Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 3

Galatians 2:3 “Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.”

Paul answers the question of whether his ministry was valid by pointing to the only Gentile in his entourage. The answer is conveyed in terms of the question of circumcision. The leaders at Jerusalem responded by NOT requiring Titus to comply with Jewish law. The phrase “who was with me” speaks to Titus as the embodiment of Paul’s ministry – a representative sample. It also emphasizes the constant theme of RELATIONSHIP in this book – Paul and Titus were close friends, and Paul recognized the work of God established in Titus’ life. Paul’s ministry stood validated by a RELATIONSHIP. Paul could have said to the Galatians that the leader of the church had recognized that circumcision was not necessary for salvation (which is pretty much how the results of the counsel are explained in Acts 15). But Paul focuses on the person, and the fruit of the salvation process – Titus is a life transformed. Again – it is the RELATIONSHIP that forms the foundation. It is Titus as a person that means the most to Paul.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 2

Galatians 2: 2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.

Paul went to Jerusalem (no small journey, to be sure) “in response to a revelation.” No details are given, but its clear God told Paul to do this. Was it a direct revelation? Or did it come via a brother, or in counseling? (Some scholars point to Acts 11: 27 as the source of the revelation to go to Jerusalem). It doesn’t matter what the source of the revelation was, I suppose. But Paul was obedient to God’s word in his life.

The gist of the “revelation” was apparently to go to the leaders of the church at Jerusalem and submit his ministry to them, to get “official” approval for the outreach to the Gentiles, and to settle the issue of circumcision for the Gentiles once and for all.

This was done privately – which would conflict with the details of Acts 15, which explains the details of the meeting of the Council at Jerusalem, where this topic was debated publicly among the church leaders and settled. Either there was another visit by Paul to Jerusalem prior to the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 (many scholars think so, and point to the “famine visit” of Acts 11:27), or perhaps Paul met with the Apostles and other church leaders privately prior to the Council taking place – immediately before. Therefore, its not impossible to fit the events of Galatians 2 into the Acts 15 narrative. Acts 15:4 has Paul and Barnabas “welcomed” in Jerusalem, and reporting what God had done for the Gentiles through their ministry. Paul could have had his private meeting with “those who seemed to be leaders” at that time. Then, in Acts 15:5, the Pharisees who had become Christian believers publicly objected to Gentiles being exempt from the requirement of circumcision, and a public debate ensued. This would mean Paul would have been vindicated in private first. But its hard to reconcile the leaders allowing the public debate if they had just given Paul their blessing. Perhaps its possible that Paul and the Jerusalem elders orchestrated the entire public display of the Jerusalem Council in order to make their point. That would seem disingenuous, I suppose. This makes it difficult to reconcile Acts 15 with Galatians 2. I need to do a little more research.

“those who seemed to be leaders” Is Paul being disrespectful? I don’t think so. There was not a “papal” concept of authority in the early church. Individual leaders did not necessarily wield authority, but groups of men, working together as leaders, usually regionally. But the church at Jerusalem was recognized as having a sort of primacy. When Paul says “seemed,” its because he would have addressed whoever was there and appeared to be “in charge.” From both Acts 15 and Galatians 2, we can glean this included Peter and James the Lord’s brother. Both of these men were leaders at Jerusalem, but neither of them individually had authority over the whole church – they labored together.

“running my race in vain” At first blush, this would indicate that Paul was having doubts about the truth of his calling. But this is NOT borne out by the rest of scripture, or even the rest of Galatians. Paul was not only passionate about his calling, but he was totally convinced he was right. Yet, this language shows that if the elders had said to Paul, “stop” – he would have. Paul was completely submitted to authority, and he was willing to obey and give up everything he was living for, much like Abraham, when God told him to sacrifice his son, Isaac. (That Paul believed in the truth of his calling is borne out in 2:5 – he never wavered. Yet he was willing to stop or change if the Council had said so). I believe the comparison with Abraham is appropriate. The book of Hebrews states that Abraham had the faith to believe that Isaac would have risen from the dead had God forced him to kill his son, I think Paul was putting his ministry “on the altar” in a similar fashion, and Paul had the faith to believe that if the elders had told him to stop, or that Gentiles had to follow the law, God would miraculously intervene in some way to allow His work to continue among the Gentiles.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 1

Galatians 2:1 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also.

“14 years later” After his conversion, Paul had been active and passionate in his ministry to the Gentiles. A tremendous amount of history had passed (indeed, all the way from Acts 9 through Acts 15!) In Acts 13, Paul had been commissioned by God, along with Barnabas, as ministers to the Gentiles, and were sent out under the authority and covering of the Antioch church. They accomplished what tradition has come to call the First Missionary Journey. Paul was now established as an apostolic leader. Yet, he was willing, and was even compelled in his Spirit, to go to Jerusalem again.

He mentions that this time, Barnabas is with him, as well as Titus. Why? This only serves to continue to emphasize that everything about the Kingdom of God is connected to RELATIONSHIPS. There is no mention of traveling companions in his first trip to Jerusalem. That’s not to say that Paul went alone the first time. But I think this speaks to spiritual maturity. Paul has deepened his personal walk and relationship with these particular brothers, and they minister together, functioning in real body ministry. Paul needs Barnabas and Titus to do God’s work. Paul can’t succeed on his own – this is a weakness made into a strength by the Lord.

Bringing Titus along, and having Titus as a close personal friend and brother in the Lord is doubly important because of the issue of race and ethnicity. Barnabas was a Jew by birth, but Titus was a Gentile (see 2:3). Paul was practicing what he preached.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 1, verses 23 & 24

Galatians 1:23 "They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24 And they praised God because of me."

"They only heard the report” Paul again emphasizes his lack of connection with the church in Judea, his homeland. Besides his 2 week visit in 1:18, he was nothing but a news item. We can only guess at how BIG a news item this was, but I imagine it had to have been pretty important. The sentence in quotes implies big news. I imagine that the churches in Judea had lived in fear of Saul when the machinations of his persecution were at their peak. I also bet that Paul was a bit of a celebrity in the “upper crust” Pharisee community he grew up in. This change – former Christian hater and leader of the anti-Christian movement, who was personally responsible for the jailing and death of scores of believers, is now not only NOT coming after us, but he is now our major spokesman to the Gentile world – now THAT would have been big news all over Israel, not just among the Jewish converts to Christ. But the reaction to this news in also interesting.

Verse 24: “They praised God because of me.” The reaction to this juicy news – something like a major left wing atheist media figure becoming an evangelist today, or Osama bin Laden becoming a Christian, and then becoming a missionary to Africa – was approval. This seems like a throw away phrase, something that goes without saying. Yes, of course you’d think that the church Paul once was trying to destroy would be happy that their former tormentor was now on their side. But the issue at hand for the Galatians is whether being “Jewish” -- following the law of Moses and and the Jewish traditions -- was the way to go in order to be a Christian. The people who “praised God” because of Paul in verse 24 were certainly Jewish. I’ll bet most if not all of them were followers of the Jewish law – the very same concept that the Galatians were now struggling with. But the “folks back home” were approving and accepting of Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles. This is Paul’s point here – there is logic to the direction of his argument. The Judiazers had influenced and convinced many of the Galatians that in order to be pleasing to God, they had to conform to Jewish cultural norms. They had to “be Jewish.” Yet, the core of the church that was following Jewish cultural norms had heard the news about Paul’s ministry. I presume many of them knew what Paul was doing – that he was reaching out to Gentiles and NOT emphasizing Jewish culture – and yet, they approved. They “praised God because of [Paul].” It is a subtle, but logical point. Why kill yourself to emulate a cultural lifestyle, when the people you are trying to emulate think that establishing a Christian concept within your own culture is a good idea, and acceptable to God? Hmm? Now think about that in the context of the culture of churches here in America.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 1, verse 22

Galatians 1:22 "I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ."

Paul continues his testimony – the history of his conversion and early ministry, and continues to define it by his relationship (or lack thereof) with his homeland. He states that he was “personally unknown to the churches” that were in Judea. He did not even have a casual relationship with the churches of Israel or Judea -- the land of his birth. The implication, again, is that Paul depended on the local churches he was working in for guidance, support and authority. Also, Paul’s pattern of ministry to the Gentile churches was to live with them, stay with them, and invest himself personally in the local church. He had this kind of relationship with the Galatians. Indeed, it was an intimate relationship. The whole tone of the letter reflects an angry Father scolding teen aged children. To say “personally unknown” would have presented a sharp contrast. The cultural connection was simply not important to real life in Christ.

He also says “churches of Judea that are in Christ.” Is this a swipe at the Judiazers? Were there churches in Judea that are NOT in Christ? If the issues of the Judiazing heresy as reflected in Galatians 2:11 and so on are taken into account, perhaps this was true. Perhaps, just like today, there were institutions that were churches in Judea, had all the trappings of a church organization, but had none of the Holy Spirit, did now walk in God’s power or love, or were “off track,” chasing after or focusing on their own agenda, or distracted by unimportant or even "evil" issues (e.g. making sure everyone involved in the church conformed to a particular cultural standard).

Galatians Journal: Chapter 1, verses 18 through 21

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles-- only James, the Lord's brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21 Later I went to Syria and Cilicia.

“After 3 years” I would think this was 3 years from the time of his conversion. Paul then went to Jerusalem to “get acquainted” with Peter. He only spent about two weeks there. I wonder what the initial meeting between Paul and Peter was like? Well, if you read carefully, and cross reference with the description of Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem in Acts 9, it appears that Paul never actually met Peter, or at least did not spend much time with him. The description of Paul’s experiences in Acts 9 indicated he was not well received at all. His first meeting with Peter, if it took place in conjunction with the Acts 9 visit, was probably less than cordial.

Verse 19: The only “other” apostle he met with at this time was James, the brother of the Jesus. This probably indicates that whether or not this 15 day stay corresponded to the Acts 9 visit, there was some “quality” time spent between Paul and James, or Paul and both Peter with James.

Verse 20: He interjects that he is not lying – sort of a “swear to God” sort of thing. Why? Why would he think that the Galatians would find this hard to believe? Is it because of Paul’s bad experiences early on, such as Acts 9? Or is he being sarcastic? The emphasis throughout this section is that he did NOT rely on the Jerusalem/Jewish Christian leadership.

Verse 21: He goes on to Syria and Cilicia —in other words, he went back to his hometown! Paul can’t seem to emphasize enough in this section that his foundation in Christ was shaped by two forces – a well established, strong personal relationship with Jesus where God revealed the essence of the Gospel and his mission directly to him, and a solid relationship with non-Jewish Christians, or, at least, church organizations based in Gentile territory, whether populated by Jews or not (my guess is, more Gentiles than Jews). He had not originally met with Peter and James, the two “big guns” of the early church at Jerusalem. But he later spent a mere 2 weeks with them, and really had very little contact with the Jerusalem church and the hierarchy of the early church for the next 14 years. The point of sharing the story of the beginning of his ministry is not to prove Paul is some kind of “lone wolf,” who doesn’t need the apostolic covering, but to de-emphasize the concept that hanging onto his own Jewish ethnicity has any importance.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 1, verse 17

Galatians 1:17 "nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus."

Paul continues the narrative regarding his personal testimony. Not only did he not “rely on any man” in establishing his relationship with God and laying the foundation for his mission, but he also did not “go up” to Jerusalem. This would be important to the Galatians for two reasons. He mentions the Apostles – the authorities of the church. It is not that authority isn’t vital – Paul will begin to explain how vital he thinks the apostolic covering is beginning in verse 18 – but that the foundation of all he was in Christ was based first and foremost on his personal relationship with Jesus. We can’t depend on people, authorities, or church structure to have that personal relationship. Its not about following rules, or structure, or form, as always, the theme is RELATIONSHIP.

Also, by specifically mentioning Jerusalem, Paul is addressing the ethnic issue. Jerusalem was the center of both the Jewish and Christian worlds. He de-emphasizes the foundational need for his own culture and background as he came to know Christ. Paul bolsters his position – its not about who or what you are, but who you know – Jesus!

“Into Arabia” At first, Paul went into a desolate place, a desert. A dry place, where there is little in the way of vegetation -- not much growing. Is this a metaphor for the concept that we grow the most, we develop the deepest intimacy with God when we are in dry, tough times? This was also an area that was not part of Israel (my notes indicate this “Arabia” would have been a desert area in what was then the Nabatean Kingdom, in present day Jordan). Paul lays his foundation for his relationship with Jesus, not in Jerusalem or Israel, but in a pagan land, a wasteland. Again, Paul establishes that cultural identity has no relevance to our relationship with Jesus. (Interesting side note – Jesus’ own path to public ministry was similar. The initial supernatural manifestation of Jesus’ adult life occurred off the beaten path, at the Jordan River, at His baptism. Jesus then withdrew into the desert to confront Satan).

We know nothing of Paul’s time in Arabia. I suppose the presumption is he went alone, or spent a lot of time alone. Its not that he would have spent all of his time by himself – one could not have survived 3 years in such a place alone. However, I imagine Paul spent a great deal of time alone with God. I presume he also spent a lot of time in scripture – either via what he had memorized through his life experience in the Jewish traditions, or by reading. But while Paul established his relationship with Jesus one on one, He was never a “lone ranger.” He would have always needed to depend on others.

In fact, we really don’t know if he spent 3 years in the desert. Verse 18 says that “after 3 years” he went up to Jerusalem. At the end of v. 17, he states he “later returned to Damascus.” How much “later?” He could have been in the desert 4 days, 40 days, a year, 2 years – we just don’t know. What is clear, is he spent his formative Christian training under the authority of a local church in the town where he had his conversion. This shows that not only was Paul a man under authority, but local authority! Paul’s international apostolic mission grew up in a local congregation in Damascus, Syria.

The emphasis here is also on the concept that culture is unimportant. Damascus was the ancient capital of Aram (Syria), and was a center of Roman/Greek commerce and culture – the kind of “Hellenistic,” pagan influences the Judiazers sought to fight against.