Gluttony, The Overlooked Sin

 

Gluttony is a sin that has not only been ignored by much of the western church, but actually incorporated in many ways into our lifestyle.

Many think it is not that big a deal. But gluttony was the sin that brought down the whole world. Genesis 3:6, "6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate." It was their appetite, as they "saw that the tree was good for food," that undermined the entire human race and drove us into sin. They gave in to gluttony. They could not control their appetite.

It is not an accident that the obese nations of the West are in such moral decline. Appetite speaks to self-control, what you worship and what rules you. An inability to reign it in is a visible demonstration of a lack of impulse control, and a lack of moral seriousness on the issue. Geoffrey Chaucer in the Canterbury tales puts this forward in a powerful way,

"O gluttony; full of all wickedness,

O first cause of confusion to us all,

Beginning of damnation and our fall,

Till Christ redeemed us with His blood again!

Behold how dearly, to be brief and plain,

Was purchased this accursed villainy;

Corrupt was all this world with gluttony!

Adam our father, and his wife also,

From Paradise to labour and to woe

Were driven for that vice, no doubt; indeed

The while that Adam fasted, as I read,

He was in Paradise; but then when he

Ate of the fruit forbidden of the tree,

Anon he was cast out to woe and pain."[1]

This is no minor issue. It is a world changing issue. A society given over to self-indulgence has to decline, what else can it do?

Many are ruled by their bellies, but as Chaucer notes, the belly is literally a container of trash,  

“The apostle, weeping, says most piteously:

"For many walk, of whom I've told you, aye,

Weeping I tell you once again they're dross,

For they are foes of Christ and of the Cross,

Whose end is death, whose belly is their god."

O gut! O belly! O you stinking cod,

Filled full of dung, with all corruption found!

At either end of you foul is the sound.""[2]

 

"Filled full of dung..." literally. A horrible, but also true thought.

Food is a wonderful and glorious gift from our Lord and God. But like all good gifts from God, this one has been severely abused by many, including Christians. At least with sexual sin and wrath, you hear these things challenged from time to time. But gluttony, it is the forgotten sin.

List of References

---

[1] Chaucer, Geoffrey .. The Canterbury Tales: FREE Hamlet By William Shakespeare (JKL Classics - Active TOC, Active Footnotes ,Illustrated) (p. 257). JKL Classics. Kindle Edition.

[2] Ibid (pp. 257-258).

Is Your Faith In Trouble?

 

“10 He does not delight in the strength of the horse;
He takes no pleasure in the legs of a man.
11 The Lord takes pleasure in those who fear Him,
In those who hope in His mercy.”

Psalm 147:10-11, NKJV.

I am old enough to remember Christians saying that the Iron Dome was not simply a brilliant piece of tech, but the hand of the sovereign God over Israel. I remember this being a common belief in the Baptist and Charismatic circles I grew up in. I have even seen memes in recent years likening the iron dome to the hand of God in the sky knocking away missiles. Yet now we see it failing, and failing badly.

This image above is tragic, because the leaders of these two countries have led each of their peoples to destruction. This image represents missile strikes hitting the small country of Israel, launched by Iran.

I want to ask those who up until recently called this iron dome the hand of God in the sky, are you self-reflective enough in your faith to admit that the supernatural claim of the iron dome was always a lie? Are you self-reflective enough to acknowledge that it was really just a piece of clever tech that took care of mostly poor-quality rockets, but was never really tested before last year? And that it is now being shown to have been just that all along?

It was numerous claims like this, that I saw Christians making about this tiny country, that caused me to change my mind about the supernatural state of modern Israel. They called many things miracles, that were obviously not that at all. The things they called miracles could often simply be explained by the fact that Israel was supported by the most powerful nations in the world, first Britain, then the Soviet Union, and then the United States. This caused me to re-evaluate the claims of many Christians on this issue.

Are you willing to do that? If that is your belief? Are you willing to examine your claims about this tiny nation being a supernatural evidence of God in this world?

I bring this up, because we might see the colony of Israel fail in our day, or at the very least, we might see it become a lot more precarious. We don’t want that to happen, as that would be a disaster, yet wars can bring disaster. While some Christians ludicrously claim that Netanyahu is trying to liberate Iran, what is really happening, is that two nations, who both believe they should have pre-eminence in the Middle East, are now in open war, and both are seeking to crush the other, and weaken their ability to project in the region. Maybe this will end in another stalemate, like last year? Maybe it will end in both destroying each other? Maybe one will achieve total victory? Maybe one will achieve victory at a great cost? None of us can predict how this will finally settle.

But we don’t need to either. Whatever comes of this war, we can already say that many supernatural claims about Israel are being shattered right now. And so the prophecy chasers are seeking to reframe the supernatural claims.

This is important because many Christians see the country called Israel as a linchpin of their faith, as the physical manifestation of the Bible today. But it is not. It is simply a human nation, built for human reasons, in an unstable area. Like any other nation it has strengths and weaknesses. Whether it stands or falls, Christianity is not based on that, is not exemplified by it, and this nation has no bearing on it. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, and it exists wherever his gospel is being proclaimed.

This might become an important assertion for some people in coming days.

I don't celebrate this war. I think it is tragic that bad theology, bad policy, bad ideology and more has led to this point. But here we are. Pray that this war ends as quickly as possible, and there is as little destruction as possible. And pray for the innocent who are continually caught in the middle of these never ending wars.  

I would also like to share the perspective here of Dr Chadi Youssef, who commented on my post about this on social media. I have reproduced Dr Youssef’s comment here in full, with permission, as I think it speaks to this issue very well:

“Your piece Matthew is landing on something real that a lot of Christians won’t face until their theology is forced to collide with reality: we confused providence with endorsement, and we turned a defence system into a sacrament.

A hard truth for the Church: calling the Iron Dome “the hand of God” was not faith — it was category confusion. God can be merciful in restraint, yes. God can preserve life, yes. But Scripture never teaches us to identify a weapons system with divine favour, as if engineering equals election and interception equals righteousness. That logic is closer to idolatry than to biblical discernment, because it turns military capability into a spiritual badge. “Some trust in chariots and some in horses” isn’t a cute verse; it’s a warning (Psalm 20:7). If we trained ourselves to see technology as “proof God is on our side,” then the moment the system bleeds, our faith bleeds with it — because we tied our doctrine to a dome instead of to Christ.

And the deeper issue is this: the Bible’s moral architecture does not allow the modern shortcut so many prophecy-chasers took. In the prophets, election is not immunity; it is accountability. The more sacred the claim, the more severe the judgment when injustice is done under God’s name. That’s why Ezekiel speaks of God’s name being profaned among the nations (Ezek 36:20–23). That’s why Jeremiah mocks slogan-faith (“Temple of the Lord!”) when the vulnerable are being crushed (Jer 7:4–7). That’s why Amos says God judges His own people precisely because of covenant (Amos 3:2). So when Christians call state survival “miracle” while ignoring justice, bloodguilt, and the treatment of the stranger, they are not reading the Bible — they’re using Bible words to bless a political project.

This image you shared—covered with strike markers—is not “prophecy content.” It’s the fruit of leaders and systems dragging whole populations into escalation. It is tragedy, not spectacle. And it exposes another lie: the lie that history has no recoil. When two nations believe they must have pre-eminence in the corridor, they will keep tightening the corridor until ordinary people cannot breathe. That’s not mystical — it’s corridor physics. The Levant is one hinge-land: what ignites in one part locks movement everywhere. That’s why we keep seeing skies close, routes reroute, insurance spike, supply chains stall, and civilians pay first.

So yes — your fright: many supernatural claims are being shattered. But here’s the more important point: if your faith collapses because the modern state of Israel is vulnerable, then your faith was never anchored where the New Testament anchors it. Christianity is not “verified” by any nation-state’s military dominance. The Church is not commissioned to treat any flag as the Bible’s physical manifestation. The cornerstone is Christ, not a state, and not a defence system.

And this is where the Bible’s end-horizon corrects both sides. The prophetic vision is not “one tribe wins forever by power.” Isaiah 19 gives the opposite horizon: a healed corridor—Egypt, Assyria-space (the northern arc that includes Syria/Aram in the biblical imagination), and Israel reconciled under God’s blessing, with a highway running through former enemies (Isaiah 19:23–25). That’s the real “highway” logic: not conquest-talk, not sanctified violence, not propaganda—repentance, justice, humility, reconciliation under Messiah. Until that moral centre returns, every “miracle narrative” that baptises weapons will only train Christians to become blind, tribal, and easily manipulated.

I don’t celebrate war. I fear God. And I’m saying to the Church: repent of using God’s name as a political stamp; stop calling technology “miracle” when it suits you; stop making modern Israel the linchpin of your faith; and return to the actual biblical spine—justice, mercy, humility, and Christ as King over the corridor.”

As someone else noted as well, “This is literally a real-world lesson in real time on the danger of false prophecy.” This is precisely correct.

I sympathize with the Jewish people’s desire for a homeland. I have noted that many times in my writings over the years. What I do not stand with, though, is the attaching of this with apocalyptic ideologies of a pseudo-Christian end times view, that has been pushing the nations of the Middle East towards greater and greater confrontation. Many of these bad apocalyptic ideas see these confrontations as necessary for prophecy to be fulfilled, and some who hold these ideas have managed to have strong influence in high places. But what Christians should have been doing instead was treating the Middle East as a mission field, not a proving ground for apocalyptic speculations.

Many Christians have identified their faith with the constitution of the nation state of Israel in the 20^th century. As a pastor I expect that many of those people would be having their faith challenged by current events in the region. They were taught a prophetic timetable, that is supposed to unfold in a certain way, but as this timetable increasingly comes to be revealed as false, this will cause many to question what they have been taught. I hope these Christians are self-reflective enough to note that eschatology was never meant to be made central to their faith in the first.  

Our faith is centred in the risen Lord Jesus Christ, and we can see the evidence of his work through his Church in this world, and in many other ways. He is real and truly at work. We should be very hesitant though to use the hardest parts of the bible, end times passages, as linchpins in our faith. The church has long disagreed over how those passages will precisely be fulfilled. There is good reason for that.  

Israel Gets Its War

 

It makes me really upset to think about how much of our prosperity and way of life is impacted by selfish people in the Middle East who can't stop fighting. And by fools in the West who want to tie themselves to one side or another. 

Of course, as much as it effects us, our Christian brethren in the Middle East cop it far worse. And there are tonnes of ordinary people in the Middle East, of all faiths and yes I meant that, who would like this to stop as well. 

We were told there would be wars and rumours of wars. But never forget what is the cause of these wars: 

"1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? 2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not" (James 4:1-2).

The warmongers have got their war. Now we all have to wait and see what the fallout will be. 

Many Christians Take Church For Granted

 

I think it is important to remember that many of the people we consider to be Christian heroes, and who actually are Christian heroes, were often considered troublemakers by the "respectable" Christians of their time. One thing these respectable Christians accused these people of being is "enthusiasts".

John Bunyan, the author of Pilgrim's Progress is a great example of one of these “enthusiasts”.

John Bunyan was imprisoned for twelve years due to his refusal to stop preaching as a nonconformist, which was illegal under the laws of his time. Bunyan, was a Baptist preacher, and he was arrested in 1660 under the Conventicle Act, which prohibited religious gatherings outside the Church of England. This law was part of a broader effort to suppress nonconformist movements, which were viewed with suspicion by the authorities, especially after the Restoration of the monarchy under Charles II. Bunyan's meetings were seen as a potential threat to the stability of the kingdom, as nonconformists were often associated with revolutionary sentiments; like the idea that Jesus was the head of the Church and the Scripture alone should dictate our teaching.

During his trial, Bunyan was accused of "persistent and willful transgression" of the Conventicle Act. He openly admitted to conducting religious services outside the established church, stating, "I have never attended services in the Church of England, nor do I intend ever to do so". His refusal to conform to the established church's practices and his commitment to preaching led to his conviction. The magistrates sentenced him to three months in prison, with the threat of further punishment if he continued to preach after his release.

Which he did. He was dedicated to preaching the gospel and he was willing to suffer for it.

I think the stage is being set for us to learn the hard way not to squander the liberties our forefathers earnt for us, by their faithful witness to the gospel. Society is turning in a direction where people who hold long cherished and practiced Christian beliefs are being seen as anti-social. Society is beginning to move closer to the kind of autocracy that Bunyan lived under, where dissent was not tolerated, or at least barely tolerated.

People take our current liberties for granted. They take church for granted. They take Christian fellowship for granted, ranking it often under kids sport, and other activities. What else would God do, but in his kindness remind us why it is so important to take our faith seriously?

 

Trad Wife Equals Bad Wife?

 

The first time I heard of the trad wife trend, several years ago, I was like, “Oh, that’s interesting, good to see that catching on.” But then I looked a little bit closer at it and realized, that it was just another way for women who want attention to get attention. There is nothing traditional about turning your quiet home life, or homesteading life, into an online social media movement.

I have not followed this movement closely, because following such people does not interest me. But also because it was obvious where such a movement was going to go. Some of these women would turn out to be frauds. Others would publicly deconstruct their traditional family lifestyle and go full feminist. Others would have been planted in the movement to do just this, so that many young, impressionable wives were motivated to upturn their families. Others would just become generally disillusioned by the movement and seek to go the way of many modern normie women. And the true traditional wives, the ones whose way of life has been appropriated for social media stardom and attention, would simply keep plugging away in their family homes, caring for and raising their children, and honouring their husbands, blissfully unaware of the grifting these social media starlets were doing.  

Low and behold, where are we now? Evelyn Rae from Caldron Pool notes,

“It now seems like hardly a few months pass without another self-styled traditionalist influencer being exposed as a fraud. We’ve all seen it happen. A carefully curated online persona proclaiming modesty, order, submission, virtue, and family values, followed by the sudden unveiling of a gross, double life. The warning from the Book of Numbers proves inescapably true: “be sure your sin will find you out” (Num. 32:23).

But why does this keep happening? And why does it seem particularly common in the world of “trad” or conservative influencers?...

…The Corrupting Power of Recognition

There is also another factor rarely acknowledged. The intoxicating effect of even minor fame.

A small following can awaken big pride. Even modest recognition can stir up a spirit of arrogance and amplify sin. Many of us have seen it happen in ordinary life. Give someone a little attention, and suddenly a different personality emerges.

Social media can accelerate this. Praise, admiration, ‘likes,’ and attention follow every post, story, and comment. The influencer begins to believe their own projected image, and eventually, the persona overtakes the person.

And if character has not been deeply formed in private, public visibility will inevitably expose the cracks of hypocrisy.

The Illusion of the Curated Life

What's more, there is also another problem. Social media is inherently selective.

No one posts their worst moments. No one broadcasts their impatience, marital tensions, private doubts, or sinful habits. What you see is an edited highlight reel, carefully chosen, filtered, and presented for effect.

This is not unique to “tradwives.” It is universal. Everyone online only shows what they want you to see and withholds what they do not.

The danger is that followers too often forget this.

Men compare their wives to curated online personas. Women compare themselves to impossibly polished domestic ideals. Couples assume their own struggles are abnormal because nobody else’s marriages appear this dysfunctional or chaotic.

But proximity gives perspective. Anyone living closely with even the most polished online influencer would discover the same mixture of virtue and weakness, 0bedience and sin, found in every human heart.

To imagine otherwise is pure naivety.”[1]

What Evelyn says here is correct.

But I would also add that the core of the problem is that these tradwives have largely made themselves the content they are presenting. They know that the online algorithm loves to see a pretty woman doing the things that other people do. They know they can sell themselves while claiming to sell a traditional model of life. Hence, a lot of women with no values at all, have been incentivized to publicly present themselves as “trad-wives.”

This does not mean that woman should not be contributing to the public culture, not at all. But wherever you see women making themselves the focus, or men for that matter, you should see serious problems.

In reality if you and your wife are living a simple, traditional life, her focus will much more centre around the home, than it will in public presence and attention. In the case of some women God has used them to bless other women in society, and they have a genuine positive influence, but this not the norm. The norm is that many women, and men, see online presence as an arena with a low bar of entry with which they can attempt to get attention, by any and all means. A movement like this was bound to attract such bad elements. When a woman is seeking attention about herself from others, especially men, then you know that she is going to end in disaster. When a woman is seeking to stand for something, that is different. But overall, this trend was always going to end bad. 

List of References

---

[1] https://www.caldronpool.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-tradwife?fbclid=IwY2xjawQDTAJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeY8aq4GWTUiGSrqk5QoMfnSBQmoYKp9GqnVHlsJFGbhcs-bSGShki_ey65Z8_aem_ge30KY8VOh2SUjBr8O-rEQ

Mike Hukabee is Wrong

 

By now it is very likely that you have heard the Mike Hukabee said the quiet part out loud in his interview with Tucker Carlson. My favourite thing about the Trump administrations is how often this happens. Stuff that people have gathered, or researched and know to be the case, or at least have gathered or assumed to be the case, are often revealed by Trump and his officials to be what they really think. In this case Mike Hukabee, a former Baptist minister, has publicly shown that very high ranking officials would be fine with Israel taking much of the Middle East,

“The US’s ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has contended to the podcaster Tucker Carlson that Israel has a biblical right to take over the entire Middle East – or at least the lion’s share of it.

“It would be fine if they took it all,” Huckabee said to Carlson during an interview posted on Friday. The Trump administration appointee and former Arkansas governor discussed with Carlson interpretations of Old Testament scripture within the US Christian nationalist movement.

Carlson – who recently made disputed claims that he was detained at Tel Aviv airport in Israel – asked Huckabee about a biblical verse in which God promises Abraham that his descendants will receive land “from the wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates – the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites”.

Carlson pointed out that this area in modern geography would include “like, basically the entire Middle East”.

“The Levant … Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon – it’d also be big parts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq,” Carlson said.

Huckabee said: “I’m not sure it would go that far, but it would be a big piece of land.”

He continued: “Israel is a land that God gave, through Abraham, to a people that he chose. It was a people, a place and a purpose.”[1]

I am not taking the Guardian’s or second hand sources word for it, either, when it comes to what he said. I heard him say it in the interview of which I watched the entire thing.

As a Baptist pastor, I find it shocking how biblically illiterate Mike Hukabee, another Baptist pastor, is. Above is a picture of the land promised to Abram's descendants in Genesis 15. Look at how much of the Middle East that incorporates. Hukabee’s statement might be amongst one of the biggest diplomatic blunders in the history of diplomacy. It has certainly caused an uproar across the Middle East. How could it not?

But it should also be stated that what he said is not correct anyway. This promise in Genesis 15 was not a promise to or for Israel alone. But for Abram's extended descendants. God had other nations in mind who were going to inhabit that land as well. Just two chapters later God tells Abraham that he would be the father of many nations (Gen. 17:4-8). In fact let’s read that passage,

“5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

So God clearly has more than just the nation of Israel in mind when it comes to who would inhabit this land, from a physical perspective.

This is also explained clearly in Deuteronomy 2 to 3. That God intends to give the land to the Israelites, yes, but also Abrahams descendants (Edom) and kin (Lot).

About Edom, we read in Deuteronomy 2:2-5,

"2 Then the Lord said to me, 3 ‘You have been traveling around this mountain country long enough. Turn northward 4 and command the people, “You are about to pass through the territory of your brothers, the people of Esau, who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. So be very careful. 5 Do not contend with them, for I will not give you any of their land, no, not so much as for the sole of the foot to tread on, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession."

About Moab, we read in Deuteronomy 2:8-9,

"And we turned and went in the direction of the wilderness of Moab. 9 And the Lord said to me, ‘Do not harass Moab or contend with them in battle, for I will not give you any of their land for a possession, because I have given Ar to the people of Lot for a possession.’"

 About Ammon, we read in Deuteronomy 2:16-19,

"16 So as soon as all the men of war had perished and were dead from among the people, 17 the Lord said to me, 18 ‘Today you are to cross the border of Moab at Ar. 19 And when you approach the territory of the people of Ammon, do not harass them or contend with them, for I will not give you any of the land of the people of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the sons of Lot for a possession.’"

God, through Moses, makes clear in the law of Moses, that not all the land was to go to one particular segment of the Abraham’s kin. God had much more in mind than that.

Mike Hukabee is making a mistake many Christians make. Many Christian read the start of the story and ignore how the rest of it goes. It is like watching the first episode of a 30 season T.V. show and thinking you have a handle on who the characters are and how they will end up. You don’t, and if you ignore all that comes after this, then you are simply being irresponsible.

The promise to Abram extended beyond the land given to Israel. Many Christians do not even know this, though it is in the Bible, that God gave land to many other peoples. In this passage three descendants of Abraham are mentioned. Acts 17:26-28 mentions the rest of the ancient nations, as does Deuteronomy 32:7-9. God made the special unique covenant with the ancient Israelites, but this does not mean he did not give others their lands. He says explicitly that he has. Also, included in the Covenant of Israel was the command to not touch the lands of other people. All of these nations in Deuteronomy 2 are within that land mentioned in Genesis 15. Therefore, it is highly irresponsible to say that Israel has any kind of claim to the land to that extent. Incredibly irresponsible.

It is incredible to see someone of such stature applying the Bible so incorrectly. But this particular approach to these passages in Genesis is common in our day and age. It is often read without thought to the rest of the story.

Now, of course, you are likely looking at this and thinking, but Matthew this is ultimately fulfilled in Christ and is truly for the children of faith. And the answer is yet, it is indeed. Romans 4 shows us that the fulfilment in the Old Testament was simply a picture pointing to a greater fulfilment, “13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.” Ultimately the promise was looking to Christ (Gal. 3:16). But I think it is important to show that you do not even need to look beyond the Pentateuch itself to see that Huckabee’s interpretation is very wrong. Of course, in light of the New Testament it is even more wrong.

List of References

---

[1] Edward Helmore, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/20/mike-huckabee-israel-middle-east-tucker-carlson

Galatians Study #2 – Not By Works – Study Notes

 

You can watch the video of this sermon on YouTube here at 8pm AEST.

Paul Accepted by the Apostles

1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. ² I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. ³ But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. ⁴ Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— ⁵ to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. ⁶ And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. ⁷ On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised ⁸ (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), ⁹ and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. ¹⁰ Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

Paul Opposes Peter

¹¹ But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ¹² For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.^[a] 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 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?”

Justified by Faith

¹⁵ We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; ¹⁶ yet we know that a person is not justified^[b] 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.

¹⁷ But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! ¹⁸ For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. ¹⁹ For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. ²⁰ I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹ I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness^[c] were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Footnotes

1. Galatians 2:12 Or fearing those of the circumcision
2. Galatians 2:16 Or counted righteous (three times in verse 16); also verse 17
3. Galatians 2:21 Or justification

 

Analysis of Galatians 2: New Testament Background

Galatians 2 is a pivotal chapter that sits at the crossroads of theology and church practice in the early New Testament church. Its background is defined by a critical controversy: must Gentile (non-Jewish) converts to Christianity first become Jews by being circumcised and obeying the Mosaic Law?

1. The Jerusalem Council Context: While the full "Council of Jerusalem" is described in Acts 15, many scholars believe Paul's account in Galatians 2:1-10 refers to the same event or a private meeting that occurred alongside it. Paul's journey to Jerusalem "after fourteen years" (v.1) was to secure apostolic confirmation that his gospel to the Gentiles—a gospel of grace through faith alone, without the requirement of the Jewish law—was the true gospel.
2. The "Pillars" of the Church: James (the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church), Cephas (Peter), and John (the apostle) were recognized as the central leaders (v.9). Paul's interaction with them was not to seek their approval for his message, but to ensure unity in the mission. Their endorsement ("the right hand of fellowship," v.9) was a monumental affirmation that the Holy Spirit was indeed working through Paul's ministry to the Gentiles, just as through Peter's to the Jews.
3. The Core Conflict: Justification by Faith vs. Works of the Law: The incident with Titus (v.3) sets the stage. He was a living test case—an uncircumcised Greek Christian. The "false brothers" (v.4) were Judaizers, Christians who insisted on adherence to the Mosaic Law. Paul's refusal to circumcise Titus was a defense of the fundamental truth that justification (being declared righteous by God) comes through faith in Christ, not by works of the law (v.16). This doctrine is the theological heart of the letter and the entire Reformation.
4. The Antioch Incident (2:11-14): This is perhaps the most dramatic moment. Peter (Cephas) had been freely eating with Gentile Christians in Antioch, signifying their unity in Christ. However, when men from the conservative Jewish-Christian faction in Jerusalem arrived, he withdrew out of fear (v.12). This act of hypocrisy, followed even by Barnabas, implied that Gentile Christians were second-class unless they adopted Jewish customs. Paul's public confrontation was necessary because Peter's actions were compromising the "truth of the gospel" (v.14). It demonstrated that this was not a minor disagreement but a battle for the soul of the Christian message.
5. Theological Exposition (2:15-21): Paul transitions from narrative to a powerful summary of the gospel. He argues that even Jewish Christians like himself have come to understand that they are not justified by law-keeping but by faith in Christ (v.16). To return to the law after finding life in Christ is to make Christ "a servant of sin" (v.17) and to nullify God's grace (v.21). The famous declaration "I have been crucified with Christ" (v.20) signifies that the old, law-bound self has died, and the new life is lived by faith in the Son of God.

In summary, the background of Galatians 2 is the tense and critical struggle to define Christianity: would it be a sect of Judaism, or a new covenant of grace and faith open to all people? Paul's account establishes his apostolic authority, defends the doctrine of justification by faith, and shows the practical consequences of compromising that doctrine.

Bible Study Questions:

1.     In verse 2, Paul says he presented his gospel "in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain." What does this reveal about the importance of unity and accountability in gospel ministry?

• Cross-reference: 1 Corinthians 9:24-26

2.     Why was the fact that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised (v.3) such a significant victory for Paul’s mission and message? Did Paul do the wrong thing in circumcising Timothy?

• Cross-reference: Acts 15:1-2

3.     Paul describes "false brothers" who sought to spy on their freedom and bring them into slavery (v.4). What is the "freedom" we have in Christ, and what does the "slavery" represent?

• Cross-reference: Galatians 5:1

4.     Verse 5 states that Paul did not yield to the false brothers "for a moment." Why was such uncompromising stand necessary, and what was the goal?

• Cross-reference: Jude 1:3

5.     The Jerusalem leaders "added nothing" to Paul (v.6). What does this say about the divine origin and sufficiency of the gospel Paul received?

• Cross-reference: Galatians 1:11-12

6.     Verses 7-9 describe a division of labor in mission: Paul to the Gentiles, Peter to the Jews. How does this principle of different callings working toward one goal apply to the church today?

• Cross-reference: 1 Corinthians 12:4-6

7.     The one request the Jerusalem leaders made was to "remember the poor" (v.10). How does caring for the poor demonstrate the truth of the gospel in a practical way?

• Cross-reference: James 2:15-17

8.     What was the specific nature of Peter’s hypocrisy in Antioch, and why was it so damaging (v.11-13)?

• Cross-reference: James 2:1

9.     Paul confronts Peter publicly because his conduct was "not in step with the truth of the gospel" (v.14). What does this teach us about when and how to confront error in the church?

• Cross-reference: Matthew 18:15-17

10.  In verse 16, Paul states the core doctrine of justification. In your own words, what does it mean that a person is "not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ"?

• Cross-reference: Romans 3:28

11.  Paul asks a rhetorical question in verse 17: "Is Christ then a servant of sin?" How does his answer "Certainly not!" protect the character of Christ and the nature of grace?

• Cross-reference: Romans 6:1-2

12.  What does Paul mean in verse 19 when he says, "through the law I died to the law"?

• Cross-reference: Romans 7:4-6

13.  Reflect on the profound statement in verse 20: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." What are the practical implications of this truth for your daily life?

• Cross-reference: 2 Corinthians 5:17

14.  How does the truth that "Christ... loved me and gave himself for me" (v.20) personalize the gospel and fuel a life of faith?

• Cross-reference: 1 John 4:19

15.  Paul concludes in verse 21 that if righteousness could come through the law, then "Christ died for no purpose." Why is it crucial to reject any teaching that adds human effort to what Christ accomplished on the cross?

• Cross-reference: Hebrews 10:10-14