Welcome back to my study/review of The Epistle to the Galatians. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Galatians 2:1-10
2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
________________
Paul’s letter to this point is giving a very brief summary of his credentials and the history of his ministry work. In chapter 1, he describes his conversion and his three years in Arabia and Damascus before his first visit to meet with Peter and James in Jerusalem. Here he jumps forward in time another 14 years to his second visit to Jerusalem. This puts us at around 47 – 50 A.D. (though it should be pointed out that there is not universal / precise agreement on these dates.) The difficulty in discerning the timeline precisely is not knowing what event marks the starting point of the “14 years” metnioned above.
Sometimes you read modern scholars asserting that Paul and Peter were at odds. This assertion runs counter to Church tradition and it also runs counter to the inference of not just this Epistle, but most of Paul’s epistles, wherein he always seems deferential to Peter (Cephas) in particular. This will hold true even in the text wherein he describes challenging him, but we’ll get to that n the next set of verses.
And for his part, Peter in his own letter refers to Paul as a beloved brother.
2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
He describes Paul as a beloved brother and he describes enemies of the faith who try to twist Paul’s words to create destruction.
Let’s now jump into the text, looking at notes from Ellicott’s Bible Commentary to help us out.
Verse 1
Fourteen years after — From what date is this fourteen years to be reckoned? The phrase “I went up again” seems to be decisive in favour of reckoning it from the visit to Jerusalem just mentioned. We should therefore have to add the three years of Galatians 1:18, in order to reach the date of the Apostle’s conversion The relation of the present narrative to that in the Acts will be more fully discussed in an excursus. (See Excursus A: On the Visits of St. Paul to Jerusalem.)
In the meantime, it may be assumed that there appear to be sufficient reasons for identifying the visit to Jerusalem here described with that recorded in Acts 15, commonly known as the Council of Jerusalem, which is placed by the best chronologists about A.D. 50 or 51.
And took Titus with me also — In the corresponding passage (Acts 15:2) we are told that “certain others” were sent with Paul and Barnabas. St. Paul mentions especially Titus because of the part which he subsequently played in the history of the Council, and because of the importance of this for his present argument.
The note points out that Paul’s relaying of this history is important to giving him a magisterial authority in the argument that he will be making later in this Epistle. Anyone who will want to cite Peter or other Apostles against Paul will not succeed on that basis. Further, Paul continues adding to his position of authority as chapter 2 continues. Again from Ellicott:
Verse 2
By revelation — Revelations seem to have been vouchsafed to the Apostle in various ways—most frequently in dreams or nocturnal visions (Acts 16:9; Acts 18:9; Acts 23:11; Acts 27:23), but also in a state of trance (Acts 22:17), and through other undefined modes of intimation (Acts 16:6-7; Acts 20:22-23). By what particular form of revelation he was guided in this instance does not appear. It would seem that this inward spiritual guidance granted privately to the Apostle coincided with a formal commission from the Church at Antioch (Acts 15:2), which, as the external and apparent side of the transaction, is naturally related by the historian, while it is just as naturally omitted by the Apostle, whose thoughts are directed rather to his own personal conduct and motives.
Communicated unto them — i.e., the Church at Jerusalem. A distinction appears to be drawn between what the Apostle said in his public intercourse with the Church and the more detailed conference or conferences into which he entered privately with the Apostles.
Which I preach — The present tense is noticeable. The gospel which the Apostle had been preaching up to the time of the Council of Jerusalem was the same as that which he still preached at the time of his writing to the Galatians. It had undergone no change in its essential features, especially in the one doctrine which he was most anxious to impress upon the Galatians—the doctrine of justification by faith.
Privately to them which were of reputation — Better, more simply, to them of repute. The present tense is again used, the Apostle hinting, not only at the position which the Judaic Apostles held at the time of the Council, but also at the way in which their authority was appealed to by the Judaising partisans in Galatia. There is a slight shade of irony in the expression. It is not so much “those which were of reputation” in the gathering at Jerusalem as “those who are still held to be the only authorities now.”
Who are meant by “them of repute” appears more distinctly from Galatians 2:9, where James, Peter, and John are mentioned by name.
Lest by any means — The Apostle did not really want confidence in his own teaching. And yet he was aware that it rested solely upon his own individual conviction, and upon the interpretation that he had put upon the intimation to him of the divine will. There was, therefore, still a certain element of uncertainty and room for confirmation, which the Apostle desired to receive. His character hits the happy mean between confidence in his cause (self-confidence, or self-reliance, as it would be called if dealing with a lower sphere), without which no great mission can be accomplished, and opinionatedness or obstinacy. He, therefore, wished to “make assurance doubly sure,” and it is this confirmed and ratified certainty which animates his whole language in writing to the Galatians. Something of it, perhaps, is reflected back upon his account of the earlier stages in the process through which his opinions had gone, given in the last chapter.
I should run, or had run — St. Paul here introduces his favourite metaphor from the foot-races, such as he might see in the Isthmian games at Corinth. (Comp. especially, for a similar reference to his own career, Philippians 2:16; 2 Timothy 4:7.)
Verse 3 directs us to the issue about which Paul is largely writing, though his focus will eventually be more on the spirit beneath the debate, as much as whether Greeks must undergo circumcision. Paul is concerned with “Judaizers” more broadly. Titus – as a Greek convert – certainly has a personal stake in the outcome of the debate.
This is what Ellicott points out for verse 3:
Verse 3
But neither Titus . . — This and the two following verses are parenthetical. The result of the private conference with the Judaic Apostles is not given till Galatians 2:7; but without waiting for this, the Apostle turns aside to give one emphatic piece of evidence that his practice in regard to the Gentile converts was not interfered with. The question of principle was raised in the case of Titus, and there he stood his ground, in spite of the pressure that was put upon him.
In addition to its bearing upon the main argument, there is probably a special reason for this mention of the case of Titus. At the beginning of his second missionary journey, on taking with him his youthful convert Timothy, St. Paul made so much of a concession to Jewish prejudices as to have him circumcised (Acts 16:3). We shall see later that this gave rise to a charge of inconsistency, which the Judaising party in Galatia were not slow to make use of. (See Galatians 5:11, and Notes there.) There was indeed some real inconsistency, but not more than any one who is engaged in the struggles of active life will constantly find himself drawn into. The meeting at Jerusalem was a crisis in the history of the Church. The question of principle was at stake. Concession herein would have been ruinous and fatal, and the Apostle stood firm. On the other hand, the circumcision of Timothy was merely a practical compromise to smooth the way for the preaching of the gospel in new regions. The Apostle was too wise to incur needless opposition, which would bar the way to essential truths on a point which, though in some of its aspects involving principle, was yet in others of quite minor importance. Besides, there is this to be noticed, that whereas Titus was by descent wholly a Gentile, Timothy was, on his mother’s side, a Jew.
Turning to the phraseology of the passage, we may observe that the opening clause would be better translated, But not even was Titus . . . compelled to be circumcised. “Not even” refers to the prominence which Titus assumed as being associated with St. Paul in his ministry. This was a special reason for insisting upon his circumcision; and yet he was not circumcised.
Being a Greek — Rather, a Gentile. It is observed that the Peshito version translated the word here rendered “Greek” by “Aramæan” or “Syrian.” All idea of pure Hellenic descent has dropped out of it.
The note reminds us that Titus is mentioned to provide some contrast with Timothy. As was the case in subsequent Church councils over the centuries, the Council in Jerusalem, to debate whether gentile converts must be circumcised, was brought about by a need for clarity in the midst of sincere confusion. The history of the Church teaches that confusion will arise, one one point or another, and that the response to the confusion is important. As we’ll see, order will be brought forth from disorder. We see that later in the Christian unity of Timothy and Titus, who were in some sense on opposite sides of this debate – at least insofar as they took personal action. Continuing in Ellicott:
And that because of . . — The sense is here, in any case, broken and imperfect. It seems, on the whole, best to supply the missing clause thus: “But (or, though) on account of false brethren . . . [I was urged to have him circumcised].” The leaders of the Church at Jerusalem took the ground, not of insisting upon circumcision as a necessity, but rather advising it as a matter of policy, to allay the ill feeling excited against St. Paul by designing men, traitors in the camp, who, though Christians in name, were Jews at heart. Many commentators, however, adopt the rendering of the Authorised version: “And that because of false (or rather, the false) brethren,” understanding that he was not compelled to be circumcised. The reason why Titus was not circumcised was the evidently interested and treacherous motives of the Judaising partisans who clamoured for it.
Unawares brought in, who came in privily — These two words correspond to each other in the Greek, and bring out in a graphic and forcible way the insidious and designing character of the party most violently opposed to St. Paul. Professing to be Christians, they were really Jews of the narrowest sort, who only entered into the Church to spy into and restrict its liberties.
Which we have in Christ Jesus — The Christian Church is the Messianic kingdom, which derives all its attributes directly from its Head. If it is free, Christ has won for it its freedom, by relieving it from the burden of the Law, by abolishing race distinctions, and offering all the Messianic privileges to those who through faith are united to Him.
Bring us into bondage — The “bondage” is, in the first instance, that of the Mosaic law, and through it the personal domination of the Jewish partisans.
It’s interesting to read here an account from Paul that some of the Church’s converts were false converts. He calls them false brothers. We can only guess at whether these false brothers had well-intentioned but misguided motives, or whether the motives were wholly bad. However, the implication is certainly the latter. Perhaps the truth might be that these false brothers were planted by Satan, and their motives can better be judged by their response to the rebuke coming their way. This idea of false brothers is not new with Paul. Jesus himself warned of this and the Apostles saw it first hand in the person of Judas Iscariot.
Matthew 13: 24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”
This is an important thing for the Church to be aware of and to police. How often is it that a false brother living within the Church community does something terrible and then his terrible action is credited to those who are not false? The answer is that this happens a lot. It’s not hard to see why an enemy of the Church would utilize this tactic. Paul’s response to this – and we see it not just in this letter but in many of his letters – is to provide a rebuke and to do so on the basis of his authority. Continuing in Ellicott:
Verse 5
To whom — i.e., to the Jewish agitators, though probably not so much in their own persons as through the Apostles who advocated concession to their views.
We gave place — St. Paul himself, with Barnabas and Titus.
By subjection — By yielding to them the submission which they claimed of us.
No, not for an hour — It is strange that the negative here and the relative at the beginning of the verse are wanting in some Latin authorities, including Irenæus and (partially, at least) Tertullian. This, however, is only interesting as pointing to a very early corruption of the text, and not for any bearing that it has on the exegesis of the passage.
The truth of the gospel — The gospel in its true form, with all the liberty which its essential doctrine of justification by faith involves, not mutilated or restricted by any false conditions.
Might continue with you — The words used in the Greek are expressive of undiminished continuance: “Might reach to you and persist among you in its full extent.”
The note makes clear that this issue – and thus this Epistle – is directed at Jewish agitators. Of course, you can see how this situation could have been born. Christianity grew out of 2nd Temple Period (and prior) Judaism. There was an ingrained ethnic and ritualistic exclusivity associated with Judaism. You could of course convert to Judaism, but there were rules associated with how that happens. For men, circumcision was part of that. At this point in the history of the Church, early Christians saw themselves as “the real Jews.” Therefore, to relinquish mandatory circumcision felt a lot like giving up the claim to being “the real Jews.” How could you claim that without circumcision? Jewish people had been circumcised since the beginning of their people. It was a practice well older than a thousand years.
But for the Apostles, the ethnic exclusivity was a big part of the problem. The Prophet Isaiah described the role of Jewish people as a light unto the nations:
“I the LORD have called unto you in righteousness, and have taken hold of your hand, and submitted you as the people’s covenant, as a light unto the nations” Isaiah 42:6.
“Yea, He saith, ‘It is too light a thing for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the scions of Israel, and I shall submit you as a light unto the nations, to be My salvation until the end of the earth’ Isaiah 49:6.”
And unto your light, nations shall walk, and kings unto the brightness of your rising” Isaiah 60:3.
Luke 2 thus presents Jesus as a fulfillment of that role:
29“Lord, now you are letting your servant[e] depart in peace,
according to your word;
30 for my eyes have seen your salvation
31 that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and for glory to your people Israel.”
Christ quite famously, told His followers, transferred this role to His disciples:
Matthew 5:14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.
Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
The core mission of Christianity – to bring Jesus to all the nations – is at odds with ethnic exclusivity. The purpose of Christianity is not to make all the nations Jewish (i.e. to change their nation), but rather, to make all the nations disciples of Jesus. The Great Commission commands baptism, not circumcision. It does not forbid circumcision, either, but it’s not required. Of course, distinction needed to be clarified formally, particularly as the first generation of the Church was primarily ethnically Jewish.
Returning to the text, yo get a sense that the agitators among the Galatians were citing Peter, James, and John as their source of authority for opposing Paul. As a result, Paul seems to be pointing out that this is being done in error. From Ellicott:
Verse 6
The Apostle returns from his digression on the case of Titus to give the result of his experience with the elder Apostles, in continuation of Galatians 2:3. “I did indeed hold conference with them privately; but with all their advantages, real or assumed, I learnt nothing from them that I did not already know, and they ended by recognising the independence and validity of my mission.”
But of these who seemed to be somewhat — Translate rather, But from those who are reputed to be somewhat. The phrase corresponds to “them which are of reputation” in Galatians 2:2; and here, as there, it is important to keep the present tense. It is not only “those who were of authority at the Council,” but “those who are the great authorities with you Galatians now.” The Apostle speaks with a certain amount of irony. “From these very great authorities, these persons of such especial reputation [I got nothing].”
Whatsoever they were — We shall, perhaps, not be wrong in keeping to the Authorised version, though some of the best commentators translate rather, What they (once) were, with a stress on “were,” and referring to the advantage which they possessed over St. Paul in having “known Christ after the flesh” through their early call to the Apostleship.
God accepteth no man’s person — This phrase is a curious instance of a Greek expression framed after the analogy of the Hebrew, and yet in the process contracting a different signification, through the influence of the idiomatic use of one of the Greek expressions involved. “To accept the face” in the Old Testament is used in a good sense of “showing favour” to any one, but without any imputation of partiality. “To accept the face” (or person) in the New Testament always carries with it the idea of partiality; the word for “face” being idiomatically used for “a mask,” and hence coming to mean “the outward, assumed, accidental characteristics of a man” as opposed to his real and inward character. (Comp. Matthew 22:16; Luke 20:21; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25; James 2:1; James 2:9; Jude 1:16.) The meaning here is that even if the elder Apostles had “seen with their eyes,” and “looked upon and handled the Word of Life” (1 John 1:1), God would not regard the advantages implied in this more than any other external advantage of birth, position, natural gifts, &c.
For they who seemed to be somewhat — The same phrase as in Galatians 2:2 : they who were of reputation. There is here another break in the regular construction of the sentence. The Apostle begins as if he were going to finish differently: “From those who are reputed to be somewhat . . . I received nothing in the conference which I had with them;” but he suddenly changes his point of view: “From those who are reputed to be somewhat” (sentence left unfinished) “to me, I say, these reputable persons added nothing.”
In conference added nothing — “Added in conference” is all one word in the Greek, and corresponds to “communicated” in Galatians 2:2. The idea of “adding” (i.e., imparting fresh knowledge) seems, however, to be derived rather from the context than from the form of the Greek compound, as our translators apparently supposed.
Paul asserts here that he sought out the people his community of agitators would have cited as better sources of authority and was not rebuked, instructed, or told to do anything differently. He then goes into more detail on this point in verses 7 through 9. (via Ellicott)
Verses 7-9
So far from contributing anything new to my stock of doctrine, they were content to confirm and ratify what I taught already.
Paul concludes this section of chapter 2 with the one thing he was instructed to do – noting that it was what he planned to do anyway. (from Ellicott)
Verse 10
The poor — i.e., at Jerusalem and in Judaea. St. Paul had already been the means of bringing contributions from the wealthier churches of Antioch to Jerusalem (Acts 11:29-30). This seems to have been gracefully received, not only as an act of charity, but as a recognition of the claims of the mother Church. The Apostles expressed a hope that the same good feeling might continue, to which St. Paul willingly assented. That he did not forget his promise appears from Acts 24:17; Romans 15:26-27; 1 Corinthians 16:3; 2 Corinthians 8:1-2; 2 Corinthians 9:1 et sea. (See Notes on Romans 15:25-27.)
You might wonder *why* Paul’s opponents were (or so it seems implied) citing Peter against Paul, and the answer to that is found in the next section of verses.