Galatians # 25

GALATIANS # 25
4/25/11
Crucified with Christ?
Paul’s doctrine
Chapter 2: 17 - 24

Title : The Holy Bible, English Standard Version
Edition : Second
Copyright : Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. All rights reserved. Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 2004, QuickVerse, a division of FindEx.com, Inc.

Galatians 2:17-21 ( ESV )
But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not!
For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor.
For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God.
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

(KJV):
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

In verses 15 – 16, Paul is addressing fellow Jewish Christians (likely Peter, Barnabas and “the other Jews”) with a point of agreement; stating as a matter of fact that everyone agrees that we are justified by faith – not by works. Now, with the word “but” introducing vv 17 -18 he presents a point of disagreement: responding to any objections before they can be leveled. With this shift, Paul also now broadens his audience to include the Galatians; then vv 19 -21, he defines the gospel with an intense personal confession of faith. With these seven short verses Paul lays out the foundation, the core of our hope, the premise on which all Christian Theology/Christology/Soteriology is based. He expands upon these principles in chapters 3 and 4.

• 2:17, But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not!

The KJV uses the stronger “God forbid!” in either case Paul passionately rebuts this concept. There is no record of what the conversations were between the men from James and Peter or what was specifically said to the Galatians it is very possible that they had made just such an accusation, possibly something like:
“You are sinning by eating “un-clean” food with these gentiles and you’re then telling them that they are free to likewise not keep the commandments which God delivered through Moses, by doing this you are making Jesus the agent of sin!”
Something along these lines was at least a part of the accusations which were being used against Paul. All we have to go by is Paul’s response. Paul’s rebuttal applies to both the problem in Antioch and the trouble brewing in Galatia; his use of the word “we” includes the Jews who have been keeping the law, as sinners, right along with the gentiles!

We have to keep in mind that the ones challenging Paul’s doctrine were not un-believers or even apostates – they were sincere Christians, devout in their adherence to the Mosaic law; they truly did not comprehend how their teaching, adding “works”, diluted the Gospel – in fact negated the gospel of Grace; they truly believed that not keeping the Mosaic law was sinning…

• 2: 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor.

Paul had been around Peter enough that he undoubtedly knew about Peter’s vision in Joppa and his experiences with Cornelius; even though he shifts to “I” this statement is also pointedly meant for Peter…without directly condemning him. It applies to gentile converts as well – in accepting the salvation given by Christ, they had all been freed from the bondage to whatever system they had been in. Now to abandon that free gift and rebuild the bondage they had been in would in fact convict them as “a servant of sin”, enslave them again! Having known Christ’s Grace, and then, In rejecting that free gift, Christ’s atonement for us, I would truly be a sinner of the worst kind!
• 2: 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to GodContinuing with “I” Paul makes a subtle shift – now he is making a confessional statement, harking back to 1: 15 – 16. Though stated in personal terms what he says applies to all Christians, describing a “normal” Christian life.
Paul is using the phrase “died to the law” in the sense of “released from the dominion of”; it no longer controlled him.

F. F. Bruce, in his commentary on Galatians provides a slightly different but valid view:
…‘The question of transgressing the law does not arise for one who has died in relation to the law.’ Transgression implies a law to be transgressed, as Paul notes in Rom. 4:15b; 5:13; it is in the presence of law that sin shows itself in the form of transgression. But the possibility that ‘I constitute myself a transgressor’ before the law is now excluded, for ‘I have died in relation to the law’. Death in relation to the law is more relevant to Jewish Christians who once lived under law: if it is preposterous for them, after dying to the law, to put themselves under law again, it is even more preposterous for Gentile Christians like the Galatians to assume the yoke of a law to which they had no ancestral commitment.
All believers in Christ have ‘died in relation to sin’ (Rom. 6:2, 11), but the point stressed here is that, at the same time, they have ‘died in relation to law’—Jewish believers specifically and consciously so. Paul—for he puts the case in the first person singular—no longer lives under the power of the law; he has been released from its dominion and has entered into new life. ‘With death obligations towards the law have ceased’ (H.-J. Schoeps, Paul, 193). It is fundamental to Paul’s understanding of the law that he can define one and the same experience as death to law (cf. Rom. 7:4–6) and death to sin (Rom. 6:2). To be under law is to be exposed to the power of sin, for ‘the power of sin is the law’ (1 Cor. 15:56); it is the law that provides sin with a vantage-point from which to invade Mansoul (cf. Rom. 7:7–11). But to those who have entered into new life in Christ the assurance is given: ‘sin will have no more dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace’

Paul, then, ‘died to the law’ in order to ‘live to God’ (revealed in Christ). But how was it διὰ νόμου that he died νόμῳ? According to T. Zahn (Galater, 133), the law showed him his need of redemption and referred him to faith. More adequately, R C. Tannehill (Dying and Rising, 59) understands Paul’s wording in the light of the law’s relation to Christ. As appears below in 3:13, Christ bore the curse of the law and exhausted its penalty on his people’s behalf: in this sense Christ died διὰ νόμου, and ‘the believer’s death to the law is also “through law” because he died in Christ’s death’—as Paul goes on immediately to affirm: Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι. The law has no further claim on him who in death satisfied its last demand, and the believer who has ‘died with Christ’ is similarly ‘discharged from the law’ (Rom. 7:6).

(Rom. 6:14). Cf. P. Benoit, ‘La loi et la croix d’après Saint Paul (Rom VII,7–VIII,4)’, RB 47 (1938), 488–509 (especially 502 n. 3).
C. F. D. Moule, ‘Death “to sin”, “to law”, and “to the world”: A Note on Certain Datives’, Rigaux FS, 367–375, suggests that the construction of ἀποθανεῖν with the dative was created by analogy with ζῆν followed by the dative in a relational sense (e.g. ζῆν τῷ θεῷ, as in 4 Macc. 7:19; 16:25; Lk. 20:38).


Expanding on v19:

• 2: 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me

1n v13 Paul began interjecting sanctification along with his usage of justified, now here in v 20, he builds upon and broadens the concept.

Down through the ages sanctification, along with justification, has been one of the major disagreements between the protestants and Catholics. Difference between the meaning and application of the two terms has been a matter of serious disagreement and friction throughout the church, not only between Catholics and Protestants, but throughout Christendom; it is vitally important to distinguish between the two:
• Justification: G1344 δικαιόω dikaioō dik-ah-yo'-o From G1342; to render (that is, show or regard as) just or innocent:—free, justify (-ier), be righteous.
• Sanctification:G37 ἁγιάζω hagiazō hag-ee-ad'-zo From G40; to make holy, that is, (ceremonially) purify or consecrate; (mentally) to venerate:—hallow, be holy, sanctify

Among the various Christian denominations there is a wide range of beliefs as to the meaning and application of sanctification, Here are a few examples from Wikipedia:
Calvinist and Evangelical theologians interpret sanctification as the process of being made holy only through the merits and justification of Jesus Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit. Sanctification cannot be attained by any works based process, but only through the works and power of the divine. Sanctification is seen as a process in Calvinism and not instantaneous.[3] As the process of sanctification flows, the person becomes, in their essence, a different person/man. When a man is unregenerate, it is their essence that sins and does evil. But when a man is justified through Christ, it is no longer the man (in his essence) that sins, but the man is acting outside of his character. In other words, the man is not being himself, he is not being true to who he is.[4] (See Gal 2: 13, 20)

The Catholics see it as a multiple set of actions (Wikipedia):

Roman Catholicism
According to the Catholic encyclopedia "sanctity"[10] differs for God, individual, and corporate body. For God, it is God's unique absolute moral perfection. For the individual, it is a close union with God and the resulting moral perfection. It is essentially of God, by a divine gift. For a society, it is the ability to produce and secure holiness in its members, who display a real, not merely nominal, holiness. The Church's holiness is beyond human power, beyond natural power.
Sanctity is regulated by standards. For example, according to the doctrine of the love of suffering, holiness must include this quality. It is not that pleasure were evil in itself, but that suffering purifies one's love of God. Those who attain holiness learn to rejoice in suffering. By it their love of God is freed from self-seeking. Their lives conform to their master.
There are many other views among the various other denominations.

Timothy George, in The New American Commentary sheds a little light on it:

…But what does it mean to be “crucified with Christ”? In one sense this is presumptuous language because the mystery of atonement requires that the death of Christ be unique, unrepeatable, and isolated. The two thieves who were literally crucified with Christ did not bear the sins of the world in their agonizing deaths. On the cross Christ suffered alone forsaken by his friends, his followers, and finally even his Father, dying, as J. Moltmann puts it, “a God-forsaken death for God-forsaken people.”194 With reference to his substitutionary suffering and vicarious death, only Jesus, and he alone, can be the Substitute and Vicar. And yet—this was Paul’s point—the very benefits of Christ’s atoning death, including first of all justification, are without effect unless we are identified with Christ in his death and resurrection. As Calvin put it, “As long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us.”195 Thus to be crucified with Christ is, as Paul said elsewhere, to know him in the “fellowship of his sufferings” (Phil 3:10). To be crucified with Christ is the same as being dead to the law. This means that we are freed from all the curse and guilt of the law and, by this very deliverance, are set free truly to “live for God.” As Calvin said again, “Engrafted into the death of Christ, we derive a secret energy from it, as the shoot does from the root.”196 It is this experience of divine grace that makes the doctrine of justification a living reality rather than a legal fiction.
3. “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.”Paul set forth in this expression his doctrine of the indwelling Christ. Probably no verse in the Letter of Galatians is quoted more frequently by evangelical Christians than this one. Much harm has been done to the body of Christ by well-meaning persons who have perpetuated erroneous interpretations of these words. Properly understood, Paul’s words give sanction neither to perfectionism nor to mysticism. Paul was not saying that once a person becomes a Christian the human personality is zapped out of existence, being replaced somehow by the divine logos. The indwelling of Christ does not mean that we are delivered from the realm of suffering, sin, and death. Paul made this abundantly clear in his very next phrase, “the life I now live in the flesh” (NRSV). So long as we live in the flesh, we will continue to struggle with sin and to “groan” along with the fallen creation around us (Rom 8:18–26). Perfectionism this side of heaven is an illusion...

As I mentioned earlier there are many other views – some diametrically opposed to this.

• 2: 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

If Christ’s death didn’t complete atonement for us, “penal substitution”, and we must perform various “works” to save ourselves, then he was not the Messiah…there was no point to his crucifixion, He accomplished nothing…
(if time discuss sanctification a little more…)

DISCUSSION

1. What is “sanctification”?
2. What is “justification”?
3. How does Paul bring out the two?
4. What does Paul mean by “crucified with Christ”?
5. What does he mean “Christ lives in me”?
6. Give four examples of different doctrines of sanctification.(read J.I. Packer, 18 words: Sanctification, and Wikipedia “sanctification” etc.)

Galatians #23

GALATIANS # 23
4/04/11
The incident in Antioch
Paul’s confrontation of Peter
Chapter 2: 11 - 15

Title : The Holy Bible, King James Version
Edition : Third
Copyright : Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc.

Galatians 2:11-15 ( KJV )
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

This passage has caused some heated discussion among those who believe Peter occupies a position of pre-eminence based on:

Title : The Holy Bible, King James Version
Edition : Third
Copyright : Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc.

Matthew 16:17-19 ( KJV )
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

BibleGateway.com provides a couple of examples:
Galatians 2 - IVP New Testament Commentaries
The Conflict in Antioch
How could such a conflict occur between Paul and Peter after they had reached an agreement to support one another? Some early church leaders (Origen, Chrysostom and Jerome) could not believe that this conflict really occurred. They explained that Paul and Peter must have staged the conflict to illustrate the issues at stake. Augustine, however, interpreted the story as a genuine conflict in which Paul established the higher claim of the truth of the gospel over the rank and office of Peter.

Augustine was right. Paul was willing to endure the pain of conflict with Peter in order to defend the truth of the gospel. To understand the nature of the conflict and the issues involved, we will observe how the drama developed in four stages: (1) Peter's practice of eating with the Gentile Christians, (2) Peter's separation from Gentile Christians after the arrival of the delegation from James because of his fear of the circumcision group, (3) the separation of the other Jewish Christians from Gentile Christians because of Peter's influence, and (4) Paul's rebuke. Peter's Practice of Eating with the Gentile Christians (2:12)

Other Catholic scholars even questioned whether this “Peter” was the Apostle Peter – it is problematic to the doctrine of Peter’s preeminence; for Peter to be subservient to anyone undermines the doctrine of Papal supremacy, a pillar of the Catholic church…

This confrontation was inevitable; the radical message which Jesus coming had wrought, and Paul was now preaching, was so different than what the Jews “traditions” had come to believe it was/would be; it shook the foundations of their entire religious tradition, Jesus had already confronted the Pharisees(Mat. 23:13).

In addition to this ingrained “tradition” devised by them as they wandered away from its origin recorded by the prophet Malachi (3: 16-18), the political/social/religious/economic world they were living in was about to explode. Many factors were coming to a head - These were extremely dangerous, turbulent times.

Luke tells us that after they sent Saul back to Tarsus (Acts9: 32) “then the churches had rest “. Yet, Acts goes on to tell us that a few years later, Herod has James the brother of John executed, arrests Peter with the intention of killing him “because it pleased the Jews” (Acts 12: 3 ).
The believers in Jerusalem had continued to diligently keep all the Jewish food, feast days, Sabbath and circumcision requirements, participating in temple worship, continuing to be a part of the Jewish community. This adherence to the customs and traditions had caused the Jews to tolerate them - James the brother of Jesus, was widely admired and respected, he was known as “James the Just” throughout the community, by both Jews and Christians.
.
What had happened to upset this relationship? Why did Herod’s actions please the Jews?
A monumental event had taken place which had world changing consequences. Acts chapter 10 records that only a short time before this, Peter had brought the first gentiles into the Jerusalem church (Paul had probably brought some in and there were probably gentile members of the Antioch church, but these were all out in the hinterland…”out of sight – out of mind” and hadn’t yet came to the full attention of the Jerusalem community).

On returning to Jerusalem, Peter was severely challenged by the church leadership, who reluctantly, after much discussion, conceded to their membership – but, so far as we know, didn’t welcome them into communion with the Jerusalem church; we hear nothing further about Cornelius after the story of his conversion and baptism…

A number of forces were coinciding at this point in history that threatened the Jews relationship – even their existence- in the Roman world. Roman society was unraveling under the rule of a series of insane and/or inept rulers and with that, the stability of society was weakened; This contributed to the special exemption from the religious strictures given the Jews being jeopardized and threatened. With all the unrest and threat to the Jews, the Pharisee and Sadducee leaders were defensive and uneasy; the Zealots were inflamed and determined.
The adherence to the law was the defining characteristic of what constituted a Jew. Without these “markers” the Jews identity would be lost; they would be absorbed into the general population and would disappear as a distinct group of people – the Zealots were not only determined to overthrow the Romans but also to not let the Jewish culture die. Strict adherence and observance of the law was absolutely enforced. Some of them carried daggers which could be concealed in a cloak sleeve, then in a crowded gathering, quickly drawn and plunged into a collaborator, with no one seeing it done. All Jews were very careful around the Zealots – even feared them.

Aside from this, the Jews retained their special privileges as “Jews” defined by careful adherence to the Mosaic Law, thus the leaders did not want anything to interfere with that relationship – such as bringing in gentiles without requiring them to become full Jews, marked by circumcision. Peter, with the baptism of Cornelius and his family had barged right into the middle of all this intrigue and danger. This inclusion of un-converted gentiles into the Jewish community was undoubtedly one of the main reasons Herod’s persecution “pleased the Jews”. If Herod hadn’t died shortly after this the persecution of the Jerusalem church would have likely intensified.

We don’t know where Peter went when he fled, but he was back in Jerusalem when Paul made the famine relief trip (last lesson) and then Paul tells us that Peter came to Antioch. From the wording he had been there for awhile: “For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision”

These who “came from James” were probably sent to convey a message cautioning the Antioch church to back off on their embracing gentiles with no inclusion of requirements of the Mosaic Law –the crises had arrived! As a “pillar” of the Jerusalem church, Peter’s “fear” was an automatic reaction he didn’t want to alienate the establishment – both Jewish and fellow Jerusalem Christians. Additionally, he didn’t want to exacerbate the growing tension between the Roman rulers and the Jewish community.

After Herod’s death the Romans assigned a Roman procurator to rule Judea. During the period after Herod’s death, leading up to Paul and Peter’s confrontation, there had been six distinct uprisings with thousands of Jewish rebels killed – the pressure was becoming almost unbearable!

Paul does not tell us what happened next. Did Peter meekly yield to Paul? We don’t know, however, we being “southern Galatianers” believe Peter did concede to Paul as shown by his defense of Paul at the Jerusalem Conference. (Acts 15) The Jerusalem council arrived at a consensus wherein Peter and the other leaders agreed and endorsed Paul’s Gospel(though some were not persuaded and continued to cause problems) Peter’s endorsement of Paul in His letter written several years later. (2Peter 3: 15) fully embraces Paul’s teachings.

DISCUSSION

1. What precipitated Paul’s rebuke of Peter?
2. Why did Peter act this way?
3. Who were the men “from James”?
4. How did the conversion of Cornelius play into all this?
5. What happened after Herod’s sudden death?
6. How was it all resolved?

Galatians lesson # 22

GALATIANS # 22
2/28/11
Famine relief trip
Paul’s Gospel defended
Chapter 2: 1 - 10

Title : The Holy Bible, English Standard Version
Edition : Second
Copyright : Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. All rights reserved. Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 2004, QuickVerse, a division of FindEx.com, Inc.

Galatians 2:1-10 ( ESV )
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.

• 2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.

Since we are of the “Southern Galatian” persuasion, it is our opinion that this is not the trip Luke describes in Acts 15.

As part of the northern/southern debate there has been much discussion over whether the “fourteen years” runs back to the date of Paul’s conversion – not subsequent to the three years in Damascus and Arabia, thus, 34 AD + 14 = 48 AD – one year prior to the Jerusalem council, or 34+3+14=51 – one year after the Jerusalem council).

Northern/ Southern Galatian? We being of the “southern” persuasion, a little chart might help:
Comparison:

Acts/Galatians; 30 through 50AD

date Apostle Paul Luke
30 AD Peters first sermon (Acts 2: 14 – 41)
34 AD Stoning of Stephen (Acts 6: 12; 8: 1)
35 AD Conversion go to Arabia &… Saul’s conversion Acts 9: 1 - 22
38 AD return to Jerusalem Gal 1 18 -19 and return to Tarsus Gal. 1: 21-22; 2 Cor. 11: 33 Saul’s departure from Damascus return to Tarsus 9: 26 - 30
43 AD James executed Acts12: 1 - 3
43 AD Peter flees Jerusalem Acts 12: 17
44 AD? Recruit Paul to Antioch Acts 11: 25
45-46 AD Famine relief to Jerusalem Gal. 2: 1-10 Famine relief to jerusalem Acts 11: 2 - 30;12:25
46-48 AD 1st Mission Acts 13 - 14
48 AD Paul rebukes Peter at Antioch Gal. 2:11-21
48 AD Writing of Galatians
49 AD Jerusalem council 15: 1-29
49 AD Paul/ Barnabas-Mark split up Acts 15: 36-39
49-52 AD 2nd mission Acts 15: 40; 18: 21

(oh-oh the chart didn't come across from word!!)

A small sample of the discussion:

Title : New Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Testament Volume
Edition : Third
Copyright : Copyright © 1990, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Electronic Edition Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc.

Chapter 2 1-10 PAUL’S APOSTLESHIP TO THE GENTILES RECOGNIZED BY THE JERUSALEM APOSTLES 1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem—There is disagreement as to when this took place. Some commentators (e.g., Alford) take it as referring to fourteen years after the conversion of Paul, while others (e.g., Lightfoot) feel that it refers to fourteen years after the first visit to Jerusalem, mentioned in Galatians 1:18. As a result, some believe this visit to be the one mentioned in Acts 11, while others believe it to be the visit for the Jerusalem council, set forth in Acts 15. The view that this visit was connected with the Jerusalem council, however, has some difficulty because it can be argued that Paul would have mentioned the decision of the council regarding the topic of circumcision, which was one of the main reasons he wrote to the Galatians. But in support of the view that this visit was the occasion of the council, it may be stated first that Paul had a desire to show the Galatians that his authority was independent of the other apostles—so the decision of the council was not to be taken into consideration by the Galatians when they were to obey his teaching. His authority was above that of a council, because he was an accredited apostle. Second, Paul was arguing his point on the grounds of principle rather than authoritative decisions. It would have been pointless for the Galatians to disregard one set of laws only to be bound by another. Third, the decree of the council of Jerusalem did not go as far as Paul did in this instance. All that was decided at Jerusalem was that the mosaic law would not be imposed on Gentiles, while Paul here asserts that the mosaic law has to be transcended.

And another:

Title : The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament
Edition : Second
Copyright : Copyright 1983, SP Publications, Inc. All rights reserved Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1997, Parsons Technology, Inc.

Galatians 2:1 ( KJV )
2:1. Much debate has centered on the question of the identification of this trip which Paul took to Jerusalem with Barnabas, a Jewish believer, and Titus, a Gentile believer. The Book of Acts mentions five Jerusalem visits made by Paul after his conversion: (1) the visit after he left Damascus (Acts 9:26-30; Gal. 1:18-20); (2) the famine visit (Acts 11:27-30); (3) the visit to attend the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-30); (4) the visit at the end of the second missionary journey (Acts 18:22); (5) the final visit which resulted in Paul’s Caesarean imprisonment (Acts 21:15-23:35). Scholars are divided primarily over whether Galatians 2:1 refers to the famine visit or to the Jerusalem Council visit. But in the context in which he is listing all contacts with human authorities, why would Paul omit reference to his second trip to Jerusalem? And if the reference is to the Council of Acts 15, why did not the apostle allude to its decrees? It seems this passage has the famine visit in view.


• 2: 2 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.
Among the scholars there is much discussion whether this “revelation” was the prophecy by Agabus of the coming famine, recorded by Luke (Acts 11: 27 – 30); or a revelation directly to Paul. Most “Northern Galatianier’s” believe what is described here is the Jerusalem Council trip and thus the Revelation is personal to Paul, directing him to attend the Council (if referring to council trip = Galatians written post council, etc). We “southern Galatianiers” are inclined to the revelation being the one declared by Agabus (famine relief = pre council, etc)
This statement shows the trip served two purposes:
1. deliver the famine relief from the Gentile church, with Paul as the leader of the delegation, demonstrating both Paul and the Gentiles concern and respect for the Hebraic, Jerusalem Church;
2. and secondly to meet privately and discuss “The Gospel” with the mother church leaders.
In either case, Paul is focused like a laser on the Gospel he is preaching, he is not seeking their approval or guidance, only re-assurance…If they had rejected his gospel would he have changed it?

No!

He would have continued no matter what! However, as we can see from Paul’s numerous comments/actions showing his utmost respect for the teaching and leadership of the Jerusalem church and the Apostles, he certainly did not in any way desire causing dissension in the church! Even though he makes such a dramatic statement:
(Gal 1: 10 – 12 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. )

He respected and gave full honor to the mother church in Jerusalem, and also to the Apostles; as equals – he did not defer to them at any time….his leading the delegation as head of the Gentile Church and his repeating this with a second relief trip a few years later, further demonstrates his respect, and concern for the Hebraic Jerusalem Church. He did not see the Gospel with which he had been entrusted as a “different” Gospel, but as his revelation being of the deeper meaning of “THE Gospel”; the same one they were preaching, with further explanation; the same one that the entire Old Testament had preached beginning with Gen, 3: 15!

The New American Commentary
The phrase “for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain” is perplexing and has called forth various interpretations. Some have suggested that Paul went to Jerusalem seeking the approval of the leaders there without which his ministry would not have been valid. This hypothesis, however, seems to contradict the entire drift of Paul’s argument in Gal 1–2. Others have given these words a more existentialist twist as though Paul were expressing here a kind of hesitation or self-doubt about his apostolic vocation. This theory also founders on what we everywhere else know about Paul as a person of robust conscience, one given to self-examination but not to psychological introspection. After all, this same apostle could write to the Corinthians, “I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty” (1 Cor 9:26, KJV). It seems better to interpret Paul’s words as an expression of concern for the new believers he had led to Christ and the young churches he had founded. What would a major division in the church mean for these Christians? Beyond that, what would it mean for the furtherance of Paul’s missionary work? Doubtless he himself would not be deterred from the path he had been traveling for more than a dozen years. Yet the world mission to which he had been divinely called could well be sidetracked, if not finally thwarted, by his failure to reach a base agreement on a shared gospel with the mother-church in Jerusalem.92 For these reasons Paul sought the unity of the church and close partnership with the Jerusalem leaders.


• 2: 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.
This verifies that the Jerusalem “pillars” agreed with Paul’s position on circumcision.

• 2: 4 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—
these are possibly those “of the circumcision” Gal 2: 12 and certainly those who were undermining the Galatian churches

• 2: 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
an example of this would be the confrontation with Peter…

• 2: 6 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.
the council was a large gathering of church leaders – yet here Paul describes the meeting as between his group and Peter/John/James, further indication this was prior to the Council meeting.

• 2: 7 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
these “pillars” didn’t object to Paul’s gospel, in fact they encouraged him

• 2: 8(for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles),
there is a consensus that they are all being led by the Holy Ghost and they are all preaching the same gospel.

• 2: 9 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.
clearly, unequivocally, endorsing Paul’s ministry

• 2: 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
This all closely resembles the outcome of the council – except no written note and messenger, which Paul would have surely mentioned.

DISCUSSION

1. What did Paul immediately do after his conversion?
2. Why did he go to Arabia?
3. How long was he in Arabia?
4. How did he escape from Damascus?
5. Why such a dramatic escape?
6. How soon did he go to Jerusalem?
7. What part did Barnabas play in Paul’s Jerusalem visit?
8. What got Paul in trouble in Jerusalem?
9. How did the brethren resolve the problem?
10. Where did Paul go when he left Jerusalem?
11. Then what happened?