Paul: The Apostle to the Gentiles, Part 2

Galatians 2:6-10

March 7, 2004

 

            As we get started this morning let me briefly remind you of where we are in our text. Paul is arguing in Galatians that there is no other gospel than the gospel he preaches. His gospel is the gospel, and the only gospel. He has not yet told us what that gospel is. Before he does that he wants to make sure that we understand that he has the right and the authority to define the gospel for us, and that we have no other choice but to listen to his authority.

            Paul’s authority had been challenged by false teachers who had crept into the Galatian churches. They taught that Paul was not a true apostle. They taught a false gospel that would sentence those who followed it to eternal damnation. These were serious issues, so Paul wrote this letter to deal with these issues.

            Paul began the letter dealing with the charge that his gospel was a human gospel, a false gospel, or an incomplete gospel. He showed 7 proofs of the divine character of his gospel, and all of these proofs were grounded in the transformation that happened in Paul’s life. Whatever the false teachers might say about Paul, one thing that was undeniable was his radical transformation. Paul argues that this transformation was brought about by the gospel he preached. It was by believing this gospel that Paul was so radically changed, and these types of transformations are not the result of human effort, human persuasion, or human willpower. They are only a result of God’s supernatural calling and work in a man’s life.

            Having proved that his gospel is the only true gospel, Paul now must show that he is not independent of the other apostles. This is, of course, a very difficult task. Paul must prove that he is an apostle of equal authority with the other apostles, but he must also prove that he is not independent of them but united with them in the mission of the church. How is this to be done?

            Paul shows that he is the valid apostle to the Gentiles in two ways. First, he describes for us his activity among the Jerusalem apostles. He told us in verses 1 and 2 that he submitted his gospel to them, and we saw that this was for the sake of unity, not approval. Paul made sure that they knew what he taught for fear of division among the apostles because of possible false reports or false brethren, which Paul knew existed in great numbers. Paul wanted to make sure that he had not run and would not run in vain on his missionary journeys. Therefore, he went and laid his gospel before the other apostles so that they all would be able to unite in fulfilling the great commission. Second, Paul refused to yield to the false brethren who tried to force circumcision on the Gentile converts. Titus was not circumcised, so he served as a perfect example that the Jerusalem apostles did not require circumcision. If they did, they would have circumcised Titus, but the fact that Titus was not circumcised proved that Paul’s gospel was not deficient and that he was united with the apostles in this view of circumcision. By Paul’s activities among the apostles he proved that he was united with them, and in so doing he also preserved the truth of the gospel for the Galatians, and for us.

            This morning we come to the second half of Paul’s argument. In verses 6-10 Paul is not primarily concerned with showing what he did among the apostles. Now he is concerned to show their acceptance of him in no uncertain terms. So in verses 6-10 Paul offers his second piece of evidence for his unity with the Jerusalem apostles by showing the apostles’ acceptance of Paul. The apostles’ acceptance of Paul. This acceptance of Paul by the apostles was demonstrated in three ways. As we look at these three ways the apostles showed their acceptance of Paul, keep in mind that the purpose of Paul’s writing here is so that we might know his apostolic credibility and have confidence in the gospel he preached and wrote to the Galatians and to us.

 

#1 – They added nothing to Paul (v. 6)

 

            The first way that the apostles demonstrated their acceptance of Paul is this: They added nothing to Paul’s gospel. They added absolutely nothing to him or his gospel at all. Notice what he says in verse 6. He writes, But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) – well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. Paul’s main point here is to show that the apostles added nothing to him. They did not alter his message in any way. They did not give him any new information. They did not need to inform him of anything that he wasn’t aware of. They found Paul’s message to be complete, accurate, and from God.

            Now, as you look at this verse, it probably has occurred to you, if you’ve looked at it carefully, that there is a broken sentence in it. It is shown as a parenthetical statement in our translation. This is very important to notice because it shapes our understanding of what Paul is saying, and it helps him establish his independence and his unity with the apostles. I am amazed that as I read through commentaries so few commentators noticed the significance of this broken sentence.

            The main reason given for this strange construction is that Paul was passionate and here just broke off into another thought, and then picked up where he left off, somewhat disheveled. That seems to be a lower view than I would take of what Paul is doing here. I do think that Paul was passionate as he wrote this letter. That is beyond dispute. But I also think that there was a reason Paul broke off the sentence where he did. Let me show you this.

            When Paul wrote, But from those who were of high reputation, he realizes that he needed to clarify something. He needed to clarify that he is not conceding anything to these men. He is not conceding any superiority of authority or rank. He calls them men of high reputation in a somewhat sarcastic tone, probably calling them that as a result of what the false teachers called them. As he penned these words, then, Paul realized that he needed to make it abundantly clear what he meant by this phrase and for whom he was saying it.

            In his parenthetical comment on this phrase, he clarifies why he calls them men of high reputation. He calls them this for his readers’ sake, not because he so regarded these men. He writes, what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality. What does he mean when he says, What they were makes no difference to me? You’ll notice that he uses the past tense here. Our translation leaves out a word in the Greek, and that word is ‘once.’ It should read, What they once were makes no difference to me. What is he saying? The argument was that these apostles had known Jesus when he was incarnate on this earth. These men were considered men of reputation because of their previous relationship to Jesus as disciples, and James relationship as Jesus’ half-brother. What Paul is saying is that these prior relationships are meaningless to him. Apparently these relationships meant a lot to his readers and to the Judaizers who misrepresented the apostles. It was these previous ties to Jesus that made them men of high reputation. Moreover, it was Paul’s past as a persecutor of the Church that made him seem so much lower in rank than these men. Paul, however, says that all of these past circumstances don’t matter to him. They made no difference to him whatsoever. In a sense, then, what he is confirming is his sarcasm in calling these men those who were of high reputation. He wants to make it abundantly clear to his readers that though they may esteem Peter, James, and John as men of high reputation, he does not agree with them in it.

            Someone might object to this and say that Paul is being disrespectful to such eminent apostles. How could he talk so sarcastically about them? Isn’t that wrong? It’s not wrong. The reason he talks this way is not because these men are not worthy of respect. Paul certainly respected them. His tone is due to the fact that the Galatians esteemed the apostles for the wrong reasons. They esteemed James, Peter, and John because of their fleshly and earthly ties to Jesus, not because of their spiritual ties to Him. It was a show of the flesh, which the Judaizers were well-known for, that Paul mildly rebuked here. Paul undoubtedly respected these apostles, but not because of what they once were. He respected them because of what God had done and was doing through them. Paul rebukes the Galatians for esteeming men for the wrong reasons.

            He then says, God shows no partiality. That is Paul’s way of saying, “If you don’t like my view of this, your problem is with God, not me.” He is saying that God sees it the same way. God does not base His decisions on appearances or fleshly relationships. The verse literally reads, “God does not receive the appearance of a man.” God is not interested in our ties according to the flesh. Judas was a disciple. God would not receive Judas on that basis. It meant nothing before God’s judgment seat. What a man is outwardly is irrelevant to God. Paul argues here that it is also irrelevant to him. Paul didn’t care about these apostles past relationship to Jesus. He cared about their present, spiritual relationship to Him! The Galatians, however, were focusing on appearances and shows of the flesh, following the Judaizers who were deceiving them. Paul, therefore, breaks off his sentence to correct that error and demonstrate that he himself does not esteem these apostles as the Galatians do.

            After making this correction, he states, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. He repeats his phrase, calling them those who were of reputation, reinforcing his rebuke, and then he states that they added nothing to him. There is a sort of transactional language here. In verse 2 we read that Paul submitted the gospel that he preached to them, and here in verse 6 we read that they contributed nothing to him after hearing it. In the Greek the idea is this: Paul laid down his gospel message, and the apostles in turn laid nothing down on it or beside it. They left it as is. It is like if a person was cooking, and came and laid their dish before another person, having mixed together all the ingredients. The person may add salt, or add sugar, or flour or water or whatever. Or the person may add nothing and say that it is complete and ready to be baked. When the apostles heard the gospel preached by Paul, they declared it complete, finished, in need of nothing. They laid nothing beside it or on it.

            Paul thus shows his unity with the apostles by showing that they added nothing to him. They did not add anything to his teaching or his understanding of Christ. That is the first way Paul demonstrates that the apostles accepted him as a fellow-apostle.

 

#2 – They accepted Paul as an equal (vv. 7-9)

 

            In verses 7-9 we see the second way the apostles demonstrated their acceptance of Paul: They accepted Paul as an equal. They accepted Paul as an equal. Far from adding something to Paul, they accepted him as their equal and co-laborer. Paul wrote, But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. The main point of these verses is that the apostles, these pillars, accepted Paul as an equal. James, Peter, and John gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. They joined forces, as it were, as partners in the mission of the church.

            I find it interesting that Paul gives the reasons why these apostles accepted him. It appears that it was not a foregone conclusion that Paul would be accepted, but it was something these men searched out. They did not just accept Paul based on his word, but they carefully inquired as to whether or not they should accept him. Having done this, Paul gives the two reasons why they were so accepting of him.

            First, he tells us that they saw that the gospel had been entrusted to Paul. God had entrusted the gospel to Paul. Paul is anxious to show that the apostles saw this. They saw that Paul had the gospel entrusted to him just as Peter did, and they were equals in authority. And he wanted to show that they had different ministries, Paul to the Gentiles, and Peter to the Jews.

Notice, then, that Paul and Peter were of equal status. Paul shows this in two ways in verses 7 and 8. He says I had been entrusted with the gospel…just as Peter had been in verse 7. Then in verse 8 he writes, He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship…effectually worked for me also. This is crucial to Paul’s argument. He is not inferior to Peter. He is equal to Peter. However Peter was entrusted with the gospel, Paul was entrusted the same way. The key words just as make that plain. It was an exact parallel in status. They both had been entrusted with the gospel. And they both had been energized by the same God. The same God who worked for Peter unto apostleship worked for Paul unto apostleship. Someone might have objected that Paul was inferior because of his mission to Gentiles, but Paul wants his readers to know that he was in no way inferior, and the apostles saw this. Paul writes, Seeing that I had been entrusted. That could read, and more accurately convey the meaning, “Having seen that I had been entrusted.” If the Galatians wanted to argue that Paul was inferior, they would have to argue with the apostles they held in such high esteem. These apostles had seen that Paul was of equal status with Peter in his apostleship.

While they were of equal status, they did not have the same function. Peter was an apostle to the Jews, while Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles. Notice this in verse 7. Paul writes, Seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. And then in verse 8, For He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles. God had called these men to different spheres of ministry. Some people try to divide up the gospel here into two gospels – one to the Jews and one to the Gentiles. That is not Paul’s meaning. The word to in verses 7 and 8 could be translated with reference to. Paul had been entrusted with the gospel with reference to the Gentiles. His ministry of the gospel was in reference to Gentiles, while Peter’s ministry of that same gospel was with reference to Jews. It is not a different gospel. There is only one gospel. Paul preached that gospel to Gentiles, and Peter preached it to Jews.

During the Reformation these two verses were very important. The Reformers were battling Rome and the papacy, and they found in these two verses a strong argument against the Pope being the successor of Peter as the head of the church. John Calvin says of this passage, “But if Peter’s apostleship had a peculiar reference to the Jews, let the Romanists [or Catholics] see on what ground they derive from him their succession to the primacy. If the Pope of Rome claims the primacy because he is Peter’s successor, he ought to exercise it over the Jews…if the Pope would establish any claim to his primacy, let him gather churches from among the Jews.”[1] Of course, in these comments Calvin does not mean that if the Pope decided to be the Pope only over Jewish congregations, that would be biblical. His argument is that the Scripture does not make any human being primary. Peter was the apostle to the Jews. He was certainly important and used by God in a mighty way, but he is not the chief cornerstone of the church. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, but we must never exalt him to be anything more than a man through whom God worked. We must regard him as a bond-servant of Christ. I think Calvin’s comments are appropriate today as well. We must never think of men too highly, but we must regard all true ministers as servants of Christ, each in their own sphere, and give the glory to God. What the Catholics fail to recognize even today is that no man is so highly exalted as they make the Pope out to be. No one stands in Christ’s place, not even the most eminent apostles. God had assigned to each a sphere of ministry. Now, we see that the apostles accepted Paul because they saw the gospel ministry that had been entrusted to him. God had entrusted him with the gospel, to take it to the Gentiles around the world.

The second reason they so willingly accepted Paul as an equal is because they recognized the grace that had been given to him. The word translated recognizing in verse 9 should read having known. The apostles knew the grace that had been given to Paul. How did they know this? They probably knew God’s grace in Paul’s life by seeing Paul’s radical transformation at conversion. They had heard from Barnabas, you remember, about Paul’s vision of Christ on the Damascus road. They had seen God’s grace at work in Paul in his life and ministry. They knew the grace that had been given to Paul.

This is a fascinating statement because it shows that Paul’s ministry was all of God’s grace. Paul puts it this way in 1 Corinthians 15:10: But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. Paul did not do anything to earn his position. It was not based on anything in him. He was what he was by the grace of God. Even his ministry and his labors were done by God’s grace. He worked, yet it was not him. It was all of grace.

When a person receives grace from the Lord for something, we must recognize that it is all of grace. We need to always realize that what people do for the kingdom of Christ is done only by the grace of God. We have no room for pride in any of our labors, any of our works, any of our accomplishments. Everything we do is done by the grace of God. We don’t deserve to do anything for Christ’s kingdom, but when we do something to help advance it, it is not us, but the grace of God in us and through us.

A second thing to note about this is that God’s grace was visible in Paul’s life. People don’t receive this kind of grace from God and have it not be seen. If you receive grace from God, saving grace, it is evident in you. People should be able to know and recognize the grace that has been given to you. You should be a testimony of grace, and grace should transform you. God’s grace does not prove vain in those to whom He gives it in this way. If you have received grace from God, is it evident in your life? If it’s not, you may not have received grace. You may need to rethink your position before God if there is no evidence of grace. If people can’t see the grace of God in your life, in the transformation and the righteousness and holiness in your life, you need to examine yourself. The grace of God in Paul’s life was evident, and it will be evident in all true believers. If there is no evidence of God’s grace working in you, you have not received God’s grace. You need to examine yourself and see if and how this grace has truly affected you.

The apostles, then, accepted Paul as an equal, having seen that he was entrusted with the gospel and knowing the grace that had been given to him. Now, in verse 9 we see that they accepted Paul, but not so he could just have a title, but so that he could do some work. They gave him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, notice verse 9, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. These apostles divided the labor. They recognized that God had called Paul and Barnabas to go to the Gentiles, and they were meant to stay in Jerusalem and Judea and preach to the Jews.

Let me point out a couple things from this. I think, first of all, that this is a strong argument that this account is not the Acts 15 council. At this point in Paul’s life, he and Barnabas are obviously very close, and they are apparently ready to go to the Gentiles to do ministry there. In fact, it seems as if they are receiving their commission from the Jerusalem church just as they received their commission from the Antioch church. It would seem very strange to me if, after having received such commendation from these apostles to go to the Gentiles, they waited an extended period of time to go, as they do in Acts 15 following the council. It also would seem strange if, immediately following this meeting described in Galatians 2, they parted ways and did not go to the Gentiles together. It seems best to take this as the Jerusalem church saying, “You go to the Gentiles, and we’ll stay here with the Jews,” and Paul and Barnabas then going to the Gentiles together, rather than them going back to Antioch, remaining there many days, and then parting ways never to journey together again. So I see in these verses strong reasons for seeing this meeting as a private meeting before Paul and Barnabas’ first missionary journey.

Secondly, let me point out that we see here that everyone is not called to the same ministry. God does not call everyone to the same thing. Some people are called to travel to foreign countries. Other people are called to their own countrymen. Neither person is better than the other, because it is God who determines this. We should never view ourselves in light of where God has called us, but we should view ourselves in light of how faithful we are being in the position to which we have been called. Peter would not have been unfaithful to stay and preach to the Jews. He would have been unfaithful to stay and do nothing. One person may stay and another person may go, but both are to be appreciated as God’s servants, and both are to be faithful where they have been called by God, neither one boasting or glorying in anything fleshly, but only in the Lord.

Now, you may ask, Why did they divide it up this way? I think it was to divide up the labor. Everyone can’t stay, and everyone can’t go. If no one stays, who will minister to the people at home? If no one goes, who will minister to those who have never heard? So you see, there is a necessary division of labor within the church. Some people must minister in poorer areas, some will be called to wealthier areas. Is either person better based on where they go? Not at all! What commends a person is whether or not they are faithful to the ministry to which they have been called. So we must never judge a person based on where he is ministering, or to whom he is ministering. These things are outward. They mean nothing essential. What matters is faithfulness and obedience to God’s call. So let us be careful to esteem all of God’s faithful servants regardless of where they serve.

That being said, we must also be careful to make sure we are serving where God has called us, not just where we are comfortable. We also can’t use this as an excuse not to go if we are called to go, or not to stay if we are called to stay. The important thing is God’s calling and faithfulness. You cannot be faithful if you run from God’s calling. We see this in the example of Jonah. Jonah could not preach repentance to those on the ship and be faithful to God, because he ran the opposite way. He could only be faithful serving where God had called him, and serving faithfully. So it is vital that we not take an easier sphere and say that we are being faithful if God has not called us there. It is equally important no to judge those in ‘easier’ ministries since God puts his servants where He wants them.

Very well. We see here the second demonstration of Paul’s acceptance, and that is the apostles’ acceptance of Paul as an equal.

 

#3 – They asked them to remember the poor (v. 10)

 

            Third, then, we see the apostles’ acceptance of Paul in that they asked him to remember the poor. They asked him to remember the poor. This is in verse 10. Paul writes, They only asked us to remember the poor – the very thing I also was eager to do. Now, you ask, “How is this an acceptance of Paul as an apostle?” It is a sign of acceptance in two ways.

            First, Paul makes it clear that this was the only thing the apostles asked of them. They did not add anything to the gospel. This can hardly be seen as an addition to the gospel message. Rather, this is a reminder, a request. Paul and Barnabas were not given any doctrinal correction, but rather a request for help and financial support.

            Second, it shows the partnership between Paul and the apostles. What poor were the apostles talking about? It seems that they were talking about the poor Jewish Christians who lived in Judea, the same Jews that Paul and Barnabas had brought relief to in Acts 11:30. The Jews who believed upon Jesus suffered greatly for their faith. In Hebrews 10:34 we read that some of these early Christians suffered the loss of property because of their faith and their identification with other Christians. The persecution that engulfed these first century believers in Judea was intense, as can be seen from the record in Acts. Paul himself was an aggravator of this persecution before his conversion. So the apostles here acknowledge Paul as an apostle and fellow worker for the truth by asking him for help. I don’t think here is a general exhortation to remember all poor people. I do think it is biblical to remember poor people and to help them, but I don’t think that is the point here. I think what is going on here is the apostles are asking Paul and Barnabas to take collections from Gentiles who are better off and help the poor and persecuted believers in Judea. Paul did this often in his ministry.

            Paul’s response to this request was full agreement. He wrote that this was the very thing I also was eager to do. I think part of this eagerness might have stemmed from personal knowledge of the sufferings of these poor people. Paul had been a persecutor, and what better way to show his repentance and the grace of God in him than to now try to help those he formerly persecuted? Paul was very eager to help these Jewish Christians by taking collections from Gentile churches and sending the proceeds to Jerusalem.

            The Jerusalem apostles asked Paul and Barnabas to remember the poor as they went on their way, which they faithfully did as partners in ministry. Paul was accepted by these apostles. They added nothing to his gospel, they accepted him as an equal authority, and they asked him to partner with them by remembering the poor.

            Why is all of this important? It’s important for this reason: We are meant to be certain of the truth. Paul is writing to tell us that he is a legitimate apostle and that his gospel is the only true gospel. He did not write with the thought in mind that the Galatians would receive this letter and think to themselves, “Hmm, that sure was interesting. But these other guys over here preaching circumcision, who am I to say they are wrong? Who am I to interpret Paul to mean that? Who am I to decide on this doctrinal controversy?” When Paul wrote this letter it was to convince the Galatians that this is the Word of God. It was to give them certainty and confidence that they could bank on it.

            This is crucial today. Letters like Galatians are not given so we can have a private opinion about what Paul thought or wrote. We are to know it. We are to be certain of it. This letter is given to make us certain of the truth, not to confuse us about the truth. People today say, “Well, there are so many doctrinal opinions and so many views. I don’t take any of them. I sort of just stand in the middle, just trusting God.” Do you think that was the reaction Paul was hoping for from the Galatians? “Well, Paul, we appreciate that, but there are so many opinions, we’ll just stand here and trust God. Thanks anyways.” Not at all! If you trust God, go to His Word and find out what He says. Don’t remain in uncertainty and claim to be humble because you don’t know what His Word means. That is pride, not humility. That is to say that Paul wrote a mass of confusion that is unintelligible. Do you want to go to God and say, “God, your Word was utterly unintelligible. I could not have understood it, so I didn’t even bother to try”? What pride and arrogance that is!

            So, I encourage you this morning, take this as God’s Word. Have confidence that it is God’s Word from His apostle, the Apostle Paul, and stand on it with confidence and the authority of God behind it. Don’t be wishy-washy in your view of truth or your presentation of truth. Have a confident boldness that what you believe is the Word of God, and if you aren’t sure you believe correctly, study to show yourself approved. Find out what the Bible says, and then stand on it with confidence. Don’t succumb to the spirit of our age that accepts everything and thereby accepts nothing. Recognize that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and that his gospel is the only true gospel. Let’s pray.

[Home page] [ ]