Teaching on Galatians 2:1-10
Notes
Transcript
Introduction
Introduction
In this section of Paul’s defense, he focuses on the content of the gospel rather than the source as he did in the last section
In the last section he talked about his calling and equal standing with the other apostles. In this section he focuses on the unity that he had with the other apostles.
He uses an event that occurred 14 or 17 years after his salvation to address the content of his gospel and his unity with the Jerusalem leadership.
This visit occurs 14 years later
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
3:35
There is a lot of debate on the identification of the trip Paul writes about this passage. We saw last time his first visit to Jerusalem occurred 3 years after he was saved and he was chased out of Damascus by the Jews.
In v1 it says that Paul went up to Jerusalem in response to a revelation. This is the same word that is used in where Paul indicates that he received his gospel by Revelation of Christ.
Basically Jesus appeared to Paul and commanded that he go up to Jerusalem and meet with the apostles and present his Gospel to them.
Paul did this he says here to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain.
Now Paul was not concerned about whether his gospel that he had been preaching for 14 years was right or not.
Rather the issue of the day was whether he and the Jerusalem leadership agreed on the gospel or not. If the Jerusalem leadership did not agree, and they would preach that circumcision was required, then it would have undermined and sent shockwaves through the gentile churches. Upsetting their faith, and compromising the Gospel that he preached. Paul wanted them to consider how his ‘gospel’ related to the gospel they preached, and feared that his work would be hindered or rendered for no effect by the Judaizers.
There is some debate among the scholars about which event in Acts this visit of Paul’s represents.
Some say that it might be where Paul and Barnabas were commissioned by the Antioch church to go up to Jerusalem to take financial relief to the brothers in Judea (His second visit). Others indicate that the Jerusalem Council of is the event Paul is speaking of here (his 3rd visit)
and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.
Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius). So the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.
But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”
The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
“ ‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
I’d like to offer a few thoughts on this:
Similarity: Paul and Barnabas on one side, presence of Paul, Silas (Titus) as well. Peter and John on the other side
Difference: seems to indicate Paul went up because of a revelation, and this was initiated by Paul; Whereas Acts account indicates that Church at Antioch appointed them and sent them in response to much debate within the church
Similarity: Issue discussed and debated was one of “Salvation requires circumcision and order to keep law of moses.
Difference only says something about famine, and Paul and Barnabas. No mention of Titus. At point of Luke writing this, the nature of the private meeting could have been known without causing division.
Difference: says Paul did this privately before those who seemed influential. is a very public event Dissension in Antioch; Appointment by Church to go; They were openly welcomed by apostles and elders (v4), much public debate (7).
Dissension in Antioch; Appointment by Church to go; They were openly welcomed by apostles and elders (v4), much public debate (7).
Difference: Very public proclamation of result from this conference.
If this were the case, then why would Paul neglect to bring in the description of the letter. Argument from absence, but still that would have been coup de’ grace to slay the Judaizers argument and Paul could/would have left one of these with the churches
When Paul went up, he took both Barnabas, a Jew, and Titus an uncircumcised believer from one of his missionary Journey’s.
Is this the visit of (some similarities)
We see 5 visits of Paul to Jerusalem
He did this not to be antagonistic to the Jerusalem crowd but as part of a test case for Christian Freedom. It wasn’t to stir up strife, but was rather to have a living example when he set forth his gospel to the leaders of the church. Since both Jew and Gentile alike are accepted on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ and his finished work, he must therefore be accepted by the Church.
But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
The issue at hand here was whether the Jerusalem leaders would require Titus to be circumcised, to obey a ‘tradition’ of the Jews.
A tradition, commanded by God that Abraham do in order to signify his covenant relationship with God.
This was a 2000 year old tradition, with Rich history and signifiant cultural significance. A covenant requirement that nearly got Moses killed when he hadn’t circumcised his son’s per the requirement. It was a required precondition and seal of participation in God’s covenant community.
For this group Paul represented a significant threat to the character of the Christian Faith, which they interpreted in part by continuation of rites such as circumcision.
But Paul taught as follows:
Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
So why then this issue over Titus?
If it didn’t matter, then why not just get him circumcised?
It was because of this:
But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
So, if Paul had Titus circumcised, then the truth of the Gospel would be lost.
Who were these men?
Tradition is used in multiple ways, so I would like to describe a couple of uses of the word:
Tradition - is often used of Scripture that is passed from Prophet or apostle to the people of God. Scriptures are traditions as they are copied and handed down from generation to generation
Traditions - manner’s of practices handed down within a culture or people. Matters like manner of dress, use of makeup, style of worship (hymns or contemporary, liturgical or not), playing cards, drinking, foods that are eaten, and now circumcision. whether you go to the movies and what you watch. Some aspects of these things are regulated by God (modest dress, theologically correct music) but a lot of these are not. Pharisees were rebuked for these when they crossed God’s law and they required obedience to them.
Legalism:
Legalism:
when you add laws that God does not require to the law, not when you require obedience to the law (i.e the commands of Christ). For the Christian,
substitute obedience to the law for salvation by grace alone through faith alone. For example, when we substitute our obedience to commands of God as the means of pleasing God instead of the work that God require’s and trusting Christ for that Salvation.
So who were these
And Secretly -> they weren’t honest about who they were. They crept into this meeting. They were clandestine in their efforts and systematic in their attempt to destroy and subvert the Gospel. Paul called them false brothers, because they were no brothers at all. They were deceitful spy’s who were not Christians.
They came in to spy - espionage in an attempt to find out information so that they could accuse the other side.
Now Paul says that there were some unscrupulous fellows, who sneaked into
They slipped in - the idea behind this is that they imposed themselves into a place where they were uninvited
They came in to spy - espionage in an attempt to find out information so that they could accuse the other side. The were working methodically to destroy the Christian faith. To subvert the gospel and bring believers back into slavery
So why did Paul not yield => So that the truth of the Gospel might be preserved
Paul could have made his life a whole lot easier, if he just succumbed to this point. Since circumcision wasn’t really anything,
But so that the truth of the gospel and the Galatians and Gentiles freedom in Christ might be preserved, he didn’t yield.
Paul through his entire ministry fought this fight that started here. He was vigilant through his entire ministry to maintain integrity on these points.
Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Today for us, this I know we have no issue with circumcision. And this seems so far removed from us as any important debate.
But the struggle for Christian liberty and truth of the gospel not a dead issue.
Humans are forever trying to add to the gospel, to God’s completed work of salvation.
Jesus Christ and mass attendance, Jesus and water baptism, Jesus and good works, or jesus and a charismatic experience. Jesus and don’t wear lipstick or make up, Jesus and don’t watch movies or 'Rated R’ movies, worship in a particular way, or keep the sabbath, or don’t watch Harry Potter.
Using these things as grounds of our acceptance by God, even obedience to the law.
Ranking Sins is another way this expresses itself; Struggle with some sins it is acceptable; however if you struggle with others it’s not (just think about pride or lust vs drug addition or homosexuality )
The other way we struggle is to scream “don’t judge me” as we throw away true obedience to the law and do what we want - Anti-nominism
Paul said that circumcision nor uncircumcision matters only keeping the commandments of God. Keeping the commandments is not a matter for debate as an outflow of our faith; but cannot be used as grounds of our acceptance by God.
Tradition is used in multiple ways, so I would like to describe a couple of uses of the word:
Tradition - is often used of Scripture that is passed from Prophet or apostle to the people of God. Scriptures are traditions as they are copied and handed down from generation to generation
The only thing that counts says Paul is faith working itself out through love (Love for God, Love for others)
Traditions - manner’s of practices handed down within a culture or people. Matters like manner of dress, use of makeup, style of worship (hymns or contemporary, liturgical or not), playing cards, drinking, foods that are eaten, and now circumcision. whether you go to the movies and what you watch. Some aspects of these things are regulated by God (modest dress, theologically correct music) but a lot of these are not. Pharisees were rebuked for these when they crossed God’s law and they required obedience to them.
Legalism:
when you add laws that God does not require to the law, not when you require obedience to the law (i.e the commands of Christ). For the Christian,
substitute obedience to the law for salvation by grace alone through faith alone. For example, when we substitute our obedience to commands of God as the means of pleasing God instead of the work that God require’s and trusting Christ for that Salvation.
Why did they do this? Was to subvert the gospel and bring believers back into slavery
Why did they do this? Was to subvert the gospel and bring believers back into slavery
Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.
I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Paul next gives the response of the Jerusalem leaders to his laying out of the Gospel that he preached.
Paul in this section is not putting down the leaders in Jerusalem by saying that they ‘seemed to be leaders’ or ‘reputed to be leaders’ . This wasn’t a cynical attitude towards them. That would have been counter productive to his argument to do that.
He recognized their authority without subjecting himself to that authority, he didn’t go up to a summons from them but according to a revelation by God.
This section shows the unity of these 2 groups on the Gospel.
And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.
:6B
There was a profound unity and recognition of the fact that God had a ministry for Paul and a ministry for Peter. Paul to the uncircumcised, Peter to the circumcised. and a shared task of reaching people with the gospel.
They added nothing to Paul’s gospel, Paul’s gospel which originated by revelation from Jesus. He was again asserting the fact that he wasn’t second class because he didn’t have the history the other apostles had with Jesus, or the
This did not mean that there were boundaries that neither could cross, but there was room enough for both to work to proclaim the gospel.
God’s gac
But the Jerusalem leader’s recognized the Grace of God in the ministry of Paul. They saw was God was doing in Paul’s life, and affirmed it.
2)
2)
There was room enough for both to work and to focus. This agreement allowed for the greatest fulfillment of the great commission to proclaim the gospel to the ends of the earth.
I daresay this is something we can learn from, that as long as we are agreed on the majors, to support/affirm one others (i.e. between churches) efforts to reach our town, and nation.
=
Finally, They asked Paul to remember the poor> the poor in Jerusalem. This wasn’t an addendum to the Gospel, but rather a request of need. Those in jerusalem, experienced famine, poverty, war. The persecutions begun by Paul and others, hit this church really hard
They were constantly oppressed.
Paul received this request as not an onerous burden (remember he came up in response to bringing an offering to the church). Churches all over the world contributed to this need and Paul came back at least 1 other time (acts 21) bringing an offering for this church.
Paul saw the need both to proclaim the gospel as well as be the body of Christ and care for needs of those around him. However, clearly from his ministry he felt the burden of the eternal destiny of all men that he had contact with and prioritized that task over the other concern.
This last statement also points to the fact that, although we ought to feel the weight of eternal destiny of consequence of the gospel going out to our friends and neighbors and relatives, and the dire consequences of that that the outflow of belief and discipleship will be love towards our neighbor that cannot ignore their that there is a social responsibility of love and a concern for