TEXT [Commentary]
C. Paul’s Second Visit: A Strategic Conference (2:1-10)
1 Then fourteen years later I went back to Jerusalem again, this time with Barnabas; and Titus came along, too. 2 I went there because God revealed to me that I should go. While I was there I met privately with those considered to be leaders of the church and shared with them the message I had been preaching to the Gentiles. I wanted to make sure that we were in agreement, for fear that all my efforts had been wasted and I was running the race for nothing. 3 And they supported me and did not even demand that my companion Titus be circumcised, though he was a Gentile.[*]
4 Even that question came up only because of some so-called believers there—false ones, really[*]—who were secretly brought in. They sneaked in to spy on us and take away the freedom we have in Christ Jesus. They wanted to enslave us and force us to follow their Jewish regulations. 5 But we refused to give in to them for a single moment. We wanted to preserve the truth of the gospel message for you.
6 And the leaders of the church had nothing to add to what I was preaching. (By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to me, for God has no favorites.) 7 Instead, they saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews. 8 For the same God who worked through Peter as the apostle to the Jews also worked through me as the apostle to the Gentiles.
9 In fact, James, Peter,[*] and John, who were known as pillars of the church, recognized the gift God had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers. They encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while they continued their work with the Jews. 10 Their only suggestion was that we keep on helping the poor, which I have always been eager to do.
NOTES
2:1 Then fourteen years later I went back to Jerusalem again. The first word in this section, the Gr. epeita [TG1899, ZG2083] (then), introduces the third consecutive statement (cf. 1:18, 21). It implies that, for Paul, the “fourteen years later” followed directly after the previous statement. The question that perplexes scholars is whether or not these fourteen years include the earlier three years (cf. 1:18) and thus should be dated from the Damascus road experience (so Jewett 1979a:52-54 and Longenecker 1990:45; contra Ogg 1968:56-57 and Dunn 1993:87). For my reconstruction of the events in Paul’s life, see “Date” in the Introduction.
2:2 I went there because God revealed to me that I should go. This sentence is a somewhat expanded form of the Gr., which can be rendered, “I went up according to revelation,” or perhaps, “I went up as a result of (kata [TG2596, ZG2848]) revelation.”
privately. The Gr. idiom kat idian [TG2596/2398, ZG2848/2625] emphasizes that even Paul’s second meeting was private.
those considered to be leaders of the church. Lit., “those who seemed to be somebodies” (tois dokousin [TG1380, ZG1506]). A similar expression is used in 2:6, where it clearly refers to the Jerusalem leaders. The Gr. text actually introduces this group earlier in the verse, simply as “them” (autois). Though this could syntactically be taken to denote a separate group of people, it is generally agreed that it is another reference to the “seeming somebodies.” Betz (1979:86-87) differs, however, thinking that the two statements in 2:2 refer to two different groups of people, but he is unable to say exactly who is referred to by “them” (autois).
shared with them the message I had been preaching. Lit., “I laid out before them the gospel which I proclaim.” This statement should not be interpreted as Paul’s submission to Jerusalem authority (contra Schlier 1949:67-68), because it does not imply subordination. In some circumstances, anatithēmi [TG394, ZG423] can imply just the opposite (BAGD 62), but here it is doubtful that Paul was attempting to elevate himself above other preachers.
I was running the race for nothing. Paul was fond of using race/running imagery (1 Cor 9:24-27; Phil 3:12-14). The expression “for nothing” or “empty” (kenon [TG2756, ZG3031]) is familiar in Paul’s writings. In one context, he reminds us that if Christ had not been raised from the dead, both preaching and faith would be empty (1 Cor 15:14, 58).
2:5 But we refused to give in to them for a single moment. “Give in” (hupotagē [TG5292, ZG5717]) lit. means “submit.” The Gr. underlying “single moment” (pros horan [TG4314/5610, ZG4639/6052]), lit. means “for an hour,” and reflects a Semitic way of thinking; in actuality, it should be rendered as implying a very brief period, since time was generally reckoned in hours. The precise Gr. word signifying the smallest amount of time—like our concept of a split second—is atomos [TG823, ZG875]. It is used only once in the NT, in 1 Cor 15:52, where Paul is making an argument for instantaneousness.
The expression hois oude (not to them) was omitted in D* and several Latin sources, including itb, Irenaeus (in Latin), Tertullian, and one ms known to Jerome. It yields the rendering, “we submitted for an hour.” This aberrant text suggests that Paul seemingly relented for a short period and circumcised Titus, but that idea runs counter to Paul’s entire stance in this argument. If it were true, it would render the next statement in this verse both confusing and contradictory—how would Paul’s giving in have “preserved the truth” for the Galatians?
We wanted to preserve the truth. The Gr. introduces this statement by hina [TG2443, ZG2671], which can imply either purpose or result. Here, purpose is primary: Paul was very clear that his stance was absolutely necessary in order to assure the integrity of the gospel.
2:7 they saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching . . . to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility . . . to the Jews. The word translated “Gentiles” is, lit., “uncircumcised,” and the word rendered “Jews” is “circumcised.” This is the way that Jews divided humanity in their thinking. The word translated “given” is pepisteumai [TG4100, ZG4409] (entrusted), which is relatively unusual for Paul, occurring only two other times in his writings (1Cor 9:17; 2 Tim 1:12); it may indicate a recollection of the words used at this early consultation (Betz 1979:96-97).
2:8 For the same God who worked through Peter as the apostle to the Jews also worked through me as the apostle to the Gentiles. This verse reiterates the previous one with a few intriguing features. The expression “as the apostle to” stands for the Gr. apostolēn [TG651, ZG692], which could be used technically as “apostleship” or probably more generally as an expression of “mission” (so the RSV). It is not repeated in Gr. with reference to Paul, which may or may not have had significance in the consultation and which may have been implied by Paul, as suggested by the NLT rendering. In addition, whereas “the circumcision” is once again used for the Jews, the term used for their opposite here is “Gentiles” rather than “uncircumcision” as before. Since “the circumcision” was how Jews usually referred to themselves, this might be an instance of Paul using insider language from his days as a Pharisee.
2:9 James, Peter, and John. The “apparent somebodies,” the reputed ones mentioned in 2:2 and 2:6, are here identified as James (undoubtedly the Lord’s brother, as in 1:19), John (probably the son of Zebedee; cf. Mark 1:19-20), and Peter (actually “Cephas”; see note at 1:18). Longenecker (1990:56) suggests that Peter was probably the recognized leader in these discussions on apostolic mission (as in 2:7; also 1:18; 2:11; cf. the lists of the Twelve; e.g., Mark 3:14-19), but James seems to have been in charge of administrative matters (cf. Acts 15:13), which probably explains the reason for his being listed first here. These “apparent somebodies” are not only identified but are also designated as “pillars,” which suggests that they were accorded a place of honor in the Jerusalem church as representing a secure tradition. But linking “pillars” with the rather ironic expression “those who are reputed” (hoi dokountes [TG1380, ZG1506]; here rendered as “who were known as”) leaves the impression that Paul is speaking tongue-in-cheek. In light of Peter’s actions in 2:11-14, it is likely that Paul is speaking ironically to make the point that all believers, regardless of earthly status, only stand firm insomuch as they reflect the authentic gospel.
they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers. Lit., “they extended to us the right hand of fellowship.” The right hand was regarded by the ancients as the hand of acceptance (cf. Rev 1:17; Josephus Antiquities 8.387; 18.328-329). In the ancient world, the right hand was contrasted with the deceptive left hand, the Latin word for which was sinister.
They encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while they continued their work with the Jews. Lit., “so that (hina [TG2443, ZG2671]) we [would go] to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision.” Does the text imply a mission strategy involving either a geographical distinction (Burton 1921:97-99) or an ethnic difference (Longenecker 1990:58-59), or does it simply refer to two representative authority roles (Dunn 1993:111-112)? Paul’s shorthand, which omits the verbs, unfortunately leaves the case unsettled. The NLT rendering emphasizes ethnic differences.
2:10 keep on helping the poor. The visit recorded in Acts 11:28-30 is also a relief effort; this statement strengthens my argument in the Introduction that it is the same visit as the one Paul mentions here (cf. Bruce 1982:126-127).
COMMENTARY [Text]
Paul’s meeting in Jerusalem probably best coincides with his carrying financial assistance to Jerusalem during the famine (Acts 11:28-30; see “Date, Occasion of Writing, and Audience” in the Introduction for discussion). While some think that this visit is similar to that described in Acts 15:1-35, I find it difficult to conceive that Paul would have overlooked a second visit (described in Acts 11:29) or that Luke would have purposely constructed a sequence involving Paul that had no basis in fact. Moreover, I am convinced that the official decision of Acts 15 had not yet occurred when Paul wrote to the Galatians and that Gentiles such as the Galatians had not yet received a communiqué concerning the resolution of differences between Paul and certain Jerusalem leaders.
In this famine visit, Barnabas accompanied Paul; in fact, Barnabas is mentioned first in Acts 11:30, suggesting that at that time he was the leader of the two. Following the departure of John Mark, however, Luke’s order changed in favor of Paul (Acts 13:43). In Acts, Barnabas is pictured as a significant donor to the church, a Cypriot Levite whose birth name was Joseph. His new name, given by the apostles, meant “son of encouragement” (Acts 4:36-37). He rescued Paul (9:27), and he also rescued Mark after his conflict with Paul (15:39).
Titus, Paul’s coworker, is not mentioned in Acts in connection with either the second or third visits to Jerusalem, although in the third visit Luke mentions that Paul and Barnabas were accompanied by some other persons (Acts 15:2). In the very brief account of the second visit, no additional persons are mentioned as traveling with them, though this certainly does not rule out the possibility that others went to help protect the famine gift for Jerusalem (Acts 11:29-30). While Titus’s presence on this trip was not of great importance for the Acts narrative, Paul makes a point of it in Galatians (2:3) because Titus serves as the test case for his gospel of freedom.
In going up to Jerusalem, Paul believed that he was acting in response to the revealed direction of God (2:2). Once he arrived in Jerusalem, he had a private meeting with the church leaders, which confirms that this visit was the event identified in Acts 11:29 rather than the more public debate suggested for the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:2-7.
Paul called these leaders “the seeming somebodies” or “the apparently reputable ones.” In doing so, he was employing a familiar rhetorical device: he reused the Judaizers’ cherished designations for the leaders of the Jerusalem church in an ironic manner to disparage their argument that they could appeal to a greater authority than Paul. He called his opponents’ reliance on the “pillars” into question and ultimately showed it to be invalid support for their argument. In 2:6, Paul refers to the “reputation” of the Jerusalem church leaders and then contrasts that idea with God’s point of view in that “God has no favorites.” This deconstruction laid the foundation for dealing honestly with the nature of the church “pillars” and the Judaizers’ appeal to their authority (2:9). Thereafter (in 2:11-12), Paul demolished their argument by showing that those authorities had behaved in a way that was quite unlike Christ in regard to the issue at hand.
The sequence of events that Paul recounts in Galatians 2 shows why the expression was at least ironic, if not disparaging. In his report on the meeting with “the pillars,” Paul told the Galatians that they affirmed his joint mission with Barnabas to the Gentiles. Furthermore, the Jerusalem leaders’ acceptance of the Gentile Titus was a significant gesture toward not requiring circumcision for Gentile Christians (2:1-3). The issue would probably not have been raised except that some troublesome, sinister Judaizers upset the harmony of the meetings (2:4). So, Paul presents Titus as a test case against his Judaizing opponents. Titus, a Greek Gentile, had not been circumcised, and no one at Jerusalem required it of him. Some Judaizing opponents at Jerusalem had attempted to make circumcision a basis for Christianity (cf. 2:4), but this view did not prevail concerning Titus. (The strict Jewish opinion was that unless a man was circumcised, he did not belong to the covenant community; cf. McKnight 1991:80-82). Apparently, the views of the troublemakers were summarily dispatched, and agreement prevailed in this private meeting (2:2). But later, the “pillars” were apparently swayed by the erring and irritating Judaizers so that when Peter came to Antioch, he was waffling on the issue of Gentile fellowship and afraid to eat with them while “some friends of James” were there (2:11-12).
Sometimes readers are troubled by the comparison between the noncircumcision of Titus (2:3) and Paul’s later insistence that Timothy be circumcised (Acts 16:3). Paul’s rationale was probably that Timothy had a Jewish mother (Acts 16:1) and should therefore have been regarded as a Jewish Christian, not a Gentile Christian. Although Paul clearly advocated that there should be no distinctions in the gospel understanding (3:28), he also did not want to place hindrances in the presentation of the gospel. Thus, he was willing to eliminate possible hang-ups the Jews might have in order to win them for Christ (cf. 1 Cor 9:19-23). While the story in Acts evidently occurred after Galatians was written, it is important to recognize that Paul was neither anti-Jewish nor anti-Gentile (cf. 3:28), but pro-Christ! Whether someone was Jew or Gentile was not the point for him—they both needed Christ!
It seems clear from 2:4 that the pressure for circumcision did not come from the Jerusalem leaders but from “so-called believers” (pseudadelphous [TG5569, ZG6012], “false brothers”), whom Paul vividly portrayed as sneaking spies (pareisaktous . . . kataskopēsai [TG3920/2684, ZG4207/2945]). Their goal was to discredit and destroy Paul’s gospel. Their evil intent was focused on the missionaries’ teaching about liberty “in Christ.”
Paul pinpointed the spies’ sinister goal as enforcing slavish adherence to Jewish laws and regulations for all Christians. But Paul completely refused to submit to them at all (2:5). He firmly denied any authority or credence to these imposters in their goal of subverting the gospel so that the Galatian Christians—and, by implication, all Gentile believers—would receive an uncontaminated gospel message. Paul’s goal was the continuing preservation of the gospel’s authenticity or integrity (Lightfoot 1865:107).
Once again, he reminded the Galatians that he owed his message to no human being (cf. 1:1, 11-12); in fact, not even the “reputable ones” supplemented his message (2:6). Nonetheless, he sought the apostles’ blessing on his mission to the Gentiles. His desire for consultation proves that he was not a lone ranger. For Jerusalem and Paul to have been presenting different messages would have had disastrous consequences for evangelism (cf. Bruce 1982:111).
While Paul acknowledged the importance of the Jerusalem leaders, he nevertheless made it absolutely clear that human honor and prestige meant nothing. In dealing with his opponents, he realized that they might claim chronological precedence as being on their side if they could base their arguments on the authority of the Jerusalem leaders. Paul completely dismissed this line of thought. He followed this dismissal with a strong counterargument about God’s impartiality (2:6), a familiar Pauline theme (e. g., Rom 2:11; 3:22; 10:12; Eph 6:9). This idea is foundational to Paul’s thesis that there should be no distinctions among humans (3:28).
Paul’s report about his relationship with the Jerusalem leaders is stunning (2:7-8). Not only did the leaders not add to Paul’s gospel requirements, but they recognized that God had divided the responsibility for proclaiming the gospel (not two gospels) between Peter and Paul. Paul named Peter along with himself, indicating that he viewed Peter and himself as the leaders of two distinct areas of mission (for the use of Cephas and Peter, see note on 1:18).
It is probably very difficult for many Western Gentile Christians to grasp the importance of such an irenic spirit of cooperation. The meeting was composed of Jewish Christians who had grown up with a commitment to the Jewish practice of circumcision as the basis for receiving the promises to Abraham. Thus, it was revolutionary for them not to insist that Titus be circumcised. These verses stand alongside the remarkable verses of Acts 11:17-18 in demonstrating the changed mindset of Jewish Christians about Gentiles receiving the gospel.
In the last part of 2:9, Paul concluded his argument against his opponents by indicating that “the pillars” knew that he had been specially gifted by God and that they therefore extended to him and Barnabas “the right hand of fellowship.” This affirmation of their apostolic commission ensured mutuality between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders rather than any kind of subordination.
This consultation visit was concluded with a directive to remember (a present subjunctive denoting continuing activity) the poor (2:10). It represents a familiar biblical injunction for believers to take care of the economically disadvantaged (cf. Luke 6:20). This practice became identified with holiness and humility (cf. Matt 5:3).
In summary, we need to understand that Paul presented his argument by clearly detailing the sequence of events that had taken place. It is not dissimilar to the report in Acts 11, where Peter had to report on the events concerning Cornelius to the Jerusalem leaders so that they could understand that God was doing something new within the church (Acts 11:17-18). Detailing information does not always lead to the resolution of different points of view, but it is an important element in enabling the church to reach greater consensus. Private events and meetings do not always yield merely private outcomes. The implications of such events often have ramifications far beyond the immediate circumstances, and, if the Spirit of God is evident in those events, they can provide insight for the church as a whole and affect the broader history of Christianity.