The first people to become followers of Christ were Jews. When non-Jewish people wanted to follow Him, the question arose whether they would have to obey the Law of Moses in addition to following Christ. In his letter to the churches in the Roman province of Galatia, the Apostle Paul argues that the gospel is distinct from the Law. Those who follow Christ are not obligated to keep the Law. He also related how the Apostles in Jerusalem agreed and did not force circumcision on converts who were not Jewish.
But this raises another question. Is freedom from keeping the Law only for non-Jews or is it a general principle which applies to everyone? In chapter 2, verses 11 through 14, Paul writes, “But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before some people came from James, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in his hypocrisy; so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they didn’t walk uprightly according to the truth of the Good News, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live as the Gentiles do, and not as the Jews do, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews do?””
The book of Acts, chapter 10, informs us that it was through the Apostle Peter that the gospel of Christ was first preached to non-Jewish people at the house of Cornelius. God had revealed to Peter that He grants salvation to non-Jewish people as well as to Jews. Later, at the council in Jerusalem where the church met to discuss whether non-Jewish followers of Christ had to keep the Law of Moses, Peter spoke in their favor. By eating with the non-Jewish followers of Christ at Antioch, Peter not only upheld the decision which had been reached at Jerusalem regarding non-Jews, but demonstrated that Jewish followers of Christ did not have to keep the Law of Moses either.
It was only when some visitors came from Jerusalem that Peter stopped eating with the non-Jewish Christians. Paul writes that the reason Peter did this was because of fear. He apparently was afraid that he would lose the respect of the Jewish followers of Christ in Jerusalem if they knew that he was not keeping the Law of Moses. Just as his fear had led him to deny Christ just before the crucifixion, his fear now led him to turn away from his brothers in Christ at Antioch and try to deceive the brothers from Jerusalem.
What made Peter’s actions especially reprehensible was that he was regarded by many to be the most prominent of the Apostles. His influence and example caused others to separate themselves from their non-Jewish brothers. Even Barnabas, who had championed the cause of non-Jewish believers, pulled away from them as a result of Peter’s example. In this way, Peter caused division in the church.
When Paul realized what was happening, he rebuked Peter publicly. Public sin deserves a public rebuke – especially in the case of leaders. Though Peter’s weakness caused the problem, it is a measure of his greatness that he accepted the rebuke. Writing many years later, Peter refers to the Apostle Paul as his “dear brother.” (2 Peter 3:15)
But why was Paul so adamant that the followers of Christ, even Jewish believers, were not obligated to keep the Law? In verses 15 through 21 he writes, “We, being Jews by nature, and not Gentile sinners, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law, because no flesh will be justified by the works of the law. But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a law-breaker. For I, through the law, died to the law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me. That life which I now
live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. I don’t make void the grace of God. For if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nothing!”
In this passage, Paul points out that the Law is incapable of meeting our need. Once a person has sinned, the Law has no means of reconciling him to God. It makes no difference whether a person is is a Jew or not. The only way to become reconciled to God is through Jesus Christ.
But this raises a question. If we remove the necessity of keeping the Law of Moses then what prevents someone from sinning? And, if the code of conduct is removed, does that mean that following Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! On the contrary, Paul writes that to turn one’s back on the grace of Christ and return to trying to justify oneself by keeping the Law of Moses is itself a sin. This is precisely what Peter had done when he refused to eat with the non-Jewish followers of Christ.
To revert to the Law not only is sin, it fails to recognize the very purpose for the Law. As Paul writes in chapter 3 of this letter, “…the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.” (Galatians 3:24 NIV) For those who follow Christ, the Law has served its purpose. They have died to the Law and now live for God.
This answers the question about what prevents someone from sinning if he no longer follows the Law. Paul writes that Christ lives in him. In other words, if someone follows Christ, his very nature is transformed. His old self is crucified with Christ, and he obtains a new nature. Just as Christ was sinless so, too, the person who has Christ living in him will avoid sin – not because he follows a code of conduct, but because it is his nature to do what is right.
The Law of Moses was given by God. Therefore some might think that to abandon the Law is to turn one’s back on God’s grace. But this is not so. It is God who sent Jesus to grant the righteousness the Law cannot give. If the Law was capable of making us righteous then there was no need for Christ to die.
The real question is whether we will keep on trying to obtain righteousness through something which can never provide it, or whether we will accept the righteousness of Christ.