Albert Barnes Commentary Galatians 2

GALATIANS CHAPTER 2

The second chapter is closely connected in sense with the first and is indeed a part of the same argument. Injury has been done by the division that is made. The proper division would have been at the close of verse 10 of this chapter. The general scope of the chapter, like the first, is to show that he did not receive the gospel from man; that he had not derived it from the apostles; that he did not acknowledge his indebtedness to them for his views of the Christian religion; that they had not even set up authority over him; but that they had welcomed him as a fellow-laborer and acknowledged him as a coadjutor in the work of the apostleship.

In confirmation of this, he states (Galatians 2:1) that he had indeed gone to Jerusalem, but that he had done it by express revelation (Galatians 2:2); that he was cordially received by the apostles there—especially by those who were pillars in the church; and that so far from regarding himself as inferior to the other apostles, he had resisted Peter to his face at Antioch on a most important and vital doctrine.

The chapter, therefore, may be regarded as divided into two portions, namely:

1. The account of his visit to Jerusalem, and of what occurred there (Galatians 2:1–10).

   • He had gone up fourteen years after his conversion, after having labored long among the Gentiles in his own way, and without having felt his dependence on the apostles at Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1–2).

   • When he was there, there was no attempt made to compel him to submit to the Jewish rites and customs. What was conclusive in the case was that they had not even required Titus to be circumcised, thus proving that they did not assert jurisdiction over Paul, and that they did not intend to impose the Mosaic rites on the converts from among the Gentiles (Galatians 2:3–5).

   • The most distinguished persons among the apostles at Jerusalem, he says, received him kindly and admitted him to their confidence and favor without hesitation. They added no heavy burdens to him (Galatians 2:6). They saw evidence that he had been appointed to bear the gospel to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7–8).

     They gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (Galatians 2:9), and they asked only that they should remember and show kindness to the poor saints in Judea. This was to manifest an interest in those who had been converted from Judaism, or contribute their proper proportion to the maintenance of all, and show that they were not disposed to abandon their own countrymen (Galatians 2:10).

     In this way, they gave the fullest proof that they approved the course of Paul and admitted him into entire fellowship with them as an apostle.

2. The scene at Antioch, where Paul rebuked Peter for his dissimulation (Galatians 2:11–21). The main object of mentioning this seems to be to show, first, that he did not regard himself as inferior to the other apostles, or that he had not derived his views of the gospel from them. Secondly, it was to state that the observance of the Jewish rites was not necessary to salvation, and that he had maintained that from the beginning. He had strongly urged it in a controversy with Peter, and in a case where Peter was manifestly wrong. It was no new doctrine on the subject of justification which he had preached to the Galatians. He states, therefore:

   • That he had opposed Peter at Antioch because he had dissembled there, and that even Barnabas had been carried away with the course Peter had practiced (Galatians 2:11–14).

   • That the Jews must be justified by faith, and not by dependence on their own law (Galatians 2:15–16).

   • That they who are justified by faith should act consistently, and not attempt to build again the things which they had destroyed (Galatians 2:17–18).

   • That the effect of justification by faith was to make one dead to the law that he might live to God. The effect of it was to make one truly alive and devoted to the cause of true religion. To show this, he appeals to the effect on his own heart and life (Galatians 2:19–20).

   • And that if justification could be obtained by the law, then Christ had died in vain (Galatians 2:21). He thus shows that the effect of teaching the necessity of the observance of the Jewish rites was to destroy the gospel and to render it vain and useless.

Then, fourteen years after. That is, fourteen years after his first visit there subsequent to his conversion. Some commentators, however, suppose that the date of the fourteen years is to be reckoned from his conversion. But the more obvious construction is to refer it to the time of his visit there, as recorded in the previous chapter (Galatians 1:18). This time was spent in Asia Minor, chiefly in preaching the gospel.

I went up again to Jerusalem. It is commonly supposed that Paul here refers to the visit which he made as recorded in Acts 20. The circumstances mentioned are substantially the same; and the object which he had at that time in going up was one whose mention was entirely pertinent to the argument here.

He went up with Barnabas to submit a question to the assembled apostles and elders at Jerusalem in regard to the necessity of the observance of the laws of Moses. Some persons who had come among the Gentile converts from Judea had insisted on the necessity of being circumcised in order to be saved.

Paul and Barnabas had opposed them; and the dispute had become so warm that it was agreed to submit the subject to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. For that purpose, Paul and Barnabas had been sent, with certain others, to lay the case before all the apostles. As the question Paul was discussing in this epistle was about the necessity of the observance of the laws of Moses in order to justification, it was exactly in point to refer to a journey when this very question had been submitted to the apostles.

Paul indeed had made another journey to Jerusalem before this, with the collection for the poor saints in Judea (Acts 11:29–30; Acts 12:25); but he does not mention that here, probably because he did not then see the other apostles, or more probably because that journey furnished no illustration of the point now under debate. On the occasion here referred to, Acts 15, the very point under discussion here constituted the main subject of inquiry and was definitely settled.

And took Titus with me also. Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 15:2), says that there were others with Paul and Barnabas on that journey to Jerusalem. But who they were he does not mention. It is by no means certain that Titus was appointed by the church to go to Jerusalem; but the contrary is more probable.

Paul seems to have taken him with him as a private affair; but the reason is not mentioned. It may have been to show his Christian liberty, and his sense of what he had a right to do; or it may have been to furnish a case on the subject of inquiry, and submit the matter to them whether Titus was to be circumcised.

He was a Greek, but he had been converted to Christianity. Paul had not circumcised him but had admitted him to the full privileges of the Christian church. Here, then, was a case in point; and it may have been important to have had such a case before them that they might fully understand it.

This, as Doddridge properly remarks, is the first mention that occurs of Titus. He is not mentioned by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles; and though his name occurs several times in the second epistle to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 7:6; 2 Corinthians 8:6, 16, 23; 2 Corinthians 12:18), it is to be remembered that that epistle was written a considerable time after this to the Galatians.

Titus was a Greek and was doubtless converted by the labors of Paul, for he calls him his own son (Titus 1:4). He attended Paul frequently in his travels; was employed by him in important services (see 2 Corinthians in the places referred to above); was left by him in Crete to set in order the things that were wanting, and to ordain elders there (Titus 1:5); subsequently he went into Dalmatia (2 Timothy 4:10), and is supposed to have returned again to Crete, from where it is said he propagated the gospel in the neighboring islands, and died at the age of ninety-four.—Calmet.

Fourteen years after, I went (Acts 15:2).

And I went up by revelation. Not for the purpose of receiving instruction from the apostles there regarding the nature of the Christian religion. It is to be remembered that Paul's purpose in stating this is to show that he had not received the gospel from men.

He is careful, therefore, to state that he went up by the express command of God. He did not go up to receive instructions from the apostles there regarding his own work, or to be confirmed by them in his apostolic office; but he went to submit an important question relating to the church at large.

In Acts 15:2, it is said that Paul and Barnabas went up by the appointment of the church at Antioch. But there is no discrepancy between that account and this; for though he was designated by the church there, it is quite possible that he was also directed by a special revelation to comply with their request.

The reason he says that he went up by direct revelation seems to be to show that he did not seek instruction from the apostles. He did not go of his own accord to consult with them, as if he were dependent on them. Even when he went to advise with them, he was under the influence of express and direct revelation, proving that he was as much commissioned by God as they were.

And communicated to them that gospel, etc. He made them acquainted with the doctrines which he preached among the Gentiles. He fully stated the principles on which he acted: the nature of the gospel he taught, and his doctrine about the exemption of the Gentiles from the obligations of the law of Moses.

He thus satisfied them regarding his views of the gospel and showed them that he understood the system of Christianity which had been revealed. The result was that they had entire confidence in him and admitted him to full fellowship with them (Galatians 2:9).

But privately. The margin says, severally. The Greek is kat’ idian.

This phrase means that he did not do it in a public manner—not before a general assembly, nor even before all the apostles collected together.

Instead, he made a private explanation of his motives and views to a few of the leaders and chief persons, so that they might understand it before it became a matter of public discussion.

The point on which Paul made this private explanation was not whether the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles, for on that they had no doubt after the revelation to Peter (Acts 10); but whether the rites of the Jews were to be imposed on the Gentile converts.

Paul explained his views and his practice on that point: that he did not impose those rites on the Gentiles; that he taught that men might be justified without their observance; and that they were not necessary for salvation. The reasons why he sought this private interview with the leading men in Jerusalem he has not stated, but we may suppose that they were something like the following:

1. The Jews in general had a very strong attachment to their own customs, and this attachment was found to a high degree among those converted from Judaism to the Christian faith. They would be strongly excited, therefore, by the doctrine that those customs were not necessary to observe.

2. If the matter were submitted to a public assembly of converts from Judaism, it would inevitably produce great excitement. They could not easily be made to understand the reasons for Paul's actions. In an excited assembly, it would be impossible to offer the necessary explanations, and even after all possible explanations, they might still have been unable to grasp all the circumstances of the case.

3. If a few of the leading men were made to understand it, Paul felt assured that their influence would be such as to prevent any great difficulty. He therefore sought an early opportunity to lay the case before them in private and to secure their favor; and this course contributed to the successful outcome of the whole affair.

See Acts 15. There was indeed much disputation when the question was submitted to the apostles and elders (Acts 15:7).

Many of the sect of the Pharisees in that assembly maintained that it was necessary to teach the Gentiles that the law of Moses was to be kept (Acts 15:5).

No one can tell what the outcome of that discussion among the excitable minds of the converts from Judaism would have been, had Paul not taken the precaution, as he says here, to submit the case in private to those who were of "reputation."

The outcome also depended on Peter and James being satisfied in this manner and submitting the views they did, as recorded in Acts 15:7-21, which terminated the whole controversy.

We may just remark here that this fact furnishes an Horae Paulinae—though he has not referred to this—of what he calls undesigned coincidences. The affair in Acts 15, and the course of the debate, looks very much as if Peter and James had had some conference with Paul in private, and had had an opportunity of fully understanding his views on the subject before the matter came before the apostles and elders in public, though no such private conference is referred to by Luke.

But on turning to the epistle to the Galatians, we find in fact that he had on one occasion before seen the same Peter and James (Galatians 1:18–19). We also find that he had had a private interview with those "of reputation" on these very points, and particularly that James, Peter, and John had approved his course, and given to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (Galatians 2:9). Thus understood, the case here referred to was one of the finest examples of prudence that occurred in the life of Paul; and from this case we may learn:

1. When a difficulty involving great principles and embracing many points is to be settled, it is better to seek an opportunity for private explanation than to submit it to a general multitude or to public debate. It is not advisable to attempt to settle important points when the passions of a public assembly may be excited and where prejudices are strong. It is better to do so through private explanations, where there is an opportunity to ask questions calmly and to state the facts as they are.

2. The importance of securing the support of influential men in a public assembly; of having men in the assembly who understand the whole case. It was morally certain that if such men as Peter and James were made to understand the case, there would be little difficulty in arriving at a peaceful resolution of the difficulty.

3. Though this passage does not refer to preaching the gospel in general, since the gospel here submitted to the men of reputation was the question referred to above, yet we may remark that great prudence should be used in preaching; in stating truths that may excite prejudices, or when we have reason to anticipate prejudices. It is often best to preach the gospel to men of reputation kat’ idian—separately, or privately.

In this way, the truth can be made to bear on the conscience; it may be better adapted to the character of the individual; he may put himself less in a state of defense and guard himself less against the proper influences of truth. And especially is this true in conversing with persons on the subject of religion.

It should be, if possible, alone, or privately. Almost any person may be approached on the subject of religion if it is done when they are alone, when they are at leisure, and if it is done in a kind spirit. Almost any person will become irritated if you address them personally in a public assembly, or even with their family around them.

I have never, in more than one or two instances, been unkindly treated when I have addressed an individual on the subject of religion if he was alone.

And though a minister should never shrink from stating the truth, and should never be afraid of man—however exalted his rank, great his talents, or vast his wealth—yet he will probably meet with most success when he discourses privately with "them which are of reputation."

To them who were of reputation. This means the leading men among the apostles.

Tyndale renders this, "which are counted chief." Doddridge translates it as, "those of greatest note in the church."

The Greek is, literally, "those who seem;" more fully in Galatians 2:6, "who seem to be something," meaning, who are persons of note or are distinguished.

Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. This means, lest the effects of my labors and journeys should be lost.

Paul feared that if he did not use this method of laying the case before them privately, they would not understand it.

Others might misrepresent him, or their prejudices might be excited. Consequently, when the case came before the assembled apostles and elders, a decision might be adopted that would prove him entirely wrong in his views, or that would lead those whom he had taught to believe he was wrong.

Such a decision would greatly hinder and embarrass him in his future movements. Therefore, to prevent this, to secure a just decision, and one that would not hinder his future usefulness, he sought this private interview, and thus his object was gained.

But neither Titus, who was with me. Paul introduces this case of Titus undoubtedly to show that circumcision was not necessary for salvation. It was a case in point; he had gone up to Jerusalem with express reference to this question. Here was a man whom he had admitted to the Christian church without circumcising him.

He claimed that he had a right to do so, and that circumcision was not necessary for salvation. If it were necessary, it would have been proper that Titus should have been compelled to submit to it. But Paul says this was not demanded; or if demanded by anyone, the point was yielded, and he was not compelled to be circumcised.

It is to be remembered that this was at Jerusalem, that it was a case submitted to the apostles there, and that consequently the determination of this case settled the whole controversy about the obligation of the Mosaic laws on the Gentile converts. It is quite evident from the whole statement here that Paul did not intend that Titus should be circumcised, that he maintained that it was not necessary, and that he resisted it when it was demanded (Galatians 2:4–5).

Yet on another occasion, he himself performed the act of circumcision on Timothy (Acts 16:3). But there is no inconsistency in his conduct. In the case of Titus, it was demanded as a matter of right and as obligatory on him, and he resisted the principle as dangerous. In the case of Timothy, it was a voluntary compliance on his part with the usual customs of the Jews, where it was not pressed as a matter of obligation, and where it would not be understood as indispensable to salvation.

No danger would follow from compliance with the custom, and it might do much to win the favor of the Jews, and he therefore submitted to it. Paul would not have hesitated to have circumcised Titus in the same circumstances in which it was done to Timothy; but the circumstances were different. When it was insisted on as a matter of principle and of obligation, it became a matter of principle and of obligation for him to oppose it.

Being a Greek. Born of Gentile parents, he had, of course, not been circumcised. Probably both his parents were Greeks. The case with Timothy was somewhat different: his mother was a Jewess, but his father was a Greek (Acts 16:3).

Was compelled to be circumcised. I think it is implied here that this was demanded and insisted on by some that he should be circumcised. It is also implied that Paul resisted it, and the point was yielded, thus settling the great and important principle that it was not necessary for salvation (Galatians 2:5).

The biblical phrase "neither Titus" may also be translated as "Not even."

And that because of false brethren. Who these false brethren were is not certainly known; nor is it known whether he refers to those who were at Jerusalem, or to those who were at Antioch. It is probable that he refers to Judaizing Christians, or persons who claimed to be Christians and to have been converted from Judaism.

Whether they were dissemblers and hypocrites, or whether they were so imperfectly acquainted with Christianity, and so obstinate, opinionated, and perverse, though really in some respects good men, that they were conscientious in this, it is not easy to determine. It is clear, however, that they opposed the apostle Paul; that they regarded him as teaching dangerous doctrines; that they perverted and misstated his views; and that they claimed to have clearer views of the nature of the true religion than he had.

Such adversaries he met everywhere (2 Corinthians 11:26); and it required all his tact and skill to meet their plausible representations. It is evident here that Paul is assigning a reason for something which he had done, and that reason was to counteract the influence of the "false brethren" in the case.

But what is the thing concerning which he assigns a reason? It is commonly supposed to have been on account of the fact that he did not submit to the circumcision of Titus, and that he means to say that he resisted that in order to counteract their influence, and defeat their designs.

But I would submit whether Galatians 2:3 is not to be regarded as a parenthesis, and whether the fact for which he assigns a reason is not that he sought a private interview with the leading men among the apostles (Galatians 2:2). The reason of his doing that would be obvious.

In this way he could more easily counteract the influence of the false brethren, he could make a full statement of his doctrines, he could meet their inquiries, and anticipate the objections of his enemies, he could thus secure the influence of the leading apostles in his favor, and effectually prevent all the efforts of the false brethren to impose the Jewish rites on Gentile converts.

Unawares brought in. The word rendered "unawares," pareisaktous, is derived from a verb meaning to lead in by the side of others, to introduce along with others; and then to lead or bring in by stealth, to smuggle in.—Robinson, Lex. The verb occurs nowhere in the New Testament but in 2 Peter 2:1, where it is applied to heresies, and is rendered, "who privily shall bring in." Here it refers probably to men who had been artfully introduced into the ministry, who made pretensions to piety, but who were either strangers to it, or who were greatly ignorant of the true nature of the Christian system; and who were disposed to take every advantage, and to impose on others the observance of the peculiar rites of the Mosaic economy.

Into what they were brought, the apostle does not say. It may have been that they had been introduced into the ministry in this manner (Doddridge); or it may be that they were introduced into the "assembly" where the apostles were collected to deliberate on the subject.—Chandler. I think it probable that Paul refers to the occurrences in Jerusalem, and that these false brethren had been introduced from Antioch or some other place where Paul had been preaching, or that they were persons whom his adversaries had introduced to demand that Titus should be circumcised, under the plausible pretense that the laws of Moses required it, but really in order that there might be such proof as they desired that this rite was to be imposed on the Gentile converts.

If Paul was compelled to submit to this, if they could carry this point, it would be just such an instance as they needed, and would settle the whole inquiry, and prove that the Mosaic laws were to be imposed on the Gentile converts. This was the reason why Paul so strenuously opposed it.

To spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus. In the practice of the Christian religion. The liberty referred to was, doubtless, the liberty from the painful, expensive, and onerous rites of the Jewish religion. See Galatians 5:1. Their object in spying out the liberty which Paul and others had, was, undoubtedly, to be witnesses of the fact that they did not observe the peculiar rites of the Mosaic system; to make report of it; to insist on their complying with those customs, and thus to secure the imposition of those rites on the Gentile converts. Their first object was to satisfy themselves of the fact that Paul did not insist on the observance of their customs; and then to secure, by the authority of the apostles, an injunction or order that Titus should be circumcised, and that Paul and the converts made under his ministry should be required to comply with those laws.

That they might bring us into bondage—into bondage to the laws of Moses (compare also 2 Corinthians 11:29; Galatians 4:3, 9).

To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour. We did not submit to this at all. We did not yield even for the shortest time. We did not waver in our opposition to their demands, or in the slightest degree become subject to their wishes.

We steadily opposed their claims, so that the great principle might be forever settled that the laws of Moses were not to be imposed as obligatory on the Gentile converts. This I take to be the clear and obvious sense of this passage, though there has been a great variety of opinions on it.

A considerable number of manuscripts omit the words oiv oude, "to whom neither," (see Mill, Koppe, and Griesbach), and then the sense would be reversed: that Paul did yield to them for or after a short time, so that he might in this way better consult the permanent interests of the gospel.

This opinion—that the passage here has been corrupted—has been gaining ground for the last century, but it is by no means confirmed. The ancient versions (the Syriac, the Vulgate, and the Arabic) accord with the usual reading of the text. So also do by far the largest portion of manuscripts; and such, it seems to me, is the sense demanded by the connection.

Paul means, in the whole passage, to say that a great principle was settled: that the question came up fairly whether the Mosaic rites were to be imposed on Gentile converts; that false brethren were introduced who demanded it; and that he steadily maintained his ground. He did not yield a moment.

He felt that a great principle was involved; and though on all proper occasions he was willing to yield and to become all things to all men, yet here he did not court them or temporize with them in the least.

The phrase "by subjection" here means that he did not suffer himself to be compelled to yield; the phrase "for an hour" is equivalent to the shortest period of time. He did not waver or yield at all.

That the truth of the gospel might continue with you: that the great principle of the Christian religion which had been taught you might continue, and that you might enjoy the full benefit of the pure gospel, without its being intermingled with any false views. Paul had defended these same Jews among the Galatians, and he now sought that the same views might be confirmed by the clear decision of the college of apostles at Jerusalem.