Commentary on Galatians 2:1-10

Text in red are my additions.

THE APOSTLE AGAIN VISITS JERUSALEM/ HIS INDEPENDENCE IS FULLY RECOGNIZED AND HIS GOSPEL THOROUGHLY APPROVED BY THE OTHER APOSTLES

Summary of Galatians 2:1-10. Having shown the divine origin of his Gospel and Apostolic authority the Apostle goes on now to refute another argument of his enemies, namely, that he had not the approval of the twelve. After fourteen years, moved by divine revelation, he paid another visit to Jerusalem, accompanied by Barnabas, his co-worker, and Titus, his attendant. While there a statement of his whole Gospel and preaching was laid before the other Apostles and met with their entire and wholehearted approval, in spite of certain objections raised by some false brethren who were secretly brought in to spy on him.

Gal 2:1. Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.

Then (ἔπειτα = epeita), as in 1:18 and 21, indicates the occurrence of some new and notable event. The labors in Syria and Cilicia are succeeded by a journey to Jerusalem.

After fourteen years, i.e., fourteen years from the first visit to Jerusalem mentioned in 1:18, and therefore seventeen years after his conversion, or around 49-51 a.d., the time of the Council of Jerusalem (St. Jerome, St. Chrys., Comely, Lagrange, Zahn, etc.). Ramsay, Loisy and some others believe the date is from St. Paul’s conversion, and so eleven years after the visit of 1:18.

The present visit is doubtless to be identified with that of Acts 15:2-3, and not with the previous one of Acts 11:29, 30. Reasons for this opinion are: (a) The chief persons are the same in both instances, namely, Paul and Barnabas, Peter and James; (b) the same question is presented for discussion, i.e., whether Gentile converts should be subjected to the Mosaic observances; (c) the outcome is the same, which was perfect agreement between Paul and the other Apostles, and the decision that the Gentiles were free; (d) the visit of Acts 11:29, 30 occurred before the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 a.d. Now the visit of the present verse was at least fourteen, and more probably seventeen years after St. Paul’s conversion. To identify these two visits, therefore, would mean pushing the Apostle’s conversion back to 28 of 30 a.d., which is plainly inadmissible.

If St. Paul passes over here the visit to Jerusalem recorded in Acts 11:29, 30, it is because that visit had nothing to do with showing his approval by the other Apostles—the question before him at present. The visit of Acts 11:29, 30 took place about the time of the martyrdom of St. James the Greater, 43-44 a.d.; St. Peter was in prison or had fled, and the rest of the Apostles were most probably scattered. At all events, it seems clear from Acts 11:30 that St. Paul saw none of the Apostles on that occasion, and hence a mention of it here would be to no purpose.

With Barnabas. St. Paul mentions Barnabas who, as being a Jewish Christian, was an unimpeachable witness of what took place at Jerusalem during his meeting with the other Apostles.

Titus is also spoken of, because, being a Gentile by birth, and uncircumcised, he would illustrate the rightfulness of Paul’s practice of not circumcising converts from paganism.

Gal 2:2. And I went up according to revelation; and communicated to them the gospel, which I preach among the Gentiles, but apart to them who seemed to be some thing: lest perhaps I should run, or had run in vain.

And I went up. Better, “Now I went up,” etc. To show that this journey to Jerusalem was not the result of any doubt on his part St. Paul says that he was prompted to undertake it by divine revelation. This is not contrary to Acts 15:2, where St. Luke says that Paul was sent by the Church at Antioch; for, in the first place, the decision of the Church could have coincided with the manifestation of the divine will made to Paul, and secondly, it is possible that the revelation was made not to Paul alone, but to the whole Church.

Communicated to. Better, “I laid before” (ἀνατίθεμαι = anatithemai).

Them, i.e., the faithful of Jerusalem. Whether this explanation of his preaching was made first in a general way to all the faithful (Acts 15:4, 5), and then more particularly to those who were in authority (Acts 15:6), St. Paul does not state here; he is concerned at present only with proving that when he explained his Gospel, it was approved by all.

The gospel, which I preach, etc., i.e., that the Gentiles need not be circumcised and made to conform to the Mosaic observances in order to be saved.

But apart to. Better, “In particular, however, before,” etc. (κατ ιδιαν = kat idian), i.e., he laid his Gospel especially and privately before those in authority.

Them who seemed, etc., i.e., those who are held in esteem, recognized leaders (τοις δοκουσιν = tois dokousin). The reference is most likely to Peter, James and John. Comely thinks the “apostles and ancients” (bishops) of Acts 15:6 are here referred to. That St. Paul’s words are free from all irony and disrespect is evident from his well-known regard for the Apostles.

Lest perhaps I should run, etc. St. Paul wishes to say that he laid his Gospel before the supreme authority in the Church for approval, not because he had any personal doubt about it, but in order to guard his future, as well as his past labors against the attacks of his enemies. He submitted his preaching to the Apostles “not that he might learn anything himself, but that he might show his opponents that he had not run in vain” (St. Chrys.).

Doubtless, also, St. Paul wished to forestall any possible uneasiness on the part of his superiors. For the greater success of his work he wanted to unite to his private inspirations the approval of the lawful external authority of the Church. “Neither was he able to learn anything from them, since he had been instructed by God; but, for the sake of concord and peace, it was the will of God (that he should submit his Gospel), in order that suspicion and scruples on the part of his brethren and co-Apostles should be removed, and that his work among the Gentiles should be furthered by the knowledge that his Gospel agreed with the Apostles’” (Ambrosiaster).

Gal 2:3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised.

The case of Titus (the subject of verses 3-5) is a proof that St. Paul’s preaching was not in vain. Not only did the Apostles approve his Gospel, but, in spite of strong pressure that was brought to bear by the Judaizers, they held that it was not necessary for Titus, although a Gentile, to be circumcised.

Who was with me, i.e., who was present as Paul’s companion in the Holy City—an uncircumcised convert from paganism among the circumcised Jewish Christians! This was to make the case as strong as it could possibly be. It is to misunderstand both the context and the argument of St. Paul to argue, as some have done, that 

was compelled (ηναγκασθη = enankasthe) implies that Titus was indeed circumcised, as a matter of prudence and considerateness on the part of St. Paul, even though there was no compulsory action to this end. Verse 5 is a complete refutation of any such interpretation. How could Paul have yielded to the demands of false brethren at Jerusalem, and then ask the Galatians resolutely to resist similar false teachers?

 

Gentile (Vulg., gentilis) is “Greek” in the MSS.

Gal 2:4. But because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privately to spy our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into servitude.

But because. According to the common opinion this verse shows the reason why Titus was not circumcised, and why the Apostles in Council decided authoritatively against circumcision for Gentiles: it was because false brethren tried to force their point in making this Mosaic rite a necessity for salvation. If it had been only a question of yielding to the sensibilities in minor matters of some well-disposed Christians, Titus would have been circumcised, as was the case with Timothy; but in their attempt to make circumcision necessary for salvation the fanatical Judaizers moved the Apostles to take a firm and definite stand against such a doctrine. According to Lagrange and others, verse 4 is only explanatory of verse 3; it gives the reason why the case of Titus is spoken of in this letter.

False brethren, i.e., Jewish Christians whom, on account of their animosity towards Gentile converts and their failure to seek salvation in Christ only, St. Paul could not regard as real brethren.

Unawares brought in, i.e., these Judaizers had stealthily entered the Christian Church, probably through the influence and action of other Christians who, like themselves, were over-zealous for the Mosaic observances, and who regarded Christianity as a continuation of the Law. Where these false brethren entered the Church, whether at Jerusalem or in Syria, is not certain; but it seems most conformable to the context to say it was in Jerusalem. There they had perhaps observed St. Paul and his companions, who had come from afar and had likely attracted attention as a party of strangers.

To spy. These Judaizers were anxious to find some flaws or weak points in St. Paul’s preaching, and for this purpose they frequented his assemblies.

Our liberty, etc., i.e., our freedom from the Mosaic observances which has been given by Jesus Christ (verse 19). “As spies enter a city for the purpose of opposing and betraying it to others, so these Judaizers came among the Christians with the aim and intention of reducing them by sly methods to a state servitude to the old Law” (St. Chrys.).

Gal 2:5. To whom we yielded not by subjection, no not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

A full stop should not separate this verse from the preceding one. The Apostle here assures us that he and his companions, especially Barnabas, refused to yield to the Judaizers even for a moment.

We, i.e., St. Paul, Barnabas, and those who were with them at the time of the attack by the Judaizers.

An hour, i.e., a moment, an instant (cf. 2 Cor 7:8; Philemon 15; John 5:35).

The truth of the gospel, i.e., the teachings revealed in the Gospel by Christ, unadulterated by any false doctrines, like those of the Judaizers.

With you, i.e., with the Galatians and all true Christians. To have yielded in the case of Titus would have imperiled the integrity of the Gospel truths for all the faithful.

When this conflict with the Judaizers and the consequent decision of the Council of Jerusalem took place St. Paul had not yet visited North Galatia. Hence patrons of the South Galatian Theory say that the “with you” of the present verse is a clear proof that the Apostle was addressing the Galatian Churches which he had previously established in Lycaonia and Pisidia. This conclusion, however, does not necessarily follow, because St. Paul’s victory and the decision of the Council were on behalf of all future, as well as past converts.

Gal 2:6. But of them who seemed to be some thing, (what they were some time, it is nothing to me, God accepteth not the person of man), for to me they that seemed to be some thing added nothing.

After the digression about the case of Titus (verses 3-5) the Apostle returns to the thought of verse 2. He wants to say that, although he conferred privately with the other Apostles, they added nothing to his Gospel and gave him no new information. But the warmth of his feelings again asserts itself; and, having begun his sentence in the passive voice, he interjects several parenthetical thoughts, and terminates the sentence in the active. His parenthetical remarks are called forth by the thought that his readers might think that he should have taken more account of the authority of the older Apostles, who had lived so long with Christ and who were esteemed so highly at the Council of Jerusalem.

Of them who seemed, etc. See comments on verse 2.

What they were, etc., i.e., however highly they were esteemed at the Council of Jerusalem (Lagrange), or however great their privilege of having lived with Jesus (Lightfoot), this is of no present consequence to St. Paul; for God accepteth not, etc., i.e., God does not regard external conditions or appearances, but the internal man—what a person is in reality (cf. 2 Cor 5:16; Rom 2:11). The inference is that the twelve enjoy no greater real privileges and dignity before God than does St. Paul himself. At any rate, the other Apostles added nothing to St. Paul’s

Gal 2:7. But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision.

Far from interfering in any way with St. Paul’s teaching the other Apostles saw from the explanations he had given that he enjoyed in every way equal authority to preach and equal soundness of doctrine with themselves. They understood that as their chief work at that time was among the Jews, so St. Paul’s was among the Gentiles. The Apostle does not wish to say that his vocation had been to preach exclusively among the Gentiles (Acts 13:43; Rom 9:3), nor that St. Peter, who had opened the Church to the Gentiles, was to remain always with the Jews. Our Lord was the “minister of circumcision” (Rom 15:8), and yet His Church was to extend to all nations.

If St. Peter alone is cited as charged with preaching among the Jews, this is on account of his prominence as head of the Church. There is no more thought of questioning the vocation of the rest of the Apostles to work among the Jews than there is of questioning the vocation of Barnabas to work among the Gentiles. St. Paul is not thinking of setting up two Churches, or two governments in the Church, any more than he is contending for two Gospels. He is maintaining only that his office of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles is of the same nature as that of Peter among the Hebrews. Neither is there any thought in his mind of arrogating to himself equal authority with Peter in the Church as a whole. There is question of two Apostolates, two missions, and not of two Churches, two governments in the Church, or two chiefs in authority (Lagr., Loisy).

Was committed. Better, “Has been entrusted.” The use of the perfect tense suggests permanent charge.

Gal 2:8. (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles).

This verse is a parenthetical explanation of the preceding one. The subject is God, understood. Just as God, through His grace, had given to Peter a fruitful mission among the Jews, so had He in like manner given Paul a commission among the Gentiles.

Gal 2:9. And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:

The thought of verse 7 is resumed.

Had known. Better, “Recognizing” (γινώσκω = ginōskō), i.e., having reflected and understood that special graces had been given to Paul for his Gentile labors James, Peter and John, who, when this letter was written, were still regarded as the pillars of the Church, gave to St. Paul and Barnabas their right hands as tokens of entire approval.

James, i.e., the “brother of the Lord” (1:19), the first Bishop of Jerusalem. James, the son of Zebedee, had been dead for some years, and so there could be no doubt as to who was meant. If James is here mentioned first, it is because the Judaizers appealed especially to his authority. In certain MSS. Peter is put first, but this is doubtless a correction for the sake of emphasizing the primacy of St. Peter.

Cephas is the Aramaic name by which Peter was called among the Jews.

Who seemed, i.e., who were esteemed (verse 2) as pillars or chief authorities in the Church; Peter was the foundation, the others were as pillars.

The right hands of fellowship means solemn approval; it was solemnly agreed that both Jew and Gentile converts were on a common level, and were to form one Church. The phrase does not imply that before there had been any discord or disagreement. St. Paul is telling the Galatians just what took place at the Council of Jerusalem, how his doctrines and methods among the Gentiles were approved. It is farthest from his thought to wish to say that it was there decided that the other Apostles were ever to confine their ministry to the Jews. At the very time he was writing he knew, in the case of St. Peter, that the facts were otherwise.

Gal 2:10. Only that we should be mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do.

St. Paul had succored the poor of Palestine before this request was made, as we know from Acts 11:29, 30; and that he was mindful of them afterwards is clear from 1 Cor 16:3 ; 2 Cor 9:1 ff.; Rom 15:26, 27; Acts 24:17. He says I was careful, etc., in the singular, because Barnabas left him shortly after the Council of Jerusalem.