BIG IDEA:
PAUL’S AUTHORITY RECOGNIZED —
PAUL’S INDEPENDENT MESSAGE AND AUTHORITY WERE STILL VALIDATED BY THE LEADERS OF THE CHURCH IN JERUSALEM
INTRODUCTION:
Philip Ryken: So where does Galatians fit in the chronology of Acts? At first glance, Galatians 2 seems to describe the events surrounding Paul’s third visit to Jerusalem—his attendance at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. However, not all the facts seem to match. Furthermore, there are some important similarities between Galatians 2 and Acts 11, Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem.
There is one more thing to consider. Remember that the Jerusalem Council settled the Gentile question once and for all. At the end of the council, an official decree was issued about the status of Gentiles in the Christian church (Acts 15:23–29), a decree that was distributed to all the churches (Acts 16:4). If Galatians 2 refers to Acts 15, then Paul wrote to the Galatians after the Jerusalem Council. But if that is so, why did he not mention the decision that was made there? This would have ended the argument and stopped the Judaizers from claiming that Jerusalem was on their side.
All things considered, it seems likely that Galatians 2 refers to Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem, and not to the Jerusalem Council. If so, we can offer a rough chronology for Paul’s life to this point. He was converted not long after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, possibly in A.D. 32. He then spent up to three years in the region near Damascus. Sometime around A.D. 34 he made a short trip to Jerusalem to get acquainted with the apostle Peter. This is the visit described in Galatians 1:18–19. Paul did not return to Jerusalem until A.D. 45. His main purpose for going was famine relief. While he was there, however, he consulted privately with the other apostles about his gospel for the Gentiles, as we read in Galatians 2:1–2.
Not long afterwards, the apostle embarked on his first missionary journey, during which he planted the major churches of Galatia. But the Judaizers continued to oppose his mission, especially in Antioch (Acts 15:1; Gal. 2:11–14). The conflict grew so fierce that eventually the church held an official council to resolve it, the minutes of which are recorded in Acts 15. And sometime before that council was held in Jerusalem, Paul wrote his famous pastoral letter to the Galatians.
Alternate View:
John MacArthur: It seems probable, as many scholars believe, that this trip of Paul’s again to Jerusalem was for the council (Acts 15) called to resolve the issue, and that again does not linguistically denote a second visit. (For a thorough treatment of the viability of that view of Acts 15 compared with the view that this text refers to Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem for famine relief recorded in Acts 11:27-30; 12:24-25, see William Hendricksen’s New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Galatians [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971], pp. 69-77.)
Craig Keener: Scholars debate whether 2:1–10 reflects the events of the Jerusalem Council reported in Acts 15 and, if so, to what extent. A significant minority of scholars (including such respected authorities as Ramsay, Bauckham, Bruce, and Trebilco) identify it instead with Paul’s trip to deliver famine relief mentioned briefly in Acts 11:30 and 12:25; the “revelation” of Gal. 2:2 would then correspond nicely with the prophecy in Acts 11:28. Taken as a whole, however, the correspondences between this passage and Acts 15 are more numerous, and I believe that the problems of the famine-visit view outweigh its advantages. With the majority of scholars, therefore (including Lightfoot, Barrett, Betz, Fee, and Kistemaker), I believe that Gal. 2:1–10 and Acts 15 reflect the same events, although from the standpoint of different interests.
Howard Vos: In previous verses Paul has been careful to underscore the divine origin of his message and his independence from the apostolic company, the churches of Judea, and Christian brethren elsewhere. Paul might successfully establish himself as a loner. Could he also win the full approval of the apostles and the mother church? Could he prove that his ministry and message flowed in the main-stream of Christianity? This fact he now sets about to demonstrate.
It is clear from previous verses that Paul’s contacts with the apostles since his conversion had been few and brief. Now finally “fourteen years after” (2:1), he has some sort of official confrontation with church leaders in Jerusalem.
Douglas Moo: But if Paul in Gal. 1 shows that he did not learn his gospel from the Jerusalem apostles, he now demonstrates that those apostles did not add anything to his gospel (2:6; see, e.g., Silva 2000: 55; Tolmie 2005: 71–73). In fact, there was unanimity on the matter at issue both in this Jerusalem meeting and in the churches of Galatia—the inclusion of Gentiles in the people of God without the law. Paul’s independence was not the independence of a maverick or a cultist. His sphere of ministry might have differed from that of the Jerusalem apostles, but there was no fundamental difference among Paul and the others over the essence of that gospel.
Thomas Schreiner: Recognition of Paul’s Authority by Pillars (2:1–10)
I. Gospel explained to pillars (2:1–2)
(1) Fourteen years after Paul’s conversion (2:1)
(2) Visit in accord with revelation (2:2)
II. Circumcision not required (2:3–5)
(1) In the case of the Gentile Titus (2:3)
(2) Issue raised by false brothers (2:4)
(3) Rejected to maintain gospel’s truth (2:5)
III. Nothing added to Paul’s gospel (2:6–9)
(1) By those of reputation (2:6)
(2) Because Paul’s calling was recognized (2:7)
(3) Because Paul’s apostleship on same level as Peter’s (2:8)
(4) Because they recognized Paul was endowed with grace (2:9)
IV. Request to remember the poor (2:10)
Main Idea: When Paul traveled to Jerusalem fourteen years after his conversion, the Jerusalem leaders did not require Titus to be circumcised, even though some false brothers tried to insist on it. Indeed, the Jerusalem pillars added nothing to Paul’s gospel. On the contrary, they ratified it and gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas as missionaries to the Gentiles.
John MacArthur: Recounting his most significant trip to Jerusalem after his conversion, Paul shows by his coming, his companion, his commission, and his commendation that he was of one truth and one spirit with the other twelve apostles.
David deSilva: Paul seeks to strike a delicate balance between
(1) affirming the recognition by the pillars of his apostolic mission and message and
(2) not affirming that they have authority over the same.
The selectivity of Paul’s narrative is especially evident when one considers that he compresses a decade or more of missionary work in Syria and Cilicia into a single verse (1:21) but then gives ten verses to a single episode (2:1–10) followed by at least another four verses to a subsequent episode (2:11–14). This is an additional indication of the specific argumentative purposes behind Paul’s autobiographical narrative.
Bruce Barton: Paul gave four significant aspects of his visit that established his credentials:
(1) the companions on his journey;
(2) the content of his message;
(3) the confirmation of his ministry; and
(4) his commission to come to Jerusalem.
First, his companions: Paul was escorted by a recognized leader (Barnabas) among the Christians in Jerusalem and accompanied by a living product of his ministry (Titus). Paul brought living credentials to endorse his ministry. Second, his content: Paul spelled out the content of his message, inviting correction by the other apostles. He interacted with them as apostolic peers, exercising the same divine authority to preach the same unique message. Third, his confirmation: Having heard the gospel Paul was preaching, the apostolic band recognized it as true and identical to theirs. They recognized his mission to Gentiles as valid and parallel to their mission to Jews. And fourth, his commission: Paul went to Jerusalem in response to divine revelation and at the request of the Jerusalem authorities.
I. (:1-3) THE VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION OF PAUL’S GOSPEL MESSAGE FOR REVIEW BY THE LEADERS OF THE CHURCH IN JERUSALEM
A. (:1-2a) The Occasion — Paul’s Second Visit to the Church in Jerusalem
- Time Interval
“Then after an interval of fourteen years“
No question that Paul had been ministering on an independent basis, rather than dependent on the Church in Jerusalem for the content of his message.
Ben Witherington: The word ‘again’ would seem to support the view that the fourteen years is since Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem, a view which would also seem to be supported by the fact that the main issue in both the preceding and present paragraph is the duration and nature of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem.
Richard Longenecker: His purpose in the use of these temporal adverbs, as we have seen, is to lay out in successive fashion his contacts with the Jerusalem apostles and to assure his readers that he has omitted nothing.
Timothy George: First, what did Paul mean by the expression “fourteen years later”? In considering the similar expression “after three years” (1:18), we noted that in the NT era an inclusive method of reckoning periods of time was often used. By this method any portion of a given year could be counted as a whole year. Thus 2025 would be “three years” after 2023, even though conceivably by this method no more than thirteen months might have elapsed between the two dates. This means that in Gal 1:18 the “three years” could have been slightly more than one, and the “fourteen years” of Gal 2:1 possibly could have covered only twelve.
Another chronological issue concerns the benchmark from which Paul was gauging the time of his second visit to Jerusalem. Fourteen years after what? His first visit to Jerusalem (1:18) or, as seems more likely, his conversion encounter with Christ? If we assume the latter, and factor in the inclusive reckoning of years, we can place the date for Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem around AD 44–46, with the terminus a quo of his conversion occurring in AD 32 or 33. This would mean the events of Gal 2:1–10 parallel the “famine visit” Paul and Barnabas made to Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 11:25–30.
- Voluntary Initiative
“I went up again to Jerusalem“
Not summoned by some church council; his hand was not forced by man.
- Bold Approach
“with Barnabas, taking Titus along also“
Not ducking the central issue of circumcision and Jewish legalism.
Scot McKnight: Barnabas, originally named Joseph, was a Levite who grew up in Cyprus. As a result of his ministries the apostles named him “Son of Encouragement,” i.e., Barnabas (Acts 4:36). We later learn that he was the “cousin” of John Mark (Col. 4:10). His obedience (Acts 4:36–37), reconciling manner, and encouraging temperament (9:26–30), along with his dependence on the Holy Spirit, earned him a prominent ministry alongside Paul (cf. 11:22–26). If the order of names says something, it seems likely that Barnabas held the early lead in his ministry with Paul, but that leadership was eventually surrendered to Paul’s apostolic gifts (cf. 13:1–15:41; but see also 14:14; 15:12, 25). Paul had two known disagreements with Barnabas:
(1) over Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2:11–21) and
(2) over John Mark at the beginning of his second missionary journey (Acts 15:39–40).
It is more than likely that their breach was healed since later Paul ranks Barnabas as an equal minister (1 Cor. 9:6). Barnabas accompanied Paul to Jerusalem in Galatians 2:1 because he was a significant and respected person with the Jerusalem churches. His track record of healing discord and arbitrating between factions made him a suitable companion.
Richard Longenecker: Titus was a Gentile (v 3) who seems to have been converted by Paul (cf. Titus 1:4) evidently at Syrian Antioch. The fact that he is mentioned in Galatians suggests that he was known to believers in Galatia, either personally or by name. Perhaps he had been with Paul and Barnabas on their first foray into the area. In 2 Cor 2:12–13; 7:5–16 he appears as Paul’s representative to the Corinthian church, and in 2 Cor 8:6–24, 9:3–5; 12:18 as the chief organizer for the Jerusalem collection. Somewhat surprisingly, he is not referred to at all in Acts. William Ramsay and Alfred Souter postulated that Titus was Luke’s brother and so was omitted by Luke from Acts, as is Luke himself (W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 390; A. Souter, “A Suggested Relationship between Titus and Luke,” ExpTim 18 [1906–7] 285; idem, “The Relationship between Titus and Luke,” ibid., 335–36). More likely, Titus was omitted because of his close association with the Jerusalem collection, which, except for its mention at 24:17 in Paul’s defense before Felix, also finds no place in Acts (cf. C. K. Barrett, “Titus,” 2; also the comments on Luke’s omission of the Jerusalem collection in my “Acts of the Apostles,” 519). 2 Tim 4:10 speaks of Titus going to Dalmatia, the southern part of the Roman province of Illyricum; the letter to Titus presents him as Paul’s delegate to Crete.
Timothy George: Paul took Titus with him as a test case for the principle of Christian freedom. In some sense this was a deliberate act of provocation although, as John Stott once said, “It was not in order to stir up strife that he brought Titus with him to Jerusalem, but in order to establish the truth of the gospel. This truth is that Jews and Gentiles are accepted by God on the same terms, namely, through faith in Jesus Christ, and must therefore be accepted by the church without any discrimination between them.”
Ben Witherington: Paul’s plan was to press the issue of the status of Gentiles in the church and raise the issue of what was necessary for them to have full participation with Jews in the body of Christ. He would be presenting Titus as a test case to the leaders of the Jerusalem church.
- Divine Summons
“And it was because of a revelation that I went up“
Ralph Martin: Paul clearly states that his second visit to Jerusalem was not due to the Jerusalem leaders’ invitation or his own ambition to have a direct confrontation with them concerning his Gentile mission.
David deSilva: We cannot be certain in what form this revelation came to Paul, whether as a prophetic utterance tested and accepted in the assembly or as a private prompting of the Spirit within Paul. Certainly the phenomenon of a revelation as one of the Spirit’s manifestations is well attested in Pauline Christianity (1 Cor 14:6, 26, 30; Acts 13:1–3), one of the many “wonders” worked by God’s Spirit in the midst of a congregation (see Gal 3:5). Paul is not concerned to elaborate on this detail, but only to prevent any impression that he and Barnabas went as lackeys of the Jerusalem apostles, either summoned by the apostles to give a report on their preaching and activities or as persons aware of needing to give an account to their superiors. Rather, Paul went because God—the God who gave him his commission—directed him to do so.
B. (:2b) The Review of the Gospel Message
- Respectful Approach — But Not Submissive as an Inferior to Superiors
“and I submitted to them“
- Objective Approach — Consistent Content
“the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles“
Robert Gromacki: He declared or laid before them his message for their consideration. He did not go to find out what to preach or to be corrected.
Douglas Moo: On our understanding of the sequence of events, then, Paul and Barnabas traveled to Jerusalem because Agabus had predicted a famine and the church at Antioch wanted to provide help for the believers there. While he was at Jerusalem, and perhaps in response to some concerns about the way Jews and Gentiles were mixing in the church in Antioch, Paul “laid before” (ἀνεθέμην [anethemēn]; cf. also Acts 25:14) the apostles the “gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.”
George Brunk: Paul is therefore saying that his gospel is not dependent on Jerusalem for its authorization, but rather that he is open to mutual discernment and coordination. At the same time, Paul’s willingness to discuss matters with the leaders in Jerusalem shows his respect for the position and role of these persons. The wording makes it clear that the subject of the consultation was the innovations Paul had worked out in his mission for the Gentile practice of the gospel.
- Wise Approach
“but I did so in private to those who were of reputation,
for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain“
Douglas Moo: His fear is not that his gospel will be voided of its power if the decision in Jerusalem should go against him; what he fears, rather, is that a negative verdict will create a fissure in the church between its Jewish and Gentile wings. And the seriousness of such an eventuality explains the strength of the language Paul uses here. The good news has power only as it fulfills the single plan of the biblical God, who made promises to his people in the OT (cf. Rom. 1:2–3; chaps. 9–11). Cutting Gentiles off from the spiritual root that nourishes them (Rom. 11:17–24) would endanger their continuing experience of God’s blessing and favor. And a split between Jewish and Gentile Christians could lead, Paul fears, to just such a situation.
Ralph Martin: This phrase refers to James, Peter, and John (2:9), who were the influential persons in the Christian community in Jerusalem. The first was a member of the family of Jesus; the latter two were part of the original apostolic band.
Richard Longenecker: The unity of the church even amidst its diversity was of great importance to Paul, as his strenuous efforts with regard to the Jerusalem collection clearly indicate (cf. Rom 15:25–32; 1 Cor 16:1–3; 2 Cor 9:12–15). And it was for this unity that he feared, even while having no doubts about the divine origin of his Gentile mission or the truth of his own proclamation.
Craig Keener: His ministry would be pointless if his converts did not persevere in the true gospel for eternal life (Gal. 4:11; 1 Cor. 15:2, 10, 14, 58; 2 Cor. 6:1; 1 Thess. 3:5; for running in vain, see Phil. 2:16).
C. (:3) The Proof of the Approval
“But not even Titus who was with me, though he was a Greek,
was compelled to be circumcised.”
Richard Longenecker: The emphasis in the sentence is on οὐδέ before Titus (“not even Titus”), which is more in line with the view that Titus was not circumcised. Furthermore, while Paul was indeed a master of practical concession without disturbing theological principles, it is extremely difficult to hear him say that “we did not give in to them even for a moment” (v 5a, note the discussion on οὐδέ) and that he had preserved “the truth of the gospel” for his Gentile converts (v 5b), if he had already—whether voluntarily or under duress—conceded the Judaizers’ main point of the necessity of circumcision for Gentile believers. The view that Titus was circumcised but not because of any external compulsion, therefore, rightly deserves to be called “an artificial construction” (so Betz, Galatians, 89).
Timothy George: Verses 3–5 constitute a digression in Paul’s narration of his second visit to Jerusalem. This reflects what was likely an actual interruption in his private conference with the Jerusalem church leaders. The entire passage is fraught with syntactical difficulties and textual uncertainties, leading J. B. Lightfoot to call it “this shipwreck of grammar.” For example, in the Greek text v. 4 lacks both a proper subject and verb, “this matter arose,” being supplied by the CSB translators in order to make sense of Paul’s broken syntax. Paul obviously wrote these verses under great emotional stress, thinking both of the incident at Jerusalem and also of the contemporary situation in Galatia. The intensity and unevenness of his language here has given rise to diverse interpretations of the Titus episode. . .
Circumcision is the act of removing the foreskin of the male genital, a rite practiced among various peoples of the ancient world as a sign of initiation at puberty or marriage. Among the Jewish people, however, circumcision originated in the special covenant God made with Abraham (Gen 17:1–27) whereby every male child, whether freeborn Israelite or household slave, would be circumcised on the eighth day after birth as a sign of participation in the chosen people of God. In the tradition of the great prophets of Israel, circumcision is extended metaphorically to refer to the act of repentance and total consecration demanded by the Lord. Thus Jeremiah could deliver this word from the Lord for the people of his day, “Circumcise yourselves . . . , and take away the foreskins of your heart” (Jer 4:4 KJV). Obviously the children of Israel were guilty of overreliance on the external rite of circumcision and the sacrificial system of the temple to the neglect of what Jesus would call “the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness” (Matt 23:23). There may well be, as some scholars have claimed, a line of continuity between Jeremiah’s spiritualizing of circumcision in terms of a genuine response of the heart and Paul’s use of the term as a metaphor for the Christian life.
David deSilva: The fact that Titus walked away from a meeting with the Jerusalem apostles uncircumcised should also cast serious doubt upon what the rival teachers are claiming now in regard to the importance, even necessity, of circumcision.
George Brunk: Paul’s emphasis on compel indicates that his protest against circumcision for the Galatians is not directed to the act itself, as if it were itself evil, but to the absolute value the teachers were attaching to it. The opponents were teaching that circumcision and other practices of the Law were necessary to be acceptable to God.
II. (:4-5) THE PROBLEM: FALSE TEACHERS WHO WERE PROMOTING THEIR FALSE GOSPEL OF LEGALISM OVER PAUL’S TRUE GOSPEL OF LIBERTY IN CHRIST
A. (:4) Identifying the Troublemakers
- Their Counterfeit Nature
“But it was because of the false brethren“
John MacArthur: The Judaizers were marked as false brethren (pseudadelphos), a phrase that has also been translated “sham Christians” (NEB) and “pseudo-Christians” (Phillips). Those professing Jewish believers had developed a hybrid faith that was true neither to traditional Judaism (because it claimed allegiance to Christ) nor to apostolic Christianity (because it demanded circumcision and obedience to the Mosaic law for salvation).
- Their Deceptive Methodology
“who had sneaked in to spy out“
Thomas Schreiner: Paul also uses two words that suggest that the false brothers had insidiously entered into the church. The word “sneaked in” (παρεισάκτους) indicates that these men had snuck into the church, and the word “slipped in” (παρεισῆλθον) suggests that they were interlopers. We find a similar reference to the false teachers in Jude 4, where the verb “crept in” (παρεισδύω) is used to denote the crafty work of opponents in worming themselves into the life of the congregation. So too in Jerusalem the false brothers had infiltrated the church, but they were not authentic Christians, and their presence created dissension.
Richard Longenecker: Thus οἵτινες here has as its antecedent the “false brothers” just mentioned, and does not have in mind any other group brought in by them. The false brothers not only “infiltrated” the church but also “intruded” (παρεισῆλθον) into its ministry. Such pejorative terms, of course, are Paul’s, and not those of the agitators themselves. In their eyes—as also in the self-evaluation of the Galatian Judaizers, with whom Paul compares them—they were orthodox and conscientious Jewish Christians, who were concerned both for the purity of the Christian message amongst Gentiles and for the welfare of Jewish believers amidst the rising tide of Jewish nationalism (see Introduction, “Opponents and Situation”). For Paul, however, they were false brothers, since they could not accept Gentile Christians as true brothers apart from circumcision and so denied the universality of the gospel.
F. F. Bruce: The ‘spying’ (ϰατασϰοπῆσαι) of the false brothers had no friendly purpose, in Paul’s judgment: they wished to put an end to this freedom, to make those who enjoyed it exchange it for bondage. More particularly, those who now lived in a fellowship where ‘neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision’ (6:15; cf. 5:6) were to be compelled to accept circumcision. It may be that the ψευδάδελφοι claimed the right to exercise ‘supervision’ (ἐπισϰοπή), but Paul defines their activity not as authorized ἐπισϰοπή but as unauthorized ϰατασϰοπή, ‘spying’ (see E. Fuchs, s.v. ϰατασϰοπέω, TDNT VII, 417 with n. 1).
- Their Point of Stumbling
“our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus“
Why should this have been such a problem for them?
John MacArthur: The Judaizers could not tolerate a gospel that was not tied to Mosaic ritual and law, because their view of salvation was centered in what they could self-righteously perform to earn favor from God rather than in what God could do for them.
In Christ Jesus believers have liberty from the law as the way of salvation and liberty from its external ceremonies and regulations as the way of living. Because Christ has borne that curse (3:13), they also have liberty from the curse for disobedience of the law, which God requires all men to obey but which no man is able to perfectly keep. Christians are under an entirely different kind of law, “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus [that sets them] free from the law of sin and of death” (Rom. 8:2).
Freedom is a much-repeated theme of the New Testament. In Christ believers “have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter” (Rom. 7:6), because “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3:17). “If therefore the Son shall make you free,” Jesus said, “you shall be free indeed” (John 8:36).
Christian freedom is not license. When we become free in Christ we lose our freedom to sin, of which we were once a slave. In Christ, “having been freed from sin, [we] become slaves of righteousness” (Rom. 6:18). “For you were called to freedom, brethren,” Paul explains; “only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh” (Gal. 5:13). Peter expresses the same truth in these words: “Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God” (1 Pet. 2:16).
- Their True Agenda
“in order to bring us into bondage“
B. (:5) Refusing to Exchange Liberty for Legalism
- Not Giving in to their Pressure (to fall back into Legalism)
“But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour“
Nijay Gupta: Paul refused to budge on the circumcision-free nature of the gospel he preached to gentiles (see Gal 2:5). When Paul refers to the preservation and purity of the “truth of the gospel” (2:5; cf. v. 14), he has in mind here the full freedom, joy, and hospitality of the gospel message. The essence of the gospel, for Paul, was all about uniting with God through Jesus Christ and participating fully in the empowering life of Christ by his grace (vv. 19–20). Such a transformative relationship means that dividing lines like Jew and gentile are insignificant when it comes to the family of God in Jesus Christ (3:28). Paul firmly believed that the gentile Titus was as secure in his relationship with God as Cephas, James, or Paul himself, not because of circumcision (5:6; 6:15) but because of being one with Jesus Christ by faith. Or, as Gordon Fee puts it, “Gentile believers in Christ must be identified only by the markers that are specifically Christian: Christ and the Spirit. Otherwise, the gospel is for naught.”
- Maintaining the Truth of the Gospel (a life of Liberty in the Spirit)
“so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you“
Douglas Moo: The end of the verse indicates the purpose for which Paul refused to yield to the false brothers: in order that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. Paul succinctly summarizes what, for him, was at stake in this Jerusalem meeting: “the truth of the gospel.” The genitive in the underlying Greek phrase is one of those that defies simple classification. Perhaps it is loosely possessive: the truth that belongs to, that is part of, the gospel. As Silva (2000: 54) has argued, both words in this phrase, which is unique to Gal. 2 in Paul’s writings (see also v. 14), are important: truth is upheld only by the gospel; and the gospel is truly the gospel only if it corresponds to the truth. The particular aspect of the “truth of the gospel” in view here is its power both to bring Gentiles into relationship with God and to maintain them in that relationship right up through the judgment day. Titus, the test case before the council, is a Gentile who has believed the gospel, and he need not add circumcision (or by derivation, obedience to the law of Moses) to that step of faith. By extension, then, the “truth of the gospel” refers to the inherent power of the gospel, by God’s grace, to justify and vindicate at the last judgment any human being. Grace is the critical matter (cf. v. 7; 2:21; and Lightfoot 1881: 107; Betz 1979: 92).
David deSilva: The “truth of the gospel” survived rather than perished as a result of his bold resistance. His heroic efforts should arouse due loyalty and gratitude on their part, rather than defection toward those whose message resembles the one that Paul resisted—and the one to which the pillars did not give their support (2:9).
III. (:6-10) THE UNQUALIFIED RECOGNITION OF PAUL’S GENUINE AUTHORITY AND EFFECTIVE MINISTRY
Thomas Schreiner: The main point in 2:6–10 is that the men of repute added nothing to Paul’s gospel (2:6). This truth restates the main point of 2:1–5, where it was decided that Titus would not be circumcised. In other words, the pillars of the church did not add to Paul’s gospel by requiring circumcision. Not only did the pillars refuse to add anything to Paul’s gospel, they also (2:7–9) specifically gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. In other words, they ratified the validity of Paul’s gospel—for two reasons (marked by causal participles).
(1) They recognized that he had been entrusted by God with the gospel for the Gentiles (2:7). Indeed, Paul’s calling to the Gentiles was on the same plane as Peter’s calling to preach the gospel to the Jews (2:8).
(2) They recognized Paul had been endowed by God with grace for ministry (2:9).
A. (:6) Paul’s Apostolic Authority Not Dependent on Human Commendation
“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.”
Howard Vos: After a parenthetical statement about Titus in verses 3-5, Paul returns to the subject he was discussing in verse 2. In Jerusalem he conferred privately with those “who seemed to be somewhat,” or those “reputed to be something.” Here Paul takes the term used by the Judaizers for James and the Twelve, whom they pitted against Paul. Parenthetically Paul says the greatness of their reputation really didn’t matter to him—his gospel came from God Himself. But he hastens to add that God accepts no man’s person, not even Paul’s. Thus the apostle makes it clear that neither the Twelve nor he nor anyone else really makes any special impression on God. Moreover, the message of no Christian worker is superior or right because of the greatness of the worker.
Ben Witherington: Paul enunciates a basic principle that affects how he views the whole matter of human honor rating systems at vs. 6b – literally ‘God does not accept the face of human beings’. This is clearly enough a Hebrew expression that comes out of a culture where giving and accepting of face is an important value. It was also a culture where God’s people were reminded God has no regard for the status, ascribed or achieved, of human beings (cf. the LXX passages where ‘face’ is discussed – Lev. 19.15; Deut. 1.17; 16.19; 2 Chron. 19.7; Job 13.10; Ps. 81.2; Prov. 18.5; Mai. 2.9). The meaning of this key phrase is not so much that God shows no partiality as a judge although that is a Biblical notion as well, but that he does not evaluate human beings on the basis of their ‘face’, their honor rating or credentials. It is interesting that in the NT ‘accepting face’ is seen as a bad thing. As Lightfoot says it signifies giving regard to the external features of a person’s life – wealth, status, rank, power, authority, gender, race and the like. The opposite of this is considering a person’s real intrinsic character, or from a Christian point of view considering what they are by and through the grace of God. By placing the word Θεòς in an emphatic position Paul is contrasting human ways of evaluating people with God’s way. He is suggesting that he is following God’s lead in this matter, unlike the agitators in Galatia and perhaps various others.
Thomas Schreiner: Paul was certainly not dazzled by the Jerusalem leaders, for their former status meant nothing to him. Paul did not reject the apostolic authority of the pillars, but he rejected an obsequious veneration of them. Perhaps the Judaizers in Galatia are subtly criticized here since they desired to make a good showing in the flesh (6:12). One should not become preoccupied with the pillars because God is not partial to any person, nor is he impressed with the reputation of anyone. Paul continues to support the claim that his ministry is not motivated by a desire to please people (1:10), and here he supports it by showing that the high status of the pillars does not lead to any alteration of his gospel.
Transition: “But on the contrary”
Douglas Moo: Paul now, by contrast (ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον, alla tounantion, but instead), states the positive result: the Jerusalem apostles expressed their endorsement of the gospel preached by Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles by extending to them the right hand of fellowship. This main point of the second part of Paul’s compound sentence is delayed until verse 9. Paul leads up to it by noting two facts that the apostles recognized about Paul and his ministry:
(1) that Paul had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcision (v. 7) and
(2) that Paul’s ministry was the result of God’s grace working in and through him (v. 9).
Each of these points is introduced with an adverbial participle: ἰδόντες (idontes, seeing) in verse 7; γνόντες (gnontes, knowing) in verse 9. Both verbs connote mental perception in this context (R. Longenecker 1990: 55), and the aorist form of both participles may suggest an inceptive idea: the Jerusalem leaders “came to recognize” these key facts about Paul’s ministry (Martyn 1997: 201, 203).
B. (:7-9a) Paul’s Ministry to the Gentiles Comparable to Peter’s Ministry to the Jews (note chiastic structure)
- Comparable Calling
a. Ministry of Paul — Distinctive Emphasis
“seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel
to the uncircumcised“
Craig Keener: God entrusted Paul with this mission (Gal. 2:7; 1 Thess. 2:4); he ultimately had no right to refuse it (1 Cor. 9:17, where Paul again uses this verb in the middle voice). To oppose Paul’s mission was therefore to oppose the one who entrusted him with it; how one treated an agent reflected one’s view of the agent’s sender.
b. Ministry of Peter — Distinctive Emphasis
“just as Peter had been to the circumcised”
Thomas Schreiner: Paul does not speak of two different gospels in content but of two different cultures in which the one gospel was proclaimed. Indeed, the last clause of this verse demonstrates that Peter was entrusted by God with the gospel as well, but his field of service was to the circumcision, i.e., the Jews. Paul emphasizes here that both he and Peter shared the same authority as apostles; they simply labored in different spheres. It should be noted as well that Paul does not question Peter’s apostolic authority. He too was entrusted with the gospel, which suggests that Paul believed that Peter preached the same gospel he did.
Timothy George: The decision to divide the missionary task of the church into two major thrusts, one led by Peter to the Jews and the other by Paul to the Gentiles, was a matter of practical necessity and wise stewardship. It would be a mistake to press the distinction too far, as though Peter and the apostles with him would be allowed to witness to Jews only, while Paul and Barnabas could speak to Gentiles only.
- Same Power of God at Work
a. Ministry of Peter
“for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship
to the circumcised“
Bruce Barton: The focus here is on the enabler—God. The apostles realized that as God was at work in the ministry of Peter among the Jews, so God was at work in Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles. In each case they were able to identify God as the agent, giving great success to both men in their parallel ministries.
b. Ministry of Paul
“effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles.”
David deSilva: The similarities between what was happening in their gentile mission and in the Jewish mission spearheaded by Peter constitute sufficient evidence for the pillars that the one God was indeed at work in both missions, extending the deliverance of his Son in both spheres, Jew and gentile (2:8).
- Same Grace of God at Work
“and recognizing the grace that had been given to me“
Tony Evans: Paul also contrasts his mission with that of Peter. Peter was given the ministry to the Jews. This has caused many to assume that Jews are saved by one method, and Gentiles by another. Such is not the case. On what grounds do Jews base their being chosen by God? It is on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant. What is the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant? Grace! God chose Abraham Due to grace. God did not choose Abraham because He was indebted to him. When Abraham (Abram) was chosen he was not a Jew. In Abram’s day there were NO Jews. Abram was a Gentile by birth. Abraham believed God, and because of that God accepted him. That acceptance was the result of grace. Today, we believe God. We trust that He sent His only begotten Son Jesus, and the Father accepts that as righteous. We are saved by the same method that brought Abram righteousness. Abram was a Gentile convert. Both Paul and Peter had God’s power resident in them. Peter for the work among the Jews, Paul for work among the Gentiles.
C. (:9b-10) Formal Recognition of Ministry Partnership
- Impressive Commendation by the Leaders of the Jerusalem Church
a. Their Names
James
Cephas
John
b. Their Reputation
“who were reputed to be pillars”
Ben Witherington: The term στῦλοι is interesting and would seem to suggest that this Jerusalem triumvirate were seen as the main supporting columns in the eschatological and ‘spiritual’ Temple of God currently under construction by God through the Gospel about Christ. As Barrett rightly points out, the word ‘pillars’ frequently appears in the LXX in reference to the supports of the tabernacle and later the columns of the Temple. Note especially the language about the Solomonic temple in 1 Kngs. 7.15–22; 2 Chron. 3.15–17 (cf. 2 Kngs. 23.3; 2 Chron. 34.31 on the names of the columns – Jachin and Boaz).This conclusion is supported by what we find in Rev. 3.12 (cf. 1 Clement 5.2). It must be remembered that there was considerable speculation about the destruction and reconstitution of the Temple in the eschatological age (Ezek. 40–48; Jub. 1.17–28; 1 En. 90.28–29; 11QTemple; Test. Ben. 9.2), and Jesus himself seems to have had something to say on this very matter (Mk. 14.58; Jn. 2.19; Acts 6.14), as did Paul who saw the body of Christ as also the Temple of God (1 Cor. 3.16–17; 2 Cor. 6.16 cf. Heb. 3.6; 10.21; 1 Pet. 2.5). In other words, calling these three men the pillars was no small honor rating. It meant they were holding up and holding together the people of God being now renewed and restored in Christ. It invested in these men an enormous importance and implied they had tremendous power and authority.
- Grateful Reception by the Ministers to the Gentile Church
“gave to me and Barnabas“
Why no mention of Titus?
- Symbol of Ministry Partnership
“the right hand of fellowship“
C. S. Lovett: “The other apostles give full sanction to Paul’s ministry, acknowledging his commission, received by revelation, to be identical with the one they received from Jesus in Person.”
Scot McKnight: They verbally, theologically, and now publicly agreed with Paul’s message (it was pure and truthful) and his sphere of ministry (the Gentile world). They publicly announced that they thought God had called Paul to this very task. It could be profitably compared today to an ordination committee’s endorsement of a candidate after lengthy questioning and discussion. Astute committees (then and now) can quickly get to the heart of the issues to determine whether a given candidate is orthodox or not. The endorsement by the “pillars” was genuine, and Paul was introduced as one who preached the gospel of Jesus Christ faithfully and accurately.
George Brunk: This brings Paul to the specific outcomes of the consultation. He begins not with a formula of agreement but with a symbol of accord: They gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship. The common cultural practice of clasping right hands to show friendship and to confirm agreement is used here with both senses. The handshake emphasizes the elements of relationship and trust, as does the word fellowship.
- Division of Responsibility (Validating the Status Quo)
a. “that we might go to the Gentiles“
b. “and they to the circumcised“
- Practical Show of Brotherly Love
a. Request by the Apostles
“They only asked us to remember the poor”
Douglas Moo: Jews viewed almsgiving as one of the key aspects of a truly pious attitude toward God (Dunn 1993a: 112), and perhaps the Jerusalem pillars are asking that Paul’s Gentile mission continue to make financial support of the poor a priority. This request would make especially good sense if, as we think, Paul is being asked to do this as he visits Jerusalem to bring aid to Jerusalem Christians (Acts 11:27–30; see esp. Downs 2008: 34–37).
Ralph Martin: Why were the Jerusalem saints (1 Cor. 16:1) stricken by poverty? Famine was only one of the factors, though a key one. Other factors also contributed:
(1) Many new believers had liquidated their assets by selling their properties to form a common fund for communal life after their conversion (Acts 2–4);
(2) there was an increasing number of widows (Acts 6) living in Jerusalem;
(3) believers were persecuted following Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 8:1–2).
George Brunk: The point here is not that Paul agreed to round out his theology with social concerns. Indeed, Paul confirms that his theology was already holistic in that way. Rather, the Jerusalem leaders hope to avoid a practical split between the two branches of the church resulting from separate missions. Given the poorer social and economic conditions of the Jewish context in comparison to the Greco-Roman context, such a split would have resulted in greater economic disparity at the expense of the Jerusalem church. Clearly the Jerusalem leaders are concerned about the material needs of their people. But their concern could also be grounded in a larger vision of unity and fellowship. Paul certainly understood the relief aid to Jerusalem as carrying symbolic and theological implications. To the believers in Rome, he described the financial aid as a debt to the Jewish believers owed because the spiritual blessings of the gospel had come from them (Rom 15:27). Here is further evidence (see Gal 2:2) that Paul was committed to a theological and practical continuity between the older (Jewish) people of God and the newer (Jewish and Gentile) people of God in Christ.
b. Response from Paul
“the very thing I also was eager to do.”
(Rom. 15:25 ff., 1 Cor. 16:1 ff., 2 Cor. 8:1 ff., 9:1 ff., Acts 11:29 ff., 12:25, and 24:17)
Timothy George: Paul indicated that the request to remember the poor was not received as an onerous burden but rather as an activity he had already begun and was eager to carry forward. We know from his later writings that Paul devoted much time and energy to the collection of a special offering for the Jerusalem Christians (Rom 15:25–33; 1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8:9). The churches of Galatia were among the Pauline congregations who contributed to this relief effort. For Paul this effort was an important witness for Christian unity, a tangible way for Gentile Christians to express materially their appreciation for the great blessing in which they had shared spiritually with their brothers and sisters in Jerusalem. Paul himself carried this love gift to Jerusalem on his last visit to that city, during the course of which he was arrested and began the long journey to Rome that ended with his execution.
Clark Pinnock: As a fraternal gesture, motivated by real love, Paul agreed to do what he could to help the ‘poor.‘ This is a reference to the saints in the Jerusalem church who were extremely destitute. None of Paul’s Gentile churches were so poor. Later on Paul was able to raise a collection from them in fulfilment of his promise here.
John MacArthur: To take care of the poor is not only a practical but a spiritual responsibility, because to forsake that responsibility is to disobey God’s Word. “Whoever has this world’s goods,” John declares, “and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (1 John 3:17). James says that it is a sham believer who says to “a brother or sister . . . without clothing and in need of daily food, . . . ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet [does] not give them what is necessary for their body” (James 2:15-16; cf. Ex. 23:10-11; 30:15; Lev 19:10; Deut. 15:7-11; Jer. 22:16; Amos 2:6-7; Luke 6:36, 38; 2 Cor. 8-9).
Paul was therefore eager to do all he could to fulfill the request of James, Peter, and John, as his numerous and constant collections for the poverty-stricken saints in Judea attested. His command that “if anyone will not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thess. 3:10) pertained to the lazy, not the helpless and needy. He continually encouraged believers who were more prosperous to give financial aid to fellow believers who were in need; and he heartily commended those who were generous (Acts 11:29-30; 24:17; Rom. 15:25-26; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-6; 9:1-5,12). “For if the Gentiles have shared in their [the Jerusalem saints’] spiritual things,” Paul explained to the Roman church, “they are indebted to minister to them also in material things” (Rom. 15:27).
David deSilva: Leaving Jerusalem after this second visit, then, Paul had the impression that the questions swirling around his gentile mission were settled. He had indeed won a decisive victory over against those who challenged his mission insofar as the pillar apostles recognized Paul and Barnabas as apostolic colleagues and, furthermore, did not support the call for Titus’s circumcision. The episode that would follow in Antioch (Gal 2:11–14), however, revealed that many questions remained unanswered—and that these, in turn, called even the most fundamental issues “settled” in Jerusalem into question anew.