THE PRESSURE TO COMPROMISE

Compromise is subtle. Like black sheep in a flock, we accept false teachers as brothers and sisters in the church while their influence slowly grows more powerful. We work and feed side by side until truth forces a choice. Paul and Barnabas in Galatians 2 forced a choice. There are three parties to this fight (Burton, Galatians, 77). First, Paul and Barnabas stood firm that the gospel of liberty must be kept free from legalism. Second, the apostles of the church - Paul calls them the "pillars" of the church (2:9) - sought to keep the peace among the people. Third, we have the "false brothers" (2:4). The word for pseudo brothers (ψευδαδέλθους) means those who pretend to be Christians, counterfeits, but whose doctrine or behavior prove to be non-Christian (cf. 2 Cor. 11:26). Counterfeit teachers become popular in the church producing the pressure to compromise for the sake of unity.

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. (Gal. 2:4-5)

The false brothers were sneaky. Paul describes them as people who "sneaked in" (παρεισῆλθον). The word means to slip into a group with unworthy motives (BAGD, 624). Their primary tactic was to "spy out" (κατασκοπῆσαι) the church. The infinitive means to lie in wait for someone like a lion waiting to pounce on his unsuspecting victim (BAGD, 418). The expression "secretly brought in" (παρεισάκτους) is a verbal adjective that no longer carries its original passive sense. It is a rare word meaning, in this context, someone who worms his way into a group. The adjective was used to describe Ptolemy IX Alexander I, the son of Cleopatra III. She had chosen her older son to be co-ruler with her and only chose Ptolemy IX after the more popular older son was removed from power. Ptolemy IX was always viewed by the people as someone who wormed his way into power (TDNT, 5:824-826). These false brothers infiltrated the church, gaining power as their influence grew among the Christians.

The objective of the false teachers was to enslave the other Christians - to bring them into bondage (καταδουλώσουσιν). The force of the expression was to enslave someone to an external power (Lightfoot, Galatians, 106). It wasn't so much that they wanted to enslave people to themselves as if seeking power for themselves. Their motive was to enslave people to the law of God. These teachers were zealous for the law. Legalists sound holy in their zeal for God even as they add conditions to the gospel. Religion seems so spiritual even as it adds requirements for salvation beyond faith in the sufficiency of Christ. A "you must do" religion replaces a "trust what He did" faith. Grace is nullified by additional requirements for complete salvation. When we become enslaved by rules, no matter how good or well-intended, the liberty of the gospel is compromised.

These false teachers infiltrated the Jerusalem Church, then made their way to Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas were teaching. They claimed to represent the apostles in their teaching, which led Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem to straighten it out. Paul writes that they "did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour" (2:5). The expression means to "yield" (εἴξαμεν) "in obedience" (ὑποταγῇ) to another authority. To whom did Paul and Barnabas refuse to surrender in obedience? The false teachers? The apostles? It is a difficult question starting with a textual problem. The best reading includes "to whom we did not" (οἷς οὐδὲ) but what is the antecedent of "to whom" (οἷς)?

The best solution is to see Paul referring back to his main thought in verse 2. The apostles are those who "were of reputation" (2:2), of "high reputation" (2:6) and "reputed to be pillars" (2:9). These were the leaders to whom Paul "submitted" his gospel "for fear that he might be running, or had run, in vain" (2:2). Reconstructing the situation leads me to conclude that the apostles had been pulled into the influence of the legalists (Judaizers) and encouraged Paul and Barnabas to yield on this matter of the law to preserve the feelings of the Jewish Christians for whom this had become very important (Lightfoot, Galatians, 105-106; Burton, Galatians, 81). They probably argued that it was important to keep the peace or preserve the unity of the church in these matters. This reconstruction fits with the actions of Peter (Gal. 2:11-14) and some of the suggestions the apostles made later at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:28-29). Paul refused to yield on this point. The gospel must not be compromised. We know that Paul's arguments eventually won over the apostles who eventually joined him in standing for the freedom of the gospel, but it was not without a battle.

The pressure to compromise is insidiously sneaky. It sounds so spiritual to ignore gospel compromise for the sake of unity. Will we yield to those who want to add requirements for people to be Christians? Or will we stand firm in the freedom of the gospel?

WIN/LOSE CHURCH FIGHTS

Not all church conflicts should seek win/win results. Some church fights must be win/lose! You are either on the right side or the wrong side, but there is no middle ground. The issue carves a dividing path like a glacier between truth and error, life, and death. The "Great Circumcision Debate" was one of those issues in the early church. Paul has been addressing this debate in the autobiography of his battle for the gospel (Galatians 1-2). The early church was dividing over the issue of circumcision, but Paul did not seek a win/win solution where both sides could save face. Paul drew a hard line that demanded a choice. It was a win/lose fight for the heart of the gospel.

"But it was because of 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" (Gal. 2:4-5).

A TIMELINE OF THE FIGHT

Scholars debate the sequence of events in Galatians 1-2 and how they align with Acts 11-15. The critical interpretive decision revolves around whether the infiltration of error mentioned here took place at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) or before the council (between Acts 11-15). I am convinced that this conflict started before the council, but you can read an alternative argument by Herman Ridderbos (The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia in NICNT, 75-92). F.F. Bruce explains the best timeline for the "Great Circumcision Debate" (Galatians, 106-134).

The rumblings of the fight began early in the growth of the church, and the battle plays out over time. People are not consistent, so the skirmishes between the sides go back and forth between compromise and division. Leading figures like Peter and James become enmeshed in the conflict with some embarrassing results (Gal. 2:11-14). Here is a summary of connections between Galatians 1-2 and Acts 11-15 (see Witherington, The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus, 309-319).

Paul preaching in Tarsus (A.D. 37-46, Gal. 1:21-22)
Barnabas brings Paul to Antioch (A.D. 47, Acts 11:25-26)
Barnabas and Paul go to Jerusalem with uncircumcised Titus (A.D. 48, Gal. 2:1-2, Acts 11:27-30)
The First Missionary Journey from Antioch (A.D. 48, Acts 13-14)
Paul and Barnabas return to Antioch (A.D. 49, Acts 14:26-28)
The circumcision infiltration occurs in Antioch (A.D. 49, Gal. 2:4-5).
Peter's Big Compromise in Antioch (A.D. 49, Gal. 2:11-14)
The Jerusalem Council is convened (A.D. 49-50, Acts 15)

In this reconstruction of events, Galatians 2:4-5 are a parenthesis in his autobiography, and he picks up with the story of his famine visit to Jerusalem in verse 6 (Acts 11:27-30). What this sequence shows us is that the battle for the gospel was not one event but many. It took place over several skirmishes and compromises. For example, Peter's compromise took place after he had already validated Paul's message in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:9). Paul argues that the promoters of circumcision spied out and infiltrated the churches posing as respected church leaders from Jerusalem to the church in Antioch and the churches of Galatia that Paul established on his first missionary journey.

Paul will have none of it. He calls these religious leaders in the early church "false brothers" (Gal. 2:4).  He says that they are "accursed" (Gal. 1:9) because they "nullify grace" (Gal. 2:21). If we have to do anything to become Christians, including the Law of God, then Christ died needlessly! Adding requirements to the gospel is a form of "bewitching" (Gal. 3:1) because it confuses and controls people by the dictates of religious leaders. Adding circumcision to the gospel means that the person has been "severed from Christ" and "fallen from grace" (Gal. 5:4). Paul suggests that these circumcisers go and "mutilate themselves" (Gal. 5:12). Harsh words for a serious fight! There can be no middle ground. We are either saved by grace plus nothing, or we are not. We place our faith in Christ alone, or our faith is in vain.

ADDITIONALISM TODAY

Adding requirements to become a Christian nullifies grace and minimizes the cross. Religion has always sought to add elements to the gospel to make people Christian. Requiring baptism to become a Christian or mandating the Eucharist to be saved are adding to the gospel just as much as adding circumcision. We must not compromise through additionalism. Performing good works as penance before God is adding to the gospel. The gospel of Christ is clear. It is about what Christ has done for us on the cross, not what we do for him in the church. We accept by faith what He has done, and He, in His grace, redeems us for His kingdom. If my salvation depends on something I do rather than what He has done, then Christ's work is insufficient for my salvation.

The gospel is a win/lose fight. There can be no compromise!

OUR FEAR OF FAILURE

We fear failure. No one wants to work without results, to serve to no end. We set goals, but we face many goal blockers in ministry, which can lead to the fear of failure. Paul, too, feared working in vain (κενός - Phil. 2:16; 1 Thess. 3:5; Gal. 2:2) or for nothing (εἰκῇ - Gal. 4:11). But what does failure look like? Do we measure failure by declining attendance as people go to other churches? Failure for Paul was not that someone would attend another gospel-preaching church but that the two churches would not be united by the true gospel. Paul writes that he submitted the gospel he preached to the elders of the church in Jerusalem "for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain" (Gal. 2:2). There can only be one gospel that we preach lest grace is nullified and the church divided.

Paul uses one of his favorite metaphors for Christian service. Ministry is a race. We run the race to complete the mission. The only reason to run a race is to get to the finish line. Twice Paul uses the verb to run. The first time he uses the present tense, "I am running" (τρέχω) and the second time he uses the same verb but in the Aorist tense, "I had run" (ἔδραμον). Paul shares his anxiety that he is running, or has run, the race of ministry "in vain" (εἰς κενὸν). This fear is what drove him to go to Jerusalem to meet the elders of the church. The adjective "vain" (κενὸν) means without reaching its goal or without result (BAGD, 427). Paul feared that he would run the race of ministry without reaching his goal in ministry.

The phrase "for fear" is not in the text. The NASB translation supplies it to make sense of the sentence. The conjunction is literally "lest somehow" (μή πως) "I am running or had run in vain." The conjunction generally expresses purpose following verbs of apprehension or anxiety. In this case, the verb must be supplied from the context (BAGD, 519). The ESV brings out the purpose by translating it "in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain."

The negative particle (μή) as an expression of apprehension indicates that something can still be stopped when used with a subjunctive verb. When used with an indicative verb, the time for stopping has passed (Blass/Debrunner, Grammar, 188). The first verb translated "run" (τρέχω) could be either subjunctive or indicative while the second verb translated "had run" (ἔδραμον) is indicative. It is probably best to take the first verb as a subjunctive (Burton, Galatians, 73-74). Paul was seeking to alleviate his concern while there was still time to avoid failure. He can do nothing about the race he has already run. Paul's anxiety is that he doesn't want to continue to run his race without results. His purpose in communicating the gospel with the Jerusalem church was to avoid failure in ministry.

What, then, would be the failure he seeks to avoid? I don't think that Paul feared that his message was wrong. Such a view would run counter to Paul's whole argument in Galatians. Paul knew that his message - the gospel - was true. He did not need the elders to validate his message for him. Paul's concern was that they would undermine the unifying nature of the gospel. The fear that drove him to consult the apostles was that the unity of the gospel would be nullified by their insistence that Gentiles follow the Mosaic Law. Such a view of the gospel would end up separating or dividing Jews from Gentiles in the church(Longenecker, Galatians, 49). The gospel of grace would be nullified by works. Paul's whole ministry centered around the bringing together of Jews and Gentiles into one body because of the gospel (Eph. 2:11-22).

As pastors, we should fear failure, but not the failure that comes from counting nickels and noses. The failure we should fear is the failure to work together for the gospel. The failure we should fear is the failure to preach the gospel in a way that neither adds to or subtracts from the essential elements of the good news. We are one in the gospel because we believe one gospel.

BATTLING FOR THE GOSPEL

We downplay theological disputes today. "Just give them Jesus" or "doctrine divides" are slogans of the modern church. Perhaps these are helpful cautions when it comes to peripheral matters of the faith over which we have too often divided but not the gospel. There can be no compromise over the gospel. Battling with others about the gospel gets messy, even ugly sometimes, as we see in Galatians 2, but we must be willing to divide if the gospel is being corrupted. A "Jesus Lite" gospel is no gospel at all.

Paul writes, "I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles" (Gal. 2:2). The verb "submitted" (ἀνεθέμην) in the middle voice means to declare or communicate something to someone for consideration (BAGD, 62). The only other place in the NT where the word is used is when Festus laid out the contents of Paul's legal case before Agrippa (Acts 25:14). Paul used a sister verb earlier when he testified that he "did not immediately consult" (προσανεθέμην) with anyone (Gal. 1:16). This word can mean to "submit" a question to someone for an answer (BAGD, 711). In the case Paul made before the council in Jerusalem, however, Paul is not submitting the gospel for approval, which would fly in the face of his earlier disavowal. I don't think Paul would have modified his gospel if they had not given their consent (Bruce, Galatians, 109). He was declaring the gospel to clarify the gospel. All must agree that nothing - in this case, circumcision/law - could be added to the gospel without nullifying grace (Gal. 5:4).

Paul is in the midst of the autobiography of his battle for the gospel in Galatians 2. He begins with the connective "then" (ἔπειτα) which is the third time he has used this connective in his story (Gal. 1:18, 21; 2:1). A timestamp follows. "After fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas" (Gal. 2:1). Two related questions arise. 1) Do we calculate the 14 years from his conversion or from his previous visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:17-18)? 2) Does this visit coincide with the famine relief visit in Acts 11 or the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15? Some argue that this visit is the same as the Jerusalem Council, and the time should be calculated from his first visit (Lightfoot, Galatians, 102). Others take it that the time should be calculated from his conversion, and the visit coincides with the famine relief visit in Acts 11 (Witherington, The Paul Quest, 309-317).

The timeline is important for Paul's argument here. His point is that this is the second visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 2 = Acts 11), proving that he received his gospel independently from the apostles. His commission to preach came directly from Christ and not the apostles. He leaves out no information about his relationship with the apostles lest his credibility be questioned (Bruce, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 150-151). The timestamp (14 years) fits best with the starting point of his conversion due to the dating of Claudius (Acts 11:28). The point: Paul's gospel came directly from Jesus Christ and not from human origin.

A.D. 34-37 - Paul's conversion in and mission to Arabia
A.D. 37 - Paul's first visit to Jerusalem
A.D. 37-46 - Paul preaches back home in Tarsus and the surrounding area
A.D. 41-42 - Paul's thorn in the flesh and heavenly vision (2 Cor. 12:1-10)
A.D. 47 - Barnabas brings Paul to Antioch
A.D. 48 - Paul's second visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 2 = Acts 11).
(Witherington, The Paul Quest, 309-318)

Paul decided to join Barnabas in the famine relief visit because of a revelation from the Lord (Gal. 2:1-2). This revelation could be a reference to the prophecy of Agabus (Acts 11:27-28) however it is more likely a special revelation to Paul that he should go to Jerusalem since that fits with the tenor of Paul's revelatory experiences (Bruce, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 151-152). He gives the revelation as a reason for him to join Barnabas. "I went up according to a revelation" (κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν), Paul says. Apparently, Paul was not originally planning on going to Jerusalem, but the Lord directed him to go. Thus, Paul's purpose was more than famine relief. It was gospel-centered.

Titus was at the heart of the gospel-centric nature of Paul's visit. He writes that he was "taking Titus along" with him. The participle "taking along" (συμπαραλαβὼν) implies that Paul initiated the plan to bring Titus along with them. Titus was a test case for the gospel as an uncircumcised Greek Christian (Bruce, Galatians, 107-108). The gospel controversy centered around whether Gentiles must be circumcised to become Christians. Paul picked a fight with other Christians to clarify the heart of the gospel. Will we add anything to the gospel that someone must do to be saved? Are there religious rituals, observances, or practices that must be performed in addition to believing the gospel before one becomes a Christian? The answer at the heart of this gospel controversy must always be "NO!"

Heresy by addition corrupts the gospel as surely as heresy by subtraction. We can deny the gospel by adding religious rituals like baptism as surely as we can by rejecting the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Grace that requires us to do something to get salvation, is no longer grace. Christ plus anything equals nothing! Salvation must be by Christ alone, grace alone, and faith alone!

THE TESTIMONY THAT HONORS GOD

Testimonies are powerfully persuasive expressions of faith when centered on God, not self. Sadly, many testimonies in the church today, especially celebrity testimonies, subtly focus on the person more than on God. Paul's testimony is powerful because it is God-centered, not man-centered.

"They kept hearing, 'the one who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.' And they were glorifying God because of me" (Gal. 1:23-24).

The Judean churches did not know Paul personally, but they knew his reputation. Paul writes, "they kept hearing" (ἀκούοντες ἦσαν) about him. The antecedent would be "the churches of Judea" (vs.22). The word for "churches" is feminine plural (ἐκκλησίαις) while the participle "hearing" (ἀκούοντες) is masculine plural. The masculine plural can refer to a feminine plural collective noun to emphasize the personal members of that collective. The members of the churches kept hearing about his testimony (Blass/Debrunner, Grammar, 74; Longenecker, Galatians, 41). The periphrastic construction (participle with an imperfect tense verb) indicates durative action. They kept hearing about him. This was not a singular statement but an ongoing testimony of praise (Moule, Idiom Book of NT Greek, 17).

What follows is a direct quote. The particle "that" (ὅτι) is recitative, meaning that it should not be translated (Burton, Galatians, 64). The particle is like our quotation mark. Since Galatians is one of the earliest books of the New Testament to be written, this quote would be one of the earliest statements we have from the first century church! Notice that Paul is not even named in the testimony. The subject is anonymous, although obviously Paul. The testimony is about "the one who once persecuted." Paul knows that the testimony is not about him. It is about what God did to and through Him. A testimony that honors God is not about us but about how God changes us. The present participle "persecuted" (διώκων) refers to a time antecedent to the present time and action that was continuous (Robertson, Grammar, 892; Turner, Grammar, 80-81). Paul once had been persecuting the Christians repeatedly, and that former constant persecution makes the testimony all the more powerful.

The one who formerly persecuted the church now preaches the faith (εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν). "The faith" (τὴν πίστιν) refers to the content of the gospel. Paul uses "the faith" in a similar way elsewhere in Galatians (3:23,25; 6:10). He makes the connection between gospel and faith more explicit in Philippians 1:27 when he writes, "the faith of the gospel" (τῇ πίστει εὐαγγελίου). The testimony brings out the force of this connection by emphasizing that "the faith" is the same faith he once "tried to destroy" (cf. Gal. 1:13). The phrase translated "tried to destroy" is another periphrastic (ἥν ἐπόρθει) indicating continuous action. The tense is conative, indicating that Paul had been attempting to exterminate the faith (Burton, Galatians, 64). The testimony of the Judean churches was that Paul was preaching the very same gospel that they believed and which he once opposed.

The result is that "they were glorifying God" (ἐδόξαζον τὸν θεόν) "in me" (ἐν ἐμοὶ). The verb "glorifying" is an imperfect tense indicating durative action. They did not merely honor God once but continuously because of how God turned the persecutor into the preacher. The prepositional phrase "in me" should be understood as the basis or ground of action and can be translated "because of me" (Longenecker, Galatians, 42). The word order emphasized "because of me" by placing it between the verb and the object. "They were glorifying, because of me, God!"

Here should be the goal of every testimony. My desire should be for others to honor God because of me. I should be delighted to be diminished if God be elevated. A testimony that honors God is continuous, not momentary or fleeting. It avoids focusing on me but is gospel-centered. Such a testimony is all about what God does in me, not what I do for God. Only if others celebrate God when they remember me, will my testimony have eternal value.

SERVING IN OBSCURITY

Far from the centers of Christian influence, they faithfully preach the gospel in little towns and out of the way villages. Hardworking pastors devoted to Christ serve with minimal outward success. I meet them in the small towns of New England, the inner city neighborhoods of Ukraine, and the barrios of Panama. These faithful servants of the Lord support their families by holding down jobs so they can preach the Word of God, sacrificing family, time, and money to serve in obscurity. Paul, too, understood the struggle of serving Christ in obscurity. He wrote:

"Then, I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ" (Gal. 1:21-22).

Judea was the center of Christianity and Jerusalem the mother church during these formative years for the Christian faith (A.D. 37-48). Paul wrote that he was "unknown by face to the churches of Judea" (Gal. 1:22). "Unknown" (ἀγνοούμενος) is a present participle implying that the churches of Judea were continuously ignorant about Paul throughout this era (R&R, Linguistic Key, 503). "By face" (προσώπῳ) implies that they may have heard about his notoriety as a persecutor turned preacher, but they did not know him personally. The Christian faith was spreading rapidly while Paul lived on the periphery in Syria and Cilicia.

Paul goes back home to Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts 9:30). He testifies later that God revealed to him while praying in the temple that he should leave Jerusalem immediately (Acts 22:17-21). God didn't tell Paul where to go, but the leaders of the Jerusalem church did! Paul was stirring up trouble for them, and the Jews were threatening to kill Paul. For his own safety and their peace, the Christians in Jerusalem took him to Caesarea and put him on a boat for Tarsus. Only then did the church throughout Judea enjoy peace (Act 9:26-31). Paul was a troublemaker everywhere he went from the perspective of the churches in Judea. They were better off with Paul in Tarsus far away from the places of influence (Witherington, The Paul Quest, 309-316). At least he couldn't get into too much trouble there!

We know very little about the decade Paul spent in Syria and Cilicia. It was at least ten years and perhaps as much as fourteen years that Paul served the Lord in relative obscurity (Gal. 2:1). We assume that Paul continued to preach the gospel and fulfill his calling to reach Gentiles for Christ. It is quite likely that it was during this time that Paul experienced some of the beatings, stonings, hunger, thirst, sleepless nights, and dangers that he explains later (2 Cor. 11:23-27). We know that he also had his visionary experience and thorn in the flesh during this period of time (2 Cor. 12:1-10). Unknown and unwanted, suffering persecution and struggling with his thorn in the flesh, Paul faithfully served the Lord far from the centers of influence in the first century church. These were hard times, discouraging and disheartening, during which Paul learned the lesson that God's power is made perfect in weakness. God's grace is sufficient for his life (2 Cor. 12:9).

Then came Barnabas, again! Barnabas goes to Tarsus to find Paul and bring him to Antioch in Syria sometime near the end of this period (Acts 11:25-26). Paul stated that he went to Syria and Cilicia (Gal. 1:21) but in reverse chronological order probably because Syria was the more influential province in the Roman government (Hendriksen, Galatians, 63). He leaves the backwaters of Cilicia to go to Syria at the request of Barnabas. The church in Antioch was rapidly becoming a center of Christian influence and missionary activity, and Paul was needed in the ministry. Paul went from unknown and unwanted to known and wanted in one of the most influential churches in early Christianity.

Jesus is the head of His church, and He dispatches each of us where He chooses. We serve at His disposal. Christ may send us to the backwaters of our culture or He may call us to a large church in the city. The choice is His. Our call is to be faithful to where Jesus sends us and to the mission which He gives us.

Lord, help me to faithfully serve you even if in obscurity for you are Lord, and I am your servant.

FALSELY ACCUSED?

Have you ever been falsely accused? Someone has impugned your integrity or questioned your veracity? Perhaps others have circulated stories about you that painted a negative picture. Guilt by association or statements taken out of context were used to undermine your credibility. The stories went viral through social media. Your ministry is threatened because people wonder if you can be trusted to tell the truth. How should you respond? Should you defend yourself? Paul did, repeatedly!

"Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying" (Gal. 1:20).

THE BACK STORY

Church leaders from the mother church in Jerusalem had arrived among the churches in Galatia attacking Paul's integrity. These church leaders claimed to represent the apostles in Jerusalem, and they falsely accused Paul of five failures in his ministry. 1) He did not possess the authority to preach independently, as he claimed. He was under the authority of the apostles in the Jerusalem church. 2) The apostles in Jerusalem were the only ones who had the authority to define the true gospel of Jesus Christ. 3) Paul had gone to Jerusalem to learn the gospel from the mother church, and the apostles authorized him to preach the gospel they taught to him. He learned his gospel second-hand from them. Later in Antioch, Peter and the apostles had rebuked Paul for preaching error. 4) Paul had agreed to follow what they said but then adapted his message to preach his own watered-down version of the gospel designed to be acceptable to the Gentiles by minimizing the importance of God's law. 5) Paul was deceiving the Galatians about the gospel and misleading them about himself and his authority. The Galatians should not trust him or his message (Longenecker, Galatians, xcvi-c).

A SOLEMN OATH

How it must have galled Paul to defend himself against these false accusations. He refutes the false allegations in his letter to the Galatians (Gal. 1:16ff). Contrary to what these leaders claimed, Paul's first visit to Jerusalem was a social call. He retells the story of meeting Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-19) and later explains what really happened with Peter in Antioch (Gal. 2:11ff). Paul corrects the twisted, upside-down version of the story being told by his false accusers to defend his trustworthiness in ministry. He vehemently takes an oath before God that he is telling the truth (Gal. 1:20).

Paul says, "See before God that I am not lying." The opening particle "see," "behold," or "listen" (ἰδοὺ) emphasizes what follows. "Before God" (ἐνώπιον τοῖ θεοῦ) introduces a common oath formula and "I am not lying" (οὐ ψεύδομαι) implies that there is another wrong account of events. The story Paul is telling is the truth. All other stories are false. No matter how believable their story or unbelievable his story, Paul takes a solemn oath that what he is telling them is the "honest to God" truth. The formula Paul uses to deny that he is lying is a typical formula used in Roman legal proceedings (Rienecker and Rogers, Linguistic Key, 503). Generally, the Roman courts discouraged the offering of oaths unless it was absolutely necessary. Paul apparently felt it was absolutely necessary to use a courtroom oath to defend his version of the story (Bruce, Galatians, 102) although Paul did not believe Christians should go to court to settle their differences (1 Cor. 6:1-8)!

ANOTHER OATH IN SELF DEFENSE

Interestingly, Paul uses the same oath in a later context when defending his integrity before similar attacks (2 Cor. 11:31). God knows that I am not lying (οὐ ψεύδομαι), Paul argued when explaining in more detail the events surrounding King Aretas and his escape from Damascus. Apparently, the false stories about Paul continued as other church leaders attacked his integrity, and he once again took another oath about his trustworthiness. Paul stressed that he would only boast in his weakness when he tells about his escape in a basket through a window in the wall. By boasting only in his weakness and making God the hero, Paul's veracity is demonstrated in contrast to the self-adulation of his false accusers.

Paul's defense was in stark contrast to one of the highest awards that the Roman army could confer on a soldier. The "wall crown" honored the soldier who scaled the wall of an enemy city first. The honor was still being awarded in Paul's day (Witherington, Conflict & Community in Corinth, 458). The worldly hero scales the wall first, Paul claims. The servant of Christ is the first down the wall in defeat. Why? God's power is perfected in weakness. His false accusers may claim high honors and attack his weakness. Paul's account is true because he claims no honor for himself but gives God the glory for using him in his weakness and defeat. Paul's oath rings true because it is not self-glorifying. When we defend ourselves, we must avoid self-adulation in our defense.

The sting of unjust criticism is hard to take as pastors, especially when stories are circulated about us that are not true. Often we find it hard to defend ourselves because we can't divulge confidential information. However, we can and must defend our integrity when the ministry is compromised by false accusations. Sometimes we even have to assert that we are not lying just like Paul even though the assertion itself is painfully frustrating. When the gospel is compromised because our credibility is undermined, we defend the Lord when we defend ourselves.