Galatians Chapter 2, Part 1: Seriously. You Can Trust Me.
Chapter 2
Thank you for joining me today on the First Day podcast. I am Patrick Cooley. Visit the First Day website at firstday.us and become a subscriber.
In Galatians chapter one we come to learn that there is a problem in the church—one serious enough Paul believes that the Galatians are in danger. We do not know the specifics, just that some other gospel—some other proclamation of the work of Christ—is beginning to take hold there.
And Paul responds by giving them a CV of sorts—a testimony to prove that his previous message to them can be and should be trusted. He finishes out the chapter providing a timeline of his activities and ends with telling the Galatians about how his story brought glory to God among the Christians in Jerusalem. “See, ask them,” is his suggestion. Now let’s move on to chapter two.
Read verses 1-3
"Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that somehow I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised."
Paul continues to provide evidence for his trustworthiness. Once again as the result of divine revelation, Paul’s life changes course—so to speak. He returns to Jerusalem after 14 years—but fourteen years from when? This opening verse of the chapter likely causes some scholars sleepless nights; the problem being Paul’s lack of specificity concerning his chronology. I really think it’s up to each of us to decide how important this is, but it does need a little examining, at least, maybe so you can get a glimpse at how unclear interpretation can be.
Don’t get hung up on this, please.
One possibility is that Paul is returning to Jerusalem 14 years after his call in verses 15 and 16? Or does it refer to his first visit to Jerusalem in referenced in verses 18-20? A third option is that this fourteen-year gap separates the new trip to Jerusalem from what comes before it: the journey to Syria and Cilicia in verse 1:21.
Just to let you know, I like option two or three. Regardless of which it is, fourteen years is a long time to be evangelizing and preaching the gospel, which I think is his point.
Why God sends Paul back to Jerusalem after fourteen years of missionary work is revealed in verse 2: so that he could verify that the gospel that he had been preaching was the true gospel and to see if he “might be running, or had run, in vain.” This is answered in verse 9: “and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John…gave to me and Barnabus the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles…”
Titus, a Gentile—foreskin attached—travels with Paul and Barnabus to confer with Peter, James, and John. Paul points out in verse three that Titus is not compelled to be circumcised. This will become relevant later in the chapter.
In verse four, we learn that Titus’ circumcision became an issue only because spies from the Jewish religious authorities had been sent to spy on the Church. It seems that they pressed the issue of the necessity of adhering to Mosaic Law.
"4 Yet it was a concern because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy on our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us. 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them, even for an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you."
But as you see in verse five, however, Paul and Barnabus don’t even entertain the idea of circumcising Titus, since it would distract from the message preached to the Galatians: “…so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.”
Paul also reports in verse six that his intent was not to court favor with anyone; this is to stress the point that he made back in chapter one—that his message to the Galatians was not to influence them like to obey him but that he preached to them to fulfill his call.
"6 But from those who were of considerable repute (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no favoritism)—well, those who were of repute contributed nothing to me."
Ultimately, Peter, James, and John “had nothing to add to his message” and affirmed Paul’s calling to take the gospel to the Gentiles in the same way that Peter had been charged to take it to Jews.
"7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who was at work for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised was at work for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised."
Paul tells the Galatians here in this beginning section of chapter two that the Church, Jewish and Gentile, is on the same page. When Peter came to Antioch, however, he and Paul have a bit of a kerfuffle. Will, maybe it was more of a tiff. Verses 11-13 provide the details.
Read verses 11-13
"11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of some men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearing those from the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy."
So, Paul reports that Peter was acting hypocritically when the Rock visited Antioch. Initially he ate with men who were not circumcised. But when some Jewish Christians arrived, Peter refused to eat with the Gentiles any longer. Why would he do this, you might be thinking.
Because unlike Paul, who told the Galatians back in verse six that the “reputation” of Peter, James, and John, “as great leaders made no difference to [him],” Peter wanted to avoid any criticism of his actions from “these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision.” (12) Peter’s actions had a greater impact than was apparently expected, causing other Jewish Christians to forego table fellowship with the Gentile believers there in Antioch.
I think back to the James series. One of the first things that James tells the members of the Church is that they are not to be double-minded. Of course, in context, he was talking about not allowing doubt to hinder one’s faith in time of trial, but I think it is reasonable to apply the same standard here.
How can we allow ourselves to be built into one people from two if we allow our prejudice to keep us separated—us and them? Paul also stresses how our choices impact more than ourselves. This is Christian living 101 and something that we often forget. “…even Barnabus was led astray by their hypocrisy,” Paul writes.