certain meats, is a denial of Christ. When Paul saw that Peter's attitude
tended to this, he withstood Peter and said to him: "You know that the
observance of the Iaw is not needed unto righteousness. You know that we are
justified by faith in Christ. You know that we may eat all kinds of meats. Yet
by your example you obligate the Gentiles to forsake Christ, and to return to
the Law. You give them reason to think that faith is not sufficient unto
salvation."

Peter did not say so, but his example said quite plainly that the observance
of the Law must be added to faith in Christ, if men are to be saved. From
Peter's example the Gentiles could not help but draw the conclusion that the
Law was necessary unto salvation. If this error had been permitted to pass
unchallenged, Christ would have lost out altogether.

The controversy involved the preservation of pure doctrine. In such a
controversy Paul did not mind if anybody took offense.


VERSE 15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.

"When we Jews compare ourselves with the Gentiles, we look pretty good.
We have the Law, we have good works. Our rectitude dates from our birth,
because the Jewish religion is natural to us. But all this does not make us
righteous before God."
Peter and the others lived up to the requirements of the Law. They had
circumcision, the covenant, the promises, the apostleship. But because of
these advantages they were not to think themselves righteous before God.
None of these prerogatives spell faith in Christ, which alone can justify a
person. We do not mean to imply that the Law is bad. We do not condemn the
Law, circumcision, etc., for their failure to justify us. Paul spoke