Galatians Chapter 2/Commentary

Galatians Chapter 2

Outline: I.

Paul's Visit to Jerusalem: 2:1-10

II.

Peter's Visit to Antioch: 2:11-21

“The theme of the preceding chapter is continued in chapter 2, a defense of the gospel by defending Paul's authority as an apostle. The independency of Paul's apostleship is confirmed by two additional evidences: 1. The authentication of Paul's message as confirmed by the ‘right hand of fellowship’ given him by the Jerusalem apostles (2:1-10). 2. The authentication of his apostleship and message as seen by his public rebuke of Peter (2:11-24)” (Willis p. 46). “Paul, having shown that his gospel was independent of the powers at Jerusalem, proceeds to prove that it was fully endorsed by them” (McGarvey p. 256). “The bane of Paul's life and ministry was the insidious activity of false teachers. Wherever he went, they dogged his footsteps. This matter is of importance for us because Paul's detractors have plenty of successors in the Christian church today. They tell us that we do not need to pay too much attention to his writings. They forget or deny that he was an apostle of Jesus Christ, uniquely, called, commissioned, authorized and inspired to teach in His name. They ignore Paul's own claim (1:11,12)” (Stott pp. 39-40).

Those in some liberal churches today who are advocating that the teaching in the gospels takes precedence and priority over Paul's epistles find themselves being the modern day equivalent of the false teachers that Paul faced. Because they too place Paul's gospel in a "second-rate, pick what you like from it and discard the rest" type of message.

“One of the ways in which some false teachers of Paul's day tried to undermine his 1

authority was to hint that his gospel was different from Peter's, and indeed from the views of all the other apostles in Jerusalem. To prove that his gospel was independent of the other apostles, he has stressed that he paid only one visit to Jerusalem in fourteen years, and that this lasted only fifteen days. To prove that his gospel was yet identical with theirs, he now stresses that when he paid a proper visit to Jerusalem, his gospel was endorsed and approved by them” (Stott p. 40).

Galatians 2:1 “Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me” “After the space of fourteen years”: “Fourteen years later” (Beck). “After”: “That is, a given number of years being interposed between two points of time. Not, 'in the course of' (Vincent p. 93). This is either 14 years from his conversion or 14 years from the last visit to Jerusalem, mentioned in 1:18. “I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas”: The question has been is the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in this chapter the visit mentioned by Luke in Acts 11:30 (12:25) (the famine relief visit) or the visit mentioned in Acts 15:4 (the council at Jerusalem visit)?  The council at Jerusalem visit: Has in its favor: Many details are the same. The subject matter of binding circumcision on Gentile converts (Acts 15:1,5; Galatians 2:3). False brethren are found in both chapters (Galatians 2:4; Acts 15:5). Paul and Barnabas are together (Galatians 2:1; Acts 15:2), and Paul and Barnabas do not give any ground (Acts 15:2; Galatians 2:5). The advocates of this view argue that the visit of Acts 11:30 is not mentioned or is skipped over because: “It is not needful to mention this visit, for it was a brief one, and made at a time when persecution raged. It was no time for conference, and had no bearing whatever on Paul's apostleship or gospel” (McGarvey p. 256). Willis adds, “He has already presented the evidence for the source of his apostleship. He now turns to show that the Jerusalem brethren endorsed his gospel. Consequently, he is not interested in relating every trip that he made to Jerusalem. Because he changed his point of emphasis, the absence of any reference to the trip to Judea during which funds to assist the needy in Judea were distributed (Acts 11:27-30) is logical” (p. 47).  The famine relief visit:

2

This view presents the following points: 1. The words "then" and "after" of 2:1 demands that strict chronological order is still being maintained. Note the "then"(s) of 1:18 and 1:21. “Seen in this light, again indicates that the visit described here was absolutely Paul's second post-conversion visit to Jerusalem” (Fung p. 85). 2. It would defeat the argument Paul constructed in Chapter 1 to omit a visit to Jerusalem. ‘But the whole point of the argument would seem to be lost if Paul has suppressed the account of a second visit and gone directly to a third visit. The mention of Barnabas is not decisive, as, according to Acts, he accompanied Paul on both visits” (Cole pp. 60,61). 3. Various details in Galatians 2 seem to fit Acts 11:30 better. A revelation was the cause of this visit (2:2; Acts 11:28). The visit in this chapter is a private visit (2:2). Yet the visit in Acts 15 is a very public affair. Peter's behavior after this event (2:11-13), seems more logical before Acts 15 rather than after it.

Tenney has a good point when he says, “The episode of Peter's defection (Galatians 2:11ff) can be much more easily explained if it preceded the council, for the confusion and discussion which it precipitated could hardly have taken place in Antioch after the decision had been rendered and after the letters had been sent to the Gentile churches” (New Testament Survey p. 267). Of course, one could argue that Peter at another time took a strong stand, only to fail to follow through on his promises (Matthew 26:35).

Why did not Paul simply appeal to the decree in Jerusalem concerning the matter of circumcision, which was the product of the council in Acts 15, if, this letter was written after Acts 15. “Some question has arisen as to why Paul did not cite the decree to prove the correctness of his position on the question of circumcision”.

McGarvey then adds, “Moreover, the Galatians had no doubt seen the decree and had it explained away (Acts 16:4-6)” (p. 257).

“Taking Titus along also”: Some argue that Titus is one of the "certain others" of Acts 15:2, yet neither Acts 11:30 nor Acts 15 mentions Titus specifically by name.

The New Testament gives us some details concerning Titus: He was a Gentile convert (2:3). This reference of him in Galatians is the earliest reference we have of him, and we do not know when or where he was converted, or when he joined Paul.

One writer said, “Titus' effectiveness with the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 7:6-7; 8:16-

3

17) might suggest some prior personal contact with them”. 1 Titus is affectionately termed by Paul, "my true child in a common faith" (Titus 1:4), this is similar to the language that Paul uses in reference to Timothy (1 Timothy 1:2). This would seem to indicate that Titus may have been personally converted by Paul.

Galatians 2:2 “And I went up by revelation; and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain” “And I went up”: In either case (Acts 11:30 or Acts 15), Paul was in Antioch at the time. In addition, one always went "up" to Jerusalem, that is, in the sense of elevation. The distance between these two cities was about 300 miles. “By revelation”: “That is to say, he went up because God told him to go, not because the Jerusalem apostles had sent for him to put him on the mat” (Stott p. 41). “The Galatians must not get the impression that Paul was obliged, or that the church at Antioch perhaps obligated him to do so, or that he at least felt that he ought to do so” (Lenski p. 69). This may also explain one reason why Paul stayed away from Jerusalem for so long, because the last "revelation" given him concerning this city, was to depart from it (Acts 22:17-21 “Go! For I will send you far away to the Gentiles”). “And I laid before them”: Specifically those mentioned in 2:9, James, Cephas and John. Willis contends that the word them of this verse refers not merely to the apostles, but to the church in general. Hence he sees two presentations in this chapter. A public presentation of the gospel he preached (2:2; Acts 15:4-5), and a private presentation (2:2). “Laid before”: “I submitted to them the gospel which I preach” (NASV).

“It was not, we may be sure, that he had any personal doubts or misgivings about his gospel and needed the reassurance of the other Jerusalem apostles, for he had been preaching it for fourteen years (at least)” (Stott p. 41).

“Which I preach”: Present tense here, that is, the very same gospel that he had preached to the Galatians and was continuing to preach. Paul did not have to tone down, trim or beef up the gospel he preached, when he presented it to the apostles.

He only preached one gospel, to Jews and to Gentiles. “By this time they could not influence Paul's gospel: it was too late for that. They could either accept it or reject it; there was no other alternative” (Cole p. 62). “Surely, therefore, Paul was no 1

Zondervan Pictorial Ency. "Titus". Volume Q-Z, p. 758 4

timeserver. He did not change his message to suit different occasions and hearers.

If a ‘different gospel’ had been preached to the Galatian churches, it was by false teachers and not by Paul. He knew only of one gospel" (Erdman pp. 48-49). Paul would not be impressed by religious leaders who insist that the church of the 21 st Century, to be effective, must first conduct a "market analysis", to see what issues are pressing in the minds of the unconverted. Or that in order to grow the church must learn to tailor its message to the specific concerns of a select age-group in society.

“Among the Gentiles”: This included the Galatians. The Gentiles were the primary focal point of Paul's preaching (Acts 22:21; 26:18). “But privately before them who were of repute”: Fung offers the following observations: “Paul's privately lacks a corresponding publicly. It is difficult to see why Paul should have, or indeed could have, set the gospel before the Jerusalem Christians, when his repeated insistence in the context is that he was independent of the Jerusalem authorities. For these reasons, it seems preferable to regard ‘but at a private interview’ as explaining, ‘I laid before them’, and as indicating that there was only the one private interview” (p. 88). “Repute”: “Reputation” (KJV). “Men of recognized position” (Vincent p. 94).

Those recognized as leaders in the Church (2:6,9). In addition, Paul recognized them as "men of reputation" as well, so there is no disrespect for the other apostles in this chapter. Lenski rightly says, “He would be a fool for telling the Galatians how he laid his gospel before these men if he at the same time intends to say that in his own estimation these men were nothing” (p. 72).

“This was not some ‘general synod’ before which he was being brought to book; these were man-to-man talks” (Cole p. 63). To Paul, this interview was between "equals". Hence, Paul would today repudiate the view that his writings are of a second-class nature and need to take a backseat to the "gospels". Paul considered the gospel he preached (and which is found in his letters) the exact same as the gospel preached by such men as John (2:9), who will later write the gospel of John.

“Lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain”: “For fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain” (NASV). Again, it was not that Paul was doubtful concerning the accuracy of the gospel he preached. “But lest his ministry, past and present, should be rendered fruitless by the Judaizers. It was to overthrow their influence, not to strengthen his own conviction, that he laid his gospel before the Jerusalem apostles” (Stott p. 41). Paul was not afraid of laying the gospel he 5

preached before anyone. Something is wrong, when a preacher (or any Christian) refuses to disclose what they believe on a Bible topic. The false teachers in Galatia had attacked the gospel Paul preached. Well, Paul informs the Galatians that he had previously presented this same gospel before the other apostles, and you know what? They fully embraced what Paul preached.

“I laid before them that gospel which I preach to the Gentiles, that they might examine and settle for themselves the question whether I am not possibly running or had run in vain. The investigation was to be for their satisfaction, not for Paul's” (Vincent p. 95). “As he runs now, so he ran then. It is the Galatians who have moved ground, not Paul” (Cole p. 63).

Galatians 2:3 “But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised” “But not even Titus”: On the contrary to running in vain. “Titus who was with me, being Greek”: Being an uncircumcised Christian of Gentile background. “Was compelled to be circumcised”: “They did not compel even him to be circumcised” (Mon). We must reject any interpretation that pits Paul against the apostles in Jerusalem, because the other apostles completely agreed with the gospel Paul preached (2:9). Paul's point is this: He brings Titus an uncircumcised Christian to Jerusalem with him, and absolutely no pressure is exerted upon him to be circumcised by the apostles. “Now if even in such an obvious case as Titus Paul did not yield to circumcision, or rather if the question of complusory circumcision was not even raised by the Jerusalem leaders, then it is clear that Gentile Christians were under no obligation to accept circumcision.” (Fung p. 93).

Yet what about the circumcision of Timothy? (Acts 16:1-3) “He performed it with regard to Timothy because it would prove a help in the work.

Since Titus was a Greek, it would prove no help in his case, Jews would always be suspicious of him” (Lenski p. 75). “In the case of Titus, Paul was refusing to admit the principle that observance of the Mosaic law was necessary for salvation (Acts 15:5). In the case of Timothy, however, no such principle was at stake. Jewish Christians were not involved. Paul wished to avoid needlessly offending the unconverted Jews among whom he was to work. He permitted the rite as a matter of racial and social significance and not as a ground of salvation” (Erdman p. 50).

6

Therefore in those places in which we find Paul involved in "Jewish practices" (Acts 18:18; 20:16; 21:23-24), we already know that it was not done to gain acceptance with God, rather it was done as a purely racial or national custom.

Galatians 2:4 “and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage” “And that because of”: There is some question concerning whether this verse is to be immediately connected with 2:3. “Paul went up to Jerusalem and laid his gospel before the leaders there, not because he needed their approval, but on account of the propaganda of the false brethren” (Fung p. 93). From Acts 15:1, we learn that these false brethren had tried to inflitrate the church in Antioch, and they are further described as Pharisees who had been converted to Christ (15:5).

“False brethren”: (2 Corinthians 11:26). “It is tempting to see in this a denial that these Judaizers are acting the part of ‘brothers’ at all. But the NEB may be right with its blunt ‘sham-Christians’. In this case Paul would be denying the very reality of their Christian faith” (Cole p. 65). “Christians in name only” (Vincent p. 96). False Christians do exist. The idea that we must just accept anyone that claims to be a Christian and dare not examine any of their beliefs is a naive notion. John pointed out that one test of a Christian, is not what they claim to be, but what they claim to believe and teach (2 John 10-11).

“Privily brought in”: “Who had sneaked in” (NASV). “Secretly brought in, smuggled in, and, if we press its passive force, its suggests that these Judaizers were ‘planted’ on the church by some person or persons outside” (Cole p. 65). “Brought in by the side, and so insidiously, illegally” (Vincent p. 96). See 2 Peter 2:1; Jude 4 “For certain persons have crept in unnoticed”). “To who came in privily”: “Slip in, come in as a side issue; slip with with unworthy motives, sneak in” (Willis p. 59). “To spy out”: The phrase really goes to ‘motive"’. “It carries the nuance of inquiry with a claim to the right of supervision” (Fung p. 93). “Is a word with hostile intent” (Boles p. 55).

“Paul is vehement that their whole purpose was only to peep and pry into Gentile Christian liberty and bring men back again into slavery” (Cole p. 66). “Our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage”: That is, back into the bondage of observing the Law of Moses (Acts 15:10).

7

“The false teachers wished to make Christianity just an annex attached to the still standing house of Judaism. They desired to rewrite the Great Commission so as to make it read, ‘He that believeth, is baptized, is circumcised and keeps the Law of Moses shall be saved'. Modern Protestantism is not one whit better, as Protestants have never been content to leave Mark 16:16 uncontaminated, but have sought in various ways to rewrite it to accommodate it to their faith-only creedal theology” (McClish p. 73). The "liberty" that we have in Christ, is not license to sin (Galatians 5:19-21). Keeping merely part of the Law of Moses demands that one keep it all (Galatians 3:10; 5:3-4).

Galatians 2:5 “to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” “To whom”: To these false brethren. We should note that according to Acts 15 the confrontation with the Judaizers had taken place in Antioch, before the Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-2). “We”: Paul, Barnabas, Titus and possibly others. Clearly, the apostles in Jerusalem stood against this error with equal determination (Acts 15). “Gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour”: “We did not for a moment yield” (TCNT). “We refused to yield for a single instant to their claims” (Mof). “We did not give those men an inch” (Phi). “Not for an hour”: “For a moment, the smallest measure of time with which people commonly dealt” (Boles p. 56). “We say: for a moment” (Lenski p. 79). “That the truth of the gospel”:” Here is the reason why no ground was yielded to these false teachers. The integrity, the purity, the truthfulness of the gospel message was at stake.

“Might continue with you”: “Remain. The word implies that the ‘truth of the gospel’ had entered at some time in the past” (Willis p. 63). That the gospel we preached to you might not become corrupted. No ground can be conceded to error, even if it is something as simple as adding mandatory circumcision to the gospel message.

“We must not yield an inch of contested ground to modernism and theological liberalism. We must yield no ground to Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism or to any of the so-called World Religions of the Orient. We must yield no ground to the ‘social gospel’ proponents. We must yield no ground to the Crossroads (Disciplining Movement) philosophy. We must yield no ground to those who reject the authority that inheres in the work of elders in the local congregation. We must yield no ground to those who wish to rewrite God's law of marriage, divorce and 8

remarriage. We must yield no ground to those who wish to compromise with worldliness, impurity, etc” (McClish pp. 73-74).

Equally note that the gospel can be corrupted. The “gospel” that these Judaizers were teaching did not save anyone, even though it contained information about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and certainly included faith in Him as the Son of God and baptism for the remission of sins. Defending the truth of the gospel means that one must stand opposed to error. This means, that those churches which have decided to cut teaching and preaching against error out of their message, have ceased to stand for the truth. Who will defend the truth of the gospel in our time?

Galatians 2:6 “But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's person)-- they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me” “But from those who were reputed to be somewhat”: Observe that this verse is not a "put down" to the apostles in Jerusalem. Erdman makes a good point when he says, “It is commonly supposed that Paul means to disparage those to whom he refers, and that his language is sarcastic. This is hardly the case. It would weaken his argument. The greater the actual worth and standing of these leaders, the more significant would be the fact that they extended to Paul ‘the right hands of fellowship’” (p. 51). “Reputed to be somewhat”: “Held in chief reputation” (Con).

“But as for the men of high reputation (not that their importance matters to me: God does not recognize these personal distinctions” (NEB). “God accepteth not man's person”:” Now Paul is not saying that the Apostles in Jerusalem were "nobodies", rather, Paul is saying that he stood as equals with them. Even though, they had been personally with Jesus. “God recognizes no external distinction” (Wey).

“Used in the sense of ‘outward appearances’” (Willis p. 66).

“Paul says that God does not regard the apostles with special favor because of some ‘personal distinctions’ on their part--the distinctions in question having to do chiefly with their personal acquaintance (perhaps also their special relationship with the earthly Jesus)” (Fung p. 96). “Paul neither idolizes or disdains the other apostles.

Whatever they are--great or small--simply has no bearing on the truth of his gospel” (Boles p. 57).

“Imparted nothing to me”: Added nothing to the gospel which I preach. The facts 9

in this chapter are crushing blows to the position of the Judaizing teachers. 1. Paul brought with him an uncircumcised Christian from a Gentile background and there was absolutely no pressure from any of the apostles to have him circumcised. 2.

After meeting with the apostles, and presenting the gospel preached, they added nothing! They completely agreed with Paul, for they were preaching the exact same message. “We can now elaborate and say that the whole New Testament presents this one gospel consistently. It is fashionable in some quarters to talk about the ‘Pauline’ gospel and the ‘Petrine’ gospel and the ‘Johannine’ gospel. Some people refer to ‘Paulinism’, as if it were a distinctive brand of Christianity. And sometimes people set Paul and James over against each other as if they contradicted each other. It is still so today. If there is only one gospel in the New Testament, there is only one gospel for the church” (Stott pp. 46-47). “Yet they assumed no superior arts toward him, they did not even attempt to lay anything before him” (Lenski p. 83).

Clearly, the gospel that Peter preached was not “more Jewish” that the gospel Paul preached, they were the same.

Galatians 2:7 “but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision” “But contrariwise”: “But on the contrary” (NASV). Not only did the apostles refuse to add to what Paul preached, but they completely endorsed him 100%. “When they”: The Apostles in Jerusalem (2:9). “Saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision”: “They recognized that the gospel for the uncircumcised was as much my commission as the gospel for the circumcised was Peter's” (Phi). “Saw”: When they heard the contents of Paul's preaching and possibly saw or had heard about the miracles he wrought, they knew he had been commissioned by God. What the apostles in Jerusalem considered to be obvious, that is, Paul preached the true gospel and was without a doubt an apostle, modern "scholars" stumble over. “Gospel of the uncircumcision---gospel of the circumcision”: “It denotes distinction of sphere and not a difference of type” (Vincent p. 99). There are not two gospels in this verse, just two different groups of people to whom the one gospel was presented.

Galatians 2:8 “(for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles” “Wrought for me also”: “For the God who had done such great work in Peter's ministry was plainly doing the same in my ministry for the Gentiles” (Phi). “They 10

recognized that they and Paul had been entrusted with the same gospel. The only difference between them was that they had been allocated different spheres in which to preach it” (Stott p. 45). “For the Spirit, who gave Peter wisdom and knowledge and power when he worked among the Jews, gave me the same gifts for my work among the Gentiles” (McGarvey p. 259). The major emphasis of Peter's preaching was to Jews and the major emphasis for Paul, was preaching among the Gentiles, yet this was not a hard and fast rule without any leeway. Because Peter had first brought the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10) and the first place that Paul usually preached at in a town was the Jewish synagogue (Acts 17:2).

Galatians 2:9 “and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision” “Perceived the grace that was given unto me”: The same as when they saw (2:7).

“Grace that was given unto me”: Referring to his calling as an apostle (1 Corinthians 15:10). “Refers to the privilege of apostleship” (Fung p. 99). “James”: Probably the same as 1:19. In Acts 12, James the son of Zebedee had already died. This James, the Lord’s brother played a very dominant role in the early church (Acts 15:13; 21:17-19). “He (James) even heads the list of leadership in this trio mentioned by Paul much to the chagrin of Roman Catholics who would like to have Peter in front rank of mention in every New Testament reference to him” (McClish p. 77).

“Cephas”: Peter. “John”: The other son of Zebedee. This gospel writer, agreed completely with what Paul taught and wrote, so did Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16). “Who were reputed to be pillars”: “The metaphor of pillars, applied to the great representatives and supporters of an institution, is old, and common in all languages” (Vincent p. 99). “Of persons to whose eminence and strength the stability and authority of any institution or organization is due” (Thayer p. 71).

“Gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship”: “Accepted Barnabas and myself as partners” (NEB).“The right hand had several meanings; its usage here is ‘to denote a treaty or compact’ (TDNT 2:37-40). Moreover, ‘In Galatians 2:9 shaking hands is an expression of the full fellowship established by common faith in Christ’” (Willis pp. 71-72) “This sense of ‘belongingness’ was sealed by giving the right hands of fellowship. Clasping right hands were the sign of friendship and trust (See ArndtGringrich)” (Cole p. 69). “The giving of the right hand in pledge was not a distinctively Jewish custom. It appears as early as Homer” (Vincent p. 100). “Neither 11

‘surrender’ nor ‘compromise’ would therefore seem to be a true description of the Jerusalem agreement; rather, it confirmed an already existing unity between the gospel of Paul and the gospel as preached by the Jerusalem leaders” (Fung p. 101).

Galatians 2:10 “only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do” “Only”: We should note that the "only" advice given Paul, was simply something he was already doing. “Remember the poor”: Especially the poor saints in Judea. “The poverty-stricken churches of Judea” (Stott p. 46). While the apostles lived, we never find any first century congregation collecting funds or distributing funds to nonChristians, rather all the funds were given to Christians in need (Acts 2:44-45; 4:3237; 6:1; 11:29-30; Romans 15:26; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 2 Corinthians 8-9). “Which very thing I was also zealous to do”: In fact, he had already been involved in such an effort (Acts 11:29-20); and would continue to do so in the future (1 Corinthians 16:12). “And in fact I had made a special point of attending to this very matter” (Fung p.

103). “His mention of the request here serves the important apologetic purpose of saying in effect that ‘the full recognition given by the apostles to Paul was proved in nothing more clearly than in the fact that their only request was the very thing for which he had been striving immediately before than visit’” (Fung p. 104). The churches in Judea were poverty-stricken and such was primarily caused by two factors: Famine (Acts 11:29-30), and persecution (Acts 8:1ff; Hebrews 10:34), which included the loss of property and becoming social outcasts, and the inability to be employed.

Another Evidence: His Rebuke of Peter “Not only was Paul not commissioned by Peter, but his independent status and work as an apostle were also officially acknowledged by the ‘pillars’ of the church; now at Antioch, he even opposed Peter to his face when the latter engaged in conduct which Paul regarded as a deviation from the truth of the gospel” (Fung p. 105).

The question often asked is when did this event occur, should we place it before or after the events of Acts 15? We presented one view at the beginning of this chapter, that Peter could not have participated in that decision and then later act as if the Gentile believers were unclean. Boles responds by saying, “It is entirely within Peter's makeup to experience sudden fear in the face of standing up for what is right 12

(such as in night Jesus was betrayed). Second the Jerusalem Conference decided that Gentile believers did not have to obey laws dictating what is clean and unclean, the conference did not decide what Jewish believers must do” (p. 61).

Galatians 2:11 “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned” “But”: “The terse way in which Paul states the fact that he withstood Peter shows that the Galatians had already heard of this affair. It is also probable that the Judaizers made capital of this incident and twisted the facts so as to make it appear that Paul turned against Peter, forsook the old, original gospel that Peter preached” (Lenski p. 91). “When Cephas came to Antioch”: Either before Acts 15 (14:26-28) or after (Acts 15:35-36). The scene has now switched from Jerusalem to Antioch.

Catholic commentators of the past have had such a hard time accepting that any flaw could be found in one that they had crowned as the first pope. That they have argued: 1. The Cephas mentioned here is not Peter, but another Christian who simply had the same name. 2. This rebuke was only a "set-up", and was simply acted out by Paul and Peter to teach the Judaizers an object lesson. Of course, that view sacrifices the honestly of both Paul and Peter, especially when considering the fact what Paul had just said in this very letter, “I am not lying” (1:20).

“I resisted him to the face”: “I opposed him to his face” (Wey). “In the sight or presence of” (Vincent p. 101). Personally, toe to toe and man to man. “While Paul is respectful to proper authority, he is also a bulldog in defending the truth” (Boles p.

61). Observe tjat Paul did not gossip behind Peter's back, this is the way that true Christians handle a brother or sister in sin (Matthew 18:15). “The phrase does not indicate hostility, only a face-to-face encounter” (Willis p. 79). Neither was this a ‘lack of the love’ of Jesus in Paul's heart. Love must rescue brethren from wrong actions (1 Corinthians 13:6). “Paul had to withstand Peter publicly. No one, absolutely no one, in current Catholic circles would dare do the pope that way today. That would be a gigantic ‘no-no’ in Roman Catholic protocol” (McClish p. 78).

“Because he stood condemned”: Stood in a condemned position. He was condemned by his own actions, by his own conscience (because he knew better and was acting contrary to his beliefs), and by God (James 4:12). “Because his conduct condemned him” (Wey). “He was acting not only against his conscience and against the revelation that he had received in Acts 10 (10:14-15; 28)” (Cole p. 74). If Peter “stood condemned” this means that unless Peter repents he is going to be lost. No 13

one is above rebuke, not even an apostle (1 Timothy 5:20), and past accomplishments (how many people one has had a hand in converting, how many sermons one has preached, or even how long one has been a Christian) never gives one the right to depart from the gospel.

“It has been charged by infidels that Peter's error at Antioch disproves the claim of inspiration for him. Albert Barnes effectively answered this flawed charge as follows: ‘The fault was not that he taught error of doctrine, but that he sinned in conduct" (McClish p. 84).

The above accusation is just another example of the type of inconsistent reasoning that we hear from critics of the Bible. How come such unbelievers never apply the standard they measure the biblical writers by to themselves? If this misconduct of Peter cancels out his inspiration, then why does not the misconduct or personal failures of atheistic, humanistic or evolution loving authors negate the so-called "truth" found in their writings? How come "character" is always an issue with biblical or conservative writers, but we are never allowed to bring up the "character" issue when it comes to the validity of the material written by liberal and unbelieving authors?

Galatians 2:12 “For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision” “Certain came from James”: That is, the James mentioned in 2:9. “This does not mean that they had his authority (for James preached the exact same gospel that Peter and Paul preached, in addition he also denied any connection with the Judaizers Acts 15:24), but rather that they claimed to have it” (Stott p. 50). “He ate with the Gentiles”: “The imperfect tense of the verb shows that this had been his regular practice. His old Jewish scruples had been overcome. He did not consider himself in any way defiled or contaminated by contact with uncircumcised Gentile Christians” (Stott p. 50). “Ate”: Unfortunately, some cannot read this verse without seeing a potluck in the building. Members of the early church often ate their common meals together, but the Bible specifically separates gathering together for worship and the eating of such meals (Acts 2:46, worship is in the Temple area and common meals in private homes; 1 Corinthians 11:20-22,33-34, common meals are commanded to be separated from the assembly, and reserved for different 14

surroundings.

“Gentiles”: Christians of Gentile background. “But when they came”: That is, those who claimed to be sent by James. Obviously, of the same stripe as those mentioned in Acts 15:1, 5 and Galatians 2:4, and of the same persuasion as those currently troubling the churches in Galatia.

“He drew back and separated himself”: Stopped eating social meals with Gentile Christians. “Drew back”: “To draw or shrink back from through fear” (Vincent p.

102). “In military terms he ‘beat a hasty retreat’; in naval terms he ‘headed for shelter’; in animal terms he slunk back ‘like a dog with its tail between its legs’” (Boles p. 62). “Separated himself”: The Gentile brethren in Antioch found themselves abandoned by Peter. “Fearing them that were of the circumcision”: That is, those who came from James and any in Antioch or Jerusalem who also held such views. How many people have departed from the truth because of fear (Revelation 21:8)? How many religious errors are simply embraced because people are afraid of being excluded from the "in-crowd" (John 12:42-43)? Adults get caught up in "peer-pressure" as well. “There is no suggestion in Galatians 2 that Peter had changed his mind. It is that Peter and the others acted in insincerity, and not from personal conviction. Their withdrawal was not prompted by any theological principle, but by craven fear of a small pressure group. He still believed the gospel, but he failed to practice it” (Stott p. 52). Knowing the truth is of little worth without the courage to practice it (James 1:22).

“Like many of us, he preached a better sermon than he lived. One should also be reminded that the work of the Holy Spirit in the apostles did not guard them (or prevent them) from personal sin” (Willis p. 82). “I suppose we should not be too amazed when elders, preachers or college administrators today operate on the basis of policy rather than principle, when an apostle did exactly that in Antioch. How many battles have been lost and how often the direction of an entire church or school has been determined because those who should have stood for the Truth instead cowered in fear before the pressure of a few loud-mouthed or well-heeled spiritual pygmies?” (McClish pp. 85-86). The apostles are always rebuked when they sinned (Matthew 16:20-23; Mark 16:14). Therefore God certainly did not allow them to incorporate any error, prejudice or "inner axes to grind" into what they wrote.

The weaknesses of the great heroes of the Bible are clearly laid out before all the world to see, indicating that the writers were men of integrity and were more 15

concerned about God's honor than their own.

Galatians 2:13 “And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation” “The rest of the Jews”: The Jewish Christians in Antioch. “Dissembled likewise”: “Joined him in hypocrisy” (NASV). Acted just like Peter, and the Gentile Christians found themselves eating all by themselves. Actions do preach a sermon. Peter may have been thinking, “I can justify my actions by saying that I don't want to offend these Jewish brethren”, yet he was offending God and faithful brethren. “That even Barnabas”: Who personally traveled with Paul, and who had resisted such false brethren (2:5). Barnabas was not a young, inexperienced Christian, thus anyone can be lead astray. “We should not forget this incident. It shows the danger of theological compromise. To Barnabas this was simply a matter of love. He did not want to grieve the brethren from Jerusalem. Once the Jerusalem emmissaries had departed the old terms could be resumed. Was not this a small sacrifice to make for peace? But to Paul, this was 'peace at any price', and he was not prepared to buy peace on those terms” (Cole p. 76).

“Was carried away”: “Barnabas is a warning to us. The church is full of great names that are still constantly quoted in support of some false doctrine, false practice, false principle, and false intepretation. Their very names stop lesser men from testing what they advocate” (Lenski p. 98). “With their dissimulation”: That is, their hypocrisy. Paul calls it hypocrisy, because they were acting contrary to what they knew to be right! Hence their actions did not represent their truth beliefs. Here we learn that the majority opinion is never the final determining factor when it comes to establishing the true position. Neither is the "great middle-section of the church of Christ" (which was in apostasy at Antioch). Paul was not afraid to stand alone against error. At times one will hear people complain that some preacher is appointing himself to be the Savior of the church. Now I think I know the type of personality they are referring to. Yet at the same time brethren, there are times when a congregation needs to be saved from error, and the church in Antioch needed to be turned around. No congregation is immune from falling into error.

When good men remain silent, false teaching goes unchallenged. We cannot afford to take the position that we need to remain silent on all controversial issues among Christians. The book of Galatians should warn us that all controversial issues, are 16

not morally neutral issues, some issues are bound to be matters of faith. It was that way in the first century, why do we think it will be any different with us? We cannot be our heads in the sand and naively think, “Well in the 21 st century I just cannot believe that any false teachers exist in the churches of Christ”. Why not? God said they would (2 Peter 2:1-3).

Galatians 2:14 “But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

“When I saw”: Paul observed Peter's change in behavior, as well as that of the other Jewish Christians in Antioch. “Walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel”: “They were not following the true path of the gospel” (Knox). “When I saw that their conduct did not square with the truth of the Gospel” (NEB). “How it is that Paul dared to contradict a fellow-apostle of Jesus Christ. Was it because he had an irascible disposition and could not control his temper or his tongue? Was he an exhibitionist, who enjoyed an argument? Did he regard Peter as a dangerous rival, so that he leapt at the opportunity to down him? No. None of these base passions motivated Paul...He knew that the theological principle at stake was no trivial matter” (Stott pp. 53-54). Peter's conduct contradicted the truth of the gospel, that is, the one true gospel, and this was "the standard" for all Christians, including apostles, and will remain the standard to the judgment day (John 12:48).

“Any deviation from this gospel Paul simply will not tolerate (1:8-9). In Jerusalem he refused to submit to the Judaizers even for a moment. And now in Antioch, out of the same vehement loyalty to the gospel, he withstands Peter to the face. Paul is determined to defend and uphold the gospel at all costs, even at the expense of publicly humiliating a brother apostle” (Stott p. 54).

“Before them all”: That is, in public. Public sin demands a public rebuke. “He did not listen to those who may well have counseled him to be cautious and to avoid washing dirty theological linen in public. Peter's withdrawal from the Gentile believers had caused a public scandal; he had to be opposed in public too” (Stott p.

53). “Notice that this apostolic example demonstrates that not every public rebuke must be preceded by a private confrontation followed by taking two or three witnesses (Matthew 18:15-17). When issues concern public matters and begin to 17

leave wrong impressions concerning the truth then time has come for public rebuke” (Willis p. 85). “We have found that men who have committed some grave error are very particular not to have those who rebuke them commit the least error in the place and in the manner of the rebuke otherwise they become the guilty ones and the errorists persecuted martyrs. It was Peter who sinned as a public man in a public way; he forced the public rebuke from Paul, he made it necessary that all should hear” (Lenski pp. 99-100).

“Livest as do the Gentiles”: See 2:12. This had become a habit of his. That is, Peter had abandoned the foods laws and other social customs of his native people. “How compellest”: “Compel the Gentile converts to adopt Jewish customs” (TCNT). This compelling was not in a sermon, rather it was the pressure being exerted by Peter’s example. By no longer eating with Gentile converts, Peter was in effect saying, “Start observing the Law of Moses or find yourself isolated”. “He left the Gentiles no choice but either to conform to the Jewish laws of foods, or suffer a line of division to be drawn through the church” (Willis p. 87). His example here was very serious, for in effect Peter was saying that obeying Christ was not enough, that obedience to Christ had not fully cleansed Gentile converts. “The seriousness of the situation Paul was not slow to realize. A stigma of uncleanness was being cast upon the Gentile converts. The Jewish Christians were assuming that the law could give some sanctity which faith in Christ could not secure” (Erdman p. 57). Our example and even our silence can at times send a powerful message—that we do not want to send.

Galatians 2:15 “We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles” “We”: Paul, Peter and also possibly the others caught up in this hypocrisy. “Being Jews by nature”: Born and raised as Jews. “Who were born so, trained so” (Lenski p. 103). “Not sinners of the Gentiles”: “He uses the expression that was current among the Jews who denominated all Gentiles as open, plain sinners” (Lenski p.

103). The expression does not mean that the Jews were not sinners, yet what Paul states here was true. God’s righteousness had not been a high priority among nonJewish people (Romans 1:18-32).

Galatians 2:16 “Yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works 18

of the law shall no flesh be justified” “Yet knowing”: Peter knew this and taught this. “Nevertheless, by believing in Jesus as the Messiah, the Jewish Christians had shown that they knew that a man is not justified by the works of the law. All Jewish Christians therefore had initially agreed that it was utterly impossible to commend themselves to God by law-keeping” (Cole p. 79). “A man”: Any man, Jew or Gentile. Compare with the expression no flesh at the end of this verse. “Is not justified”: “Is to be pronounced legally innocent and ‘in the clear’ by God” (Boles p. 65). “By the works of the Law”: By observing the Law of Moses, because no one (except Jesus) ever kept if perfectly. “There are at least two basic things which we know for certain. The first is that God is righteous; the second is that we are not. And if we put these two truths together, they explain our human predicament, of which our conscience and experience have already told us, namely that something is wrong between us and God. Instead of harmony there is friction” (Stott p. 60). “This should seem obvious, for it one cannot be justified by perfect obedience to the Law of Moses (which is holy, righteous, and good, Romans 7:12), he cannot be justified by perfect obedience to any (human) law” (Willis p. 90).

What Paul is saying to Peter is, “Peter, you and I were born and raised Jewish, we had access to so many privileges and we had the Law, God’s Law, but you and I had both found that the law of Moses couldn’t deal effectively with our sins.

“By faith in Christ”: Mere faith never saved anyone, the faith that saves must be faith in Christ (Acts 4:12). This faith includes repentance (Acts 2:38); confession (Acts 8:37; John 12:42-43), and baptism (Galatians 3:26-27). “Shall no flesh be justified”: Jesus is the only way to God for the entire human race (John 14:6. The quotation here is from Psalm 143:2, and the Rabbinic interpretation had been that it was the misuse of the Law would fail to saved. “Paul’s teaching, however, is much broader. It is not just misuse” (Boles p. 67). Some question whether if this entire section (2:14-21) was personally spoken to Peter. Yet the whole section is needed to make the argument and convince Peter to stop his hyprocrisy.

Galatians 2:17 “But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin?”

“While we”: Paul, Peter and all other Christians of Jewish background. “Sought to be justified in Christ”: “That in our quest for justification in Christ” (Mof). “We 19

ourselves also were found sinners”: “The effort to attain justification by faith in Christ develops the consciousness of sin. It compels the seeker, whether Jew or Gentile, to put himself upon the common plane of sinners” (Vincent p. 105). “Were found”: Paul and Peter had both learned this by experience. In coming to Christ both men discovered that they were sinners in need of salvation and that the Law only condemned them at this point, even though both men had been very diligent in seeking to keep the Law. “Is Christ a minister of sin?”: If in the process of coming to Christ, we discovered that we were sinners, then did Christ make us sinners? Or, the thought we also be, if coming to Christ means abandoning the Law of Moses, then is Christ encouraging sin and rebellion? “God forbid”: “Perish the thought! If the person who comes to Christ is later found to be involved in some sin, it certainly was not Christ from whom he learned it” (Boles p. 68).

Galatians 2:18 “For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor”: “I prove myself a transgressor”: In this verse Paul is making the point that Peter had put himself in a no-win situation in reverting back to the Law, even for a moment. If the Judaizers were right that one must continue to observe the Law of Moses (as Peter’s example said) then he was a “sinner” for giving up the Law in the first place. If Paul was right, then Peter was still in transgression for acting like faith in Christ was not enough to save. Compromise always will get one into trouble.

Peter, in trying to assume a “safe” position, found himself rebuked by both sides.

We typically end up offending everyone when we compromise and try not to offend anyone, rather than doing what is right.

Galatians 2:19 “For I through the Law died unto the Law, that I might live to God” “For I”: Paul. “Through the Law died unto the Law”: Paul had learned by experienced that the Law of Moses had condemned him (Romans 7:8-11). The Law had also predicted its own removal (Deuteronomy 18:15; Jeremiah 31:31-34). And the Law revealed to Paul that he was a sinner and he needed Christ. “Died unto the Law”: Stopped the attempt to gain favor with God on the basis of observing the Law of Moses. “That I might live unto God”: “In order to live for God” (TCNT). Thus abandoning the Law was not an act of rebellion, rather it was an act of obedience, it is necessary to follow Christ and observe His law (Romans 7:1-4). Once again, let us 20

make sure that we understand that the expression “died unto the law” refers to dying to the Law of Moses. The Christian must observe the law of Christ (Galatians 5:19-21; 6:1-2; 1 Corinthians 9:21).

Galatians 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself up for me” “I have been”: When Paul became a Christian. “Crucified with Christ”: This includes repentance and baptism (Romans 6:3-6). “It is no longer I that live”: Thus conversion should involve the end of selfishness, self-seeking and self-interest as the controlling factor in my life (Matthew 16:24-26). Paul still lives, but “Paul” is no longer the one in charge of his life, Christ is. “But Christ living in me”: Not mysteriously. “Christ now directs my life through His word. The kind of life that a Christian lives is determined by God’s revelation through Christ. His body has been presented to God as a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1-2). Whatever he commands him to do, he does. He follows His example; he obeys His commands; he imitates His attitudes (Philippians 2:5; 1 Peter 2:21). Hence, Christ lives in the Christian. He is the source and the director of his life” (Willis p. 101). “Which I now live in the flesh”: This is, my current earthly life. “I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God”: See 2 Corinthians 5:7. “Christ is the sole meaning of life for him now; every moment is passed in conscious dependence on Him, to whom he looks for everything” (Cole p. 83). Thus one completely trusts what Christ says on any or all subjects.

“Who loved me”: “Regardless of whomever else Christ might love, He loved me and regardless of whomever else He might have died for, He died for me” (Willis p. 103).

“Gave Himself up for me”: The concrete expression or proof of His love (Romans 5:8). This is the answer for those who ask us, “Why do you obey so diligently the commands of Jesus?” The sacrifices one makes for Christ only make sense when placed in the larger context of, “Who gave Himself or me”. Then such sacrifices do not look unrealistic, rather, they look rather small and maybe not enough.

Galatians 2:21 “ I do not make void the grace of God: for it righteousness is through the Law, then Christ died for nought” “I”: Paul. “Do not make void the grace of God”: “I do not spurn the grace of God” 21

(Knox). “Annul or invalidate” (Vincent p. 109). “For if righteousness is through the Law”: This is what the Judaizers claimed and this is what Peter’s example in Antioch was saying, i.e. Christ is not enough, one needs to continue to keep the Law of Moses. “Then Christ died for nought”: The death of Christ was needless and useless, He died in vain. Who is nullifying the grace of God, setting it aside? Who? Not Paul!

“Those who hold out the hope of salvation for sinners who have never obeyed the gospel of Jesus Christ are guilty of doing exactly the same thing as Peter was doing.

They are affirming that one can be saved without the blood of Christ; therefore, Christ died for no purpose. This verse is a complete answer to those who say that the heathen (or any mere moralist) are saved by doing the best that they know and can. No one, apart from Jesus, ever did the best that he knew or could. To be saved by law, one has to keep all the laws he knows (perfectly). That no one ever did” (Willis pp. 104-105).

22