About Jesus   -  Steve Sweetman

Home Page  

Previous Page     Next Page

Galatians 2 

ch.2:1-10   ch. 2:11-21

Paul Accepted By The Apostles (ch. 2:1 – 10)  

To understand this section properly we need to see that there are three groups of people being talked about.  One is Paul and his co-workers.  Two is the Jerusalem leadership.  Three are the spies that come in and spy out the freedom the Paul and the Gentiles have.  The last group were indeed spies, but who sent them to Antioch, we aren't sure.  I am assuming that they have something to do with the false teachers who are trying to lead the Galatians astray.

We also need to understand that in the book of Acts, Paul visited Jerusalem 4 or 5 times, depending on how one views Acts 9:26, where it says that Paul visited Judea .  If Paul visited Judea, it is likely that he visited Jerusalem , although the text does not say this.  In Galatians he mentions two of these times.  This chapter states one of them.  What Paul speaks of here is difficult to understand just when it was.  There are varying thoughts on this issue by Bible teachers. 

Another thing to understand before talking about this chapter is that we need to think about the Jewish Christians that Paul comes in conflict with.  They were those who were indoctrinated, and for good reason, in the Old Testament Law of Moses, which was, the Law of God.  To leave the Law of Moses for the purpose of salvation was hard for these people to take.  It would have been hard for Paul to take, but Jesus Himself came to Paul and that was the only way Paul could be convinced of the gospel of Christ.  We need to sympathize with these Jewish Christians, because setting aside the Law of Moses was not an easy thing for them.

We also need to understand that the Law Of  Moses made provision for Gentiles to become Jews.  The first thing a Gentile man had to do in order to be come a Jew was to be circumcised, and then agree to obey the Law of Moses.  Gentile converts to Judaism were called "proselytes".  So, with this thinking entrenched in the Jewish Christian, it would only make sense to them hat they carry the same thinking over to their lives as Christians.  If a Gentile wanted to become a Christian, he must first become a Jew by being circumcised and agree to obey the Law of Moses.  I say this to say that we need to have some sympathy for these Jewish Christians.  It was not easy for them to accept what Paul was now saying, which was, a Gentile does not have to be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses in order to be saved.  And, even beyond that, the same applies to the Jews.  The later was even harder for these Jewish Christians to accept.     

Verse 1 says, "fourteen years later".  So, the events of this section happened fourteen years after what?  Some say fourteen years after the three years Paul spent in Arabia .  Others say fourteen years after his conversion.  F. F.  Bruce, a Pauline scholar, says that Paul came to the Lord in 33 A. D., took his first trip to Jerusalem in 35 A. D., which would have been the trip in the last chapter, then went up to Jerusalem again in 46 A. D..   In 49 A. D. he went up to Jerusalem again for the Acts 15 meetings.  Between 35 and 46 A. D. he spent in Cilicia and Syria , prior to Barnabas asking him to come to Antioch to help him.  We do not know exactly what Paul was doing between 35 and 46 A. D..  I'm sure he was preaching Jesus, but more than anything else I believe the Lord was preparing him for his ministry trips across the known world.   

Concerning Tarsus where Paul lived.  It was the Roman capital city of the province of Cilicia. Syria is to the east of Tarsus.  I say this to make the point concerning Paul's travel's prior to meeting up with Barnabas.  He did not go far away from where he lived.  Some suggest that he really was not an apostle until Acts 13 when the brothers in Antioch laid hands on him and Barnabas and sent them out, and technically speaking, that might be true.  If Paul did not travel much prior to Acts 13, except to Jerusalem, then you might not consider him an apostle prior to then.  As some suggest, the 13 years from 33  A. D. to 46 A. D. might well be years of training.                   

Paul says in verses 1 and 2 that he went up to Jerusalem in response to a revelation. It was probably fourteen years after his first visit, or as I've said, after his conversion.  Acts 11:30 tells of another visit Paul made to Jerusalem in between the time mentioned here and the one mentioned in chapter one. Some scholars feel this visit here in Galatians 2 is the Acts 15 visit, where the leaders met to resolve the Jewish Gentile problem. The mentioning of his vision suggests to me that it was God Himself that sent Paul back to Jerusalem.  Paul once again is establishing his independence from the Jerusalem leaders.

If it is true that this section of Galatians is explaining what happened in the meetings of Acts 15, it sheds much more light on those meetings than what we see in the book of Acts.  It puts this section into a perspective that you wouldn't have if you didn't think this section concerned Acts 15.  At this point, it would be good to reread Acts 15 as a starting point for this passage.   

There is some difficulty with thinking that this passage is the Acts 15 passage.  If  F. F. Bruce and others are right in saying that this letter was probably written in 48 A. D. and the Acts 15 meetings were in 49 A. D., then clearly, Galatians 2 is not the Acts 15 meetings.  Paul could not have written something that had not happened as if it did. 

If this letter was written in 49 A. D., shortly after the Acts 15 meetings, then we have no problem with the order of events and Paul relating part of what took place in Acts 15.  I can not dogmatically conclude whether Galatians 2 corresponds with Acts 15. 

The fact that Paul was sent to Jerusalem because of a vision is very important. That's assuming this visit was the Acts 15 visit where the leaders of the early church met to resolve the issue over Gentiles finding faith in Jesus without having to become Jews and obeying the Law of Moses. If this is so, then the Acts 15 meetings were not just put together by the leaders who wanted to solve this problem.  God Himself wanted these meetings to take place, so He gave Paul the vision to go.  Acts 15 then was a divine appointment.  So, when James concluded these meetings by saying, "it seems right to the Holy Spirit and to us…", (Acts 15:28) these words have more important meaning, knowing that it was really the Lord who caused these meetings to happen. And, the Lord used Paul to get these meetings going that led to their final conclusion that Gentiles could find grace and faith in Jesus without the Law of Moses.  Again, we see Paul as one very important person.       

If you read Acts 15:1 and 2 you will notice that those in Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem.  I don't see this as conflicting with what Paul says here that he was sent by revelation.  The simple fact could be that Paul got the revelation, shared it with the brothers in Antioch, and they sent him out.  That seems to me the way the brothers did things in the early church.   Again, I am relating Acts 15 to Galatians 2, which may or may not be valid.  

The reason for this visit to Jerusalem was to "set before them (the word "them" refers to the apostles, not the false teachers, assuming the false teachers weren't the apostles) the gospel he preached among the Gentiles". Obviously the problem of Paul’s gospel was still a point of dispute.  The whole idea that the Gentiles could become Christians without first becoming Jews  really bothered the Jewish Christians, and that included the early leaders of the church, like James.  

The point that Paul wanted to get this issue straightened out with the leaders at Jerusalem is a point to suggest that this might well be the Acts 15 meetings.  We have no hint in Acts that Paul went to talk to the elders in Jerusalem twice about this issue, but that  does not mean he could not have gone twice. 

Paul took with him Barnabas and Titus. Titus was an uncircumcised Greek. Paul knew very well that this would present a problem and therefore the issue would come to a head.  I am sure that Paul knew exactly what would happen in Jerusalem when the brothers there saw Titus.  You might say that Paul was using Titus as a test case, so that this issue would come to the forefront for the last time.  Paul was insistent upon getting this issue straightened out.  Bringing Titus would cause problems, but these problems were to spur on the conversation that would bring change. 

Concerning Barnabas, he originally came from Cypurs as stated in Acts 4:36.  He was from Jerusalem and was sent to Antioch by the leadership in Jerusalem to see what was going on concerning the Gentiles finding salvation.  Acts 11:23 states that Barnabas was glad to see the grace of God at work among the Gentiles.  He was so glad that he ended up moving in Antioch and found Paul in Tarsus and asked him to join him there.  

R.C. Lenski in his commentary on Galatians translates the words "seemed to be leaders" as "men of repute", thus agreeing with Kenneth Wuest‘s translation.  Linksi feels that the thought behind "seemed to be leaders" should be understood as "they who seem to be leaders to others."  (Linski‘s commentary on Galatians page 71)  Paul may speak boldly and even harshly at times, but I don’t think he put people down by his words.

In Acts 23: 1 – 5 Paul meets with the Sanhedrin and said to one of them, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall". Some men standing by said to Paul, "you dare to insult God’s high priest"? Paul answered, "I did not realize that he was the high priest, for it is written, do not speak evil about the ruler of your people."  By this you see that Paul, even though he disagreed with someone, he still spoke respectfully of them, and to them. He gave honour to those whom honour was due, as he said in Romans 13: 6 and 7.

I think it is important for Christians today to speak respectfully about others who may disagree with them.  You can firmly, openly, clearly, and publically challenge and point out one's error, but to make fun of him or ridicule him would not be godly.  The world around us today openly says hurting things about others.  This is seen on radio talk shows and in politics.  Christians should not be doing the same thing, but many are these days.    

In verse 2 Paul says that he met with those "who seemed to be leaders" privately "for fear that he had run in vain".  Once again, according to Kenneth Wuest the phrase "seemed to be leaders", would suggest a put down of these men by Paul, but the Greek does not suggest that at all.  Simply put, "seem to be leaders" means that the general Christian public held these men up as leaders.

We should view these men "who seemed to be leaders" as being the legitimate leaders in Jerusalem.  These men were not the Judaizers.  Again, Paul is emphasizing the fact that the Christian populous admire these leaders, but in the end, it is who the Lord admires that is the important thing. Therefore, it is important that these admired leaders speak the truth of God in this matter.   

When Paul speaks here of a fear of "running in vain", he is not afraid that his ministry might be all a big mistake because He knew for a certain it wasn't.  He also didn't view that his ministry in Galatia was a waste of time.  His fear was seeing the Judaizers come and destroy God's people in Galatia.  He loved them so much.  Paul often uses the metaphor of running a race as an analogy. His ministry was not a hundred yard dash, but a marathon. He ran to win.

In verse 3 we see Titus mentioned again. He was not compelled to be circumcised. This matter arose because some "false brothers" had spied on them and discovered that Titus was uncircumcised.  These false brothers are probably the Judaizers, or, at least this is how I tend to see them.  They are not the Jerusalem leaders, of which Peter and James are among.  I believe the Judaizers have a different agenda from the leaders of Jerusalem, and I think that is seen in chapter 1.

Verse 4 speaks of spies coming into the ranks of the Gentile Christians and spying out their freedom in Jesus.  It's not conclusive if this took place while Paul, Titus, and Barnabas were at the meetings, or it if took place some time earlier.  We do know from the first 6 verses of Acts 15 that certain men came from Jerusalem and did raise this question.  So, verse 4 here, might well be that found in Acts 15:1-6. 

Also in verse 4 Paul says that these false brothers "spied on their freedom", wanting to make them slaves. Paul "did not give into them for a moment". Paul was set free from the Law, so why would he want to be enslaved by it again. "No way", says Paul. The words "not for a moment" shows us a bit more of the intensity Paul has for this issue, and intensity that I wish more Christians had today.

The word "spy"  in Greek is from the word "katascopio", meaning, to get down and view closely. The word "infiltrated" is from "paralathra" meaning, to come in alongside unnoticed. These men who were spying out the Gentile’s freedom were acting like real spies. They did not come openly to ask about their freedom. They came into their midst, acting like one of them. They were unnoticed by the church, as spies would be unnoticed. The church thought they were one of them. They came alongside the church, looked closely at their freedom and once they saw that Paul wasn’t teaching the Law, they tried to expose Paul for being a false teacher.

These spies not only noted Paul's teaching, but from the two Greek words I mentioned above, these spies "infiltrated the ranks of the Gentile believers and 'looked closely'".  What did they "look closely at?"  They looked closely at Titus to see if he was circumcised. I'm not sure how they did this, but they did.    

I personally find this passage of Scripture humorous.  I often have wondered just how these spies looked closely and spied out Titus' uncircumcised penis. One could come up with all sorts of funny scenarios as to how this could possibly happen.  It would make for a funny skit, although I guess it would have to be rated parental guidance.   

The sexuality of men in Paul's days might clue us in a bit on just how these spies noted Titus not being circumcised.  Among Greek and Roman men, the displaying of the male penis probably was not of a big deal as it is in today's western culture.  Many sporting events were done in the nude.  You'd certainly see right away who was circumcised and who wasn't.  In the pagan Roman and Greek culture, the norm was to have open and group sex with pre-adolescent boys.  Wives, for the most part were not seen to be those who would give sexual pleasure.  They were seen as those who gave the men their children.  In many respects, male sexuality was simply pedophilia.   By no means am I suggesting that these Judaizers were pedophilias.  

We have to ask who these false brothers were.  They were the Judaizers.  They were not James, Peter, and the leaders of the church.  We do need to make this distinction.  Not all Jewish Christians were Judaizers.  Many, if not most of the Jewish Christians did struggle over the idea that Gentiles could be saved without first becoming Jews, but that didn't make them Judaizers.  The reason for this is that Gentiles could become Jews in Old Testament times.  This was incorporated into the Law of Moses. But, those Gentiles had to first get circumcised, and then, obey the Law of Moses in order to be seen as Jewish.  These Christian Jews would naturally follow this same reasoning into their lives as Christians.  So to be clear, there were men like James who were true Christians but struggled over Gentile believers not obeying the Law of Moses.  Then there were the Judaizers that Paul said were "false brothers", meaning  they were not true Christians.  They did not believe the cross of Christ was the only thing that saved a person.  This was another gospel in Paul's mind.   

One thing that I believe we should understand here is that the early church was a church in progress.  They were in transition from what you might say as Judaism to Christianity, although by saying that, I don't want to suggest that Judaism is specifically distinct from Christianity.  Christianity is the fulfillment of true Judaism, although the Judaism of Paul's day was far from true Judaism.  The same can be said when people become Christians.  They, especially in the beginning stages, are in a transition from one life to another, and therefore it takes time to make this transition. We do need to give people, and the early church, some grace in this respect.        

These few verses show us some things that happened in the meetings at Jerusalem that the Acts 15 record doesn't speak about, again, assuming this was Acts 15.  The whole incident about Titus being spied on is not recorded in Acts 15.  Whether these Judaizers were at the Acts 15 meetings is uncertain to me.  There is no record in Acts saying they were.  It does, however, seem they did have influence on the meetings as seen here.  It might be possible that the Judaizers were at some of the meetings, although that is somewhat speculative.  If you read Acts 15 it suggest that there was more than one meeting.  There was at least two gatherings, the first more of a general open meeting for all, which included "some  believers from the party of the Pharisees", (Acts 15:5) the second a closed meeting for the leadership.  It might be possible that the Judaizers were at this first meeting.  Again, this assumes Galatians 2 is speaking of Acts 15.

Note the word "freedom" in verse 4.  Paul viewed the Law of Moses as something to be "freed from".  I am sure this would have irritated the Jewish Christians to no end.  It would also probably irritate most Evangelicals today as well, for many Evangelicals believe that Christians must still obey "parts" of the Law of Moses.  The tithing rule is one such law that Evangelicals consider as something to be obeyed.  How we can pick and choose what laws to obey and what laws not to obey from the Law of Moses is beyond my way of thinking.  The simple fact is that Jesus put an end to the Law of Moses.  He fulfilled the Law as Paul said in Romans 10:4.  

Note also the word "slave".  Paul saw himself as a "bond slave" to Jesus.  A "bond slave" is a man who freely becomes a slave by his own choice.  That's how Paul viewed himself.  If he had freely chosen to become Jesus' slave, how could he return and be a slave to the Law.  You can only be a slave to one master.  I wonder how many Christians consider themselves as slaves to Jesus.  I think we think of ourselves more as little kings than slaves. We've got our priorities all mixed up.  

I think one reason why Paul used the word slave here is because he viewed the Jews as being slaves to the Law of Moses.  Paul speaks of being free from the Law, he is not talking about being free to live as he pleases.  He has converted from being a slave to the Law of Moses to being a slave to Jesus.  Paul wasn't talking about being free to sin here as so many said he was.  Paul still believed in obedience to God, yet this obedience was to Jesus not the Law of Moses, and especially not the Rabbinical traditions. 

When considering the false teachers claim that Christians needed to obey the Law of Moses, we need to realize that it is a sin to add rules to what Jesus has done for us on the cross by providing us with salvation.  He alone can save us.  Nothing we can do can ever be added to what Jesus has done for us. If we add rules to the gospel message, we are telling Jesus that what He did on the cross is not good enough.  We just need to help Him out a bit by adding a few rules.  I can't think of a worse sin than that. 

In verse 5 Paul said that he and his companions did not give into these spies "for a moment'.  There was no way Paul was going to compromise the central truths of the gospel, and neither should we.  We see how intent Paul was here.  He was going to get this issue straightened out, and it would be at these meetings.  It could not wait for another day. 

I believe we can have grace with one another on secondary Biblical issues, but we cannot compromise the central truths of what makes up the gospel message.  Paul did this in order for the Galatians to clearly understand the gospel message.  To see the difference between the two ways of thinking would be a lesson in itself to the Galatians.

In today's Christian world as I type these words, the pressure is on Christians to compromise the gospel, to give into the modern day Judaizers that may not be seeking to unite us with Judaism but are seeking to unite us with other religions. We must stand up against the men who teach such things.  It is not wrong to publicly mention the names of these men who are teaching false doctrine.  And, it is not wrong to publicly denounce their teaching.  Paul had no problem with publically telling the names of false teachers.  Two such men today are Rob Bell and Brian McLaren.

There is a resurgence today to incorporate Judaism into one's life as a Christian.  Some stress this more than others.  If someone today demands you obey such laws of Judaism, that is not right.  If they demand you to follow the Law of Moses that is not the gospel that Paul taught.  If someone freely wants to keep the Sabbath laws, which would be hard in our day, that's fine for them.  But they cannot teach others to do the same. That would be against the gospel that Paul taught.  

Once again in verse 6 Paul uses the phrase "those men who seemed to be important, whatever they were, it makes no difference to me". Paul may be speaking respectfully as I have mentioned above, but you do get the sense that he was stressing his independence from them, as well as his displeasure. Still these men "added nothing to my message", Paul says in verse 6. "On the contrary, they saw that I had been given the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles". Paul is saying, that after he told his story, they could add nothing. They could not suggest anything that would enhance his teaching.  They had nothing to say that could refute what he was saying was right, at least in Paul's mind.

What we need to learn here is that leadership is subject to the gospel truths.  If you are a leader, and if you are not following the gospel, then others have the right to challenge and rebuke you for the sake of the gospel message and those in the church. The point is simple.  Biblical truth comes before leadership.  Obedience to the truth of the Bible is more important than following a leader who fails to preach the true gospel.  Many over the years have stressed the concept of submission to authority.  They say one submits to authority because the position the one in authority has.  That's not Biblical.  One submits to authority when the authority submits to the truth of the gospel.  If the authority does not submit to the truth of Scripture, then you don't submit.

I have said earlier that Paul wasn't being disrespectful to leadership here.  That being said, he was blunt and he was fired up about this issue.  He was not beating around the bush.  He was hitting the issue right on.  As a matter of fact, right from the beginning of this letter you can tell that Paul was ready to fight this issue through to the end, which he did.  Such intensity is sadly lacking in the church these days.  What Paul is speaking about here to many Christians today is a doctrinal issue, and, because it's doctrine, it's not important.  Such thinking is appalling and is the reason for much false teaching these days.  Doctrine is important, especially when it concerns the essentials of salvation.   

In verse 6 Paul states the importance of not judging by external appearances, something Jesus Himself said in John 7:24.  The "external appearances" Paul is referring to here is those "who seemed to be important", that is, the leaders in Jerusalem which would include Peter and James.  These men weren't the Judaizers.  We do need to make a distinction between the Judaizers and the legitimate leaders in Jerusalem.  This phrase relates to what I just said about "submission and authority".  Just because one is a leader, that's not the only reason why you submit to him.  

These leaders had gained a certain measure of respect and recognition from the Christian community.  Yet for Paul, it did not matter how important these men seemed to be.  It did not matter that some people held these men in high esteem.  The reason for this is because God does not judge by the appearance. What is important is, "who does God esteem"?  Just because  certain men appear to be leaders, doesn't mean they are real leaders, and it certainly doesn't mean they are in obedience to the true gospel.  The same is certainly true in today's church.  These men were legitimate leaders, but they were leaders who needed to change their thinking on the issue at hand.  Remember, as I noted in the beginning of this chapter, Jesus sent Paul to these meetings via a revelation.  It wasn't just Paul who wanted to get this issue straightened out.  It was Jesus Himself.

Verse 6 also says, "those men added nothing to my message".  What Paul seems to be saying here is that these men could say nothing that would complement Paul's message.  They could say nothing that would change Paul's mind.  They could say nothing that would make any sense in refuting Paul's message.  They were simply speechless.  I'm sure that the very presence of Paul could make many men speechless.     

In verse 7 the leaders at Jerusalem could only conclude that God had "entrusted" Paul with the ministry to the Gentiles as he "entrusted" Peter with the ministry to the Jews.  Note the word "entrusted" in verse 7.  God "entrusted" Paul with the gospel to the Gentiles.  Paul was a leader to the Gentiles.  God trusted Paul enough that He would have him do this great task.  To one degree or other, God has "entrusted" us with the gospel as well.  We must live accordingly, and handle properly what God has "entrusted" us with.  The word "entrusted" means someone has given us something to look after.  Christians have a very serious responsibility.  Do we really understand this responsibility?

Paul convinced these leaders that he had a legitimate and valid calling from God.  Paul was called by God to reach the Gentile world with the good news of Jesus, which included the fact that Gentiles did not have to first become Jews in order to become Christians. This helps confirm my thinking that Paul was one very special apostle.   

We also note that Peter's ministry was primarily to the Jews.  That being said, before Paul had a chance to preach to the Gentiles, in Acts 10, God called Peter to preach to a Gentile man.  Peter appears to be the first to preach the gospel to a Gentile, and he was reluctant at that.  Peter remembers this occasion when he speaks to the leaders in Acts 11 and 15.  He uses this experience to support Paul and his ministry.  Still, in the long run, much of Peter's ministry was to the Jews.  The same can be seen today.  We all have a ministry, and each of our ministries are distinctive in themselves.  In this way, the gospel of Jesus can go to anyone and everyone.     

So, both Paul and Peter had their distinctive ministries, but what they didn't have was, distinctive gospels.  They both preached the same gospel.  That being said, Peter, along with others, had to modify certain things that they preach to line of with the truth of the gospel.  That is, the Gentiles received salvation by faith and not by the works of the Law.         

In verse 8 Paul says that the same God who worked in Peter as an apostle to the Jews worked in him as an apostle to the Gentiles.  Everyone had respect for Peter.  That is why Paul is saying this.  Peter had been around longer than Paul when it comes to the gospel and church.  Peter was with Jesus from the beginning.  Not so with Paul.  Paul is simply saying that those who have respect for Peter, should have the same respect for him because it is the same Jesus who called both him and Peter.  

When the text states that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews, this might not have been ethnically speaking.  It might well be geographically speaking.  Paul went to the Gentile world, even though he always preached to Jews first in the Gentile world.  Peter might well have stayed mostly around the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea where there were more Jews.  This is only a possible interpretation.  I'm not saying this is what Paul had in mind.  We do know that Peter did preach the gospel in Rome. 

Concerning Paul's and Peter's distinct ministries, some over the years have used this verse to support the idea of the Jews having one gospel and the Gentiles another, but that is not what Paul is saying.  Again, there is one gospel, but more than one ministry of the gospel.   

We see from what Paul says about Peter's ministry, that even though Peter was one of those who "seemed to be leaders", Paul had great respect for Peter.  Yet, even though Paul had respect for Peter, as we will see, he believed Peter was living hypocritically.  I'll talk about that later.     

In verse 9 the leaders at Jerusalem were finally convinced that Paul's ministry was valid.  They gave him, Barnabas, and Titus, the "right hand of fellowship".  That simply means they included these three men into their fellowship. They recognized the three men as real brothers in the Lord, and accepted what they were doing was from the Lord.

Concerning the phrase "right hand of fellowship"; I'd like to relate that to the phrase, "the right hand of God".  When those in Paul's days used the phrase "right hand of God', they weren't saying that God had a right hand.  This was an idiomatic statement portraying one's authority.   When Paul and others said that Jesus is sitting at the "right hand of God", they were saying that Jesus was in authority along with God.  I can't say for sure at the moment, but when James and the others gave Paul and his brothers the right hand of fellowship, this might mean more than accepting them as brothers.  It might well mean that the Jerusalem leaders accepted them as those with leadership authority in the early church.   

We see the word "repute" in verse 9 in connection with Peter, James, and John.  This finally makes it clear who those who "seemed to be leaders" were.  They were Peter, James, and John.

Paul said in verse 9 that the above three men "recognized the grace" of God given to them. Paul did not merit this ministry and this recognition. God chose Paul because He wanted to, not because Paul deserved it.  Yet also, God gave Paul grace, that is, the ability to perform this ministry in the way it should be performed.  Peter, James, and John, had finally come to recognize this.  This must have made Paul feel much better.

The decision was thus made that Peter, James, and John would preach the gospel to the Jews while Paul and his brothers with him, would preach the gospel to the Gentiles.  This agreement is not recorded in the Acts 15 account.  Therefore, we see more of what happened in Acts 15 than what is recorded.  Or, on the other hand, this is not the Acts 15 meetings and that's why we don't see this mentioned in Acts 15.

In verse 10 we note that the only thing that these leaders suggested to Paul was to "remember the poor", which Paul was already doing anyway.  In Greek, the words "remember the poor" means, "to keep on remembering the poor".  The leaders weren't telling Paul to do something he wasn't already doing.  So that suggestion to Paul was no big deal.  We see the word "eager" here.  I suggest that the very use of this word implies that Paul was feeling much better about things.

Some people might suggest that Galatians 2 is not speaking about the Acts 15 meetings because of what the leaders told Paul concerning looking after the poor.  The letter that was drafted concerning the Gentiles and their faith spoke more than about looking after the poor.  What the leaders told Paul here in Galatians 2 has nothing to do with that letter.  The letter was addressed to all Gentiles.  The instruction to feed the poor was addressed to Paul, Barnabas, and Titus only. So this instruction could have well been given to Paul in the Acts 15 meetings.  Not everything that took place in these meetings is recorded.  I  think I can safely say that.  

The question could be asked, "who is the poor that the Jerusalem leaders are speaking about in verse 10"?  The poor are probably the Jerusalem leaders and the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and the rest of Judea.  We know from the book of Acts that the famine across the region caused much poverty.  See Acts 11:19 to 30.  

To conclude, at the moment, I'm just not sure when this meeting that is described here took place.   

Paul Opposes Peter (ch. 2:11 – 21)

This section concerns a situation in Antioch where the apostle Peter and the apostle Paul came into conflict.  Just when this took place, we don't know.  There is no other reference to this event in the New Testament.  We first see Antioch mentioned in Acts 11:19 and following.  Christian Jews who fled Jerusalem and the surrounding area left because of fear of persecution after the killing of Stephen.  Jewish Christians evangelized the Jews in Antioch while certain men from Cyprus and Cyrene evangelized the gentiles.  Paul lived in Antioch at the time.  So we do know that other men were preaching the gospel in these early days, but who they all were is uncertain.  I often wonder  how much we just don't know about these early days of the church.     

In verse 11 Paul begins to recount the time when Peter came to Antioch to visit. Paul says that he had to "oppose Peter to his face, because he was in the wrong."  Paul was blunt and straight forward.  When it came to defacing the gospel that Peter did by his actions, Paul had no patience.  He would confront the situation boldly and get it resolved as soon as possible.  That should be the way we work things out today as well.  

Paul's dealing with Peter here makes it clear that leadership must submit to the truth of the gospel, if not, then we have the right to challenge the leader, even in a public format if it has to come to  that.   

One thing I think I should note here concerning Peter is that he was in the wrong and acting hypocritically.  That beings said, this does not suggest that Peter's thinking on the issue of Gentiles and the gospel was wrong.  We have no hint in the book of Acts, or Peter's two letters, that he actually taught what he was living out in this particular incident. The gospel Peter preached as it is written in the Bible is in line with what Paul preached.    

There has been some controversy over the years if the Peter spoken of hear is the apostle Peter, one of the twelve Jesus chose to be the first apostles, or another Peter.  Many Catholic scholars have a hard time believing that the apostle Peter could ever be in the wrong because according to them, Peter was the first pope.  I believe this is the apostle Peter.  One reason why I believe this is because of his association with the apostle James, as noted in verse 12.  

In verses 12 and 13 Paul explains the situation.  Peter participated in the freedom that Paul preached while he was in Antioch. That meant that Peter ate with the Gentile Christians, something that Jewish people would never do, yet this was what the good news was all about, according to Paul. Jesus had "broken down the middle wall of partition" that separated Jews from Gentiles. (Ephesians 2:14)

What Jews feared concerning eating with Gentiles was that they might eat something that was not permitted by the Law of Moses.  Also, this might be seen as a form of union with pagan Gentiles that the Law of Moses did not permit. 

The problem arose when certain men from James in Jerusalem came to visit the Antioch church. When they came, Peter stopped his association with the Gentiles, "because he was afraid of the circumcision group", the men sent from James.

"The circumcision group" is in reference to those Jewish Christians, which were most Jewish Christians, that believed one had to be circumcised to be a real Christian.  The term "circumcision group" is important here.  Paul could have easily used the term "Jewish Christians", but he didn't.  He is pointing out that circumcision is the key issue at hand, and, circumcision represents the whole Law of Moses in this instance. 

We should note here that it seems that the Jerusalem church, which was the leading church in early times, tended to send out people to various cities when something new was happening in order to make sure what was happening was right.  They did the same in Acts 8 when the Samaritans first received the gospel.  

Peter’s actions spread to others as well, so that even Barnabas, one of Paul’s best friends, "joined him in his hypocrisy".  Here we see Peter, one of the twelve, one of the great men of faith in a moment of frailty, in a situation of hypocrisy.  We also see him fearing what his brothers in Christ would think of him.  This is the great apostle Peter who openly proclaimed that he would not obey man or fear man.  He would obey and fear God.  Well, in this case, he feared his brothers in the Lord. 

When Paul says that "even' Barnabas got caught up in the hypocrisy we should note who Barnabas is again. He was one of the brothers that was originally sent out from the Jerusalem church to check out the new Gentile converts in Antioch to make sure they were following the truth of the gospel.  Barnabas was impressed with what was happing so much that he acknowledged the grace of God in the Antioch church and went to Tarsus to get Paul to help out in the ministry of that church.  Barnabas actually stayed on in Antioch , and later him and Paul went on a missionary trip.  So if Barnabas got caught up in this hypocrisy, you know there was strong pressure to conform to the legalism of Judaism in this case.       

Some people have a hard time associating the word "hypocrisy" with Peter.  For this reason, most Catholic theologians don't believe this Peter is actually the apostle Peter.  Some scholars don't use the word "hypocrisy" as the NIV does.  They use the word "inconsistent'.  They say Peter was inconsistent in his actions.  I guess what it boils down to is Peter's motivation.  Why did he do what he did.  Verse 12 clearly states that the motivating factor was fear.  Peter feared those of the circumcision group.   

Peter was inconsistent.  I'm sure we can say that, but was his actions hypocritical?  The Greek word that is translated as "hypocrisy" in the NIV in Galatians 2:13 is translated from the Greek word where we actually derive our English word "hypocrisy" from.  So, I think it is a valid translation. 

Peter's hypocrisy is in the fact that his actions portrayed the idea that he wanted to obey the Law of Moses to the men from Jerusalem, but that really was not the case.  He was simply afraid of these men.   Peter's actions therefore misled the Galatians and did not match his motives.  Thus his actions were hypocritical.  Peter himself was not a hypocrite, but in this instance, his actions were hypocritical.

As I said earlier, one of the main problems that the Jews had with eating with Gentiles, and this would have carried over to the Christian Jews, is the probability of eating food that was not allowed to be eaten according to the Law of Moses.  We know that Paul had know problem with this.  If you read Romans 14, you will see that Paul could freely eat or drink anything because he was free from the restraints of the Law. 

A quick reading of the four gospels suggest to me that Peter seemed to be a real tough guy, at least on the surface.  I don't get the sense that he was afraid of anyone as I read the gospel accounts, but apparently he was.  Sometimes a person hides a weakness such as fear with a tough guy's image that he portrays to others.  This might well have been the case with Peter at times.  He might not have been as secure in himself as we might think.   

In verse 14 Paul says, "when I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel…" The idea that the Jewish Christians, especially Peter, disassociated themselves from the Gentile Christians does not fall in line with the good news of Christ. Why is this so? Because the gospel is supposed to bring unity, unity between God and us, and unity between fellow brothers in Christ, which includes unity between Jews and Gentiles.  Paul taught that the gospel broke down the wall that had previously existed between the Jew and the Gentile. (Ephesians 2:14)

Peter, by his actions was tearing apart this unity, thus he was not acting in line with the truth of the gospel. This to Paul was serious business. I often wonder what Paul would think about our present day church with all of its factions. I think that he would oppose us to our faces as well.  Every time there is a church split today, the split is an offense to the gospel.  

Paul viewed what Peter did was an offense to the gospel.  It was hypocrisy, but it was more than that.  It went against the central truth of Jesus' gospel.  We thus see that this was a primary issue to Paul.  Paul viewed the unity between Jews and Gentile Christians as a primary truth of Jesus.  It wasn't a secondary issue.  We can disagree on secondary issues, but we must agree on primary issues, and in Paul's mind this unity between Jews and Gentiles was primary because the issue at hand concerned why Jesus died on the cross.

In verse 14 we see that Paul confronts Peter in front of everyone present. You might wonder why Paul confronts Peter and not the rest of the Jewish Christians.  One reason is that the other Jewish Christians were following the leadership of Peter.  Leaders are the first to be judged when it comes to God judging His people.  Besides, as Peter was being judged, and as his hypocrisy was being pointed out, I'm sure the others realized that Paul was using Peter as an example of such sin that would speak to and about them as well.

Paul’s major point was that Peter being a Jew, lived like a Gentile. Paul had no problem with that. That was in line with the gospel. Where Paul had problems was when Peter wanted to force the Gentiles to live like a Jew. It was not fair. If Peter being a Jew could live like a Gentile, why couldn’t the Gentiles live like Gentiles? It made no sense. Beyond the illogical nature of Peter’s actions, we note that Peter was not acting in line with the truth of the gospel. Peter’s actions were denying the truth, and so are ours when we divorce ourselves from our brothers in Christ.

If you read Jesus' prayer in John 17, you will see how important the unity of the brothers is to Jesus.  The very nature of God concerns unity.  Jesus prayed for unity among His followers, but we have done lots to hinder Jesus' prayer from being answered.  You can think about that.  We stop a prayer that Jesus prayed from being answered.  That being said, some day it will be answered. 

Paul continues in verse 15 and 16 to say that "we who are Jews from birth … know that a man is not justified by observing the Law, but by faith in Jesus Christ." If Jews are now saved by trusting Jesus alone, even more so should Gentiles be saved by trusting Jesus alone, since they were never given the Law of Moses to obey   in the first place. Further more in verse 18 he says that no man can be justified by obeying the Law, so why is Peter trying to live according to the Law in this situation . If no man can be justified by obeying the Law of Moses that God Himself instituted then it is clear that no man can be justified by obeying any religious man made law that we may try to institute.

Note the word "justify" here.  Being "justified" is the process by which God forgives our sins.  He pronounces us as being "just' even though we aren't.  This happens only because Jesus took the punishment for us on the cross.  We therefore do not have to be punished.  God, the judge, pronounces us not guilty.  We are just people in the sight of God.  

Concerning being justified by the Law of Moses; Evangelicals, at least in the past, have maintained that we are saved by grace alone, and not of works.  That being said, Evangelicals have often said that to stay saved, you must obey certain laws.  That makes no sense.  We are saved, and we stay saved, by trusting in God's grace.  When it comes to the Law of Moses, and that includes the tithing laws and other such laws we like to promote, we are no longer compelled to obey them. We obey Jesus instead.  Christ is the end of the Law, as Paul states in Romans 10:4.    

When it comes to being justified, we need to understand that this is not merely the removal of the record of our sin from God's books. We sin because we are sinners.  Justification is the removal of the designation of being a sinner in God's eyes.  This leads us to righteousness.  Because we have been justified, we are seen as being perfectly right in who we are, not just what we do.  God views us as being perfectly right in who we are, just as He Himself is perfectly right in who He is.  This is absolutely amazing, because we all know that as we live this life, we still sin, and we are far from being perfectly right in what we do, let alone in who we are.      

In verse 15 you see the term "Gentile sinners".  Jews viewed the Gentile world as being sinners.  This was not really a fault on their part.  They weren't being prejudice.  They learnt this from God Himself.  If you read the Old Testament, you will soon find out that God Himself viewed all nations of the earth as being pagan and sinners.  This is why God told Israel over and over again not to associate themselves with the pagan Gentile world around them.  They would defile themselves and lose their godly identity if they did.  Well, Israel seldom obeyed the Lord's command on this point.    

I believe I need to point out that when verse 16 uses the word "law", the law being spoken of here is the Law of Moses.  Throughout the Old Testament Israelis were told over and over again that their very existence depended on them obeying the Law of Moses.  If they did not obey the Law of Moses they would be cursed as the Law stated. Any good Jew would have this thinking instilled into their very being.  This is why it was so hard for them to come around to the idea that one did not have to obey the Law of Moses in order to be saved, and especially the circumcision law. That being said, Paul clearly states here, in such a way that the Jewish Christians should have already known, that a man is only justified in the sight of God through faith in Jesus Christ.  Faith is simply trusting Jesus.  Faith is handing one's life over to Jesus and entrusting Him with your life.  When you do that, you are saved.  There is no salvation apart from faith in Jesus.

Verse 16 also says, "so we too have put our faith in Jesus…"  I believe the word "we" refers to the Christian Jews.  The word "we" in verse 16 corresponds to the words "we Jews" in verse 15.  The point here is simple.  If Jewish Christians don't have to obey the Law of Moses, why should Gentile Christians have to obey it.  It's simple logic.    

Paul continues in verse 16 to say that no one will be justified by the Law of Moses.  This leads us to the purpose of the Law for New Testament believers.  If the Law doesn't save us, what good is it for us.  There are still a few reasons why the Law of Moses hasn't totally disappeared from sight.  One thing is that the Law of Moses is just as much prophetic as it is a list of rules.  For example, the feasts described in the Law have prophetic significance.  For another example, the curses of the Law must all be fulfilled before the blessing can be received by Israel. Israel forsook the law, therefore, all the curses must come to pass as stated in the law.  Paul says that the law was our schoolmaster in Galatians 3:25, meaning it teaches us elementary things, of which one important thing is our sin.  Then once knowing our sin, we should find our way to Jesus to have our sins forgiven.  The Law of Moses does have some relevance, but not for the purpose of salvation.

One last thing about the importance of the Law of Moses, for those who believe in a literal thousand year rule of Christ on earth, as I believe, they also feel that the Jews will at that time actually live under the Law of Moses as they were meant to live.  This is controversial, but if you study the subject seriously, especially in light of the last seven chapters of Ezekiel, you will at least see the possibility of this.  

If the Law of Moses saves no one, or even keeps no one saved, then no so-called Christian or Evangelical rule can save no one, or keep no one saved.  Evangelicals in the past have often stated that we aren't saved by works, but their teaching strongly suggests that we stay saved by works.  That's not true.  There is no logic in such thinking, and this is the basic point to Paul's argument in this letter.      

The last paragraph of chapter 2 at first glance may be hard to understand, but let me try to clarify what I think Paul is saying. Verse 17 says, "if, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean Christ promotes sin?" Remember, Paul is still trying to defend his point concerning Peter’s hypocrisy. He is not changing the subject here. This paragraph is to further explain Paul’s thinking.  The word "we" refers to everyone in the room who Paul is addressing. 

Paul is saying that we, those he is addressing who are true Christians, those "who seek to be justified by Christ" alone; if we revert back to our old ways, we are sinning.  In this case the old ways for Peter and others was reverting back to the Law of Moses.  Peter was seeking to be justified by Jesus alone, yet now he is reverting back to Law by separating himself from the Gentile Christians.  Paul says that this is sin.

In verse 17 Paul asks if Christ promotes sin.  The sin Paul is speaking of here is the particular sin that these Jewish Christians were now committing, and that is, separating themselves from the Gentile believers. The answer to Paul's question is clearly "no".  Why does he ask this question in the first place?  Peter acknowledges that he gave his life to Jesus and it is Jesus alone that saves him and keeps him saved.  But now, Peter's separation from the Gentile believers is suggesting to those Gentiles that Jesus is promoting  this sin.  This is understandable because the Gentile believers would have looked up to Pater and the others.  So, when Peter and the others made this separation, the Gentile believers might well have thought this was the way it should be.  This was the will of Jesus because Jesus' main men was promoting this separation.  Paul says it's not Jesus' will.  It's pure sin.         

In verse 18 Paul moves from the pronoun "we" to the pronoun "I".  He is now including himself in his argument,  and for good reason.  What he is saying in verse 18, he himself has done, and that was, destroying the Law of Moses in his life.  He says, "if I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a law breaker".  The word "destroyed" is both powerful and important to Paul's argument.  When it comes to Paul, and really, Peter too, they destroyed the Law of Moses in one real sense of the word.  The Law had absolutely no more authority over them.  In this sense, the Law had been destroyed. 

Peter destroyed the Law in his life when He accepted Jesus’ way of salvation, which is through faith in God's grace.  In reality, it was not Peter who destroyed the Law.  It was Jesus who destroyed the Law when He died on the cross as Paul teaches in Colossians 2:13 to 19. Peter, by accepting Jesus alone for salvation participated in this destruction of the Law. Yet now he was trying to rebuild that which was destroyed by living according to the Law’s rules. By doing this, Paul says that he has "proven to be a law breaker".

We need to note that Paul in these verses is using himself as the example. He is not centering Peter out. He says, "if I rebuild, I prove to be a law breaker". He could have easily put Peter’s name in these sentences instead of the personal pronoun "I", but he didn‘t. Although Peter is in the wrong, and Paul is upset, he still honours Peter for who he is. He is pointing these things out to Peter for his own benefit, and for the benefit of the church . He hopes that Peter can change his ways and continue on in faith alone.

In verse 19 Paul goes on to say that "through the Law I died to the Law".  In other words, "the Law killed him'.  The Law was constantly beating him down. Do this.  Do that.  Make sure you don't forget.  Obey this rule.  Obey that rule.  You're wrong.  You're a sinner.  Get right with God.  All this just beats men down to the ground until they finally die.  Spiritually speaking, Paul died, and the Law had no more power over him.  He was dead to the Law.  The relationship between Paul and the Law was over for good.  Jesus had taken the place of the Law in every aspect.  The Law is gone forever. It has been destroyed.  It's all Jesus now.

Verse 20 says, "I have been crucified with Christ." This means that all that took place on the cross is now become part of Paul‘s life.  Many things happened at the cross, the which most of us don't understand. The Law was put to rest when Jesus died on the cross.  Our sins were forgiven. The cross paved the way for the Holy Spirit to come and live within us.  There's more to what happened on the cross of Christ, but that is a topic for another day.

When Paul says that he was crucified with Christ, he is not speaking symbolically.  Something really happened with him when Jesus died on the cross.  A transaction took place in the heavens that is very real.  Jesus took our place on the cross.  He stood in for us.  So, when God saw Jesus hanging on the cross, he also saw every human being hanging on the cross, which included Paul.  In this sense Paul died along with Jesus. 

Paul goes on to say that "the life I now live, I live by the faith of the Son of God…"  Paul is living by faith in Jesus.  Remember the definition of faith in Jesus is "trusting Jesus". Paul is living his life by trusting Jesus alone, apart from the Law of Moses that was destroyed on the cross.  This trust is an ongoing trust.  It's not that he trusted Jesus at initial salvation and now trusts in things he does, as good as those things might be.  He continues to trust Jesus every moment of the day.

Concerning the "cross of Christ"; we do it much disservice when we only understand the cross as a means to forgive sins.  The cross was much more than that, and it is very important for us to understand this issue.  Most Christians fail to understand the full significance of the cross of Christ.  

Paul says that Jesus "loved me and gave Himself for me". The Law could not love Paul, nor could it give itself for Paul.  Jesus, the Son of God, could both love us and has indeed given Himself for us. I think that these words are probably reaching the heart of Peter.  When Paul says that Jesus loves him and gave Himself for him, Peter would have understood those words.  Those words would have begun to penetrate Peter's heart because he saw it all.  He saw the horror of the arrest, conviction, and killing of Jesus.  Those memories would have flooded back into the heart and mind of Peter.  Then, the memory of his denial, would also have flooded his heart and mind.  The sorrow Peter felt when the cock crowed, might well have been flowing through his being once again when Paul said these specific words.

In verse 21 Paul says, "I do not set aside the grace of God". What Peter was really doing in reverting back to the Law was setting aside the grace of God.  He was replacing God’s grace with Law. This is a major sin. This is the worst sin that Christians can commit in my thinking, yet we as Evangelicals are guilty of the same sin. We have added rules. We say that in order to remain a Christian, we have to do certain things, and not do certain other things. There can be no rules added to God’s grace. There can be no stipulations attached to the cross of Christ. He did it all. If we add anything to what Jesus has done with our own rules, we are setting aside God’s grace. We are telling Jesus that what He did on the cross is not good enough, and that we need to help Him out a little by adding our own ideas concerning how to be saved. I cannot think of a worse sin.

"For if righteousness could be gained through the Law, then Christ died for nothing." Paul makes my point clear here. If we add anything to what Jesus has already done on the cross, if we try to be justified by anything else, then to us, Christ died for nothing. If we add rules to Christ’s salvation, we tell Him that what He did on the cross was not good enough.  We also tell Him that He died for nothing, and in fact in this situation he did die for nothing.  His death, his act of love is meaningless to us. Once again, I cannot think of a greater sin than this. If you in fact lay aside God’s grace, then I feel that you are in danger of loosing your salvation. This is the only way to loose your salvation.  It is unbelief that causes one to lose his salvation, not any individual sin. Paul will have more to say about this point later.

Imagine if you were Peter being confronted to your face openly in front of the whole church. How would you feel? You might feel pretty uncomfortable.  I think Peter may have been an impulsive man. At times he did things that he later regretted. This probably was one of those times. When Paul said the words, "if righteousness could be gained through the Law then Christ died for nothing", I imagine those words cut right to Peter’s heart.  Remember, Peter was in the garden when Jesus was arrested. He was at the cross. He saw the sword being thrusted into the side of Jesus. He saw it all. I imagine that in Peter’s mind and heart he relived that whole experience again and suddenly realized, "no, Jesus did not die in vain". Peter would have repented of his actions, most likely with much sorrow. No way would Peter want to destroy the work Jesus did on the cross. He would trust in Jesus alone, even though that would be hard to understand.  The sorrow Peter felt after hearing the cock crowing, might well be the same sorrow that he felt when Paul pointed out his sin here.

We've talked about the Old Testament Law of Moses in this chapter.  For the purposes of being justified in the sight of God, for the purposes of salvation, the Law has no more significance.  That doesn't mean the Law of Moses is now useless.  We learn lots about how God thinks and feels in the Law.  You learn how God views about many things, including, murder, treatment of widows and aliens, treatment of slaves, the importance of restitution, and many other things.  A good study of the Law of Moses will in fact give you a better understanding of God Himself.   The books of the Law are often overlooked by the modern Christian, as is much of the Old Testament.  This is one major fault of modern Christianity.  It leads to much Biblical illiteracy and a faulty knowledge of the God Christians claim to serve.   

I maintain that the better you understand the Old Testament, the better you will understand the New Testament.  I simply don't think one can fully grasp New Testament teaching without understanding the Old Testament.  One way this shows up concerns Israel 's present day, and prophetic significance.  Many don't believe Israel has  any more significance in the eyes of God. Another way this failure shows up in our lives is our attempt to obey certain Old Testament laws and not obey other certain Old Testament laws. We are a bit double-minded in that respect.  

The situations that Paul has described here in Galatians 2 gets us right into the heart of his letter, and that is, salvation is by faith in God's grace alone, without obeying any part or the whole of the Law of Moses. Such thinking would have been unheard of to the Jews, as it was to Paul himself before he met Jesus.  Meeting Jesus face to face changed everything for Paul.  I dare say the gospel that Paul taught, which is the gospel of the Bible, if preached as Paul preached it, is still a problem with many today, and that includes Christians, not just Jews.  We tend to see the real gospel as a license to sin, but as Paul states in his letter to the Romans, it isn't that.