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?