Paul: The Apostle to the Gentiles, Part 1

Galatians 2:1-5

February 29, 2004

 

            This morning as we come to Galatians 2, we are reminded that something of great importance is at stake in this letter. Eternal matters were at stake in the churches at Galatia. False teachers who opposed Paul’s message of justification by faith alone had crept into the Galatian church. Paul tells us in 2:5 that, when confronted with these opponents, he did not yield to them for even an hour. Why? So that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. The issues Paul is about to deal with in this chapter and the chapters that follow are vital to Christianity. If they are confused, misinterpreted, or denied, the truth of the gospel is at stake, and we run the risk of losing the very gospel itself.

            What is Paul writing about in Galatians? His theme could be summed up by saying: There is no other gospel. There is only one true gospel. Paul doesn’t define that gospel for us until 2:16, where he writes that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus. That is the heart of the gospel message preached by Paul. Justification by faith alone! This message, that a person is justified, or declared righteous, before God by faith and not by the works of the Law is the gospel message that Paul is defending in Galatians. We’ll leave our examination of what this means for later, when we get to these texts that undertake to define this message.

            As Paul preached this message of justification by faith alone, problems always seemed to arise. One problem that came up in his ministry was the problem of legalism. Legalism is a word that we must define, and for our understanding we will take legalism to be any teaching that requires a person to perform acts of righteousness to be justified before God. Paul taught that a person must believe on Jesus Christ to be justified, but legalism teaches that a person must perform certain acts to be declared righteous before God. According to legalism faith alone does not justify a person.

This definition is important, because there are many wrong definitions of legalism. Some people say that it is legalistic to have standards and then to try to live by them. Or others might say that anyone who imposes a code of behavior on people for the sake of order and peace is a legalist. By this false definition, the Apostles were legalists in Acts 15 when they asked the Gentiles not to eat blood and not to commit fornication. These standards were not to imply that justification was obtained by these works, but rather that these works were necessary for order, peace, and a standard of conduct within the church. So legalism is not simply asking people to follow some rules for their good or the good of others, or even putting yourself under rules to help you in your spiritual walk; rather, legalism is the idea that your works justify you before God. It is the idea and teaching that you must do certain things to be declared righteous. The particular brand of legalism that was popular in Paul’s day was that of the Judaizers – those who taught that a man must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses to be saved.

            Those who taught this doctrine were of powerful influence. They most likely came from Jerusalem and claimed to have the authority of the Jerusalem apostles behind them. They taught the Galatians that Paul was not a legitimate apostle, such as Peter, James, and John. They disparaged Paul’s gospel with another gospel, a gospel of works-righteousness. The Galatians were inclined to listen to these legalists because of their supposed authority from the Jerusalem apostles. If Peter, James, and John taught that keeping the Law was necessary for salvation, then who was Paul to say it wasn’t?

            This presented Paul with a double-dilemma. On the one hand, he had to prove that his gospel came from God and not from men. Paul did not receive his gospel through a human agent, but rather from God Himself. Paul, then, in chapter 1 put forward 7 proofs of the divine character of his gospel. He shows beyond any doubt that his gospel is the true gospel revealed by God about Jesus Christ. But the question remained, “Does this gospel agree with the gospel of the Jerusalem apostles, especially Peter, James, and John?”

            Paul, then, in 2:1-10 sets out to prove that his gospel was accepted as the same gospel the Jerusalem apostles preached, and that he is united with them in his apostleship. Paul is now set to answer the second objection to his ministry, namely, that he and the Jerusalem apostles preached different messages.

            (All of chapter 2, actually, is Paul’s proof that he does not disagree with the Jerusalem apostles, but that they are united. However, there is a different emphasis in 2:11-21. In the first half of the chapter, Paul shows his unity with the other Apostles by their agreement with him, while in the second half of the chapter Paul shows his unity with the other Apostles by his rebuke of Peter’s hypocrisy at Antioch, as Peter was not being faithful to the one, true gospel that they all preached. So there is a slight difference in emphasis in each section.)

            How, then, does Paul set out to show his unity with the other apostles in these first 10 verses? He breaks his proof down into two major sections. The first section is found in verses 1-5, where Paul describes his activity among the Jerusalem apostles. The second section is found in verses 6-10 as Paul informs his readers of his acceptance by the Jerusalem apostles. So we see Paul’s activity among the apostles, and his acceptance by the apostles. This morning we’re going to look at the first section: Paul’s activity among the Jerusalem apostles.

            What exactly happened when Paul went up to Jerusalem the second time? Would it result in conflict and a ruptured relationship with the Jerusalem apostles, or would the Jerusalem apostles vindicate his gospel? If they were to vindicate his gospel, how would he be able to prove that this is in fact what happened? And why was this so important anyways? What was the point of it all? From the first five verses we see that Paul’s activities among the Jerusalem apostles served to preserve the truth of the gospel for the Galatians, and, indeed, for all Gentile believers. Paul went up to Jerusalem, and his activities were done for the purpose of preserving the truth of the Gospel. Let’s look more intently at these verses to see exactly how Paul preserved the truth of the gospel for us.

 

1. He submitted his gospel to the Jerusalem apostles (vv. 1-2)

 

The first thing we see in this passage is that Paul submitted his gospel to the Jerusalem apostles. Look at verses 1 and 2. There Paul wrote, Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. In these verses Paul is setting the stage for what is to follow. Most of this is purely introductory to the argument.

First, notice the timing of this visit. When did it happen? Paul tells us that it was after an interval of fourteen years. Now, this statement has been the subject of endless controversy and scholarly debate. One question that is raised is, “Fourteen years since when? Fourteen years since what happened?” Some people argue that it was fourteen years since Paul’s conversion, while others argue that it was fourteen years since his last Jerusalem visit. Ultimately, the time reference is insignificant. Whatever Paul meant by the statement, the Galatians would have known. It seems best to say that it was fourteen years since his last visit to Jerusalem.

When was this, then, in reference to Luke’s account in Acts? This is the other question that is asked. Three answers have been proposed. One is that it is a visit that Luke does not mention in Acts. Another is that it is the famine relief visit of Acts 11:30. A third interpretation is that it is the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. The majority opinion is that this was the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. There are several reasons for this argument. One is that it coincides with Luke’s account in Acts 15 at several points. Acts 15:2 tells us that Paul, Barnabas, and others from Antioch went to Jerusalem, which would coincide with Galatians 2:1. We also read that the dispute was over circumcision and the Law of Moses in Acts, and circumcision is the issue in Galatians 2. So based on the strikingly similar circumstances, many scholars have placed this Galatians 2 visit parallel to Acts 15.

The second view, that it is the famine relief visit of Acts 11:30, is put forward because that is the second visit mentioned by Luke in his narrative. Many would argue that Paul would have been remiss to omit this visit from his letter to the Galatians, if the visit is the Acts 15 visit. Paul wrongly gives them the impression here that this was only his second visit to Jerusalem when it actually was his third. Also, those who hold this view would appeal to the revelation given by one of the prophets that a famine was coming, and it was this revelation that prompted Paul and Barnabas to take the collection to Jerusalem.

Now, both of these views have weaknesses. The first view (that this is the Jerusalem Council) I find to be unacceptable for several reasons. The strongest argument against this view is the letter to Galatians itself. If the Apostles had already made such a strong public statement against the Judaizers when Paul wrote this letter, it seems more likely that he would have just written, “Hey, the Apostles already spoke to this issue. How could you believe the Judaizers when the Acts 15 council already decided the issue?” Certainly this would have been a strong argument for Paul’s gospel, but Paul does not appeal to the statement of the Apostles on the subject.

A second argument against this view is the description given in Acts 15 of the Jerusalem Council. There we read that Paul, Barnabas, and their companions were received by the church and the apostles and the elders. In Galatians 2 we read that Paul’s meeting with the apostles was in private. It was not a public affair. We also see in Acts 15 that the Pharisees who had believed the message of the gospel prompted this meeting. It was not prompted by Paul, but Paul seems to indicate in Galatians 2 that he prompted this meeting. Furthermore, in Galatians 2, we see that Paul and Barnabas received the right hand of fellowship from Peter, James, and John, and these seem to be the three pillars of the church Paul has in mind at this private meeting. Yet in Acts 15, we see that the apostles and the elders of the church came together. Lastly, it seems more likely that Peter would have compromised the truth of the Gospel in Antioch before this council than after it, so the event in Galatians 2:11-21 probably occurred before Acts 15.

The second view also has weaknesses. It seems unlikely that it was the famine relief visit of Acts 11:30. One reason for this is because we don’t read in Acts that Paul and Barnabas met with the apostles. We only learn that they met with the elders of the church, which are a different group of men than the apostles. Another reason why this seems improbable is because it doesn’t appear that anyone went with them on this visit. In and of itself that doesn’t negate that someone could have gone with them, but when you realize that Luke is fond of naming others of importance who go on these journeys, it becomes a weightier argument. For example, in Acts 12:25, Luke tells us that Mark went back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. In Acts 15 we read that Paul and Barnabas and their companions went to Jerusalem. So Luke seems to indicate when men traveled together, and in this instance, he omits Titus from the journey. The strongest argument for this view, that Paul and Luke both seem to indicate this is Paul’s second visit, is superficial for three reasons. One is that the text doesn’t indicate that Paul saw any of the apostles during this famine relief visit. Luke only mentions Paul taking the famine relief to the elders. A second is that the Greek grammar does not demand this be the next visit chronologically from the first visit Paul mentions, so Paul does not necessarily imply he had not been to Jerusalem during the intervening time. Third, Paul’s proof is completed, not by exhausting his travels, but by demonstrating his independence from the apostles and unity with them. If he can demonstrate his unity and independence sufficiently, he need not go over every detail of his life to prove his apostleship.

So, that leaves us wondering when this visit happened? It seems that Luke probably does not tell us of this visit. The visit that is more newsworthy is the Jerusalem Council, which publicly settled this issue, so it would have been redundant for Luke to have mentioned this visit in conjunction with that one. Whenever this visit was, it was before the Jerusalem Council, and, in my estimation, before Paul’s first missionary journey, but following his extended ministry to Gentiles in Syria and Cilicia. So that seems to be the best guess about the timing of this visit, as far as I can tell.

Who went with Paul on this visit? He tells us in Galatians 2:1 that he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. His good friend and ministry partner, Barnabas, accompanied Paul, and they agreed to take along with them Titus. Why did Titus go? It seems that Titus went as an uncircumcised but believing Greek. Rather than have a theoretical discussion about the theology of the gospel, Paul forced the issue by bringing along a living example of a Greek, uncircumcised believer. How would the gospel play out in real life, with a real Gentile convert who was not circumcised? This was the issue, and so Paul brings along Titus as a sort of test case, an example of the fruit of his ministry.

Also, notice what prompted Paul to take this journey. He says in verse 2, It was because of a revelation that I went up. Apparently God had given Paul a revelation instructing him to go up to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles there. We do not know the content of this revelation, but we do know that Paul was obedient to it.

The question might be asked, Why does Paul mention that it was because of a revelation that he went up? I think the reason Paul mentions this is to show that he was not going up because he believed his gospel to be inferior or in error. The Jerusalem journey was not Paul’s idea, so if the Judaizers wanted to slander Paul because he went up to Jerusalem on this visit, Paul states in no uncertain terms that their argument is with God, not him. God sent Paul to Jerusalem, and Paul obeyed and went.

The last thing to notice in this introductory section is the purpose of this visit. Paul says, And I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. The purpose of this visit was to put before the Jerusalem apostles the gospel that he preaches among the Gentiles to ensure that his labors weren’t vain.

On the surface, this seems to contradict his insistence that his gospel was independent of the apostles. Was Paul here putting his gospel before them for approval? I don’t think that is what Paul is here indicating. I think Paul is seeking to secure unity with this visit, but I don’t think that Paul would have changed his gospel at all had there been a disagreement. Paul knew where his gospel came from; he had received it directly from God Himself by revelation.

Why, then, would he fear that he might be running or had run in vain? The NASB translates two Greek words for fear that probably should better be translated lest or in case. What would make Paul’s running, his labor for the gospel, vain, or to no purpose? If Paul went to preach among the Gentiles faith alone for salvation, but the Jerusalem apostles did not hold to the same message, their would be a cleavage between Paul and these other apostles, which would undermine his ministry. So before Paul continued in ministry he went up to Jerusalem to discuss the gospel, to get everyone on the same page about the issues of the Law, circumcision, and legalism. It was, I believe, to avoid any misunderstanding that could result when they weren’t ministering in the same location. This way the Jerusalem apostles would hear Paul’s gospel from Paul’s own mouth, so no one could go to them and misrepresent Paul and thereby destroy his ministry. It was a safeguard against the very thing happening in Galatia. It was not because Paul was afraid his gospel might be wrong or lacking in some point. It was to ensure unity with the Jerusalem apostles.

So we see that to preserve the truth of the gospel, Paul took Barnabas and Titus to Jerusalem to submit his gospel to Peter, James, and John to ensure unity, let his ministry be destroyed and the foundation of the church cracked. At this point, Paul breaks off from his narrative and inserts a parenthetical note from verses 3 through 5. Verse 6 will pick up what happened between Paul and the apostles at this private meeting, but in verses 3-5 Paul shows practically how his gospel was upheld by the Jerusalem apostles with the example of Titus. Now, this is not the natural order of what we might expect from Paul. Normally we might expect Paul to lay down the theological principle and then show how it practically was applied. Here in Galatians he shows the application part first, and I believe that he does this because he is so passionate about this subject of the gospel. One commentator has called the Greek in this upcoming section a “shipwreck of [Greek] grammar.” [1] It seems that Paul’s passion overwhelmed him at this point in the text. What was it that made Paul so passionate?

 

2. He refused to yield to the Judaizers (vv. 3-5)

 

            What made Paul so passionate was the truth of the gospel, and the danger of it being perverted and destroyed by the Judaizers. To prevent this, we see that Paul absolutely refused to yield to the Judaizers. He refused to yield. Look at verse 3. Paul writes, But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. The point here is that Titus was not circumcised. This is significant because Titus was a Greek. He was a believer who was of the same class, so to speak, as the Galatians. The Galatians were Gentile believers who the Judaizers were trying to compel to be circumcised, and here Paul informs the Galatians that Titus, a believer who was a Greek just like them, was not compelled to be circumcised. Now, why is this important?

            Notice verses 4 and 5. Paul writes, But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. These two verses are utterly astonishing. What they suggest is this: If liberty and freedom in Christ are not upheld, the truth of the gospel perishes. If men are brought under bondage to legalism, the gospel truth that Paul preached dies, and it does not remain any longer with us.

            Freedom is utterly essential to the gospel message. This is why Paul’s warning is so strong at the beginning of the letter. If the Judaizers had their way, forcing men to bow to their authority and bringing them under bondage, the gospel would cease to be the gospel. Perhaps it has never occurred to you that if freedom in Christ and justification by faith alone apart from works of the Law are not upheld, we lose the gospel. The Reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others were so bold because they realized that the gospel was at stake in their dispute with Rome, not just a minor theological point. And Paul is so adamant here because the truth of the gospel is at stake in the doctrine of justification by faith alone. It is not a minor theological disagreement with no eternal ramifications. It is the heart of the issue, which makes Christian liberty crucial in understanding the gospel.

            John Calvin considered Christian liberty part of the Gospel doctrine. In his book Institutes of the Christian Religion, he wrote, “We are now to treat of Christian liberty, the explanation of which certainly ought not to be omitted by any one proposing to give a compendious summary of Gospel doctrine. For it is a matter of primary necessity, one without the knowledge of which the conscience can scarcely attempt any thing without hesitation.” What’s his point? His point is simply this: If you don’t recognize the liberty there is in the Christian life, you will be paralyzed by your conscience from doing anything without questioning yourself. Your conscience will always be asking, “Is it lawful? Is it permissible?” Your conscience will always be accusing you of sin, demonstrating how your righteousness fails to meet the standard of God’s most holy, perfect Law. But if you understand the freedom there is in Christ from condemnation and from the Law, you are free indeed, and you can serve God from a pure heart with joy instead of fear! How important did Calvin see this doctrine of liberty?

            He considered it of central and primary importance. He wrote further in Institutes, “We must not regard [Christian liberty] as a trivial matter when we see how much it cost our Savior, being purchased not with silver or gold, but with his own blood (1 Pet 1:18, 19); so that Paul hesitates not to say that Christ has died in vain, if we place our souls under subjection to men.” Why is our liberty so essential? Why would Paul be so passionate about it in this section? Because it cost Christ His life to purchase for us freedom from the Law and its cursing. Jesus Christ shed His own precious blood to redeem us from the curse of the Law, as Paul explains later, and so that we would be under grace, not under Law, as Paul says in Romans. Was Paul adamant that Christian liberty must be retained if the Gospel is to be retained? Absolutely! He understood that it was for freedom that Christ set us free, and he would not compromise this gospel truth, even if he was accused of saying that we should sin because we are not under Law but under grace. The truth of perfect righteousness counted to us through faith in Jesus apart from works is indispensable to the gospel, and freedom is the result of this glorious gospel message.

            How does Paul put it in this text this morning? The main point is in verse 5. Paul says, But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour. Here is a picture of a struggle, but it is a struggle in which Paul did not yield for the smallest increment of time. Paul’s central thought here is one of inflexibility, one of not yielding in any way. Why was there a struggle such as this?

            Paul tells us in verse 4. He writes, It was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. Some false brethren came to Paul and his associates at some point to spy out their liberty which they had in Christ. This was not for informational purposes only. The whole reason these false brethren came in was to bring the apostle and his Gentile converts into slavery, into bondage. These spies had sneaked in to enslave these Christians who were enjoying their freedom from the Law and its curse.

            Paul and his companions resisted these wicked spies who hated the gospel and its freedom and liberty. They refused to yield even for an hour! Why? Why would the Apostle be so adamant about not yielding to these men? Why not yield?

            The reason Paul refused to yield in this instance is because the truth of the gospel was at stake. He says, But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. Isn’t that incredible? Yielding to these legalistic false brethren would not just have been a small mistake; rather, it would have overturned the truth of the gospel! It would have subverted the whole message of justification by faith alone. John Piper puts it like this: “Any requirement that causes us to rely on our work and not Christ’s work is the end of the gospel.” Praise God that Paul did not yield to these false brethren! No wonder he was so adamant!

            This is strong evidence that Paul’s gospel is the same gospel as the gospel of the Jerusalem apostles. When a living test case came to Jerusalem, he was not circumcised. The truth of the gospel was vindicated, and the Jerusalem apostles agreed with Paul that Titus did not need to be circumcised.

            Paul, then, demonstrates through his activities with the Jerusalem apostles that his gospel was the same gospel they preached. It is as if he is saying in this passage, “Look, Galatians, if Titus was not compelled to be circumcised by those of reputation, then why should you? If the apostles didn’t circumcise Titus, why must you be circumcised? Why must you keep the Law? Do you think my gospel differs from theirs? Well, then, go and ask Titus if it does! See, he is not circumcised, and he is truly a believer in Jesus Christ!”

            Paul vigorously defends Christian liberty in this passage, not as a side issue, but as part of the gospel message itself. If Christian liberty is lost, then so is the gospel. The reason this is so is because the gospel message is justification by faith alone apart from works. The implication of this is that we are no longer under the Law, we are no longer enslaved to the Law and under its curse, but we have been freed! Our justification through faith in Christ means that we are perfectly righteous before God positionally, the curse has been lifted, and we are freed from bondage and slavery to serve the living God as sons rather than slaves. We, who were subject to fear all our lives, and who were tormented by consciences under the curse, have been set free by faith in Jesus Christ. Paul willingly submitted his gospel to the other apostles, and he refused to yield to those who would steal this freedom of the gospel, so that we might have the truth of the gospel of God’s magnificent, infinite grace. Praise God for this liberating gospel so faithfully upheld by the apostle to the Gentiles. Let’s pray.

[Home page] [ ]