Scripture Reading: Gal. 2:1-14
In the foregoing messages we have pointed out that Paul was a pattern for the believers, especially for Gentile believers. In particular, the formation of Paul’s apostleship is a pattern for the formation of our apostleship today. In this message we come to 2:1-14. In these verses not only do we have a record of how Paul kept the truth; we have a pattern by which we may learn of Paul how we also may keep the truth. Let us firstly consider Paul’s faithfulness to the truth of the gospel. Then we shall consider Peter’s unfaithfulness.
In Galatians we see that Paul was faithful, honest, frank, and bold. At the same time, he also displayed a spirit of meekness. He refers to such a spirit in 6:1, where he says that those who are spiritual should restore the one overtaken in an offense in a spirit of meekness. In writing this Epistle, Paul was endeavoring to restore the Galatian believers who had been overtaken by their weakness. No doubt, in their subtlety the Judaizers had taken advantage of the weakness of the Galatian believers. Therefore, Paul exercised a spirit of meekness in order to restore the ones who had been overtaken. On the one hand, he was bold; on the other hand, he was meek in spirit. Regarding this, we all need to learn of Paul.
Throughout the years, both in the Far East and in the West, I have learned that much that passes for meekness is actually the playing of politics. Paul certainly was not meek in this way. For example, in 2:4 he speaks of “false brothers, brought in secretly, who stole in to spy out our freedom.” In making such a statement, Paul surely was not political. In his choice of terms he was bold and frank.
Those who take the lead in the churches must learn to be honest, faithful, frank, and bold, yet all of this with meekness. We should never play politics. However, if we are short of grace and lack the wisdom to handle a particular situation, we may need to be silent. But we must never be political.
In dealing with the problem in Galatia, Paul faced a situation which was serious and very touchy. In 4:20 he said that he was perplexed about the Galatians. He was puzzled, not knowing how to deal with these distracted believers. But even though Paul was puzzled, he did not play politics. On the contrary, he was still frank, honest, and bold.
Playing politics is a form of lying. In the eyes of God, politics is more evil than an outright lie. This is the reason that the international political situation is so evil, so deplorable, in God’s sight. Many diplomats and ambassadors are experts at lying in a subtle way. Some have even been trained to behave in such a manner. The church is altogether another realm, another kingdom. In this realm, the realm of the kingdom of the heavens, there should not be any lying; neither should there be any playing of politics. In John 8:44 the Lord Jesus said that the Devil, Satan, is the father of lies. Since playing politics is even worse than lying, it must also issue from the devilish father of lies. Because the playing of politics is so evil and devilish, negotiations can never bring peace among the nations. How can there be peace among nations when the representatives of those nations lie and play politics? In the church, the earthly embassy of the heavenly kingdom, there should be no playing of politics.
Paul, a good example of a heavenly ambassador, was not political in dealing with the Galatians. He spoke the truth in a frank way. You may feel that Paul was extreme in his frankness. Who else would use such a term as “false brothers”? Would you dare to call someone a false brother? Would you write a letter in which you speak of false brothers who have stolen in to spy out our freedom? Probably none of us would dare to be as frank as Paul was. Furthermore, in 3:1 he addressed the believers as “foolish Galatians.” How bold, honest, and genuine Paul was! The Galatian believers certainly were foolish to turn from Christ to the law. They surely were foolish in following the Judaizers. Therefore, Paul addressed them in a bold and frank manner. Let us learn from him to be faithful and bold and not to play politics. If we lack grace or the wisdom, we may be quiet. But if we speak regarding a particular situation, we should not be political.
In 2:1 and 2 Paul said, “Then after a period of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus with me also. And I went up according to revelation.” As recorded in Acts 15, this happened after a number of churches had been raised up in the Gentile world by Paul’s preaching (see Acts 13 and 14). This also indicates that Paul’s preaching of the gospel to raise up the Gentile churches had nothing to do with the believers in Jerusalem and Judea.
In 1:18 Paul speaks of going up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas. In 2:1 and 2 we see that after a period of fourteen years, he went up to Jerusalem again, according to revelation. Not only Paul’s gospel but also his going up to Jerusalem was according to the Lord’s revelation, not according to any organization or system. His moves and activity were according to the Lord’s instant leading. This again indicates that his preaching of the gospel was not according to man’s teaching, but according to the Lord’s direct revelation.
From Paul’s experience of going up to Jerusalem after fourteen years according to revelation, we learn that it is often more difficult not to go to a certain place than it is to go there. For example, it is easy for me to make the decision to fly to London. But to refrain from doing so for fourteen years may not be easy. This requires that I be restricted. Because Paul was restricted, he did not go to Jerusalem apart from revelation. However, at a certain time, according to revelation, he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus.
Paul’s visit to Jerusalem refers to the time of Acts 15. The Judaizers had caused a great deal of trouble by telling the Gentile believers that they had to be circumcised in order to be saved. They were making circumcision a condition of God’s eternal salvation. This issue was extremely serious. According to revelation, Paul went up to Jerusalem to deal with the source of the problem. Paul did not go to Jerusalem to receive revelation or learn some new teachings. Rather, he went there according to revelation to deal with the source of a serious problem.
In this matter Paul also is a pattern for us. We should learn from his example not to go anywhere or to take any action in a light way. On the contrary, we must be restricted by the Spirit in our spirit. Whenever we go to a certain place, we should move according to revelation.
In 2:2 Paul also says, “I laid before them the gospel which I proclaim among the nations, but privately to those of reputation, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.” In doing this, Paul also was restricted. If we were going up to Jerusalem in that situation, we probably would have gone up with a great deal of fanfare. Perhaps we would have sent out advertisements telling people that the apostle to the Gentile world was coming. This is the way practiced in today’s Christianity. Announcement of the coming of a well-known preacher or evangelist is made in advance in order to assure a large crowd. Paul, in contrast to the way of today’s Christianity, presented his gospel privately to certain ones. This indicates that he went up to Jerusalem privately with no intention of speaking before a large congregation. He simply wanted to contact the leading ones, the apostles and elders. This is according to the record of Acts 15, which corresponds to the account in Galatians 2.
In verse 3 Paul goes on to say, “But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.” This indicates that Paul in his move for the Lord’s testimony did not care for the observance of the law. Paul deliberately refused to have Titus circumcised. Paul’s purpose was to keep the truth. Since in Christ circumcision is over, to circumcise a believer would cause the truth to be blurred. Therefore, Paul did not compel Titus to be circumcised.
Judaism was built upon the God-given law with three pillars: circumcision, the Sabbath, and the holy diet. All three were ordained by God (Gen. 17:9-14; Exo. 20:8-11; Lev. 11) as shadows of things to come (Col. 2:16-17). Circumcision was a shadow of the crucifixion of Christ in putting off the flesh as signified in baptism (Col. 2:11). The Sabbath was a type of Christ as the rest for His people (Matt. 11:28-30). The holy diet symbolized the distinction between persons called clean and unclean, those whom God’s holy people should contact and those they should not contact (Acts 10:11-16, 34-35). Since Christ has come, all the shadows must be over. Hence, the observance of the Sabbath was abolished by the Lord Jesus in His ministry (Matt. 12:1-12), the holy diet was annulled by the Holy Spirit in Peter’s ministry (Acts 10:9-20), and circumcision was counted as nothing in the revelation received by Paul in his ministry (Gal. 5:6; 6:15). Furthermore, the law, the base of Judaism, has been terminated and replaced by Christ (Rom. 10:4; Gal. 2:16). Thus, the entire Judaism is gone.
In verses 4 and 5 Paul continues, “And it was because of the false brothers, brought in secretly, who stole in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus that they might bring us into slavery; to whom we yielded in subjection not even for an hour.” The false brothers were the Judaizers who perverted the gospel of Christ by smuggling the observances of the law into the church and who troubled the genuine believers in Christ (1:7). The freedom Paul speaks of here is freedom from the bondage of the law. Slavery here refers to slavery under the law.
The false brothers to whom Paul refused to be subject were spreading the concept that believers had to be circumcised in order to be saved. Paul stood against this and did not yield even for an hour. He would not be subject to those who sought to damage our freedom in Christ and to bring us into slavery. To be free in Christ is to enjoy liberation from the bondage of the law with its requirement of circumcision. All the believers are now free from obligation to the law, especially from the obligation to be circumcised. In order to maintain this freedom, Paul refused to have Titus circumcised or to yield in subjection to the Judaizers.
Paul refused to yield in subjection to the false brothers so that the truth of the gospel might remain with the believers. All that Paul did, he did on behalf of the believers so that, for their sake, the truth would remain clear.
In verse 6 Paul says, “But from those who were of reputation as being somewhat (whatever they were, it means nothing to me; God does not accept man’s person), for to me those who were of reputation imparted nothing.” Here we see that Paul did not receive anything from those of reputation. Peter, John, and James did not have anything to teach Paul. Rather, Paul had much to teach them. More of the New Testament was written by Paul than by anyone else. In his second Epistle, Peter even admitted that in Paul’s writings “are some things hard to be understood” (2 Pet. 3:16).
We have pointed out that in Paul’s Epistles a number of great items are covered that are not found elsewhere. For example, Paul speaks of the new man, a matter not even hinted at in the Gospels. Furthermore, in his Epistles Paul presents a thorough analysis of our regenerated being. He describes our regenerated spirit, renewed heart, transformed soul, renewed mind, and the condition of our physical body. Neither Peter nor John speaks of these things in such a full way. Consider the picture Paul presents in Romans 8. What a view we have in this chapter of our regenerated being! According to this chapter, to have a regenerated being is to have divinity mingled with our humanity. This means that the element of divinity has been added to our humanity. No other New Testament writer presents this matter in the way Paul does. This indicates that Paul had a great deal to teach other believers. But although Paul knew more and had more, he was not proud.
In Jerusalem there was a lack of the proper atmosphere for Paul to present what he had within him. From a careful reading of Acts 15 we can realize that in Jerusalem there was an atmosphere of superiority. To some extent at least, the apostles there regarded themselves as superior to Paul and Barnabas. Paul and Barnabas were apostles to the uncircumcision, to the Gentiles, whereas those in Jerusalem were apostles to the circumcision. Spiritually speaking, however, Paul was superior to Peter, John, and James. The attitude of superiority that prevailed in Jerusalem was a factor that contributed to the destruction of that city in 70 A.D., about fifteen years after Paul went up to Jerusalem as recorded in Galatians 2.
Paul had seen more than Peter, James, and John had. They had seen the Lord in the flesh and had come to know Him according to the flesh. But Paul knew Him in a spiritual way. In 2 Corinthians 5:16 Paul says, “Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.” We should seek to know Christ not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. Because Paul knew Christ in spirit, he had seen more and had more than Peter, John, and James.
This shows us that we should not trust in age or seniority. Peter, John, and James were older than Paul and were apostles when he was still a young man persecuting the followers of the Lord Jesus. But after his conversion, Paul came to see more of Christ and of God’s economy than anyone else. The book of Romans, for instance, indicates the depth of Paul’s knowledge. Paul certainly had a great deal to teach those in Jerusalem. But the atmosphere was not right for him to do so. Therefore, he did not teach them anything; nevertheless, he did not receive anything from those of reputation.
According to verse 7, those in Jerusalem realized that Paul had been “entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with that of the circumcision.” It was clear that the Lord had entrusted to Paul the gospel of the uncircumcision. Although concerning this Paul was frank, honest, faithful, and bold, he was not proud. Rather, he simply realized that the One who worked in Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision worked also in him for the nations, for the uncircumcision.
In verse 9 Paul goes on to say, “And perceiving the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and to Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that we should go to the nations, and they to the circumcision.” In the listing of the apostles, Peter was mentioned first (Matt. 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). However, here James is mentioned first. This indicates that the foremost leading one in the church at this time was not Peter, but James the brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19). This is confirmed by Acts 15:13-21, where James, not Peter, was the authority to give the final decisive word in the conference held in Jerusalem. It must be that James came to the forefront to take the lead among the apostles because of Peter’s weakness shown in not holding the truth of the gospel, as illustrated by Paul in verses 11 through 14. Hence, both in Galatians 2:12 and Acts 21:18, James was considered the representative of the church in Jerusalem and of the apostles. This is strong proof that Peter was not always the foremost leader of the church. This also implies that leadership in the church is not organizational and perpetual, but it is spiritual and fluctuates according to the spiritual condition of the leading ones. It strongly refutes the assertion of Catholicism that Peter was the only successor of Christ in the administration of the church.
Because Paul was honest, faithful, frank, and bold, he opposed Peter to his face when Peter was not faithful to the truth of the gospel. In 2:11 Paul says, “But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he was to be condemned.” As we shall see, Peter was not faithful to the vision he had received concerning the Gentiles. When he was in Antioch, he not only played politics, but also acted in a hypocritical manner. For this reason, Paul opposed him.
In 2:11-14 Peter’s unfaithfulness to the truth of the gospel is exposed. In referring to this, we are not siding with Paul against Peter; we are simply speaking the facts.
When I first read these verses, I was shocked. I could hardly believe what I was reading. But since these verses were written by Paul, they must be true. I found it hard to believe that one who had been with the Lord Jesus for three and a half years and who had seen the vision in Acts 10 regarding the abolition of the Levitical diet could practice such hypocrisy. Nevertheless, in Antioch Peter did just this. No wonder he lost his place of leadership. He was disqualified because he was not faithful to the vision he had seen. He did not keep the truth according to the vision he had received from the Lord.
In 2:12 we see that before certain ones came from James, Peter ate with those of the nations. This was against the customary practice of the Jews in keeping the observances of their law. If eating with those of the nations was wrong, Peter should not have done it in the first place. Since he ate with them, he indicated that it was proper to do so.
When certain ones came from James, Peter “shrank back and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision.” The phrase “from James” means from the church in Jerusalem. This is another indication that at that time James, not Peter, was the first among the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. The fact that Peter shrank back proves that he was very weak in the pure Christian faith. He had received an exceedingly clear vision from the heavens concerning fellowship with the Gentiles, and he took the lead to put that vision into practice in Acts 10. What weakness and backsliding to shrink from eating with Gentile believers out of fear of those of the circumcision! No wonder he lost the leadership among the apostles.
In verse 12 Paul specifically points out that Peter feared those of the circumcision. This indicates that in Jerusalem there was an atmosphere that strongly favored the observance of circumcision. Probably all the Jewish believers in Jerusalem, including Peter, were still in favor of this practice.
In verse 13 Paul says, “And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy.” When the leading one backslid, the rest easily followed. It is almost incredible that Peter, the leading apostle, practiced hypocrisy in relation to the truth of the gospel.
At least twice in the New Testament we are told that Peter took the lead in a negative way and that others followed him. In John 21 Peter led the way to go fishing. In this he was followed by some of the other disciples. Here in Galatians 2 Peter practiced hypocrisy, and others followed him.
Paul points out that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. Barnabas participated in Paul’s first journey to preach the gospel to the Gentiles and to raise up the Gentile churches. Even one who had so much fellowship with the Gentile believers was carried away by Peter’s hypocrisy. What a negative influence Peter exerted upon others! Surely he deserved to lose his leadership.
Although there was a prevailing atmosphere in favor of circumcision, Peter should not have been subdued. The Lord had shown him an impressive vision, and he should not have forgotten it. Nevertheless, even though he did not forget the vision, he behaved in a hypocritical way with respect to eating with the Gentiles.
Because Peter and the others were hypocritical, Paul rebuked him when he “saw that they did not walk straightforwardly in relation to the truth of the gospel” (v. 14). Peter was absolutely wrong, and Paul rebuked him to his face. He would not allow the clear truth of the gospel to be damaged. Probably Paul was the only one with the boldness to rebuke a leading apostle such as Peter. Thank the Lord for Paul’s faithfulness. If he had not been faithful there at Antioch, the truth of the gospel might have been blurred.
In front of all, Paul said to Peter, “If you, being a Jew, live like the nations and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the nations to live like Jews?” To live like the nations is to eat, live, and fellowship with the Gentiles. To live like Jews, or to Judaize (Gk.), is not to eat or have fellowship with the Gentiles.
We praise the Lord that through Paul’s faithfulness the truth of the gospel was preserved. Today it is crystal clear according to the New Testament that in Christ there is no circumcision. We have been set free from slavery under the law and from the bondage of circumcision. There is no need for us to keep the law or to be circumcised. Rather, we only need faith in Christ. Because of Paul’s faithfulness and boldness, this truth was preserved and has remained clear for us today. We thank the Lord for this.
