Biblical reform extends to conduct.
Certainly, as individuals and as churches, we must continually examine what we believe and declare (publicly and privately, when we speak, write, and sing) by comparing everything with the standard given to us by the Word of God, to ensure that our beliefs and declarations are in conformity with the truth revealed by God.
However, biblical reform is incomplete if it only produces correct beliefs and declarations, even when these arise from sincere, pure, and well-intentioned hearts.
If we sincerely believe in the biblical truth we declare, this truth must inevitably govern our conduct, our habits, and our practices. Paul’s letter to the church in Galatia offers us a striking example of this. In Galatians 1:6-7, the apostle harshly rebukes the Galatians for having changed their “gospel.”
I am astonished that you have so quickly turned away from the one who called you by the grace of Christ, to follow a different gospel.
No que haya otro, sino que hay algunos que os perturban y quieren pervertir el evangelio de Cristo.
In Galatians 3:1, 3 and 5:7-8, we see that their perversion of the truth was a matter of conduct, of practice, a matter of disobedience to the truth.
¡Oh gálatas insensatos! ¿quién os fascinó para no obedecer a la verdad, a vosotros ante cuyos ojos Jesucristo fue ya presentado claramente entre vosotros como crucificado?
… Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now going to be perfected by the flesh?
… You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?
What had happened?
The religious experts had come to Galatia with a new emphasis, a new version of the Gospel, with a particular nuance, different from what Paul had taught.
This nuance was a matter of conduct, a conduct identified with the practice of circumcision, but a conduct that Paul condemned as alarmingly incompatible with the Gospel of the crucified Christ.
Not only had the Christians of Galatia been led astray to deny the Gospel through their conduct; the apostle Peter was equally affected, as Paul tells us in Galatians 2:11-16:
But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him face to face, because he was to be condemned.
For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, because he was afraid of those of the circumcision.
And the other Jews also participated in his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was also carried away by their hypocrisy.
Pero cuando vi que no andaban rectamente conforme a la verdad del evangelio, dije a Pedro delante de todos:
If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like a Jew, why do you compel the Gentiles to Judaize?
Nosotros, judíos de nacimiento, y no pecadores de entre los gentiles, sabiendo que el hombre no es justificado por las obras de la ley, sino por la fe de Jesucristo, nosotros también hemos creído en Jesucristo, para ser justificados por la fe de Cristo y no por las obras de la ley, por cuanto por las obras de la ley nadie será justificado.
La conducta de Pedro negaba una doctrina fundamental del Evangelio: la doctrina de la justificación. (¿Quién habría esperado tal cosa de un apóstol?)
Peter had not connected the dots between his actions and their implications. He had allowed the presence, influence, and pressure of the “celebrities” of his time to cloud his understanding and intimidate him, to the point of withdrawing from the Gentile believers.
No se dio cuenta de que, al participar con un grupo marcado por ciertas prácticas religiosas (los de la circuncisión), se estaba apartando de una doctrina fundamental del Evangelio: la justificación solamente por la fe, no por las obras.
El texto nos dice que él tenía miedo de los de la circuncisión lo que parece ser el motivo de su alejamiento de los identificados como gentiles.
Perhaps he was concerned that if he did not agree with those of the circumcision, a door to ministry might be closed to him (or he might lose influence). After all, even Paul himself had recognized (as we read in Galatians 2:7) that God had given Peter a ministry to bring the gospel to those of the circumcision (the Jews), just as He had sent Paul to the Gentiles.
As far as we know, Peter was not preaching a gospel of circumcision. However, in practice, he publicly associated with people whose conduct promoted this different gospel. By publicly associating with them, he denied a fundamental truth of the Gospel.
Por muy buenas que fueran sus intenciones, en lugar de influir en ellos con el Evangelio, estaba permitiendo que ellos influyeran en él y en su conducta. Peor aún, les estaba ayudando y colaborando en su influencia perjudicial sobre los demás: su participación pública con ellos servía como una ratificación implícita a su falso evangelio y conducta.
Peter’s choice of table companions may have easily seemed like a secondary matter to him. However, Paul saw what Peter had overlooked: the implications of Peter’s conduct were not minor—they denied justification by faith alone.
Overwhelmed by this concern due to the inevitable connection between the Gospel and appropriate conduct, Paul apparently realized that his silence might imply his consent. According to his own testimony, he immediately rebuked Peter, even publicly (before them all, Galatians 2:14).
Paul may have risked being misunderstood, denounced, and marginalized, as someone who disturbed and opposed the unity, peace, and advancement of the church. Despite this risk, guided by love for the Lord and for Peter, Paul acted with Peter as Nathan had acted with David. He called Peter to a biblical reform: a change of conduct, a return to biblical ways.
Paul’s faithfulness to Peter in this matter was recorded in Scripture and was one of the means God used so that we today, two millennia later, might understand a fundamental truth of the Gospel, proclaim it accurately, and live in accordance with it.
If an apostle, in a moment of weakness, could be deceived into denying a fundamental truth of the Gospel through his conduct, who are we to assume that, as pastors, church members, and individuals, we cannot be deceived?
In the 21st century, we continue to run the risk of denying and undermining the truth, not only by what we say or preach, but by what we do and by the practices we appear to accept. It is easy to lose sight of the inevitable connection between truth and conduct. Among the powerful sources of distraction are our own good intentions, our lack of discernment, the pressure of our friends, our remaining corruption, the natural fear of man, or the fear of losing influence.
However, through our practices in seemingly minor matters, and even through our fellowship with other people involved in practices that may seem insignificant, we may be denying the very doctrines we seek to promote, even justification by faith alone, glory to God alone, or some of the other key doctrines rediscovered in the 16th-century Reformation.
How necessary it is that we continually seek to examine our hearts, our conversations, and our practices in the light of Scripture, to see if we have strayed, or if we are about to stray, from the truth!
