Michael's Abbey Bible Study - Galatians Chapter 2

1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It is likely that this 14 year period is from Paul's conversion, and overlaps the three years from conversion to his first Jerusalem visit. Barnabas was the name given to Joseph, a levite from Cyprus, by the apostles in Acts 4:36-37 because it means "son of encouragement". He was the one who vouched for Paul's conversion to the apostles in Acts 9:27. And he was with Paul on several missionary journeys. Titus was a Gentile convert in Titus 1:4 who also accompanied Paul on missionary journeys and was Paul's representative to the Corinthian church in 2 Corinthians 2:12-13.
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 I might be running, or had run, in vain. Paul's did not go to Jerusalem because of human requests, but because of God's guidance. And it was not at the request of or summons by the apostles in Jerusalem.
Who he presented the gospel to is not specified. It could be the leaders of the Jerusalem church, but it is likely that it was to the church in general or a large meeting which was followed by a small private meeting with those of reputation.
The characterization of James, Peter, John (named in verse 9) as "those of reputation" was not derogatory towards them as this could be used as either a positive or negative characterization in Greek. However, it is likely a dig at the Judaizers who were trying to put Paul subordinate to the Jerusalem leaders. The athletic metaphor doesn't mean Paul needed to get the approval of the other apostles and leaders as Paul knew his calling and authority came from God. However, the effectiveness of his evangelism required fellowship with them.
3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. Judaism as a whole is often referred to as "the circumcision". Circumcision was central part of Judaism that marked them as set apart. That an uncircumcised gentile was allowed to be in fellowship with the Jerusalem leaders means they accepted that gentiles could be Christians. This directly contradicts the Judaizers at Galatia who were insisting that Christians must become Jews to be Christian.
4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. Verses 4 & 5 are amplifying verse 3. The false brethren were Judaizing agitators who did not accept gentiles, but insisted that all must be made to become Jews. Paul calls this bondage. While these were from Jerusalem, they were acting on their own, not with the knowledge or blessing of the apostles in Jerusalem. The implication is these were so convinced of their false view that these false brothers thought they were doing right and were protecting the purity of the gospel. In reality they were actually corrupting it. People in bondage try to bring others into their bondage far more often than they seek their own freedom.
5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. This Greek idiom is literally "not for a moment." This is a very strong way of foot stomping that the Judaizers' view was totally rejected by the leaders in Jerusalem.
6 But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) - well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. Paul is contradicting the Judaizers' claim that their view is that of the apostles in Jerusalem.
The pillars, (the term Paul uses in verse 9,) of the Jerusalem church had nothing to add to Paul because his gospel message was true and complete. Paul's sidebar means that even those in leadership roles are not special in the end. (Although elsewhere scripture shows they will be held to a higher standard.)
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 This is not saying there are two gospels, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. It is acknowledging that the method and message is different. Paul demonstrated this in his own ministry, quoting from scripture when trying to reach Jews, and reaching Gentiles from their own experience.
The takeaway is that Paul's work is equivalent to Peter's, but with a different primary target. Both Paul and Peter would evangelize both groups. But each played mostly to his own calling and strengths.
8 for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), "He" in this verse is Christ Jesus. The same savior for both Peter and Paul, Jew and Gentile, working in both ministries to win people to Him. This reinforces verse 7, that there is one gospel, as Paul states explicitly in Galatians 1:6-9 and 2:11-16.
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. Here Paul names the pillars of the Christian church of Jerusalem as James, half-brother of Jesus, and two of Jesus' diciples Cephas, also called Peter, and John. That they saw that Paul's calling was also by divine grace like their own is illustrated by the formal shaking of hands, (the right hand of fellowship. That idiom is a pledge of friendship or acknowledgement of agreement.) This is a direct repudiation of the Judaizers.
Paul viewed Peter as the lead among the other apostles in matters of truth and the gospel, as well as in missionary outreach. In matters of church administration and leadership James is the clear leader and Peter defers to him in that role. (James' leadership of the church is further shown by the first ecumenical counsel in Acts 15, which occurred shortly after Galatians was written.) But they were subject to the approval of others in authority. There was no absolute ruler in the church, but there were clear leaders of various church functions. Notable was that Peter, John and the other apostles were devoted to teaching, while James was the head and administrator of the church. The majority of western churches put both roles under the same person in the pastor.
10 They only asked us to remember the poor - the very thing I also was eager to do. As this was the only request made of Paul and Barnabas, and it was a side issue not related to their evangelism or message, it reinforces that they were approved as and treated as equals.
Remember is in the present active subjunctive tense, which would be best translated as "continue to remember" the poor. Remember the poor in Greek is just like the English in that it implies monetary help, but is not limited to that. This also means affection and prayer. Additionally, Paul had already supported the poor of Jerusalem monetarily with the funds for famine relief he brought from Antioch.
Judaizers are still with us today in many forms. People who have their own agenda bend the gospel to fit their mold when it should be the other way around. And many who mean well treat doctrines of their church or something they read or watched as if they were scripture and authoritative. We need to have the discernment to separate these things from scripture itself.
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. This episode most likely took place after Paul's missionary journey to the Galatians and before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.
"To his face" does not imply hostility in Greek, merely that it was in person.
12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. In Judaism, Gentiles were scuzzy people. Eating with these unclean Gentiles, visiting their homes, or associating with them made one ritually unclean. And there were requirements to correct that before one could worship in the temple. The core issue the Judaizers were pushing was that one had to convert to Judaism to be a Christian.
That the "certain men" were from James, (the administrative head of the church,) does not mean that what they did and said was representative of James in any way. Considering the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 it is highly likely they were misusing their connection to James in order to advance their own agenda. We have all dealt with petty functionaries who were full of themselves and acted as if they were the boss when the boss was away.
Peter observed these laws until God corrected him with the vision of the sheet with the unclean animals and with the evidence of the Spirit falling upon the Gentiles in Cornelius' house in Acts 10. So Peter was told face to face by Jesus to make disciples of all nations in Matthew 28:19-20, and he didn't do it. Then God gave him a vision and direct evidence, and Peter finally got it. But under peer-pressure from the Judaizers he went back to his old ways even though God had directly told him not to do so. So Paul had to confront him. This time Peter got it right and testified to the truth in the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.
We should take comfort and warning in this. We should take comfort that we aren't so bad God can't use us anymore when we fail because even a man like Peter got it so wrong when God showed him otherwise. But we should take it as a warning that we need to guard ourselves and use discernment so that we are not led astray by false teachings. If a guy like Peter who walked with Jesus in person, saw untold miracles with his own eyes, and was directly corrected by God can still fail and fall to false teachers, then how much more easily can we be misled? We need to check ourselves and what we hear against scripture.
13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. Because Peter was who he was, it was easy for others to follow him into false teaching. Error begets error, especially when it comes from someone others view as a trusted leader. We should never accept what others say at face value, but should check every teaching, every prophecy, every utterance against scripture like the Bereans did in Acts 17:10-11.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? Paul called out Peter to his face and in front of everyone in the church. Peter's bad behavior was public, so the rebuke was public. However, the wording and tenses of verses 12-13 suggest that this had gone on for some length of time, without a reason given. It is likely that Paul was not personally in Antioch for much of it. The aorist tense of eipon, "said" in English, shows that this was a chosen confrontation at a specific time, not something that just came up in discussion or teaching. This was no small matter. This was a split in the church and a contradiction of the gospel, not a secondary or disputable matter.
Paul does not say what the immediate result was. However, In Acts 15 Peter sided with Paul when arguments were presented for James to decide on what Gentiles needed to do in order to be Christians. And Peter later wrote that Paul's writings were scripture.
15 "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; Verses 15-21 could be the continuation of the confrontation with Peter, or it could be a pivot to theological teaching for the Galatians. Most scholars see it as both, and as a summary connecting the beginning narrative and ending arguments of the letter.
The we refers to all Jewish Christians. Jews by nature means they were born Jewish, the first defining characteristic of their existence. Sinners from among the Gentiles is most likely a euphemism and is used here ironically.
16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. Faith in Christ Jesus is central to this verse and Christianity, and is the means of our justification. The Greek "knowing" means the following statement is common knowledge. As this is a central tenant of Christianity, it should be common knowledge among Christians. It is also common knowledge in Judaism that the law does not justify. Judaism is nomistic, not legalistic. (This is covered extensively in the introduction to Galatians.)
Works of the law means the justification by works. Faith and works of the law are opposites. Thus any argument characterizing faith as a work is contradicting this and many other scriptures.
This verse in Greek is an excellent example of how in Greek grammar the word order does not determine meaning like in English. It is the case endings that shows the connection between words. Thus, a noun and the adjective that modifies it can be separated by other nouns, and the same goes with verbs and adverbs, as well as which noun is the subject of a verb. While in English only verbs are given different case endings, in Greek all words are conjugated to show which words are connected.
17 But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! This is a pivot away from the arguments against legalism and identity errors to the opposite problem in Galatia, the misuse of the liberty of our justification in Christ to discount or even excuse sin. The rhetorical question is, "If we are in Christ and still sin, does that mean Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not!" The point is that Christ and sin are incompatible. While we will continue to fail regarding sin until eschaton, life in Christ will correct our behavior and attitude towards sin, not enable our sinning.
18 For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. Going back to the law after having been done with the law as Peter did at Antioch is self-condemnation, and actually violates the true intent of the law. The law is not our justification, nor is it the guide for our Christian lives to keep us from sin. First, Christ is our justification, and along with the Spirit, our guide for a Christian life. Second, the law only deals with the superficial and external forms, whereas Christ wants our hearts, the inner man.
19 For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. To die to something is to cease to have any relationship with it. The opposite is to live to someone, which is to have fully open and personal relationship with them. The purpose of the law was to point us to a restored and full relationship with God. Christ lives in us and is our guide in life. We express our faith by being Christ-centered. (This is explained in Galatians 3:19-4:7.)
20 I have been crucified with Christ; and 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 up for me. I have been crucified with Christ is part of verse 19 in some translations and Greek manuscripts, and in verse 20 in others. Christ's crucifixion frees us from the law, and by our identifying with His sacrifice we gain that freedom.
We die not only to the law, but to ourselves. Christ lives in us and that is our guide, not our own ego or the law. However, this is not the negation of ourselves like some form of eastern mysticism. The annihilation of the person is opposite of Christianity. Christ brings out the true person analogous to salt bringing out the true flavor of food. Except that Christ does break off sin.
Paul clarifies that the self in this physical existence continues, but this life is transformed by faith in the Son of God. This also firmly establishes that the spiritual life and the physical life are meant to operate in concert, contradicting a common pagan philosophy at the time that the divine and the flesh are incompatible and mutually exclusive.
An important point at the end of this verse is that it was not just God the Father that gave up His son, but Jesus gave Himself up for our sakes out of His love for us.
21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." The word nullify is the term used in legal matters such as treaties, contracts and wills. One of the misdirections by the Judaizers was to define the grace of God as His giving the law to Israel. He refutes them here. And the point is one we should take on board. We are not capable of justifying ourselves. If there was any other way to do it Jesus would not have needed to sacrifice himself for us and wouldn't have done so. Those who think they can get into heaven by "doing more good than bad" are deluding themselves and do not comprehend how bad their sin really is. We all discount our sin to some degree. It may be that we are not capable of truly comprehending how bad our sin really is until we stand before the bema seat.

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB © The Lockman Foundation.

If you have a question, you can find the email address to write to on the FAQ Page under the Questions FAQ.

Gal. 1   -   Galatians   -   Gal. 3

Bible Study Page   -   Michael's Abbey