Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Galatians 2

The “fourteen years” are most likely to be reckoned from the end of the three years mentioned in 1:18. Paul’s main point is not how long after his conversion he made this visit to Jerusalem, but how long after last seeing the apostles he went up to see them again. Besides, Paul undoubtedly thought of the years of labor in Syria and Cilicia as a set period of his ministry, and his point is that these years were broken only by the trouble from the legalizers and by the revelation that he had to go up to Jerusalem to argue the cause of Gentile liberty. The council in Jerusalem, therefore, likely took place in A. D. 49 . Barnabas and Titus accompanied Paul, though Luke does not mention the presence of Titus in his account of the council. The presence of Titus is best explained by Paul’s desire for a test case (see vv.3–5).

Luke says that Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem as the result of a decision by the believers at Antioch (Acts 15:2). Yet there is no real contradiction between this account and Paul’s statement about going up “in response to a revelation.” Either the church at Antioch prayed about what should be done and then commissioned Paul and Barnabas in response to what they believed God told them to do, or else the revelation was a parallel and confirming one to Paul. Undoubtedly, Paul mentions the matter of revelation only to emphasize once again that at no time was he at the call of the other apostles. On the contrary, his movements as well as his Gospel are to be attributed directly to the revealed will of God. The discussion of Paul’s experiences in Jerusalem goes as far as v.10, but the essence of the matter and its outcome are already suggested in the second half of this verse. Paul spoke privately to those who were the apparent leaders of the Jerusalem church, wishing to avoid public remarks or a decision that would seriously affect the work he was doing among the Gentiles. If the doctrine of grace were not boldly and clearly upheld, terrible consequences for the church’s missionary outreach would ensue. What happened at the council, then? Obviously, Paul’s point was upheld, for the present tense of the verb “to preach” shows that the Gospel preached by Paul in his early years was still being preached by him at the time of his writing.

In the context of relating his contacts with the apostolic leaders at Jerusalem Paul now introduces an instance in which he claims to have defended the purity of the Gospel from the encroachments of those who would have mixed aspects of the Mosaic law with grace as the way of salvation. This incident was the attempt of the Jewish legalists to force the rite of circumcision on Titus. The outcome of the struggle, as Paul said, was a successful defense of the Gospel. These verses have generated a significant amount of discussion, both because the words “This matter arose” in v.4 are not in the original Greek (and thus v.5 is needed to complete the sentence of v.4 if the words are not added) and because some manuscripts omit the words “not” and “to them” in v.5 (this makes the passage say that Paul did in fact yield for a moment). Furthermore, one must face the question whether Paul is referring in v.5 to the apostles or to the false brothers of v.4. It is the contention of this writer that the NIV has by and large correctly interpreted Paul’s thought here. In other words, v.4 is related to the thought of pressure being applied to Paul by the leaders at Jerusalem in deference to the false brothers, yet it was successfully resisted by Paul in defense of Gentile liberty. Historically the picture one gets is this. The apostles at Jerusalem were wavering on neutral ground, tending to advise compliance to the law on Paul’s part, but they finally came out for Paul by declaring openly for freedom from the law. This wavering attitude is suggested in the following verses, both in the attitude of reserve Paul seems to have encountered at Jerusalem (vv.6, 9) and in the related wavering of Peter at Antioch (vv.11–14). Moreover, this fits in with what is most clear in this passage, namely, that the conflict was primarily between the false brothers and Paul and that in the end (whether wavering before that time or not) the apostles stood solidly with Paul and Barnabas. The term “false brothers” (used here and in 2 Corinthians 11:26) defines those who are not in fact Christians, though they pretend to be so. Paul’s reference to these men “infiltrating” and “spying” entails a military metaphor and suggests the subversive and militant nature of the evil that Paul was fighting. In Paul’s mind, the desire of the legalizers “to make us slaves” occurred in a manner similar to those who would take a city by stealth or force in order to place the inhabitants in chains. Defending the Gospel that Paul had received from God was not done for any personal or selfish reasons, but “so that the truth of the gospel might remain” with believers (v.5). The word “truth” (GK 237) stands in marked contrast to the falseness mentioned in the preceding verse. Therefore, it must mean “the true gospel” as opposed to “the false gospel” being taught by the false brothers. The issue at stake here is an either-or issue: either the true Gospel in its entirety, or that which is no gospel at all! The importance of this issue made Paul adamant in his relationship to all others, Christians and non-Christians; it should make all who know the Lord Jesus Christ and who love the Gospel equally adamant in their thought, speech, and writings.

In the context of relating his contacts with the apostolic leaders at Jerusalem Paul now introduces an instance in which he claims to have defended the purity of the Gospel from the encroachments of those who would have mixed aspects of the Mosaic law with grace as the way of salvation. This incident was the attempt of the Jewish legalists to force the rite of circumcision on Titus. The outcome of the struggle, as Paul said, was a successful defense of the Gospel. These verses have generated a significant amount of discussion, both because the words “This matter arose” in v.4 are not in the original Greek (and thus v.5 is needed to complete the sentence of v.4 if the words are not added) and because some manuscripts omit the words “not” and “to them” in v.5 (this makes the passage say that Paul did in fact yield for a moment). Furthermore, one must face the question whether Paul is referring in v.5 to the apostles or to the false brothers of v.4. It is the contention of this writer that the NIV has by and large correctly interpreted Paul’s thought here. In other words, v.4 is related to the thought of pressure being applied to Paul by the leaders at Jerusalem in deference to the false brothers, yet it was successfully resisted by Paul in defense of Gentile liberty. Historically the picture one gets is this. The apostles at Jerusalem were wavering on neutral ground, tending to advise compliance to the law on Paul’s part, but they finally came out for Paul by declaring openly for freedom from the law. This wavering attitude is suggested in the following verses, both in the attitude of reserve Paul seems to have encountered at Jerusalem (vv.6, 9) and in the related wavering of Peter at Antioch (vv.11–14). Moreover, this fits in with what is most clear in this passage, namely, that the conflict was primarily between the false brothers and Paul and that in the end (whether wavering before that time or not) the apostles stood solidly with Paul and Barnabas. The term “false brothers” (used here and in 2 Corinthians 11:26) defines those who are not in fact Christians, though they pretend to be so. Paul’s reference to these men “infiltrating” and “spying” entails a military metaphor and suggests the subversive and militant nature of the evil that Paul was fighting. In Paul’s mind, the desire of the legalizers “to make us slaves” occurred in a manner similar to those who would take a city by stealth or force in order to place the inhabitants in chains. Defending the Gospel that Paul had received from God was not done for any personal or selfish reasons, but “so that the truth of the gospel might remain” with believers (v.5). The word “truth” (GK 237) stands in marked contrast to the falseness mentioned in the preceding verse. Therefore, it must mean “the true gospel” as opposed to “the false gospel” being taught by the false brothers. The issue at stake here is an either-or issue: either the true Gospel in its entirety, or that which is no gospel at all! The importance of this issue made Paul adamant in his relationship to all others, Christians and non-Christians; it should make all who know the Lord Jesus Christ and who love the Gospel equally adamant in their thought, speech, and writings.

In the context of relating his contacts with the apostolic leaders at Jerusalem Paul now introduces an instance in which he claims to have defended the purity of the Gospel from the encroachments of those who would have mixed aspects of the Mosaic law with grace as the way of salvation. This incident was the attempt of the Jewish legalists to force the rite of circumcision on Titus. The outcome of the struggle, as Paul said, was a successful defense of the Gospel. These verses have generated a significant amount of discussion, both because the words “This matter arose” in v.4 are not in the original Greek (and thus v.5 is needed to complete the sentence of v.4 if the words are not added) and because some manuscripts omit the words “not” and “to them” in v.5 (this makes the passage say that Paul did in fact yield for a moment). Furthermore, one must face the question whether Paul is referring in v.5 to the apostles or to the false brothers of v.4. It is the contention of this writer that the NIV has by and large correctly interpreted Paul’s thought here. In other words, v.4 is related to the thought of pressure being applied to Paul by the leaders at Jerusalem in deference to the false brothers, yet it was successfully resisted by Paul in defense of Gentile liberty. Historically the picture one gets is this. The apostles at Jerusalem were wavering on neutral ground, tending to advise compliance to the law on Paul’s part, but they finally came out for Paul by declaring openly for freedom from the law. This wavering attitude is suggested in the following verses, both in the attitude of reserve Paul seems to have encountered at Jerusalem (vv.6, 9) and in the related wavering of Peter at Antioch (vv.11–14). Moreover, this fits in with what is most clear in this passage, namely, that the conflict was primarily between the false brothers and Paul and that in the end (whether wavering before that time or not) the apostles stood solidly with Paul and Barnabas. The term “false brothers” (used here and in 2 Corinthians 11:26) defines those who are not in fact Christians, though they pretend to be so. Paul’s reference to these men “infiltrating” and “spying” entails a military metaphor and suggests the subversive and militant nature of the evil that Paul was fighting. In Paul’s mind, the desire of the legalizers “to make us slaves” occurred in a manner similar to those who would take a city by stealth or force in order to place the inhabitants in chains. Defending the Gospel that Paul had received from God was not done for any personal or selfish reasons, but “so that the truth of the gospel might remain” with believers (v.5). The word “truth” (GK 237) stands in marked contrast to the falseness mentioned in the preceding verse. Therefore, it must mean “the true gospel” as opposed to “the false gospel” being taught by the false brothers. The issue at stake here is an either-or issue: either the true Gospel in its entirety, or that which is no gospel at all! The importance of this issue made Paul adamant in his relationship to all others, Christians and non-Christians; it should make all who know the Lord Jesus Christ and who love the Gospel equally adamant in their thought, speech, and writings.