Then after a lapse of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with [me];
Paul has been defending where his message came from — not from men, but by revelation. Here he picks up the story with a date, a journey, and two companions. Each detail is part of the argument.
The number matters more than it first appears. Those years were not empty.
God ordered it so that no less than fourteen years passed between two visits. The first was the fifteen days he spent with Peter, a few years after his conversion (see Gal. 1:18). The second is this visit to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus, the one Acts 15 speaks of. So into those fourteen years came his time of service at Antioch (Acts 11:25-26), and his first missionary journey (Acts 13 and 14). So when he went up he was no beginner looking to be taught what to preach. He was a well-tested apostle with a clear message of his own.
The gap also settles a bigger question about church authority.
The important thing for the Spirit of God was to remove every excuse for connecting Paul's mission or ministry with Jerusalem. The principle of apostolic succession is cut off by implication. Years passed before these visits. Even more telling is what the visits were like when he did go. Both rule out any idea that his ministry came from Jerusalem.
The verse does not say when the count begins. Writers on the passage leave it open.
We do not know from which point these fourteen years are to be counted, from his calling or from the time he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas.
The trip was not a courtesy call. Judaising teachers were pressing Gentile believers to be circumcised and live under the Jewish law.
After fourteen years he went up again to Jerusalem, and the reason was the Judaising Christians. False brothers had been brought in unnoticed. They came in secretly to spy out the freedom the Gentiles had in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring them into slavery... Paul and Barnabas had strongly resisted these false brothers, who had come down from Jerusalem. But God had not allowed them to succeed. No doubt this was so that Jerusalem itself, and the apostles linked with the assembly there, would be the ones to recognise the liberty of the Gentiles. Otherwise there would have been two churches: one bound by the law at Jerusalem, and one free from the law at Antioch. By the wisdom of God, Jerusalem itself declared that Christians from the nations were not under the law. So all remained united.
Titus was a Greek and had never been circumcised. Paul still brought him into Jerusalem.
He went up with Barnabas, taking Titus with him. It was by revelation, not by summons from Jerusalem, and not to gain a title from it... This was not the smallest concession to Jewish prejudice. It was a powerful blow against it. So, going up with Barnabas, he took Titus, a Gentile, along with him; and even so by revelation. The aim was that the twelve apostles should secure Gentile liberty, and that the church at Jerusalem should condemn the Judaizers. That is the opposite of getting his authority from either.
Taking him was itself an answer before any discussion began.
Paul was so clear, and knew the Lord's mind so well, that he says those at Jerusalem added nothing to him when they met. He was so clear about it that he took Titus with him, uncircumcised as he was. For Paul the question was already settled, and taking Titus proved it.
Barnabas is the other name in the verse, and his later history gives the mention weight. He and Paul went up together over this very question.
The question was raised whether the Gentile disciples had to be circumcised. So Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem about it (Paul is now usually named first). Acts 15... Later Paul proposed that they revisit the cities where they had preached. Barnabas insisted on taking his nephew Mark; but Paul objected, because Mark had left the work earlier. Barnabas held to his wish, so they parted. In this way these two valuable servants of the Lord were separated, who had risked their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus.
- Fourteen years — the long gap rules out the idea that Paul's message came down to him from Jerusalem.
- No beginner — he had already served at Antioch and finished a missionary journey. He arrived as a tested apostle with a message of his own.
- No summons — he went by revelation, not because Jerusalem called him, and not to gain standing from it.
- Titus in person — an uncircumcised Greek walked in beside him. His presence answered the question before anyone spoke.
- One church, not two — Jerusalem itself declared Gentile believers free from the law. God kept the church from splitting into a law-bound half and a free half.
and I went up according to revelation, and I laid before them the glad tidings which I preach among the nations, but privately to those conspicuous [among them], lest in any way I run or had run in vain;
Paul went up to Jerusalem by God's direction, not by a summons from the church there. Two questions follow: why confer with anyone if his message came by revelation, and what did he fear when he spoke of running in vain?
The believers at Antioch had decided that Paul should go to Jerusalem. Galatians gives the reason underneath that decision.
Paul speaks of it here to show that he went up only because it was the will of God. He did not go because it depended on the authority of those at Jerusalem. But the gospel itself was in question. So he was content to tell the others what he had been preaching. He did this privately, though, with those who were pillars, in case he should in any way have run in vain.
Some readers ask whether this clashes with the account in Acts:
How does this verse relate to Acts 15:2? There is no conflict. It was important that Paul was not sent by men. That is why in Galatians 2 he makes the point that even when he went up to Jerusalem, he went by divine revelation. Acts 15:2 is simply God's confirmation of the decision of the brothers in Antioch.
A ruling made at Antioch would have cost more than it gained.
Suppose a decision at Antioch had won the case for the Gentiles, and they had kept their liberty despite the Jews. Then there would have been an immediate danger of two assemblies forming and of unity being lost. So all of Paul's spiritual and apostolic power was not enough to overcome the opposing spirit at Antioch and settle the question. It was God's will that Jerusalem should settle it. The Christian Jews themselves — the apostles, the elders, and the whole assembly — were to pronounce the freedom of the Gentiles. In that way holy liberty and unity would both stand.
Paul had a reason for taking the leaders aside first.
Here we can see the wisdom of the apostle. He spoke privately to the leaders before the public discussion came on. That way it would be clear that there was no contradiction in the teaching of those who worked among Jews or among Gentiles — whatever difference there might be. He laid before the twelve the gospel he preached among the Gentiles. Did they judge it defective, as those who had misled the Galatians did? Did they add anything to him? The context shows they did neither.
Paul told them what he preached, but not everything he knew.
Notice how the Holy Spirit speaks of Paul communicating his gospel to those in Jerusalem. This was a death-blow to the insinuation that he had received it in some irregular way... There are two things to take account of in communicating truth. It must be certain that it is truth from God, and it must also be truth suited to those you address. They might have needed all of it, but they were not in a condition to receive it. The more precious the truth, the greater the harm, in a sense, if you give it to people who are not in a state to profit by it... Some people are still under law and do not know their death to it in Christ's death and resurrection. Such people first need a firm footing in the grace of God.
Commentators differ on the exact fear behind the phrase. None reads it as self-doubt.
The last part of the verse — making sure he was not running or had not run in vain — does not show doubt on the apostle's part. But someone had to call the other apostles to face this question: was Paul's ministry from God, or had his work of past years been wasted? There can be no halfway point here for Paul: there must be a definite declaration.
Others point to the danger among the converts already gathered:
He went up and communicated to them the gospel he was preaching. The opposition ran so high that he did this first of all in private, with "those who seemed influential." Legalism was sweeping the crowd, and he did not want that outbreak to work disaster among those who had been gathered from the Gentiles. This is what he means when he says he did it to make sure he was not running or had not run in vain. There was no yielding to the opposition in the slightest degree.
The verse cuts against the man who will not be questioned.
The opinion of a worldly-minded believer is clearly of little or no value, but that of a godly and mature believer may well be highly valued. In Galatians 2:2 the apostle Paul gives us an example of this. He was the apostle to the Gentiles, and received his gospel and his instructions on how to preach it by direct revelation from the Lord — yet he was not above conferring privately with those who were reputed to be spiritual men in Jerusalem.
- Revelation — Paul went by God's word, not by Jerusalem's permission. Acts and Galatians do not clash; God confirmed the decision made at Antioch.
- Location — God willed that Jerusalem should settle it. Jewish believers themselves declared Gentile freedom, so liberty and unity both stood.
- Privately — the leaders heard him first. Then no gap could appear between the two ministries.
- Restraint — he told them true things, not all things. Truth must fit the hearer, or even the most precious truth does harm.
- Vain — the fear was never self-doubt. It was for the converts already gathered. Paul yielded to the opposition in nothing.
(but neither was Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, compelled to be circumcised;)
Paul took Titus with him to Jerusalem. Titus was a Greek believer who had never been circumcised, and Jerusalem was where the push to add the law to faith was strongest. What happened there answers the question the Galatians were getting wrong: does a Gentile need anything besides Christ?
Calling Titus a Greek may say less about his nationality than you expect.
The word "Greek" has three meanings in the New Testament. First, a Greek by nationality. Second, set against a Jew, it means any Gentile — he need not be Greek by nationality. Third, in a wider sense, it means all nations who are not Jews, but who lived under the influence of Greek learning and customs. In this verse, we believe the meaning is simply that Titus was a Gentile.
This verse breaks into Paul's account of his visit.
The apostle had referred to these facts. He set out his gospel to them, privately to those of reputation. Along with that, he took Titus with him. Everyone knew Titus was a Greek, and yet no one compelled him to be circumcised. Paul leaves all this to weigh on the minds of the Galatians... If you read the third verse as an aside in brackets, it makes the passage clearer.
The word "compelled" carries the memory of a fight.
The word "compelled" in this verse tells us that the Jewish teachers made very strong efforts to force circumcision on Titus. As we read further down in this chapter, we will be astonished at the power that these men had in the Church in those days. Clearly they were determined not to receive Titus as a Christian unless he agreed to be circumcised. That mark was a sign that he was under the law.
Titus at that meeting was more than a travel detail.
Titus was a living demonstration of the liberty of the gospel of grace. That liberty belongs to both Jewish and Gentile believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why it was so important. If they had forced Titus to be circumcised, it would have implied that Paul's ministry had been in vain. But the decision in Jerusalem showed that the leaders agreed with Paul's teaching and supported it.
Bringing an uncircumcised man into Jerusalem took nerve. One writer names what drove it.
In this Paul was very bold; yet it was not the boldness of defiance, but of Christian liberty. In front of everyone, he took an uncircumcised Gentile brother into the very centre of Judaism. Who that was taught by God could refuse him, however full of Jewish feeling that person was?... But Titus, unlike Timothy, was a pure Gentile. To circumcise him in order to please believers among the Jews would have compromised the truth of the gospel. Titus was saved as a Gentile, entirely apart from ordinances or works of law.
Paul later circumcised Timothy. That looks like the opposite decision, so one writer explains what was at stake in each case.
Timothy's father was a Greek, so Timothy had not been circumcised, and Jewish circles would not have accepted him. Paul knew this and circumcised him. On the surface that seems totally at odds with his attitude to Titus — see Galatians 2:3-5. But with Titus the whole truth of the gospel hung on the question, while with Timothy no such question was involved at all. In Timothy's case it was simply a matter of removing something that would have got in the way of his service for the Lord. Paul was not concerned to keep up an appearance of consistency that would have been only skin-deep.
Circumcision itself carried no weight either way.
"Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing." In itself it makes no difference. But the moment anyone tries to impose it, we must resist firmly. Otherwise the liberty of the gospel is broken into, or conscience towards God is wounded. Here it was "false brothers," not unbelieving Jews, who tried to impose circumcision and so make the gospel Jewish.
Compulsion is only half the danger. A second writer points to the other half.
Comparing Galatians 2:3 with 1 Timothy 4:3-5, we see how man's will is as ready to demand as to forbid... Grace knows what is consistent with the truth of the gospel.
- Greek — Titus was a Gentile through and through, saved apart from ordinances or works of law.
- Compelled — teachers pushed hard, refusing to own him as a Christian without the mark of the law.
- Proof — Titus stood in Jerusalem uncircumcised, living evidence that faith in Christ needs nothing added to it.
- Timothy — Paul circumcised him when nothing was at stake. He refused for Titus, because the truth of the gospel hung on it.
- Truth — circumcision counts for nothing either way. But the moment someone demands it, resist, and the liberty of the gospel stands.
and [it was] on account of the false brethren brought in surreptitiously, who came in surreptitiously to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage;
Paul is telling the Galatians why he went up to Jerusalem. Here he names the reason: men who were not what they seemed had slipped into the Christian company. They were not after a small custom. Their target was the freedom believers have in Christ, and their aim was slavery.
Paul's description has two parts, and each does its own work.
In Galatians 2:4, Paul refers to these as "false brothers secretly brought in". Notice they were "brought in", and so he calls them "brothers", but he brands them as "false".
The word Paul uses describes an entry nobody noticed. One writer reaches for a modern military picture to show how it worked.
They were not true believers in Christ at all. They had outwardly accepted Christianity. But they knew nothing of the power of the precious blood of Christ to cleanse their sins. They were only professing Christians… Someone had brought these false brothers in by stealth, without the other brothers knowing. The Greek word describes what we now call "fifth columnists." These are enemies brought in secretly. They pretend to be friends and do their evil work from the inside, instead of attacking from the outside as honest men do.
Commentators differ on how much malice to read into their first arrival. One writer calls their profession premature rather than planned fraud:
We need not suppose that all, or even any, of the people described here joined the Church with openly fraudulent intentions at the start. But their confession of the name of Christ was certainly premature, if not insincere. Their hearts were still willingly wearing the yoke from which Jesus died to set His people free.
Paul says they came to spy. One writer explains who sent them and what the visit was for.
The enemy had sent false brothers, spies, into that public gathering to spy out the liberty of the brothers. The liberty they had in Christ Jesus was at stake. The enemy used these spies, these false brothers (not believers), to examine the territory. They were preparing to return later with a greater attack.
Another writer sees no confusion in it at all:
It was no misunderstanding of principles that caused them to act this way. Their motives were wilfully, deliberately evil. That is a strong statement, but the Spirit of God inspired it.
They were looking in from the outside at something they had never known.
Paul plainly hints at what these false brothers aimed at. This shows the connection between legalism and the untruthfulness of those who come in secretly to spy out a liberty they do not understand.
Their aim was to put believers under law. One writer says what law does to a person:
Paul urges us not to be trapped by the yoke of bondage. Law occupies me with myself, and a man who is occupied with himself is bound to be wretched. There is nothing in him that can answer to God's claims… Liberty — freedom — is what belongs to a Christian. It is not liberty for the flesh, but freedom from the flesh, and from all that kept the soul in bondage, darkness, and distance.
Paul treated two of his own companions differently. One writer names the principle behind it.
Paul resisted the circumcision of Titus, yet he allowed the circumcision of Timothy. The cases look alike, but Paul acted very differently. Behind that difference lies a principle. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing. In itself the matter does not count either way. But the moment someone tries to impose it, we must firmly resist, so that the liberty of the gospel is not damaged and conscience towards God is not wounded. Here it was "false brothers," not unbelieving Jews, who tried to impose circumcision, and so to bring the gospel under Jewish law.
The words Paul chose are strong ones.
The word "to spy out" is used in the Greek Old Testament for spying out a city. It means to spy out with the intention of overthrowing, as an enemy does… These false teachers were so sure of success that they had no doubt they would bring the church of God into abject slavery — slavery with no hope of release. That is the true position of those who are under the law.
- False — Paul lets the name "brothers" stand because they were brought in. He marks them "false": Christians in name only, strangers to the cleansing power of Christ's blood.
- Secretly — they slipped in as pretended friends and worked from the inside. Commentators differ on whether the deceit was planned from the start or grew from a heart still wearing the old yoke.
- Spying — they came to inspect a freedom they did not understand, aiming to overthrow it and return with a greater attack.
- Bondage — their goal was to put believers under law. Law occupies a person with himself and leaves him wretched, since nothing in him can meet God's claims.
- Refusal — circumcision in itself is nothing. But when someone demands it, believers must resist, or the freedom of the gospel is lost.
to whom we yielded in subjection not even for an hour, that the truth of the glad tidings might remain with you.
Paul looks back at a crisis in Jerusalem. False brothers had slipped in to inspect the freedom believers have in Christ, and they pushed for Titus to be circumcised. Paul would not give ground for a moment, because he says the survival of the gospel among his readers hung on it.
Paul did not just disagree with these men. He refused to take a place under them. One writer shows why that word matters:
Let us mark well what the word "submission" means. Error never puts itself on a level with truth. It makes a bold bid for the mastery. It is one form of the natural opposition of the flesh to the Spirit, and Satan is the one who stirs up the flesh in all its forms. So if we tolerate open error in doctrine, we give the devil both a place and the first place in the house of God.
The same writer notes that Scripture elsewhere tells believers to yield to one another:
He will not compromise when the truth is at stake, not even on the plea of showing grace and love. Other Scriptures tell us to "be subject to one another" (1 Peter 5:5). But when the issue is "false brothers," and the truth is at stake, the apostle will not submit for an hour.
The demand looked like a small thing. What it added to Christ made it a different gospel:
They had to be circumcised. Circumcision was not put exactly in the place of faith. But after they believed, it was brought in as a way to get righteousness. It was something added to the work of Christ. This might seem a small matter, but the apostle never wrote more strongly than he did on this subject. Their different gospel, which was not really another gospel, said this: having Christ was not enough without circumcision and the law.
Paul did not argue the case with words only. He kept an uncircumcised Greek believer at his side:
Titus was a living demonstration of the liberty of the gospel of grace for both Jewish and Gentile believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why it was so important. If they had forced Titus to be circumcised, it would have meant that Paul's ministry had been in vain.
Paul's refusal here can look inconsistent. One writer sets the two cases side by side and names the principle that settles them:
The apostle resisted the circumcision of Titus, and yet he allowed the circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:1-3). The two cases look alike, but the apostle acted very differently in each. "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing." It does not matter in itself. But the moment someone tries to impose it, we must resist firmly and at once. If we do not, the liberty of the gospel is damaged, or conscience towards God is wounded. Here it was "false brothers," not unbelieving Jews, who tried to impose circumcision, and so to make the gospel Jewish.
Another writer points to what was really at stake in Titus's case:
It shows how something we must resist firmly in one situation may be allowed in another. In the case of Titus, they demanded circumcision to set up a principle that cut at the very root of the gospel.
Paul made this stand for his readers, not for his own name. Older translations end the verse with "remain with you," and one writer weighs that word:
Others might yield, for the sake of peace. But Paul would never yield — no, not even for an hour. The word translated "remain" carries the sense of "firm possession." Paul and Barnabas fought a bitter fight. They fought so that we in China, and the whole Church of God, might hold a precious truth firmly and never give it up. That truth is complete justification and sanctification by faith alone, and not by works of the law.
- Threat. The pressure came from inside the church. It was "false brothers," not unbelieving Jews, who pushed for circumcision.
- Demand. What they asked for looked small, but it added something to the work of Christ — and an added gospel is a different gospel.
- Refusal. Paul refused to agree, and refused to take a place under them. To tolerate open error is to give the devil the first place in God's house.
- Discernment. Circumcision was nothing in itself. Paul allowed it for Timothy and refused it for Titus. What decides the matter is whether someone is forcing it on you.
- Result. Paul stood firm for his readers — so that the gospel would be their firm possession, and the Church's after them.
But from those who were conspicuous as being somewhat -- whatsoever they were, it makes no difference to me God does not accept man's person; for to me those who were conspicuous communicated nothing;
Paul is telling the story of his visit to Jerusalem. Here he reaches the men that city looked up to. Their standing carried no weight with him. God does not weigh people that way, and these men gave him nothing he did not already have.
Paul is answering an accusation. Teachers in Galatia had built their case on where his message came from.
The false brothers had tried to make the churches in Galatia believe that Paul was not a true apostle. Their reason was that he had not received his authority or his teaching from the apostles at Jerusalem. Paul has shown us that he received both from the Lord Jesus Christ, and not from any man. These false brothers wanted to make Peter and James and John head of the church, so that everyone had to receive authority from them. These men were apostles. They had seen the Lord and been with Him on earth, and people looked up to them as men of very great importance. But Paul rejected their authority outright. To Paul, Peter was only a man.
"God shows no partiality" is the reason Paul gives for his own attitude. God does not measure a person the way people do.
Apart from these false brothers there were those in the church "who seemed to be influential." Because of their gift and spiritual state, such men might rightly hold a leading place. Even so, their prominent position carried no weight with the Apostle when the truth was in question. God shows no partiality. With God what counts is not how prominent a man is before others — not the person — but what there is of Christ in the person. Paul may honour such men and love them as brothers, but they added no authority to what he had already received from Christ.
Even Peter and Paul had to learn this lesson themselves.
"God shows no partiality": a hard saying. Who can hear it? Peter had to learn it through a clear revelation from heaven (see Acts 10). Paul learned it by kicking against the goads, until the grace of God subdued him. And we have to learn the same lesson under God's hand. God does not look at personal qualification, or at the things we do, or at official position. He looks at what His own grace makes a person to be in Christ, and at the gift He gives by His sovereign will.
Paul puts himself on level ground with men who had walked with Jesus. Why could such men add nothing to what he knew?
The language here is not belittling toward them. It is a frank, straightforward statement of truth. When he says, "what they were makes no difference to me," he adds, "God shows no partiality." So he places himself on the same level, as far as personalities are concerned. The truth does not gain its character from the importance of its messengers. Could those men who had actually lived with the Lord on earth give nothing to enlighten Paul? No, their knowledge was not greater than his. The revelations given to Paul were of a higher character than the gospel the others had preached. His ministry is connected with Christ ascended and glorified, Head of the new creation and of the church.
The phrase is not a boast that Paul learned no facts from anyone.
"Added nothing to me" refers to authority and capacity rather than to information.
The wording may also run the other way — that they laid nothing on him.
His own words are: they "added nothing to me." It is also possible that the meaning is: they "imposed nothing on me."
The verse is often read as though Paul were putting down the older apostles. Commentators reject that reading.
Paul honours the men whom the Lord truly called as apostles, and whose faithfulness to their trust confirmed that title. Nothing in the words used here belittles or undervalues those whom the Lord had called before him. In themselves both he and they were nothing. As God's ministers and Christ's apostles they stood on the same footing, whatever the difference in gift.
The visit produced the opposite of what Paul's critics predicted.
These Jewish teachers hinted that Paul and the other apostles did not really agree. All such hints came to nothing. It turned out that Paul was the one who gave, not Peter, and the three leading men there had given him the right hand of fellowship.
- Charge — Critics said Paul's gospel needed approval from Jerusalem. The verse is his answer, not an attack on the older apostles.
- Standard — God shows no partiality. What counts before Him is not prominence, but what there is of Christ in the person.
- Weight — Truth does not gain its character from the importance of its messengers. Reputation settles nothing when truth is in question.
- Scope — "Added nothing" is about authority and capacity, not information. Some read it as "imposed nothing on me."
- Outcome — The leaders at Jerusalem did not correct Paul. They received from him and gave him the right hand of fellowship.
but, on the contrary, seeing that the glad tidings of the uncircumcision were confided to me, even as to Peter that of the circumcision,
When Paul went up to Jerusalem, the leaders there did not correct his message or license it. They looked at what he preached and saw what God had already settled. That raises a second question: were Peter's gospel and Paul's two different messages?
Jewish teachers in Galatia hinted that Paul and the apostles did not really agree. The meeting showed the opposite. It also showed which way the teaching flowed.
These Jewish teachers hinted that Paul and the other apostles did not really agree. Every such hint failed. It turned out that Paul was the one who gave the teaching, not Peter. The three leading men there had given Paul the right hand of fellowship.
"Uncircumcised" here means the Gentiles, and "circumcised" means the Jews. The words name who each man was sent to. They do not mark out two rival messages.
We must not think that the "good news of the uncircumcised" differs in any way from the "good news of the circumcised." It is not a different good news. There is only one good news, but it goes to different people: one to the Gentiles, the other to the Jews. We must also notice that Paul stands on equal ground with Peter. One is the apostle to the nations, the other is the apostle to the Jews. Peter is not set even slightly above Paul.
Commentators differ on how far the two preachings resembled each other. One says the message itself is not different at all. Another says each apostle began from a different point.
Every careful reader of Scripture will see this. In both Peter and Paul the gospel was the Spirit's testimony to Christ, yet the two preachings had clearly different marks. Peter spoke of One who had walked here, well known by all the Jews. Wicked men crucified Him, yet God raised Him up and lifted Him to glory. In His name forgiveness of sins is now preached to all. Paul, on the other hand, starts with His glory.
The two commissions had different goals in view. One aimed to free Israel's believers from bondage under law. The other reached further still.
We should watch closely the distinction drawn here between the gospel of the uncircumcision and the gospel of the circumcision. Peter was entrusted with the second. Its main aim was to bring the elect of Israel out of bondage under law into the adoption and liberty of sons. The gospel of the uncircumcision holds more. Besides the fullest explanation of God's free grace and of the mystery of the Church, it also contains distinct and special prophecy.
The split of the work followed the gift of God. Each man served where God had already blessed him.
Apostleship in the work of the gospel depended upon the gift of God. God had worked among the Gentiles through Paul and Barnabas. He had worked in the same way among the Jews through Peter... They owned the grace of God in that work. So they agreed that each should serve according to his gift, in the sphere God had entrusted to him. So Paul became the apostle to the Gentiles, to whom Christ had sent him; and Peter the apostle to the Jews only, among whom God had blessed him.
Peter's own letters show where his work lay.
They saw that God had entrusted Paul with the gospel of the uncircumcision, just as He had entrusted Peter with that of the circumcision. So God had worked, and they bowed to it. Peter's own letters... fit this arrangement that God set in place, for both are written to believing Jews. Peter left the work among the Gentiles to the far mightier hand of Paul.
- Entrusted — Paul's trust came from God, not from Jerusalem. At the meeting he gave the teaching; he did not receive it.
- Recognised — The leaders saw what God had already given, and agreed with it. Recognising grace in another servant is not the same as granting it.
- Empowered — God's own working through a man marked out his sphere. So each served where God had blessed him.
- Bounded — Peter's field was the Jews, Paul's the nations. Peter's letters match that, and he left the Gentile work to Paul.
- Shared — One gospel, two missions, and neither apostle above the other. The message never split; only the fields did.
(for he that wrought in Peter for [the] apostleship of the circumcision wrought also in me towards the Gentiles,)
The verse sits inside a parenthesis in Paul's account of his meeting with the leaders at Jerusalem. It settles the question the Galatian troublemakers had raised: did Paul's gospel come from God? His answer points not to human approval but to the one Worker behind both his mission and Peter's.
One writer explains "worked" with a second word: energized. God gave the drive as well as the commission.
"He that worked in (energized) Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision, worked also in me (energized me) toward the Gentiles." God gave both Peter and Paul divine power. He stirred them with divine zeal to carry out the commissions He had entrusted to them.
"The circumcision" means the Jewish people, marked out by that sign; the Gentiles are everyone else. God sent the two men to different audiences. The verse traces both results back to one source.
Whether among Jews or Gentiles, it was God who worked; and the labourers were only the vessels of His grace. It is a happy thing to see these men recognizing the grace given to each other. God had called and commissioned them alike. Yet their line of work was quite different, and neither had received any kind of authority from the other.
Paul does not argue that Jerusalem licensed him. He argues that God did through him what God had already done through Peter. The leaders only agreed with what they saw.
Apostleship in the work of the gospel depended on the gift of God. Now as God had worked among the Gentiles through Paul and Barnabas, He had likewise worked among the Jews through Peter... and owning the grace of God in the work, they agreed that each should labour according to their gifts, in the spheres entrusted to them by God.
Those at Jerusalem did not hand Paul a mandate; they recognised one.
They in no way controlled his ministry, but saw the grace that God had given him. Looking at God and at His power at work in Paul, they felt that he and Barnabas were the most fitting persons to deal with the uncircumcision.
Two apostles with separate audiences could have become two parties. This verse explains why they did not.
There was unity. Why was this unity there? Because the One who worked in Peter was the same One who was working in Paul. That is where the unity came from. It was not a man-made unity, it was a divine unity, and they were subject to it.
The same power reached men at opposite ends of the social scale: the untrained and the highly educated.
Peter and John were "uneducated, common men," yet that did not stop God from working powerfully through them. Saul of Tarsus had been brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and that by itself was no help to him. He could say that the One who worked in Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision was mighty in him toward the Gentiles. It was the same power in both, and there is no other power.
The verse gives Peter one field of work. That limit matters, because of what many have since claimed for him.
Notice also that Paul stands on an equal footing with Peter. One is the apostle to the nations, the other the apostle to the Jews. Peter is not set in the smallest degree above Paul... Sadly, many millions of Gentiles today believe that Peter is the head of the church, and even its foundation. The Lord blessed Peter greatly, but he is the apostle of the circumcision, and only of the circumcision.
Yet the two fields were never sealed off from each other.
Peter was above all the apostle of the circumcision. Yet it was through him that God first opened the door of the kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles. And though Paul had gone to the Gentiles, the Spirit of God used him to write to believers of the circumcision the finest treatise on what Christ and Christianity mean for the law and the prophets... With admirable wisdom the Lord directs the work and the workmen, but never exclusively. The apostle Paul is here the proof of it on one side, as Peter is on the other.
- One Worker. The same God energized Peter toward the Jews and Paul toward the Gentiles — one power operating in two men.
- One Gift. Apostleship came from God's gift, not from any human permission. The leaders at Jerusalem recognised Paul's calling; they did not grant it.
- One Unity. The same One worked in both men. So their agreement was not a truce between rivals but a divine unity they submitted to.
- Two Spheres. Peter's field was the circumcision, Paul's the nations. They were equal in rank, different in scope, and never sealed off from each other.
- No Credentials Needed. The unschooled apostle and Gamaliel's pupil were carried by the same power. Background neither qualifies nor disqualifies a servant.
and recognising the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were conspicuous as being pillars, gave to me and Barnabas [the] right hands of fellowship, that *we* [should go] to the nations, and *they* to the circumcision;
Paul has just laid his gospel before the leading men at Jerusalem. This verse records their answer: a handshake. So what did that handshake do? Did Jerusalem give Paul his licence to preach, or only recognise what God had already done?
Paul's word for these three men is a building word, and Scripture uses it in more than one way.
Collectively God's apostles and prophets are called the foundation of the Church (Ephesians 2:20). Individually they are here called "pillars." The word hardly needs explaining, since its force and fitness are easy to see. Each faithful witness is a pillar of the truth that he maintains. The Church, or true assembly of the faithful, is collectively the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15)… John, James and Cephas were what they seemed to be: inspired witnesses and scribes of Christ.
Which James is named first here? Not the apostle John's brother, who died early. One writer identifies him as the Lord's brother, the James who speaks up in Acts and wrote the letter carrying his name:
The James who wrote the letter of James was not the brother of John. Herod killed that James in the very early years, as recorded in Acts 12:2. The author of the letter was the James spoken of in Acts 15:13 and Acts 21:18. Paul calls him "James, the Lord's brother," in Galatians 1:19. In Galatians 2:9 he acknowledges him as one of the "pillars" of the Church in Jerusalem.
Others hold that he was the apostle James son of Alphaeus, and read the plain name here as marking him off from the Lord's brother:
The writer was no other than James "the little," son of Alphaeus or Clopas… the same man who took the lead after the martyrdom of the son of Zebedee, as is plain in the Acts (Acts 12:17; Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18). Compare 1 Corinthians 15:7 and Galatians 2:9, 12.
Where did Paul's authority to preach come from?
As the model minister of Christ, he received his commission and authority to preach from Christ Himself. It did not come from man, and it did not come from the church. He takes great pains in Galatians 1 to prove that this was from God. He never went to Jerusalem, not even to the apostles, to get authority to preach. They only recognised him.
The gift was the Lord's to give, and that decided what the three could do with it:
Paul had received his commission straight from heaven. Peter, James and John could rejoice to acknowledge the grace and the gift of the Lord Jesus Christ to this chosen vessel of mercy. But they did not dare to add anything to it, or to come in between the Master and His servant.
How did they decide who should go where? They looked at where God was already working.
He puts James first among the pillars, as we see in Acts 15… Apostleship in the work of the gospel depended on the gift of God. God had worked among the Gentiles through Paul and Barnabas, and He had worked in the same way among the Jews through Peter… They saw the grace of God in this work. So they agreed that each should labour according to their gifts, in the spheres God had entrusted to them.
The division was of hearers, not of message — and it left neither man above the other:
We must not think that the good news for the uncircumcised differs in any way from the good news for the circumcised. It is not a different good news. There is only one good news, and it goes to two different groups: one to the Gentiles, the other to the Jews. Notice also that Paul stands on an equality with Peter.
The three could have hedged their welcome. They did not.
There is great beauty in verse 9. James, Peter and John approve Paul's ministry without reserve. These men are recognised as pillars of Christianity, yet they show no hint of envy and no thought of limiting, qualifying or adding to Paul's distinctive ministry… How sweet this unity is! In holy subjection under the hand of God, it can show itself in such diversity.
The handshake settled the fields of work as well as the friendship.
They saw that God had given him grace, as He had given it to them, and their hands gave a ready outward confirmation of the glad conviction in their hearts. Taking the circumcision as their own appointed field, they joyfully sent their fellow workers off on their own separate charge, to seek Christ's "other sheep" among the Gentiles (John 10:16).
Why does Paul tell this story at all? He is answering a charge made against him.
These Jewish teachers hinted that Paul and the other apostles did not really agree. All such hints came to nothing. It turned out that Paul was the one who passed on the truth, not Peter, and that the three leaders there had given the right hand of fellowship to Paul.
- Grace seen. What the three pillars perceived in Paul was grace given by God — the whole handshake rests on that sight.
- Grace owned. They only recognised him; they never authorised him. His commission came directly from Christ, and they dared add nothing to it.
- Grace divided. Each went where God had already worked through him: Paul to the nations, Peter to the circumcision. One gospel, two audiences, equal apostles.
- Grace without envy. No limiting, no qualifying, no jealousy — unity shown in real diversity of service.
- Grace vindicated. The claim that Paul stood apart from the older apostles collapses; the pillars shook his hand.
only that we should remember the poor, which same thing also I was diligent to do.
The leaders in Jerusalem added nothing to Paul's gospel — no circumcision, no law, no conditions — except one request: remember the poor. That request shows what a gospel of grace looks like in practice, and Paul was already doing it.
The force of this verse lies in what came before it. Paul's opponents claimed the apostles in Jerusalem had to correct his gospel. Instead, those leaders backed it and asked for one thing.
He went up this time by a revelation from God. He met with James, Peter and John in private, and told them the gospel he preached. They fully endorsed it and added nothing to it. Their only wish was that he should remember the poor — which, Paul writes, he had been eager to do. So the meeting with those who seemed to be pillars added nothing to his gospel.
This was not general charity. It pointed to believers in Jerusalem with a particular history.
We cannot overlook how often the poor believers at Jerusalem are remembered. No doubt their circumstances gave them a special claim. Hardship had likely set in, and persecution had left some widows and orphans. There were not only many believers there. Jerusalem was also the one place where, so far as we read, they sold their possessions and goods to give to all, as anyone had need. But there, in part through this surprising witness of unselfish love, poverty came later. And no one among the Gentile churches urged help for the believers in Judea as strongly as our apostle did.
This letter was written to keep believers from going back under law. Yet the one thing asked of Paul was giving, not rule-keeping.
How strikingly beautiful in such a letter is this desire of James, Peter and John, for it is the effect of the grace of God known and enjoyed. This is another contrast to mere law-keeping, for the Law gave nothing: it only demanded... God gave His own beloved Son. We prove that we truly know Him by showing the same mercy, grace and kindness to others.
Jewish and Gentile believers had plenty to keep them apart. This one request tied them together.
Remember that Paul and Barnabas had already visited Jerusalem with gifts for the poor Jewish Christians, sent by the Gentile Christians (Acts 11:27-30; 12:25). The brothers at Jerusalem ask the Gentile Christians to remember the poor, even though they are not under law and not required to be circumcised. This care of the poor was a very strong bond between the Gentile believers and the Jewish believers. There was much to divide them, and much to cause jealousy between them. But the loving care of their wealthier Gentile brothers for the poor believers in Judea bound these Jewish and Gentile Christians together.
Why this request in particular? One writer weighs two reasons, then looks past both to Christ Himself.
Why, we may ask, this particular request? Was it only because experience had taught them how hard it is to combine charity with active ministry? Or did it point to the poverty of many believers at Jerusalem, still suffering the effects of the famine foretold long before? Whichever it was, we cannot help noticing in it a provision for keeping practical and sympathetic unity among the naturally different elements that make up the Church of God... If we know and keep in mind Christ's poverty, we will not ignore His quiet but clear calls on our sympathy. They reach us in the known troubles and needs of those who bear His name (1 John 3:17-18; 4:20).
Paul says he was already eager to do this. His other letters show what that eagerness looked like in practice.
About the collection for the believers, we see how constantly the apostle keeps in mind what the leaders at Jerusalem urged on him: that he should remember the poor. He gave the same directions here as he had given to the assemblies of Galatia. On the first day of the week, the Christian's day, each was to set aside a sum as God had prospered him. Then no collection would be needed when the apostle arrived... He clearly did not want casual giving or a passing impulse. He wanted a systematic recognition of the goodness of God, and of how much we need one another.
- Only one. The leaders at Jerusalem added nothing to Paul's gospel. They asked one thing: remember the poor. Paul was already doing it.
- The poor. These were believers in Judea. Persecution, famine, and their own earlier selling of possessions to share with all had left them poor.
- Grace, not law. The one request was to give. That is the mark of grace enjoyed. The law gave nothing; it only demanded.
- The bond. Jewish and Gentile believers had much to divide them. Money carried from Gentile hands to Jewish need held them together.
- The habit. Paul turned the request into a habit: money set aside on the first day of the week. Not impulse, but a steady recognition that we need one another.