant of religiosity and hypocrisy. But the issue that Paul is dealing with in verse 14 is a little more nuanced than just religiosity and hypocrisy; he’s dealing with ethnocentricity.  

Here’s the third point from our text today. God’s grace is intolerant of religiosity and hypocrisy, but also… 

3) God’s grace is intolerant of ethnocentricity (2:14)

Here’s the definition of ethnocentricity. It’s the belief that one’s own ethnic group or culture is inherently superior to others. It involves thinking that your ethnos (your racial, social, or national identity) is better than other people’s ethnos. It’s as if the world revolves around your particular cultural group. 

Now I wouldn’t call this racism or prejudice or xenophobia. It’s not quite that sinister. It’s more subtle than that. It involves a condescending attitude towards others. It’s pride, and it’s conceit.

I’ll give you an example of how ethnocentricity has shown up in my own life. When Sanja and I lived in central Illinois, we lived in an area that had a number of Amish. And the Amish in that area did a curious thing. Anyone who wasn’t Amish, they didn’t call non-Amish, they called them “English.” That’s because the Amish immigrated from German speaking countries and still speak a derivative of German today. And so they refer to non-Amish Americans as English.

And I remember when I first heard that, I said to myself “English!” How dare you! I was really put off by that term. “Don’t call me English, I’m an American. We sent the English back to England two hundred and fifty years ago.” 

Now that’s kind of a tame way in which ethnocentricity can manifest itself. It could be a lot worse. For instance what if we had a group of Christians who came to visit us in San Antonio from England or from Croatia or from Malaysia. And when they got here, we told them “Alright these seats over here are for Americans, and you guys can’t sit there. You need to sit back there in the back row.” How do you think that would be received? 

Now some scholars have suggested that this problem in Antioch is actually worse than you think. Because the divisiveness wasn’t just a part of eating together in times of fellowship, it actually involved taking the Lord’s Supper. So they would have Jewish communion, and then Gentile communion. What if we did that here? What if we had first communion for one ethnic group and then a second communion for the other groups? That would be a disaster. And rightly so. Why would you do something so divisive like that in the church body? 

And I would venture to argue that this need for unity was especially crucial in the church at Antioch because of its diversity. Antioch was a large multicultural city full of Jews and Gentiles. In fact, that diversity is even reflected in the Antioch leaders of Acts 13. Luke writes, “Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them’” (13:1–2). 

So there’s Barnabas, a Jewish convert from Cyprus. Also there’s Paul, a Jewish convert from Tarsus (about 100 miles from Antioch), who was trained as a Pharisee in Jerusalem. Then there’s this guy Simeon called “Niger.” Niger means “black” or “dark-complexion” in Latin, so there’s a good chance that Simeon was African. There’s also “Lucius of Cyrene” who was definitely from Africa. Cyrene is an African province. And then there’s this guy named Manaen who was a close, intimate friend of Herod the tetrarch, also known as Herod Antipas. Herod Antipas is the one who killed John the Baptist and helped orchestrate Jesus’s death (see Matt 14:1–12; Luke 3:1; 23:6–16; Acts 4:27). So that’s ironic! This guy grew up with the guy who did that, and now he’s a leader in the church of Jesus Christ in Antioch. And I’m guessing that Manaen was aristocratic and a man of considerable wealth and influence. And these guys are the leaders of the church. Even the leadership of the church displays great socioeconomic and ethnic diversity. 

So here’s this multiracial, multicultural church in Antioch that Paul has been working hard to minister in. And the Apostle Peter comes in there and throws an ethnic wrench in the gears of that church’s unity. And Paul says, “What are you doing? Your actions are defying the very thing that you say you believe!”

You know I’ve had a chance to travel a bit to Europe and Asia and Africa. And I’ll tell you right now that ethnocentricity is not a white, Anglo-Saxon issue. It’s not an American issue. It’s not an English-speaking issue. It’s something that is systemic in human nature where people naturally gravitate towards others who look, talk, and act like themselves. And then they polarize themselves from people that are different from them. 

And that’s what has Paul so exercised here. Because one of the things that makes the gospel so powerful is the way that the gospel unites. Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight. The gospel unifies people from different backgrounds under the headship of Christ. 

I heard a pastor say once that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the most inclusive religious message ever. And it creates the most inclusive community that has ever existed on earth. He said, “Christianity has spread all over the world, taking on different expressions in different cultures, in a way no other religion has. Islam is still predominantly Arab; to become a Muslim you basically have to become culturally Arab. Buddhism is still predominantly East Asian. Hinduism is still predominantly South Asian. But Christians are now evenly split between Europe, North America, Latin America, Asia, and Africa, with it growing fastest in Latin America, Asia and Africa!” He said, “If your idea of ‘heaven on earth’ is a group of white, American, English-speaking Christians… you are not going to enjoy heaven that much.”

The book of Revelation confirms that every tribe, language, people, and nation will gather together to worship Christ for eternity (see 5:9; 7:9–17). All the peoples of the earth will be represented in eternity. 

“What are you saying, Pastor Tony?” I’m saying that God’s grace is intolerant of ethnocentricity. God’s grace has a unifying effect on people from different tribes and tongues. The world wants to divide according to tribalism. Christ wants to unite under the auspices of his divine grace!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And speaking of God’s grace. And speaking of the unifying impact of what Christ did for us on the cross. Look with me at verses 15–16.

Now there’s some debate here as to whether Paul is continuing his statement to Peter from verse 14 or whether he is starting a new statement in verse 15. Those of you who have an ESV Bible like me can see in verse 14 that the quotation marks end there. I’m actually inclined to see verse 15–16 as part of Paul’s rebuke and statement to Peter. Because in verse 15 he says, “we ourselves are Jews,” meaning he and Peter are Jews. Barnabas too. 

But it doesn’t really matter where you put the quotation marks. The message of the text is still the same. And Paul says in verse 15. 

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 

16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Literally, Paul says at the end of verse 16 that “no flesh will be justified by works of the law.” You want to live forever? You want to experience God’s gift of eternal life? You want to have your sins forgiven? You don’t work to accomplish that! In the words of that great old hymn, you lay your deadly doing down! And you put your faith in Christ. 

And notice the point of emphasis here. Count up in verse 16 the number of times that Paul says, “works of the law.” How many times is it mentioned there? Three times, right?

Notice at the beginning of verse 16, he says “We know that a person is not justified by works of the law.” Okay, so there it is once. You aren’t justified or “declared righteous” or “saved” by “works of the law.” 

But then he says again in the middle of verse 16, “so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law.” Does everyone see that? If you want to emphasize something you need to repeat it. 

But just in case you missed it, he says it again at the end of verse 16, “Because by works of the law no one will be justified.” No one gets saved by works of the law. Now he’s really emphasized that point. Three times he says, “Don’t trust in works to save yourself.” “Don’t trust in works to save yourself.” “Don’t trust in works to save yourself.” 

Why? Why Paul? Because work-based legalism is a form of self-sufficiency, whereas grace is dependent on the sufficiency of Christ.

Here’s the final point from our text today. God’s grace is intolerant of religiosity, hypocrisy, ethnocentricity, and also…

4) God’s grace is intolerant of self-sufficiency (2:15–16)

Now you saw already that Paul mentions “works of the law” three times. But let me ask you another question, how many times is Christ referenced in verse 16? He’s mentioned three times as well.

16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

You might ask the question, how did Peter respond? What’d he do after this confrontation? We don’t know. We’ll have to ask Peter someday in eternity. Paul never tells us. It’s not important to his argument. Paul is not interested here in who wins in his battle royale with Peter. He’s interested in the gospel. He’s interested in promoting Christ over self-sufficiency. 

And Paul is intentionally polarizing the alternatives for us. There is either Christ or good works. You either trust in one or the other. Only one of those leads to salvation. Martin Luther said once that when the law is added to the gospel, faith loses its virginity. 

By the way, the term for salvation that Paul uses here is justification. This is one of the major themes in this book. It’s going to come up a lot. The term itself is derived from the word righteous. To be justified, basically means to be “righteous-ified.” Too bad we don’t have an English word for that. 

And what is justification? It’s “righteous-ification.” That word doesn’t flow off the tongue. But that’s what were talking about here. You are rendered righteous by means of your faith in Christ. 

And what Paul is saying here is that righteousness isn’t a matter of self-sufficiency or self-dependence or self-trust. Righteousness is imputed to us through Christ. Only Christ leads to salvation. And there is no way to hybridize Christ and good works as a plan for salvation. Salvation is sola fide (by faith alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), and solus Christus (by Christ alone). 

And God’s grace is good. God’s grace is the only means of saving us. But God’s grace is intolerant of some stuff. It’s intolerant of religiosity, hypocrisy, ethnocentricity, and self-sufficiency. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of you might say in light of verse 16, “Pastor Tony, tell me more about this term ‘Justification,’ I want to know more about that term. What does it mean to be righteous-ified?” Well, trust me, we’ll get into it more in the book of Galatians. Come back next week and Daniel will tell you all about justification. Pray with me.