Galatians lesson # 22

GALATIANS # 22
2/28/11
Famine relief trip
Paul’s Gospel defended
Chapter 2: 1 - 10

Title : The Holy Bible, English Standard Version
Edition : Second
Copyright : Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. All rights reserved. Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 2004, QuickVerse, a division of FindEx.com, Inc.

Galatians 2:1-10 ( ESV )
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.
I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.
But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.
Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—
to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.
On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised
(for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles),
and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

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

Since we are of the “Southern Galatian” persuasion, it is our opinion that this is not the trip Luke describes in Acts 15.

As part of the northern/southern debate there has been much discussion over whether the “fourteen years” runs back to the date of Paul’s conversion – not subsequent to the three years in Damascus and Arabia, thus, 34 AD + 14 = 48 AD – one year prior to the Jerusalem council, or 34+3+14=51 – one year after the Jerusalem council).

Northern/ Southern Galatian? We being of the “southern” persuasion, a little chart might help:
Comparison:

Acts/Galatians; 30 through 50AD

date Apostle Paul Luke
30 AD Peters first sermon (Acts 2: 14 – 41)
34 AD Stoning of Stephen (Acts 6: 12; 8: 1)
35 AD Conversion go to Arabia &… Saul’s conversion Acts 9: 1 - 22
38 AD return to Jerusalem Gal 1 18 -19 and return to Tarsus Gal. 1: 21-22; 2 Cor. 11: 33 Saul’s departure from Damascus return to Tarsus 9: 26 - 30
43 AD James executed Acts12: 1 - 3
43 AD Peter flees Jerusalem Acts 12: 17
44 AD? Recruit Paul to Antioch Acts 11: 25
45-46 AD Famine relief to Jerusalem Gal. 2: 1-10 Famine relief to jerusalem Acts 11: 2 - 30;12:25
46-48 AD 1st Mission Acts 13 - 14
48 AD Paul rebukes Peter at Antioch Gal. 2:11-21
48 AD Writing of Galatians
49 AD Jerusalem council 15: 1-29
49 AD Paul/ Barnabas-Mark split up Acts 15: 36-39
49-52 AD 2nd mission Acts 15: 40; 18: 21

(oh-oh the chart didn't come across from word!!)

A small sample of the discussion:

Title : New Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Testament Volume
Edition : Third
Copyright : Copyright © 1990, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Electronic Edition Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc.

Chapter 2 1-10 PAUL’S APOSTLESHIP TO THE GENTILES RECOGNIZED BY THE JERUSALEM APOSTLES 1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem—There is disagreement as to when this took place. Some commentators (e.g., Alford) take it as referring to fourteen years after the conversion of Paul, while others (e.g., Lightfoot) feel that it refers to fourteen years after the first visit to Jerusalem, mentioned in Galatians 1:18. As a result, some believe this visit to be the one mentioned in Acts 11, while others believe it to be the visit for the Jerusalem council, set forth in Acts 15. The view that this visit was connected with the Jerusalem council, however, has some difficulty because it can be argued that Paul would have mentioned the decision of the council regarding the topic of circumcision, which was one of the main reasons he wrote to the Galatians. But in support of the view that this visit was the occasion of the council, it may be stated first that Paul had a desire to show the Galatians that his authority was independent of the other apostles—so the decision of the council was not to be taken into consideration by the Galatians when they were to obey his teaching. His authority was above that of a council, because he was an accredited apostle. Second, Paul was arguing his point on the grounds of principle rather than authoritative decisions. It would have been pointless for the Galatians to disregard one set of laws only to be bound by another. Third, the decree of the council of Jerusalem did not go as far as Paul did in this instance. All that was decided at Jerusalem was that the mosaic law would not be imposed on Gentiles, while Paul here asserts that the mosaic law has to be transcended.

And another:

Title : The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament
Edition : Second
Copyright : Copyright 1983, SP Publications, Inc. All rights reserved Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1997, Parsons Technology, Inc.

Galatians 2:1 ( KJV )
2:1. Much debate has centered on the question of the identification of this trip which Paul took to Jerusalem with Barnabas, a Jewish believer, and Titus, a Gentile believer. The Book of Acts mentions five Jerusalem visits made by Paul after his conversion: (1) the visit after he left Damascus (Acts 9:26-30; Gal. 1:18-20); (2) the famine visit (Acts 11:27-30); (3) the visit to attend the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-30); (4) the visit at the end of the second missionary journey (Acts 18:22); (5) the final visit which resulted in Paul’s Caesarean imprisonment (Acts 21:15-23:35). Scholars are divided primarily over whether Galatians 2:1 refers to the famine visit or to the Jerusalem Council visit. But in the context in which he is listing all contacts with human authorities, why would Paul omit reference to his second trip to Jerusalem? And if the reference is to the Council of Acts 15, why did not the apostle allude to its decrees? It seems this passage has the famine visit in view.


• 2: 2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.
Among the scholars there is much discussion whether this “revelation” was the prophecy by Agabus of the coming famine, recorded by Luke (Acts 11: 27 – 30); or a revelation directly to Paul. Most “Northern Galatianier’s” believe what is described here is the Jerusalem Council trip and thus the Revelation is personal to Paul, directing him to attend the Council (if referring to council trip = Galatians written post council, etc). We “southern Galatianiers” are inclined to the revelation being the one declared by Agabus (famine relief = pre council, etc)
This statement shows the trip served two purposes:
1. deliver the famine relief from the Gentile church, with Paul as the leader of the delegation, demonstrating both Paul and the Gentiles concern and respect for the Hebraic, Jerusalem Church;
2. and secondly to meet privately and discuss “The Gospel” with the mother church leaders.
In either case, Paul is focused like a laser on the Gospel he is preaching, he is not seeking their approval or guidance, only re-assurance…If they had rejected his gospel would he have changed it?

No!

He would have continued no matter what! However, as we can see from Paul’s numerous comments/actions showing his utmost respect for the teaching and leadership of the Jerusalem church and the Apostles, he certainly did not in any way desire causing dissension in the church! Even though he makes such a dramatic statement:
(Gal 1: 10 – 12 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. )

He respected and gave full honor to the mother church in Jerusalem, and also to the Apostles; as equals – he did not defer to them at any time….his leading the delegation as head of the Gentile Church and his repeating this with a second relief trip a few years later, further demonstrates his respect, and concern for the Hebraic Jerusalem Church. He did not see the Gospel with which he had been entrusted as a “different” Gospel, but as his revelation being of the deeper meaning of “THE Gospel”; the same one they were preaching, with further explanation; the same one that the entire Old Testament had preached beginning with Gen, 3: 15!

The New American Commentary
The phrase “for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain” is perplexing and has called forth various interpretations. Some have suggested that Paul went to Jerusalem seeking the approval of the leaders there without which his ministry would not have been valid. This hypothesis, however, seems to contradict the entire drift of Paul’s argument in Gal 1–2. Others have given these words a more existentialist twist as though Paul were expressing here a kind of hesitation or self-doubt about his apostolic vocation. This theory also founders on what we everywhere else know about Paul as a person of robust conscience, one given to self-examination but not to psychological introspection. After all, this same apostle could write to the Corinthians, “I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty” (1 Cor 9:26, KJV). It seems better to interpret Paul’s words as an expression of concern for the new believers he had led to Christ and the young churches he had founded. What would a major division in the church mean for these Christians? Beyond that, what would it mean for the furtherance of Paul’s missionary work? Doubtless he himself would not be deterred from the path he had been traveling for more than a dozen years. Yet the world mission to which he had been divinely called could well be sidetracked, if not finally thwarted, by his failure to reach a base agreement on a shared gospel with the mother-church in Jerusalem.92 For these reasons Paul sought the unity of the church and close partnership with the Jerusalem leaders.


• 2: 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.
This verifies that the Jerusalem “pillars” agreed with Paul’s position on circumcision.

• 2: 4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—
these are possibly those “of the circumcision” Gal 2: 12 and certainly those who were undermining the Galatian churches

• 2: 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
an example of this would be the confrontation with Peter…

• 2: 6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.
the council was a large gathering of church leaders – yet here Paul describes the meeting as between his group and Peter/John/James, further indication this was prior to the Council meeting.

• 2: 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised
these “pillars” didn’t object to Paul’s gospel, in fact they encouraged him

• 2: 8(for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles),
there is a consensus that they are all being led by the Holy Ghost and they are all preaching the same gospel.

• 2: 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
clearly, unequivocally, endorsing Paul’s ministry

• 2: 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
This all closely resembles the outcome of the council – except no written note and messenger, which Paul would have surely mentioned.

DISCUSSION

1. What did Paul immediately do after his conversion?
2. Why did he go to Arabia?
3. How long was he in Arabia?
4. How did he escape from Damascus?
5. Why such a dramatic escape?
6. How soon did he go to Jerusalem?
7. What part did Barnabas play in Paul’s Jerusalem visit?
8. What got Paul in trouble in Jerusalem?
9. How did the brethren resolve the problem?
10. Where did Paul go when he left Jerusalem?
11. Then what happened?