Galatians – Chapter Two – The Doctor's Office

“Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain” (Galatians 2:1-2).

Small details are often important in helping us understand and apply a particular Biblical passage- and Galatians 2:1-2 is no exception. For instance, we’re told that Barnabas and Titus accompanied Paul the Apostle on this visit to Jerusalem. This aspect of Paul’s trip will take on greater significance later.

We should also notice that this journey took place “…after an interval of fourteen years” (NASB). That equals two visits to the heart of first-century Christianity in well over a decade. This period of time would have been important to the original audience for this letter, a group who had been asked to believe that Paul received second-hand information regarding the gospel he preached. The implication was clear: there was no reasonable way Paul could have received his gospel from other leaders within the church because the calendar simply didn’t support that conjecture.

That ties into the third important detail from this passage: “I went in response to a revelation from God” (GW). In other words, Paul did not travel to Jerusalem at the request of the other apostles nor did he make that trip to seek their approval. Instead, he went because God told him to go. So the God who met Paul on the Damascus road and gave him the message of salvation he shared with the congregations of Galatia was the same God who instructed him to make this trip to Jerusalem.

Upon his arrival, Paul met with the acknowledged leaders of the first-century church, a group he characterized as “…those who were of reputation.” One commentator provides us with some insight on Paul’s use of this term…

“This phrase was typically used of authorities and implied a position of honor. Paul refers to them in a similar way two other times (vv. 6, 9), suggesting a hint of sarcasm directed toward the Judaizers, who claimed they had apostolic approval for their doctrine and Paul did not. They had likely made a habit of exalting these 3 leaders at the expense of Paul.” ₍₁₎

But why would Paul elect to meet privately with these leaders instead of holding this meeting in public for all to see? We’ll consider the likely rationale behind that decision next.

(1) MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (2006). The MacArthur study Bible: New American Standard Bible. (Ga 2:2). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

But why would Paul elect to meet privately with these leaders instead of holding this meeting in public for all to see? We’ll consider the likely rationale behind that decision next.

(1) MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (2006). The MacArthur study Bible: New American Standard Bible. (Ga 2:2). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

III

“I went there because God revealed to me that I should go. While I was there I met privately with those considered to be leaders of the church and shared with them the message I had been preaching to the Gentiles. I wanted to make sure that we were in agreement, for fear that all my efforts had been wasted and I was running the race for nothing” (Galatians 2:2 NLT).

A wise person knows that internal discussions with others are often best kept private until a consensus is reached. This approach usually serves to promote good communication, mutual understanding, and a clear sense of direction for others to follow. Judging from the passage quoted above, that seemed to be one of Paul the Apostle’s objectives as he entered into these conversations with other leaders in the first-century church.

One source rephrases the idea behind this passage in the following manner: “Not wanting to cause trouble, I talked this matter over privately with Peter, James, and John. I had no doubts about the truth of the gospel I had been preaching, but if the other apostles did not stand with me on this, I was afraid all my work as an apostle would go for nothing!” ₍₁₎

Nevertheless, Paul may have had a second motive for entering into a private discussion with these leaders. Remember that the civil and religious authorities often followed Paul during this portion of his life. If Paul had chosen to assume a prominent role in his return to Jerusalem, it might have resulted in additional harassment, imprisonment, or perhaps even death. Therefore, it made good sense for him to meet privately with these spiritual authorities.

Paul then went on to use a familiar illustration to characterize this meeting: a sporting analogy. You see, Paul often turned to the world of athletic competition to communicate important spiritual truths. That included things like racing (2 Timothy 4:7), boxing (1 Corinthians 9:26), and wrestling (Ephesians 6:12). In this instance, Paul used the imagery of a long-distance runner, an illustration that was so effective that he will return to it again in Galatians 5:7.

So much like an athlete who trains hard for a competition that is later cancelled, Paul was concerned that the concept of salvation by grace through faith might be offset by those who insisted that one must follow the Old Testament law before finding salvation in Christ. Thankfully, this meeting served to alleviate that concern as we’ll see later in this chapter.

(1) Ice, Rhoderick D. “Commentary on Galatians 2:4”. “The Bible Study New Testament”. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ice/galatians-2.html. College Press, Joplin, MO. 1974.

“Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised” (Galatians 2:3)

As mentioned earlier, small details are often important when reading through the Scriptures. For instance, consider Paul the Apostle’s visit to Jerusalem as discussed in the opening verse of this chapter. While Paul could have told the Galatian churches that he simply went to Jerusalem, notice that he chose to add the following detail under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: “…I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me” (Galatians 2:1).

We’ll discuss Barnabas’ role in this narrative a bit later but for now we can say that this small detail regarding Titus in Galatians 2:1 helps to explain what we read in Galatians 2:3. You see, Titus had not been born into a Jewish family and was therefore uncircumcised. That distinction was important for if Titus had been made to follow the Jewish ritual of circumcision, then other non-Jewish converts to Christianity could be pressured into doing so as well.

In fact, modern-day readers of this account may be unaware that the act of circumcision formed a highly controversial topic among some members of the first-century church. As the early church grew and began to incorporate people from Jewish and non-Jewish backgrounds, there were many who had difficulty adapting to this new cultural reality.

Some (like the Judaizers mentioned in our look at Galatians chapter one) responded by attempting to add something to Jesus’ sacrificial work on the cross. Paul will characterize those individuals as “…false brothers with false pretenses who slipped in unnoticed to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, to make us slaves” (NET) in the following verse. Others turned to exclusionary tactics, including one of Jesus’ most prominent disciples as we’ll see later in this chapter.

Despite such differences, Christians then and now are one in Christ. Jesus is the thread who unites all together and it is through Him that we find real unity in diversity. While we may differ in racial composition, cultural upbringing, age, gender, experience, and personality, every genuine Christian is a part of “…the body of Christ, and members individually” (1 Corinthians 12:27).

As one source comments, “Even though Titus was among a conference full of Jews, he was treated as having a fully legitimate right to fellowship among them by virtue of his faith alone. It is likely that the Galatians were struck by this. All of those important Jewish believers, and they placed no further requirements upon Titus? Why then are these Judaizers demanding more?” ₍₁₎

(1) McClelland, S. E. (1995). Galatians. In Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Vol. 3, p. 1007). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

“And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Galatians 2:4-5).

While there are many Biblical topics that may engage our interest, there is one subject that may receive far less attention than it deserves. That topic involves the need to identify and protect against false teachers, bad doctrine, and those who possess deceitful spiritual motives. ₍₁₎ The passage quoted above provides us with one such example; in fact, the book of Galatians is almost entirely dedicated to this subject.

While two or more people of good conscience can often reach different conclusions on secondary aspects of the Christian faith, this portion of Scripture serves to remind us that there must be agreement on some essential elements. Those “essentials of the faith” would certainly include the following…

The triune nature of God.
The deity of Christ, His virgin birth, and sinless life.
Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection.
The gospel message of repentance from sin and salvation by God’s grace through faith in Christ alone.
The future bodily resurrection of every human being to eternal reward or punishment.

Some, like author and apologist Greg Koukl would add an additional element: the ultimate authority of Scripture. In this view, the authority of Scripture serves as functional necessity for without it, none of the other elements can be affirmed or asserted with confidence. ₍₂₎

Of course, this list is not intended to represent an exhaustive list of core beliefs. However, it can serve as a quick way to determine which teachings (and teachers) have a foundation in genuine Christianity and which do not. One commentator explains the importance of identifying such “false brethren” in the context of Galatians 2:4-5…

“…although these people passed themselves off convincingly as Christians, there was reason to view their profession as a sham. These pseudo-Christians did not announce their purpose, which was to curtail Christian liberty (5:1, 13) and to bring Paul and his converts into the bondage of Jewish legalism (6:12–15). These false brethren maintained that one had to keep the Jewish law in order to be saved. They refused to confess that salvation was God’s gift through faith alone. For this reason, Paul would not recognize them as genuine Christians.” ₍₃₎

(1) While these examples may seem to refer to the same thing, there are important distinctions between them. “False teachers” signifies the presence of someone who instructs others. “Bad doctrine” can be separated from the presence of a teacher, as in the poor theology one might encounter in a book or on a website. “Deceitful spiritual motives” implies an intentional effort to lead others astray. False teachers and those who promote bad doctrine may be sincerely wrong in their beliefs but have no intent to mislead. Those who hold deceitful spiritual motives are people who knowingly seek to inflict spiritual injury upon others.

(3) Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson’s new illustrated Bible commentary (p. 1519). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.

“But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me” (Galatians 2:6).

It’s interesting to note that Paul the Apostle did not seem awed or impressed by those who held positions of recognition within the first century church. Paul summarized his feelings with the following comment in Galatians 2:6: “By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to me, for God has no favorites” (NLT).

This parenthetical statement directs us to an important insight: if these first-century personalities were viewed as people “who seemed to be something,” then today’s information age provides us with a greater opportunity to elevate their modern-day counterparts. Unfortunately, this presents a danger for prominent members of the Christian community as well as those who seek to exalt them to celebrity status.

You see, we might be less inclined to view our favorite artists, teachers, authors, spiritual leaders, and media personalities as “those who seem to be something” if we accepted them for who they are: fallible human beings who have been gifted by God with extraordinary talents, skills, and abilities. If we are tempted to view such individuals as VIP’s within the Christian community, it may only be due to the fact that we don’t know them better.

For instance, most of us have little insight into the day-to-day lives of prominent Christian figures. We may not be aware of how they respond when things go wrong behind the scenes. We may not know how they interact with subordinates. We may know very little about their personal lives beyond what is published. If the private lives of our favorite Christian personalities do not align with their reputations as people of importance, we may be shocked when we hear reports of a moral failing, a renunciation of the faith, or the publication of a “tell-all” book concerning them.

There are other consequences involved whenever we elevate prominent men and women of God to positions of celebrity as well. Remember, these individuals must deal with the challenges that accompany the recognition we give them. They must manage the demands of fame and often face the hardships associated with travel and life on the road. They may find it difficult to maintain an attitude of humility in the face of praise for their work or resist the myriad of temptations that popularity brings.

These challenges are not made easier when we forget that “…God doesn’t play favorites” (GW). Therefore, we would be better served to pray for those in positions of prominence and avoid the urge to extol them as Christian celebrities.

See related messages here and here

VII

“But from those who were influential (whatever they were makes no difference to me; God shows no favoritism between people ) — those influential leaders added nothing to my message” (Galatians 2:6 NET).

When Paul the Apostle met together with the leaders of the church during his visit to Jerusalem, there were no lengthy debates regarding his theology. There were no disputes concerning his doctrine or quarrels about the message of salvation he brought. These influential leaders found no errors, deficiencies, or questionable beliefs within his teaching. On the contrary, these spiritual authorities had nothing to add to the content of Paul’s message.

It’s likely that these prominent members of the first-century church found it easy to reach that conclusion because they recognized Paul’s gospel message for what it was- the same gospel they had been preaching. This helps us put Paul’s brash response into the proper context: “Those who seemed to be important church leaders did not help me. They did not teach me anything new. What they were, I do not care. God looks on us all as being the same” (NLV).

This was not an expression of disrespect for these prominent leaders but a statement of fact: “These important, influential authorities didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know.” That would serve to counter anyone who sought to mislead the Galatian churches into the belief that Paul’s message differed from the gospel of these other first-century leaders.

It also undermined anyone who peddled the claim that one must follow the Old Testament Law in order to find salvation in Christ. Those who were led to believe that Paul had somehow twisted the other Apostle’s message might be surprised to learn that they all agreed that salvation was only available by God’s grace through faith in Christ alone.

Paul then added this sobering reminder: “…God is not impressed with a man’s office” (Phillips). While every generation features men and women who hold positions of status and power, those appointments may not count for much in eternity. No matter what our station in life, the ultimate question remains the same: did we honor God in those areas of responsibility He allowed us to possess?

In the end, the question will not revolve around who we were but what we were. So in light of those future realities, we would be well advised to live, work, and plan with the understanding that the choices and decisions we make in our areas of responsibility will count for eternity.

VIII

“But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do” (Galatians 2:7-10).

If God calls us to enter a particular area of service, others will often recognize, verify, and confirm that calling, Such was the case with the Apostle Paul and the leaders given to us in the passage quoted above. They recognized Paul’s God-ordained ministry to the Gentile population of that era just as they recognized the Apostle Peter’s calling to minister to the members of the Jewish community.

Thus, there was not one gospel for the Jewish people and a different gospel for others. Instead, there was one message and two individual callings to minister to these individual people groups. Jewish believers could choose to retain their Hebrew identity and cultural heritage as followers of Jesus. Conversely, non-Jewish converts were not asked to follow the Old Testament Law or take part in the ritual of circumcision.

One commentator quotes three different sources to illustrate this idea…

“Lightfoot says that these phrases denote ‘a distinction in the sphere in which the gospel was to be preached, not a difference in the type of gospel.’ Burton says that the context demonstrates that Paul regarded the distinction between the gospel entrusted to him and that entrusted to Peter as not one of content but of the persons addressed. Meyer says that this passage does not refer to two different gospels but to the same gospel to be given to two different groups of individuals, whose peculiarities demanded of the preacher a special adaptation to his distinctive audience.” ₍₁₎

So while Paul and his fellow apostles were equal to one another in terms of authority, God individually enabled them to fulfill their specific ministerial responsibilities. And the same God who worked in the lives of these first-century apostles continues to empower His people to fulfill His calling upon their lives today.

“In fact, James, Peter, and John, who were known as pillars of the church, recognized the gift God had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers. They encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while they continued their work with the Jews. Their only suggestion was that we keep on helping the poor, which I have always been eager to do” (Galatians 2:9-10 NLT).

This portion of Scripture provides us with a short list of individuals who played an important role in the life of the early church. The first person named for us is James. While there are several “Jameses” within the New Testament. this particular James was Jesus’ half-brother as noted earlier. The fact that James was named first among this trio of leaders speaks to the position of influence he held among the members of the first century church.

“Cephas” is a reference to the Apostle Peter. In fact, Peter is called by three different names within the pages of the Scriptures: Peter, Cephas, and Simon. Peter held a prominent position among Jesus’ original group of twelve disciples and he was later inspired by God to write the letters we know today as the Biblical books of 1 and 2 Peter.

The Apostle John was another of Jesus’ first disciples (Matthew 4:18-22). His brother James (a different James from the one mentioned above) had earlier been killed by a political leader named Herod, an act that gained the favor of some local religious authorities (see Acts 12:1-4). John was the person who was used of God to author the New Testament Gospel of John as well as the books of 1, 2, and 3 John and the book of Revelation.

These key leaders were recognized as pillars of the first-century Christian community and their solidarity with Paul the Apostle was based upon two important things: the authenticity of his gospel message and the recognition of his God-given ministerial gifts. This becomes more significant when we stop to consider that Paul once sought to imprison (and potentially kill) people like James, Cephas, and John at one point in his life. This serves to illustrate God’s unmatched ability to effect genuine change in human lives.

The only suggestion these leaders had for Paul involved a request to continue to help the poor, a recommendation that Paul was eager to implement. So everything seemed to be going well but as we’re about to see, a serious problem arose. We’ll begin our look at that problem -and Paul’s aggressive response- next.

“But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him in public, because he was clearly wrong” (Galatians 2:11).

The city of Antioch was a large, prosperous urban center in the days of the first century. As the capital city of the ancient Roman province of Syria, Antioch held a reputation as an important destination for those with commercial interests. Antioch was the place where Jesus’ followers were first identified as Christians and it featured a church with a multi-ethnic congregation of Jewish and non-Jewish believers.

Antioch also provided a good opportunity for evangelistic outreach due to it’s strategic position within the ancient Rome Empire, Therefore it should not surprise us to learn that some of the early church leaders eventually made their way there. It was during one such visit by the Apostle Peter that a difficulty arose. Paul the Apostle recorded that problem here in Galatians 2:11: “…when Peter came to Antioch I had to oppose him publicly, speaking strongly against what he was doing, for it was very wrong” (TLB).

So what did Peter do? The following verse provides us with some important background information…

“for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy” (Galatians 2:12-13).

In light of Peter’s influence and reputation among the members of the early church, it seems that Paul felt it necessary to address this situation in a public forum. This was especially important in a church like Antioch, a place where the cultural differences between the individual members of the congregation might easily lead to a division within the church.

One source identifies a different issue involved with Peter’s response…

“Peter probably thought that by staying away from the Gentiles, he was promoting harmony—he did not want to offend James and the Jewish Christians… By joining the Judaizers, Peter was supporting their claim that Christ was not sufficient for salvation. Compromise is an important element in getting along with others, but we should never compromise the truth of God’s Word. If we feel we have to change our Christian beliefs to match those of our companions, we are on dangerous ground.” ₍₁₎

Another unfortunate aspect of this incident is that Peter made this decision with the knowledge that God was working to establish a united church that was comprised of men and women from these diverse cultural backgrounds. We’ll see why next.

(1) Life Application Study Bible, Galatians 2:11 Copyright © 1988, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1996, 2004 by Tyndale House Publishers Inc., all rights reserved. Life Application® is a registered trademark of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

“For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy” (Galatians 2:12-13).

The New Testament book of Acts relates the account of a Roman army officer named Cornelius. Although Cornelius did not have a Jewish background, Acts chapter ten tells us that he was a generous, prayerful, God-honoring man. One day Cornelius experienced a vision in which he was instructed to call for the Apostle Peter. He responded by sending a delegation to escort Peter to his home and awaited their return.

But while that group was on their way, Peter had a visionary experience of his own…

“He saw heaven opened and an object that resembled a large sheet coming down, being lowered by its four corners to the earth. In it were all the four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth, and the birds of the sky. A voice said to him, ‘Get up, Peter; kill and eat.’ ‘No, Lord!’ Peter said. ‘For I have never eaten anything impure and ritually unclean.’ Again, a second time, the voice said to him, ‘What God has made clean, do not call impure’” (Acts 10:11-15 CSB).

Peter later referred to the insight he gained from this experience during his subsequent meeting with Cornelius: “…’You know it’s forbidden for a Jewish man to associate with or visit a foreigner. But God has shown me that I must not call any person common or unclean’” (Acts 10:28 HCSB).

Following this, Peter was asked to explain his actions to those who objected to his decision to visit the home of a non-Jewish person. He then offered the following explanation in reply…

“…as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as he did on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, as he used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ Therefore if God gave them the same gift as he also gave us after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to hinder God?” When they heard this, they ceased their objections and praised God, saying, ‘So then, God has granted the repentance that leads to life even to the Gentiles’” (Acts 11:15-18).

Despite these experiences, Galatians 2:12-13 tells us that Peter responded in a very different manner towards the Gentile members of the church at Antioch. We’ll consider the factors that may have accounted for Peter’s decision to isolate the non-Jewish members of that congregation next.

XII

“When (Peter) first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. As a result, other Jewish Christians followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy” (Galatians 2:12-13 NLT).

As we consider the interaction between Paul, Peter, and the congregation at Antioch, we are certain to find several important insights that we can apply in our relationships today.

First, the issue at Antioch involved the Apostle Peter’s decision to segregate himself from the non-Jewish members of the congregation. That decision was driven by the arrival of “…the faction who favored circumcising Gentile believers” (CJB). This group was apparently offended at the idea that non-Jewish Christians could find fellowship with Jewish Christians who followed the customs of the Law.

So Peter withdrew from eating with the Gentile believers to avoid criticism from those visitors. Two commentators examine the probable elements that factored into Peter’s decision, including some that are highly relevant today…

“This incident is not mentioned in Acts or anywhere else but here. Galatians 2:11-13 indicates that not only Peter but Barnabas also, and possibly James, had been so intimidated by the Judaizers who had come down from Jerusalem to Antioch (Paul called them ‘false brethren’ in Galatians 2:4), that they tried to compromise with them, ‘fearing them which were of the circumcision’” (Galatians 2:12).

These apostles all knew better (Acts 10, 11, 15) but, like many modern Christians, were temporarily tempted to compromise the true gospel for the sake of expediency and outward harmony. Paul, therefore, had to rebuke even these leaders, and they evidently accepted his rebuke and abandoned their compromising behavior (in particular, that of refusing to eat with the Gentile Christians)” ₍₁₎

“Both Peter and Barnabas (v. 13) succumbed to pressure from a group that believed that to be circumcised—that is, to become a full Jewish proselyte—was necessary in order to be saved and to be regarded as a Christian. Peter evidently had come under criticism for sharing meals with uncircumcised Gentiles after preaching the gospel to the Roman centurion Cornelius and his circle of relatives and friends (Acts 11:1–3)” ₍₂₎

Most Christians face similar pressures to compromise, each in their own way. But as Romans 12:2 reminds us, “Do not conform yourselves to the standards of this world, but let God transform you inwardly by a complete change of your mind. Then you will be able to know the will of God—what is good and is pleasing to him and is perfect” (GNB).

(1) Institute for Creation Research, New Defender’s Study Bible Notes Galatians 2:11 https://www.icr.org/bible/Gal/2/11

(2) Sproul, R. C. (Ed.). (2015). The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version (2015 Edition) (p. 2077). Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust.

XIII

“Until certain people came from James, (Peter) had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also joined with him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with them by their hypocrisy” (Galatians 2:12-13 NET).

Its interesting to note that Galatians 2:12 references “men” (ESV) or “persons” (NTE) to describe the associates of James listed here. While some Biblical versions refer to these individuals as “Jewish followers” (CEV) or “Gentile Christians” (TLB), the original language of this passage does not specifically identify them as followers of Christ.

Its possible that James was merely acquainted with these visitors. Or perhaps he sent them to Antioch so they could see first-hand evidence of the solidarity that existed among the members of that culturally and racially diverse congregation. Whatever the answer, these newcomers surely did not represent James’ view on the subject of unity between Jewish and non-Jewish believers within the church. In fact, their position was a misrepresentation of James’ view…

“…James stood and said …my judgment is that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood” (Acts 15:13, 19-20 NLT).

Unfortunately, it appears these individuals influenced Peter into separating himself from those who did not share their common cultural background. Thus, Peter’s example provides another important insight for men and women of God today. While we may be challenged to relate to those who have little in common with us, it is an entirely different matter to intentionally exclude other Christians on that basis.

At best, Peter was manipulated by the opinions of those who were not followers of Jesus. Although Peter once took a courageous stand in defending the unity of Jewish and non-Jewish believers, perhaps he was worn down under the relentless pressure of those who opposed his position. If that was the case, then it was not the first time Peter compromised his beliefs in the face of pressure from others.

This reminds us of the need to prayerfully seek God’s assistance in maintaining the kind of attitude described for us in 1 John 2:10: “The one who loves his fellow Christian resides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him” (NET).

XIV

“…When Peter first came to Antioch, he ate and associated with the non-Jewish people. But when some Jewish men came from James, Peter separated himself from the non-Jews. He stopped eating with them, because he was afraid of the Jews who believe that all non-Jewish people must be circumcised. So Peter was a hypocrite. The other Jewish believers joined with him, so they were hypocrites too. Even Barnabas was influenced by what these Jewish believers did” (Galatians 2:12-13 ERV).

Those of us who live in the 21st century are far removed from the events described in the passage quoted above, Therefore, we might find easy to criticize the Apostle Peter for his decision to exclude those who did not adhere to these Jewish cultural laws. But that criticism (however justified) should be tempered by the understanding that we must also respond to the cultural, political, and social pressures we face today. The issues may change but the pressure to make such choices remains the same.

Galatians 2:12-13 uses the word “hypocrite” to characterize Peter and his response to this situation. A hypocrite is someone who pretends to be something that he or she is not. This word originally referred to “one who wears a mask” and was used in the ancient Greek theatre to describe actors who wore masks to portray different emotions. Over time, this word grew to be associated with anyone who wasn’t what he or she claimed to be. So a hypocrite can be described as a “mask-wearer” or someone who differs from what he or she seems to be.

One commentator examines the tactics that may have been used against Peter to pressure him to respond in this manner. These tactics are still employed as an effective means of motivating others to compromise their convictions today…

“We don’t know what it was about these certain men from James that made Peter afraid. Perhaps they were men of strong personality. Perhaps they were men of great prestige and influence. Perhaps they made threats of one kind or another. Whatever it was, the desire to cater to these legalistic Jewish Christians was so strong that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. When these men from James came, even Barnabas treated the Gentile Christians as if they were not Christians at all.” ₍₁₎

Unfortunately, this kind of compromise does not occur in a vacuum. There are real-life consequences to such decisions and we’ll look at some of the ramifications of Peter’s choice next.

(2) David Guzik, Galatians 2 – Paul Defends The Gospel Of Grace © Copyright – Enduring Word https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/galatians-2/

“For before 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. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray” (Galatians 2:12-13 NIV).

One of the uncomfortable realities of life often involves the decisions we make when we allow others to set our standards. Those decisions may sometimes lead us to make unwise choices or do something inappropriate simply because “everyone else is doing it.” For this reason, its important to recognize a distinguishing feature that characterizes many types of human interaction: either we are influencing others or they are influencing us.

For instance, there are some who enjoy a huge circle of influence by virtue of their creative talents. That group would include many prominent authors, musicians, and filmmakers, among others. These individuals possess the ability to influence millions as they communicate their beliefs through books, concerts, movies, videos, or downloads.

But it isn’t necessary to be famous to impact others in this manner. You see, everyone has a circle of influence, even if it is only among a small group of friends or acquaintances. For example, our circle of influence might include a group of classmates or co-workers. It may include a wife, a husband, a child, a teammate, or a family member. In today’s era of high speed internet access, our influence might extend well beyond traditional geographic boundaries to include thousands (or even millions) of others.

The point is that everyone has the potential to be a peer leader within his or her circle of influence. That influence (however small) can be used to impact others and set the right example to follow. Unfortunately, Galatians 2:12-13 tells us that Peter the Apostle allowed an outside group to influence him into a decision that didn’t honor God. Thus, Peter set the wrong example in this area and his decision subsequently impacted others who “…became hypocrites along with him” (CJB).

While others may not choose to follow our example, we should prayerfully seek to be the kind of people who set a God-honoring standard in our relationships with others. We can find a good strategy to set that kind of standard in the New Testament book of 1 Corinthians: “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).

XVI

“But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, ‘If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?’” (Galatians 2:14).

As noted in the passage quoted above, Paul the Apostle was not afraid to correct others when necessary. Whether the issue involved false teaching, sexual immorality, or other sinful behaviors within the church, Paul did not hesitate to address those concerns wherever he encountered them. Paul was honest and forthright even when dealing with a matter that involved a fellow apostle: “…when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him publicly, speaking strongly against what he was doing for it was very wrong” (Galatians 2:11 TLB).

The public nature of that rebuke is something that warrants closer attention. For instance, Jesus established the following guidelines for addressing issues that arise between fellow Christians….

“If another believer sins against you, go privately and point out the offense. If the other person listens and confesses it, you have won that person back. But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses.

If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. Then if he or she won’t accept the church’s decision, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector” (Matthew 18:15-17 NLT).

So why didn’t Paul follow that procedure in this situation? Well, we can start by noting that Peter was an established leader within the church. Furthermore. his decision to isolate non-Jewish Christians for not keeping the Old Testament law was a serious issue. You see, that decision effectively added something to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, a fact that was readily acknowledged by those who held that belief: “…‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’” (Acts 15:1).

Finally, Peter’s decision led several others to follow his hypocritical example. That group included Barnabas, another well-known and respected leader within the first-century church. For these reasons, Paul employed a corrective principle that differed from the one given to us in Matthew 18. Paul clarified that principle in 1 Timothy 5:19-20: “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.” That approach would help stem the tide of false teaching that threatened the first-century church.

XVII

“We are Jewish by birth, not sinners from other nations. Yet, we know that people don’t receive God’s approval because of their own efforts to live according to a set of standards, but only by believing in Jesus Christ. So we also believed in Jesus Christ in order to receive God’s approval by faith in Christ and not because of our own efforts. People won’t receive God’s approval because of their own efforts to live according to a set of standards” (Galatians 2:15-16 GW).

Galatians 2:15-16 emphasizes an important truth for those who seek to approach God on the basis of their works: “…people don’t receive God’s approval because of their own efforts to live according to a set of standards, but only by believing in Jesus Christ.”

You see, some believe we can establish a right relationship with God by following a religious ritual or observance. Others believe that charitable giving and good deeds will make them acceptable to God. Then there are those who feel that the “good” things they’ve done in life will outweigh the “bad” things they’ve done and permit them entry into heaven.

One commentator addresses the futility of those beliefs…

“Many people assume that by trying to live a good life, they have done all that is necessary to get to heaven. They rest their confidence on the good works they have performed to satisfy the demands of God’s justice. This is a futile hope. God’s law requires perfection. Since we are not perfect, we lack the necessary goodness to enter heaven. Thus goodness can never be achieved by living a good life. We can only receive it by trusting in the righteousness of Christ. His merit is perfect and is made available to us through faith.” ₍₁₎

The Apostle Paul also expanded on this idea in the Biblical book of Romans…

“…No one can ever be made right in God’s sight by doing what the law commands. For the more we know of God’s laws, the clearer it becomes that we aren’t obeying them; his laws serve only to make us see that we are sinners. But now God has shown us a different way to heaven– not by ‘being good enough’ and trying to keep his laws, but by a new way (though not new, really, for the Scriptures told about it long ago).

Now God says he will accept and acquit us– declare us ‘not guilty’– if we trust Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we all can be saved in this same way, by coming to Christ, no matter who we are or what we have been like” (Romans 3:20-21 TLB).

(1) Sproul, R. C. (Ed.). (2015). The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version (2015 Edition) (p. 2231). Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust.

(1) NKJV Study Bible, [6:9,10] pg. 1835

XVIII

“yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:16 ESV).

“Neither the Jewish Law of ten commands nor its law of ceremonies was ever intended to save anybody. By a set of pictures it set forth the way of salvation, but it was not itself the way. It was a map, not a country; a model of the road, not the road itself.”₍₁₎

This passage of Scripture offers an opportunity to examine an important spiritual concept: justification. “Justification” is the term we use to describe the manner in which sinful human beings are made acceptable to a holy God. ₍₂₎Another source defines justification in this way: “To be justified means to be declared righteous before God, that is, to enjoy a status or standing of being in a right relationship with God, of being accepted by him.” ₍₃₎

We can illustrate this concept with the familiar imagery of a legal courtroom. In the New Testament era, a judge typically presided over a plaintiff’s case and examined the evidence against a defendant. If the judge issued a verdict in favor of the defendant, he or she was declared to be “justified.” This judicial affirmation acknowledged that the defendant was “righteous” (or “without guilt”), thus resulting in his or her acquittal.

This legal scenario illustrates the concept of spiritual justification. You see, the Old Testament book of the prophet Ezekiel tells us, “It is for a man’s own sins that he shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4). This brief portion of Scripture identifies our defendant (every individual human being), the crime (his or her own sins), and the sentence (death) in our spiritual courtroom.

But in speaking of Christ, 2 Corinthians 5:21 tells us, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (NIV). Because the sentence of the court has been satisfied through Jesus’ sacrificial death, those who place their faith in Him are acquitted of all charges and declared to be justified. Furthermore, Jesus’ righteousness is imputed (or transferred) to those who accept His sacrifice on their behalf (see Romans 4:5-8).

As another commentator reminds us, “Faith does not merit God’s acceptance; it accepts Christ’s merit before God (Phil. 3:9)” ₍₄₎

(1) Spurgeon, Charles H. The Stern Pedagogue, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit (p. 553)

(3) Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians (p. 113) quoted in Constable, Thomas. DD. “Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable” (2:15-16). “https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/dcc/galatians-2.html“. 2012.

(4) Sproul, R. C. (Ed.). (2015). The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version (2015 Edition) (p. 2077). Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust.

XIX

“But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God” (Galatians 2:17-19).

This portion of Scripture may be challenging to interpret but like many tasks, its helpful to begin by separating it into smaller portions. We can start with the phrase, “…if, while we seek to be justified by Christ.”

These verses begin by presenting us with someone who is no longer seeking to find favor with God through his or her efforts. Instead, this person has followed the Biblical model of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. However, the individual in our example has also discovered that a decision for Christ does not immediately translate into a life of sinless perfection for he or she is still found to be a sinner.

That provides the basis for the question that follows: “is Christ therefore a minister of sin?” Or to put it another way, “If we, the same people who are searching for God’s approval in Christ, are still sinners, does that mean that Christ encourages us to sin?” (GW). This seems to be a legitimate question but it is based upon some questionable logic- Jesus does not necessarily become a minister of sin just because His followers sin. Thus we have an appropriate response: “Absolutely not!” (NIV).

The issue is that this line of questioning fails to recognize the difference between spiritual acceptance and spiritual growth. We are made right with God through Christ positionally while growing experientially in the grace and knowledge of God. This progressive growth process is closely associated with the idea of sanctification. “Sanctification” refers to “the act or process by which people or things are cleansed and dedicated to God…” ₍₁₎ and ultimately leads to holiness or God-like character.

This distinction is important, especially during those periods when we may be tempted to return to the things we’ve left behind. For the churches of Galatia, that meant returning to the Old Testament Law. For modern-day readers of this passage, that decision might encompass any number of alternative approaches to God. Yet as we’re told in 1 Timothy 2:5, “…there is one God and one mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus” (CSB) and in the words of Galatians 2:18, “…if I build up again those things I once destroyed, I demonstrate that I am one who breaks God’s law” (NET).

(1) New Dictionary of Theology, (Leicester/ Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1988) pg. 613

“But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God” (Galatians 2:17-19 ESV).

Galatians 2:17-19 offers a glimpse into the convoluted logic that some employ in seeking to avoid the need for salvation in Christ alone. For instance, one commentary identifies the inconsistencies hidden within the argument given to us in the passage quoted above…

“Paul’s opponents argued, however, that since justification by faith eliminated the Law, it encouraged sinful living. A person could believe in Christ for salvation and then do as he pleased, having no need to do good works. Paul hotly denied the charge, especially noting that this made Christ the promoter of sin. On the contrary, if a believer would return to the Law after trusting Christ alone for salvation, that Law would only demonstrate that he was a sinner, a lawbreaker.” ₍₁₎

Paul the Apostle likely encountered such questions from those who sought to stretch his teachings to ridiculous conclusions in order to discredit him and ease their discomfort over the implications of the gospel message. In addition to the question posed here in Galatians 2:17, the Biblical book of Romans records three similar challenges that surely confronted Paul during his missionary journeys…

“A person might say, ‘When I lie, it really gives him glory, because my lie shows God’s truth. So why am I judged a sinner?’ It would be the same to say, ‘We should do evil so that good will come’…” (Romans 3:7-8 NCV).

“Well then, shall we keep on sinning so that God can keep on showing us more and more kindness and forgiveness?” (Romans 6:1 TLB).

“What does all this mean? Does it mean we are free to sin, because we are ruled by God’s wonderful kindness and not by the Law? Certainly not!” (Romans 6:15 CEV).

Paul addressed those questions with similarly reasoned responses in each instance (see Romans 3:7-26, Romans 6:1-11 and Romans 6:15-23). But rather than follow such fallacious side roads, another commentator summarizes the real idea behind this passage…

“The freedom of the believer is not freedom to sin, but freedom from the curse the law pronounces on sin (3:10–14; 5:1, 13). In this context, Paul also has in view believers’ freedom, under the new covenant, from aspects of the law of Moses such as circumcision and the dietary laws, which set ancient Israel apart from the nations.” ₍₂₎

(1) John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, Bible Knowledge Commentary [p.595]

(2) Sproul, R. C. (Ed.). (2015). The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version (2015 Edition) (p. 2076). Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust.

XXI

“I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).

We can illustrate the spiritual concept behind Galatians 2:20 with a look at the horticultural process of grafting. “Grafting” involves the act of bonding two separate plants until they grow together as one. While a newly grafted branch is not original to an established plant, each unites together in a fundamental way. For instance, water and nutrients are delivered to the newly grafted portion of the plant and if successful, the graft will produce flowers, leaves, and/or fruit.

Jesus made use of a related concept in John 15:1-5…

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing” (NIV).

In a similar manner, Paul the Apostle saw himself as someone who was dead and separated from his old life and grafted into Christ, much like a branch that has been joined to a new tree. Just as a newly grafted branch participates in the life of a tree, Paul “died” to his old life through Christ and began a new life together with Him. ₍₁₎ One commentary provides us with some further insight into this idea…

“How have our old selves been crucified with Christ? Legally, God looks at us as if we had died with Christ. Because our sins died with him, we are no longer condemned (Col_2:13-15). Relationally, we have become one with Christ, and his experiences are ours. Our Christian life began when, in unity with him, we died to our old life (see Rom_6:5-11). In our daily life, we must regularly crucify sinful desires that keep us from following Christ. This, too, is a kind of dying with him (Luk_9:23-25).” ₍₂₎

(1) Also see Romans 11 where Paul make a direct reference to this process.

XXII

“I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain” (Galatians 2:21).

The final verse of Galatians chapter two presents us with the logical conclusion to the argument that Paul the Apostle has developed over the course of this chapter. That argument can be summarized in the following manner: if someone could be made right with God through his or her own personal effort, then Jesus’ death on the cross was meaningless and ineffective.

This is important to remember, especially for those who may claim to ” have their own way” of following God. The problem is that no one has “their own way” of following God. You see, we cannot approach God on our terms; we must approach God on His terms- and His terms are defined in 1 Timothy 3:16: “…there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus…”

If we wish to be accepted by God, we must approach Him through the Mediator He has established- Jesus Christ. Any attempt to approach God in another fashion means that Jesus’ sacrificial death was something that was unnecessary and useless. One source explains this concept in greater detail…

“This is the theological climax of Paul’s rejection of the Judaizers’ emphasis on human performance. If human actions could bring right standing with God, then there was no need for Jesus to die! However, both (1) the OT, especially Judges and the history of Israel (cf. Nehemiah 9) and (2) the current experiences of diligent religionists such as Paul, show humanity’s inability to obey and conform to God’s covenant.

The Old Covenant, instead of bringing life, brought death and condemnation (cf. Galatians 3). The New Covenant (cf. Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:22-38) brings life as a gracious gift from a loving God by giving believing, fallen mankind a new heart, new mind, new spirit! This gift is only possibly through the sacrificial work of Christ. He fulfilled the Law! He restores the breach of fellowship (i.e., the damaged image of God in humanity from Genesis 3 has been repaired and restored!).” ₍₁₎

Because of this, Paul refused to nullify (or set aside) God’s grace expressed through Christ for that would have made Jesus’ sacrifice pointless and ineffectual.

So having started this chapter by relating some of his personal experiences, Paul the Apostle will go on to complete the transition to doctrinal teaching in the next chapter. He will do so by turning to the example of Abraham, the Old Testament patriarch and man of faith.