The Truth of the Gospel

 Hello everyone. 

As we move deeper into Galatians 2, we come to a story of Peter's visit to Antioch, and how the issue of fellowship between Jews and Gentiles came to head.  Here is my translation of Galatians 2:11-14:

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood convicted of grave error. 12 Before the arrival of certain men sent by James, Peter had eaten with the Gentiles, but afterwards, he separated himself because he feared the circumcision group. 

13 The rest of the Jews joined with him in his hypocrisy, to the point that even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that their behavior was not compatible with the truth of the Gospel, I called out Cephas in front of everyone, saying, “If you are Jew who lives like a Gentile, then why are you trying to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Peter visits Antioch.  Apparently, he had been enjoying the fellowship of the Gentiles in Antioch, but, then some men showed up, sent from James, and Peter then separated himself from the Gentiles. As this circumcision crowd had come in, Peter withdrawal is noticable, and other Jews joined Peter in this, apparently, even Barnabus.  So, Paul calls Peter out on it.  

We have a very different scene here than the one Paul had just discussed.  In Jerusalem, Peter gave Paul the right hand of fellowship, but in Antioch, Paul opposes Peter to his face.  

In verse 14, Paul says that he calls Peter out on it becasue such behavior is not compatible with “τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου” (tēn alētheian tou euangeliou) or “The truth of the Gospel.”  

A good question to ask here would be, "What is the truth of the Gospel?" The truth of the Gospel is that it is a gospel of grace, not law-keeping.  Peter’s behavior was not compatible with grace.  Peter’s action of withdrawing his fellowship from the Gentile beleivers, by itself, is bad, but the fact that it was Peter, one of the most influential guys in the church, led others into this bad behavior, makes it even worse. Paul doesn't correct him quietly, in a corner somewhere. He calls him out in front of everyone. 

Why does Paul make such a big deal here?  Becasue, Peter’s actions are not in step with the truth of the gospel.  John Stott points out that Peter’s teaching was in step with it, but when he withdrew from the Gentile converts, his behavior was no longer in line with his teaching or with the truth of the gospel. (Stott, 50.)  Having been the guy who baptized Cornbelius and his family, Peter should have recognized that this not in step with the Holy Spirit, either. 

There is some discussion about when this incident actually took place.  Was it before or after the conference in Jerusalem?  Peter’s action makes a lot more sense if it happened before Jerusalem, since the issue of obedience to the Law had been settled there. It makes very little sense for Peter to act that way in Antioch after the Jerusalem meeting.  It also makes very little sense for James to send men of the circumcision group, since James was one of the people who spoke up on behalf of the Gentiles at the Jerusalem meeting.  

Of course, we have to realize that the issue here is not actually about circumcision, instead the issue is about the eating of meals with Gentiles. Perhaps the question still remained about how much contact there was to be between a faithful Jewish Christian and a Gentile Christian.  

Apparently Peter had overcome the typical Jewish hesitance to eat and associate with Gentiles, until these men showed up. It looks like Peter was a little afraid of them, because when they showed up, he stopped eating with the Gentiles.  

Peter is very influential, and his behavior, as previously stated, influenced others to do the same, most notably, Barnabus, who had helped to build the church in Antioch. Douglas Moo says that Antioch had become something of a laboratory for Jew-Gentile relations, (Moo, 142) as we are seeing the removal of some racial barriers.  Jews had always feared contamination from Gentiles, and the Jewish Christians seemed to have a hard time letting go of it. Whatever the motivation, Paul was clearly very upset by Peter’s actions. 

Peter should have known better than to act this way, but it still took courage and deep conviction for Paul to directly challenge him this way that he did. ( For the record, Barnabus is let off pretty easy here, but he should have known better too.) 

Paul says that Peter was condemned where “he stood convicted of grave error.” (My translation.)  The Greek word κατεγνωσμένος  (kategnōsmenos) is often translated as condemned.  So what does this mean? Does Peter stand condemned before God because of this mistake?  I don’t think so.  I think that God is far more gracious than that.  My opinion is that Paul's meaning here is that Peter is making a huge mistake, one that has really big implications for the conduct of the church.  

Moo says, “The disagreement in this text between the two in the matter of association between Jewish and Gentile believers should not be minimized: Paul does think that the truth of the Gospel is at stake.  Yet the difference is not fundamentally over theology but over the implications for a specific form of conduct that arises from theology.”  (Moo, 146.) Paul addresses this point later in Galatians 3:26-29. In God’s kingdom, Jews are no longer to hold themselves separate from Gentiles.  

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.  (NIV)

That's the truth of the gospel.  The gospel is God's grace and his grace makes us equals, in spite of ethnicity, gender and life circumstances.  The truth is that we are fortunate to be a part of such a great fellowship, anyway.  

Where Freedom is found

Greetings everyone.

We will look at verses 4-10 in Galatians 2.  Here is my translation:

 4 But false brothers had slipped in.  They had snuck in amongst us to spy on the freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, in an attempt to make slaves of us. 5 We did not submit to this, even for a short time, so that the truth of the Gospel would remain in you. 

6 As for those held in high regard, I received nothing additional from them. (It does not matter to me, as God shows no partiality.) 7 Rather, they saw that I had been entrusted with proclaiming the Gospel to the uncircumcised, just like Peter was sent to those who have been circumcised. 8 For the One who is at work in Peter in his mission to the circumcised, is also at work in me, in my mission to the Gentiles. 9 So, when those known to be pillars, James, Cephas and John, saw the grace that had been given to Barnabus and I, they gave us the right hand of fellowship, so that they would go among the circumcised, and we would go among the Gentiles. 10 One thing they asked of us, that we remember the poor, something that I was eager to do. 

In verse 4, Paul states that “false brothers” had slipped in among them.  Their plan and purpose was to spy on the freedom that they had in Christ, and to enslave them.  The first thing that I notice here is that Paul equates true Christianity with freedom.  It is reminiscent of what Jesus says in John 8:31, “the truth will set you free.”  Following Jesus is supposed to set us free.  If we are not experiencing some measure of freedom, then we must be doing something wrong.  

Christianity is not supposed to be enslaving, but this is the comparison Paul makes with emphasis on the Law being pushed by these “false brothers.”  Strict obedience to the Old Law is seen equated with slavery. 

Who are these men?  Paul paints a very negative picture of them.  He portrays them as men who "snuck in" amongst the fellowship as spies for the purpose of taking away their freedom in Christ and enslaving them with the Law.  I love what John Stott says about this:  “Paul saw the issue plainly.  It was not a question of circumcision and uncircumcision, of Gentile and Jewish customs.  It was a matter of fundamental importance regarding the truth of the gospel, namely, of Christian freedom versus bondage. The Christian has been set free in the sense that his acceptance before God depends entirely upon God’s grace in the death of Jesus Christ received by faith. To introduce the works of the law and make our acceptance depend on our obedience to rules and regulations was to bring a free man into bondage again.”  (Stott, 43.)

Paul makes note in verse 5 that they did not even entertain the idea that was being pushed by these false teachers,  He says “We did not submit to this even for a short time”  Paul had no interest in placating this crowd, and he knew that this false gospel was not a part of the gospel that God had taught him.  Paul goes on to give the reasoning behind their refusal.  Paul continues, “So that the truth of the gospel would remain in you.”  He is fighting for the truth of the gospel.  What is that truth?  The gospel is grace and freedom, not adherence to the law, which ultimately becomes bondage.  

Going on to verse 6-9, Paul returns to his discussion of his time with the apostles. He states that he had received nothing additional from, but that they each had their own God-given mission.   They had their mission to the Jews, and he had his mission to the Gentiles. Paul states in verse 7 that they acknowledged that Paul had been entrusted with this mission to the Gentiles.  This is important, as Paul makes the case that the same God who gave Peter, James and John their mission to the Jews is the same God who gave him the mission to the Gentiles, and that He does not show partiality.  One mission was not more important than the other. 

Paul refers to those in Jerusalem, likely, those three in particular, as “those held in high regard” in verse 6 and “those known to be pillars” in verse 9. He is making reference to some of the great leaders of church, those whose thoughts and opinions would hold great sway among the believers.  I mean, we are talking about Peter and John, two of Jesus’ innermost circle, and James, the Lord’s brother. Three of the most influential people in the early church, if not the three most influential.  If they were to listen to anyone, it would be them. Stott makes notes that these men had all walked with Jesus in his physical presence on the Earth, while Paul likely had not.  

It is likely that Paul’s detractors are coming into the Galatian churches and telling them that Paul’s gospel is not consistent with the gospel that the Apostles in Jerusalem are teaching.  That is why Paul is now discussing them in this light.  Those pillars have heard the gospel that he is teaching, and they agree with it.  In fact, they are teaching the same gospel, Peter, James and John to the Jews, and Paul and Barnabus to the Gentiles.  

He continues, stating that they extended to him and Barnabus the right hand of fellowship and send them on their way, so that both parties could complete their various missions. Paul is not not at odds with the leaders in Jerusalem. Paul strengthens his point that the one and only gospel, the gospel he and the apostles are teahcing, was and still is the gospel of God's grace.

Thsi section of scripure closes with an acknowledgement that the one request made of Paul and Barnabus upon parting, is that Paul and Barnabus continue to remember the poor.  This is not mentioned in the Acts 15 letter, but Paul states that this was something that he was eager to do, anyway, so one could assume that Paul would have done this regardless. The thing to note here is that helping the poor is something that both groups saw as important.