Charles Ellicott Commentary Galatians 2

Fourteen years after.—From what date are these fourteen years to be counted? The phrase “I went up again” seems to be decisive in favour of counting 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.

On verses 1-10:

The argument proceeds, still taking the shape of vivid personal retrospect: The next visit at which I had any communication with the elder Apostles was after an interval of fourteen years. That, too, only served to bring out at once the independence and the soundness of my teaching. I spoke on the subject freely to the whole Church, and besides, I had private conferences with the leaders; but no alteration was made either in my teaching or in my practice.

One crucial instance was that of Titus, my companion, who, Gentile as he was, was not compelled to be circumcised, though his circumcision was urged upon me, not by the Apostles' own accord, but to silence the malicious rumours spread by certain Judaising spies who had found their way among us. To these, Barnabas and I did not give way for a moment. And the upshot of the matter was that my mission was fully recognised by the leading Apostles, and that we agreed to go different ways—they to the Jews, we to the Gentiles—with the one condition, which I needed no prompting to accept, that we should not forget the poor.

Thoughts and arguments crowd in upon the Apostle with great vehemence. His scribe cannot take them down fast enough. Sentences are begun and not rightly ended, and much of the sense is left to be supplied by conjecture. The general drift of the passage is sufficiently plain, but there is much uncertainty about the details. This will appear in the Notes which follow.

By revelation.—Revelations seem to have been granted 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 is not apparent.

It appears that this inward spiritual guidance, granted privately to the Apostle, coincided with a formal commission from the Church at Antioch (Acts 15:2). This commission, as the external and apparent side of the transaction, is naturally narrated by the historian, while it is just as naturally omitted by the Apostle, whose thoughts are focused more on his own personal conduct and motives.

Communicated to them—that is, the Church at Jerusalem. A distinction appears to be drawn between what the Apostle said in his public interaction 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 until 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 emphasize to 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 Judaizing 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 is 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 lack confidence in his own teaching. Yet he was aware that it rested solely upon his own individual conviction and upon the interpretation that he had put upon the intimation of the divine will to him. There was, therefore, still a certain element of uncertainty and room for confirmation, which the Apostle desired to receive.

His character strikes the happy medium 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 entire language in writing to the Galatians. Something of this, perhaps, is reflected in 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 favorite metaphor from the footraces, such as he might have seen in the Isthmian games at Corinth. (Compare especially, for a similar reference to his own career, Philippians 2:16; 2 Timothy 4:7.)

But neither Titus . . .—This and the two following verses are parenthetical. The result of the private conference with the Judaic Apostles is not given until Galatians 2:7; but without waiting for this, the Apostle turns aside to give one emphatic piece of evidence that his practice regarding the Gentile converts was not interfered with. The question of principle was raised in the case of Titus, and there he stood his ground, despite the pressure that was put upon him.

In addition to its bearing on 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, when taking his youthful convert Timothy with him, St. Paul made such a concession to Jewish prejudices as to have him circumcised (Acts 16:3).

We will see later that this gave rise to a charge of inconsistency, which the Judaizing 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 anyone 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 in this matter 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 regarding a point that, though in some of its aspects involving principle, was yet in others of quite minor importance. Besides, it should be noted that while Titus was by descent entirely 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 that Titus assumed from his association 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 rendered here as “Greek” by “Aramæan” or “Syrian.” All idea of pure Hellenic descent has dropped out of it.

And that because of . . .—The meaning here is, in any case, broken and imperfect. It seems, on the whole, best to supply the missing clause this way: “But (or, though) on account of false brethren . . . [I was urged to have him circumcised].”

The leaders of the Church at Jerusalem took the position, not of insisting upon circumcision as a necessity, but rather advising it as a matter of policy, to lessen the ill feeling excited against St. Paul by scheming men, traitors in the camp, who, though Christians in name, were Jews at heart.

Many commentators, however, adopt the rendering of the Authorized Version: “And that because of false (or rather, the false) brethren,” understanding that he was not compelled to be circumcised. The reason Titus was not circumcised was the evidently self-interested and treacherous motives of the Judaizing partisans who clamored for it.

Unawares brought in, who came in secretly.—These two words correspond to each other in the Greek and bring out in a graphic and forceful way the insidious and scheming 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 on 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 its freedom for it by relieving it from the burden of the Law, by abolishing race distinctions, and by offering all the Messianic privileges to those who through faith are united to Him.

Bring us into bondage.—The “bondage” is, primarily, that of the Mosaic law, and through it, the personal domination of the Judaizing partisans.

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 lacking in some Latin authorities, including Irenaeus 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.”