If you would, go ahead and take your Bibles and turn with me to the NT book of Galatians. We’re in Galatians 2:1–10. Today we’re going to see, in this text, that Paul is stubbornly, combatively even, fighting for something. 

One of the things that really grieves me in our world today is seeing people fighting for the wrong reasons. For instance it always grieves me to see young people at those G20 world summits getting physically violent for silly reasons. It’s like they have all this pent up youthful aggression and they don’t know what to do with it. 

Also I am always grieved to see the phenomenon of what’s called “soccer hooliganism.” Sports fans fighting for their particular sports team as if the destiny of the world rests on it … that’s pathetic. That’s pathetic with soccer. That’s pathetic with football. That’s pathetic with baseball. Why do people get so riled up about such silly things? 

Now within the church we see this error too. Maybe not with physical violence. But we see Christians arguing vehemently over music choices in the church or the color of the carpet in the sanctuary or over leadership positions. And Paul, writing in the NT, was quick to ask the church to show generosity to one another and to seek peace and unity within the church (e.g. Eph 4:1–3). 

But there is one issue where Paul never counselled unity. There is one issue in which Paul was ready to go to war if necessary. There is one issue that Paul was willing and ready to take a stand and fight, and even die if necessary. What was that issue? It’s this—the purity of the gospel. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now today’s passage is, from start to finish, a flashback text. Think of it like a flashback episode in your favorite TV show. Paul’s looking back on an incident earlier in his ministry. 

And I like to view this passage today like a drama being acted out in human history. And in most dramas you have characters or actors. 

And in this drama there are three primary groups of actors. First of all there is the Pauline party: Paul, Barnabas, and Titus (Gal 2:1). This is the group from Antioch who came to Jerusalem to meet with the leaders. They are the protagonists in this drama. They are the heroes. We’re rooting for them, and they are under attack. 

Secondly, there is the group of false-brothers (Gal 2:4). In Greek they are called ψευδάδελφος (pseudadelphos). These guys are the antagonists of this drama. These are the pseudo-saints who represent the legalism that Paul is trying to curtail in the Christian mission. They are antagonistic towards Paul and they are antagonistic towards the pure gospel. Paul even describes these guys as spies who are infiltrating the church. These guys are trouble. And if this were a play, we’d be encouraged to boo them off the stage.

Finally there is a third group of actors in this drama. They are the apostles: Peter, James, and John. Paul describes them as “those who seem influential” (2:2, 6). Paul describes them as “pillars” (2:9). They have authoritative, apostolic power in the church. Who are they going to side with? 

Sure, Paul is an apostle too. He showed us that clearly in Galatians 1. But if the other apostles oppose Paul, then there will be a schism in the church. The apostolic authorities over the church will be divided. And so, a lot hangs in the balance as we wait to see what Peter, James, and John are going to do with Paul. Are they with him or against him? That’s the tension. That’s the drama of this text. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what’s the setting for this drama? Well, Paul says in Galatian 2:1, 

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

After reading verse one you might say, “Whoa, where are we in this narrative?” “What’s Paul talking about here? Fourteen years after what?” Well this is a continuation of Paul’s narrative from last week. Here’s a quick recounting of the events of Paul’s life. In approximately AD 34, Paul left Jerusalem to persecute the church and 1) he got saved on the road to Damascus. 2) Next he went to Arabia, and then 3) he returned to Damascus. After escaping Damascus in a basket, as recorded in 2 Corinthians 11:33, 4) he returned back to Jerusalem. This was three years after his conversion. And he stayed with Peter for fifteen days. Then 5) he travelled to Syria and Cilicia to preach the gospel in the area close to where he grew up around Tarsus. 6) Several years later, Barnabas picked up Paul in Tarsus, and brought him to Antioch. Finally 7) “fourteen years” after his conversion, Paul returned to Jerusalem in roughly AD 47. That’s where we are in the narrative of Paul’s life. 

In the previous passage, Paul made clear that his apostleship is not derived from Peter or the other Apostles. Instead, it comes directly from Christ. To reemphasize that point, Paul is saying here, “I spent fourteen years on my own preaching and ministering as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and only fifteen days in Jerusalem.” So he spent fourteen years under Christ, and fifteen days with Peter. Who do you think had the bigger influence upon Paul? Christ! 

Well after fourteen years Paul decides to return to Jerusalem. And he’s got an itch to scratch with the apostolic authorities in Jerusalem. Namely Paul wants to convey to them the nature of his ministry and the gospel that has been well-received by Gentiles. So Paul heads off for Jerusalem with Barnabas, another Jewish believer who was well-known to the Apostles, and Titus, who is an uncircumcised, Gentile believer. Keep that detail in mind; it will become relevant later. 

Now when we look to the book of Acts, there is some debate about when this trip to Jerusalem takes place. Some scholars say Acts 11. Some scholars think, for good reason, that this event takes place in Acts 15, the so-called Jerusalem Council. If you remember the context of that, Paul had just returned from Galatia, and his churches were being infiltrated by legalists, and so he takes off for Jerusalem to settle the issue with the other Apostles. That may be when this event in Galatians 2 happened. 

But other scholars see this trip to Jerusalem as the event recorded at the end of Acts 11. I think that’s right. So in this flashback, Paul is describing things that took place before his trip to Galatia in Acts 13–14. And Paul and Barnabas had a practical matter to attend to in Acts 11, as well as a theological matter. 

The backstory for this is found in Acts 11, where Luke writes, “Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews” (11:19).

Even though Peter had spread the gospel to Cornelius and Stephen had spread the gospel to the Ethiopian Eunuch, by and large the gospel was only being preached among Jews. But Jesus said, “Go to all the nations” (Matt 28:18–20). That was starting to happen in the book of Acts. 

Acts 11:20–22 says, “But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists [Hellenists is another term for Greeks or Gentiles] also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them [of course the hand of the Lord was with them! They were being obedient to Jesus!] and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch.”

This situation reminds me of a book I read once about Southern Baptist missions that started exploding in places like SE Asia. The Southern Baptist were so shocked by this phenomenon that they sent out representatives from their home office to make sure it was really happening. I see something similar here, where the church in Jerusalem sends out one of their trusted allies, Barnabas, to check up on this development.

Luke continues in Acts 11:23–26, “When he [Barnabas] came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose, for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord. So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 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.” 

So here are some added details to Paul’s life in Syria and Cilicia. He was teaching in the church. He was working with Gentile believers. And he was partnered with Barnabas in this gospel work in Antioch. Then something happened that drew them back to Jerusalem.

Luke says in Acts 11:27–30, “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, everyone 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.”

So when Paul and Barnabas came to Jerusalem they had a practical matter to take care of and also a theological matter. The practical matter that Paul and Barnabas were dealing with was the delivery of aid to the Jerusalem Church. We don’t hear any more in the book of Acts about their trip, other than in Acts 12:25, when they return to Antioch. 

But now in Galatians 2:1–10, Paul gives us some additional details about that trip to Jerusalem. They had to deliver the financial aid to Jerusalem. But while in Jerusalem they also had to deal with an emerging theological issue. Does a person need to be circumcised to be saved? Or more simply we might ask this: What constitutes salvation? 

Okay, so now that you have the backdrop for Galatians 2:1–10, let’s revisit Paul’s statement in verse 1. 

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

So we know from Acts that they are taking the gift to Jerusalem, and we know now from Galatians that Titus is along for the ride with Paul and Barnabas.

2 I went up because of a revelation 

Remember, the prophet Agabus, had foretold the famine in Jerusalem. So Paul is saying here, “I went to Jerusalem because the Spirit revealed a need to us in Antioch by this guy Agabus.” Paul wants his readers to know that his trip to Jerusalem was a God-directed venture. God sent him to Jerusalem for a purpose… and it’s not just to bring relief for the poor. 

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.

Now the “them” in verse two is the Jerusalemites. It’s the church folk. And Paul differentiates them from “those who seemed influential,” that is the Apostles Peter, James, and John (i.e. “the pillars” of verse 9). Paul met with Peter, James, and John privately to talk about the gospel that he was preaching to the Gentiles. 

Obviously there had been some conflict even then about what constitutes the gospel. So Paul uses this opportunity, when he and Barnabas are delivering aid to Jerusalem, to settle a theological matter. 

Paul’s question was essentially this: “What’s the gospel, gentlemen?” “How does someone get saved?” “Here’s what I’ve been preaching to the Gentiles, and I need to know if we are on the same page or not, so let’s get together, privately as apostles, and hash this thing out.” That’s what Paul was doing during this trip to Jerusalem. 

Here’s the first point from our text today. We’re talking about fighting for gospel truth, and the first thing we see in the text is that…

1) Protecting the truth of the gospel requires clarity (2:1–2)

We need clarity with the gospel. I remember when I was in high school, I had this chance once to share Christ with another student. I was known in my public high school as a Christian. I was even called “church boy” on my basketball team. But when this guy came up to me to ask me about salvation, I kind of panicked. And I went into this long discourse on everything I knew about the Bible and about Christianity. I went on for like twenty minutes mentioning everything I knew about the OT and about the NT and about church history. I just threw everything I knew at this guy, including the kitchen sink. And after a while, the guy got visibly frustrated and walked off. And I was frustrated too afterwards thinking to myself, “Tony, just make it clear. Why are you complicating things? Salvation by grace through faith! Just tell him.” I’ve tried to do better with that since. Because clarity is so important.

And I appreciate Paul’s pursuit of clarity here. He met with Peter, James, and John “to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.” They needed to be clear about what constitutes salvation. And this is important, because this was the early church. And they were trying to hammer out with clarity what exactly is necessary for salvation so that the truth of the gospel could be established for the next twenty centuries!

Now we know that Paul has some strong convictions about the purity of the gospel and about his own office as an Apostle. And his mission comes directly from Jesus Christ. So it’s fascinating to me here that Paul would hedge against these convictions by asking the other Apostles for conformation. Even Apostles aren’t inerrant, and so they check each other to make sure they are not in the wrong. And who is the Apostle Paul going to go to with this issue to verify the work that he’s doing? Well, to the other Apostles, of course. 

And I would have loved to have been a part of this meeting between Paul, Peter, James, and John. If we know anything about Peter in the NT, Peter’s no pushover! And John was a son of thunder (Mark 3:17)! And I can imagine there were some Apostolic fireworks between these men as they were deliberating over this issue. 

And I can imagine Paul coming to them and saying, “Alright, we need clarity! What constitutes salvation? I’m telling people that it’s by grace through faith in Christ alone. These other guys are telling people they need to be circumcised. What’s the truth? Let’s settle this!”

You know there are some things in this world that we can agree to disagree on. There are other things that we’ve got to take a stand on. We’ve got to get it right. We’ve got to speak clearly about the gospel. And that’s what Paul is fighting for here. And he is wrestling with the other Apostles over this matter. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And at this point you might wonder to yourself, “Okay, Paul met with Peter. What did they decide? What came of their meeting? I need clarity on this matter.” Well hold on a second. Because Paul doesn’t immediately answer that question. You’ll have to wait until verse 6 for a direct answer to that question. 

Because Paul wants to first deal with the antagonists. Look at verse 3.

3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 

Actually there is an implicit statement about what they decided concerning salvation in verse 3. Titus wasn’t circumcised. The Apostles didn’t require Titus to be circumcised. Ergo, circumcision must not be necessary for salvation. That’s Paul’s implicit argument here. 

Now before we move forward, I want to answer two questions. 1) Why is circumcision such an issue in the early church? 2) Who is this guy Titus and why is he important? Who’s this guy that Paul brought with him to Jerusalem?

Let’s tackle the first question, “Why is circumcision such an issue in the early church?” Well in the history of redemption, salvation came through Abraham and the Jewish people first. Paul said, “to the Jew first and then the Gentile” (Rom 1:16). As a response of faith in the OT, Abraham was circumcised along with the rest of the men and boys in his family. This was a sign of the covenant that God made between Abraham and his offspring. So Abraham took a flint knife and cut off the foreskins of all the males in his camp. 

Now you might say to yourself, “Why didn’t God just ask them to pierce their ear or brand their flesh with a branding iron? How about a tattoo? Wouldn’t that have been less painful and inconvenient than circumcision?” That’s a good question. I don’t have a satisfactory answer for that. But I will say that circumcision is probably significant because the covenant God made with Abraham had to do with offspring. And it would make sense for the external symbol of that covenant to be applied on the physical male body part that was used to bring about offspring. 

That’s probably part of the reason why the covenant involved circumcision of the foreskin. But the main reason the Israelites did it in the OT was because God said, “Do it.” So Abraham did it. His children did it. His grandchildren did it. And for the next 1,500 years Jews, the sons of Abraham, were circumcised. It signified their connection to Yahweh, and it signified their identity as the people of God. 

But when Jesus came, redemption spread to the nations. God’s plan for salvation was fulfilled now in the offspring of Abraham. And Messiah Jesus set up a new covenant that centered on faith in Jesus Christ apart from circumcision. 

Now there was nothing wrong with circumcision per se in the NT period. Paul was perfectly fine with circumcision continuing in Jewish or other circles, as long as it wasn’t presented as a requirement for salvation. In fact, Paul had Timothy circumcised in order that he not be a stumbling block to Jews for evangelism (Acts 16:1–5). But Paul was adamantly, angrily, against the notion that Jesus plus circumcision equals salvation. In fact Paul was adamantly against any notion of Jesus plus something else as necessary for salvation. 

And the crisis of this issue was exacerbated when Paul brought Titus, a Gentile, to Jerusalem. Can Gentiles get saved? Can Gentiles who don’t become Jews through circumcision be saved? That’s the crisis. 

Which leads to my second question, “Who was Titus?” Well as Paul says here “he was a Greek.” He was uncircumcised, obviously, and probably he got saved in Antioch when the gospel started spreading that direction.

Later on in his life, Titus would serve as a pastor on the island of Crete. Paul wrote to him a letter, which is an inspired part of the NT (the book of Titus), and Paul called Titus “my true child in a common faith” (Titus 1:4) Ironically in that letter which he wrote many years after Galatians, Paul said to watch out for the “circumcision party” (Titus 1:10). He told Titus, “They must be silenced” (1:11). This heresy seemed to follow the church wherever it went in the first century.

But before Titus was a pastor, he was just a normal Gentile guy, who came to faith in Jesus Christ. And Paul took him to Jerusalem with him. Paul doesn’t state clearly why he brought Titus to Jerusalem with him, but my assumption is that Titus represented a genuine uncircumcised Gentile convert. He’s the poster-boy for uncircumcised Christianity, and Paul is implicitly saying, “See, look at this man. He’s not circumcised, but he has a vibrant Christian faith. Circumcision is not necessary for Salvation.”

Now here come the antagonists. Look at verse 4.

4 Yet because of false brothers 

Notice, these are not Christians behaving badly. Paul says they are “false brothers.” They are fakers. These are unbelievers. 

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— 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. 

Look, there are times for disagreement and debate. There are times for deliberation. There are times to discuss a matter and reach a compromise. But then there are other times when you can’t give an inch. You’ve got to stand your ground and say, “No, this is the truth of the gospel. And we’re not going to budge on this issue.” Some things are worth fighting for.

Here’s a second point from our text today. Protecting the truth of the gospel requires clarity. But also… 

2) Defending the truth of the gospel requires conviction (2:3–5)

This is Paul at his quintessential best. He is absolutely combative right now. He’s forcing the issue. 

5 …we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 

Now we can’t say exactly what happened during Paul’s visit to Jerusalem, but probably something like this happened. Paul got together with the apostles, and he told them about Titus and the others who were saved in the Gentile world apart from circumcision. The apostles and he came to an agreement about circumcision, that it wasn’t necessary for salvation. 

But then these “false brothers” weren’t happy about having an uncircumcised member of the church, so they tried to force the issue with Paul. And Paul did not submit to them even for a moment. Paul would rather die on a hill than allow the gospel to be perverted by these legalists, and he refuses to give in. The truth of the gospel needs to be protected. The truth of the gospel needs to be preserved for people like the Galatians and also I might add for people like us in this room twenty centuries later. 

Look, I’m happy to discuss different views on eschatology with people. I’m happy to debate other things like ecclesiology or pneumatology or angelology. I’m happy to talk through the differences between egalitarianism and complementarianism. Let’s debate pedo-baptism vs. credo-baptism. I’m up for that. And I can offer a right hand of fellowship to those who see things differently than me on those matters. 

I’m even willing to compromise on things like the color of the carpet or the musical styles that people prefer. I’m happy to debate who is the best politician in the land who is worthy of public office. I’m happy to debate public policy. Maybe you’ll convince me to change my mind on some of those issues. Probably not, but you can try. But when it comes to the purity of the gospel and what constitutes salvation by grace through faith in Christ, we cannot budge even an inch. This is the way of salvation and there is no other way! 

So if anyone comes into this church and says, “Jesus is good, but you need something more…” We’ve got to chase those people out of the church… with pitchforks if we have to. Because if we lose the purity of the gospel, we lose everything. 

You might say, “Are you hyperbolizing, Tony? You have a reputation for doing that sometimes! Are you getting carried away here?” No. We cannot budge an inch on salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ. Let me say it as dispassionately and as clearly as a can. Jesus plus nothing equals everything. Jesus plus something else for salvation equals nothing. Jesus plus something else for salvation equals damnation in hell. And defending the truth of the gospel requires conviction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And to that you might say, “But okay, what if the other Apostles (the pillars) disagree with Paul about Titus? What if they side with the Judaizers who require salvation?” Well, that would be a horrible scenario. Then you would have two different gospels being put forth by different apostles. That’s a mess!

So what did the Apostles do? Well, look at verse 6.

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.

This is not Paul being dismissive of the Apostles. Paul is one of them. But he is giving deference to the other Apostles because they lived alongside Jesus for three years. Nevertheless, Paul was an apostle too! And God shows no partiality to them over Paul. That’s the idea here.

On the contrary,

Now brace yourself. This is one of Paul’s long, complicated sentences. So let’s take a deep breath and dive in together.

7 On the contrary, when they [Peter, James and John] saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 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.

In other words, “They added nothing to me. They confirmed that the gospel that I preached was sufficient.” So, the legalists are wrong. The Judaizers are wrong. And there’s no schism in the church. The Apostles are agreed that salvation is by grace through faith, not works. The end!

Additionally one of the things that Paul is saying here is that not only is there unity in our understanding of the gospel, but there is also a sanctified division of labor in regard to gospel-work throughout the world. Paul has been commissioned by God as an apostle to the Gentile people who are uncircumcised. Peter and the others have been commissioned for Jews. There is a sanctified division of labor and it’s something that God has orchestrated.

That’s what Paul is saying here. 

Here’s a third point from our text today. Protecting the truth of the gospel requires clarity. Defending the truth of the gospel requires conviction. And finally … 

3) Advancing the truth of the gospel requires cooperation (2:6–10)

This is not a “gentlemen’s agreement” between Paul and Peter. This is not territorialism. Peter didn’t say, “You go your way, and we’ll go our way, and you stay out of our way.” No, it wasn’t like that at all. These Apostles just realize that their callings from God were different, yet they also realized that their callings were mutually beneficial. There was specialization here. Paul would focus and specialize on reaching Gentiles. Peter and the other apostles would specialize on reaching Jews. 

You might ask, “Well who were the Judaizers appointed to minister to? What do they specialize in?” Well, they specialize in heresy. And they were appointed by God to minister to nobody. And Paul is showing us here that there’s no cooperation with people who pervert the gospel. VBVF will not work in cooperation with churches in town who deny or pervert the gospel. When JWs or Mormons come to your home, you don’t welcome them in and call them brother! 

But for those who affirm the truth of the gospel, there is cooperation. And Paul and the other Apostles model this for us. 

What we see here in Galatians 2 is a healthy division of labor that can be applied in our own day. God has given each of us in this room special gifts to be used inside and outside of the church. We’re not all called to be pastors. Also we’re not all called to be missionaries in the African Congo. God has called people especially for that task. But once again notice that Paul and the other apostles have a specific calling. They know what God has called them to do, and they are active doing it.

We at VBVF have been called specifically to minister to folks in San Antonio. That’s not exclusive, but that’s primary. This is our calling. And we are endeavoring to multiply disciples here who “love God and each other, learn from His Word, and long for His return.”

Paul closes this passage with a comment about meeting the needs of the poor. Look at verse 10.

10 Only, they [Peter, James, and John] asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

In other words they gave us the right hand of fellowship, they didn’t require circumcision for salvation, but they did want us to remember the poor. If you remember from Acts 11, Paul came to Jerusalem initially to carry a love offering for the church in Jerusalem. There was a famine at the time, and many church members were in dire straits. This was actually a continual problem with the Jerusalem church throughout Paul’s ministry. There was systemic poverty with the church in Jerusalem and Paul is asked by the Apostles to be sensitive to this need. 

Now let’s be clear about this. This is not a requirement for salvation. We don’t want to make that mistake again right? “Feeding the Poor” cannot become a stumbling block to people like circumcision has. Jesus + “feeding the poor” is not God’s plan for salvation. What the apostles are asking for here is simply consideration for those in need as a practical outworking of their faith, that’s all. This is about “living the truth of the gospel” not “the gospel” itself. And Paul was more than happy to accommodate them, in fact he had already brought a gift to help them in their need. 

In our own church environment, I think we need to be conscientious about “remembering the poor” and helping them. Our leaders are committed to this as a church as we distribute benevolence to those in need within our church, but I think that should also take place on a personal level as people within the church help out others as needs arise. 

Remember, though, this is not a requirement for the gospel, this is an outworking of the gospel. This is an aspect of living out the gospel before others.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s exciting in Galatians 2:1–10 how the Apostles of Jesus Christ (Peter, James, John, and Paul) agreed on the truth of the gospel. That’s so encouraging. It’s encouraging how united they were about this essential issue. 

And in reference to that you might ask an existential question. Maybe something like this: “Did Apostles ever disagree on stuff? Did Apostles ever make mistakes? Or did they reach a kind of elevated spirituality that made them impervious to sin and error?”

Those are good questions. And we’re going to address that topic in greater depth… next week. We’re going to see an Apostolic altercation in Galatians 2:11-16! Come back next week for more on that.