ever thought he had run in vain. However, many
did think that Paul had preached the Gospel in vain, because he kept
the Gentiles free from the yoke of the Law. The opinion that obedience
to the Law was mandatory unto salvation was gaining ground. Paul meant
to remedy this evil. By this conference he hoped to establish the
identity of his Gospel with that of the other apostles, to stop the
talk of his opponents that he had been running around in vain.

VERSE 3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was
compelled to be circumcised.

The word "compelled" acquaints us with the outcome of the conference.
It was resolved that the Gentiles should not be compelled to be
circumcised.

Paul did not condemn circumcision in itself. Neither by word nor deed
did he ever inveigh against circumcision. But he did protest against
circumcision being made a condition for salvation. He cited the case of
the Fathers. "The fathers were not justified by circumcision. It was to
them a sign and seal of righteousness. They looked upon circumcision as
a confession of their faith."

The believing Jews, however, could not get it through their heads that
circumcision was not necessary for salvation. They were encouraged in
their wrong attitude by the false apostles. The result was that the
people were up in arms against Paul and his doctrine.

Paul did not condemn circumcision as if it were a sin to receive it.
But he insisted, and the conference upheld him, that circumcision had
no bearing upon salvation and was therefore not to be forced upon the
Gentiles. The conference agreed that the Jews should be permitted to
keep their ancient customs for the time being, so long as they did not
regard those customs as conveying God's justification of the sinner.

The false apostles were dissatisfied with the verdict of the
conference. They did not want to rest circumcision and the practice of
the Law in Christian liberty. They insisted that circumcision was
obligatory unto salvation.

As the opponents of Paul, so our own adversaries [Luther's, the enemies
of the Reformation] contend that the traditions of the Fathers dare not
be neglected without loss of salvation. Our opponents will not agree
with us on anything. They defend their blasphemies. They go as far to
enforce them with the sword.

Paul's victory was complete. Titus, who was with Paul, was not
compelled to be circumcised, although he stood in the midst of the
apostles when this question of circumcision was debated. This was a
blow to the false apostles. With the living fact that Titus was not
compelled to be circumcised Paul was able to squelch his adversaries.

VERSES 4,5. And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who
came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus,
that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by
subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might
continue with you.

Paul here explains his motive for going up to Jerusalem. He did not go
to Jerusalem to be instructed or confirmed in his Gospel by the other
apostles. He went to Jerusalem in order to preserve the true Gospel for
the Galatian churches and for all the churches of the Gentiles.

When Paul speaks of the truth of the Gospel he implies by contrast a
false gospel. The false apostles also had a gospel, but it was an
untrue gospel. "In holding out against them," says Paul, "I conserved
the truth of the pure Gospel."

Now the true Gospel has it that we are justified by faith alone,
without the deeds of the Law. The false gospel has it that we are
justified by faith, but not without the deeds of the Law. The false
apostles preached a conditional gospel.

So do the papists. They admit that faith is the foundation of
salvation. But they add the conditional clause that faith can save only
when it is furnished with good works. This is wrong. The true Gospel
declares that good works are the embellishment of faith, but that faith
itself is the gift and work of God in our hearts. Faith is able to
justify, because it apprehends Christ, the Redeemer.

Human reason can think only in terms of the Law. It mumbles: "This I
have done, this I have not done." But faith looks to Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, given into death for the sins of the whole world. To turn
one's eyes away from Jesus means to turn them to the Law.

True faith lays hold of Christ and leans on Him alone. Our opponents
cannot understand this. In their blindness they cast away the precious
pearl, Christ, and hang onto their stubborn works. They have no idea
what faith is. How can they teach faith to others?

Not satisfied with teaching an untrue gospel, the false apostles tried
to entangle Paul. "They went about," says Paul, "to spy out our liberty
which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage."

When Paul saw through their scheme, he attacked the false apostles. He
says, "We did not let go of the liberty which we have in Christ Jesus.
We routed them by the judgment of the apostles, and we would not give
in to them, no, not an inch."

We too were willing to make all kinds of concessions to the papists.
Yes, we are willing to offer them more than we should. But we will not
give up the liberty of conscience which we have in Christ Jesus. We
refuse to have our conscience bound by any work or law, so that by
doing this or that we should be righteous, or leaving this or that
undone we should be damned.

Since our opponents will not let it stand that only faith in Christ
justifies, we will not yield to them. On the question of justification
we must remain adamant, or else we shall lose the truth of the Gospel.
It is a matter of life and death. It involves the death of the Son of
God, who died for the sins of the world. If we surrender faith in
Christ, as the only thing that can justify us, the death and
resurrection of Jesus are without meaning; that Christ is the Savior of
the world would be a myth. God would be a liar, because He would not
have fulfilled His promises. Our stubbornness is right, because we want
to preserve the liberty which we have in Christ. Only by preserving our
liberty shall we be able to retain the truth of the Gospel inviolate.

Some will object that the Law is divine and holy. Let it be divine and
holy. The Law has no right to tell me that I must be justified by it.
The Law has the right to tell me that I should love God and my
neighbor, that I should live in chastity, temperance, patience, etc.
The Law has no right to tell me how I may be delivered from sin, death,
and hell. It is the Gospel's business to tell me that. I must listen to
the Gospel. It tells me, not what I must do, but what Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, has done for me.

To conclude, Paul refused to circumcise Titus for the reason that the
false apostles wanted to compel him to circumcise Titus. Paul refused
to accede to their demands. If they had asked it on the plea of
brotherly love, Paul would not have denied them. But because they
demanded it on the ground that it was necessary for salvation, Paul
defied them, and prevailed. Titus was not circumcised.

VERSE 6. But of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were,
it maketh no matter to me.

This is a good point in Paul's refutation. Paul disparages the
authority and dignity of the true apostles. He says of them, "Which
seemed to be somewhat." The authority of the apostles was indeed great
in all the churches. Paul did not want to detract from their authority,
but he had to speak disparagingly of their authority in order to
conserve the truth of the Gospel, and the liberty of conscience.

The false apostles used this argument against Paul: "The apostles lived
with Christ for three years. They heard His sermons. They witnessed His
miracles. They themselves preached and performed miracles while Christ
was on earth. Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh. Now, whom ought you to
believe: Paul, who stands alone, a mere disciple of the apostles, one
of the last and least; or will you believe those grand apostles who
were sent and confirmed by Christ Himself long before Paul?"

What could Paul say to that? He answered: "What they say has no bearing
on the argument. If the apostles were angels from heaven, that would
not impress me. We are not now discussing the excellency of the
apostles. We are talking about the Word of God now, and the truth of
the Gospel. That Gospel is more excellent than all apostles."

VERSE 6. God accepteth no man's person.

Paul is quoting Moses: "Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor,
nor honor the person of the mighty." (Lev. 19:15) This quotation from
Moses ought to shut the mouths of the false apostles. "Don't you know
that God is no respecter of persons?" cries Paul. The dignity or
authority of men means nothing to God. The fact is that God often
rejects just such who stand in the odor of sanctity and in the aura of
importance. In doing so God seems unjust and harsh. But men need
deterring examples. For it is a vice with us to esteem personality more
highly than the Word of God. God wants us to exalt His Word and not
men.

There must be people in high office, of course. But we are not to deify
them. The governor, the mayor, the preacher, the teacher, the scholar,
father, mother, are persons whom we are to love and revere, but not to
the extent that we forget God. Least we attach too much importance to
the person, God leaves with important persons offenses and sins,
sometimes astounding shortcomings, to show us that there is a lot of
difference between any person and God. David was a good king. But when
the people began to think too well of him, down he fell into horrible
sins, adultery and murder. Peter, excellent apostle that he was, denied
Christ. Such examples of which the Scriptures are full, ought to warn
us not to repose our trust in men. In the papacy appearance counts for
everything. Indeed, the whole papacy amounts to nothing more than a
mere kowtowing of persons and outward mummery. But God alone is to be
feared and honored.

I would honor the Pope, I would love his person, if he would leave my
conscience alone, and not compel me to sin against God. But the Pope
wants to be adored himself, and that cannot be done without offending
God. Since we must choose between one or the other, let us choose God.
The truth is we are commissioned by God to resist the Pope, for it is
written, "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)

We have seen how Paul refutes the argument of the false apostles
concerning the authority of the apostles. In order that the truth of
the Gospel may continue; in order that the Word of God and the
righteousness of faith may be kept pure and undefiled, let the
apostles, let an angel from heaven, let Peter, let Paul, let them all
perish.

VERSE 6. For they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing
to me.

The Apostle repeats: "I did not so confer with the apostles that they
taught me anything. What could they possibly teach me since Christ by
His revelation had taught me all things? It was but a conference, and
no disputation. I learned nothing, neither did I defend my cause. I
only stated what I had done, that I had preached to the Gentiles faith
in Christ, without the Law, and that in response to my preaching the
Holy Ghost came down upon the Gentiles. When the apostles heard this,
they were glad that I had taught the truth."

If Paul would not give in to the false apostles, much less ought we to
give in to our opponents. I know that a Christian should be humble, but
against the Pope I am going to be proud and say to him: "You, Pope, I
will not have you for my boss, for I am sure that my doctrine is
divine." Such pride against the Pope is imperative, for if we are not
stout and proud we shall never succeed in defending the article of the
righteousness of faith.

If the Pope would concede that God alone by His grace through Christ
justifies sinners, we would carry him in our arms, we would kiss his
feet. But since we cannot obtain this concession, we will give in to
nobody, not to all the angels in heaven, not to Peter, not to Paul, not
to a hundred emperors, not to a thousand popes, not to the whole world.
If in this matter we were to humble ourselves, they would take from us
the God who created us, and Jesus Christ who has redeemed us by His
blood. Let this be our resolution, that we will suffer the loss of all
things, the loss of our good name, of life itself, but the Gospel and
our faith in Jesus Christ—we will not stand for it that anybody take
them from us.

VERSES 7, 8. But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the
uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision
was unto Peter; [For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the
apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the
Gentiles.]

Here the Apostle claims for himself the same authority which the false
apostles attributed to the true apostles. Paul simply inverts their
argument. "To bolster their evil cause," says he, "the false apostles
quote the authority of the great apostles against me. I can quote the
same authority against them, for the apostles are on my side. They gave
me the right hand of fellowship. They approved my ministry. O my
Galatians, do not believe the counterfeit apostles!"

What does Paul mean by saying that the gospel of the uncircumcision was
committed unto him, and that of the circumcision to Peter? Did not Paul
preach to the Jews, while Peter preached to the Gentiles also? Peter
converted the Centurion. Paul's custom was to enter into the synagogues
of the Jews, there to preach the Gospel. Why then should he call
himself the apostle of the Gentiles, while he calls Peter the apostle
of the circumcision?

Paul refers to the fact that the other apostles remained in Jerusalem
until the destruction of the city became imminent. But Paul was
especially called the apostle of the Gentiles. Even before the
destruction of Jerusalem Jews dwelt here and there in the cities of the
Gentiles. Coming to a city, Paul customarily entered the synagogues of
the Jews and first brought to them as the children of the kingdom, the
glad tidings that the promises made unto the fathers were fulfilled in
Jesus Christ. When the Jews refused to hear these glad tidings, Paul
turned to the Gentiles. He was the apostle of the Gentiles in a special
sense, as Peter was the apostle of the Jews.

Paul reiterates that Peter, James, and John, the accepted pillars of
the Church, taught him nothing, nor did they commit unto him the office
of preaching the Gospel unto the Gentiles. Both the knowledge of the
Gospel and the commandment to preach it to the Gentiles, Paul received
directly from God. His case was parallel to that of Peter's, who was
particularly commissioned to preach the Gospel to the Jews.

The apostles had the same charge, the identical Gospel. Peter did not
proclaim a different Gospel, nor had he appointed his fellow apostles.
They were equals. They were all taught of God. None was greater than
the other, none could point to prerogatives above the other. To justify
his usurped primacy in the Church the Pope claims that Peter was the
chief of the apostles. This is an impudent falsehood.

VERSE 8. For he that wrought effectually in Peter.

With these words Paul refutes another argument of the false apostles.
"What reason have the false apostles to boast that the Gospel of Peter
was mighty, that he converted many, that he wrought great miracles, and
that his very shadow healed the sick? These reports are true enough.
But where did Peter acquire this power? God gave him the power. I