Galatians 2:1-5

2:1 “Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas, taking Titus along too.”

"Paul is omitting nothing material to his argument--in particular, ... He is omitting no visit to Jerusalem or other contact with the church there or its leaders" (Bruce, 106).

Read Acts 11:27-30 (Here.). Paul and Barnabas went from Antioch to Jerusalem with a gift for the church, because a severe famine had been predicted. This famine took place in 45 to 46 AD. So, this could well have taken place as early as 44 AD. Paul probably took this opportunity to speak with the elders and apostles in Jerusalem about the message that had been given to him.

Now, Stephen was stoned between 31 and 34 AD. We add the three years from his conversion to his first visit and then fourteen more. That is seventeen years. If we add seventeen to thirty-one, we get forty-eight. If we add seventeen to thirty-four, we get fifty-one.

The first figure is right around the end of the First Missionary Journey, while the second figure is after the Jerusalem Council and roughly in the middle of the Second Missionary Journey. The first figure could kind of work, but the second seems way off.

There are two factors that we haven't considered, though:
First: Any part of a year could be counted as a whole year, in Jewish reckoning. So, the three years could have been one year, with part of another year on each side. The same with the fourteen would give twelve years with part of another on each side. The total then could be as little as thirteen years and a few days, or say a round figure of about fourteen years.

Ok. That would give us thirty-one plus fourteen, which would be forty-five. Now, Paul and Barnabas were not yet on the First Missionary Journey at this point. This would also have been a good time for Paul and Barnabas to have taken the aid that had been collected to Jerusalem. So, 45 AD. Is an option here. If we take thirty-four and add fourteen, we get forty-eight. This is at the end of the First Missionary Journey at about the time of the Jerusalem Council. Now, this could work, but Paul and Barnabas were sent with aid for the famine. This makes sense if the famine lasted longer than 45 to 46 AD as some believe. Polhill gives the most likely date for the famine as 46 AD (274-276).

Second: What if Paul, instead, means after he had been preaching for fourteen years? In that case, the three years wouldn’t be added to the total. Again, what we considered above still counts. So, this could have been a minimum of twelve years with part of a year on each side.

 

Ok. Thirty-one plus twelve gives us forty-three. This seems to be too early for Paul's second trip to Jerusalem. Thirty-four plus twelve gives us forty-six.

We now have two ways for the years given in Galatians to get us to the year 46 AD. So, in 46 AD, Paul and Barnabas could have taken the famine aid down to Jerusalem, and met with the apostles and elders in secret while they were there. Then, upon returning to Antioch, they could have been commissioned to go on their First Missionary Journey. This confluence of things would make sense. Paul makes sure his message is appropriate. Paul gets commissioned to journey. Paul then goes on his First Missionary Journey. I definitely prefer this explanation, at this point.

Witherington believes that all of this took place a little later. He thinks that Paul's second visit to Jerusalem took place in 48 AD. He places the First Missionary Journey within the year of 48 AD. Then, the Jerusalem Council sometime in 49 AD (Witherington, Acts, 83).

The exact timeframe of these events does depend upon when the famine hit Judea, when the aid was collected, and when Paul and Barnabas were sent with it.

2:2 “I went there because of a revelation”

The revelation that he is speaking of could be concerning the gospel message he had been given. However, this could also be because of the prophecy that Agabus gave that there would be a famine. This prophecy was the reason that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem at that time. Either of these possibilities is plausible.

"When Paul speaks of revelation he sometimes is referring to something received by means of a vision ..., but he also believed revelation came through prophecy ..., and there is no reason why this could not be the case in this instance. If this is so, the Paul would probably be referring to a prophecy directed to him and perhaps also to Barnabas and Titus (and perhaps others) that they needed to go up to Jerusalem for some reason. This conclusion comports with the thesis that Paul is alluding to the episode recorded in Acts 11:27-30 in which Agabus a prophet form Jerusalem came to Antioch and revealed there would be a severe famine, which prompted the disciples to send relief funds to the Christians in Judea by means of Barnabas and Saul. It also comports with what Paul says in Gal. 2.10, namely that he was asked by the Jerusalem leaders to continue to remember the poor, something he was already eager to do. In other words, this last verse implies that part of the purpose of the trip referred to in 2.1-10 was to aid the poor, and Paul promised to continue this charitable work .... No doubt too, Paul wants his own Galatian audience to know that he did not go up to Jerusalem because he was summoned by the leaders there, but rather because of a prompting from God" (Witherington, Grace, 132).

"and presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles"

Whichever reason Paul was in Jerusalem, he took advantage of the time.

"Notice that Paul speaks of the 'Gospel I preach' (present tense) not 'the Gospel I preached'. He is making a claim that he has not changed his mission or message along the way, a point highly relevant for his Galatian audience who needed to be able to trust that Paul's message had not changed through the years, and that what they had heard and believed was not different from what other converts to Christianity had heard and believed" (Witherington, Grace, 133).

"But I did so only in private meeting with the influential people, to make sure that I was not running - or had not run - in vain."

"What Paul was concerned about was not the validity of his gospel (of which he had divine assurance) but its practicability. His commission was not derived from Jerusalem, but it could not be executed effectively except in fellowship with Jerusalem. A cleavage between his Gentile mission and the mother-church would be disastrous: Christ would be divided, and all the energy which Paul had devoted, and hoped to devote, to the evangelizing of the Gentile world would be frustrated" (Bruce, 111).

In other words, Paul was wanting to make sure that they were on the same page.

2:3 "Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek."

At this point, Peter had already gone to Cornelius’s house and the church was aware that God was accepting the Gentiles. So, it is not strange that Paul’s message was accepted at this time. Peter would have been a major contributor in this respect, as he was the leader of the Apostles. Read Acts 11:1-18 (Here.).

Summary:
Right after the events at Cornelius’s house, when Peter returned to Jerusalem, people were upset.

Peter explains that in a vision, God had said that anything He had made clean shouldn’t be called unclean.

Immediately, three Gentiles came to the house where Peter was and asked him to accompany them. God told him to go with them. Six other brothers went along.

Peter began to preach in Cornelius’s house, and everyone was baptized in the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues. The Jewish brothers were all shocked!

The leaders of the church then acknowledged, “So then, God has granted the repentance that leads to life even to the Gentiles.”

So, there was already a precedent established through Peter that the Gentiles had been accepted by God, without circumcision.

Now, the fact that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised is important. “Do you remember how I mentioned Titus accompanied us to Jerusalem? He is a Greek and he wasn’t circumcised! Then why would you have to be?”

 

"Titus is not just exhibit A for the Jerusalem church, Paul is using him as a paradigm for the Galatians as well, as if the Jerusalem church leaders would say the same things about and to the Galatians that they had said about and to Titus on this occasion" (Witherington, Grace, 135).

2:4 "Now this matter arose because of the false brothers with false pretenses who slipped in unnoticed to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, to make us slaves."

“false brothers” These are people who may have outwardly looked like fellow Christians, but Paul does not believe that they are.

"[I]n the eyes of some, perhaps most, Jewish Christians they were genuine believers. Paul, however, does not acknowledge them as genuine believers; in his eyes they were counterfeits, for whom true gospel liberty means nothings" (Bruce, 112).

Perhaps these are Jews who decided to oppose the church in a different manner than Paul had been. Perhaps they truly were saved themselves, but because of national pride had come to believe that people must convert to Judaism first, to be saved. Either way, this conflicts with what God had already revealed to the Church through Peter and Cornelius.

“who slipped in unnoticed to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus”

“This freedom characterizes the life which springs from the gospel of free grace; in this atmosphere of freedom a Gentile believer can associate with Jewish believers, even in Jerusalem, without any one’s raising the question of circumcision …” (Bruce, 112).

“to make us slaves.” Remember, the Law is not evil; the Law is good. However, we cannot be saved by observing the Law. This is what Paul is objecting to! The Judaizers are implying that everyone has to follow the Law to be saved or that the Law has to be added to Grace.

2:5 "But we did not surrender to them even for a moment, in order that the truth of the gospel would remain with you."

“But we did not surrender to them” This issue is so important that there could be no giving ground. The true gospel was at stake. If the Judaizers win, Christianity dies! Again, this was not an assault upon the Law. It was quite permissible for Jews who learned that the Messiah had come to remain Jewish! This was not the issue!

"The true gospel proclaimed that justification and the reception of the Spirit were gifts of God's grace, bestowed on all who believed in Jesus, Jews and Gentiles alike, regardless of legal requirements. To have yielded an inch to those who were demanding the circumcision of Gentile converts would have denied the law-free character of the gospel" (Bruce, 115).

Everyone who is saved, whether Jew or Gentile, is saved by grace through faith. Outward conformity to the Law cannot save anyone.

All scripture quotations, except if embedded in another quote, are from the NET. This can be found online at http://net.bible.org/

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.

Polhill, John B. The New American Commentary: Volume 26: Acts. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992.

Witherngton III, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.

Witherngton III, Ben. Grace in Galatia. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.