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.