HOME / PROCLAMATION MAGAZINE / 2007 / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER / RATZLAFF

NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 2007
VOLUME 8, ISSUE 6

---

A R T I C L E S

Do not nullify the grace of God
A study of Galatians 2:11-22

Dale Ratzlaff

 

I was working on a study guide for the Phoenix Former Adventist Fellowship when the deeper meaning of Galatians 2:21 impressed itself upon my mind. I like to teach by asking questions so I started asking myself a number of questions in preparation for asking those who would come for the study. I found that the more questions I asked, the more this verse divulged its meaning. As my study continued searching for clues in the wider context, I began to see the serious implications this verse has for those who continue to require obedience to law, especially old covenant law.

I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly (Gal. 2:21).

What does it mean to nullify the grace of God? How serious is it to nullify the grace of God? How does one nullify the grace of God? What are the implications? I did not expect this verse to carry so much weight. When I finished the full contextual study, I understood the tonnage this verse carried.

 

Background

The Judaizers told the Christians in Galatia that Paul was preaching a watered down version of the gospel. They implied that the church at Jerusalem required the Christians to keep the law. In essence, they said that Paul was teaching "cheap grace" by not instructing the Gentiles to keep the law. In effect, the Judaizers were pitting Peter against Paul, implying that Paul was not really an Apostle and did not teach the Galatians the whole gospel as was taught in Jerusalem. In Galatians 1 through 2:11, Paul proved that: (1) he was a true Apostle, (2) the Jerusalem leaders recognized his Apostleship, (3) the gospel Paul proclaimed was identical to the gospel taught by Peter and John.1 Now in Galatians 2:12-22 Paul is going to show that while some of the Jewish believers in the Jerusalem church (the Judaizers) were enforcing the law on Gentile Christians;2 it was the Jewish Christians who needed clarification on the gospel and not Paul.

 

Paul confronts Peter

I tried to imagine how significant an event it was for Paul publicly to confront Peter. Peter had walked with Christ for about three and a half years, and Christ had commissioned Peter to be the leader of the early church.3 Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit filled and empowered the believing Christians, resulting in the conversion of 3,000 Jews.4 Further, it was the ministry of Peter and John that resulted in the Samaritans receiving the Holy Spirit.5 Moreover, the angel directed Cornelius to call for Peter, and when Peter proclaimed the simple gospel, "through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins," the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles. Not only must these facts have been daunting, but there was the Scriptural admonition to correct a brother in private.6

We must ask ourselves why Paul chose to correct Peter publicly. The answer is both simple and profound. Peter was living in duplicity. It is clear that Peter knew the gospel. Here is what happened.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11–13).

That same Peter who denied Christ around the warming fire at the arrest of Christ7 was now again compromising his integrity for the sake of reputation. He was acting like a chameleon. When in the company of the Gentiles he lived like the Gentiles (i.e. not under the law and associating freely with them), but when the "party of the circumcision" arrived, he pretended he did not associate with the Gentiles, and he shunned them in their own presence as well as that of the Jews. He pretended to be living in obedience to the law which did not allow Jews to associate with Gentiles (Acts 10:29; 11:3).

Paul apparently did not rush to confront Peter. The record says that in time even Barnabas, Paul's companion in ministry, was carried away by Peter's example. Note carefully the crux of the matter:

But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" (Gal. 2:14)

Peter was not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel. That event impelled Paul to confront Peter publicly. In the next few verses, Paul shows that even Jews—who see themselves as righteous and not as Gentile sinners8—are "justified by faith in Christ and not by works of law; since by the works of law no flesh will be justified.9 The next two verses really influenced my thinking.

But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor (Gal. 2:17, 18).

I meditated and prayed over these verses a long time. What was Paul saying? Then it became clear. Paul had destroyed the whole concept of attaining righteousness by obedience the law.10 The Judaizers were saying, "Yes, have faith in Christ, but then you must also keep the law and distance yourself from the Gentiles as the law demands." To this concept Paul responded:

For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor (Gal. 2:18).

Paul is saying that if someone tries to add the "righteousness of the law" to "the righteousness of faith", he makes himself a transgressor, and he makes Christ a minister of sin. How is this? When one starts to rely on any law-keeping to improve his righteousness, he is demonstrating two things.

First, he demonstrates that the "righteousness of God"11 that is imputed to the Christian the moment he believes in Christ is not sufficient for his ongoing Christian life.

Second, the Judaizers said that faith in Christ was not enough for Jews, even though it might be enough for the second-class Gentiles. This in effect made two classes of "righteousness." The Jewish/Christian righteousness was "righteousness by faith" plus the "righteousness of the law" which gave them—they thought—a superior standing. They saw Gentile righteousness as inferior. The Judaizers with their hybrid righteousness continued to "look down" on Gentile Christians and often continued to call them "sinners".12 However, Paul showed that this kind of theology would, in essence, make Christ a "minister of sin". If Christ accepted the Gentiles with their inferior righteousness and non-observance of the law, then by so doing he was a "minister to sin". Paul reacted violently to the thought, "May it never be!" Paul continues,

For through law I died to law, that I might live to God (Gal. 2:19).

In Greek, "law" is without the article indicating it refers to the law in general or the whole concept of law. Paul states that "through the law" he "died to the law". Living under law makes one give up all hope in the law for two reasons. First, one never knows when his obedience is good enough. Why? It never is! Second, there are things that need reconciliation that are completely outside of the realm of law.

And through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses (Acts 13:30).

Paul drives home the fact that those who have become true believers are completely free from law because Christ is not only one's substitute, but He is also one's representative.

I have been crucified with Christ; and 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 delivered Himself up for me (Gal. 2:20).

With this background we are ready to unpack what it means to "nullify the grace of God".

 

Nullifying the Grace of God

I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly (Gal. 2:21).

How does one nullify the grace of God? Contextually, there is only one answer: required adherence to law for righteousness. The "righteousness of faith" which is the very "righteousness of God" cannot be improved upon whether it is for justifying or sanctifying righteousness.

How serious is it to nullify the grace of God by requiring obedience to law? In the context of Galatians, we find these answers:

• You desert Christ for a false gospel.13
• You sever yourself from Christ.14
• You fall from grace.15
• You put yourself back into bondage.16
• You put yourself back under the curse of the law.17
• You enslave yourself all over again.18
• You are bewitched.19
• You are subject again to the yoke of slavery.20

Within the context of Galatians, there are three areas of law observance that the Judaizers were promoting: (1) circumcision;21 (2) no table fellowship with the Gentiles who did not observe the Jewish dietary laws;22 and (3) observance of the Jewish days of worship.

You desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days [Sabbaths] and months [new moon celebrations] and seasons [annual feasts] and years [Sabbatical years]. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain (Gal. 4:9-11).

Could it be that required Sabbath observance is really something that "nullifies the grace of God"?

The Adventist baptismal vows include the following statement:

Is it your purpose by the power of the indwelling Christ to keep this law [10 Commandments], including the fourth commandment, which requires (emphasis supplied) the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord and the memorial of Creation?

It seems clear that this is a requirement to keep the law and according to Paul, places one back under law for added righteousness. Some Sabbatarians may say, "No! Required Sabbath observance does not save us, it is only the evidence we are saved. It is the 'sign' that we have been 'sealed' by the Holy Spirit." However, there is no New Testament passage to support these claims. The evidence of salvation is not something that can be required. Any legalist can fake such required evidence as the Pharisees did. Rather, the true evidence of salvation springs naturally from our new life in Christ,23 and the true evidence is the manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit, not Sabbath keeping.24 Further, a Christian can be perfectly right with God with little or no developed fruit of the Spirit.25

In Adventism, Sabbath observance, for all practical purposes, is an addition to the righteousness of faith without which one will not be saved. They teach that Sabbath observance is necessary in order to pass the investigative judgment. They teach that Sabbath observance is the "seal of God" which will keep them from getting the mark of the beast. Note the following references of Ellen White:

The Sabbath will be the great test of loyalty, for it is the point of truth especially controverted. When the final test shall be brought to bear upon men, then the line of distinction will be drawn between those who serve God and those who serve Him not. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 605.

The sign, or seal, of God is revealed in the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, the Lord's memorial of creation…The mark of the beast is the opposite—the observance of the first day of the week…" Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 8. p. 117.

I saw that the holy Sabbath is, and will be, the separating wall between the true Israel of God and unbelievers. Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 33, 85.

At all times and in all places God requires us to prove our loyalty to Him by honoring the Sabbath. Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 8, p. 360.

God requires that His holy day be as sacredly observed now as in the time of Israel. The command given to the Hebrews should be regarded by all Christians as an injunction from Jehovah to them. Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 296.

A careful reading of the above quotes clearly shows that Ellen White is placing Christians under the Sabbath law of the old covenant. No Adventist keeps all these laws.26

Carried to its logical conclusion, if Sabbath observance is accepted as the "sign" or "evidence" of true Christian living, then that same Sabbath keeping actually undermines that very claim for two important reasons: first, because Sabbath keepers do not keep all the biblical Sabbath laws or even the Sabbath laws taught by Ellen White,27 therefore their imperfect Sabbath "keeping" only proves their Sabbath "breaking".

Second, such so-called "evidence" moves the focus from Christ's perfect righteousness to the imperfect "righteousness of the law". For these reasons Paul who had achieved "the righteousness which is in the Law" considered his "law righteousness" nothing but "rubbish" when contrasted with "the righteousness of God" that comes by faith.28

The parallel to the perverted gospel that was being promoted in Galatia to the gospel of Adventism is striking.

We must, then, recognize the full impact of Paul's teaching.

I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly (Gal. 2:21).

But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8, 9).

Do not nullify the grace of God. Accept the righteousness that comes freely from the Lord Jesus. †

 

Endnotes

1. See Gal. 2:1-9; Acts 15:11
2. But certain ones of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed, stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses." Acts 15:5
3. Mt. 16:18; Jn. 21:15–17.
4. Acts 2.
5. Acts 8:14-17
6. Mt. 18:15.
7. Lk. 22:51–55.
8. "Gentile sinners" was a common expression of the Jews.
9. Gal. 2:16.
10. Rom. 3:20, 28; Rom. 4:13; 10:4, 5, Gal. 2:16; 3:11, 24; 5:4; Phil. 3:9.
11. Rom. 1:17; 3:5, 21, 22; 10:3; 2 Cor. 5:21, Jam. 1:20.
12. Gal. 2:15.
13. Gal. 1:6.
14. Gal. 5:4.
15. Gal. 5:4.
16. Gal. 2:4.
17. Gal. 3:10.
18. Gal. 4:9.
19. Gal. 3:1.
20. Gal. 5:
21. Gal. Gal. 5:2,3.
22. Gal. 2:12; 1 Cor. 10:25–27, Mk. 7:14–23.
23. Gal. 2:20.
24. Gal. 5:16, 22–26.
25. If it did, then Peter would not have been a true Christian when he compromised the gospel as mentioned in Gal. 2:11–22. Remember the woman of Samaria, the thief on the cross, the Corinthians and their problems who are yet "saints in Christ".
26. See Sabbath in Christ, p. 71–74 for a list of the many Sabbath commands and prohibitions.
27. For a partial list of Ellen White's Sabbath laws, see Sabbath in Christ, p. 388–392.
28. Phil. 3:6–9)

 

---

Copyright 2008 Life Assurance Ministries, Inc., Glendale, Arizona, USA. All rights reserved. Revised September 24, 2008. Contact email: proclamation@gmail.com

Dale Ratzlaff is the founder of Life Assurance Ministries, Inc, and owns LAM Publications, LLC. He served as an Adventist pastor for 13 years, seven of which were at Monterey Bay Academy where he taught Bible. He and his wife Carolyn left the Adventist church in 1981 when he realized he could no longer teach the investigative judgment in clear conscience. He has authored, Sabbath in Christ, The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventist "Truth" and Adventist to Christian. These are available through his website, LifeAssuranceMinistries.com.