Galatians 2 (reread)

Paul continues discussing his personal history as an Apostle. This is all background to argument against those wishing to dilute the Gospel with a requirement of works.


His greater point about discussing his history as an Apostle is illustrate that the Gospel he preached did not come from men.  By "men", this also includes the other Apostles.  Rather, the Gospel he preached came from divine revelation.

In chapter two, Paul discusses an anecdote when he went back to Jerusalem after a fourteen year absence.

When did this happen?
Short answer - we don't know.

The book of Acts is a little unclear, but it could refer to the relief effort mentioned in Acts 11:27-30.  In that account, there was a famine in Judea and the church of Antioch collected offerings and sent them to Jerusalem, along with "Barnabas and Saul".  In Galatians 2:10, Paul is asked to "remember the poor".  This would lead credence to perhaps it was the relief effort mentioned in Acts 11.

However, Acts 11 makes no mention of Titus accompanying Paul and Barnabas, which is emphasized in the Galatians 2 text.  Likewise, the text of Galatians 2 emphasizes the action of Paul acting in a full leadership role as an Apostle.  This seems a little incongruous with the account of Acts 11, which states "Barnabas and Saul.".  Paul does not seem to be leading the Acts 11 visit to Jerusalem, since it is Barnabas that is listed first and Paul is still called "Saul".

That said, we know from 2 Corinthians 8 that there were other inter-church relief efforts.



Back to Galatians 2
Titus accompanies Paul to Jerusalem when he meets with other Apostles.  Paul emphasizes that Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile, was not compelled to be circumcised at this time.  Paul uses this to highlight that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised, but rather it is faith in Christ that this is sufficient.

On a related note, from the Stott commentary there seems to be some ambiguity in whether or not Titus actually was circumcised in the trip.  The ambiguity arises in the Greek text for verses 4-5 which the English Biblical translators tend to prefer that he was not circumcised.  That said, he was not compelled to be circumcised, and if he was circumcised, we can reason it was a voluntary act as a concession, as happened with Timothy (Acts 16:3).


In Jerusalem, Paul's Gospel is approved of by the other Apostles.  In verse 10, the Apostles agree that Paul and Barnabas should go to the Gentiles.  We can also reason from this interplay that the other Apostles approved of him as an Apostle.  Regardless of what reasoning to arrive at Paul as an Apostle and whether he fit into the Apostleship criteria of Acts 1:21-22 - we he did not fit in - acceptance from the other Apostles cannot be overlooked.


Later, we find people sent from James in Antioch, followed by a visit from Peter to Antioch.  There, Paul confronts Peter about the issue of circumcision.

When did this happen?
Again, there is no specific detail, but I think it happened right before the Council of Jerusalem.  In fact, I think this event sparked the Council.

Paul stayed in Antioch a "long time" after the missionary trip to Galatia.  (Acts 14:28).  In Acts 15:1-2, it states that people came from Judea to Antioch and preached that people needed to be circumcised.  We know of nothing more about these people except that Paul and Barnabas opposed them.  Immediately afterwards, Paul and Barnabas are appointed to go to Jerusalem, where they attend the council of Jerusalem.

But I think we can reason that this even is the famous rebuke of Peter by Paul as recounted in Galatians 2.

Further, by the time Paul and Barnabas arrive in Jerusalem, Peter is back preaching that circumcision is not necessary.

In the coming chapters, Paul will have a lot to say about following the law and justification through faith.  But in Galatians 2, he emphasizes that Peter, agreed with him, even allowing Paul to publicly rebuke him over it.