Antioch and Paul (No Other Gospel #7)

In the first two chapters of Galatians, Paul goes over his history and the beginning of his ministry in order to prove two things: (1) that he was a true apostle with the right and authority to preach and (2) that his gospel was of God not of man. Paul told about his conversation, about his ministry, and about his first visit to Jerusalem after which he returned to his home in Tarsus. And here there is a break in the life of Paul because for several years he remained in Tarsus and we know nothing about what he did. When he comes back on the stage again, it is in connection with the city of Antioch.

And to understand what happened in Antioch, you have to understand the relationship between the Jews and the Gentiles. The Jews held the Gentiles at a distance; there was a division, a separation between them. But it wasn't true that the Jews were unwilling to accept the Gentiles. They generally were--as long as the Gentiles became Jews, as long as they entered the Jewish covenant and followed the Jewish law, symbolized by the rite of circumcision. And this is connected to the issues we examined at the beginning of this study: legalism and covenantal nomism.  If salvation, if acceptance with God only came through obeying the Jewish law or by being part of the Jewish covenant, then obviously the Jews would insist on the Gentiles becoming Jews. In that case, they were quite right in maintaining a separation between themselves and the Gentiles until the Gentiles proselytized. The separation between Jews and Gentiles was an ethnic separation; it was a cultural separation, but fundamentally it was a religious separation. For those who accepted these ideas about salvation, a Gentile, by definition, could not be saved--his only hope would be to be circumcised and become a Jew.

And if these ideas of salvation were carried into Christianity--if salvation for the Christian came through obeying the Jewish law or being part of the Jewish covenant, then all of this would still hold true in the church as well. If this were true, then the gospel was only for the Jews and only for Gentiles if they became Jews.

Moreover, the Jews for their entire history as a separate nation had been instilled with this idea that they must remain separate from other people. And this wasn't just a cultural convention; this had been the command of God (even if the Jews largely misunderstood that command.) Since early Christianity was exclusively Jewish, they also began with this conception--that they must maintain separation from the Gentiles. To the Jewish Christians, to meet with the Gentiles even for evangelism seemed almost like compromise. Acts 11:19 tells us of the early ministry of the church: “Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.” The church was spreading, but they preached to Jews and Jewish proselytes only. This idea of the gospel going out to Gentiles was unheard of.

When Jesus told Peter to go and preach to Cornelius, it was a major step and a controversial one. Peter had to be all-but specifically command by God before he would meet with Cornelius and afterward other Christian leaders took Peter to task for his action until he explained himself. But that moment with Cornelius seems to have been the beginning of Christian ministry to the Gentiles. Sometime after that, Christians in Antioch also began preaching to the Gentiles--many believe they had heard of what Peter did and were following his example. Regardless, it was here at Antioch that we here for the first time of a church that was composed of both Jews and Gentiles. For the first time in centuries, Jews and Gentiles were worshipping God together in fellowship. The wall between them had been broken down.

The apostles in Jerusalem, hearing of this, wanted to learn more. Was there perhaps a hint of suspicion in their minds as to whether this could truly be right? They sent a messenger--Barnabas. We need to stop here and say a few things about Barnabas. Barnabas was a native of Cyprus and his real name was Joses. “Barnabas” was a nickname given him by the apostles and it means either “son of exhortation”, “son of encouragement”, or “son of consolation.” (In Hebrew thought, to call someone the “son of” something was to say that they were characterized by that.) Barnabas seems to have been a man characterized by a desire and capacity to encourage and exhort those who needed it and, along with that, a willingness to accept and help those who needed it. We know that he accepted and helped Paul when the rest of the Jerusalem Church was afraid of him. We know that later he would accept and help John Mark when even Paul believed that he was useless for the ministry. And so it makes sense that he would be the proper one to investigate the church in Antioch--he was a man willing and able to help people, even when others were not.

Barnabas reached Antioch and was deeply impressed by what was happening in the church. He stayed there and ministered for a time, but realized that he needed help. And so he traveled to Tarsus and sought out Paul. We don't know why he chose Paul in particular, but I think Paul had probably told him before about his call to preach to the Gentiles and so he was the obvious choice to help in this Jewish/Gentile hybrid church. This seems to have been either ten or thirteen years after Paul's visit to Jerusalem.

For one year, Paul and Barnabas worked in the church at Antioch, but then God revealed a message to the church--the message that there would soon be a famine in the world and, seemingly, one that would be especially severe in Palestine. The church at Antioch chose to send a gift to Jerusalem to help the Christians in Palestine during the famine and this gift was entrusted to Paul, Barnabas, and Titus. (This is Titus' first appearance in the New Testament. Assumably he was a native of Antioch, but it's impossible to say for sure.) This was the reason for Paul's trip to Jerusalem, but while there he also had some interviews with the leaders of the church.

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 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. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 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: to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 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: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 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. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. (Galatians 2:1-10)

Paul visited Jerusalem again, this time “by revelation”--because of the revealed prophecy concerning the famine though possibly God had also given Paul a special revelation instructing him to take the journey. And while there, fulfilling his mission of mercy, he also had special, private meetings with the apostles, with those who were known and recognized as leaders in the church.  He seems to have chosen this method of privately meeting with the apostles rather than meeting with the church as a whole for discussion out of fear that this might ignite a controversy that would hurt his ministry. That seems to be the meaning of his phrase: “lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.”

He mentions “those who seemed to be somewhat” or “Those who were of acknowledged reputation” as Clarke translates it--these were the Apostles, and specifically, Peter, John, and James the brother of Jesus. When we think of an apostle, Paul is probably the first person we think of. He is the main mover in the story of the New Testament as we know it. After Pentecost, most of the other apostles drop out of sight completely and after Acts 15, the focus of history goes entirely to Paul. We think of Paul as the most famous of the apostles. But that wasn't necessarily the case in New Testament times and certainly not at the time of this visit. At this time, Paul was still a relatively obscure apostle. He had only been at Jerusalem for a short period of time, never spent time in Judea, and had spent 10-13 years in Tarsus where, while he no doubt preached, we have no record of his founding a church or winning many converts. He was still a new apostle who had not at this time been especially active in the church. He was an apostle, but not one of those who were of acknowledged reputation; not one of the pillars of the church. However, as he points out in verse 6, “God accepteth no man's person.” Any difference in reputation or advantages between Paul and the other apostles did not translate into a difference of acceptance with God. Paul knew God had called him and that in God's sight he was equal in apostleship to the others, even if clearly some people had other ideas.

But here is the important point. Fourteen to seventeen years had passed since Paul became a Christian. In the entire length of that time, he had spent something like two weeks with other apostles and only two of them. He was preaching and teaching completely independently of them. But for all of that, they “in conference added nothing to me” and when they “perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.” In other words, there was no disagreement between Paul and the other apostles, no doctrines that need to be compromised, no new revelations to be dealt with. Paul and the other apostles had both received their gospel directly from Christ and so naturally it was the same, even though they hadn't compared notes at any point.

Paul and Peter both received the gospel from Christ. Both were energized and empowered by God. They had one gospel, even if they preached the gospel to different audiences, Peter mainly going to the Jews and Paul mainly to the Jews. Both had the same gospel, though they had different histories, different personalities, and different spheres of ministry.

The only thing the apostles tried to add to Paul's gospel was a concern for the poor--something Paul already had. While concern for the poor in general was a major part of NT Christianity, most commentators agree that this means specifically the poor of the Jerusalem Christians. We know even in other cities, Christians experienced a deal of persecution from Jews, so obviously, Christians in the very center of Judaism would experience the most, so this is most likely the reason the Jerusalem church seems to have been very poor. No doubt, there were many Jewish Christians who found it impossible to find any work because of their religion. Paul was presently in Jerusalem on a mission of mercy for the Jerusalem church and we find that this would characterize his ministry as it progressed as well. (See 1 Corinthians 16:3.) And he explains his reasons for this in Romans 15:26-27: “For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.” It was the Jews who had protected the knowledge of God for thousands of years; it was Jews who had labored to protect and preserve the OT scriptures; it was the Jewish nation which had given birth to Jesus and from which the apostles and first Christians were drawn. The Gentiles owed them a debt of respect and gratitude for that. (And perhaps if the Gentiles had remembered that, we would not have some of the later tragic relationships between Gentile Christianity and Judaism.)

The Judaizers were claiming that there was a difference between Paul's gospel and the gospel of the other apostles. But Paul makes it clear that they taught the same gospel--even down to the area of circumcision, which was the hot point of contention for the Judaizers. Because circumcision was the point of entry into the Jewish covenant and a major part of the Jewish law, observation of it was pivotal to the Judaizers who saw salvation as coming through the Jewish law or covenant. To them, circumcision was necessary for salvation. And they were claiming the apostles taught the same thing.

But Paul makes a point of saying that when he was in Jerusalem, Titus (who was a Gentile) was not compelled to be circumcised. The implication here is that there was some pressure on Titus to be circumcised. Many believe the apostles wanted him to be circumcised, just to avoid controversy--as Paul himself had Timothy circumcised for the same reason. But Paul realized here that a larger issue was at stake here “because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy our our liberty”--or as the NET Bible puts it, “false brothers with false pretenses who slipped in unnoticed to spy on our freedom.” Even with the Jerusalem church, there were those who were not true Christians and who were involved in the church for selfish reasons, who wanted to corrupt the gospel and combine it with Judaism. These wanted Titus to be circumcised, as a testimony to the fact that circumcision was necessary to salvation.

But Paul refused to give in to them. And the leaders of the Jerusalem church agreed with Paul. They did not require circumcision of Titus because they realized it was not necessary for salvation. If they had, Paul's stubbornness would have led to an irreconcilable divide between them, rather than the frank agreement we find at the end of the passage.

There was only one gospel, and that gospel was of salvation through faith, not through the Jewish law or the Jewish covenant, and that was the gospel that all the apostles--Paul and the others--had taught from the beginning. Paul had not gotten from them, nor they from Paul, but they had all gotten it from Jesus for the gospel was of God and not of man.