When Peter came to Antioch. Galatians 2:11

When those of us who did not go Seminary, read the Bible, we tend to glaze over passages like the one we see here in Galatians 2:11. I think we do that because there are aspects of it that make little sense to us, and, it is difficult at times to find the events that explain why Paul is so angry with Peter, and when this all happened.

As a visual learner, I have become quite obsessive when it comes to studying the Word of God. I have to be able to visualize the event or chronology for things to make sense to me, and this passage is one that frustrates me. Thank God for perseverance and the freedom of time to keep digging, because I have been looking as intently as one might hunt for gold.

So allow me to point out some approximations. The letter written to those in the region of Galatia was written from Rome about 68 A.D., about the same time as the letter written to the Hebrews (Jews in general.) The book of Acts is the second part of a two-part set beginning with the publication of Luke's gospel. It is understood that these two books were written about two years after Paul's imprisonment in Rome, around 62 A.D. At this point and with this information you cannot make any assessment as to the timing of Peter's actions that caused Paul to become so hostile toward Peter.

Other events that may give us clues about Peter's infraction(s).

• In Acts 9:10 we find Ananias baptizing Saul, and Saul, then stays for some days in Damascus with the disciples (Jewish followers of the way) there. Acts 9:31 demonstrates that with Saul now a changed man, the church began, once again, to have peace and be built up.

• The interaction with Cornelius comes about in chapter 10 of the book of Acts.

In my Chronological Bible, the authors show us a "time capsule." In this time capsule, they indicate that Peter's meeting with Cornelius (Acts 10:25,) happened in 35 A.D. It was this same year that Saul begins preaching Christ as the risen Messiah in Damascus.

• Herod, on the other hand, becomes prominent in our story in chapter 12 of the book of Acts.

Josephus places Herod in the time range of 37 A.D. - 44 A.D. During which time he has James killed, and Peter arrested, with the intent of killing him also.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary explains Acts 12:20 in this manner, “On the appointed day when Herod was delivering a speech, the people honored him as a god, and the Lord God judged him with death, in A.D. 44. This account parallels that given by Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews (19. 8. 2).”

Why would this information be important to us? With Herod gone, those who want Peter killed are effectively gone. Peter then could return to Jerusalem, if he so chose to. That information alone still does not answer the question as to when Peter acted so hypocritical.

It was Paul who told us that he did not interact with others, with the exceptions of spending some time with the local disciples; three years in Damascus, and, after finally going to Jerusalem he spent 15 days with Cephas (Peter), and some brief interaction with James. All of this provided ample time for Peter to tell Paul of his indiscretion, and yet, that apparently did not happen.

Galatians chapter 2 opens with,

Galatians 2:1-2 NASB Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2) It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

If Paul is holding to a chronological timeline, then up to this point he does not indicate that Peter acted hypocritically. When I think about how information transferred from person to person, then I can't exclude Barnabas as one of the messengers. Regardless of how Paul learned of what Peter did, he was not going to let it go, and hence we see Paul confronting Peter about something which Peter probably has to be reminded.

Galatians 2:11 NET. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong.

This passage makes me uncomfortable on several levels.

• First, there is Paul's aggressive and point-blank approach with someone we assume should be given respect.

Peter might deserve respect only because he seems to be part of the Jerusalem council; if not for that reason, one might think he commands a bit of respect simply because he walked so closely with Jesus; apparently, this means very little to Paul.

• The other aspect that makes this difficult is that I was not raised to be disrespectful to people in authority. Lying in bed, not sleeping, I was thinking about this scenario. The Holy Spirit reminded me to consider the Jewish culture; a culture that still pervades their communities today. They, love to debate. To me, this looks like people on the edge of a fist fight, but to them, it is just another day. I have to force myself to set aside assumption frequently, and one of those assumptions has to do with, how long has it been since Peter has done this wrong? With what I perceive as fury on Paul's part, I assumed this event just happened yesterday. The reality is that it may have been 14+ years ago.

Because life takes you on unexpected paths, you can develop a gruff persona as a defense mechanism. Sadly, that persona impacts the way you react to people in your life. I have described my persona as being bear-like. Add to this rough imagery the peculiar gift of being a prophet (I say peculiar because after all these years I have no real definition of what a prophet does; I just know that I admired the Prophet Samuel and he hacked up king Agag.) The combination can be rather explosive at times, as I frequently find myself fighting the desire to call fire down from heaven on people. NO, that has never happened, it's just how I feel, and it comes on especially strong when my pastor unjustly attacks me and then demonstrates how human he is through some false teaching. 

While you may not be able to relate to what I am saying here, I can see this type of behavior in Paul. Keep in mind that Paul told us that he had this continuing thorn in the flesh, a person or thing that continued to keep him humble. Do you think a man that went around zealously trying to kill those who chose to set aside the traditional ways of Judaism, could have anger issues and hence a thorn in his flesh? I think we can see this in his interaction with Peter.

Try to find any other allusions to Peter/Cephas coming to Antioch; you won't.

There is only one reference, and it is Paul that gives it to us. In my pursuit of answers, I searched for significant words such as Peter; believer; Gentiles, and finally, Antioch. As a side note, the word Antioch, using the NET translation, located only 18 references to the name in the New Testament (This is where our focus is centered.) The first occurrence is in Acts 6:5.

Since I already pointed out, from the Chronological Bible, that there were established timelines, and how that in some cases they paralleled Saul/Paul's life with Peter's. And, I have given you that information above. 

Lacking someone else to do a timeline for us, all we have is scripture.

Where is the scriptural proof of this happening? The only place in scripture where this possibility arises is in Acts chapter 10, where Peter goes to the house of the Roman Centurion Cornelius (A Gentile; but an oddity appears in the description of the man, for it calls him devout. Devout could imply he had quietly become a Jewish convert. Practicality says no, but then how would one be able to make an assessment of a man like this, a man said to be devout?)

Scriptural evidence, or proof, is the one thing we should always have when trying to present an informative, intelligent study or Apologetic (A defense.) And, we have a mandate that nothing should be judged without two or more witnesses. In our case, the witnesses are scripture. Well, the answers are out there (as Mulder and Scully used to say on the X-Files television show,) and I thought for a moment that I had found some evidence of Peter in Antioch, but alas, the majority of translations and commentators indicate that Acts 12:17 is speaking of Herod going to Caesarea, not Peter.

Acts 12:17 NASB But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had led him out of the prison. And he said, "Report these things to James and the brethren." Then he left and went to another place.

Although many have commented on this verse, it still brings some confusion because of what Peter says in his instructions to those gathered at the house of Mary. Mary is John Mark's mother, and, according to commentator John Gill, John Mark is the nephew of Barnabas (That makes sense as Barnabas is a significant promoter of John Mark to be on the missionary trips.) Peter tells those gathered at the home that night, that they were to report these things to James and the brethren. Why, because Peter was getting out of town quickly.

Acts 12:17, as I noted above, tells us that, “he left and went to another place.” The obvious question is, where did he go? We are not told that he shared this location with any of the others, quite probably because it could cost them their lives. I would think that in time it would become apparent that Peter had left town.

I thought for a moment that I had found Peter going North as I followed verses 18, 19. However, this is where grammar comes into play, as Herod, not Peter, is the focus of attention.

Acts 12:18-19 NASB Now when day came, there was no small disturbance among the soldiers as to what could have become of Peter. 19) When Herod had searched for him and had not found him, he examined the guards and ordered that they be led away to execution. Then he went down from Judea to Caesarea and was spending time there.

Note how it says, “When Herod had searched for him and had not found him, he examined the guards and ordered that they be led away to execution.” Those Roman soldiers had clues as to where Peter might be found, and I imagine they brutishly questioned and challenged all they spoke with. If Peter was still there, they would have found him. Not obtaining Peter would surely mean their deaths. So the guards had a strong motivation to do a thorough search, and yet, not a trace of Peter was found. What do I make of that? Peter was no longer in Jerusalem.

Still, presuming I have no timeline, then I have only circumstantial evidence. Since the book of Acts is somewhat chronological, then it makes sense to have Peter moving quickly North toward Damascus, where we are about to find a young man named Saul. But, if you were paying attention, you would have noticed that this Herod episode and Peter fleeing, happened in chapter 12, and here I am in Acts chapter 11, where Jewish followers are verbally accosting Peter for eating with Gentiles. 

This verbal attack has some similar properties to Paul's criticism of Peter, which we see in Galatians 2.

Acts 11:1-3 CEV The apostles and the followers in Judea heard that Gentiles had accepted God's message. 2) So when Peter came to Jerusalem, some of the Jewish followers started arguing with him. They wanted Gentile followers to be circumcised, and 3) they said, "You stayed in the homes of Gentiles, and you even ate with them!"

From the viewpoint of a former Gentile; now grafted into the vine. I desire to understand these relatively new Jewish roots of mine. Maybe that is why I find the conversation the Jewish followers are having with Peter so offensive.

Peter explained his actions and this attack against him in Acts 11:4-17.

Acts 11:4-17 CEV Then Peter told them exactly what had happened: 5) I was in the town of Joppa and was praying when I fell sound asleep and had a vision. I saw heaven open, and something like a huge sheet held by its four corners came down to me. 6) When I looked in it, I saw animals, wild beasts, snakes, and birds. 7) I heard a voice saying to me, "Peter, get up! Kill these and eat them." 8) But I said, "Lord, I can't do that! I've never taken a bite of anything that is unclean and not fit to eat." 9) The voice from heaven spoke to me again, "When God says that something can be used for food, don't say it isn't fit to eat." 10) This happened three times before it was all taken back into heaven. 11) Suddenly three men from Caesarea stood in front of the house where I was staying. 12) The Holy Spirit told me to go with them and not to worry. Then six of the Lord's followers went with me to the home of a man 13) who told us that an angel had appeared to him. The angel had ordered him to send to Joppa for someone named Simon Peter. 14) Then Peter would tell him how he and everyone in his house could be saved. 15) After I started speaking, the Holy Spirit was given to them, just as the Spirit had been given to us at the beginning. 16) I remembered that the Lord had said, "John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." 17) God gave those Gentiles the same gift that he gave us when we put our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. So how could I have gone against God?

This vision was a green light to freedom in God's grace, and Peter's call to be a missionary to the Gentiles. Having had this rather enlightening experience Peter passed on the opportunity. Why? Because of peer pressure? 

In summary, Peter's hypocrisy may well have happened at the home of Cornelius where for several days Peter enjoyed the freedoms of grace. How and when Paul found out about it is unknown. But, even with the improbabilities of Paul maintaining an intense anger over Peter's actions for as much as 18 years, it is clear that Paul still dealt with his thorn, which may well be anger.

Entrusted with the gospel to the Gentiles. Galatians 2:6-10

We pick up Paul's oration in Galatians 2:6 having described, in the previous five verses, three years in Damascus with only momentary influences from Peter and James. Paul then tells us that after fourteen years of preaching he is now making a second trip to Jerusalem, to visit the church council of the believing world, which primarily consist of the Apostles.

All the while Paul, who had been a Pharisee, engrossed in the law, and a strict holder of Jewish tradition, has been made aware that the Torah and Tenach (the law and the prophets,) held the freedoms we now understand through Jesus Christ. This insight came strictly from conversations with Yeshua himself. What that conversation looked like is unknown; for example, was it a vision, or a very realistic dream, such as Abram had.

You will find God appearing to Abram several times, once in Genesis 12, and here in Genesis 15. Take the time to study this, and you will see a fascinating detail that most seem to miss. Abram is asleep!

Genesis 15:12-21 NASB Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him. 13) God said to Abram, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. 14) "But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions. 15) "As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. 16) "Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete." 17) It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. 18) On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants, I have given this land, …

Pay attention to the title Amorite. The ISBE tells us the name Amorites is always in the singular like the Babylonian Amurrū from which it is taken. Israel was taken captive by the Babylonians, who had ties with the Assyrians.

Let's take a quick side trip in the book of Acts so that we can see the specifics of what Paul was doing for fourteen years. Without it, we only have assumption to fill in the details behind it all. Some might think Paul just sat on his behind and did nothing? Hardly!

• In Acts 9 Saul meets Jesus on the road to Damascus.
• Acts 9:8-18 introduces us to Ananias who prays for Saul and asks that he be filled with Holy Spirit.
• When many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death; but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a large basket. Acts 9:23-25 NASB
• “When he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. And he was with them, moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord. And he was talking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews; but they were attempting to put him to death. But when the brethren learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus.” Acts 9:26-30 NASB

With Saul now a changed man, there was peace. The church began to grow and be built up. Moving forward in the fear of the Lord and the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase. And everyone said, Amen.

Galatians 2:6 NASB 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.

“But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me.)” Paul knew well that elders deserved respect, but the knee will bow to no one but the Messiah.
The Message translation puts it a bit differently.

Besides, the so-called 'authorities' (it makes no difference to me what their status used to be — God pays no regard to the externals of men), these 'authorities' had no additions to make to my gospel. Galatians 2:6 Moffatt NT)

“these 'authorities' had no additions to make to my gospel.” Whether this means they had no knowledge of what Paul was saying, or they could say nothing different, is not clear. Paul was not a man to shirk, nor did he waste words being derogatory. It would be safe to assume that he continued to preach and teach the message he had received from the Holy Spirit.

On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the Good News for the Uncircumcised, just as Kefa (Peter) had been for the Circumcised; Galatians 2:7 CJB

The Easy to Read Version puts it like this,

“God gave Peter the work of telling the Good News to the Jews. But God gave me the work of telling the Good News to the non-Jewish people.”

Isn't it odd how this worked out? Peter was the one shown the vision of the animals being let down, unclean with clean, and he was told to eat. (Acts 10.) This offering of unclean animals and the push to eat them, was, of course, intentional on God's part and explained to Peter. Only moments later he is called to the house of an unclean (as far as a Jew was concerned,) Roman centurion. God brazenly demonstrated His acceptance of this man's entire family, by baptizing them all in the Holy Spirit. And, it happened right in the middle of Peter's sermon. Most would tell you that Peter had been the one initially called to the Gentiles, but this was about as far as it gets. Here in Galatians 2:7 Paul acknowledges that God has now given him the work of telling the good news to the Gentiles.

Some translations leave the next verse out. Apparently, it is an interpretive thought and adds little to the context. None-the-less, I give it to you.

Galatians 2:8 LITV (for He working in Peter to an apostleship of the circumcision, also worked in me to the nations),

“And recognizing the grace that had been given to me.”

Galatians 2:9-10 NASB and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and 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. 10) They only asked us to remember the poor--the very thing I also was eager to do.

The words we see here in verses nine and ten have been so important to me lately, as I have recently been mocked by a pastor about the possibility of having a prophetic gift (This was not something I advertised but came out of private conversations with that Pastor.) I wondered how that pastor could not or would not recognize the grace that God had possibly given to me. Instead of having someone we deem more skillful or mature in this walk we are on berating us; how about they acknowledge that God may have given us some tremendous gift, even if it works outside their parameters?

Question; How would someone recognize the grace that God had given to you?

• Convincing words.
  I have seen this happen more than once, where fast, smooth talking, people come into to church, and within weeks they are teaching a class. Sadly, only a few weeks later they are gone, offended or bored. Ah, but you might say I am not a smooth talker. If what you are doing is filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, you might be shocked to know that the power invested in you exhibits itself in daily conversations; especially to leadership. (I am not condoning rudeness. However, the same people you need to talk to, are often those who consistently dominate conversations. They find assertiveness uncomfortable when directed toward them.)
• Corroborating evidence. The primary source of this is testimony from others.
  Sometimes, in your simplicity, you will speak the most profound things, and think, why did I say that? Watch the responses you get; those people can be your most valuable witness. As I write this, I am thinking of the blind man Jesus healed, on the Sabbath. That man, a few minutes later, went into the temple (well, that makes sense for he was a Jew.) The priests, knowing that it was the man who sat outside and begged, chose not to believe and ridiculed him, even though he could now see. The point being, some will never perceive the grace in you.
• A significant validation may come from someone who is recognized in the body as being prophetic.
  (I use the word prophetic as it is on my mind; but, I am assuredly not limiting the conversation to the prophetic. In Paul's case, we are talking about evangelism, something I am not gifted in.)

“James and 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.” The right hand of fellowship leans itself towards acceptance. Acceptance allows for freedom. Paul did not start with a mission to the Gentiles but had it forced upon him after repeated attacks from Jews who felt the same way as Paul had.

I spoke of this once before, but because Saul was a well-trained Pharisee, then we know Saul understood the law and the prophets. Gaining insight into the mercy and grace embedded into those texts through revelation may have been an easy task in comparison to teaching Gentiles who knew nothing. Paul, as he was now known, would have had to teach them basics. This new direction would have been quite the task.

Finally, the last obligation given to Paul was to remember the poor. No, we are not under the law, but we do live under the perfect law of liberty, and this should compel us to remember the poor as well.

Related articles

• The Reformation Rolls On:
• Wise Men Still Come from the East
• Who Is Jesus? (3)

Paul's acceptance? Galatians 2:1-5,

The NASB entitles chapter two as Paul's acceptance by the Apostles.

A short side trip.

Is there a difference between the Apostles and disciples? Our mind quickly draws a picture of the twelve that Jesus picked out. Of course, there was Judas who had to be replaced, but effectively we are talking about the twelve disciples. Told to gather in Jerusalem, and wait there until the Holy Spirit came upon them, we see this:

Acts 1:14-15 NASB These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. 15) At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said,”

What we see here is a collection of what was loosely known as the disciples. But notice the quantity – about one hundred and twenty persons. Since women were not high on the priority list, they, except for Mary the mother of Jesus, were probably not counted.

This varied group became the church in Jerusalem. They owned no buildings, obtained no tax exemptions, and still found themselves threatened by the likes of Saul in a very short time. The early church, meeting in small numbers, in homes were very Jewish inhabit and tradition. And, they were many days distant from any of the church bodies that the new disciple Saul, would have established.

We learned, from Saul/Paul's mouth, that:

• For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:12 NASB
• Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. Galatians 1:17-19 NASB

The information (the grace, mercy, and freedom) that Paul preached came straight from God. Mind you, there was that small interaction with James, but that did not account for much. And, I stayed with Peter for fifteen days.

What do we know about Peter?

• Peter was the first one we see being sent to the Gentiles. However, Peter did not grasp what God was telling him and the Gentile evangelistic move on Peter's part died.
• There was the vision of the blanket coming down with clean and unclean animals in it. The voice Peter heard, he identified as Jehovah, told him to eat anything on the blanket. Of course, being a Jew, he could never eat anything unclean. The object lesson was yet to come, as God pointed out that Peter was never to call anything unclean that He had made clean.
• As quickly as the vision came to an end, there was a knock at the door. The visitor pleaded with Peter to come to the house of this man's master, one Cornelius, a Roman centurion, and yet a devout man. The implications show the centurion's devotion to the Jewish way of life. (As Roman, he would have been considered a Gentile and therefore a worshiper of pagan gods. These attributes would have caused the centurion to be deemed unclean and untouchable by a Jew.)

Peter arrives at the Centurion's home and begins to deliver his best message, but right in the middle of if the entire family receives the Holy Spirit and begins speaking in other tongues. Peter is baffled and says, well, I guess the Holy Spirit of God is not exclusive to the Jews. And with that, Peter disappears into the church council in Jerusalem, and we hear little else of Cornelius.

Back to Paul.

Galatians 2:1 NASB Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.

A short stay with Peter, and a brief conversation with James. Paul's stay in Damascus, we assume, lasted three years. Now fourteen years later Paul takes Barnabas, a Jewish convert, and Titus as well. And where do they go? To the council in Jerusalem.

Galatians 2:2 NASB It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

“It was because of a revelation that I went up”, this revelation is a mystery to us. We only know that it was a motivation for Paul to run this message that he preached to the Gentiles, past the church elders. This entire idea is a bit of a problem, for what did Jewish followers know of the Gentiles aside from the prejudice that was integrated into their thought life from their youth.

“I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles”; I can read several layers of meaning into this statement.

• To a degree, he is submitting to the church leadership.
• He is doing a validation check. An underlying tone here could be the belief that they don't get what Paul is teaching, nor do they teach it. Since we can understand that the church elders focused almost strictly on the Jewish community, Paul's message may be heresy as far as they are concerned.
• He is preaching that same message to them. Is it possible that his motives included having church elders expand their target audience?

“but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.” Rarely do you hear anyone speak of Paul as a fearful man, and yet, there is that word, fear. An obvious aspect of this is that Paul had been preaching this gospel to Gentiles already, but wait a minute; having read a rather chronological record of Paul's activities in the book of Acts, we know that Paul spent a tremendous amount of time in the Synagogues. Paul did not take his message to the Gentiles until he had his fill of beatings and attempts on his life at the hands of Jewish zealots. This fourteen year period of time then included the abuse and eventual migration to the Gentile community. Almost all of the new believers/followers of Christ were Jewish. In a moment we will see Barnabas and Titus. Note how Paul tells us that Titus was not compelled to become circumcised, indicating that he was not born Jewish, but says nothing about Barnabas. The implications are that Barnabas was a Jewish convert.

Galatians 2:3 NASB But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

Now, here comes the real reason Paul is in Jerusalem, and it has little to do with acceptance.

So Paul, is in Jerusalem, having secret talks – if you will, with the church elders, because of the next few verses.

Galatians 2:4-5 NASB 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. 5) But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

“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.” How would you make these determinations?

• False brethren
  Are you aware that witch covens have people planted in churches for the express purpose of bringing curses against your pastor and your church body? You might think that would be obvious, especially if they wore a long pointed hat. But you realize that they look like anybody. Unfortunately, most of our false brethren have submitted themselves to Satan's work unwittingly. In being false they slip in quietly and once accepted to some degree, they espouse vehemently, things that are in opposition to the nature and character of God and His word.
• secretly brought in,
  To be secretly brought in implies something intentional. Isn't Satan intentional in his disdain and methods? We are not on a proverbial witch hunt, but what other groups might want to see our groups and churches disrupted? Surprisingly, our governments, with their Antichrist attitudes and laws could fit that description. What about other religious ideologies such as Islam? Islam has stated goals of killing off everyone that is not of their beliefs, and yet the Quran gives them the liberty to lie and deceive in order to infiltrate for the purpose of taking you down and putting you in submission.
• to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus,
  This aspect becomes important went put in the context of Jew converting and becoming followers of the way. Really, they were and still are, adding the richness found in the Messiah; the same Messiah they have spent their lives waiting for. Traditional Jews (Paul was one,) despise this “Gentile” messiah, as they choose to believe we created Him. What they are doing is ignoring chapters like Isaiah 53, which speak of the tortures He endured to bring us this freedom called grace and mercy.
• in order to bring us into bondage.
  Bondage, look the word up and you might find this: See Slave. The dictionary tells us that it is: Slavery or involuntary servitude; captivity; imprisonment; restraint of a person's liberty by compulsion.
  So, Paul, in the course of teaching freedom, occasionally found people, integrated into their groups, that had the express goal of restraining, restoring traditions over freedom, and recapturing those who had been set free.

“But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.” Because we know that Paul went to the council in Jerusalem, we have to assume that here too he sustained some pressure to change. If you read about Paul's trials and tribulations, then you know that this was one of his major arguments. In reply, the council asked no demands of the Gentiles except that they stay away from eating animals with the blood still in them.

Galatians 2:6 MSG As for those who were considered important in the church, their reputation doesn't concern me. God isn't impressed with mere appearances, and neither am I. And of course, these leaders were able to add nothing to the message I had been preaching.

Based upon this statement, “these leaders were able to add nothing to the message I had been preaching.” we can assume that to some degree they understood the message, although they may not have preached it themselves. The Jerusalem council may have been apprehensive about letting the Gentiles into the synagogues, but that was not the issue, nor the question; the real question had more to do with economics, for example:

• If they were Jewish converts, who then would buy the lambs for sacrifice? This is important if they all come to the understanding that Yeshua the Messiah became the sacrificial lamb. This question is not so important if they were merely Gentile believers.
• And what becomes of the important rituals, rituals that probably required some temple fee? In scripture we see a man coming to Jesus and saying, if you will you can make me clean. Well, surely Jesus could and he did make the man clean, but, there is the demand of the law to go and show yourself to the priests. They, in turn, would decree you clean before the community and restore your rights. Jesus helped the man and gave him a stern warning which he ignored, and that was that he tell no one. Did any of you ever question why he would do such a thing? It was because the man was asking Jesus to circumvent the system; a procedure which could have got him prematurely killed.
• And should these converts decide to leave the temple congregation, then the tithing collections will surely drop.

No, Paul stood his ground with these elders. His words surely rang true with them, as they also saw and heard things that were new and controversial. Having nothing they could add the conference was over and the three returned home.

Related articles

• The return of the king: Sunday reflection