Print This Bible Study
the contents of this page may take a few seconds to load . . . thank you for your patience...


Galatians

Chapter Two

 

Preface

 

Four of the six arguments by the Apostle Paul establishing the authenticity of his apostleship and his message (Gospel) of grace by faith alone in Christ alone were presented in the first chapter of this book.  Chapter 2 covers the remaining two arguments.  They are:

 

His (the) Gospel and his apostleship were recognized (validated) by the leaders in Jerusalem some 14 years later (2:1-10).

 

His apostleship (authority) was validated by his rebuke and correction of the Apostle Peter (2:11-21).


Galatians 2:1, 2

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.

 

This visit by the Apostle Paul parallels Luke’s account of Paul’s visit to the church council at Jerusalem covered in Acts 15:1-29.  Each account covers differing details, but they are in agreement as to the important facts.  Although Paul has suitably demonstrated that his (the) Gospel came to him directly by divine relation and that he had authority to administer it to the Gentiles without any contact with or approval from the Twelve Apostles, he now confirms that with this visit he does indeed accrue the approval of the apostles in Jerusalem.

 

The Church began at Jerusalem and the apostles made the city their headquarters and base from which they carried forth their ministries.  Because of this many believers considered Jerusalem as headquarters for the “mother church.”  The judgment of many Christians factored in this recognition of Jerusalem as they considered Paul’s apostleship.  Since he had no previous contact with the original apostles and because the Judaizers stridently and vigorously insisted that the Gentiles must be circumcised in accordance with Mosaic Law as an additional requirement for salvation (Acts 15:1), Paul, responding to a revelation from God and an “appointment committee” (Acts 15:2) of the local church at Antioch, traveled along with Barnabas and Titus to Jerusalem some 14 years later.  The 14 years was either from his conversion or from his last journey, but this cannot be determined for certain.

 

Barnabas was Paul’s co-worker and Titus was a recent Gentile convert of Paul’s ministry.  Titus was also a young preacher.  The Judaizers insisted that Titus be circumcised in order to obtain “full salvation”—a stand which Paul steadfastly denied.  The essence of the Gospel message was the purpose for the council at Jerusalem.  Was it purely of grace by faith alone in Christ alone, or did it also include the responsibility of adhering to the Mosaic Law, particularly in relation to the matter of circumcision.

 

Circumcision is a minor surgical operation performed on the male.  When God ordained it for Abraham and his descendants, He intended it as a sign of His covenant with them, namely, that He would be their God and they would be His people (Gen. 17:1-11).  It was not only a physical mark, but also a spiritual symbol.  Abraham was circumcised as a sign that he had trusted in God (Rom. 4:11).  The Jews soon forgot the spiritual meaning of circumcision and carried it out simply as a ceremony.  Thus the rite became valueless as far as God was concerned.

 

In the NT, circumcision is no longer commanded since God is now dealing in grace with Gentiles and Jews alike.  In the early days of the church, a group of Jewish believers insisted that circumcision was necessary for salvation.  Hence this party was known as “the circumcision” (Gal 2:12).

(Believer’s Bible Commentary by William MacDonald)

 

To submit to the legalistic requirement of circumcision as a part of “the salvation formula,” would be an act of distrust in the sufficiency (efficacy) of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  It would be an admission that His sacrifice did not pay the complete penalty-price for one’s sins.  In effect, it would exclude a grace-based salvation by faith alone in Christ alone.  The Apostle Paul could not allow this, so he brought Titus with him as sort of an object lesson and focal point for the apostles at Jerusalem.  They would have to determine whether or not he would have to be circumcised, and by so doing, they would be forever determining the matter for both Jews and Gentiles alike.

 

Paul initially presented the contents of his (the) Gospel message to those who “were of reputation.”  This is a phrase that can be better translated as “those of recognized eminence,” and it applied to men of recognized position such as James, Peter and John.  He did this, to use one of his favorite metaphors that he borrowed from Greek athletics, the stadium foot race, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.

 

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.”

(Believer’s Bible Commentary by William MacDonald)

 

The manner in which Paul handled this matter is a lesson that every church should take to heart.  Whenever there is a matter of some controversy that arises among those within the church, it is always best to surface it among the leadership of the church first.  By the leadership it is meant those who have been selected (by vote or other means) by the church as a whole (the congregation) to perform leadership roles within the church, such as the pastor and the minister of music.  It does not mean those designated for service, such as deacons.  In conjunction with the church leadership, the issues should be clarified and examined.  Then, with a proper understanding of the matter by both the presenting party and the leadership, the matter may be brought before the church as a whole.


Galatians 2:3-5

Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.  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.

 

Paul was not opposed to a Christian being circumcised for the purpose of reaching the Jews for salvation and as long as the act was not misconstrued as being a part of the Salvation Formula, as is seen in Acts 16:3 with Timothy.  But when there was any possibility of circumcision or any other aspect of legalism being understood as being in addition to faith alone in Christ alone for salvation, he tenaciously opposed it.

 

In this case Paul was completely vindicated by the Jerusalem Council.  Titus was not to be circumcised.  The entire confrontation over Titus and the legalistic requirement of circumcision resulted from the fact that certain “false brethren” had been secretly or surreptitiously brought into the fellowship (church) at Antioch.  Some Bible expositors believe that in this passage these “false brethren” had secretly obtained entrance into the Jerusalem Council, but it is more probable that Paul is referring to Antioch, particularly in light of Acts 15:1, 2.  These “false brethren” were unsaved Jews who had accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah, but who knew nothing of salvation through His precious blood, and who clung to the salvation by-works system of apostate and legalistic Judaism, which system they were desirous of bringing into the Church itself. (Galatians in the Greek New Testament by Kenneth S. Wuest)  Their first purpose for clandestinely entering the assembly of believers was to “spy out with a hostile intent” (from the Greek word, kataskopeo) the “liberty” or “freedom from the Mosaic Law,” which Christians had “in Christ.”  Their second purpose was to carry out their “hostile intent” by enslaving the believers into bondage to legalism through false doctrine.

 

Paul was absolutely resolute in opposing these evildoers.  He did not give in even for an hour to their venomous teachings.  He would not for a second allow anyone to “water down” or “add to” the salvation message, which is by grace through faith alone in Christ alone.  He had received God’s plan of salvation directly and personally from Jesus Christ, God Almighty, on the Damascus road and he had been given a “direct commission” to bring this salvation to the Gentiles.  He would allow no one to alter these facts.  He was “set in concrete” over the matter so that the “truth of the Gospel” might continue with the Galatians.  Because of his determination in this most important matter and his record of it, Christians who study God’s Word (doctrine) today have access to a clear and compelling argument as to why they remain free from both the moral and ceremonial law given under Moses.  Adherence to such does not bring salvation; it does not bring sanctification.  Christians are subject, if you please, to a higher standard.  Christians should walk as Jesus Christ walked.  They are empowered to live holy lives by the Holy Spirit.  They are motivated by their love for Christ and all that He has done and is doing for them.  The righteousness demanded by the law is fulfilled by those who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4).


Galatians 2:6-10

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.  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.

 

Paul continues to demonstrate that he had a legitimate apostleship.  Even those who were esteemed by the church at Jerusalem, which carried no weight with Paul for God “shows personal favoritism to no man,” could add nothing to the Gospel message that Paul preached to the Gentiles.  In fact, they fully recognized Paul’s authority from God to be the apostle to the Gentiles, just as Peter was designated as the apostle to the Jews.  The message that Paul preached and the message that Peter preached were one and the same, salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ alone.  In fact, the pillars of the Jerusalem church had extended their “right hand of fellowship” (recognition) to both Paul and Barnabas over the matter.  Their only request to Paul and Barnabas was that they should remember the poor, a need that also emanated from the heart of Paul.


Galatians 2:11-21

Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 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.  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?  We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.  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.  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.  I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”

 

Paul’s sixth argument that his apostleship was equally as valid as those of the Twelve Apostles could be seen in his authority over Peter, that is in his rebuke of Peter upon finding that Peter was in error.  The Apostle Peter was considered by many Jewish Christians as the chief of the apostles, yet he was placed in a subordinate position to Paul because of his inconsistency and hypocrisy.  This passage effectively refutes the belief that Peter was the infallible leader of the church.

 

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 (Acts 15:24).  They were probably Jewish Christians who were still clinging to certain legal observances. [not necessarily for salvation, but for sanctification]  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 gospel—that 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.”

 

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 were necessary for holiness, and that the Gentile believers would have to live as Jews.

(Believer’s Bible Commentary by William MacDonald)

 

Here Peter was being a hypocrite.  After enjoying the pork and ham and Gentile fellowship at the Gentile table, due to fear he was quick to abandon them for the kosher table of the legalist. 

 

The nature of Paul’s rebuke shows, first of all, the inconsistency of lawkeeping.  If it was right for Simon Peter to live as the gentile believers lived, why should he desire the Gentiles to live as the Jews?  That is what he was saying when he left the gentile table for the kosher table.  If gentile living under grace apart from the Law was good enough for Peter, was it bad for the Gentiles themselves?  If Simon Peter was free to live outside the Law, was it not lawful for the Gentiles to do the same?

(Thru the Bible commentary by J. Vernon McGee)

 

Paul reminded Peter that even as Jews they knew that justification could not come by observing the Mosaic Law—morally or ceremonially.  Absolutely not!!  Justification could come only by faith alone in Christ alone.  The law could only condemn a person, making it necessary for God’s grace to deliver him.  But Peter was giving the appearance that justification was made complete in observing the law, and Paul was adamant that “by observing the law no one will be justified.”

 

Paul then specifically addresses sanctification (spiritual growth to become Christ-like).  He states that even though a person is justified by Christ a life of sin after being justified is possible but not acceptable.  He stated explicitly that Christ does not promote sin.  If a believer then discovers sin in his life he is a lawbreaker but because he has been crucified with Christ, his life is linked with Christ for all eternity.

 

But more than this, Paul discloses the key to sanctification.  First a believer must recognize that he has been crucified with Christ.  It is an established and finished fact.  No believer should pray “to be crucified” with Christ.  For that matter no believer should pray “for the blood of Jesus to cover his sins.”  This has already been done on the cross of Calvary some 2,000 plus years ago.  It was a one-time event.  As a believer, you have already been crucified with Christ and His blood has covered (paid for and taken away) all your sins.  To pray for this to happen again, no matter how noble your intentions, is wrong.  This is akin to fostering the notion that Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient, because somehow it has to be done over and over again.

 

The key to sanctification is found in verse 20, where Paul states “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.  The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”  This was another way of saying that the manner in which a person is saved (by faith apart from the law) is the same manner in which a person is to live (Colossians 2:6).  It was faith alone in Christ alone that saved Paul, and it was faith alone in Christ alone that permitted the Holy Spirit to live out through Paul the life of Jesus Christ.  The entire Christian experience, from start to finish, is by faith.  Adherence to the law could never do it; it was never meant to do it.  Only faith in God and His Son brings honor to God and the ability to achieve “divine good.”  To be saved by grace through faith and then to turn to legalism for living the Christian life is to corrupt God’s message and dishonor Him.

 

Because of this Paul dramatically states, “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing.”  For the believer to accept legalism as part of the justification and sanctification process, must cause great sorrow for God.  Christianity is not a “religion of works.”  It is a relationship or unity based solely on faith in Jesus Christ.