The Unchanging Truth of the Gospel

By S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. *

An Exposition of Galatians 2:1–10 [1]

Introduction

Galatians, Paul’s most explosive letter, in vigorous language sets forth Paul’s gospel of grace, and the effects of it have transformed the world. To see the truth of this we only have to think of the Roman monk, Martin Luther, the “fulfiller and destroyer of the Middle Ages.” [2] That the just live by faith is the heart of the epistle, and it is this truth that opened the Gates of Paradise for the Augustinian monk.

“If ever a monk got to heaven by monkery,” exclaimed Luther, “I would have got there too; all my brothers will testify to that. For if it had gone on much longer, I would simply have martyred myself to death with vigils, prayers, reading and other work.” [3] But then the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ shone into his troubled heart by means of the apostle’s words, “the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel” (cf. Rom. 1:17).

Listen to Luther’s own words:

Then I began to comprehend the “righteousness of God” through which the righteous are saved by God’s grace, namely, through faith; that the “righteousness of God” which is revealed through the Gospel was to be understood in a passive sense in which God through mercy justifies man by faith, as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” Now I felt exactly as though I had been born again, and I believed that I had entered Paradise through widely opened doors. As violently as I had formerly hated the expression “righteousness of God,” [a moment later he added,] so I was now as violently compelled to embrace the new conception of grace and, thus, for me, the expression of the Apostle really opened the Gates of Paradise. [4]

This truth was at stake in the Pauline churches of Asia Minor. Troubled by infiltrating Judaizers, who claimed connections with the mother church in Jerusalem and the storied apostles of Christ, and who were teaching that righteousness came by faith in Christ and the works of the Law, the churches were turning renegade from Him who had called them in the grace of Christ to a different gospel.

The facts of the good news were not at stake. That Christ had died and been buried they believed. And, further, that He had been resurrected and seen by men was not in doubt (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3–5). Incidentally, in the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5 four things are said by Paul to be a part of the gospel, but it is clear that two are the important ones: He died, and He was resurrected. The burial attests the reality of the death, while the appearances attest the reality of the resurrection. The Judaizers believed these things also, it seems, but they insisted that the benefits of His work become ours only by the religious rite of circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses. It was this that stirred the spirit of the apostle and brought on the fire. “Behold, I, Paul, say to you,” he cried, “that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you” (Gal. 5:2). “The righteous man,” he said, “shall live by faith” (cf. 3:11). Thus, it was in the terms on which the benefits of Christ’s work were received that the conflict lay. There could be no compromise here. Men are saved by faith apart from works.

The ancient conflict has a contemporary relevance. There are those who cry, “Believe and surrender,” and by this confuse the terms of the invitation, for “surrender” suggests a total yielding of one’s spirit, mind and body to Christ, thus, confusing justification with sanctification. [5] And, then, there are those who add the biblical injunction, “be baptized” (cf. Acts 2:38), to the term, “believe,” interpreting the expressions as meaning that baptism is a necessity for salvation. To do this is to fall from the grace principle (cf. Gal. 5:4) and preach another gospel. And time fails me in expounding the errors of the Roman Church in its system of salvation through the sacraments of the church.

The Circumstances of Paul’s Second Visit to Jerusalem, verses 1–2

Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

The second chapter of the letter continues the apostle’s defense of himself and his gospel.

The visit the apostle refers to is probably the so-called “famine-relief visit” (cf. Acts 11:27–30). [6] The “revelation,” by which the apostle went up to Jerusalem may have come through Agabus, or it may have been a private word to Paul. [7]

The opponents of the apostle had possibly called the visit an act of submission to Jerusalem, but the point of the paragraph is to show that it really was an acknowledgment of Paul’s superiority in the sphere of the Gentiles. He was given the right hand of fellowship, and that from Peter, the instrument of the opening of the door of the gospel to the Gentiles (cf. v. 9; Acts 10:44–48; 15:7). Furthermore, and this is probably the most important point, Titus was not compelled to be circumcised (cf. v. 3). That fact would be a damaging blow to the Judaists. The words regarding Titus, “taking Titus along also,” mark out Titus as a test case, for he was a Gentile.

When the apostle arrived in Jerusalem, he “submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.” The verb translated, “submitted” is in the middle voice (ἀνεθέμην, anethemēn) and in that form means “to lay something before someone for consideration.” [8] It here clearly carries the idea of consultation. [9] Paul wished to have a discussion regarding the message he was proclaiming.

One notices here a very important aspect of Paul’s attitude toward ministry, and that is the emphasis he places upon the content of the message. He laid before them the gospel he was preaching. He did not simply relate to them the results he had been having. This is the reverse of the emphasis that often is given to the meetings at which we hear reports from those who have been preaching the gospel in other parts of the world. In them the total stress often falls upon results, and there is no consideration of the message being preached.

In this case, of course, there was a special reason for consultation. The apostle states that he desired to discuss the matter, “for fear that I might be running, or had run (better, have run) in vain.” It might seem, at first reading, that the apostle is admitting that, without the approval of Jerusalem, his ministry would be futile. And how could he say that, if he has been called to that service by an “unmediated commission” from the Lord? [10] It is Bruce’s opinion that Paul is not concerned about the validity of his service, but its practicability. That is, he did not receive his commission from Jerusalem, but it could not be usefully exercised except in fellowship with the apostles there. [11]

That may be so, but I am inclined to think that he simply meant that he did not wish his work to be rendered fruitless by the Judaizers. He had been preaching for about fourteen years now, and he wished them to fully understand his message so that no misunderstanding would hinder or disrupt his work among the Gentiles. In other words, it was not to allay his own personal doubts, but to overthrow the influence of the Judaizers that he laid his message before the Jerusalem church. [12]

It is clear, then, that Paul regarded the question of the terms of salvation as theologians express it, of the utmost importance in Christian ministry. The biblical term that the New Testament emphasizes is believe (cf. John 3:16; Acts 15:9–11; 16:31; 1 Cor. 15:2; Eph. 2:8–9, etc.). Therefore, we should be very careful to preserve the New Testament emphasis in the preaching of the Word, avoiding the unscriptural terms like the plague, such as, “believe and surrender,” “believe and be baptized,” “believe and make Christ Lord of your life” (He must be recognized as Lord, but the making of Him Lord is the work of the Spirit in sanctification), and also the confusing terms, such as, “believe and confess Christ,” “open the door of your heart,” and others.

The Controversy Over Titus, verses 3–5

But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

It was a rather daring step on the apostle’s part to introduce a Gentile into the headquarters of the Jerusalem church, and one who had not been circumcised. But he did, and Titus was not compelled by them to be circumcised. They stood with Paul in this matter, which touched the question of the grace of the gospel (cf. Acts 15:1–11).

The relation of verses four and five to the context is under dispute among the commentators. Some, such as Bruce, think the apostle refers here to the later occasion, described more fully by Luke in Acts 15:1, when the men from Jerusalem came to the church at Antioch, an incident that led ultimately to the Jerusalem Conference. If this were so, then verses four and five are a parenthesis in the flow of Paul’s argument. [13] Another interpretation, the majority one according to Bruce, is that verses 4–5 build on the idea of compulsion in verse 3 and so refer to the same historical visit at Jerusalem described in verses 1–10. [14]

The reference to the false brethren “secretly brought in” (v. 4), the adjective παρεισάκτους (pareisaktous) being passive in meaning, indicates that they were invited in by some of the other members of the church. Paul continues his description of them by saying, “who had sneaked in,” a word (παρεισῆλθεν, pareisēlthen) that means something like, they wormed their way in. [15] We have fifth-columnists before us again (cf. 1:7). They were legalists, and the apostle likens them to spies, a very suggestive analogy. They were playing the part of Satan’s CIA, hoping to build up a case against the brethren in Antioch. It was a planned campaign against the freedom that grace had brought to the believers there. They hoped to be able to report to the home church that circumcision was not being practiced in Antioch and, in this way, to bring them into legalistic slavery. Bringing pressure upon them, they were doing their utmost to compel them to adopt circumcision as a necessity for salvation.

The apostle saw the issue clearly. To introduce the works of the Law as part of the plan of salvation, making our justification depend upon obedience to rules and regulations, even of a religious character, was to bring the believers into bondage again. It was to deny grace and, therefore, the gospel of Christ.

“So Paul stood firm,” Stott aptly says. [16] And we cannot but be grateful that he did, for the consequences to the cause of the grace of God in the gospel were far-reaching. Had the apostle and those with him yielded, the work of God in Antioch might well have been wrecked, humanly speaking. As it turned out, however, they did not yield to them in submission, not even for an hour.

The purpose of the resolute attitude of the apostle is said to be, “so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you” (v. 5). In other words, while there are times when a Christian may yield in submission to weaker brethren, in order to prevent them from stumbling, that is never proper if the gospel of the grace of God is at stake. The purity of the grace of the gospel must be preserved at all costs.

Later Paul circumcised Timothy in order that his ministry among the Jews might not be hindered (cf. Acts 16:3). The Jews, of course, regarded the rite as obligatory. A Christian has liberty, the liberty to be circumcised, or not to be circumcised. But, in the presence of and before Jewish believers, or professing believers, who thought that circumcision was necessary for salvation, the apostle insisted that Titus not be circumcised. If he had been circumcised, it would have appeared that it really was necessary for a man to be circumcised in order to be saved. Thus, for “the truth of the gospel” Titus was not permitted to be circumcised. Now, of course, if the issue of grace had not been at stake, then Titus could have been circumcised just as Timothy had been. As Lightfoot puts it, “To the scruples of the weaker brethren (those who did not understand the issue) I would have conceded the point, but the teaching of the false brethren (men seeking to establish a heretical doctrine) made concession impossible.” [17]

When the occasion demanded it, then, the apostle did not hesitate to stand firmly on a principle that might seem to others to be a very technical one. There is a time to be loving and gentle to all, and there is a time to be hard as flint. And, when the gospel of grace is at stake, the gentleness of the servant of the Lord must be tempered with an immutable iron will. As a great Christian said, “The duties of love should not harm faith.”

One of the greatest illustrations of the necessity of contending to the uttermost to preserve the truth of the Scriptures is the controversy between Athanasius and the Arians, a strife over a diphthong, or one letter. [18] Was the Son of the same essence with the Father (ὁμοούσιος, homoousios), or of similar essence (ὁμοιούσιος, homoiousios)? It seemed to many that the dispute was a hopeless dispute over trifles. How could Christianity hinge upon one letter? Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire made merry over the situation, the whole world convulsed over a diphthong! [19] But there is only one letter’s difference between theist and atheist and yet the difference in meaning is infinite. Harnack, the great church historian, realized that Christianity itself was at stake, and that the Arian doctrine that Christ was only like the Father in essence led inevitably back to heathenism. Thus, due to the iron will and resolute determination of Athanasius, the Christian faith was saved, humanly speaking, from becoming simply another historical, but legendary, religion. [20]

The Conclusion of the Matter, verses 6–10

The Negative Side, verse 6

But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.

The apostle now makes the important point that, when he came to Jerusalem, the leaders supported him, giving to him the right hand of fellowship and acknowledging his authority, or supremacy, in the Gentile world. He refers to the leaders in Jerusalem as, “those who were of high reputation” (v. 6), and as those “who were reputed to be pillars” (v. 9; cf. v. 2) The expression in the Greek text (τῶν δοκούντων, tōn dokountōn) literally means, “the seeming ones.” It has been rendered as “men of repute,” “those who are looked up to as authorities” (cf. v. 6), and “those of high reputation.” The sense of the words is derogatory, but not of the men themselves, who are identified in verse nine as James, Cephas, and John, but of the exalted estimate in which they were held by some, that is, the Judaizers (cf. 2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11).

If the “what they were” is a reference to the knowledge of the Jerusalem apostles of our Lord in the flesh, Paul makes it plain that that privilege is of no distinctive advantage in the matter before them. The final words of verse six, “those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me,” mean simply that the Jerusalem apostles saw nothing missing in his message.

The Positive Side, verses 7–10

But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.

On the contrary, Paul affirms that James, Peter, and John concurred in his conviction that the gospel to the Gentiles had been given him as a mission from God, just as Peter had been granted apostleship to the Jews. And they sealed the meeting of minds by extending to the apostle the right hand of fellowship, with only the simple proviso that Paul go on remembering the poor, as he had done in the past.

The apostle’s words, “the gospel to the uncircumcised” and “the gospel to the circumcised,” (v. 7) are not to be understood as referring to two gospels. There is only one gospel in Paul’s mind (cf. 1:8–9), and it must not be modified, edited, trimmed, or supplemented. The nouns in the genitive case (ἀκροβυστίας [akrobystias, “uncircumcised”] and περιτομῆς [peritomēs, “circumcised”]) are objective genitives and denote distinctions of sphere, not a difference in kind. It was the gospel to the uncircumcised, and it was the same gospel to the circumcised. Both are the same, and circumcision is not a requirement for either. That Peter’s gospel was the same as Paul’s is clearly seen in his message in the house of Cornelius (cf. Acts 10:34–43).

The words of verse eight, “effectually worked,” are the rendering of a Greek word (ἐνεργέω, energēo) that in the New Testament almost always refers to a supernatural power. [21] The enabling of the Lord parallels the commission that He gives! So, in Jerusalem he was granted equal rank with the “pillar apostles.” His mission to the Galatians, therefore, stands vindicated, and the arguments and pretensions of the Judaizers are overthrown.

Conclusion

We conclude that amid the changing ages there is one ageless and unchanging gospel, the gospel of the grace of God. It has as its subject the Lord Jesus Christ. It has as its content the death, burial, and resurrection of this divine Son. It has as its rationale that His death was a penal satisfaction by substitution of the righteous claims of God against unholy and condemned sinners. And it has as its terms upon which the benefits of His work become ours, faith alone. And, according to Paul, to add anything to faith as the means of justification is to proclaim a different gospel and expose oneself to the divine curse.

What, then, does God require of men? Just as Luther discovered, God simply wants to be believed! More than anything else He wants to be believed, believed when He describes our guilt and condemnation, and believed when He unfolds His gracious remedy in the atoning work of His Son, Jesus Christ. May the Holy Spirit enable us to take Him at His word, thus honoring Him and His Word, and receive the gift of eternal life with the forgiveness of sins.

* Lewis Johnson regularly ministered the Word at Believers Chapel in Dallas for more than thirty years. From 1950 to 1977, he taught New Testament and Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary. He later served as Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, from 1980 to 1985.

Notes

1. This is article four in a sixteen-part series, “Expositional Studies in the Epistle to the Galatians.”
2. Gerhard Ritter, Luther: His Life and Work, trans. by John Riches (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), 53.
3. Ibid., 29.
4. E. G. Schwiebert, Luther and His Times: The Reformation from a New Perspective (St. Louis: Concordia, 1950), 286. Cf. Martin Luther, “Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther’s Latin Writings, 1545,” trans. Lewis W. Spitz, Sr., in Luther’s Works, eds., Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 34: Career of the Reformer, Part 4 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 337.
5. Cf. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “How Faith Works,” Christianity Today (Sept. 22, 1989), 21–25.
6. Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1990), 46. Cf. F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 151.
7. F. F. Bruce, “Galatian Problems, I. Autobiographical Data,” BJRL 51 (Spring, 1969), 302–3
8. BDAG, s.v. “ἀνατίθημι,” 74. The NIV has, “I…set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.”
9. J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (1865; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 102.
10. Bruce, “Galatian Problems,” 303; idem., The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 111.
11. Bruce, “Galatian Problems,” 303; idem., The Epistle to the Galatians, 111.
12. Cf. John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians, BST (London: Inter Varsity Press, 1968), 41.
13. Bruce, “Galatian Problems,” 306; idem., The Epistle to the Galatians, 115–17.
14. Longenecker, Galatians, 49.
15. Phillips, in fact, translates, “some pseudo-Christians, who wormed their way into our meeting….” Cf. J. B. Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English (New York: Macmillan, 1962), 401.
16. Stott, The Message of Galatians, 43.
17.  Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, 106.
18. “Diphthongs are compound sounds consisting of two vowels pronounced in rapid succession so that the first ‘glides’ into the second without interruption” (Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, The Language of the New Testament [New York: Scribner’s, 1965], 7). The two words dividing Arius and Athanasius had diphthongs that differed in one letter.
19. Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 7 vols., ed. J. B. Bury (London: Methuen, 1909), 2:373.
20. “Had the Arian doctrine gained the victory in the Greek-speaking world, it would in all probability have completely ruined Christianity.” Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma, 7 vols., trans. Neil Buchanan (1900; reprint ed., New York: Dover, 1961), 4:43; idem., Outlines of the History of Dogma, trans. Edwin Knox Mitchell (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957), 251–53.
21. Cf. J. Armitage Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (2d ed., London: MacMillan, 1907), 241.