GOSPEL HYPOCRITES

Hypocrite: A person who pretends to be something he/she is not, two-faced.

There are all kinds of hypocrites. There are political and social hypocrites. There are philosophical and religious hypocrites. But the worst hypocrites are the gospel hypocrites. Peter was a gospel hypocrite for distancing himself socially from the Gentiles. Paul wrote:

"The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas ..." (Gal. 2:13-14).

We get our English word "hypocrite" from the Greek word used here. Paul uses two related words, a verb and a noun, to stress the hypocrisy of Peter. The verb "joined him in hypocrisy" (συνυπεκρίθησαν) meant to join with others in pretending (BDAG, 793). The noun "hypocrisy" (ὑποκρίσει) meant to put on an outward show, a pretense (BDAG, 845). The root meant to "answer from under" (Burton, Galatians, 108) and referred to actors who spoke from behind a mask. The actor's job was to explain the drama by playing a role so that everything he did was in keeping with his character in the production (TDNT, 8:559-560).

In classical Greek, the words did not necessarily imply a negative meaning. The hypocrisy could be positive. Other descriptive words were necessary to determine whether the hypocrisy was negative or positive. However, within Judaism, the term is negative. It is sin. The Septuagint used the word in connection with apostasy. A hypocrite was someone who only pretended to follow God's law until it became inconvenient and then turned away from God's truth. The venerated Maccabean leader, Eleazar, said he would choose death rather than hypocrisy, which he viewed as apostasy (2 Maccabees 5:25). The Septuagint often used the word "hypocrite" (ὑποκρίτης) to translate a Hebrew word that meant a wicked or ungodly person. Paul's use of the term reflects this Jewish background. Hypocrisy has to do with denying the truth of the Gospel (TDNT, 8:562-569).

Peter wasn't merely being socially two-faced. He was denying the gospel - apostasizing! Apparently, both Jewish and Gentile Christians were in the habit of eating meals together in the church at Antioch. These social gatherings were reflections of the transforming power of the gospel, making the church one new man in Christ (Eph. 2:11-16). Peter gladly ate with them until the Jews from the church in Jerusalem arrived. He withdrew from the Gentiles to eat only with the Jews, and, in so doing, led the other Jewish Christians to join him. Paul viewed this correctly, not merely as a social failure, but as a corruption of the gospel itself. Peter was a hypocrite. He was pretending to be what he was not in Christ.

What were Peter's true convictions, and who was he hiding them from? There were two possibilities. 1) Peter's true convictions were that the gospel freed him to eat with the Gentile Christians as one in Christ. He was hiding those convictions from the Jewish leaders who came from Jerusalem. 2) Peter's true convictions were that he should only eat with Jews, and he had been hiding those convictions from the church in Antioch all this time. Either way, Peter is a hypocrite. Here is the problem with our hypocrisy and the gospel. Our hypocrisy renders our witness untrustworthy. How we live taints our gospel witness. No one knows where we stand, so why should they believe what we say?

The sad reality is that Peter led Paul's trusted missionary partner and friend, Barnabas, astray (συναπήχθη). The word means to be carried off (BDAG, 784). Peter's hypocrisy carried Barnabas into hypocrisy. The word "hypocrisy" is in the dative case and could be either a dative of accompaniment or dative of agency. In other words, Barnabas was either swept along with Peter's hypocrisy, or he was influenced by Peter's hypocrisy (Burton, Galatians, 109). Either way, he, too, denied the truth of the gospel.

How Barnabas' hypocrisy must have stung Paul. Barnabas had been the first to welcome Paul into the church. Barnabas and Paul had planted churches in southern Galatia on their first missionary journey enduring hardship and struggle together for the gospel. They would not be partners on Paul's second missionary journey. Luke states that the break up of their partnership occurred over John Mark (Acts 15:36-41). However, this episode in Antioch may well have factored into the fracture. F.F. Bruce suggests that the dispute over John Mark would not have been enough to break up the team, but for this more serious matter (Bruce, Galatians, 132). The hypocrisy of Barnabas eroded Paul's trust in his partner. Their close relationship came to an end not long after this event in Antioch.

The gospel proclaims that there are no racial, social, cultural, ethnic, and gender barriers (Gal. 3:28-29). It is the great equalizer. All people stand equally at the foot of the cross as one in Christ. Gospel hypocrites pay lip service to this transforming truth, but their partisan lifestyles belie the good news they preach.

Lord, keep me from becoming a gospel hypocrite. Show me those attitudes and actions that, however unwittingly and subconsciously they might be, deny the gospel I preach. Convict me to repent of any self-deluded rationalizations I might use to justify my behavior. Energize me to live what I preach.

OUR SOCIAL LIVES AND OUR GOSPEL WITNESS

Birds of a feather flock together. We naturally gather with people like us and identify ourselves with those who think like us. Like likes like. We eat, drink, laugh, and share with others from similar subcultures. Our Facebook posts elicit "likes" from those who are most like us socially, culturally, and politically.

What is wrong with that? Why should it matter with whom I socialize? It matters because our socio/economic and political identifications may negatively impact our gospel witness. The gospel transcends our social boundaries by calling us to reach those unlike us. We can compromise our mission by our social lives and nullify our gospel witness by our partisan politics.

Paul confronted Peter about how his social activities compromised the gospel. "Prior to the coming of certain men from James, he (Peter) used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision" (Gal. 2:12). This led others to join in his hypocrisy, so Paul accused them of not being "straightforward about the truth of the gospel" (Gal. 2:14).

Let's peel back the layers to grasp the damage we can do to our gospel witness by our social lives.

PAST HABITS

Paul begins with an infinitive clause "prior to the coming of certain men from James." The preposition (πρὸ) with the infinitive (ἐλθεῖν) means "before" (MHT, Grammar, 3:144). Paul adds "from James" (ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου) which is a rare usage of the preposition and means "after coming from James" (MHT, Grammar, 3:259). James is the source of the delegation. But we must be careful not to read too much into the coming from James as if James authorized their theological views (Robertson, Grammar, 579). More likely, they perceived themselves and were perceived by others as having his authority. These Judaizers presented themselves as if they were an official delegation sent by James to examine matters in Antioch.

Peter "used to eat with the Gentiles" before this pseudo-delegation came from James. The phrase "used to eat" (συνήσθιεν) translates an imperfect tense. The imperfect tense here indicates repeated and ongoing action (Burton, Moods and Tenses, 12). Peter's habitual activity before the arrival of these self-proclaimed ambassadors of legalism was to eat his meals with the Gentiles. This is not surprising since God had shown Peter in a vision that he should welcome Gentiles as equals in the church (Acts 10:28)! Peter knew by direct revelation that God had opened the gates of His kingdom to Gentiles and expected Peter to share the common bond of the gospel with Gentiles as equals.

WHAT CHANGED?

When (ὅτε) these men from the mother church in Jerusalem arrived, Peter changed. He withdrew from socializing with the Gentiles. This imperfect tense is best understood as inceptive, he began to withdraw (R&R, Linguistic Key, 505). The tense indicates action in progress but not yet completed (Blass/Debrunner, Grammar, 169). Peter probably thought, "Why can't I socialize with whomever I want? These are my friends from my home church. I identify with them. We think alike. What is wrong with that?" Nothing in itself, of course, but everything is wrong with that thinking when our identification with a partisan group corrupts or obscures the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:14).

Paul understood immediately that this social change by Peter had enormous ramifications for the gospel. The way Peter was acting undermined the gospel even if it seemed to be merely a social activity. Paul described Peter as "holding himself aloof" from the Gentiles. Once again, the verb is an inceptive imperfect. Peter was beginning to hold himself aloof. The verb (ἀφώριζεν) means to separate himself or to set himself apart. Ironically, Paul chose the same word that he used to describe God's call to preach the gospel to the Gentiles! Paul wrote, God "had set me apart" (ἀφορίσας) "so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles" (Gal. 1:15-16). Peter separated himself from the people that God had separated Paul to reach! Thus, he was undermining the gospel. Paul called it hypocrisy because it threatened the health of the church (Gal. 2:13).

PEER PRESSURE

Peter identified himself with the Jewish Christians from James because he "feared the party of the circumcision." The participle translated "fearing" (φοβούμενος) is best understood as a causal participle ( Burton, Moods and Tenses, 170). Peter changed because he feared "the ones out of the circumcision" (τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς). The expression indicates an identifiable group of people - a party of people. They could be a political party within the church like the Judaizers or the self-proclaimed messengers from James. However, it seems unlikely that Peter feared this group of people or that he feared James. We should probably see this as a description of an actual political party within Judaism. The Jewish militants were very active in Judea at this time. These zealots, known as "freedom fighters," had formed a powerful, nationalistic political party that threatened anyone who socialized with Gentiles. Peter likely feared the power of this political party back in Jerusalem, and that is why he compromised the gospel (Bruce, Galatians, 130-131).

The gospel levels social hierarchies, breaks down cultural barriers, eliminates racial distinctions, crosses political divisions, and flattens ethnic pride. Eating together - a simple act of respect - reinforces the gospel message. Social distancing compromises our gospel witness.

A PC GOSPEL?

Many warn about the dangers of being "PC" - politically correct. There is undoubtedly a PC of the left that intimidates our gospel witness, but there is also a PC of the right that dresses the gospel in cultural clothing. Whenever a culture absorbs and re-formats the gospel in cultural dress, it loses the universally transformative power God intended. Paul rejected the PC gospel in Antioch when he stood up to Peter.

"When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned, ... when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all..." (Gal. 2:11-14).

The verb translated "opposed" (ἀντέστην) means to stand against someone. The word usually implies resistance to an attack initiated by another person. In this case, Peter launched the attack on the Pauline principle that the gospel of grace makes us one in Christ. Peter may not have intended to attack the freedom of the gospel, but his behavior undermined the truth by wrapping it with social expectations (Burton, Galatians, 103).

Peter "stood condemned" (κατεγνωσμένος) by his past actions (perfect tense). Peter's own behavior rendered him not just offensive but self-condemned. His actions, not Paul or the church, delivered the guilty verdict (Lightfoot, Galatians, 111). When Peter visited the church in Antioch, he ate his meals freely with the Gentile Christians as social equals in Christ. Then a delegation from the right-wing of the church in Jerusalem showed up, and Peter pulled back socially from the Gentile believers to eat only with the Jewish Christians. Peter stood self-condemned by his hypocrisy.

THE BACK STORY

Peter had initially been the leader of the mother church in Jerusalem, but James had supplanted him to become the most influential. During these early years of the church, Jewish nationalism was on the rise. The Jewish freedom fighters developed what Josephus called the "fourth philosophy" as their zeal grew to advocate armed revolt against Gentile authority culminating twenty-five years later in the Roman invasion. Masada was their final fight. About the time that Peter and Paul were having this debate, Rome crucified two of the Jewish zealots. The Jewish nationalists became militant in their opposition to Jews who socialized with Gentiles. Such people were traitors to their homeland.

Jewish Christians brought some of these attitudes with them into the church in Jerusalem and likely felt that the actions of the Christians in Antioch endangered Christians in Jerusalem. The Judaizers were Jews who claimed to be Christians but who followed the regulations of Judaism and were zealous for their country. They formed a strong conservative wing in the Jerusalem church that sought to conserve the Jewish heritage within Christianity. When Paul writes that Peter was "fearing the party of the circumcision" (v.12), he likely meant the militant Jewish nationalists who threatened Christians and may even have infiltrated the church (Bruce, Galatians, 128-131).

Peer pressure infiltrates our attitudes seductively until it erupts in ugly and unexpected scenes.

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL

The first Jerusalem Council had already occurred (Gal. 2:1-10), and the second Jerusalem Council was yet in the future (Acts 15:1-29). The apostles agreed that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised at the first council, but a new issue arose involving the eating habits of Gentile Christians. Gentile Christians did not practice the Jewish dietary expectations, so to eat with them defiled Jewish Christians in their minds. The second Jerusalem Council addressed this issue (Acts 15:20, 29). In the meantime, the disagreement reared its ugly head in Antioch.

Jewish Christians were eating freely with Gentile Christians in Antioch, and Peter had joined them. The reports to the conservative party in the Jerusalem Church led James to send a delegation to Antioch to find out. Many Jewish Christians did not believe this was part of the agreement they had made at the first council. They had agreed that circumcision was not necessary, but socializing equally with Gentiles was another matter. To the right-wing in Jerusalem, eating together violated the agreement of the council (Burton, Galatians, 104-107). They believed that Jewish and Gentile Christians should be separate but equal in Christ, which is why they had separated the mission of the church. Peter would go to the Jews, and Paul would go to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:7-9).

ONE IN CHRIST

Paul understood that separate but equal meant not fully one in Christ. We practice a PC gospel if we cannot welcome Christians of all languages, colors, cultures, and backgrounds to the common table of Christ. If we cannot eat together, we are not one in Christ. There cannot be superior and inferior Christians based on nationalism or culture. We must oppose, like Paul, any behavior implying that the gospel allows any separate but equal attitude toward social, cultural, or ethnic differences within the church. The gospel is for all equally, and we are all equally one in Christ. We must fight to demonstrate that truth in the attitudes and actions of our daily lives.

Why do so many churches look socially, culturally, and ethnically similar?

Why don't we see more churches that exhibit social, cultural, and ethnic diversity?

REMEMBER THE POOR

The coronavirus is raging. The stock market is plunging. Panic is spreading. People are hoarding as toilet paper flies off the shelves! The rush to hoard because we can hurts those who can't afford to hoard. In times of crisis, we should remember the poor. Those who have little to start, lose what little they have when supplies are limited.

The first century church obeyed God's call to care for the poor because they trusted God's provision for their daily needs. The elders of the Jerusalem church extended the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas with no conditions except they "only" asked "that the poor they might remember" (Gal. 2:10). The verb "ask" must be supplied to make sense of the verse. They "only" (μόνον) made this one request. The adjective "only" is placed first in the clause for emphasis. The object of the verb to remember is "the poor" (τῶν πτωχῶν). It is in the genitive case because the verb to remember (μνημονεύω) can take a genitive as its object (BDAG, 525). The object (πτωχῶν) is placed before the verb for emphasis. God's heart emphasizes the priority of the poor.

The word "poor" meant someone dependent on the help of others - a beggar. We tend to have a negative connotation of beggars today. However, such poverty was not to be viewed as the result of laziness or ineptitude in Israel. The poor man was poor because of the injustice of the rich in Israelite theology. God had laid out a program to help the poor under the Mosaic law (Ex. 20:22-23:19) because God was the protector of the poor when they cried out to Him in their need (Ex. 22:27). God's law established rules to protect the poor (Deut. 15:1-18; 24:14-22). The prophets regularly attacked the rich for social injustice because they oppressed and abused the poor, which was a violation of God's law (Amos 2:7; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4; Isaiah 3:13-15; 5:8-9; 10:2; Micah 2:2; 3:2). God considered social injustice by the wealthy and powerful to be acts of immorality that deserved His judgment.

The poor often cried out to God for help, and He heard their cries and helped them in their affliction (Ps. 10:16-18; 72:2,4,12-15; 140:12-13). They were dependent on God, who cared for their needs. Care for the poor was a significant aspect of worship in the synagogue communities of the first century. Synagogue communities even founded hospices for the terminally ill. Rooted in their theology as opposed to social programming, the first century Jews remembered the poor. Part of the temple tax paid for the needs of the poor. Almsgiving was an obligation of synagogue members to care for the poor in their community. (NIDNTT, 2:821-823). The Jewish Christians of the early church were steeped in this practical theology of worship and carried it over into the church assemblies.

The verb translated "remember" (μνημονεύωμεν) has a variety of meanings, but when used with the poor means more than a mental thought. It means to remember in a way that helps the person being remembered - the poor (NIDNTT, 3:240-241). Once again, there is a rich legacy of biblical theology embedded in this call to remember the poor. God remembers people when He extends His help to them in mercy and grace (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22). Because God remembers people, the poor cry out to God in prayer to remember them by meeting their needs (Ex. 32:13; 1 Sam. 1:11,19), and the needy ask for those in power to remember them by meeting their needs (1 Sam. 25:31). A good theology of prayer starts with we who are dependent and needy calling on God to remember us in our need (Judges 16:28; 2 Kings 20:3; Job 10:9; Ps. 88:50).

Remember the poor means to act in tangible ways that help the poor. It is grounded in a theology of prayer and viewed as an act of worship. Rooted in the very nature of God, care for the poor, the alien, the orphan, the widow, the oppressed demonstrates the heart of true religion (James 1:27). No wonder Paul said he was eager to remember the poor (Gal. 2:10). The verb translated "eager" (ἐσπούδασα) means to hurry, to rush, or to make every effort to remember the poor (BDAG, 763).

We face a crisis of growing need in our world today because of the pandemic. The church can view this time as an opportunity to remember the poor. We should rush to help those in need not to hoard what we can gather.

DIVIDE TO MULTIPLY

Living organisms grow by division. Cells multiply by dividing. In the human body, for example, almost two trillion cells divide every day. Parent cells divide into daughter cells in the continuous cycle of life. The body of Christ is a living organism, which means the church multiplies by division. We have one mission - to reach the world for Christ - but we must divide to accomplish that mission. Paul wrote that "recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James, Cephas, and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised" (Gal. 2:9).

All ministry is a grace gift from God. "Grace" (χάριν), in this context, must be all-inclusive of Paul's Christian life from conversion to ministry (Meyer, Galatians, 71). God had called him "through His grace" to preach Christ "among the Gentiles" (Gal. 1:15-16). Grace was given (δοθεῖσάν) to Paul, and he recognized that his ministry was a gift of God's grace that he did not deserve. Even the other apostles recognized God's grace gift to Paul. The subjects of the plural participle "recognizing" (γνόντες) are James, Cephas, and John, the "pillars" (στῦλοι) of the church. The verb "to recognize" means to know in the sense of perceive, notice, or realize (BDAG, 161). The word "pillars" is a figure of speech likely drawn from the temple sanctuary (Rev. 3:12). The church is the temple of God, and the pillars were the apostolic leaders of the church who held up the sanctuary like the pillars of the temple (Bruce, Galatians, 122).

Because these foundational leaders in the church perceived the grace given to Paul, they "gave" (ἔδωκαν) him the "right hand of fellowship." The giving of grace by God leads to the giving of the hand by Christians. The practice of extending the hand as a pledge of an agreement is found among both the Greeks and the Hebrews. The phrase in Hebrew was "to give the hand" as a pledge to another, sometimes indicating submission (2 Kings 10:15; Ezra 10:19; Ezek. 17:18; 1 Chron. 29:14; 2 Chron. 30:8). In the Greek papyri, it meant to enter into a pledge or a compact with another person, usually in the sense of a mutual compact (Burton, Galatians, 95-96). The pledge was a solemn, binding commitment between people. The three and the two pledged their shared commitment to each other with the right hand of fellowship (κοινωνίας) - a partnership forged in union with Christ.

The partnership pledged a division of the mission. Paul and Barnabas would preach the gospel to the Gentiles, and James, Cephas, and John would preach to the circumcision. The verb must be supplied. It could be "go" (πορευθῶμεν) or it could be "preach the gospel" (εὐαγγελισώμεθα). However, it is probably better to translate it as "preach the gospel" because that is the focus in verse 7 leading to the fuller explanation of verse 9 (Meyer, Galatians, 73).

What is the division? Is this a territorial/geographical division, or is it a racial/cultural division? Burton understands it as territorial. Paul and Barnabas would preach in Gentile lands, but the other apostles would preach in Jewish lands (Burton, Galatians, 98). Bruce suggests that we should understand the division ethnographically because there is considerable overlap in the spheres. The diaspora meant that there were Jewish colonies all over the Roman world and the churches Paul planted included both Jews and Gentiles. Paul certainly could preach in Jewish synagogues, and Peter could preach in Gentile assemblies, but, in general, the focus was an ethnographic division. The division was racial/cultural as Paul and Barnabas prioritized, although not exclusively, the Gentile culture and James, Peter and John prioritized the Jewish communities (Bruce, Galatians, 125).

The Great Commission is global (Acts 1:8; Mt. 28:17-20). The church must preach to all nations. However, the strategy to reach the nations requires a division of the mission. The Apostles were not abdicating their commission from Christ when they agreed to divide the spheres of ministry. The only way to grow the church is to divide the mission. Even on a local church level, we multiply by dividing. Mother churches give birth to daughter churches. Existing ministries spawn new ministries, and all local churches should maintain a global mission by giving the right hand of partnership to ministries preaching to other segments of our world. A church must divide to multiply.

ENERGIZED FOR MISSION

Christ commissioned His church to carry out a global mission. The strategy of the early church was to divide and conquer. Christ entrusted the gospel to Paul to reach the uncircumcised while He commissioned Peter to lead the mission to the circumcised (Gal. 2:7). We (the modern church) follow in their footsteps to fulfill our mission to reach the world for Christ. Not only did Christ call the church to a global mission, but God also energized the church to carry out the mission. Paul wrote, "for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles" (Gal. 2:8).

Paul uses the same word twice to make his point. First, the Aorist participle is translated "the one who effectually worked" (ἐνεργήσας). Then the Aorist indicative is used (ἐνήργησεν). The intransitive use of the verb means to be at work, to operate, or be effective. The transitive use of the verb means to produce results. In either case, the preposition "to" (εἰς) is used to introduce the goal or objective of the work (BDAG, 265). God, not Christ, is most likely the subject of the verbs in keeping with the other passages where this verb is used (1 Cor. 12:6; Phil. 2:13: Col. 1:29; Meyer, Galatians, 70). God, not us, makes our mission effective. We depend on God's power to drive the success of our mission. He produces the results of our gospel mission.

The fundamental exegetical question is this: Does God qualify them for the office of apostle, or does God accomplish His mission through them? If the verb is used intransitively, Paul could mean that God was making them fit for their apostleship. If the verb is used transitively, Paul would be saying that God produced the results (the converts) of their mission. Either view is theologically valid and exegetically possible. What is the sense that Paul intends by his use of "effectively worked" in this context?

1. To qualify them for the office of apostle (Burton, Galatians, 93-94).

The indirect object is personal in both cases. The datives "for Peter" (Πέτρῳ) and "for me" (ἐμοὶ) are datives of advantage indicating that God worked for the benefit of Peter and Paul. The object of the preposition in the clause about Peter is "apostle" (εἶς ἀποστολὴν) indicating that the act of making effective had to do with his apostleship to the circumcision. God was endowing Peter to be an apostle, qualifying him for his position.

2. To accomplish the mission of the gospel (Meyer, Galatians, 96).

God was not just making them fit for their position, but Paul intended to point to the entire efficacious work of God in carrying out His calling for their lives. Paul is using the word to mean produce results, not merely make them fit for the job. In the second clause, Paul does not use the word "apostle," and the preposition focuses on the goal of reaching the Gentiles. This would imply that the effective work of God was not limited only to apostleship but to the results of the broader mission.

I think view #2 brings out the force of the passage. Paul's use of this term elsewhere adds support for the fact that God energizes the mission - God produces results. The verb is used for the power that raised Christ from the dead (Eph. 1:20; Col. 2:12). The preaching work Paul did was by the energizing power of God (Col. 1:29). The Word of God is not only living but effective (ἐνεργὴς) in judging the hearts of people (Heb. 4:12). The works (ἐνεργημάτων) we do as members of Christ's body, we do because God energizes (ἐνεργῶν) us to do them (1 Cor. 12:6). The Spirit of God works (ἐνεργεῖ) all things in each of us according to His will (1 Cor. 12:11). "For it is God who is at work (ἐνεργῶν) in you, both to will and to work (ἐνεργεῖν) fo His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13). God energizes us for His global mission.

Make us, Lord, dependent servants who trust in your effective power to accomplish your great mission in this world.

WHO'S MORE IMPORTANT?

We put great stock in the appearance of importance. Who is the biggest or tallest, finest, or greatest? The trappings of success become the symbols of power. The church, sadly, succumbs to the world's measures of importance. Our credentials and endorsements advertise our authority. Who we know and who we follow opens doors in ministry, so we name drop strategically for maximum effect. A hierarchy of reputation rests on the outward appearances of importance, like the size of our church, the success of our ministry, or our circles of fellowship.

The early church was no different. Paul faced challenges to his authority based on the credentials that Christians valued in his day. He wrote, "But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) - well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me" (Gal. 2:6). The opening clause is an anacoluthon (broken grammatical construction), and the thought is picked up again at the end of the verse (Meyer, Galatians, 64). The middle section is best set off by dashes (see UBS, 3rd edition and Nestle-Aland, 26th edition). The main idea is: those who were of high reputation contributed nothing to Paul.

Unfortunately, the repeated expression "those who were of high reputation" (τῶν δοκούντων/οἱ δοκοῦντες) is translated in the past tense when these are both present participles. Paul is not saying that they were reputable in the past. His concern is that the people treated them as superior authorities in the present tense (Lightfoot, Galatians, 107). "Those who are of high reputation" in the minds of the Galatians - at the time Paul was writing the letter to them not sometime in the past - added nothing to his message. Paul is using the term in a dismissive sense to refer to the way the Christians were diminishing him while elevating the apostles. Paul does not depreciate Peter, James, and John, personally. Paul respects these apostles too, but argues that the Christians should not treat their status and authority as superior to his. Some were idolizing them to diminish Paul's authority, and such a hierarchy of reputation is not right (Bruce, Galatians, 117).

The apostles who "seemed to be something" (τῶν δοκούντων εἰναί τι) added nothing to Paul's preaching. The pronoun "to me" (ἐμοὶ) is in the emphatic position (Meyer, Galatians, 68). Paul stresses his authority here. The verb "contributed" can mean to offer something or to confer with someone. However, it is best understood as presenting information in addition to what Paul said - adding to his gospel. The criticism of the legalizers was that the apostles had to teach Paul. Paul is arguing that they taught him nothing in addition to what he had already learned (Burton, Galatians, 89-90). His gospel message did not depend on their teaching. His authority to preach stood alongside their authority to preach. "To me, the apostles, who seem to you to be something, added nothing!"

Paul lays out the foundation for his argument between the dashes. "Whatever they were in the past" (ὁποιοί ποτε ἦσαν) makes no difference to Paul in the present. The general relative pronoun "whatever" (ὁποιοί) emphasizes the quality of the person - "what kind of people they were" (Blass/Debrunner, Grammar, 159). The particle ποτε means "formerly" or "once." There is an intentional contrast between the two "be" verbs. What they seem to be in the present (εἰναί) has nothing to do with what they were in the past (ἦσαν). The second verb is in the imperfect tense, indicating what they used to be on an ongoing basis.

Paul appears to be thinking about the fact that Peter, James, and John had all walked with Jesus during his earthly ministry. Paul, of course, had not. Some treated the other apostles as superior to Paul because of their past connections with Jesus. They were all founding members of the church. Paul came along later (Bruce, Galatians, 117-118). Consequently, the Christians put them on pedestals because of their outward credentials, but whatever they were in the past does not guarantee them superiority in the present because we all are new creations in Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:16-17). They should be respected but not idolized.

The theological basis for Paul's assertion is that "God shows no partiality." Literally, the text reads, "the face of man God does not receive." The expression "to receive the face" (πρόσωπον λαμβάνει) translates a common Old Testament expression "to lift the face." To show favor to someone, a king would lift the face bowed before him (Bruce, Galatians, 118). The word for face (πρόσωπον) means the outward countenance of a person. The word could also be used of a mask worn by actors on the stage. They played a part in a play (TDNT, 6:769). Paul is saying that God does not favor the outward credentials or the mask of authority that someone has over someone else. What we are outwardly does not determine how God treats us or the validity of our message. We wear our connections like masks of authority to persuade others to listen to our message. The masks of success, credentials, positions, or connections should not determine the value of the message!

Martin Luther said that judging things from outward masks and trusting in people based on their positions was "popery." He wrote: "the prince, the magistrate, the preacher, the schoolmaster, the scholar ... are persons, and outward veils, which God will have us acknowledge, love, and reverence, as His creatures, which must needs be had in this life, but He will not have us so to reverence them and put our trust in them, so as to forget Him" (Luther, Galatians, 51).