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.