Fifth, the apostles were in agreement during a later visit by Paul to Jerusalem that his gospel was of divine origin [Gal 2:1-10]. Because the Lord's church had originated in Jerusalem and the apostles frequently resided there during the early days, some Christians considered the Jerusalem church to be the "mother church." Therefore, Paul had to contend with the accusation that his position was somewhat diminished because he was not one of the Jerusalem apostles. He responds with a detailed account of his second journey "to Jerusalem." Whether these "fourteen years" are to be counted from his conversion or from his first visit, we do not know. However, we do know that he received a corresponding "revelation" from Christ before his journey. Consequently, he set out "with Barnabas," his coworker, and "Titus" – a Gentile who had converted through Paul's ministry. The Judaizers had insisted that Titus must be circumcised in order to be saved. However, the apostle Paul resisted this vehemently because he realized that the truth of the gospel was at stake. (When he later circumcised Timothy, it was not a matter of principle; cf. [Acts 16:3].)
E. F. Kevan writes:
Paul recognized that circumcision for the sake of justification was not a harmless little ceremony, as one might have thought without much consideration. Whoever underwent circumcision in this way was attempting to be justified by keeping the law. In doing so, he simultaneously denied the basis of grace. [1]
E. F. Kevan writes:
Paul recognized that circumcision for the sake of justification was not a harmless little ceremony, as one might have thought without much consideration. Whoever underwent circumcision in this way was attempting to be justified by keeping the law. In doing so, he simultaneously denied the basis of grace. [1]
Footnote
[1] E. F. Kevan, The Keswick Week, 1955, S. 29.
 | Author: William MacDonald Rank: Author Posted on: 2024-06-26 Source: Title: Commentary on the New Testament Year (original): 1989 Author: William MacDonald Number of pages: 1504 Publisher/Editor: CLV Print: GGP Media GmbH, Pößneck |
The apostle declares his being owned as an apostle of the Gentiles.
Observe the apostle’s faithfulness in giving a full account of the doctrine he had preached among the Gentiles, and was still resolved to preach, that of Christianity, free from all mixture of Judaism. This doctrine would be ungrateful to many, yet he was not afraid to own it. His care was, lest the success of his past labors should be lessened, or his future usefulness be hindered. While we simply depend upon God for success to our labors, we should use every proper caution to remove mistakes, and against opposers. There are things which may lawfully be complied with, yet, when they cannot be done without betraying the truth, they ought to be refused. We must not give place to any conduct, whereby the truth of the gospel would be reflected upon. Though Paul conversed with the other apostles, yet he did not receive any addition to his knowledge, or authority, from them. Perceiving the grace given to him, they gave unto him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, whereby they acknowledged that he was designed to the honor and office of an apostle as well as themselves. They agreed that these two should go to the heathen, while they continued to preach to the Jews; judging it agreeable to the mind of Christ, so to divide their work. Here we learn that the gospel is not ours, but God’s; and that men are but the keepers of it; for this we are to praise God. The apostle showed his charitable disposition, and how ready he was to own the Jewish converts as brethren, though many would scarcely allow the like favor to the converted Gentiles; but mere difference of opinion was no reason to him why he should not help them. Herein is a pattern of Christian charity, which we should extend to all the disciples of Christ.
Verses that belong to this explanation: 1-10
1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed [to be somewhat] in conference added nothing to me: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10 Only [they would] that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
 | Author: Matthew Henry Rank: Priest AD: 1714 Source: Title: Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible Author: Matthew Henry |
Defense of the Gospel
[Verse 1]. In chapter 1, Paul has made clear that his apostleship is entirely independent of that of the twelve apostles. In chapter 2 he shows that the twelve explicitly acknowledged his special apostleship to the Gentiles. This was done while visiting Jerusalem, fourteen years after his last visit. The cause for this visit can be found in Acts 15. There you read about a discussion in Antioch which was organized because of the dispute about whether the believers from among the Gentiles have to keep the law. This is precisely the subject on which Paul writes to the Galatians.
The first verse of Acts 15 sets the tone [Acts 15:1]. People came from Judea to Antioch to tell the believers that in order to be saved, they had to be circumcised. This doctrine is totally contrary to the gospel of God that Paul preached. It added something to that gospel, and this is neither possible nor permissible. Hence Paul and Barnabas counter this doctrine. It was then decided that this controversy should be dealt with in Jerusalem, where Paul and Barnabas and some others would talk about it with the apostles and elders.
There was a reason why this dispute should be decided in Jerusalem and not in Antioch. In Jerusalem, where the apostles and the church in many respects kept the law, the freedom of believers from among the Gentiles had to be acknowledged. Otherwise there would have been the great danger that two types of churches were created: a church that kept the law, as in Jerusalem, and a church that was free from the law, as in Antioch.
Thankfully, God prevented that. The church is one unity and all local churches are to act in unity. That a division arose – even so soon after the establishment of the church – is the result of abandoning God's Word. Separate local churches, with their own interpretations of the truth is not in accordance with God's thoughts.
[Verse 2]. Paul’s statement to the Galatians that he went to Jerusalem “because of a revelation” seems contrary to what we read in [Acts 15:2]. But these are two sides of the same thing. I can do something because I know that it is the will of God, while at the same time following the advice of brothers with whom I have spoken about it.
When Paul arrived in Jerusalem, he first went to the brothers who carried the responsibility amongst the believers. However, it was not to ask them whether he was right, neither was it to call the gospel into question; he was totally convinced of his case. He was only looking for the support of the twelve in the defense of the gospel. Paul knew that if they agreed with the content of his preaching, the church in Jerusalem would be spared a division, and unity with the churches of the Gentiles would be preserved. His work would not have been in vain.
[Verse 3]. To emphasize his words, he had taken Titus with him as a kind of a ‘test’. Titus was a Greek, and therefore a Gentile. It seems that pressure was put on Paul to circumcise Titus, but this had not been a demand of the church in Jerusalem. In this Paul had a practical case to support his preaching: that someone can be acknowledged as a believer, without imposing on him the demand of keeping the law.
In the case of Timothy, who had a Jewish mother, it was different. Paul circumcised him in order to give Timothy a better entrance to the Jews – not to gain him for Christ [Acts 16:1-4]. Paul firmly rejects the idea that circumcision is a requirement for salvation. For us, this means that we must reject a preaching in which is stated that a man is saved by faith in Christ plus something else, such as good works or keeping the ten commandments.
[Verse 4]. The need to defend the gospel arose because of the false brethren who had sneaked in – the enemies of the gospel. They wanted to rob the believers of their freedom in Christ by bringing them under the bondage of the law. No matter how you look at it: anyone who wants to keep the law, puts himself under the bondage of the law. In Acts 15 Peter calls the law “a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” [Acts 15:10]. With this statement and what he further says, Peter unambiguously puts himself on the side of Paul. It is impossible to connect the law with the gospel without losing the freedom that is in Jesus Christ.
[Verse 5]. Therefore Paul does not deviate an inch for these people. Here he defends “the truth of the gospel” as the only truth in which God's grace shines through the finished work of Christ – a truth that is purposed for all Christians, whether of Jewish or of Gentile origin. Any value that man thinks to add to the gospel corrupt this grace.
That’s what the Jews do by adding the law and that’s what the Gentiles do by adding their philosophies. The latter is shown in the letter to the Colossians, where in chapter 1 we read about “the truth of the gospel” [Col 1:15], while in chapter 2 of that letter we are warned of philosophy [Col 1:8]. Paul did not want this rich and unique gospel to be taken away from them. They should not compromise under any circumstances, but they must keep the gospel as a solid possession: the property of the Galatians (and ours as well).
The first verse of Acts 15 sets the tone [Acts 15:1]. People came from Judea to Antioch to tell the believers that in order to be saved, they had to be circumcised. This doctrine is totally contrary to the gospel of God that Paul preached. It added something to that gospel, and this is neither possible nor permissible. Hence Paul and Barnabas counter this doctrine. It was then decided that this controversy should be dealt with in Jerusalem, where Paul and Barnabas and some others would talk about it with the apostles and elders.
There was a reason why this dispute should be decided in Jerusalem and not in Antioch. In Jerusalem, where the apostles and the church in many respects kept the law, the freedom of believers from among the Gentiles had to be acknowledged. Otherwise there would have been the great danger that two types of churches were created: a church that kept the law, as in Jerusalem, and a church that was free from the law, as in Antioch.
Thankfully, God prevented that. The church is one unity and all local churches are to act in unity. That a division arose – even so soon after the establishment of the church – is the result of abandoning God's Word. Separate local churches, with their own interpretations of the truth is not in accordance with God's thoughts.
[Verse 2]. Paul’s statement to the Galatians that he went to Jerusalem “because of a revelation” seems contrary to what we read in [Acts 15:2]. But these are two sides of the same thing. I can do something because I know that it is the will of God, while at the same time following the advice of brothers with whom I have spoken about it.
When Paul arrived in Jerusalem, he first went to the brothers who carried the responsibility amongst the believers. However, it was not to ask them whether he was right, neither was it to call the gospel into question; he was totally convinced of his case. He was only looking for the support of the twelve in the defense of the gospel. Paul knew that if they agreed with the content of his preaching, the church in Jerusalem would be spared a division, and unity with the churches of the Gentiles would be preserved. His work would not have been in vain.
[Verse 3]. To emphasize his words, he had taken Titus with him as a kind of a ‘test’. Titus was a Greek, and therefore a Gentile. It seems that pressure was put on Paul to circumcise Titus, but this had not been a demand of the church in Jerusalem. In this Paul had a practical case to support his preaching: that someone can be acknowledged as a believer, without imposing on him the demand of keeping the law.
In the case of Timothy, who had a Jewish mother, it was different. Paul circumcised him in order to give Timothy a better entrance to the Jews – not to gain him for Christ [Acts 16:1-4]. Paul firmly rejects the idea that circumcision is a requirement for salvation. For us, this means that we must reject a preaching in which is stated that a man is saved by faith in Christ plus something else, such as good works or keeping the ten commandments.
[Verse 4]. The need to defend the gospel arose because of the false brethren who had sneaked in – the enemies of the gospel. They wanted to rob the believers of their freedom in Christ by bringing them under the bondage of the law. No matter how you look at it: anyone who wants to keep the law, puts himself under the bondage of the law. In Acts 15 Peter calls the law “a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” [Acts 15:10]. With this statement and what he further says, Peter unambiguously puts himself on the side of Paul. It is impossible to connect the law with the gospel without losing the freedom that is in Jesus Christ.
[Verse 5]. Therefore Paul does not deviate an inch for these people. Here he defends “the truth of the gospel” as the only truth in which God's grace shines through the finished work of Christ – a truth that is purposed for all Christians, whether of Jewish or of Gentile origin. Any value that man thinks to add to the gospel corrupt this grace.
That’s what the Jews do by adding the law and that’s what the Gentiles do by adding their philosophies. The latter is shown in the letter to the Colossians, where in chapter 1 we read about “the truth of the gospel” [Col 1:15], while in chapter 2 of that letter we are warned of philosophy [Col 1:8]. Paul did not want this rich and unique gospel to be taken away from them. They should not compromise under any circumstances, but they must keep the gospel as a solid possession: the property of the Galatians (and ours as well).
Verses that belong to this explanation: 1-5
1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
 | Author: Ger de Koning Rank: Author Posted on: 2024-04-17 Source: Title: Galatians Author: Ger de Koning Copyright: kingcomments.com Note General: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the author or the publisher. |
That "fourteen years after he went up to Jerusalem "in order to confer with them
 | Author: Tertullian of Carthage Rank: Author AD: 220 |
His first journey was owing to his desire to visit Peter, his second, he says, arose from a revelation of the Spirit.
 | Author: John Chrysostom Rank: Bishop AD: 407 |
But I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles."
 | Author: Irenaeus of Lyons Rank: Bishop AD: 202 |
These men he had as witnesses, through whom he proved that his gospel was given to him through revelation, seeing that he said “Barnabas went up with me,” and he also took Titus, whose faith and gospel were approved by everyone. .
 | Author: Gaius Marius Victorinus Rank: Author AD: 400 |
His renown had been growing for a long time among all the Jews, though he had not been seen face to face … but on account of the law he had acquired a bad reputation among the Jews, as though his preaching was out of harmony with the preaching of the other apostles. Many were having doubts on account of this, which were sufficient to make the Gentiles anxious, in case they had been trained in something other than that which was preached by the apostles who had been with the Lord. For on this precise occasion the Galatians were undermined by Jews who were saying that Paul taught something other than Peter taught. This is the reason for his going up to Jerusalem, at the bidding of the Lord’s revelation, disclosing to them the implications of his preaching, with Barnabas and Titus as witnesses of his preaching, one from the Jews and one from the Gentiles, so that if any took offense at him it might be assuaged by their testimony. .
 | Author: Ambrosiaster Rank: Author AD: 400 |
The listed verse explanations of the individual persons have nothing to do with the explanations of the other persons. This also applies to the Bible translations.
