Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas, taking Titus along too. I went there because of a revelation and presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did so only in a private meeting with the influential people,to make sure that I was not running – or had not run– in vain. – Paul (Gal 2:1-2; NET)

Did Paul doubt his gospel message? And why, with the Galatians doubting his gospel, would Paul also express doubt in it?

In the last post we examined Paul’s presentation of his gospel to the Apostles. Based on the evidence in the letter it is highly unlikely that Paul is expressing doubt in his gospel nor is he looking to the Apostles for verification of the message he proclaimed. Paul has spent the last 14 years ministering with the gospel he received from Jesus. So why did Paul present his gospel to the Apostles in Jerusalem? In what way did Paul think he might be “running in vain”?

Endorsing Paul’s role to the Gentiles

In the section that follows (Gal 2:1-2) Paul discusses the private meeting he had with the Apostles. In it he repeatedly states that he was given the mission to carry the gospel to the Gentiles and that Peter (and the Apostles) were given the mission to carry the gospel to the Jews.

• I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was to the circumcised (2:7)
• [God] empowered Peter … to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles (2:8)
• [Apostles agree] that [Barnabas and Paul] would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (2:9)

Paul is emphasizing that both he and the Apostles have been given the task of ministering to separate people groups. Paul also makes it clear that these areas of ministry were entrusted to them by God. Furthermore there is an emphasis on the agreement between Peter, Paul, and the rest of the Apostles regarding both of these points. From these observations an argument could be made that Paul wanted the Apostles to endorse his role as a messenger to the Gentiles.

Although Paul has been ministering for 14 years at the point he visited Jerusalem, the majority of those years had been spent in Tarsus (Acts 9:30; 11:25-26). After joining Barnabas and spending a year in Antioch, Paul has proven that he is a faithful minister of the gospel and a true follower of Jesus Christ. However outside of Antioch he was still known best as the former persecutor of the church and is relatively unknown to the Apostles when he arrives in Jerusalem (Acts 9:21; Gal 1:22-23).

Paul knew that as a former enemy of the church it would be difficult to be accepted as its advocate and as the primary messenger to the Gentiles. However the men who led the church in Jerusalem were highly influential. And why wouldn’t they be? After all these men were Apostles, they had walked with Jesus, and were the first to be filled with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Paul, likely laid before these men his role in bringing the gospel to the Gentiles.

The pillars of the church had authority and carried influence in the early church. If opponents, like the ones in Galatians, could argue that Paul had taken on his role without the support of the Apostles it could undermine his authority and effectiveness. We know from Acts and the other epistles that Paul’s role was regularly challenged by those introducing contradictory teachings in the churches. It was not that Paul needed the Apostles’ endorsement – a point he makes in the opening of the letter (Gal 1:1) – since God had appointed him but it certainly could help him more easily establish his role as minister to the Gentiles and refute his opponents.

Working out how Gentiles (and Jews) were to live under the New Covenant

Paul clearly demonstrates that this gospel he proclaims to the Gentiles was accepted by the Apostles in the sections that follow (Gal 2:1-2):

• we did not yield to the false brothers and circumcise Titus (2:1-5) because we wanted to preserve the gospel. Had we allowed Titus to be circumcised to preserve unity then others might mistakenly think that this was required as part of the gospel. But it is not (Gal 6:15).
• the Apostles endorsed my mission to take the gospel to the Gentiles without adding anything to it (2:6-9). They could have corrected me regarding the need to follow the Law after accepting justification by faith but they did not.
• the Jews were living like Gentiles, but when they live like Jews (as Peter did in Antioch) it causes people to live in a way that distorts the gospel (2:11-14).

The trip described in Galatians 2:1-2 lines up well with the visit recorded in Acts 11:27-30. If this is correct then prior to the visit by Paul, the church at Jerusalem was coming to grips with the reality that the Gentiles were no longer strangers to the covenants of promise (Acts 10:45; 11:1,18). But this was a relatively new development. For approximately 14 years Peter, and the other Jewish believers, lived under the New Covenant (post Pentecost) as Jews. When Peter received a vision from the Lord regarding food and is told to visit Cornelius (see Acts 10) he is appalled at these ideas:

• Certainly not, Lord, for I have never eaten anything defiled and ritually unclean! (Acts 10:14)

• You know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile… (Acts 10:28)

In Antioch, outreach efforts were initially limited to the Jewish people (Acts 11:19). That is the mindset that Peter and the Jewish believers had at the time. The commands in the Mosaic Law were kept – not as a means to justification, which Paul says they all knew was not possible (Gal 2:16) – but as the way God intended His followers to live. Therefore it was likely that any Gentiles coming to Christ at this time were being instructed to live as Jews “under the law”.

It was not until Peter saw the Holy Spirit poured out upon the Gentiles that he began to understand that the old way of living was fading away (Acts 10:45). It took time for people to accept this. When Peter returned to Jerusalem to report on what had happened, we see that Jewish believers had a hard time with this because they were still living as if they were under the law.

  the circumcised believers  took issue with him, saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and shared a meal with them.” (Acts 11:2-3)

Notice that the believers are 1) circumcised, 2) did not want to associate with Gentiles, and 3) took issue with not following the food laws. Eventually these believers accepted Peter’s report and the idea that Gentiles were now included in the new covenant. But this was an unsettling time. Theological systems were being radically altered. And not all in Jerusalem agreed. And because believers were living like Jews, the issue began to blur theological distinctions. The problem which started with the question should a believer follow the Mosaic Law became a debate about whether a person was saved through the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:1-4).

Paul’s gospel in a nutshell was that a person is justified by faith and does not need to live like a Jew.

As the Antioch church began to reach out to Gentiles, Barnabas recruited Paul to help with that effort (Acts 11:20,25). Paul’s message focused on justification by faith (Gal 2:16; Acts 13:39). But Paul’s gospel went beyond “how to get saved” and also taught people that as a result of being justified by faith (and not by works), they did not need to follow the Mosaic Law any longer. This did not make Paul very popular. In fact his early gospel ministry involved two attempts on his life (Acts 9:23,29). Even if Paul and the Apostles were both teaching that justification was by faith, Paul knew that his effectiveness in reaching Gentiles would be impacted if the Apostles were still living ‘like Jews’ and teaching believing Gentiles to live ‘like Jews’ as a means of showing their love to Christ. He knew that in order to be effective (as opposed to ineffective or ‘in vain’) he would need to make sure that they all agreed not only on the relationship of the law to justification, but also to how one ought to live as a Christian. The Apostles, being Jews needed to start consistently living like Gentiles so that the gospel would be clearly preserved and understood (Gal 2:5,14).

Did Paul doubt his gospel message? I doubt it!

In the last post we looked at Paul’s defense of the gospel given in the first part of the letter to the Galatians.

Paul defended his claim that his gospel is from God using two assertions.

1. My gospel was received independent of the Apostles (1:12-24)
2. The gospel I defend is the same gospel as the Apostles (2:1-14)

Paul, having defended his independence in receiving the gospel (1:12-24) moves the argument forward by talking about his visit to Jerusalem.

Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas, taking Titus along too. I went there because of a revelation and presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did so only in a private meeting with the influential people,to make sure that I was not running – or had not run– in vain. – Paul (Gal 2:1-2; NET)

This was no vacation, Paul was persuaded to go on this trip because of a revelation. There is considerable debate as to what the revelation was and to whom it was given. I have advocated for an early dating with Paul writing the letter to the Galatians around 49 AD from Antioch before the Council of Jerusalem. If this is correct then this trip would line up well with the account in Acts 11:27-30.

At that time the city of Antioch was visited by some prophets from Jerusalem. Among them was Agabus who brought with him some unsettling news. The Judean area was going to be hit with a famine. Knowing the devastation and hardship that would face the people in that area, the community at Antioch sought to provide relief and aid in advance of the looming crisis. After collecting gifts, these offerings were carried to Jerusalem by Paul and Barnabas.

While Paul was there, according to the account in Galatians, he presented his gospel to the Apostles. His goal in presenting his gospel was to remove any possibility that he was “running in vain”. No one wants to expend effort and work towards something that is of no value. Paul had given up his pursuit of becoming a Pharisee and been nearly killed on his first missionary journey (1MJ). He wanted to be sure that his efforts and sacrifices had not been without purpose.

That struck me as rather odd. Had Paul suddenly been hit with doubt regarding the veracity of the message? Did he need the encouragement and affirmation of the Apostles to make sure that his gospel message was correct? And if so what triggered these doubts?

While that seemed like what was happening, I could not make sense of that. Especially in light of Paul’s argument in the prior assertion (1:12-24). Paul, by his own testimony, has been sharing the gospel for 14 years. He has given up everything confident that this message of hope was given to him directly by God. His argument so far has rested on the fact that he was so confident in his gospel that he did not check in with anyone, including the Apostles.

Paul’s is a trained lawyer and his writing demonstrates that he is skilled in rhetoric and logical argument. Certainly in the middle of his defense he would not contradict his first premise. After stressing 14 years of confident ministry, Paul’s going to shift his defense to doubting his gospel and his ministry? How does that logically follow?

If Paul had reached the point where he had to check in with the Apostles to make sure he was not running in vain then how does this reconcile with his bold statement that it does matter to him who the Apostles are (2:6). This statement comes right after telling the Galatians that he was checking his gospel with them? If that were true, then how could they help him regain confidence in the gospel he proclaims? And how would that encourage the Galatians to accept the gospel that both he and the Apostles had in common? And why would Paul immediately follow this admission of doubt by sharing a dispute between Peter and himself in the following set of verses (2:11-14). This story only demonstrates that Paul was confident enough in his gospel to publicly rebuke one of the “pillars of the church”, who was not living it out.

The Galatians already doubted Paul’s gospel, that is why Paul is writing in the first place. How can Paul’s seemingly illogical defense persuade them to confidently accept his gospel and stand firm in Christ?

Did Paul doubt his gospel message at some point during his ministry?

And why, with the Galatians doubting his gospel, would Paul also express doubt in it?

Why do you think Paul presented his gospel to the Apostles in Jerusalem? 

[be sure to check back for my thoughts on this puzzling passage]

This is part of the series blogging through Galatians. You might want to start with part 1.

Apostle Paul (painting by El Greco 1612)

Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians around 49 AD, likely from the city of Antioch. He is dealing with the proclamation of “another gospel”. This theological challenge to the gospel that Paul is teaching has reached not only Galatia, but the majority of the regions where Christianity has spread.

This “other gospel” asserts that one must adhere to the Mosaic Law, including circumcision, in order to be saved.

• Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1 – Antioch)
• It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses. (Acts 15:4 – Jerusalem)
• It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, … (Galatians 6:12 – churches in Galatia)

Paul knows that there is not “another gospel” and wastes no time in making this point in the letter, skipping the customary prayer and encouragement that are typically part of his opening comments. Paul then spends the initial 1/3 of the letter laying out a logical argument for why the Galatians should not set aside the gospel that Paul preached on the first missionary journey (1MJ) for a false gospel that can not save.

Paul summarizes the problem for the church at Galatia:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are following a different gospel – not that there really is another gospel – Paul (Gal 1:6-7a NET)

Notice that the Galatians are not just deserting the doctrines or “truth claims” of one gospel and replacing them with the doctrines or “truth claims” of a different gospel. They are actually leaving behind a Person. God is being abandoned. The God who called them in grace, raised Jesus from the dead (1:2),  and offered to rescue them from their sins (1:4) is being replaced with the misplaced idea that forgiveness and salvation can come through the “works of the law” (2:16).

Having identified the problem, Paul lays out the conclusion that he will defend: The gospel I preach was given to me directly by God not man.

Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters,that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.For I did not receive it or learn it from any human source; instead I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ. – Paul (Gal 1:11-12, NET)

This is important because Paul wants the Galatians to understand that He is a servant of Christ who offers them only what God has promised. It is not really “Paul’s gospel” as if he invented it, nor is he just trying to get their attention and acceptance (1:10; 4:17). If that was Paul’s goal he would have accepted the adulation and worship that was originally given to him and Barnabas when the Galatians mistook them for Hermes and Zeus (Acts 14:8-18).

Paul’s defense will be based on two major claims.

1. My gospel was received independent of the Apostles (1:12-24)
2. The gospel I defend is the same Gospel as the Apostles (2:1-14)

My gospel was received independent of the Apostles

In order to prove the first premise, Paul will highlight his early life as a Pharisee and his dramatic conversion on the road to Damascus. Paul demonstrates how he was “on top of his game” prior to coming to Christ. He had studied in Jerusalem under the best teachers and had the reputation among his peers as being a gifted Pharisee. As a Pharisee, Paul would have been well-respected and had a place of honor among the Jewish people. If Paul’s goal was being famous and pleasing to people, as his opponents likely claimed (Gal 1:10), then he would not have changed a thing about the trajectory his life was on.

But Paul’s gospel set aside the same Law that had earned him praise and a good reputation among people and resulted in his being persecuted. Something the Galatians would have known firsthand since they saw Paul left for dead after being stoned by a rioting crowd during the 1MJ (Acts 14:19-20). He expects the reader to see the dramatic changes in Paul’s life and understand that only a gospel received directly from Jesus could have caused it (Acts 9:1-18; 22:12-21; 26:12-18).

To bolster his case Paul lets us know that, during the first 14 years that passed after his conversion, he spent a total of 15 days with the Apostles. And even these 15 days had occurred 3 years after Jesus appeared to him. Paul emphasizes not only the limited time spent with the Apostles but also shows how each group worked in different regions. The Apostles were in Jerusalem while he labored in Syria, Cilicia, and Arabia. Because of this limited contact the Apostles had very little information about who he was. Paul was simply “that guy” who persecuted the church and was now its advocate. It is clear from the testimony Paul gives that he had limited contact with the Apostles and could not have received his gospel from them.

The gospel I defend is the same Gospel as the Apostles

The problem with Paul’s argument was that the opponents could accept Paul’s claim that he did not have much contact with the apostles and then use that to bolster their claim that Paul was a maverick with a gospel that was indeed different than the one preached by the Apostles. Therefore it is Paul’s gospel that would be wrong since everyone knows that the Apostles are the “pillars of the church”.

Recognizing that the opponents might take this approach, Paul switches from focusing on his independence and moves to show that the Apostles agree with him. Paul is relying on the fact that the readers accept the unstated premise that the Apostles received the gospel they proclaim from God because they walked with Jesus throughout His life, saw Him after He rose from the dead, and preached the gospel in the power of the Spirit. Paul then testifies that the Apostles added nothing to the gospel he proclaims. Instead they endorsed his mission to the Gentiles and rejected the attempts of the “false brothers” who wanted his friend Titus to be circumcised.

Based on this information Paul hopes that the readers will see that the opponents are the ones with a different gospel. And since the gospels given independently, first to the Apostles and then Paul, were verified as teaching the same things then it follows that they must have the same source. How else could they match? The only logical conclusion is the one Paul made – that their source is God, who gave one, unchanging gospel by which men must be saved. There is no other.

What do you think of Paul’s argument?

[Continue reading through the series: part 5]

Today #Galatians was a world-wide trending topic that was started by the desiring God blog which took on the task of conveying the book of Galatians in 30 tweets. I thought it was pretty amazing that for the better part of a day the message of Galatians was passed on to so many. Since I have been studying and teaching through this book over the past 3 weeks I joined in the fray.

Hey @chantillybible did u know #Galatians is trending? Share something you learned from the last 3 weeks?—
Mike Barlotta (@g1antfan) July 03, 2012

Here are my Top Ten (in order of appearance within the text)

There can be only one! The unchanging gospel delivered by Paul #Galatians 1:6-9—
Mike Barlotta (@g1antfan) July 03, 2012

Never let the #RealThing slip away or trade it 4 something u think is 'so cool – so hip so groovy' because it isn't #Epic #Galatians 1:6-9—
Mike Barlotta (@g1antfan) July 03, 2012

Are you eager to remember the poor? In what ways do you show it? #Galatians 2:10—
Mike Barlotta (@g1antfan) July 03, 2012

Are your actions in step w/ the gospel or do they compel others to act hypocritically & misrepresent it #EvenBarnabas #Galatians 2:11-14—
Mike Barlotta (@g1antfan) July 03, 2012

That awkward moment when you are called out 4 living like a hypocrite and compelling others to do the same #EvenBarnabas #Galatians—
Mike Barlotta (@g1antfan) July 03, 2012

Are you so foolish? if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. #Galatians 2:21-3:1—
Mike Barlotta (@g1antfan) July 03, 2012

That amazing moment when u realize God sent His Son so we could be adopted as His children & be free! #AbbaFather #NoLongerASlave #Galatians—
Mike Barlotta (@g1antfan) July 03, 2012

That awesome moment when you realize you are set Free in Christ! Now Stand Firm in #Faith #Hope #Grace and #Love #Galatians 5—
Mike Barlotta (@g1antfan) July 03, 2012

No Biting Allowed! #JustSayNo #Galatians 5:15—
Mike Barlotta (@g1antfan) July 03, 2012

When Paul said he was crucified w/ Christ he meant he resisted worldly temptations & passions #Galatians 2:20/5:24 #LiveByFaith #Tough2Do—
Mike Barlotta (@g1antfan) July 03, 2012

[Continue reading through the series: part 4]