Galatians

Paul went to Jerusalem on his second visit in response to a revelation. Therefore, God directed him to go; the other apostles did not summon him. One could surmise that Paul went to Jerusalem to seek apostolic approval of the gospel he preached, which is why he “set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles,” but this hardly seems right given his determination to show himself as separate but equal. If Paul had received his gospel directly from the Lord, there would have been no need to run it by the other apostles, and he would not have waited fourteen years to see if he were getting it right.

Okay, so what does it mean he set his gospel before them? The Greek word rendered “set before them” in verse 2 does not refer to seeking official approval, rather it refers merely to “imparting information with a view to consultation.” Paul’s reasons were not theological but practical. Enter Titus…an uncircumcised Greek.  If the Jerusalem leaders appeared uncomfortable around the uncircumcised Titus and if they further appeared to prefer, even if they did not insist upon, circumcision, then Paul's labor (here referred to as “running”) among the Gentiles would be in vain.

To “run in vain” is to “run in such a way as to fail to achieve the goal.” How would Paul have been running in vain? Well, if he was preaching that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised and follow Jewish dietary laws and they were preaching they did have to do those things then they were nullifying what he taught. It would be as if while he was tearing down a wall, they were right behind him rebuilding it.

Therefore, it was not that he had any doubts about the gospel he had preached for 14 years, but he needed to make sure his own ministry would not be hindered or rendered of no effect by the Jerusalem Apostles sympathizing with the Judaizers. This is why he refers to them as those who seemed to be leaders. The whole point is that they may have thought they were checking on Paul’s orthodoxy, but in his mind, he was checking theirs. So, Titus is brought along as a test case to see if the Jerusalem leaders would officially support Paul’s ministry to the uncircumcised even if it met with the displeasure of the Judaizers. If they caved to the Judaizers then they were not the leaders, he envisioned. Titus is “Exhibit A” of Paul's gospel preaching.

Note that those who brought pressure to have Titus circumcised are called “false” brothers. In this case, they, with hostile intent, infiltrated the ranks to spy on the freedom the Galatian church had in Christ to plan counterattacks against such freedom. The Judaizers hoped to place enough pressure on these churches to force Paul to compel Gentiles, like Titus, to be circumcised. However, neither Paul nor the other Apostles gave in to them.

Paul says that he did not submit to these false brothers for this reason: “so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.”  Paul exposes these men to show the Galatians who the Judaizers in their midst really were (i.e., false brothers from Jerusalem), and what was really at stake by their demands (i.e., the truth of the gospel). The Judaizers among them may have come from Jerusalem, but they do not represent the Jerusalem church.

Why does Paul now speak in what appears to be a disparaging manner about some of the Jerusalem leaders? In verse 2, he referred to them as "those who seemed to be leaders”; in verse 6, he described them as “those who seemed to be important”; and in verse 9, he names "James, Peter, and John" as "those reputed to be pillars."

Is he trying to bolster his credibility by attacking theirs? No. Remember, the Judaizers were making much of the elevated status of the Jerusalem Apostles. Paul is merely suggesting they do not have an elevated status; they are the same as him.

His ministry is merely different from theirs; it is not inferior to theirs. They have been assigned different fields of service; for example, just as Paul had been divinely commissioned to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, Peter was so commissioned to preach the gospel to Jews. They have separate ministries, but they are equal as ministers!

While the Judaizers accosted Paul and Barnabas, the apostles accepted them (v 6-10). The evidence of the Apostles’ acceptance of God’s will and work through Paul was the granting of “the right hand of fellowship.” Giving the right hand was

more than a sign of approval, it was a sign of unity and fellowship. The Jerusalem Apostles considered the content of Paul’s preaching acceptable for it differed from theirs only as to the audience to whom Christ was being proclaimed.

The other Apostles requested that Paul, in his ministry, continue to remember the poor. Here again, the emphasis is on equality, for if they saw themselves as having authority over Paul this would not be a request, it would be a command. Neither did they request he do something he was not already doing, as though his ministry was in some way inadequate. They requested he continue something he was already doing (because, as it turns out, the poor he was helping was them). In other words, they sought reassurance that he would not forget about his ministry to the poor in Jerusalem as he expanded his ministry unto the Gentiles.

In short, Paul was in complete agreement with the Apostles in Jerusalem and had their full support. The apostles in Jerusalem found no necessity of correcting anything in Paul’s practice (v 3-5) or in his preaching (v 6-10).

Please go to Observations & Applications for Galatians 2:1-10 for further observations and applications.