1 of 8

Galatians 2

Today, we’re continue to continue in Galatians 2. As a bit of a recap, in Galatians 1, we saw Paul hammer in on two main points:

There is no other Gospel.
Paul received revelation of the Gospel directly from God, not from man.

Extrabiblical references:

Stott, J. R. W. (1986). The message of Galatians: Only one way. Leicester, England; Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Cole, R. A. (1989). Galatians: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 9). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Tremper Longman III (2013). The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/that-the-truth-of-the-gospel-be-preserved-for-you
https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/galatians-2/
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/why-was-timothy-circumcised
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/176/is-pauls-visit-to-jerusalem-detailed-in-galatians-2-the-jerusalem-council
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/22758/in-galatians-22-what-was-paul-afraid-of
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jerusalem-Council.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/crucified-with-Christ.html

2 of 8

Reading

Galatians 2:1-5
Galatians 2:6-10

As we turn to the start of Galatians 2, we see Paul make another visit to Jerusalem.

When was this visit? It’s not super clear exactly when this particular visit occurred in relation to what all we have recorded throughout the book of Acts. It could be nearly any time from Acts 11 through Acts 15 (which would make his first visit mentioned in Galatians 1 be from Acts 9).
Who were the people he took with him?

Barnabas - Barnabas is a Jew with quite the history with Paul. But the first recorded act of note is that when Paul first returned to Jerusalem after his conversion, Barnabas was the guy who testified to other disciples that Paul’s conversion was legitimate (Acts 9:26-27).
Titus - Titus was a Gentile whom Paul later came to know, and Paul later ended up leaving Titus in Crete to finish some Gospel work (Titus 1:4-5).

3 of 8

Galatians 2:1-5

Why did Paul go up to Jerusalem?
Why did Paul present the Gospel before leaders in private?

Looking at Galatians 2:2, there are at least two questions worth asking:

Why did Paul go up to Jerusalem?

Verse 2 clearly states that he went up due to a revelation (presumably from God). This is important to keep in mind when answering the next question, but it’s also important in the context of what Paul has said in Galatians 1 and will say later in Galatians 2. As Paul has already stressed his authority directly from God in chapter 1, it’s important to note that his going up to Jerusalem here is in obedience to God, not because he was trying to seek some man-made approval. We don’t have any more concrete information on exactly what this revelation may have been.

Why did Paul present the Gospel before leaders in private?

Verse 2 states that Paul presented the Gospel he preached before these other leaders of the Jerusalem church in order to make sure his running (preaching) had not been in vain. Was this done as an obedient response to the revelation mentioned previously - in other words, did the revelation that prompted him to go to Jerusalem also prompt him to present the Gospel before leaders in this way? We don’t know for sure, but the text doesn’t require this behavior of Paul to be connected to the same revelation, nor does the text necessarily seem to strongly imply they were connected. It’s quite possible that Paul went up to Jerusalem out of obedience without having much more specifics as to “why”, and then this private presentation of the Gospel came up later. Or they could be more directly connected. It may also have been presented due to the circumcision controversy hinted out elsewhere in this letter.

Now, a reasonable follow-up question to ask is, what does Paul mean here with his concern about having run in vain?

I don’t think the text really makes this very clear, but most commentators fall on the side of the fact that Paul was not concerned that his Gospel message was false and needed correction but rather focused more on ensuring unity within the church and making sure the fruit of Paul’s efforts in preaching the Gospel weren’t in vain (negated). We can break down the thought process behind this view:

In chapter 1, Paul seems very emphatic about how the Gospel he preaches is directly from God, not from man, and he seeks God’s approval, not man’s. Furthermore, he emphasizes how there is no other Gospel, and anyone who tries to present any alternative Gospel is accursed. He also specifically notes how he preached for years without really conferring with man. In other words, Paul seems to have a sole and supreme confidence in God here.
In chapter 2, Paul demonstrates several times how he maintains the truth of the Gospel revealed to him in contrast to potential pressures from man - the clear unyielding to circumcision of Titus (verses 3-5) and his opposition to Peter’s mistake later (starting in verse 11).
This early part of Galatians 2 has some rather broken grammar in Greek, which even comes across a bit in English translations. This makes it a bit hard to properly translate Paul’s intent here, but it does somewhat sound like a bit of a rushed/emotional set of thoughts in these early verses.
Taking the above into account, if we look at verses 3-5, it seems that the issue of circumcision may have been on the forefront of Paul’s mind as a potential issue that that was causing divisiveness or troubling (certainly something Paul mentions in several of his letters - folks being troubled by some other messages). If that’s the case - if some so-called “Christians” were preaching that circumcision was necessary for salvation, then that would have caused quite a division in the church. Such contradictory messages create disunity, and this in particular would cause two competing “gospels” to be preached. Not only could this suppress the ultimate results from Paul’s preaching, but it would hinder the proclamation of the Gospel by others as well (including having some people preach a false “gospel”). Unity is important. And we see how unity occurs between church members in Galatians 2:6-10.
There are two Greek words commonly translated as “vain” in the New Testament - https://biblehub.com/greek/2756.htm and https://biblehub.com/greek/1500.htm. Unfortunately, the first one (used here in verse 2), isn’t the same one used elsewhere in Galatians. This makes it a bit more difficult to discern precise meanings, but there doesn’t seem to be too much of a difference between these words. If we take a look at similar uses of either of these words for “vain” in Paul’s writings, we can see that he’s primarily seems to be focusing on making sure the fruit of his work lasts and isn’t negated (rather than the fundamental message or work that he’s doing being flawed on in vain):

But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain. - Galatians 4:9-11 (ESV)
holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain. - Philippians 2:16 (ESV)
For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor would be in vain. - 1 Thessalonians 3:5 (ESV)
Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain. - 1 Corinthians 15:58 (ESV)
1 Corinthians 15:14 has Paul use “vain” (according to some translations) to describe a case where the truth of the Gospel message itself is described in such a way. However, from the context, Paul is clearly discussing hypothetical examples of things that he clearly believes are not true.

4 of 8

Why circumcision?

Why does this issue keep popping up?
Well…

“...bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised...Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut of...” - Genesis 17:12-14 (ESV)
“If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.” - Exodus 12:48 (ESV)

So in Galatians 2:3, Paul highlights a key point of controversy that he had been encountering - the idea that people needed to be circumcised to be saved. He later refers to the circumcision when discussing Peter’s sphere of ministry and when discussing the “circumcision” party later in the chapter 2. And we’ll see more about circumcision later in Galatians (not to mention plenty of other times Paul discusses it in his letters).

Why does this particular issue of circumcision pop up so frequently? Why do so many Jews (Acts 15:1-5 as an example) see circumcision as necessary for salvation?

Well, many Jews, even if they recognized that Gentiles were intended to be saved by God, likely saw things through a lens of the older covenant promises of God. You can see items of note from a few example verses on the slides (also see Isaiah 2:2-5, Isaiah 14:1, Isaiah 56:1-8, Jeremiah 12:16-17, Micah 4:1-4, Zechariah 2:11, Zechariah 8:22-23, Zechariah 14:16-21).

Old habits, old ways of thinking, can be hard to change. Some of these Judaizers insisting on circumcision probably had poor intentions. But when looking at this Jewish view through the lens of older promises, it’s not too hard to see how some may have seen circumcision as a way to include and invite Gentiles into the salvation of God. Of course, that doesn’t mean they’re right (and they’re not in this case).

Note how Paul ends things in Galatians 2:5. They (some group of Christians, which at least includes Paul, Barnabas, and Titus but could also include the larger group of apostles in Jerusalem) did not yield in submission to them (with regards to bondage that would come from circumcision) so that the truth of the Gospel would be preserved. This short but incredibly important thought flows all throughout this letter - preserving the truth of the Gospel is of all importance, for there is no other Gospel. And a false gospel corrupted by additional requirements like circumcision is no gospel at all - it is something deceitful void of the power to save. How great a role God has given us that we might preserve the truth of the Gospel for others here on earth!

Finally, as we look to Galatians 2:6-10, we see more details on the outcome of the meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem. We see further validation that Paul’s preaching of the Gospel has not been in vain or misguided - not only is there unity among Paul and the true Jerusalem brethren, but there’s been no need to add or modify the Gospel Paul preached. Paul’s accurate revelation and proclamation of the Gospel he received from God is true, and it is in line with what other Jewish Christians (more closely surrounded by others Jews who might insist on circumcision) know as the Gospel. Furthermore, they’re even united on remembering the poor (verse 10).

At this point in the chapter, Paul has presented two key ideas that should be swirling around in our minds:

Preservation of the truth of the Gospel
Unity amongst the apostles (both to the Jews and Gentiles) on this truth, even in the midst of others presenting other false, so-called gospels.

Both are these ideas are important background for the scene which Paul is going to present next...

5 of 8

Reading

Galatians 2:11-16
Galatians 2:17-21

6 of 8

Galatians 2:11-21

What was Peter’s error here?
What things did Paul present in response?

What was Peter’s error here?

In this scene, we see Peter err and Paul oppose him in correction. What exactly was Peter’s error here (which ended up getting Barnabas too)? Well, he seemed to think it was okay to live like a Gentile (and thus interact with them) originally, but when some other Jews came, he seemed to think that he needed to separate himself for some reason (and an implication is that this also communicated that following Jewish customs was necessary for Gentile salvation). In other words, his behavior (conduct) stood in contradiction with the truth of the Gospel.

This is important - Peter’s error here seems to have been a lapse in judgment that led to behavior that was out of alignment with the Gospel. It doesn’t seem to be some fundamental core flaw in Peter’s theological beliefs. We can see that from the following:

Peter and Paul were in agreement on the Gospel with no additional requirements earlier in this chapter.
When Peter first came to Antioch, he spent time eating with Gentiles without issue (verse 12).
The use of the word hypocrisy (verse 13), which suggests a discrepancy between core beliefs and outward actions.
Peter later continues his Gospel ministry (as evidenced by 1 and 2 Peter).

Peter really should have known better - in fact, he specifically went through an experience from God early that specifically showed him that eating with the Gentiles was fine - they’re “clean” too (Acts 10-11, 15), and by Christ and not by circumcision. There is no distinction - salvation through Jesus Christ is for all people and without additional barriers to fellowship.

So we see that even we as humans, even Christians, are still fallible and can still fall into error and sin. But we also see how God can provide correction.

What things did Paul present in response?

Paul presents several things that affirm the truth of the Gospel, both for the immediate audience of this scene and readers of this letter:

Jewishness does not save (verses 15-16).
Works do not save (verse 16).
Faith in Christ is how we can receive salvation (verse 16).
Jews have even given up on works of the law for salvation in favor of Christ (verse 16).

In the remainder of the chapter, he also covers more details on exactly what Christ has done for us and our relationship to that.

7 of 8

Death and Life

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.

- Galatians 2:19-20 (ESV)

In the context of the Gospel, how have we “died” and how do we “live”? (also see Romans 6-8, Colossians 2-3)

In Galatians 2:19-20, Paul makes some incredible statements about life and death and our relationship with Christ in the context of the Gospel. What exactly does he mean here? Various ideas on these themes in relation to the Gospel seem to be present throughout Scripture:

Death

Under the law, we deserve to die for sinning and not keeping the law.
Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins.
By proxy, we have therefore also died for our sins under the law due to being united with Christ.
With the penalty under the law paid for and placement of faith in Jesus Christ, we have ended our relationship with the law and its demands.

Life

By being united with Christ in His crucifixion and death through faith, we are also united with Him in His resurrection life.
We have been born again into a new life - literally a new creation.
We have the Holy Spirit living in us, Christ abiding in us.

Most of these things largely hinge on us being united with Christ (Romans 6:2-14, Romans 7:1-6, Romans 8:1-11, Colossians 2:10-15).

Also see: Matthew 10:37-39, Matthew 16:24-26, Mark 8:34-37, Luke 9:23-25, Luke 14:26-33.

8 of 8

Final Verse

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

- Galatians 2:21 (ESV)

The last verse here is one that has increasingly hit home for me over time. As you come to know Christ more and obtain a greater understanding of exactly what He’s done for you, this is one of those keys verses that helps tie a lot of different ideas together for me.

First, it showcases just an incredibly amount of value on the grace of God, the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As an application of “preserving the truth of the Gospel”, it’s so important to not “nullify” (ignore, discard, make to no effect) just what Christ has done in favor of some inferior so-called (but not really) gospel.

Second, it showcases just how important the truth of the Gospel is to making everything work. There is no other way to righteousness. If there were some other workable system here, then Christ’s death would have been pointless, purposeless, in vain. Knowing God, it’s impossible for Christ to have died for no purpose - as Christ being the the one “who loved me and gave himself up for me” (verse 20), it just doesn’t make sense for that to be a useless, futile effort - no one would make that kind of decision for nothing. All of this comes together to make Christ the only workable system that makes sense to me.