Loading
Loading
0 Chapters0 Books0 People0 Places
Galatians 2 — Approved by the apostles, a confrontation in Antioch, and the heart of the gospel
6 min read
is still building his case. The in were being told that his was secondhand — that the "real" in had the genuine version, and Paul was freelancing. So in this chapter, he does two things: he proves the Jerusalem leaders fully backed his message, and then he tells a story that nobody saw coming — the time he confronted in front of everyone for not living by the very gospel they both preached.
Share this chapter
What starts as a defense of his credentials becomes something much bigger. By the end of the chapter, Paul lands one of the most important statements in the entire New Testament about what it actually means to be made right with God. This is where the argument catches .
explained that fourteen years after his conversion, he went back to — this time with and a believer named . He didn't go because someone summoned him. He went because God directed him to:
"After fourteen years, I went up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas, and I brought Titus with me. I went because God revealed that I should — and I laid out the gospel I'd been preaching to the Gentiles in front of the leaders there, privately, to make sure we were on the same page. And here's the thing — Titus was right there with me, a Greek, and not once was he forced to be circumcised.
Now, some people who had been secretly brought in — false brothers who snuck in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus — they wanted to drag us back into slavery. We didn't give them an inch. Not for a second. Because the truth of the gospel was at stake — for you."
This matters more than it might seem at first glance. Titus was the test case. If the Jerusalem leaders had required him to be circumcised — to follow Jewish before he could be "really" saved — it would have changed everything. It would have meant came with prerequisites. But they didn't. The gospel Paul had been preaching for fourteen years was confirmed. No additions. No asterisks.
And notice how Paul described the people pushing back: "false brothers who snuck in to spy on our ." That's not casual disagreement. That's infiltration. Some people will always try to add conditions to . Paul's response? Not for a second.
Now addressed the themselves — the ones everyone kept pointing to as the ultimate authorities. And he was remarkably unbothered by their status:
"The leaders — whatever their reputation was, it makes no difference to me; God doesn't play favorites — those leaders added nothing to my message. In fact, the opposite happened. They saw that God had entrusted me with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just like he'd entrusted Peter with the gospel to the circumcised. The same God working through Peter's ministry to the Jews was working through mine to the Gentiles.
When James and Peter and John — the ones everyone considered pillars — recognized the grace God had given me, they extended the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me. We would go to the Gentiles. They would go to the circumcised. The only thing they asked? Remember the poor. Which was exactly what I was already eager to do."
This is a handshake, not a hierarchy. , , — the three biggest names in the early — looked at what God was doing through Paul and said: "This is the real thing." They didn't correct him. They didn't add to his message. They endorsed it and divided up the territory.
Think about what this means for the Galatians hearing this letter read aloud. Every accusation that Paul was a rogue operator, that his gospel was missing something — it just collapsed. The pillars themselves gave him the handshake.
And then dropped a story that must have stunned every person in the room:
"But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face — because he was clearly in the wrong.
Here's what happened: before certain men arrived from James, Peter was eating with the Gentile believers. No hesitation. But when those men showed up — people from the circumcision party — he pulled back. He separated himself. He was afraid of what they'd think.
And the rest of the Jewish believers followed his lead, acting just as hypocritically — so that even Barnabas got swept up in it.
When I saw that they weren't walking in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of everyone: 'You're Jewish, but you've been living like a Gentile. So how can you now turn around and pressure Gentiles to live like Jews?'"
Let that scene sink in. — one of closest friends, the rock the was being built on — was eating with believers like it was completely normal. Because it was. had broken down that wall. But the moment certain people walked into the room, he got up from the table. Not because his theology changed. Because his courage failed.
Most of us have been Peter in this moment. How many times have you changed your behavior — not because you believed differently, but because of who was watching? The table you wouldn't sit at. The person you wouldn't be seen with. The conviction you held privately but abandoned publicly. Peter didn't stop believing the gospel included Gentiles. He just stopped acting like it when the wrong crowd showed up.
And Paul wouldn't let it slide. Not because he enjoyed confrontation, but because behavior communicates theology. When Peter left that table, he wasn't just being socially awkward. He was preaching a sermon — and the sermon said: "You're not really one of us."
What started as a public confrontation now became the theological core of the entire letter. laid out the argument that would reshape how people understand their relationship with God:
"We ourselves are Jewish by birth — not 'Gentile sinners.' And yet even we know that a person is not made right with God by following the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ. So we too put our faith in Christ — not to add faith on top of law-keeping, but because keeping the law will never make anyone right with God.
But here's the question someone might raise: if we pursue being justified through Christ and still find ourselves falling short — does that make Christ an agent of sin? Absolutely not. If I go back and rebuild the very system I dismantled, that's when I become the lawbreaker."
This is the hinge point of the entire letter. Paul was saying: we didn't add to our law-keeping. We abandoned the whole approach. doesn't come from performance. It never did. The law was never able to deliver what only grace could.
And then he anticipated the pushback. "So if you're saying doesn't save us, and we're still sinners even after believing in — doesn't that make responsible for ?" Paul's answer was immediate: absolutely not. The problem isn't that Christ leads to sin. The problem is going back to the old system after you've already left it. You can't rebuild the cage and call it .
closed the chapter with words that have echoed through two thousand years of Christian thought. This is personal. This is as raw as Paul ever gets:
"Through the law, I died to the law — so that I could actually live for God.
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in this body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
I am not going to set aside the grace of God. Because if righteousness could come through the law, then Christ died for nothing."
Read that middle part again. "It is no longer I who live, but who lives in me." That's not a bumper sticker. That's a man describing what happened to his entire identity. The old Paul — the one who built his life on credentials and religious performance — died. What replaced him wasn't a better version of himself. It was , living through him.
And then the final line, quiet and devastating: "If could come through , then Christ died for nothing." That's the question hanging over this entire letter. Every time someone adds a requirement to — every time someone says plus this behavior, faith plus this tradition, faith plus this cultural marker — they're implying the wasn't enough. Paul refused to let that stand. The cross was either sufficient, or it was pointless. There is no middle ground.