Apostolic Commendation
Galatians 2:1-10
Now, this part of the book of Galatians contains the defense of Paul, in which he states clearly, and then proves that his apostleship is, in fact, from God. The constant problem of Paul's life and ministry was the incessant and insidious work of false teachers. Paul would go into an area and he would proclaim the truth and he would be soon followed into the area by Satan's emissaries who would then sow the seeds of false doctrine. Particularly damaging to Paul's work were a group of false teachers who fall under the title Judaizers. And Judaizers were trying to impose legalism as a way to God and as a way of life. And wherever Paul went throughout his ministry, they followed on his heels. He would plant the gospel of grace, and they would come into the same field with their legalistic plow and try to uproot everything Paul had planted. And they had a tremendous effect on the early church. They decidedly troubled the early church. Paul had gone to the area of Galatia on the first missionary journey and, there, had established the churches. And soon after he had left Galatia, they had come there. The Judaizers had arrived and they had told the Galatians they needed to be circumcised and become Jews first before they could get saved and then they needed to live a life of ceremony and ritual like Judaism.
Now, the whole issue of this really has some pertinence for us today. And as you study this section of Galatians, you kind of get a little bit itchy and you say, When do we get to the good part? When do we get to the practical stuff? When do we get to chapter 3, or at least the last of 2? And why all of this detail about Paul's apostleship? But it's really very important for us because we must find somewhere in the Scripture the establishment of New Testament authority. And the whole issue is important for us today because both Paul and the gospel of grace are still under attack. There are those today who would tell us not to pay much attention to Paul's writings. They would deny that Paul spoke for Jesus Christ. They would ignore his claim to divine revelation. They would question his authenticity. And many of them would say that he never really wrote many of the books of the New Testament which he claimed to write. In fact, one of the greatest studies that you ever make in seminary, usually you take it the first or second year that you're in seminary, is the study of New Testament Introduction. And you go through every book in the New Testament and you find all of the critics claiming all the way through that the people who said they wrote these books didn't, in fact, write them. That's one of the great liberal arguments against the Scripture, that they were not written by the people who claimed to have written them. And so it is important for us, as a foundation, to be convinced that these men really spoke for God.
Now, during Paul's lifetime, the very basis of all the attack was aimed at his authority. Since he wasn't in the purest sense of the word, one of the twelve apostles who walked with Jesus, then people would disparage his claim to apostleship on that basis. And so he was forever having to defend his apostleship. And, you see, once they had undermined his apostleship, then they could attack his doctrine. Now, the Judaizers came to Galatia and they claimed that Paul was no apostle at all, that there was no point in listening to what he said or in believing what he taught because he didn't have any authority. And they said we are the authority. All false teachers claim that. And they said we are the authority because we're from Jerusalem, we're from the mother church and the apostles at Jerusalem are the ones who call the shots and doctrine. And so we represent the true apostles and the true gospel and Paul is a heretic. And so they followed him around with their legalistic plow, plowing up everything that he sowed in grace. And, believe me, the apostle Paul just got to the place where he simply expected this. In Acts, chapter 20, for example, he says in verse 28 to the elders of Ephesus as he prepares to leave, "Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He has purchased with His own blood." Now, he says to the elders, you watch the flock, you oversee the flock or rule the flock and you feed the flock, "For I know," verse 29, "I know this..." It got to be such an obvious thing that Paul was confident. He says "I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." In fact, he went on to say, I spent three years warning you about it. His steps were so dogged by these false teachers that he anticipated it. He knew it would happen. He no sooner comes to the place where he says good-bye at Ephesus, than he follows it by saying, and get ready, because they'll come, and they did, inevitably. By the time you get to the book of Revelation, Ephesus is on the way out. And today there is no church there and hasn't been for centuries. In II Timothy, chapter 4 and verse 3, Paul writing to Timothy, expressed the same thought. He says, "For the time will come..." That's a pretty straight statement. He doesn't say it may come; he says it will come. "...when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. They shall turn away their ears from the truth and be turned unto fables." In other words, instead of hearing truth, they'll turn their ears toward false doctrine that carries the thoughts that their fancy wants, and they'll drift from the truth and stop enduring sound doctrine. He says, Timothy, just expect it; it'll come. It's inevitable. Wherever you sow the seed of the truth, you're going to find there's going to be sowing done by Satan. So the apostle Paul, all of his life, wound up fighting Satan's false teachers. And he made a great classification in II Corinthians when he said they appear as angels of...what?...of light. And here he writes to the Galatians and he is answering these false teachers who have begun to undermine his authority. He writes to the four churches which he established there: Lystra, Derbe, Iconium and Antioch and Pisidia, and he defends to them his apostolic authority.
Now, let me give you some hooks to hang this whole little section on. He goes at his defense three ways. One, he shows his apostolic credentials in verses 10 to 24, and we studied this that from 10 to 24, he really shows his credentials as an apostle. Now, in chapter 2, verses 1 to 10, which we'll study tonight, he shows his apostolic commendation. You see, in 10 to 24, he just gives his personal testimony. But in 1 to 10 of chapter 2, which we'll look at, he gives the apostolic commendation. That is, the other apostles who knew him commended him. So he didn't just stand on the testimony of his own life. There were others who saw it and agreed. Thirdly, he defends his apostleship by showing his apostolic confidence in chapter 2, verses 11 to 21. You say, what do you mean by that? I mean, he runs into Peter and Peter is blowing it...remember, in Antioch when he was reverting to legalism and what did Paul do...he withstood him...what?...to the face, openly. Now, anybody that would withstand an apostle to the face and tell him what he ought to do and how to behave is going to have to have some authority himself. Right? So Paul, in the first part, chapter 1:10-24, apostolic credentials. The second part, 2:1-10, apostolic commendation. The third part, apostolic confidence as he exerts his authority over another apostle, even perhaps the chief of the apostles. So in chapters 1 and 2 he is nailing down his right to speak for God as an apostle. And then in chapters 3 to 6 he speaks for God and doesn't bother to defend it anymore.
Now, we've studied the first aspect of his defense, his apostolic credentials, and we saw, by the testimony of his life in three parts, pre-conversion, conversion and post-conversion, that he indeed was an apostle. He made the claim in 1:11, "I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not after man. I didn't receive it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." So he makes this claim that what he has is not something he was taught, but it's something God gave him by revelation. He speaks, in fact, for God. Then from verse 13 to 24, he proved it by his personal testimony. Now, he pressed, then...and I want you to get this, cause you'll miss the whole point tonight if you don't catch this transition...the whole point of verses 10 to 24 is to show his independence, that he didn't need to be taught by the other apostles because God gave him his message and that's an airtight convincing argument. But you know what it does? It leaves him open to some criticism. Because as sure as he really goes on and on about his independence, somebody's going to come along and say, Yeah, Paul, and that's just your problem. Your independence is really anarchy. In fact, you're out there all alone. You weren't taught by the apostles. That's why you're so goofed up. And so they find in the loophole of his independence the possibility of another angle in which to undermine him. They will agree with his independence and say, Oh, fine, you're independent, nobody told you any of this stuff. Well, do you realize that your independence is anarchy and your gospel is sectarian and your teaching is different than Peter's and the other apostles? And so as a result they would claim that the church had two gospels, Paul's gospel and the gospel of the rest of the apostles. And then they would start arguing, which one do we accept. Well, obviously, we would accept the others, right, because there's 12 of them saying the same thing. We're not going to listen to Paul. He's all alone out here and he never heard it from anybody else, he just got it up himself. So one of the most devastating arguments that ever could come from the Judaizers was the claim that Paul's independence was just his problem. So he wants to answer that issue. Yes, he's independent. He got his revelation from God, but don't twist that. He's not just independent. And in 2:1-10, he tells how he went to Jerusalem and the rest of the apostles who were there, the leaders, talked to him, heard what he preached, patted him on the back, gave him the right hand of fellowship and said, Go to it, brother; you're preaching the same thing we're preaching. You see how important that kind of an argument is? So he covers it from both angles. Yes, _________ clearly that his gospel didn't come from men, but he shows now that it wasn't one whit different than the other apostles. His gospel was granted independent, but it wasn't independent in terms of content. He said to the...in 10 through 24...he said, I only went to Jerusalem for 15 days. I didn't get my gospel then. It came from God. Now, in chapter 2, he tells about a longer visit to Jerusalem 14 years later when he talked with the apostles and they confirmed him and commended him.
Now, let's look at the passage beginning in verse 1 and we'll divide it into four parts...this part of his defense: his coming, his companion, his commission and finally, his commendation. Let's look at his coming as he comes to Jerusalem. Verses 1 and 2: "Then 14 years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas and took Titus with me also." Now, this really just sets the scene. It's clear from the previous passage, I think, that Paul's contacts with the apostles since his conversion were nil. He went there for 15 days. He went there in Acts 11:27-30 just on a relief mission with Barnabas and took some money for the poor saints and went back to Antioch. So he had no time in his life when he could subject himself to teaching from the apostles, but rather was independent in his revelation. But 14 years after...14 years after what?...14 years after verse 18 of chapter 1, which says, "Then after three years I went to Jerusalem..." He was saved, three years later he went to Jerusalem, 14 years later, he went back again. The time he went three years later, he stayed how long?...15 days. Now, 14 years later he goes back. Now, it's obvious he didn't go back to get his message. He's been preaching it for 17 years. But he did go back. And notice it says he went up again to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is always up as we've seen so many times. Now, these were 14 years of busy ministry. And if you want to know what was going on in those 14 years, you could just back up to verse 21 of chapter 1. He says "I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia and was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. But they had heard only, he who persecuted us in times past now preaches the faith which once he destroyed. And they glorified God in me." So the reputation of his ministry floated around for 14 years, although they never met him face to face. Between the 15-day trip and the other trip, 14 years lapsed...14 years of working in Syria and Cilicia. Part of the time, remember, he went to Antioch and was a pastor with Barnabas. And then he went on his first missionary journey with Barnabas. He went on a relief mission to Jerusalem. All of these things occurred. And now, 14 years later from the last trip, he comes back again, and this time, with Barnabas and with Titus. Now, let me just give you my own viewpoint on this. I believe this was the trip...and I'm not alone in believing this, by any means...but I believe this is the trip recorded in Acts 15, and we studied that some weeks back on Sunday morning, the Jerusalem Council. And we'll see that as we kind of cross back and forth tonight in our study. Now, why did he go to Jerusalem at this time? For what reason? Well, I think it's important that we know that because if he says "14 years after I went again to Jerusalem" the Judaizers are going to say, yes, you know why he went to Jerusalem, because they demand that he get down there and get straightened out...that he went under the pressure of the apostles of the mother church. Or somebody's gonna say he went in desperation to try to learn the truth. No. Verse 2, he clears it up. "I went up by"...what?..."revelation..." God told him to go, that's why he went. And, again, he is totally independent in terms of God's direction in his life. And he went there because God wanted him to go. Now, it is true that the church in Antioch kind of confirmed that and sent him on his way. Chapter 15, verse 2 of Acts says, "When, therefore, Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them,"...that is with the Judaizers..."they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question. And being brought on their way by the church..." It's interesting how that the Spirit of God wanted Paul in Jerusalem and the Spirit probably made His will known through the church. He had done that, remember, in chapter 13, verse 2. The Spirit came to the leaders of the church. I mean, it lists all the leaders of Antioch. And it says, "As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, 'Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work unto which I have called them.'" So the Spirit at Antioch had, at least on one occasion, revealed His will through the leaders of the church. So perhaps the revelation came to all of them and not just to Paul. And so he said, then, I went to Jerusalem by revelation and that is a really important statement for Paul to make because he wants them to know that he didn't go under pressure from the apostles to get his doctrine straightened out. And he didn't go because he was at the end of his rope and didn't know the truth and he wanted to get down there to learn it. Now, verse 2 continues with an important statement. When he got there, he says, he "communicated unto them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles"...then he goes on..."but privately to them who were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain." Now, just take the phrase he "communicated to them the gospel." When he got there...and you can read it in Acts, chapter 15...he announced the truth that he had preached and how God had blessed. But you'll notice, first of all, he says this, "and communicated unto them," but then later on he says "but privately to them." Now, apparently, those two "thems" are different. The first "them" would be the church in general and if you go to Acts 15, verses 4 and 5, you'll find out that when he got there, he told everybody what was going on. "When they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and elders and they declared all things that God had done with them." So when they got there, there was a time when they met with the whole church. But it says, also, the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles, he privately communicated to them who were of reputation. So he had a private meeting with the leaders of the church. Now, he had been preaching this particular gospel to the Gentiles, and he simply stated what it was. It was the gospel of grace. It wasn't any different than what they had been preaching. But you know what had happened, don't you? The circumcision party had come along and they said in Acts 15:1 that if somebody doesn't get circumcised, they can't get saved. And it became such a big issue that it had to be resolved. And so the Holy Spirit says, Paul, you pack up A-1 exhibit: Titus...one saved, converted, uncircumcised Gentile...and you and Barnabas haul him down to Jerusalem and let's get this thing settled. It's amazing how the presence of one uncircumcised, saved Gentile has a tremendous weight against the argument. And so it wasn't just gonna be academic; it was gonna be personal because they had a living, breathing Gentile right in front of them to deal with. If they were gonna say you have to be circumcised to be saved, they're gonna have to talk Titus out of his salvation. Pretty dynamic illustration.
Well, when they preached...and I think this is interesting...in Acts 15 when they announced their message; you know how they defended it? They said that God had confirmed their message with miracles, which I think is very important. It says in verse 12, "Then all the multitude kept silence and listened to Barnabas and Paul"... Acts 15:12..."declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them." Now we've told you something. God confirms His Word by miracles. And God does not confirm error. Right? If God attends the preaching of the Word with miracles and signs authored by God, then God is approving the message. And that was the devastating argument of Paul when he got there. We saw God do miracles and God does not corroborate or confirm or bless error. Well, look at the little note about privately in verse 2. "...but privately he spoke to them of reputation..." Now, the other course that they followed aside from the public thing...and it was important that he'd state this to everybody just so that they'd know that God had blessed the gospel to the Gentiles as was. And, incidentally, I don't think the whole church had a problem with it; I think it just was brought out publicly. I think the Judaizers were the ones that had the problem. The normal believers in Jerusalem didn't think you had to get circumcised. But the problem needed to be dealt with openly and thus it was. But he met with the leading apostles in a private meeting. You say, who was there?...probably Paul and Barnabas, James, Peter and John. Now, James was not an apostle. This is James the brother of Jesus, the leader of the Jerusalem church. So they met. I would just venture a guess that Paul and Barnabas met first with the leaders before he met with the congregation. You see, they had never heard this guy much. And in 17 years, they hadn't heard at all of him. And so they wanted to hear what he'd been preaching that had created all this stir and so he came in and he told them the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles...the same gospel.
Let me show you a little insight into the man, Paul, who just...you know, he had a little fiery streak in him. I imagine he had a temper that the Spirit kept a good deal of the lid on. But I want you to see something that's interesting. He says, "but privately to them who were of reputation..." Now, there's sarcasm in that...those who were of reputation, those of repute. Now, I want you to notice something. Four times he calls James and Peter and John by that title...those who were of repute. In verse 2, twice in verse 6 and again in verse 9, and there it's, you know, the pillars of the church. And in each of those, there's a sarcasm. But the sarcasm is not directed at those leaders; it is directed at the Judaizers because, apparently, this was their coined phrase. Apparently, when they got to Galatia, they said, Well, our leaders, those of repute, our big shots in Jerusalem, why they...such and such and such. And so he writes back and says I had a private meeting with your big shots. In other words, the sarcasm is not directed at James and Peter and John; it's directed at the Judaizers who are in an absolutely unbiblical, ungodly fashion, venerating these men for their own purposes. Do you see? They were venerating them for their own purposes, not for the sake of the men themselves who didn't need veneration anyway. And so the language does have sarcasm in it, but it is not directed at James and Peter and John, but at the Judaizing legalists who have over-exalted them at the expense of Paul. They keep over-exalting them all the time and apparently this little phrase was their thing...those of repute, as if to say Paul was of disrepute. And so Paul says, Well, I met with yours of repute and he throws that phrase out four times, which is really an interesting insight into the fact that you could get to him. You could get to Paul. (Laughter) He was human. Now, he says, the reason I had this private meeting with them was "lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain." A most interesting statement. He said, I met with them because I didn't want to spend my whole life doing something that was going to wind up as a big waste. You say, Paul, what do you mean? I mean this. If I'm going around preaching Christ, and I'm going around preaching the gospel of justification by grace through faith without works, and the other apostles, though in principle agreeing with me, don't come out and stand strong with me, then the Judaizers are going to have something to hold onto and they're going to undermine everything I do. You see, he didn't come down there to get his doctrine straightened out; he came down there to get the apostles to stand with him so that he wouldn't have these Judaizers chasing him all over the world undermining everything he did and saying, Well, the apostles are behind us. Now, we know the apostles wouldn't have been against Paul. He preached the same gospel they did. But if they were either noncommittal or soft on legalism, soft on Judaizing, then his work among the Gentiles would be just ripped up. He had to write back to the Galatians and say, You want to hear something? All of the apostles in Jerusalem agree with me. Now what do you think that's going to do to the Judaizers? That's it. That's the end. And so he said, I came, and I had a private meeting because more than anything I wanted the support of the leaders because I didn't want to spend all my life working, preaching Christ and not having them stand with me, but leaving the door open for somebody to undermine the work. And believe me, if there wasn't a strong stand against heresy, then the effectiveness of Paul's work would have been weakened. And he met with them privately to get their support and then he came out and made his public declaration, knowing that they were standing with him. Now, it wasn't that Paul was in doubt about his gospel. No, no. It wasn't that he had misgivings. I mean, for 17 years he'd been preaching it. It was that he wanted everybody to stand with him. He wanted to destroy the influence of the Judaizers. He didn't need to strengthen his own conviction. So it was a tense moment and his coming really set the stage.
Let's look secondly at his companion...verse 3. "But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek,"...I like this..."was compelled to be circumcised." Now, that is just an overwhelming argument. The Judaizers said, We're from Jerusalem and according to the Jerusalem church, you've got to get circumcised before you can get saved. And Paul says, You know what? Titus came with me. He's a Gentile. They didn't make him get circumcised. See? (Laughter) Now, when you start studying verses 3 to 5, you really get into a difficult passage. In fact, Lightfoot calls it a shipwreck of Greek grammar. It is a disaster to try to interpret. Try to translate is bad enough. In fact, it's almost untranslatable.