Galatians 2

Galatians 2:1

2:1 Fifthly, during Paul’s later visit to Jerusalem, the apostles there agreed that his gospel was divine (2:1-10). Because the church began at Jerusalem, and the apostles more or less made that city their headquarters, certain Christians felt that the church there was the mother church. Thus Paul had to contend with the charge that he was somewhat inferior because he was not one of the Jerusalem apostles. He replies with a detailed account of his later trip to Jerusalem. Whether this was fourteen years after his conversion, or after his first trip, we do not know. We do know that he received a revelation from Christ to go, together with Barnabas, his co-worker, and Titus, a Gentile converted through Paul’s ministry.

The Judaizers had insisted that Titus be circumcised for full salvation. The Apostle Paul was adamantly opposed because he realized that the truth of the gospel was at stake. (Later when Paul himself circumcised Timothy, no important principle was involvedAct_16:3.) E. F. Kevan says: Paul saw that circumcision for justification was not the innocent little rite that the unthinking man might assume it to be. To undergo circumcision was to seek to be justified by a legalistic method of law-keeping, and thus to deny the very foundations of grace. 2:2 When Paul reached Jerusalem he communicated to them that gospel which he preached among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means he might run, or had run, in vain. Why did Paul speak privately to the spiritual leaders rather than to the entire assembly? Did he want them to approve his gospel, in case he had been preaching something false? Obviously not! This is contrary to all that the apostle has been saying. He has insisted that his message was divinely revealed to him.

He had no doubts that the doctrine he preached was the truth. The real explanation must be sought elsewhere. It was a matter of common courtesy to speak to the leaders first. It was also desirable that the leaders should be thoroughly convinced as to the genuineness of Paul’s gospel. If they had any questions or difficulties, Paul wanted to answer them at the outset. Then he could go before the church with the full support of the other apostles.

In dealing with a large number of people, there is always the danger that emotional appeals will sway the group. Therefore, Paul desired to present his gospel privately at first, in an atmosphere free from possible mass hysteria. Had Paul acted otherwise, a serious dispute might have arisen, dividing the church into a Jewish wing and a Gentile one. Then the purpose of Paul’s trip to Jerusalem would have been defeated. This is what he means by lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.2:3 The whole question of legalism was brought to a head in the case of Titus. Would the Jerusalem church receive this Gentile convert into fellowship, or would it insist that he first be circumcised?

After considerable discussion and debate, the apostles decided that circumcision was not necessary for salvation. Paul had won a resounding victory. 2:4 The underlying reason why Paul was led to go to Jerusalem is made clear by linking the beginning of verse 2 with the beginning of verse 4: I went up by revelation … and this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in. This refers to what had previously taken place in Antioch (Act_15:1-2). Some Jewish teachers from Jerusalem, posing as Christians, had somehow been secretly brought into the church at Antioch and were teaching that circumcision was essential for salvation. 2:5 Paul and Barnabas opposed them vigorously. To settle the matter, Paul, Barnabas, and others went to Jerusalem to obtain an opinion from the apostles and elders there. 2:6 Those who were esteemed as leaders in Jerusalem added nothing to him, either to his message or to himself as an apostle. This was remarkable. In the previous chapter, he had emphasized that his contact with the other apostles had been minimal. Now when he finally did confer with them, they agreed that he had been preaching the same gospel as they. What an important point this is! These Jewish leaders agreed that his gospel was not defective in any way.

Though Paul had been independent of them, and had not been taught by them, yet the gospel they preached was exactly the same as his own. (Paul does not intend to belittle the other apostles, he simply states that whatever they were, namely, companions of the Lord Jesus when He was on earth, did not give them any superior authority in his estimation. God does not accept man’s person as far as such external distinctions are concerned.) 2:7, 8 The apostles in Jerusalem recognized that Paul had, by undeserved favor, been commissioned to take the gospel to the uncircumcised (the Gentiles) just as Peter had been sent to the Jews. Both men preached the same gospel, but primarily to different nationalities. 2:9, 10 Even James, Cephas (Peter), and John, apparently pillars of the church, perceived that God was working through Paul, and gave him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship in taking the gospel to the Gentiles. This was not an official ordination, but an expression of their loving interest in Paul’s work. The only suggestion they made was that Paul and Barnabas should remember the poor, the very thing which Paul states he was eager to do.

Galatians 2:11

C. Paul Rebukes Peter (2:11-21) 2:11 As Paul’s sixth and final answer to the attacks on his apostleship, he tells how it was necessary for him to rebuke the Apostle Peter considered by many Jewish Christians as the chief of the apostles. (This passage effectively refutes the notion that Peter was the infallible leader of the church.) 2:12 When Peter first came to Antioch, he would eat with the Gentiles in the full enjoyment of his Christian liberty. By Jewish tradition, he could not have done this. Some time later, a group came down from James in Jerusalem to Antioch for a visit. They claimed to represent James, but he later denied this (Act_15:24). They were probably Jewish Christians who were still clinging to certain legal observances. When they arrived, Peter stopped having fellowship with the Gentiles, fearing that the news of his behavior would get back to the legalist faction in Jerusalem.

In doing this, he was denying one of the great truths of the gospelthat all believers are one in Christ Jesus, and that national differences do not affect fellowship. Findlay says: By refusing to eat with uncircumcised men, he affirmed implicitly that, though believers in Christ, they were still to him ‘common and unclean,’ that the Mosaic rites imparted a higher sanctity than the righteousness of faith.2:13 Others followed Peter’s example, including Barnabas, Paul’s valued co-laborer. Recognizing the seriousness of this action, Paul boldly accused Peter of hypocrisy. Paul’s rebuke is given in verses 14-21. 2:14 As a Christian, Peter knew that God no longer recognized national differences; he had lived as a Gentile, eating their foods, etc. By his recent refusal to eat with Gentiles, Peter was implying that observances of Jewish laws and customs was necessary for holiness, and that the Gentile believers would have to live as Jews. 2:15 Paul seems to be using irony here. Did not Peter’s conduct betray a lingering conviction concerning the superiority of the Jews, and the despised position of the Gentiles? Peter should have known better, because God had taught him before the conversion of the Gentile Cornelius to call no man common or unclean (Acts 10 and 11:1-18). 2:16 Jews who had been saved knew that there was no salvation in the law. The law condemned to death those who failed to obey it perfectly. This brought the curse on all, because all have broken its sacred precepts. The Savior is here presented as the only true object of faith. Paul reminds Peter that even we Jews came to the conclusion that salvation is by faith in Christ and not by law-keeping. What was the sense now of Peter’s putting Gentiles under the law? The law told people what to do but gave them no power to do it. It was given to reveal sin, not to be a savior. 2:17 Paul and Peter and others had sought justification in Christ and in Christ alone. Peter’s actions at Antioch, however, seemed to indicate that he was not completely justified, but had to go back under the law to complete his salvation. If this is so, then Christ is not a perfect and sufficient Savior. If we go to Him to have our sins forgiven, but then have to go elsewhere in addition, is not Christ a minister of sin in failing to fulfill His promises? If, while we are professedly depending on Christ for justification, we then go back to the law (which can only condemn us as sinners), do we act as Christians? Can we hope for Christ’s approval on such a course of action that in effect makes Him a minister of sin?

Paul’s answer is an indignant Certainly not!2:18 Peter had abandoned the whole legal system for faith in Christ. He had repudiated any difference between Jew and Gentile when it came to finding favor with God. Now, by refusing to eat with Gentiles, he is building up again what he once destroyed. In so doing, he proves himself to be a transgressor. Either he was wrong in leaving the law for Christ, or he is wrong now in leaving Christ for the law! 2:19 The penalty for breaking the law is death. As a sinner, I had broken the law. Therefore, it condemned me to die. But Christ paid the penalty of the broken law for me by dying in my place. Thus when Christ died, I died. He died to the law in the sense that He met all its righteous demands; therefore, in Christ, I too have died to the law.The Christian has died to the law; he has nothing more to do with it.

Does this mean that the believer is at liberty to break the Ten Commandments all he wants? No, he lives a holy life, not through fear of the law, but out of love to the One who died for him. Christians who desire to be under the law as a pattern of behavior do not realize that this places them under its curse. Moreover, they cannot touch the law in one point without being responsible to keep it completely. The only way we can live to God is by being dead to the law. The law could never produce a holy life; God never intended that it should.

His way of holiness is explained in verse 20. 2:20 The believer is identified with Christ in His death. Not only was He crucified on Calvary, I was crucified there as wellin Him. This means the end of me as a sinner in God’s sight. It means the end of me as a person seeking to merit or earn salvation by my own efforts. It means the end of me as a child of Adam, as a man under the condemnation of the law, as my old, unregenerate self. The old, evil I has been crucified; it has no more claims on my daily life. This is true as to my standing before God; it should be true as to my behavior. The believer does not cease to live as a personality or as an individual. But the one who is seen by God as having died is not the same one who lives. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. The Savior did not die for me in order that I might go on living my life as I choose. He died for me so that from now on He might be able to live His life in me. The life which I now live in this human body, I live by faith in the Son of God. Faith means reliance or dependence. The Christian lives by continual dependence on Christ, by yielding to Him, by allowing Christ to live His life in him. Thus the believer’s rule of life is Christ and not the law. It is not a matter of striving, but of trusting. He lives a holy life, not out of fear of punishment, but out of love to the Son of God, who loved him and gave Himself for him. Have you ever turned your life over to the Lord Jesus with the prayer that His life might be manifest in your body? 2:21 The grace of God is seen in His unconditional gift of salvation. When man tries to earn it, he is making it void. It is no longer by grace if man deserves it or earns it. Paul’s final thrust at Peter is effective. If Peter could obtain favor with God by Jewish observances, then Christ died for nothing; He literally threw His life away. Christ died because man could obtain righteousness in no other waynot even by law-keeping. Clow says: The deepest heresy of all, which corrupts churches, leavens creeds with folly, and swells our human hearts with pride, is salvation by works. I believe, writes John Ruskin, that the root of every schism and heresy from which the Christian Church has suffered, has been the effort to earn salvation rather than to receive it; and that one reason why preaching is so ineffective is that it calls on men oftener to work for God than to behold God working for them.