Galatians 2


Paul Accepted by the Apostles

¹Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. ²I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. ³Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. ⁴This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. ⁵We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.
⁶As for those who seemed to be important--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance--those men added nothing to my message. ⁷On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. ⁸For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. ⁹James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. ¹⁰All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

Galatians 2:1-10

Explanation:

The Conference in Jerusalem (2:1-10)
In the previous section of his autobiography (1:17-24) Paul has been describing the nature of his relationship with the original apostles in Jerusalem to show that he had been commissioned directly by God, not by the apostles, to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. He has worked independently from them; he is not their messenger boy. In fact his contact with them has been minimal. He did not visit them until three years after his conversion; and then he spent only two weeks with Peter in Jerusalem in order to get acquainted with him. On that trip to Jerusalem, the only other apostle he saw was James. After that time he remained unknown to the churches in Judea except for the good reports they heard about his evangelistic work in the provinces of Syria and Cilicia. It was a long time before Paul met again with the apostles in Jerusalem, not until fourteen years after his conversion, or about eleven years after his first visit (2:1).

With these facts Paul has sharpened his rebuke for turning to a different gospel. It is ludicrous for the Galatians to discard Paul's gospel as if it were a secondhand, abbreviated version that needed to be supplemented with additional instructions from the Jerusalem apostles. Paul did not spend enough time with the original apostles in Jerusalem to get his gospel secondhand from them. Since Paul's gospel was given by revelation from God, the Galatian believers should have maintained unswerving loyalty to it.

So the direct revelation of the gospel to Paul has been established. But it appears from the next episode of his autobiography that Paul also wants to defend his gospel against another possible misunderstanding. Although it is true that he got his gospel by direct revelation, this does not mean that he preached his gospel without the approval and support of the original apostles and the rest of the church. Paul is not a visionary who simply wants to protect his claim to private revelations rather than building the unity of the church. Nor is he a pioneer missionary who works in isolation from the rest of the church.

Disruptive mystics and lone rangers have often split and splintered the church. People with exceptional gifts and strengths are sometimes prone to exercise their gifts in divisive ways. But Paul saw that the unity of the church was necessary for the success of his mission. So he worked hard to build unity on the basis of the gospel. In fact, his whole argument leads to the conclusion that his gospel to the Gentiles is the only sure foundation for the unity of the church (see 3:28). But that is jumping ahead. Our attention must be focused now on Paul's account of the Jerusalem conference that led to the church leaders' full support for Paul's gospel to the Gentiles (2:1-10). The agreement reached at the conference in Jerusalem demonstrated the power of the gospel Paul preached to unite the church. As we follow Paul's participation in this conference, we will observe eight steps in the process which concluded with the giving of the right hand of fellowship (v. 9). We also can be agents of reconciliation in the church as we take these steps to unite the church to support God's mission to all nations.

First, we observe that Paul attended this conference with a team: he went with Barnabas and took Titus along also (v. 1). The unity of Jews and Gentiles in the church was demonstrated by the composition of Paul's team.

Barnabas was a highly respected Jewish Christian. According to Acts, his given name was Joseph, but the apostles gave him the nickname Barnabas ("Son of Encouragement") because of his gift of encouraging the early church (Acts 4:36). When Paul was excluded from the church in Jerusalem after his conversion, Barnabas was the only one willing to reach out to this dangerous former persecutor of the church, bring him into the circle of the apostles and believe in God's work of grace in his life (Acts 9:27). Later the Jerusalem church sent Barnabas to Antioch to supervise the mission to the Gentiles. Again, Barnabas was big enough to accept the radically new practice of including Gentile converts in the church, because his focus was the grace of God (Acts 11:22). Barnabas selected Paul to join him in that ministry in Antioch (Acts 11:25). The Christians in Antioch sent Barnabas and Paul with a famine relief gift back to the poverty-stricken church in Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30). Sometime after their return from Jerusalem, the church of Antioch sent Barnabas and Paul on a missionary trip to Cyprus and southern Galatia (Acts 13:1--14:28). After their return from that trip, they were sent back to Jerusalem to work out the problem of Jew-Gentile relations in the church (Acts 15:1-35). This brief review of the account of Barnabas in Acts brings us up to the conference in Jerusalem, which is the subject of this section of Paul's autobiography. It is important for us to see from this account that one member of Paul's team was an outstanding Jewish Christian leader in the early church who was noted for his ability to be a bridge-builder between diverse factions of the church.

Titus, the other member of Paul's team, was a Greek Christian (2:3). Paul's inclusion of Titus on his team boldly expressed his conviction that it was not necessary for Greek Christians to change their ethnic identity by becoming Jews in order to be included in the church. The presence of Titus forced the conference to resolve the issue of discrimination against Gentile Christians. The conference could not remain neutral about the key issue. If Titus was forced to be circumcised in order to be accepted by the Jerusalem church, then it would be clear that Gentiles must become Jews in order to be accepted in the church. But if Titus was accepted by the Jerusalem church as a Gentile, then it would be clear that Gentiles were regarded as equal members.

Paul's team was a living illustration of the new freedom in Christ for Jews and Gentiles to build close friendships. His team was a microcosmic expression of the power of the gospel to break down the barriers that had separated Jews and Gentiles and to create a new unity in Christ--a unity that transcends the ethnic, cultural and social divisions in the world.

The best place to start building unity in the church is to start working with a team of diverse people who are united by their common faith in Christ and their mission. Finding the right people to serve on such a team is often difficult, but it's worth the effort, because it offers the opportunity to show the unifying power of the gospel.

Second, we observe that Paul went to the conference in response to a revelation (v. 2). None of the attempts to harmonize this reference to revelation with other references in Paul's letters and in Acts can claim to be more than a guess. But we must not miss Paul's point in making this reference to revelation. Here again we see his insistence that he was taking orders directly from God, not from human beings. Neither the Jerusalem apostles nor any other pressure group summoned Paul to Jerusalem for cross-examination. He went because God told him to go. Paul was not outward-directed, pushed and shoved by the changing whims of public opinion. Nor was he only inward-directed, driven by his own needs and ambitions. He was God-directed, led by the Spirit of God (see 5:18). When it comes to making peace in a church torn by conflict, we need peacemakers who are called children of God because they are sensitive and obedient to the voice of their Father (see Mt 5:9).

Third, Paul went to the conference in order to have his gospel evaluated. He set before the leaders in Jerusalem the gospel that he preached among the Gentiles (v. 2). The verb set before indicates that Paul was willing to present his ministry and message at the conference for discussion and debate. The fact that he had been given a revelation did not lead him to think that he was above evaluation.

Some people seem to think that when they deliver their word from the Lord, all discussion should stop. They do not allow any questions or debate about their message. They feel they have delivered the last and final word. But Paul did not approach this conference in that spirit. After all, he had nothing to fear from an evaluation of his gospel, and he had everything to gain. So he placed himself in the vulnerable position of facing a full review of his work by the senior leadership of the church. That must have been a humbling experience for Paul. But he did it to gain the Jerusalem leaders' approval of his Gentile mission. Those who are convinced of the truth of their message should not fear evaluation. They should welcome it.

When Paul says that he presented his gospel for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain, he does not mean that he had secret doubts about the validity of his Gentile mission and needed the apostles' assurance that he was running in the right direction. His confidence in God's call (1:1, 15-16) rules out such an interpretation. But Paul did recognize that his divine commission could not be effectively fulfilled if there was a division between his Gentile mission and the leaders of the church in Jerusalem. His God-given mission did not need to be authorized by them, but it would have been rendered fruitless (in vain) if it lacked their support. It was evident to Paul that if the mother church denounced and disowned his Gentile mission, his work of evangelizing the Gentile world would be frustrated. If the unity of all believers in the church was denied, the gospel for the Gentiles would be undermined. It was because Paul desired this unity that he presented his gospel to the leaders in Jerusalem, hoping that they would give their wholehearted support to his mission. In fact, that is just what they did.

Fourth, Paul strongly resisted those who challenged the essentials of the gospel. His willingness to present his gospel for evaluation did not mean that he was willing to compromise the truth of the gospel. For Paul, the truth of the gospel included his Gentile mission. And his Gentile mission presupposed the unity and equality of Gentile and Jewish believers in Christ. This basic presupposition was challenged at the Jerusalem conference when some false brothers tried to require that Titus be circumcised--in other words, become a Jew--in order to be included in the church. But since such a requirement denied the equality and unity of Gentiles and Jews in the church, Paul did not give in to them. As a result he is able to report to the Galatians that not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek (v. 3). Titus was accepted as a Gentile believer; he did not have to become a Jew to be included. Paul's firm resistance to pressure protected the unity of the church.

Those who tried to get Titus circumcised were called false brothers by Paul because they were unwilling to accept Titus as a true brother. They would allow him to be included in the Christian family only if he became a Jew. The basis of unity in the church for them was race rather than grace. According to Paul, they had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves (v. 4). To accuse them of being intruders and spies in the Jerusalem church implies that their primary loyalty was not to the gospel of Christ or the church. Rather than upholding the freedom we have in Christ Jesus to be accepted before God and by one another simply on the basis of God's grace, they required adherence to Jewish customs as the basis of acceptance.

The parallel between these intruders and the intruders in the Galatian churches is clear. In both cases their requirement to maintain a distinctive Jewish lifestyle denied the freedom of all believers to be included in God's family regardless of racial, cultural or social status. In both cases their message led to slavery--slavery to the values of the world.

But, Paul informs the Galatian churches, we did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you (v. 5). Paul's refusal to give in to the demands of the intruders in the Jerusalem church protected the truth of the gospel for the Galatian Christians. If he had given in, they would also have been required to become Jews to be included in the church. As a result the truth of the gospel--that they were accepted by God as Gentile believers in Christ--would have been lost.

Unity in the church can be secure only when there is no compromise of the essentials of the gospel. Working toward unity does not mean a passive submission to misguided zealots. The truth of the gospel is nonnegotiable. Paul's account of his defense of the truth of the gospel against intruders in Jerusalem presents a challenge to his readers to do the same in Galatia. His purpose for recording this episode in his autobiography is to provide an example for the Galatian Christians in their own struggle against the demands of the intruders in their churches. The Galatians should not give in to them for a moment; the truth of the gospel must be preserved.

Fifth, Paul built the unity of the church on the truth of God's impartiality. Although he respected the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, he was not intimidated by them, because he knew that God does not judge by external appearance (v. 6). Paul recognized that the men he met with at the conference in Jerusalem were regarded as the spiritual giants in the church, those who seemed to be important (v. 6). Most people who met them were probably awestruck by the stories they had heard about their relationship with the Master, Jesus himself. It was well known that Peter and John were the disciples closest to Jesus; James was the brother of Jesus. But Paul subtly calls into question the original apostles' basis of authority. His repetition of a qualifying phrase to describe them (those who seemed to be leaders [v. 2]; those who seemed to be important [v. 6]; those reputed to be pillars [v. 9]) connotes a "mild irony." Paul was not impressed by their credentials: whatever they were makes no difference to me (v. 6). For God's assessment is not based on such external factors as temporal priority or temporary popularity: God does not judge by external appearance (v. 6). But God does judge; he judges on the basis of response to the gospel, Paul's message. Paul draws attention to the fact that those who were highly respected in the church agreed with his message (those men added nothing to my message [v. 6]). The authority of these leaders is relativized by Paul, subordinated to the standard of the gospel. Though they were reputed to be pillars (v. 9), their authority did not rest on their reputation but on their faithfulness to the truth of the gospel (v. 5).

Our attempts to build the unity of the church will fail if we are overawed by the impressive reputation of church leaders. We must remember that God does not measure persons by their public reputation, but by their response to the gospel. We must not be afraid to do the same. I once heard an artist say, "Great works of art, `the originals,' are not judged by us; we are judged by them." Similarly, the gospel is not judged by great leaders; great leaders are judged by it.

We need to remember this as well when we are tempted to seek such a reputation for ourselves. Ultimately, we will be judged by our faithfulness to the gospel.

Sixth, unity is maintained in the church by keeping the focus on God's work. Paul says that when the leaders saw something (vv. 7-8) and recognized something (v. 9), they gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas and agreed that they should continue their ministry to the Gentiles. What they saw was God at work in Paul's ministry (v. 8). What they recognized was the grace given to him (v. 9). Just as the miraculous work of God in Peter's ministry validated his call to preach the gospel to the Jews, so also the miraculous work of God in Paul's ministry was irrefutable evidence that God had given him the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles (vv. 7-8).

It was precisely because these leaders were preoccupied with God's work, rather than human traditions and prejudice, that they were able to reach an agreement. Unfortunately, the reverse is too often true. A church is divided because the elders accuse the pastor of breaking with denominational traditions. It does not seem to matter to them that the church has doubled because God has saved many through the pastor's ministry. Another church is divided because some like contemporary choruses and others prefer traditional hymns. While they argue over their tastes in music, they lose sight of God's work in their midst. If only we could keep our eyes on what God is doing in our midst, we would be able to transcend the things that divide us and accomplish the tasks that God has given to us.

Seventh, unity at the conference in Jerusalem was based on a delineation of different spheres of responsibility. The leaders in Jerusalem agreed that Paul and Barnabas should go to the Gentiles, while they would be responsible for the evangelization of the Jews (v. 9). The people groups to be evangelized were simply divided into two different spheres: the Jews and the Gentiles. We know from Paul's other letters and from Acts that he always had a burden for his own people, the Jews, and when he began his evangelistic work in a city, he always began in a synagogue. But he was clear about his primary calling to be the apostle to the Gentiles. We also know from Acts that Peter was the first apostle to evangelize Gentiles, when he went to the house of Cornelius. So the agreement reached at the conference cannot be viewed as a strict geographical or even ethnographical division of labor.

Nor did the agreement include resolutions about the extent to which Gentiles were free from the requirements of the law of Moses. The incident in Antioch described in 2:11-14 is sufficient evidence that such boundaries and definitions were lacking in the general agreement reached at the Jerusalem conference. It simply recognized and approved the different tasks that God had given to leading evangelists in the church. Paul's mission to the Gentiles was confirmed, and he was not required to change his message; uncircumcised Gentile believers in Jesus Christ were to be received as full members in the church.

No one of us can fulfill the Great Commission to disciple all the nations on our own. Laboring under the misconception that the Great Commission is the sole responsibility of any one person or any one organization leads only to competition and conflict. Harmony in the mission of the church must be built on the willingness of each of us to accept and fulfill the particular assignment given to us by God and confirmed by the leadership of the church.

Eighth, the unity of the church was maintained by practical service. The practical outworking of the basic agreement regarding Paul's mission to the Gentiles included the Jerusalem apostles' request that Paul and his team should continue to remember the poor (v. 10). Probably the poor meant, as Paul says in Romans 15:26, "the poor among the saints in Jerusalem." Most commentators have interpreted this request as an appeal for money to support the poverty-stricken church in Jerusalem. While financial help was needed by the Jerusalem church, the request may have had a broader reference to the special relationship between Paul's missionary outreach to the Gentiles and the Jewish church in Jerusalem. The leaders of the Jerusalem church supported Paul's mission to the Gentiles, but at the same time they asked Paul to keep the needs and welfare of the Jewish church in mind. His Gentile mission should support, not harm, the Jewish church.

Paul affirmed his eager desire to express the unity of the church by his practical support of the Jerusalem church (v. 10). We know from his letters to the churches in Corinth and Rome that a major theme of his teaching to his Gentile churches was their obligation to support the Jerusalem church. Paul saw the collection that he took from his Gentile churches for the Jewish believers in Jerusalem as an indispensable expression of the unity of the church. "For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews' spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings" (Rom 15:27).

From Paul's account of the Jerusalem conference we learn how to maintain the unity of the church so that the preaching of the gospel to different audiences in different cultures will be effective.

Galatians 2


Paul Opposes Peter

¹¹When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. ¹²Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. ¹³The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
¹⁴When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

Galatians 2:11-14

Explanation:

The Conflict in Antioch (2:11-14)
The next episode in Paul's autobiography presents a painful contrast to the heartwarming expression of unity in the Jerusalem conference. Having just heard about the "right hand of fellowship" extended in verse 9, we now read in verse 11 that Paul opposed Peter to his face in Antioch.

How could such a conflict occur between Paul and Peter after they had reached an agreement to support one another? Some early church leaders (Origen, Chrysostom and Jerome) could not believe that this conflict really occurred. They explained that Paul and Peter must have staged the conflict to illustrate the issues at stake. Augustine, however, interpreted the story as a genuine conflict in which Paul established the higher claim of the truth of the gospel over the rank and office of Peter.

Augustine was right. Paul was willing to endure the pain of conflict with Peter in order to defend the truth of the gospel. To understand the nature of the conflict and the issues involved, we will observe how the drama developed in four stages: (1) Peter's practice of eating with the Gentile Christians, (2) Peter's separation from Gentile Christians after the arrival of the delegation from James because of his fear of the circumcision group, (3) the separation of the other Jewish Christians from Gentile Christians because of Peter's influence, and (4) Paul's rebuke.

Peter's Practice of Eating with the Gentile Christians (2:12)

According to Paul's report about Peter, before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles (v. 12). In Antioch's fully integrated congregation of Christian Jews and Gentiles, Peter had regularly followed the custom of eating with Gentile Christians. His practice of sharing meals with non-Jewish Christians must have also included sharing the Lord's Supper with them. Undoubtedly his presence at table fellowship with Gentile Christians was taken as an official stamp of approval on the union and equality of Jews and Gentiles in the church. We can imagine that the Gentile believers in the church were especially encouraged by Peter's wholehearted acceptance of them. This picture of Peter eating with Gentiles is consistent with the account in Acts of Peter's visit with Cornelius after he was taught by a special vision not to call anything unclean that God had cleansed (Acts 10:1--11:18). After that vision Peter knew that God approved of his table fellowship with Gentile believers. In fact, to refuse to eat with Gentile Christians would have been to go against the clear revelation he had received from God.

Peter's Separation from Gentile Christians (2:12)

It is difficult to understand how anybody could have persuaded Peter to stop sharing common meals and the Lord's Supper with Gentile believers. But apparently that is exactly what certain men with connections to James did when they arrived in Antioch. Who were these men? Were they actually sent from James? Or were they members of James's circle in the church but without a direct commission from James? Fortunately for them, Paul cloaks them with anonymity. But he seems to lay on James the responsibility for their disturbance in the church in Antioch.

More important than the question of their identity, however, is the question of their message. What did they say that persuaded Peter to separate from the Gentile believers? The only clue we have is Paul's explanation that Peter separated himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group (v. 12).

The circumcision group may be another way of referring to those who came from James--namely, Jewish Christians. But why would Peter fear a delegation of Jewish Christians from the Jerusalem church, since he himself was a "pillar" of that church and had already stood up against extremist factions in that church (see Acts 11:1-18; 15:7-11; Gal 2:9)? It seems much better to interpret Paul's reference to the circumcision group in the same way that we interpret his use of the same phrase in the immediate context. Three times in verses 7-9 the NIV translates the same phrase as "the Jews" in contrast to the Gentiles. So the reference to the circumcision group in verse 12 is simply another reference to non-Christian Jews. But still we have to ask why Peter would fear non-Christian Jews when he had been so fearless in his own proclamation of the gospel to them (see Acts 2:14-41; 3:17-26; 4:8-12; 5:29-32). Our answer to that question must be based on historical information outside of the text and some speculation.

It seems that during the late forties and fifties, Jewish Christians in Judea were facing bitter antagonism from Zealot-minded Jews for socializing with Gentiles. The fierce Jewish nationalism rampant in Palestine at that time led to harsh treatment of any Jew who associated with Gentiles. It is likely that the delegation from James simply reported to Peter that his open and unrestricted association with Gentiles in Antioch would cause (or had already caused) the church in Jerusalem to suffer greatly at the hands of the circumcision group, Jewish nationalists.

If Peter expressed his own reason for separating from the Gentiles in Antioch, he may well have voiced his concern about the detrimental effect his table fellowship with Gentiles had on the Jerusalem church's mission to the Jews. When non-Christian Jews in Jerusalem heard that Peter, a prominent church leader, was eating with Gentiles in Antioch, they would not only turn away from the witness of the church but also become actively hostile toward the church for tolerating such a practice. Confronted by these practical concerns for his home church and its mission to the Jews, Peter acted against his own better judgment. He separated himself from the Gentiles.

The Separation of the Other Jewish Christians from Gentile Christians (2:13)

All the Jewish believers in Antioch were subservient to Peter's authority and followed his example. As a result the church was split into racial factions: Jews were divided from Gentiles. It is important to note that Paul accuses Peter and the rest of the Jewish believers in Antioch of hypocrisy, not heresy: the rest of the Jews joined him in his hypocrisy (v. 13). Their action was inconsistent with their own convictions about the truth of the gospel. They were more influenced by their common racial identity as Jews than by their new experience of unity in Christ with all believers of every race.

The irrationality of their action is expressed in the verb Paul uses to describe the defection of Barnabas: even Barnabas was led astray (v. 13). Painful disappointment is expressed by that phrase even Barnabas. It is like Julius Caesar's "Et tu, Brutus?" Paul would have expected that Barnabas would remain loyal to him and his gospel even if everyone else turned away. After all, Barnabas, as the first pastor of the church in Antioch, had warmly welcomed Gentile believers. He had worked alongside Paul in that church and in their mission of planting Gentile churches in Galatia. He had stood with Paul in the Jerusalem conference. How could even loyal Barnabas deny the truth of the gospel now? Didn't he of all people know that Gentile believers were to be fully accepted? Yes, he must have known that. But the emotions stirred up in the crisis swept him along to act contrary to his convictions. And so along with the rest of the Jewish Christians he was guilty of hypocrisy: behavior inconsistent with basic beliefs.

It is sometimes frightening to see how otherwise sane and sensible people can be swept away by emotions in the midst of a church crisis. In the heat of the conflict they lose all sense of perspective and proportion.

We should never underestimate the emotional power of national pride and racial ties. We should not be surprised that the Jewish Christians in Antioch put their own Jewish interests above the welfare of the church. Throughout the history of the church, conflicts and divisions have occurred because Christians have been more deeply influenced by their national interests or racial identity than their Christian convictions. Whenever we identify ourselves as American Christians, or British Christians, or Chinese Christians, or German Christians, we must be aware that being American, British, Chinese or German may easily become more important to us than being Christian.

Paul's Rebuke (2:14)

Peter's response to the delegation from Jerusalem and his withdrawal from the integrated fellowship of the church has been exonerated by some who think he was appropriately sensitive to the demands of his own mission to the Jews and was simply accommodating himself to those he was trying to win to Christ. If Paul himself could "become all things to all men" to win some to Christ (1 Cor 9:19-22), then why was it wrong for Peter to follow the same principle of accommodation when he adapted himself to the preferences and sensitivities of his home church?

From Paul's perspective, however, Peter's action was not accommodation for the sake of the gospel; it was compromise of the essential truth of the gospel. And on that basis Paul was willing to confront Peter with the inconsistency and hypocrisy of his actions. This confrontation was not just a power struggle to see who would maintain control of the church. Paul did not assert his authority as an apostle directly appointed by Jesus Christ or as one of the senior leaders of the church in Antioch. Nor did he appeal to the authority of the decision of the Jerusalem conference (vv. 7-9). Paul's refusal to follow Peter's example as all the other Jewish Christians did and his open rebuke of Peter were based solely on the standard set by the gospel: When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all . . . (v. 14).

Paul had the spiritual discernment to rise above the emotional trauma of the crisis: he saw the terrible consequences of Peter's action. Peter had contradicted the gospel. The gospel proclaimed that salvation for both Jews and Gentiles was by way of the cross of Christ and union with Christ. But Peter's separation from table fellowship with Gentile Christians implied that salvation for Gentiles required strict adherence to the law and incorporation into the Jewish nation. No doubt Peter would have denied that he meant to communicate this requirement to the Gentile believers. But how else could his action be interpreted? The Gentile believers could not help but conclude from Peter's withdrawal that they were lacking something, that they were unacceptable outcasts. If they wanted to enjoy fellowship with Peter and the mother church in Jerusalem, they would have to become Jews. Their experience of salvation would be incomplete until they became Jews and observed the Jewish law. Gentile believers would have seen these implications of Peter's action even if Peter did not.

Since the consequences and implications of Peter's action were so destructive to the unity and spiritual integrity of the church, Paul had no choice but to confront Peter in front of them all to prove that his action was wrong. A public confrontation is not pleasant. It can easily degenerate into a no-win situation. Usually there is a loss of face for all concerned. For that reason it is natural to avoid public confrontation at all costs. But when a leader avoids public confrontation with one who is causing others to lose their faith in the completeness of God's grace expressed in the gospel of Christ, the cost is the loss of their experience of God's grace. Paul was not willing for the church of Antioch to suffer that terrible loss.

Paul led Peter back to his own deepest convictions by asking him a question: "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" (v. 14). By his practice of eating with the Gentile believers when he came to Antioch, Peter had already demonstrated that even as a Jew he had complete liberty to live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. In other words, Peter had already made it clear that his convictions permitted him to be free from Jewish food regulations. But now his separation from table fellowship with the Gentile believers forced Gentiles to follow Jewish customs. So while Peter, a Jew, had the freedom to live like Gentiles, his recent act of separation from Gentiles robbed them of their own freedom to live like Gentiles! They were being forced to live like Jews if they wanted to remain in the same church with the Jewish Christians. Actually, the verb that the NIV translates as to follow Jewish customs would be more accurately translated as "to become Jews." For the Gentiles would have to do more than follow a few Jewish customs; they would have to become Jews in order to have table fellowship with Jewish Christians who were following Jewish law.

To put it simply, Peter's separation had violated his own conviction that the racial division between Jews and Gentiles should not exist in the church. As a consequence of his separation, Gentiles were not admitted to table fellowship with Jews in the church. And the only way for them to gain admission was to become Jews.

If we feel that Paul was unnecessarily harsh or rude for rebuking Peter in public, we need to recall that the freedom of all Gentile Christians and the whole future of the Gentile mission was at stake. What if Peter's separation had set a precedent for the future so that all Gentile Christians really were required to become Jews? From a human perspective, such a precedent would have spelled the end of the Gentile church. It is not conceivable that Gentile churches could have been planted or would have grown if this requirement would have been enforced. And furthermore, if the division along racial lines had been allowed, the church would never have been able to exhibit a new humanity unified by faith in Christ, which transcends the racial and social divisions in the world. The truth of the gospel would be negated by such division.

We need to be encouraged by Paul's courageous stand to take our own stand against Christians who repeat Peter's mistake in the church today. The church today is divided in many places along racial and social lines. A list of such divisions would be too long to enumerate. We must not allow them to continue. The consequences for the clear proclamation of the gospel are disastrous. Divisions in the church negate the truth of the gospel. Let us boldly take our stand to heal those divisions now.

Galatians 2


¹⁵"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' ¹⁶know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
¹⁷"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! ¹⁸If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. ¹⁹For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. ²⁰I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

Galatians 2:15-21

Explanation:

Paul's Personal Affirmations (2:15-21)
This social crisis in the church of Antioch was exactly the same as the crisis faced by the churches in Galatia: Gentiles were being forced to live like Jews in order to be acceptable to Jews. Behind this social crisis, however, a more fundamental theological issue was at stake: Is the truth of the gospel or is the law the basis for determining fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians? In this next section of his autobiography, Paul addresses this fundamental issue raised by the social crisis in the church of Antioch and the churches in Galatia. As we work through his theological arguments, we must not forget that he was responding to a social crisis: division in the church along racial lines. His complex theological definitions are aimed toward the practical goal of healing this racial division in the church.

We can follow Paul's affirmations if we observe that he first presents a point of agreement (vv. 15-16), then a point of disagreement (vv. 17-18) and then his own confession of faith (vv. 19-21). Although he expresses all of these affirmations in intensely personal terms, they provide a pattern for all Christians to follow.

A Point of Agreement (2:15-16)

Paul begins with a point that all Jewish Christians acknowledged and affirmed. The subject of the verb know in verse 16 is given in verse 15: we who are Jews by birth and not "Gentile sinners" know . . . Paul is developing the same kind of argument that he used against Peter in verse 14. If Peter, being a Jew, lived as a Gentile and not as a Jew, how could he require Gentiles to live as Jews? Paul continues this line of reasoning by saying that if we who are Jews by birth and not "Gentile sinners" (v. 15) know that we, too, believe in Christ Jesus in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law (v. 16), then we must recognize that "Gentile sinners" can be justified only by faith in Christ Jesus, not by observing the law.

Jews considered themselves to be God's covenant people; Gentiles were considered to be sinners because they were not part of that covenant people. But Jewish Christians recognized that God's judicial pronouncement that someone is part of the covenant people is not based on this Jew-Gentile distinction. The covenant is no longer conceived in nationalistic terms. Even though as Jews they claimed a privileged status, now as Jewish Christians they knew that only those who believe in Jesus Christ are justified, declared by God to belong to the covenant family.

In the context of Paul's account of the disputes at Jerusalem (vv. 3-6) and Antioch (vv. 11-14), the phrase observing the law refers to circumcision and the Jewish purity laws. The Jewish people were identified by their observance of these laws. So what Paul is denying in this context is that identification with the Jewish people through observance of these distinctively Jewish practices is not the basis of membership in the covenant people of God. Paul is appealing to the common affirmation of Jewish Christians themselves that believing in Christ Jesus, not following "Jewish customs" (v. 14), is the basis of being justified. In the final clause of verse 16, Paul paraphrases Psalm 143:2 to show the universal scope of this affirmation of Jewish Christians: by observing the law no one will be justified. The main emphasis of Paul's argument here is that faith in Jesus Christ replaces and excludes Jewishness as the determining criterion for belonging to the people of God.

We will see that this point of agreement was confirmed by the experience of the Gentile believers at Galatia (3:1-5). Just as Jewish Christians came to know that they were justified by faith in Christ, and not by any Jewish privileges or customs, so Gentile believers experienced the Spirit, the sign of covenant blessing (3:14), by their faith response to the message of Christ, not by their acceptance of circumcision, Jewish food regulations or Sabbath observance (see 4:10). The exclusion of observing the law as a basis for justification is developed more fully in 3:10-14. There the law is expanded to include all the works commanded by the Mosaic law.

A Point of Disagreement (2:17-18)

Second, Paul summarizes the central point of disagreement in the dispute between himself and those who forced the Jewish Christians to separate from Gentile Christians. His summary of his opponents' accusations against him consists of two premises and a conclusion: first premise--if, while we seek to be justified in Christ; second premise--it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners; conclusion--does that mean that Christ promotes sin? (v. 17). From the perspective of the opponents, while Paul was seeking justification in Christ, he was at the same time living like a sinner; therefore Christ promoted sin. In other words, if his identification with Christ led him into sin, then Christ was the cause of his sin.

Certainly Paul would accept the first premise. As he clearly states in verse 16, all Jewish Christians knew that they were justified not by observing the law but by faith in Christ. But would Paul have accepted the second premise of this accusation? That depends on how we interpret the second premise. The key to the interpretation of this premise is the meaning of the word sinners. Does this term refer to the preconversion status or the postconversion status of Jewish Christians? It might appear from the logic of verses 15-16 that sinners referred to the recognition of Jewish Christians before their conversion that they too, like Gentiles, were sinners and hence could attain justification only through faith in Christ. But this line of interpretation fails to provide a reason for the accusation that Christ promotes sin. After all, the recognition of one's sinful position and total dependence on God's grace was a basic tenet in Jewish faith. Within Judaism, the acknowledgment of sin and the forgiveness of sin through the sacrificial system did not imply that the sacrificial system promoted sin.

The interpretation of sinners as a reference to a preconversion recognition of sin also fails to fit the context of this passage. Paul is writing these words in response to the conflict in Antioch. The criticism of Paul, Peter and the other Jewish Christians in that conflict was not because of their admission of sin before or in their conversion experience, but because of their practice of breaking Jewish purity laws by eating with Gentiles. When we keep this context in focus, it becomes clear that the term sinners refers to postconversion activity. The Jewish Christians in Antioch were accused of sinning after their commitment to Christ. They were not accused of all kinds of immoral behavior: sexual immorality, deceitfulness, stealing and so forth. They were accused of a specific sin: breaking the law by eating with Gentiles. Such behavior put them on the same level as Gentiles; they were sinners outside the covenant people of God.

This interpretation makes sense of the accusation that Christ promotes sin. The accusers understood correctly that the Jewish Christians were eating with Gentile Christians because of their common faith in Christ. Therefore their faith in Christ led them into the sin of breaking Jewish purity laws. If identification with Christ promoted unlawful identification with Gentiles, then, it was argued, Christ promotes sin.

Paul frames this argument of the opponents in the form of a question and counters it with an indignant Absolutely not! (v. 17). Paul refuses to accept the conclusion that Christ promotes sin because he refuses to accept the second premise. From the perspective of his accusers, eating with Gentiles is sinful, because the law forbids it. But from Paul's perspective, eating with Gentile Christians is not sinful, because the gospel demands it. Withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentile Christians was hypocrisy; it was a violation of the truth of the gospel. The conclusion that Christ promotes sin is wrong, because what was judged to be sinful (eating with Gentiles) according to the law is not really sinful according to the gospel.

Paul's statement of the accusation leveled against his position in Antioch also reflects the argument of his opponents in the Galatian crisis. Just as the failure of Jewish Christians at Antioch to observe Jewish food regulations caused them to be demoted to the category of "Gentile sinners," so the failure of Gentile Christians at Galatia to observe circumcision kept them, it was argued, from being promoted to the category of the children of Abraham. The point of attack was the common failure of Jewish Christians at Antioch and Gentile Christians at Galatia to keep the law.

Paul's countercharge to the accusations leveled against him is stated in verse 18: if I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. The object of the verbs rebuild and destroy must be understood from the context. In verse 16 Paul affirms that observing the law is not the basis of justification. In verse 17 he denies that the law can be used as a valid basis for criticizing his practice of eating with Gentile Christians. And in verse 19 he affirms that through the law he died to the law. So it is his past relationship to the law that has been destroyed and must not be rebuilt.

The law can no longer be used as the basis for judging the practice of Christians (v. 17). To rebuild the law means to reinstate the law for the supervision of the Christian life. If the law is reinstated, then the Christian is proved to be a lawbreaker. Some have interpreted Paul's argument to be against rebuilding the law on the grounds that rebuilding the law will prove him to be a lawbreaker. In other words, the transgression of breaking the law is admitted only if the law is reestablished. If the law is established for supervision of the Christian life, then eating with Gentiles is sin, since it is forbidden by the law.

If we keep the context in mind, however, we will see that the transgression referred to by Paul in verse 18 is actually the rebuilding of the law rather than the breaking of it. According to verse 14, Peter's real transgression was that he did not live consistently according to the truth of the gospel. The gospel had destroyed all essential distinctions between Jews and Gentiles and rendered inoperative all laws that upheld those distinctions. Whoever observed all the Jewish law--and so maintained such Jew-Gentile distinctions--violated the truth of the gospel. Duncan makes this point:

If it is regarded as "sin" for a Jewish-Christian to eat with a Gentile, it is sin only in the sense of a technical breach of a regulation; but if a Christian allows such a regulation to stand between him and eating with a brother-in-Christ, then he is breaking God's law in a much more heinous sense, for he is doing violence to the will of God as clearly revealed in Christ. (Duncan 1934:69)

In chapter 3 Paul develops the theological basis for his assertions here regarding the role of the law in the Christian life. Our study of that chapter will lead us to consider in more depth what Paul means when he asserts that "we are no longer under the supervision of the law" (3:25). We must note here, however, that the whole discussion of law and gospel is the result of a division between the Jewish and Gentile believers in the church. That racial division threatened the effectiveness of Paul's mission to the Gentiles. It is in defense of his God-given mission that Paul spells out the relationship between law and gospel. His goal is to prove that in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek (3:28). The unity and equality of all believers in Christ is the foundational principle and overarching aim of Paul's entire argument.

Although it may be difficult to follow each step of his argument, we can at least appreciate the lengths to which he goes to defend the unity and equality of all believers in Christ. And the more we grow in our understanding of the steps in his argument, the more we too will be able to protect the equality and unity of all believers in Christ.

A Personal Confession of Faith (2:19-21)

The points of agreement and disagreement that Paul sets forth in response to the crisis in Antioch (and Galatia) are founded upon his own personal confession of faith in Christ (vv. 19-20). His faith in Christ involved both a death and a new life. When Paul says Through the law I died to the law, he is not speaking of physical death. In his vocabulary, to die to something means to have no further relation to it (see Rom 6:2, 10-11). So to die to the law means, in this context, to cease to be under the supervision of the law.

Paul's death to the law was accomplished through the law (v. 19). The phrase through the law is taken by some interpreters as a reference to Paul's own subjective experience under the law. The law led him to discover his inability to keep the law and its inability to make him righteous. Thus it was through the law that Paul was finally led to abandon the law as the means to righteousness and to seek salvation in Christ. But this interpretation is not warranted by the immediate context. Paul does not say in this context that he died to the law because of his terrible sense of guilt and frustration under the law. Instead he declares that his death was accomplished by identification with the cross of Christ--I have been crucified with Christ (v. 20). When we interpret through the law in light of this declaration, I have been crucified with Christ, then we can see that death to the law through the law is accomplished by identification with the death of Christ. Paul explains in the next chapter that the law pronounced a curse on Christ as he hung on the cross (3:13). In this sense Christ died through the law. By crucifixion with Christ, believers also die because of the curse of the law on the one who hangs on the cross--and so, in this sense, they also die through the law. The perfect tense of the verb have been crucified points to the permanent condition of Christians in relation to the law: we remain dead and fully punished. Therefore the law can no longer condemn us.

The result of dying to the law is a new kind of life, not a life of moral license, but a life for God--that I might live for God (v. 19). This new kind of life is not ego-centered but Christ-centered: I no longer live, but Christ lives in me (v. 20). This new life of faith is motivated and guided by the sacrificial love of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (v. 20). Participating by faith in the death of Christ (I have been crucified with Christ) and the resurrection life of Christ (Christ lives in me) is the only way to live for God. But attempting to attain righteousness through the law sets aside the grace of God and negates the value of Christ's death (v. 21).

In succinct, compact form, Paul's confession of faith expresses his own experience that Christ, not the law, is the source of life and righteousness. The reason for his personal confession was his insistence that Jewish and Gentile believers should not be separated as the law demands, but united as the truth of the gospel demands. His new spiritual identity--I no longer live, but Christ lives in me--is the basis of his new social identity: "There is neither Jew nor Greek . . . for you are all one in Christ" (3:28).

When we make Paul's confession of faith in Christ our own, we must keep in mind both the spiritual and social dimensions of our union with Christ. Without the social dimension, our faith in Christ degenerates into individualism. We then become interested only in our personal faith and neglect to maintain and express our union with all believers in Christ. Such individualism has been a root cause of constant division in the church. But without the spiritual dimension, all efforts to maintain unity in the church are fruitless. Not until we can truly know and experience the reality of Paul's affirmation--I no longer live, but Christ lives in me--will we be able to live in true harmony with our brothers and sisters in Christ. For until then we will be ego-centered, not Christ-centered.

The experience of union with Christ as expressed here by Paul is a mystical experience in the sense that it transcends rational explanation: direct, intimate communion with God in Christ cannot be fully described. This mystical experience, however, should not be confused with the mysticism prevalent in the Hellenistic mystery religions of Paul's day, or the mysticism of Eastern religions touted by New Age prophets in our day. Both Hellenistic and Eastern types of mysticism emphasize ascetic disciplines leading to absorption into the divine, negation of individual personality and withdrawal from objective reality. The mystical experience of union with Christ is not accomplished by human effort but granted by God's grace (I do not set aside the grace of God); it is not a loss of individual personality but a renewal of true personality (the life I live in the body, I live by faith); it is not a withdrawal into isolation but an involvement in service ("serve one another in love"--5:13).

Mystical union with Christ also needs to be understood from the historical perspective: it is not a totally subjective experience divorced from objective historical reality. Just as a person who becomes a citizen of the United States has decided to live within the historical reality created by events in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776, so the person who becomes identified with Christ has decided to live within the new historical reality created by the events of the cross of Christ and his resurrection. Paul places the subjective experience of faith in Jesus Christ in the context of God's redemptive work in history (3:6-25).

The practical outworking of union with Christ comes into focus in Paul's ethical appeal (5:13--6:10). There we find that the experience of union with Christ includes both passive (being led by the Spirit) and active (walking in the Spirit) dimensions. So it would be a mistake to take Paul's words I no longer live, but Christ lives in me as a proof text for total passivity in the Christian experience. The very next phrase underscores the necessity of active faith: The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God (v. 20). We do not become just empty pipes that God's power flows through, as I've heard preachers say. I no longer live as an egocentric person in obedience to all my selfish passions and desires, for Christ is now at the center of my life. Now I live in obedience to him, for he loved me and gave himself for me.