Galatians 2:1-10

The next visit to Jerusalem and its result; my independence was fully recognized

(Galatians 2:1) When did I see the Apostles next? Not till fourteen years after my last visit. I then went up to Jerusalem with so well known a worker as Barnabas for my friend, and with Titus as my attendant. (Galatians 2:2) It was not however for my own sake, or of my own motion, that I went up. It was in accordance with revelation. And I laid before the believers there a statement of the gospel which I always preach among the Gentiles (e.g. that it is unnecessary for them to obey the Law), but first privately before the leaders (with the desire to win them over) lest my present or past work should be damaged.

NOTE B

Galatians 2:1-10 in relation to Acts 15:4-29

It has been asserted that it would be a suppression of the truth if St Paul omitted one of his visits to Jerusalem in Galatians 1:17 to Galatians 2:10 and that therefore the visit recorded in Galatians 2:1-10 must be his second visit, mentioned in Acts 11:29-30. But this is to misunderstand the object of St Paul’s enumeration. He does not seem to have had any interest in his visits to Jerusalem as such, but in his independence of the older Apostles, and if for some reason he did not see them on his second visit—either because of their absence, or because his visit was purely to the administrators of the funds—he would quite naturally omit this visit. That he did not see them on that second visit seems plainly indicated by the wording of Acts 11:30. There is therefore no a priori necessity for identifying the visit of Galatians 2:1-10 with that of Acts 11:29-30, and we are free to consider the theory that it is the same as that of Acts 15, the occasion of the conference in Jerusalem.

I. There are however many points of difference between the two reports.

1. St Paul says (Galatians 2:2) that he went up by revelation; St Luke (Acts 15:2) that he was sent by the Church at Antioch (ἔταξαν�.τ.λ.). But the two statements are not incompatible, especially if the revelation was made to the Church.

2. St Paul says that he took Titus, and enlarges on the question of his circumcision. St Luke never mentions him either in Acts 15 or anywhere else. Observe however that St Paul uses a term (συμπαραλαβών) which implies that Titus was only a subordinate (see notes).

3. “False brethren” (Galatians 2:4) seems too harsh a title to apply to the Jewish Christians of Acts 15:1. But, whatever the motive of these may have been, the issue of their teaching was certainly contrary to the Gospel, and if St Paul saw this, and the whole of our Epistle proves him likely to do so, he might easily regard them as “false brethren.”

4. St Paul speaks of a private interview with “them of repute,” apparently the Three; St Luke rather of a public meeting. But it may be noticed that St Paul’s language (κατʼ ἰδίαν δὲ) implies a public meeting of some kind, and that St Luke implies two public meetings (Luke 15:4; Luke 15:6). Judging from the analogy of most public conferences it is probable that they would be preceded, or accompanied, by private interviews.

5. St Paul (Galatians 2:10) speaks of insistence by the Three on his remembering the poor, which, he adds, he was zealous to do. St Luke makes no mention of this. His second visit indeed had the ministry to the poor of Jerusalem for its special object, but the language of Galatians 2:10 would be extraordinary if descriptive of that mission. It would also have been most ungracious of the Three to insist on this when he had just brought money for them to distribute.

6. St Paul makes no allusion to the decrees about food etc., made at the Council, and disseminated by its letter (Acts 15:20; Acts 15:29). This would, we must confess, be strange if, with Zahn, we date the Epistle soon after the Council (see Introd., p. xxxii.), but not if some years had elapsed, as is more probable. During that time it had become increasingly evident to St Paul that it was impossible to make such decrees binding on Gentile converts, even if they had ever been more than advisory.

7. St Paul speaks of his dispute with St Peter immediately after describing this visit, and it is urged that if the passage Galatians 2:1-10 refers to Acts 15 it is passing strange that St Peter should so soon have fallen back, and that therefore St Paul in Galatians 2:1-10 really refers to his second visit (Acts 11:29-30). But if St Paul’s order is not chronological (see the Commentary) this argument falls to the ground.

II. Even if some doubt be felt about some of the answers to the difficulties now just stated, the points of similarity between the narratives of St Paul and St Luke are enough to make us decide in favour of the theory that Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15:4-29 refer to the same events.

1. The chief persons are the same, Barnabas and Paul on the one hand, James and Peter on the other. The fact that St Paul also mentions St John, but not as taking any lead, is hardly an objection. At any rate none of the Three are mentioned in Acts 11:29-30.

2. The subject of the discussion is the same, the freedom of Gentile converts from the Law. If too, as is probable, St Paul’s dispute with St Peter (Galatians 2:11-14) chronologically precedes Galatians 2:1-10, the occasion of the discussion is mentioned in nearly similar words, the presence of “certain from James,” Galatians 2:12, and of some who had “come down from Judaea,” Acts 15:1, cf. Acts 15:24.

3. The general character also of the discussion was the same; a prolonged and hard fought contest.
4. The general result was the same; liberty of the Gentile converts and agreement of the Three with St Paul.
5. Lastly, the dates agree. The second visit (Acts 11:29-30) took place before the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 A.D. and the mention of fourteen years in Galatians 2:1 makes it impossible to place the events of Galatians 2:1-10 so early as that. For if we understand the fourteen years of Galatians 2:1 to mean fourteen years from St Paul’s conversion, this would throw back his conversion to 31 or even 30 A.D., which is impossible; while if, as is probable, the fourteen years date from the end of the first visit to Jerusalem, i.e. some three years after his conversion, the difficulty is even greater.

6. In spite therefore of acknowledged difficulties—such, after all, as are to be expected when events are related from very different standpoints and with very different objects—it is in every way better to hold to the usual opinion that St Paul in Galatians 2:1-10 refers to the events recorded by St Luke in Acts 15:4-29, than to say that he refers to those recorded in Acts 11:29-30. It is hardly worth while discussing other theories, according to which the situation of Galatians 2:1-10 is that of Acts 18:22 or Acts 21:17.