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!