Suppose the council had confirmed the teachings of these false brethren, and had decreed that circumcision was necessary for justification; what would have been the result? They would have turned people away from looking to Christ for their justification and forgiveness of sin; if people can be justified by simply cutting off a piece of skin, they have no need of Him.

Paul makes the remarkable statement that when Christ teaches His witnesses, there is a natural agreement amongst them. He had not been instructed by the apostles in Jerusalem, his gospel came straight from God, yet they had the same gospel as he, in contrast to the “false gospel”.

The gospel is not defined by the "importance of men", but all true gospel believers preach the same gospel! Notice, however, Paul’s constant focus here, that God does NOT evaluate people according to their heritage, nationality or position. “GOD IS NOT PARTIAL” to these things.

The gospel was to go both to the “Jews” (circumcised) and the "Gentiles" (uncircumcised) Both needed to hear the gospel! Peter was being led by God to work effectively for the Jewish people, and Paul had his mission to the Gentiles.

At the Jerusalem Council Peter made a strong speech in support of Paul's gospel (see Acts 15:6-11) James, citing scripture, confirmed Peter's speech and the council sent representatives, Silas and Judas, to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas to establish the decision. (Acts 15:25-27) Paul and Baranabas were sent on their mission with the blessings of the other apostles

I agree that IF Christ is doing the teaching then there will be agreement, there will be a oneness of soul and spirit between those who accept His teaching. But the IF is decided by the surrender of self. Self gets in the way of Christ's teachings, and even of our listening to them or accepting them. It is the choices we make that decide if we are really going to be taught by Christ or by someone other than He.

If we surrender self we come into agreement with Christ and with other's who surrender to Him also. This is the promise of Jesus.

I was thinking along the same line and glad you pointed it out in greater detail.
It was a radical change for the believing Jews, even for the apostles. After three and a half years with Christ, they were still disputing amongst themselves who would be the greatest in the kingdom they hoped Christ would set up, which would subjugate the surrounding nations.

The change in them of "before the cross" and "after" is huge! And yes, it took the mighty powerful working of the Holy Spirit within them. and a humbling of self and a much deeper dependence upon God that made the change..

Unity in the truth of the gospel, but diversity in spiritual gifts.

Too often when we see talk of "diversity in the church" people think it means diversity in truth, yet here in Galatians we see that unity in the truth of the gospel was strongly sought, no matter if it "pleased men" or not, for they "did not yield them (those teaching a false gospel) submission, no, not for a minute; that the truth of the gospel might continue".

Diversity is in the gifts of the Spirit, not in the truth of the gospel.

Paul to the Gentiles --
Peter to the Jews --
Both united in the same gospel but having different spiritual gift.

What made Paul more effective as an apostle to the Gentiles?
Yes, he was specially taught by God for his work, that is the prime ingredient for spiritual effectiveness.
Yet we can also consider the backgrounds of these men.

All the original disciples were raised in the Jewish culture, where the resentment to the Roman presence was very strong, and the attitude to keep oneself totally separate from these heathen Gentiles where ever possible, was considered the right way to live.

Paul, on the other hand, though educated as a Pharisee under the tutelage of a very prominent teacher in Judea, never the less grew up in Tarsus (which is in present day Turkey) born of Jewish parents, he was also born a Roman citizen. Thus he understood the Gentile culture in a way that the other apostles did not understand. It would have been easier for him to relate to their way of understanding things.

Missionaries who meet their audience at their present understanding and lead them into truth have far greater success, than those who do not understand the initial mind set of their audience.

In this sense Paul had a spiritual gift -- which the Holy Spirit developed -- which helped to make him a powerful witness to the Gentiles. Peter, on the other hand had a little more of a struggle to entirely let go of his earlier attitude even though he was convinced by the Holy Spirit in the truth that the gospel was for Gentiles as well as for Jews.

Peter's little experience in Antioch shows he still had a struggle, when he sought to "please men" by separating himself from the Gentiles, yet he took the stern reprove from Paul with meekness. The unity in truth was maintained.

I would like to ask a question here.



What, in verse 15, is Paul referring to as "the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances" that Christ broke down to make of two one new man? To what law is Paul referring?

@Gary K

I did a search and came across this post in an old thread: link

It seems good, and especially the quote from A.T. Jones.

Let's see if the context gives the answer:

2:11 Wherefore remember, that you [Gentiles] in the past, born as Gentiles, who are called Uncircumcision by those who are called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
2:12 That at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Before Christ came, salvation was in the keeping of the Israelites who had entered into a covenant with God, the Gentiles were outsiders in a very sad spiritual condition.

The text notes circumcision as a distinguishing mark as to who belongs to the commonwealth of Israel and who is an outsider.


2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off are brought near by the blood of Christ.
2:14 For he is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];

The blood of Christ, His sacrifice, puts them all on the same plane. They are made "one" --
"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. . . . There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:26-28."

He broke down the middle wall of partition between them.
The "middle wall" must be part of the "law in the ordinances" that separated them.

The word "broken down" is more correctly translated as "loosed"
The word "wall" is more correctly translated as "hedge".
putting the two together one should immediately notice that the text should read "loosed the hedge".

What hedges had the Jews established around themselves to protect themselves from the heathen?
One such precept did not allow Jews to enter the home of a Gentile (see Acts 10:28}

We know the whole temple ceremonies offered only very restrictive admittance to Gentiles.
Yet, the ceremonial laws set forth forgiveness and cleansing all in the context of the temple rituals. Without these there was no admittance into the commonwealth of Israel.

The actual ritual mentioned in these verses is the rite of circumcision -- in the Jewish laws, every male must be circumcised in order to be part of the commonwealth of Israel.


2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

So Christ abolished commands contained in ordinances that separated the Jews from the Gentiles.
The context seems to point to

1. Circumcision
Romans 3;30 God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

2. The temple ceremonies for forgiveness and cleansing through sacrifices etc.

Heb7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law
7:24 But this [man, Jesus], because he continues ever, has an unchangeable priesthood.
7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever lives to make intercession for them.





2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

The posts linked, talk a lot about the enmity, trying to link the enmity to ceremonial laws.
Why was the ceremonial law "enmity"? It wasn't.

The enmity was the ill feelings between Jews and Gentiles.
The enmity was the Jews thinking any uncircumsized Gentile was "a dog". And the Gentiles in turn thinking the Jews were a bigoted people, etc.

I will respectfully disagree here. The "enmity" was the natural opposition, even hatred, toward the law of God. But when a man has a renewed heart, this enmity is abolished.

Mrs. White addresses these concepts.



As respects the "Jew" and "Gentile" (assuming converted versus unconverted ones here), God has said He would put enmity between them.



The "seed" of each class deals with the followers--those who are of the same "feather" and "flock together." God will separate His people from the ungodly.

But here is perhaps the best and clearest statement regarding the meaning of the "enmity" in her writings.



It is this enmity against God's law that Jesus came to destroy. By His death, He uplifts and glorifies the law, putting it in a new light--for it was the law that demanded the death of the sinner, but God, fulfilling the law in our place, opened the path to life.

But Paul specifically says that the enmity was "even the law of commandments contained in ordinances". That is very specific. Paul is referring to a law. There can be no doubt about it.

I agree that the law was not the ceremonial law. But what law was it? I have an answer that fits, but just want to see if you come to the same conclusion.