Paul autobiographically defends the Christocentric gospel that was revealed to him by the risen Lord Jesus on the road to Damascus and in his personal instruction in Arabia.

You are free to download this article provided it remains intact without alteration. You are also free to transmit this article and quote this article provided that proper citation of authorship is included.

   Having just wiped out all pretense of a different gospel other than the dynamic reality of Jesus Christ alone, there is no doubt that the congregations in Galatia were waiting with bated breath for what the reader would say as he continued to read Paul's letter. Their attention would now be keenly drawn to the defense of the Christocentric gospel, as Paul continued in his letter to the Galatians to defend his life and ministry and gospel as revealed in Jesus Christ.

   Although this is the longest autobiographical passage in Paul's writings (cf. I Cor. 11:22-33; Phil. 3:4-6), Paul is not just sharing his testimony, but has selected events in his life which document how Christ has worked in his life to reveal Himself as the gospel. Paul is not just egotistically defending his personal reputation against the derogation of the detractors who had entrenched themselves in the Galatian churches, but his desire was to explain how the real dynamic of the gospel of the life of Jesus Christ had impacted his life and become his life. The ontological reality of the gospel had been ontologically experienced by Paul to the extent that the man and his message were inseparably linked. The living Lord Jesus was the only gospel Paul knew. The living Lord Jesus had so integrally become Paul's life that he could say, "for me to live is Christ" (Phil. 1:21), "Christ lives in me" (Gal. 2:20), "Christ is our life" (Col. 3:4). The gospel reality of Jesus Christ indwelt Paul and was embodied in him as the basis of all that he was and did, leading Paul to declare "I am who I am by the grace of God" in the risen Lord Jesus (I Cor. 15:10). Paul could not defend himself without defending Christ who had made him a "Christ-one," a Christian. Since Paul regarded Jesus Christ to be the essence of the gospel and the essence of his own life, self-defense and gospel-defense were both Christ-defense.

   There is still a polemic turbulence in these words as Paul is countering and refuting the so-called "gospel" proffered by the pseudo-preachers of performance-piety. If, as in Acts 15:1, these Judaizing church-crashers had come from Judea, from the church in Jerusalem, they may have regarded such as the "mother-church" headquarters of genuine Christianity. Paul takes pains to distance himself from any derived gospel emanating from Jerusalem or from any apostolic leadership of the Judean church. He is intent on showing that the divine revelation of God's grace in Jesus Christ is the essence of his life and ministry (1:11-24), as well as the essence of the gospel and the unity of the church (2:1-10).

1:11 ­ Transitioning from the denial of any gospel other than the living dynamic of God's grace in Jesus Christ( vss. 6,7), and the consequences of divine anathema upon any attempt to develop such (vss 8,9), Paul explained, "I would have you know, brethren, "that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man." "Let me make this clear, my dear spiritual brothers in Christ, that the gospel which I preached to you in Galatia ­ the very gospel which you heard and received (1:9) ­ is not a gospel of human origin." Still regarding the Galatian Christians as "brothers," as distinct from the "false-brothers" he will refer to later (2:4), Paul is concerned that his spiritual family members should clearly recognize that the gospel is the divine reality of the risen and living Lord Jesus. The gospel is not some systematized construct of human thought, for man's natural reasoning would never have devised a triune God and a dying Savior. The gospel is not a continued development of Jewish religious tradition authorized by the original apostles in Jerusalem. The gospel is not something that Paul invented as his own personal interpretation and opinion. The gospel is not "according to man," but "according to God," as the divine dynamic of His own Being and life. There are many forms of "self-made religion" (cf. Col. 2:23) that are "according to man," but they are not God's gospel in Jesus Christ.

1:12 ­ In contrast to the misleading missionaries in your midst, "I neither received the gospel from man, nor was I taught it by man." "The conveyance of the gospel to me was straight from God's supernatural activity of grace in Jesus Christ, both on the road to Damascus and in all subsequent outpourings." The recent religious rough-riders in Galatia may have claimed that they learned the gospel from the original apostles down in Jerusalem, and that Paul must have been taught through some subordinated instructors as well, but their version was obviously closer to the original tradition and more complete than what Paul had preached. Paul, on the other hand, was adamant that the gospel he shared did not come through human channels, for was never "discipled" by any man, nor served as any man's apprentice. He did not accumulate the gospel through didactic transmission of data, doctrine, or tradition. He did not attend catechism or seminary to be instructed in the necessary epistemological tenets of a Christian belief-system. To know facts about Jesus Christ is not to know Jesus Christ, who is the gospel.

   "I received the gospel through a revelation of Jesus Christ," Paul declared. "The gospel I share is of divine origin for I received Him in faithful receptivity of His activity when He personally and unilaterally revealed Himself to me on the road to Damascus. The gospel I share is 'according to God,' because God opened heaven to reveal Jesus to me in a personal revelation." Jesus is both the subject and the object of the revelation of God; both the source and the content of the revelation. It is not just the revelation about Jesus Christ, nor merely the revelation conveyed by Jesus Christ, but the revelation which is Jesus Christ as its very essence. Jesus is the ontological essence of God's revelation. This is the basis for Karl Barth's statement that "revelation is the abolition of religion"1, which is the very point that Paul is attempting to make to the Galatians.

1:13 ­ "Now this was a radical transformation in my life when I received God's revelation in Jesus Christ, "for you have heard of my former conduct of life in Judaism." Paul had quite a "reputation" among the Christian communities concerning his pre-conversion activities. The intrusive instructors had surely brought this to the Galatians' attention by way of derogation and suspicion. "I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it." Luke noted that "Saul was ravaging the church, entering house after house; and dragging off men and women, to put them in prison" (Acts 8:3), "breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord" (Acts 9:1). The risen Lord Jesus asked Saul on the road to Damascus, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" (Acts 9:4). With utmost regret and remorse, Paul admits that he "persecuted the church of God" (I Cor. 15:9; Phil. 3:6). To persecute the "church of God," the "people of God," is to persecute Jesus Himself, for He is the ontological essence of the church, which is His Body. But Paul had no concept of the spiritual fulfillment of the old covenant concepts of God's people, Israel, Jews, Jerusalem, and the temple, when he so vigorously, vehemently and violently attempted to annihilate and eradicate Christianity from the face of the earth. Paul seemed to approach everything from an excessive "all or nothing" perspective, and he had gone on a murderous rampage of "religious cleansing" to wipe out Christians.

1:14 ­ Paul was motivated by the personal ambition of "trying to please men" (1:10), and in his fierce, fanatical zeal to compete against all others and earn more performance points by cutting down all opposition, he admits, "I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen." Paul knew how to climb the ladder in the game of ecclesiastical politics! He had impeccable credentials in Jewish religion, "being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions." Highly motivated and task-oriented, Paul was never one to approach anything "half-heartedly." Since religion is fueled by "zeal without knowledge" (Rom. 10:2), Paul was obsessed in his violent defense of religion. Religion so often embodies violent conflict against those who disagree and will not conform to their traditions, causing religious fundamentalists to become terrorists, willing to go to any end, even death, for their cause. Paul was a good Pharisaic student who knew the minutia of Jewish traditions well, with all their "fence laws" of religious performance and conformity. Under the surface Paul may have been indicating to the Galatians, "If you want addendums of law-performance, I know about those better than anyone, for 'concerning righteousness in the Law, I was found blameless' (Phil. 3:6)." But Paul knew that such performance had nothing to do with the gospel of grace in Jesus Christ. If ever there was a person whose personal and religious background dictated against any predisposition to become the "apostle of grace," it was Paul! It took a radical action of divine intervention to transform him and totally restructure his thinking.

1:15 ­ The first-person pronouns of the previous two verses are now exchanged for the second-person pronouns of Deity as Paul expresses the initiative of God's grace in his life. As an exemplary Pharisee, Paul knew about religious separationism, but now he refers to the divine action of God "who set me apart, even from my mother's womb." It was no accident, no incident of fortuitous luck, that transformed Paul into a grace-Christian. Paul attributed what happened in his life to God's pre-ordained plan to sovereignly act in his life, even before he was born. This was no fatalistic, arbitrary pre-determinism or predestinarianism that disallowed Paul's responsibility to be receptive to God's activity, but Paul recognized God's foreordination and foreknowledge to "set him apart unto the gospel of God" (Rom. 1:1), the spiritual union with Jesus Christ. Like Isaiah (Isa. 49:1,6) and Jeremiah (Jere. 1:5) before him, Paul believed that God could select and call an individual "even from his mother's womb" for His divine purposes. Paul certainly wasn't looking for Jesus on the road to Damascus. It wasn't his idea; it was the last thing he could have conceived of. But God "called me through His grace, and was pleased to reveal His Son in me." The grace-activity of God revealed Jesus Christ to Paul objectively, and in Paul subjectively in regeneration and the on-going dynamic of His life. God did not just reveal factual data, informational propositions of a belief-system of doctrine or theology, but He "revealed His Son," the "revelation of Jesus Christ" (1:12), the personal revelation of the ontological reality of the Son of God indwelling Paul's spirit and living in Paul as his life (cf. Gal. 2:20; II Cor. 13:5).

1:16 ­ The purpose of this revelation of Jesus Christ in Paul was "that I might preach Him among the Gentiles." Paul's conversion and commissioning both occurred on the road to Damascus (cf. Acts 9:3-22; 22:6-21; 26:12-18). Notice that he was commissioned to "preach Him," Jesus Christ, not some denominational party-line or some systematized package of doctrine. Jesus is the subject and the object, the dynamic and the content of genuine Christian preaching. That Paul should become the "apostle to the Gentiles" (Rom. 11:13; I Tim. 2:7) was a revolutionary reversal for such a Jewish, Pharisaic exclusionist, who would have regarded all ethnic diversity other than Jews to be unclean goyim who were "strangers to the covenant" (Eph. 2:12). But again, like Isaiah, he knew he was called to be "a light to the nations" (Isa. 49:6; Acts 13:47), proclaiming a universal gospel in Christ, and "not presuming to speak of anything except what Christ had accomplished through him, resulting in the obedience of the Gentiles" (Rom. 15:18).

   Since Paul was convinced of God's calling and commissioning, he "did not immediately consult with flesh and blood." He did not consider it a priority to consult with any human leadership delegation for legal or spiritual authoritative counsel. Knowing that the gospel was the vital dynamic of the living Lord Jesus, and not an informational system compiled by human conference and requiring consensual ratification, Paul didn't consider it necessary to consult with any "district superintendents" or other human mediators. He knew that there was only "one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim. 2:5).

1:17 ­ "Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me," Paul continues to explain. He did not seek authentication of the gospel reality of Jesus Christ in his life from the original apostles who had been disciples of Jesus, and who were apparently still localized, for the most part, in the "First Church of Jerusalem." Regarding their apostleship to have precedence in time, but not precedence in authority, Paul did not consider his apostolic commission to be in any way inferior or secondary to the original apostles. His was an independent divine commissioning, and not a subordinated ecclesiastical commissioning requiring validation from the Jerusalem jurisdiction. (Whether the traveling traditionalists who had come to Galatia thought that it was, or that it should be, is not clear.)

   Instead, Paul reports, "I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus." As there is much ambiguity about the geographical location of Arabia, and no other details about this period in Paul's life, we can only speculate that Paul probably went into the area known as the "kingdom of the Nabateans" which was to the south and east of Syria. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul indicates that the ethnarch of Damascus, who took his orders from Aretas, king of the Nabateans, sought to seize him in Damascus for some reason (cf. II Cor. 11:32). The purpose of this diversion in Arabia was probably to be taught of the Spirit of Christ, and to listen to God in obedience (hupakouo). Others, like Moses, David and Jesus, had been taught of God in the wilderness, and Paul needed time to meditate and reflect in order to reorient his thinking to accommodate the fact that all Jewish expectation was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. His return to Damascus was probably brief, and likely the occasion of his being lowered in a basket over the city wall at night (II Cor. 11:33).

1:18 ­ Thoroughly taught by Christ Himself in Arabia concerning his ministry to the Gentiles, Paul "then three years later, went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days." Some have noted that Paul's three years of personal instruction from the risen Lord Jesus in Arabia seems to correspond to the approximately three years that the original disciples were taught by the physical Jesus in Palestine, indicating that the "historical Jesus" is not to be separated from the "spiritually indwelling Jesus" as of any more or less consequence, and Paul's apostleship is not to be regarded as inferior to that of the others who were with Jesus in the flesh. The point that Paul seems to be making is that though he did eventually go to Jerusalem (cf. Acts 9:26) for a brief visit of fifteen days, that was certainly not sufficient time for Peter to have discipled him in all there was to know about the gospel, verifying again that he did not receive his gospel understanding from men, but from God.

1:19 ­ Then, to further illustrate that his was not a humanly derived and subordinated apostleship commissioning, Paul explains that he "did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother," while in Jerusalem. Though not alienated from the other apostles, Paul wanted to make it clear that he was not dependent upon them as a protégé or pupil. Some, especially those in the Roman church who wish to preserve the perpetual virginity of Mary, attempt to explain that James was a cousin of Jesus, or a step-brother who was the son of Joseph from a previous marriage. The most logical explanation, however, is that James was the son of Joseph and Mary, the first male child born of Mary after Jesus (note order in Matt. 13:55), who later became a Christian and an apostolic leader in the Jerusalem church (cf. Acts 12:17; 21:18).

1:20 ­ Parenthetically, Paul explains, "(Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.)" "As incredible as it may sound," Paul seems to be saying, "I assure you it is true." Employing what sounds like a legal oath, Paul insists, "I am telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God!" "I am willing to explain every place I went and everyone with whom I spoke." This may have been in response to an accusatory charge by the Galatian intruders that Paul was not telling the whole truth about his background and motives. Perhaps they were insinuating that Paul must have learned the gospel from such apostles as Peter or James, or at least had his understanding validated and affirmed by such authoritative apostles, and then subsequently deviated from such acceptable doctrine by becoming a radical renegade who set off on his own independent mission to the Gentiles. He may have been faulted for being too independent in going his own way and teaching his own personal interpretation, as well as for being too liberal in not conserving the continuity with Judaic heritage in the performance of the law ­ a "Torah-traitor." Paul denies such.

1:21 ­ Continuing his recital of the sequence of events that were pertinent to his explanation of his divine calling and commissioning in Christ, Paul notes that "Then (after some confrontations with the Jewish hierarchy in Jerusalem - cf. Acts 9:26-30; 22:17-31) I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia." The order of these provinces, which were combined by the Romans between 25 B.C. and 72 A.D., may indicate the route he traveled from Jerusalem, going first through Antioch in Syria, and then to Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia, where Paul had been reared (Acts 9:11; 21:39). There is no better place to learn how to live out the practical implications of the Christian gospel than in your old home town! Exiled from the center of Christian activity in Jerusalem, Paul settled in Tarsus to continue to learn the implications of the gospel of Christ in him.

1:22 ­ Still distancing himself from any implications of his being a deviant product of Judaic Christianity, Paul reports that he "was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ." He was "out of touch" with the mainstream Christianity of his day, having been independently called and taught by Jesus Christ, the essence of the gospel. He was never a celebrity speaker, put on display as a trophy among the Judean churches around Jerusalem. The only "sight" the Christians in the churches of Judea may have had of him was when he was still a Jew engaged in his efforts to eradicate Christians. It is interesting that he refers to these local churches as being "in Christ," rather than "in Judaism," exposing once again the ontological dynamic of the risen Lord Jesus in the gospel and in the Church.

1:23 ­ The Christians in the churches of Judea "kept hearing, 'He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.'" The reports were relayed despite the absence of any "Judean press," that the notorious Paul had been radically changed from a persecutor to a preacher. Skepticism surely abounded at first that one so thoroughly entrenched in Judaic exclusivism that he sought to exterminate Christians, could possibly be converted and transformed as a Christian. That he was now preaching "the faith," an identification tag used for Christians who were allowing for the receptivity of the activity of Jesus Christ in them by faith, was a remarkable phenomenon.

1:24 ­ "They were glorifying God because of me," Paul adds. The Jewish Christians in Judea were praising God for Paul. "To God be the glory, great things He as done!" Why, then, Paul must have been questioning in his own mind, and hoping that the Galatian Christians would ask themselves also, were these Jewish Christian agitators (probably from Judea) dogging his heels and attempting to undermine and counter the gospel of grace in Jesus Christ that he preached?

2:1 ­ Paul's training as a lawyer may have prepared him for the forensic defense that he makes by reporting a careful chronological sequence of the selected events that establish both his independence from the other apostles (1:11-24), as well as his solidarity with the other disciples (2:1-10). "Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also." Likely calculating from the same point of chronological reference as the previous "three years" (1:18), Paul indicates that fourteen years after his conversion on the road to Damascus, he traveled once again to Jerusalem, probably from Antioch, having been sought out by Barnabas to assist in the ministry to Gentiles in Antioch (Acts 11:25,26). Since Paul is being so careful with his chronology here, to counter the charges of his detractors in Galatia, it is most likely that this visit to Jerusalem was the famine-relief journey that Paul took with Barnabas, as recorded in Acts 11:29,30, being prior to the first missionary journey when Paul first preached in the southern cities of Galatia. Though many commentators have identified the visit Paul refers to in this verse with the trip to participate in the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:2-29), since the same issue of circumcision was discussed, the precision of Paul's chronology and the difference between the private (2:2) and public (Acts 15:12) contexts of the discussions would seem to dictate against such. Taking two witnesses to conform with Jewish practice, Paul traveled to Jerusalem with Barnabas, a Jewish Christian whose name meant "Son of Encouragement" (Acts 4:36), and Titus, a Gentile Christian convert who had not been circumcised in accordance with Jewish Law.

2:2 ­ The occasion for this visit to Jerusalem was not a result of a summons from the church leaders in Jerusalem wherein Paul was "called on the carpet" to defend his actions, but "it was because of a revelation that I went up" to Jerusalem, Paul explains. Neither did Paul initiate the visit in order to force the issue of law-observance and circumcision, but it was God's initiative to disclose to Paul in personal revelation, however perceived, that he should make the trip. Being thus "led by the Spirit" of Christ (cf. Rom. 8:14; Gal. 5:18), Paul and Barnabas and Titus went "up" (since Jerusalem is on Mt. Zion) to Jerusalem, and the occasion of their going served as a convenient conveyance of the famine-relief contributions.

   When they arrived in Jerusalem, Paul explains, "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." Though Paul defended his independent commissioning as an apostle, he obviously did not advocate independent separationism and isolationism (an attitude he knew well from Pharisaism), but sought a consensus of solidarity with the leaders in the Jerusalem church. He was not a "lone-ranger Christian," but was keenly aware of the need for unity in the Body of Christ, the church. It was not that Paul had to submit his gospel of grace and liberty in Jesus Christ for the approval of the Jerusalem leaders, but he laid it out in explanatory declaration. He did so in private consultation with those recognized and reputed to be leaders, rather than in a public council. There is probably some questioning of the elevated "reputation" of these leaders among the Jewish Christians of Judea, both those in Jerusalem at the time of this visit, and those who were now attempting to legalize the gospel in Galatia which prompted this letter. Paul's "fear of running in vain" is not an admission of lingering doubts about the gospel of grace, thus needing the authentication and validation of the Jewish-Christian leaders, but is an athletic metaphor that indicates that he wanted to avoid the competition of separate rival factions of Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity in order to facilitate the unity of running together in the same race on the same team. Paul did not want division among God's people, but wanted them to be "one" (Jn. 17:21) in the unity of "one Body" (Eph. 4:4) with a universal gospel for all peoples.

2:3 ­ Reporting on the private consultation, Paul notes that "not even Titus who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." The inclusion of Titus in the delegation to Jerusalem was not necessarily an act of provocation, but he did serve as a tangible test-case to establish the unlegislated freedom of Gentile Christians to enjoy the grace of God apart from Judaic Law-observances. This is the first reference to "circumcision" within this Galatian epistle, though there will be several others (2:7-9,12, 5:1-11; 6:12-15), for this was one of the issues that Paul had with the subversive "circumcision party" (Gal. 2:12; Phil. 3:2; Titus 1:10) that had apparently invaded the Galatian churches. Paul knew full well (Phil. 3:5) the importance placed on circumcision as the primary physical sign and seal of male Jewish identity in belonging to the old covenant people of God, but he also knew that this physical pictorial prefiguring was superseded by the spiritual reality of the "cutting off" of sin from the hearts of men by the grace-activity of Jesus Christ in the new covenant. Under no circumstances would he stand by and allow Jewish Christians to add physical circumcision of male converts as a necessary and essential condition to the completed sufficiency of Christ's work. He knew that any supplementation of legal-performance was a sacrifice of the gospel of grace, making "grace no longer grace" (Rom. 11:6). Apparently Paul was able to convey this to the Jewish-Christian leaders in Jerusalem, for Titus "was not compelled to be circumcised." Some have conjectured that though Titus was not "compelled" to be circumcised, he voluntarily submitted to such as a conciliatory gesture, similar to the expedience of Timothy's circumcision (Acts 16:3). Very unlikely, since such a precedent would have undermined Paul's position of the singularity of grace.

2:4 ­ As Paul writes to the Galatian Christians, his recollection of what happened while he was in Jerusalem so disturbs him still that he inserts this dangling, incomplete sentence, explaining the intense pressure that was brought to bear by some hard-line saboteurs advocating the necessity of circumcision. The pressure to capitulate and sell-out the gospel by adding the ritual performance of circumcision to the grace of God, "was because of false brethren who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage." Paul's indignation has been brought to the surface again, for he realizes that these "false brethren" who infiltrated the meeting in Jerusalem would probably be in total sympathy with the false teachers who were infiltrating the churches of Galatia. They could have been the same people; maybe even the same legalistic, Judaizing agitators who were beginning to appear in Antioch (from whence Paul may have been writing), declaring, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). Paul regarded them as "false brethren," pseudo-Christians who did not understand or appreciate the gospel of grace and liberty in Jesus Christ, for they were willing to cut the heart out of the gospel, destroying the "finished work" of Jesus Christ, "making Christ of no value" (5:2), by advocating their agenda of adding Jewish law-observances, particularly circumcision, to the simple gospel of Christ. Regardless of the issue at hand, any who would advocate the supplementation of moralistic behavioral performance to the singular essence of the gospel of God's grace in Christ are to considered "false brethren" and diabolic enemies who "disguise themselves as servants of righteousness" (II Cor. 11:15). Their fallacious theology is evidenced in their furtive methodology. Paul regarded the "false brethren" in Jerusalem and the false teachers in Galatia as sinister snakes who would "sneak in" subversively and surreptitiously to conduct clandestine espionage upon the saints of God in Christ. The gate-crashers in Jerusalem and the church-crashers in Galatia were one and the same, deliberately and deceitfully attempting to sabotage the gospel by requiring religious performance. To this day their ilk continue to "spy out the liberty" of grace that Christians have in Christ, in order to bring them into the bondage of religious rules, regulations and rituals. Religion is bondage! The Latin word religare from which we derive the English word "religion" means "to bind up" or "to tie back." Paul would never tolerate or allow Christianity to degenerate into the bondage of religion, but in the liberty of grace in Jesus Christ he wanted all Christians to experience the restorative salvation that allows the dynamic of Christ's life to function so that Christians are free to be all that God intends them to be. "It was for freedom that Christ set us free" (5:1).

2:5 ­ Perhaps taking a breath to collect his emotional agitation, Paul proceeds to indicate that "we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you." The plural "we" could refer to Paul, Barnabas and Titus standing their ground against the Jerusalem leaders, which would connect with the following verse. But the flow of thought from the previous verse might better allow the plural pronoun "we" to be inclusive of Paul, Barnabas and Titus in conjunction with the leaders of the Jerusalem church, standing firm and refusing to capitulate to the agenda of the hard-line "false brethren," for such action would have been a betrayal of the essence of the gospel. Paul was adamantly desirous that the "truth of the gospel," the ontological reality of the Personified Truth in Jesus Christ (Jn. 14:6) should be allowed to "make men free" (Jn. 8:32,36), apart from any performance supplementation. Paul did not consider the "truth of the gospel" to be contained in propositional truth-tenets of a theological belief-system, but the dynamic expression of the true reality of the Person of Christ. He was willing to take his stand and not back down an inch, so that the Gentile Christians in Galatia, and all Christians everywhere, might experience the blessing of Christian liberty in Christ, and not be imprisoned as slaves in the legalistic bondage of religion.

2:6 ­ Returning now to his theme of personal independence from the Jewish-Christian establishment, Paul states, "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." Though it may appear that Paul is sarcastically referring to the acknowledged leaders of the Jerusalem church with an attitude of deprecation, derogation or disparagement, it is probably more correct to recognize that Paul is reacting to the excessive and exaggerated reverence of these leaders that verged on an idolatrous veneration of their status. The false teachers in Galatia were apparently lifting up the leaders of the church in Jerusalem as ecclesiastical authorities whose teaching and practice should be considered as an infallible norm. Paul knew that all authority was invested in Christ (Matt. 28:18), and that all Christian leaders are mere men who should not be afforded undue exaltation or privilege, for the impartiality of God (Acts 10:34) requires all men to stand before Him only by His grace in Jesus Christ. Religion often stands in awe of human power and reputation, but every Christian should be as impartial to men's positions as God is, and as indifferent as Paul was.

   After the parenthesis, Paul completes his thought by indicating that the Jerusalem leaders added nothing to his standing as an apostle, nor did they add any supplements, improvements, or modifications to the gospel which is Christ only. That they "contributed nothing to him" does not mean that they failed to give Paul any monetary funding.

2:7 ­ The positive side of the story, Paul continues to report, is that the Jerusalem leaders, "seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter with the gospel to the circumcised," recognized that there was only one essential gospel in the ontological dynamic of the grace of God in Jesus Christ, though different people could be called of God to different ministries in different locations among different people-groups. There is no "different gospel" with appended performance responsibilities, but there are diversified personnel and mission strategies for the sharing of the gospel of Christ.

2:8 ­ Paul inserts a parenthesis of explanation: "(for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles)". The same God energizing in the same gospel of the dynamic of His grace in His Son, Jesus, can designate different spheres of ministry for different apostles. There can be unity in the diversity of ministries within the one Body of Christ. Both Peter and Paul, as apostolic colleagues, were equally entrusted to minister in their respective fields of labor.

2:9 ­ The lengthy, drawn-out sentence that runs from verse 6 through 9 is concluded as Paul reports that "James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, recognizing the grace that had been given to me, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised." Three of the particular leaders of the church in Jerusalem are identified by name. That they are "reputed to be pillars" may be a renewed questioning of the reverence afforded to them by the Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem, by the "false brethren," and by the infiltrating false teachers in Galatia, but then again it could be an accepted designation of these apostolic leaders who were the foundational and supportive strength of the early church. The important fact is that Peter, James and John accepted and acknowledged the grace-activity of God in Jesus Christ that had been given to Paul. This grace was not given to Paul as a possession, or as a supplemental power, but was the dynamic life of Jesus given to him as the complete basis of his being and activity. On that basis the Jerusalem leaders extended to Paul and Barnabas "the right hand of fellowship," recognizing their commonality and solidarity in Christ, and endorsing a favorable partnership and cooperation in their respective God-given ministries. This was probably acted out in a handshake that represented a formal agreement. How tragic it is that the petty squabbles of religion today, fought over the slightest of doctrinal differences, often result in "the right-foot of disfellowship" as nonconformists are charged with "heresy" and given "the boot" of ostracism or excommunication.

2:10 ­ As a final excursus to this autobiographical defense of the gospel which served as the basis of his life and ministry, Paul notes that the leaders of the church in Jerusalem "only asked us to remember the poor ­ the very thing I also was eager to do." This was not a contractual addendum that constituted an obligatory stipulation, as it might be interpreted to be if this were a synopsis of the written document drawn up after the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:23-29). The Jewish-Christian leaders were simply suggesting and urging the leaders of the Gentile-mission to continue to remember the Christians in Judea who had been forced into economic deprivation either by Jewish ostracism or by agricultural famine. Such a monetary collection had been given to the church in Jerusalem for distribution to deserving peoples during this visit of Paul, Barnabas and Titus, but the Jewish-Christian leaders were desirous that the Gentile Christians should not become detached from their concern for their poor Jewish-Christian brethren. Paul indicates that he was eager to continue the collections from the Gentile churches for the poor saints in Judea, for this served as a consistent expression of the love, compassion and givingness of the character of Christ in Christians. The operative grace of God will inevitably be expressed as Christ in us for others.

   The question might legitimately be asked, "What if the Jewish-Christian leaders in Jerusalem had not agreed that the essentiality of the gospel was to be found in the grace of Jesus Christ alone? What if they had refused to accept Paul's gospel of grace and liberty to the Gentiles? What if they had demanded modifications of supplemental Judaic law-observance in addition to the faithful receptivity of Christ's activity? We can rest assured that Paul's declaration that "if any man should preach a gospel contrary, ...let him be accursed" (1:8,9), would have remained in place and applied to the original Jewish-Christian apostles in Jerusalem. Under no circumstances would Paul have sacrificed the gospel of grace, which had become the essence of his life and ministry, for a legalistic amalgam of performance righteousness. He would have been constrained by the divine grace of Christ's activity in him to continue to share Christ with the Gentiles as God had directed him to do. The universality of the gospel and the external unity of the Body would have been compromised and relinquished, as the church would have been divided into two distinct groups ­ the Jewish Church (which could have become a Petrine or Jacobian sect of Judaism), and the Gentile Church (possibly identified as Pauline Christianity). As it is, the major splits in the church came centuries later in the break between the Western Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the division of the Western Church into Roman Catholicism and Protestantism in the sixteenth century. The question we have posed is hypothetical, for much to the credit of the Jerusalem leaders and Paul, they listened to the Spirit of God within them and preserved the unity of the church in the essential gospel of grace and liberty in Jesus Christ.

   Some have questioned whether the autobiographical chronologue of selected events that Paul wrote in this passage is of any real value to subsequent generations of Christians, other than as an historical footnote. Let us first note that history is important to Christianity! Without the documentable historical foundation of the earthly life and ministry of Jesus, Christianity would be relegated to nothing more than a subjective belief-system of mystical speculation, moralistic behavioral modification and conformity, and philosophical or theological reasonings. The gospel has definite historical moorings, as Paul so adequately pointed out to the Corinthians (I Cor. 15:3-10), which include the historical details of the impact of the gospel on Paul's life. The historical foundations alongside of the revealed theological formulations allow for the personal and spiritual formation (4:19) of Christ in the individual and the church. Paul has shared in these verses how such a formation occurred in his own life in the most radical transformation from persecutor to preacher, evidencing the vital dynamic of God's grace in Christ. He obviously desired and hoped that it would happen in every person's life.

   The second value of this recitation of events in Paul's life is that his defense of the Christocentric gospel functioning by the grace of God, serves as a model for the persistent and perennial need for Christians in every age to defend the gospel against the intrusion of religious attempts to modify the gospel with behavioristic performance requirements. Christians will always be called upon to "make a defense of the hope that is in them" (I Pet. 3:15), and would that they were as firmly convinced as Paul was that the living Lord Jesus is the sole basis of the gospel and of their personal identity (who they are) and their personal purpose (what they do). They could and would then stand before any so-called church authority (whoever they might be), take the flak from any detractors, and bear the ostracism of any religious "false brethren," in order to declare the life-message and life-purpose that God had called them to in Christ. The reality of Jesus Christ would so be the basis of their lives that they would not be defending themselves or their reputation, but declaring the gospel of the life that is theirs in Christ Jesus. Sadly, religious understanding has so permeated Christian thinking that few understand, appreciate or experience the essential ontological dynamic of the gospel of the living Lord Jesus in them, much less attempt to defend that Christo-centric gospel.

1    Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics. Vol. I, Pt. 2. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1956. pg. 280.