Week three: 2.1-10 Paul's backing from the apostles

Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author, except as provided by U.S.A. copyright laws.

To begin, this passage tends to contradict the previous chapter. Here we see Paul going to see the apostles, seemingly to check his message with them. In the previous chapter he was strong to the point that he did not seek out the apostles, and that the message he had was from God.

We will see that in the first chapter he was concentrating on the source of his message that was from God and here he will concentrate on the content of the message of the gospel. Evidently he knew his gospel was from the Lord, but that he wanted to check the content of the message with what the apostles were teaching.

I have a suspicion that he wanted more to check their message with the one he had received from the Lord rather than to check his message with the message of the apostles.

1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also.

We see an old mind set of the Jews in this passage. Paul mentions that he went "up" to Jerusalem. All Jews felt that Jerusalem was the center of the universe, that all roads led to Jerusalem. Anywhere in the world away from Jerusalem was down and when you went to Jerusalem you went up to the city.

Jerusalem was not only a special spot for the Jew but if you study the Bible you will find that it is a very special spot for the Lord as well. There is a study on my site relating to the location of the Garden of Eden. I conclude that it was Jerusalem, or more specifically the temple area in Jerusalem.

Why this spot is so important to God is not clear from the Scriptures, though it probably relates to the fact that this is where He created man, where He walked with man, and where He confronted man with his sin. It is also where the Kingdom will be centered and possibly the final judgment. It is the center of all of God's working with man. All His relationships with man seem to begin and end with Jerusalem, even in the Revelation an integrated part of the eternal scene will be a new Jerusalem.

"Barnabas" means "son of rest" and "Titus" means "nurse." Barnabas was a companion of Paul's on some of his excursions and seemed quite useful to Paul in his ministry. His name is of Aramaic origin and is mentioned numerous times in the book of Acts.

We know Titus from his letter from Paul. His name is from Latin, and the Lexicon lists him as a gentle companion of Paul's on his journeys.

He was evidently an apostolic delegate of Paul's to the island of Crete (Titus 1.4ff) since Paul left him in Crete to set things in order.

This visit is the one mentioned in Acts 15.1ff I suspect since the topic seems to be the same. Some suggest that Acts 11.27-30 is the visit mentioned in Galatians two, because it is a private visit. Upon reading the chapter eleven passage I am left with the impression that this was not an apostle to apostle meeting, but a messenger delivering something to the elders, not the apostles.

2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

This verse indicates that the apostle might have been having some doubts about the gospel that he had been preaching. I have to wonder if he had run into some Judaizers that were attempting to change his mind as to the simplicity of the gospel.

He went by revelation. In other words God had directed him to do this by a vision or revelation of some sort. He seemed to be sharing with them what he had been preaching to be sure he wasn't running the course in vain.

Vain has the thought of empty. It is used of vessels that are empty. I would assume that he speaks of being empty handed at the judgment when he is evaluated by the Lord as to his works.

This idea of whether he was doubting what he had been preaching interests me. Why else would he phrase it this way if he did not want to double check what he had been doing for some time. Actually something that he seemed to have a real confidence in earlier in the book.

He went to great length to show that his message was from above, not from man, and here he seems to be double checking with man.

The answer is clear as you take a moment and read Acts 15.1ff. Some had come from Judea (area of Jerusalem) preaching circumcision as an integrated part of salvation. Paul and Barnabus had some serious discussions with these men and all decided to go to the apostles to discern the matter.

Wouldn't it be great to have the apostles to go to to find out if the socks women wear under long skirts should be black or white, and other catastrophic church problems? All the problems that seem to come to fester and split churches could be handled by the apostles. Humm, maybe that is one reason the apostles died off so quickly - so we would go to the Word for our decision making rather than other men.

3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Here we see evidence of the correctness of our assumption about Paul's wanting confirmation as well as the implication of some Judaizers.

Imagine, having preached the same simple gospel for a long time then run into men that say you have to be circumcised to be saved. I think we see Paul being open to these men, but I think we also see a strong belief that he was right. The next verses seems to bear this out.

5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed [to be somewhat] in conference added nothing to me: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10 Only [they would] that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

This seems straight forward, but I would like to add some thoughts about this passage.

1. Paul recognized the authority of the apostles, not exactly that he was under it, for he seems to go to lengths in the first of the book to specify he wasn't. He does view them as pillars of the church - or that which holds the church up.

2. He paid little attention to these Judaizers other than to confront their error. He doesn't seem to sit and worry about the situation for a week before acting, he just takes the bull by the horns and throws it to the ground and walks on through history preaching the gospel he knew to be true.

Many are the times that I have wished that I had the confidence of Paul in similar situations. I have found myself with people that disagree with me on a doctrinal issue and I normally sit and worry my way through those situations. If you have studied through a certain doctrine, be confident in what God has taught you. As with Paul, if there is a way to seek assistance from "Pillars" (which we will discuss next) do so, but be confident in what God has shown you.

Worry is an interesting thing. Someone once said, I know worry works. Look at all those things I have worried about - none of them came true so worry must help. Well, not so, God is the answer we need to seek.

3. There is a certain authority of the apostles. How does this relate to the church today? What authority is there for those that God calls to minister for Him?

Who is that authority today, since the apostles are long gone?

At the outset of this point I want to make it clear that I believe in the independence and autonomy of the local church, however there seems that there ought to be some sort of authority over that church. That authority is not to be men selected in any way from other churches, it is not to be a selected few that are set up to be pillars.

This authority in my mind must be made up of two things. Tradition and the Word. By tradition I am not suggesting the papal traditions of the Roman church nor the visions of some leader, but I am suggesting that the teachings of great men of God through the ages should have SOME weight in our running of the local church.

The ultimate authority must be the Word itself, and no preaching of man, but the preaching of the past and present can be a guide. Warning, warning, this is a guide, and a possible guide only. Today if you took the current preaching you would have to mold your church around the current craze of doing church like the lost like it. This is not acceptable.

We must look to two thousand years of preaching to see how the church worshiped. Even within this guide we should overshadow anything we glean from tradition with what the Word tells us of worship. Both must be our information giver, with emphasis on the Word.

Some examples. Some today require that baptismal services be segregated by sex. There are no men with the women and vice versa. They base this not on anything in the Word that I know of but rather on the fact that in the early church some observed this protocol.

Some today do not allow pianos and organs in their services, due to the fact that the Bible never states that there are pianos and organs in the church service. It is of note that they don't allow any instruments in the church. This to me seems to be adding to the Scripture in that just because the Bible doesn't state something, then it is wrong.

It could be suggested that automobiles, pa systems, stereos, and televisions are not mentioned in the Bible so are wrong, yet many of these church parking lots are full of cars and their preachers utilize PA systems on a weekly basis.

Now, relating to how we might use tradition and the Word as our authority. I received a letter from a man that wanted advice about a problem in his church. The church leadership had instituted the normal contemporary music/praise team concept in the church. There were many older people in the church that were not accepting of the change and wanted to meet with the leadership to discuss the situation.

The discussion did not call the Word nor tradition in for clarification for what they were doing, the leaders only quoted the music policy, which the leaders had drawn up, as proof of their authority to make the changes. They ignored the "congregational" form of government that they supposedly had in their constitution, they ignored the desires of over half their congregation and they basically ignored everything that was against what they wanted to do.

Had the leaders gone to the Word to see what it has to say about worship, had they considered what the church in the past has done for worship there is no way that they could come to the decision they made. I am not condemning contemporary music, but I think churches should consider the Word rather than what their fellow pastors are doing. (For further on the subject of Contemporary music I would suggest the book WORSHIP IN THE MELTING POT. this book is written by a reformed man, but he has many Biblical principles that should be considered in our churches today.

Authority? The Word of God must be our authority. By looking to tradition we can see how the church has done things and how it has believed.

Is there any other authority? I do not believe there is, however gatherings of pastors/laymen to fellowship and discuss issues can be very helpful in seeing all sides of an issue, as long as you go to the Word for final authority.

I trust I have not dug myself into a bottomless pit on this issue.

4. Some tried to add circumcision to faith in Christ for salvation. Are there any today that seek to "ADD" to the simple gospel? Yes, there are.

The Christian church movement or at least many in the groups require baptism for salvation. They often base their belief in this exact false error of Galatians. They view circumcision as part of salvation in the Old Testament and then they falsely transfer the male circumcision of the Old to the men AND women of the New Testament. I have asked these people on the internet how they make that jump from male only to male and female and I have never received an adequate answer.

I must admit that some of the people in this movement have reconsidered their position and have come to a slightly altered position. Some I have discussed this with will ultimately admit that baptism is not required for one to be saved, but that baptism is the natural response to true salvation. In other words, if a person is truly saved, they will go on to be baptized.

I tend to agree with this in principle - if a person is saved they will want to be obedient to the Lord's desire for them to be saved.

5. Note should be taken that Paul went to extended lengths to assure his correctness. Some today would suggest he was fixated on being right, but I think there is a principle to be seen here. If you know God has said thus and so, then you should do your best to show that to be fact, not just your opinion.

If pressed, you should take actions that are needed to assure you do all that you can to show God's way. If this requires your leaving an organization, then do it, if it means being the only one in a group believing a certain way, then believe what is right. If you find that you have opportunity to show the correctness of your belief then do so.

It would seem from this text that the other side may have been forcing the issue so that Paul was required to prove his point. I am not sure in my own mind that he would have gone to Jerusalem had he not been forced to prove these men to be in error.

This may also be indication of why he often declared clearly his apostleship and authority. Many writers mention his need to declare these items to counter the detractors and this may be the incident that was the center of that need.

We should note also that this is an issue of just what the gospel is, not the color of stockings women wear. Leaving a group over minor doctrine is not right, nor is making a fuss over it in the assembly.

It is of note to me today that we have some that make EXTRA-BIBLICAL items into issues over which you can and cannot be members of churches. The King James Only issue is an issue that exists outside the Bible itself and it is a basis for membership/fellowship in some churches.

Be careful what you decide to make an issue.

6. In verse six it isn't that Paul is setting himself above the other apostles, not that they detract from him, only that they add nothing to the message he had been given by God nor the authority of that message or its giver.

7. It is good to note that he recognizes their prominence, their importance and their authority, he just makes it clear that they have no superior authority over him, nor his message.

One might wonder at the feelings of the apostles over this issue. How did they accept this former persecutor of Christians that was now declaring that he was equal to them? I'm sure each of them had to deal with these items in their own minds.

APPLICATION:

1. As I have studied Paul's letters I have noticed the wide divergence of people he worked with. He did not surround himself with clones, he surrounded himself with those God brought into his path. Many churches when looking for pastors look for a certain type of person, while they ought to be seeking a man that is qualified and able to teach the word.

Another item that can be observed is when a church has multiple staff and the head pastor is replaced. Often he will literally run off the other staff because they aren't just like him. This is a travesty of God's leading of men. If God has lead other staffers to a work, then a new man ought not "redo" God's planning for the church.

2. We saw that Paul did not want to be empty handed at the judgment. How are you doing? Are you doing good works, works that will count for something when you see the Lord?

Many preachers equate good works with soul winning, in other words if you aren't out winning souls with the church on Saturday visitation day, then you aren't doing good works and you will not be a pleasing servant to God.

This is not true. We are all to be witnessing, but there are also other good works that we can do as well. God will be viewing ALL good works, not just the soul winning. Paul speaks of wanting to see fruit in the believers and the context is not soul winning only.

Phil. 4.16-17 mentions "For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.

17 Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account." Here we see that giving is a fruit and it also shows that there is accounting for our good works.

If you have no good works then you ought to evaluate your life and make changes that will allow good works to flow from you to serve God.

3. Let's recap the trips to Jerusalem.

a. After leaving Damascus the made his first trip. Acts 9:26-30; Gal. 1:18-20

b. Later when there was a famine he took gifts Acts 11:27-30; Gal. 2:1-10

c. The Council at Jerusalem Acts 15:1-29

d. A stop at the end of his second missionary journey Acts 18:22)

e. and his final visit just prior to being jailed Acts 21:15-23:35

The thinking that this is the second trip rather than the third is based on the revelation of a famine through Agabus, as well as the fact that this was a subdued visit as opposed to the "council" of the third trip. Both Barnabus and Paul are mentioned on the second so many feel this is proof enough.

There is one major problem with this in my mind, since Paul is talking about Judaizers in Galatians, why would he go to Jerusalem and talk to the apostles, and settle this law being part of salvation business, then a while later go a second time with the same Judaizers problems.

I don't know that the "council" was all that huge a meeting that it couldn't fit into the Galatians text. Actually I am not sure that it matters either way to our understanding of the text. It is clear that he went to declare that his gospel was truth and that it came from God and not man, and to be assured that the apostles were in agreement with it and its source.

4. The section is ended with an admonition and challenge. The apostles told him not to neglect the poor, and he made it clear that he was already doing his part in that area of life.

I guess in our own society the obvious question is what do we do about the poor? How do we interact with the pan-handlers, how do we help the homeless, how do we assist the poor?

This is quite an issue of our day so possibly some principles would be appropriate here.

a. Help the poor in your family first, if there are any. Help, but not to hindrance. Most of the problems of welfare and homelessness today are caused by the enablement of the welfare system that advertises to gain clients and enables them to continue on living off the backs of the taxpayer.

Yes, help those that are in need, but many times those in need are the ones the system will not help.

If you have a family member that has need, give them assistance. Do not enable them to live off the family however - require responsibility.

b. Help the pan-handler - offer to take him into a nearby restaurant for a meal. That normally will tell you of his need for help or need for booze money.

Be careful, they often know how to work people as well as the system. Most can get free medical so they don't need money for meds, most can get free meals at a mission, so no real need for cash. Many have income - they just want to add to it.

We often go out for Sunday morning breakfast. It is the only entertainment we afford ourselves. We are amused as we sit and watch the homeless people passing by with their Starbucks coffee and a Sunday newspaper under their arms, on their way to free breakfast at the rescue mission.

c. Help the poor in your church. Help the church help those in need. You can give cash - many have a deacon’s fund collection for such purposes. You can donate good clothing, food, house hold articles, cars etc.

I have often thought a clothing/household article exchange room would assist many in the church. Take all your outgrown kids clothes in, all those unused articles to the room and leave them for others to use - if they do the same you may find things that you can use.

d. Help those you come in contact with. I'd guess many come into contact with people through their jobs that have needs, help as you can.

e. Help by giving knowledge assistance. If you know someone in your church is barely making it and you are a mechanic, fix their car, if you are a lawyer, assist them if they have need, if you are good with electronics, fix their equipment that is in need. The church is supposed to be a place where we get all our needs supported.

f. Some would suggest, but what if I get ripped off? Don't worry about it because you most likely will, but that is the rippers problem when he meets God and I don't think I want to be him.

A young man came to our door one day telling me he had just moved into a house around the corner, which I didn't think was true. He gave me a long story and I gave him a twenty for gas, which he promised to return the next day (ya, right), I was fairly sure it was a scam, but didn't know so erred on the safe side. As he walked away he said, "The Lord bless you mister!" I replied, "Don't worry, He does, but if you are lying to me he probably won't bless you." You know that I am still waiting for the twenty, but sadder still is that something is awaiting him, and it ain't gunna be pretty.

For those times, pray that God can get hold of those people and bring them to Himself so he can forgive them of their sinful ways - you know, kind of like He brought us!

5. It was made clear that the apostles would go to the Jews and that Paul would go to the gentiles. Not sure what that says about the group. Twelve going to the Jewish minority and Paul gets the rest of the world - where is the fairness in that?

So, why is this statement important, or was it just informational? It is clear that the apostles only "suggested" that Paul care for the poor thus indicating an equality about the group rather than the apostles being over him and telling him to care for the poor.

But why did the apostles declare that Paul was the apostle to the gentiles and they to the Jews. Isn't it the same gospel? Isn't the spiritual need of Jew and gentile the same?

Let us think - if you had been a good Jew following all that you had been taught and you were talking, to say Peter, at the Jack in the Box over coffee, what would he be telling you to bring you to Christ?

Would he be telling you that you needed to be saved? No, not really, because you, as a Jew, were right before God as you understood it and on your way to heaven. Isn't it more likely that Peter would begin explaining that Jesus was the Messiah that was prophesied, the Messiah that had come, the Messiah that had fulfilled all that was required for God, the Messiah that had freed you from the law as the Old Testament.

There is no difference in the result of the gospel, but the gospel or good news that was presented to the Jew and to the gentile would certainly have to include a lot of different information. The gentile would need to know that there is a God, that He is a God to be reckoned with, and that He is a personal God that has done all that is needed to save you from your sinful nature, your sinful ways and your sinful end in hell.

I think that there was a distinctly different message given to the Jews by the apostles and to the gentiles by Paul. Both ended in satisfaction that Christ was the provider of their salvation, but much different information.

Of course there would have been Jews that were not spiritual Jews, and there would be gentiles that would have been spiritual Jews, (sojourners with the Jews) so the message would be adjusted to their position in belief.

This brings up one further clarification of the Gospel. Most today tell the lost they must accept Christ and that their salvation is because they did so. However, isn't salvation based on faith in what God has said, rather than an act by Christ. The faith is in the promise of God to do all that is needed to save us. The Old Testament saint was placing his faith in that promise, not in the fact that a man/God would one day die on a cross - they had no concept of this, but they did have all the promises of God in the Old Testament.

Today, we also, must place our trust in the veracity of what God has revealed - belief that Christ provides the salvation that we seek.