Galatians

by Cardinal Albert Vanhoye

  Reflection and Application (1:11–24)

  Our joy as Christians is founded on the fact that God has entered into history to save us and that the †gospel is no mere human philosophy or ideology, but is God’s own message to the human race about how we can be saved from the power of sin, Satan, and death forever. Paul fought for the purity of this message, refusing to accept any distortion or compromise. At the heart of this message is the saving death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which establishes us in a right relationship with God. The human predicament caused by sin requires a divine remedy. No one could have imagined what that remedy would entail. It was necessary for God himself to reveal it in the gospel.

  1. For an explanation of what was distinctive in Paul’s proclamation of the gospel, see the commentary on 2:2 and the sidebar, “Paul’s Gospel,” p. 62.

  2. Using the verb form of this word, Dan 2:47 †LXX states that “God is a revealer of mysteries.” “Apocalypse” eventually came to refer to the literary genre to which a portion of the book of Daniel belongs (Dan 7–12). This literary genre developed during the two centuries before Christ as a way to present revelation from God. The best example of this genre is John’s Revelation, described as apokalypsis in Rev 1:1. In the New Testament this word is also used for prophecies and visions (1 Cor 14:6, 26; 2 Cor 12:1, 7) and for the glorious revelation of Jesus at his return (1 Cor 1:7; 1 Thess 2:7; 1 Pet 1:7, 13).

  3. In a Gospel text closely related to this passage (Matt 11:25–27), the act of revealing is attributed first to the Father and then to the Son. In fact, the Father confers on the Son the work of revelation. This pattern is analogous to what Paul teaches about redemption itself. It is the Father who “handed [his Son] over for us all” (Rom 8:32), but at the same time it is the Son who has “given himself up” for us (Gal 2:20; see 1:4).

  4. This expression is characteristic of Paul, who is the only one to use it in the New Testament (Rom 7:13; 2 Cor 1:8; 4:7, 17).

  5. Greek aperchomai, “to depart from,” in contrast to “go up [anerchomai] to Jerusalem.”

  6. Acts does not report Paul’s time in Arabia but only recounts Paul’s conversion and preaching in Damascus prior to his going to Jerusalem (Acts 9:19–26). Either Luke did not know that Paul went to Arabia in between stays in Damascus, or, more likely, he compresses his account, leaving out unnecessary details.

  7. See Matt 12:46–47; 13:55–56; Mark 3:31–32; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12; 7:3–10; Acts 1:14.

  8. See Catechism 500 on the “brothers” of the Lord.

  9. Catholic tradition has followed St. Paul in not interpreting this prohibition as excluding all oaths; see Catechism 2154.

  10. The Greek word for church, ekklēsia, means “assembly” (see Acts 19:32, 39, 40) and in the †Septuagint refers to the congregation of Israel (Deut 23:3–4; 1 Chron 13:2, 4).

  Official Recognition of Paul’s Gospel

  Galatians 2:1–10

  Continuing his autobiographical account, Paul presents another argument in defense of the †gospel as he understands and proclaims it. To this point he has insisted on his independence as an apostle, based in part on his lack of contact with the other apostles. Now he will show that the content of his gospel was approved by the leadership of the church in Jerusalem. Paul thus responds to another likely insinuation of his opponents: that his message is incompatible with that of the twelve apostles appointed by Jesus.

  The passage divides into three parts: (1) an introduction that explains the circumstances of Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem (vv. 1–2); (2) a brief mention of a controversy with “false brothers” (vv. 3–5); and (3) an account of the official recognition of Paul’s gospel (vv. 6–10). The introduction has a tranquil tone and simple style. But in the second part, when Paul discusses the controversy, his prose shows signs of agitation, which makes it a little hard to follow his thought. A calmer though insistent tone characterizes the third part.

  Another Visit to Jerusalem, with Controversy (2:1–2)

  1Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2I went up in accord with a revelation, and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles—but privately to those of repute—so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain.

  NT: Acts 15:1–5, 12

  [2:1]

  Once again Paul offers a chronology that can be interpreted in different ways. What is the starting point of the fourteen years before his next trip to Jerusalem? Does this time include the three years in Arabia (1:18), or is he not counting them? Since Paul wants to emphasize the independence of his apostolic ministry, if it were seventeen years that he had been largely away from Jerusalem, he would probably make that clear. Thus it is probable that the three years are included, eleven years have passed since his meeting Cephas, and the events he is about to describe occurred fourteen years after his conversion.

  This raises a historical question: What is the connection between this visit to Jerusalem that Paul describes in 2:1–10 and the events of Acts 15, commonly referred to as the Council of Jerusalem? According to Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas go up to Jerusalem and present a report of their mission to a meeting of the apostles and elders, who reach a decision about what will be required of †Gentile Christians. The question of the relationship between the meeting in Gal 2 and that in Acts 15 is complex, and there is far from perfect agreement among scholars, but the majority believe that both passages refer to the same events (see the sidebar, “Paul’s Visit and the Jerusalem Council [Acts 15]”). If Paul’s conversion occurred in AD 35 (as some scholars suggest), and the years are counted inclusively (as was the custom at the time), his first meeting with Cephas occurred in 37 and the Council of Jerusalem in 48.

  Paul’s mention of the presence of Barnabas matches the account in Acts, which reports that prior to the trip to Jerusalem Paul and Barnabas had gone on mission together and had proclaimed the gospel to Gentiles as well as Jews (see Acts 13:4–14:28). Thanks to Acts, we know that Barnabas was a “Levite, a Cypriot by birth,” a generous Christian held in high esteem by the church in Jerusalem (4:36–37). Barnabas was sent to Antioch to pastor the growing church in that city; when he saw the large number of new converts, he went to Tarsus and recruited Paul to help him (11:22–26). In the first part of their joint mission, Barnabas is named first and has the lead role among the missionaries, but after their visit to Antioch in Pisidia (13:46), Paul is usually named first. However, in Paul’s account in Galatians of the events in Jerusalem, he speaks in the first-person singular as the person with the primary responsibility (except for Gal 2:5), while the role of Barnabas is secondary (2:1, 9). This agrees with Luke’s account of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, where Paul’s name is consistently mentioned first, except in the letter from the council to the church in Antioch (Acts 15:25).

  BIBLICAL BACKGROUND

  Paul’s Visit and the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)

  A comparison of the accounts of Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem, when his way of presenting the †gospel to †Gentiles is approved (Gal 2:1–10), and of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) reveals some similarities but also some differences.

  The similarities include the facts that Paul and Barnabas go up to Jerusalem to discuss whether Gentile Christians need to be circumcised, since there are some who want to impose this requirement. Both Peter and James participate in the discussions, and the outcome is favorable to the position held by Paul and Barnabas—namely, that Gentile Christians will not be required to be circumcised.

  The differences include the reason that occasions the Jerusalem meeting: Paul cites a revelation from God as the reason for his trip to Jerusalem, while Acts reports a controversy that had arisen. Paul mentions that Titus accompanied him and Barnabas, and that John was a party to the final agreement, but Luke mentions neither Titus nor John. Paul says he laid out his gospel privately to those of repute (Gal 2:2), while Acts describes first a meeting of the apostles and elders to investiga
te the matter (Acts 15:6), then a larger session (15:12). Acts does not recount Barnabas and Paul presenting their gospel; rather, they report “the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them” (15:12). At the end of the account in Acts there is a list of additional requirements asked of the Gentile Christians, but Paul makes no mention of them in his account.a

  The issue is complicated, and the data do not easily yield a solution that satisfies every question. Nevertheless, none of the differences in detail are irreconcilable (e.g., Paul may well have received his revelation when praying about the controversy, Acts does not mention every person involved in an event, etc.). On the whole the points in common are more substantial than the differences, so the majority of exegetes hold that Paul and Luke refer to the same series of events but present them from different viewpoints.

  a. Another difference is that, according to the account in Acts, Paul’s coming to Jerusalem for the council was not his second journey to this city as a Christian, as Paul says here in Gal 2:1, but his third. His first is mentioned in Acts 9:26–30; his second is a charitable relief mission mentioned in Acts 11:30 and 12:25. The one in Acts 15:2 would therefore be the third. However, Luke seems uncertain about the chronology of the relief mission, introducing it somewhat vaguely (Acts 11:27).

  Titus was a close coworker of Paul’s (2 Cor 2:13; 8:23) and a Gentile, to whom one of Paul’s pastoral letters was later written. Paul’s bringing Titus with him to Jerusalem may have been intended to put a human face on the Gentile mission for the leaders in Jerusalem.

  BIBLICAL BACKGROUND

  Paul’s Gospel

  Paul uses various terms to speak of the †gospel. Sometimes he calls it just “the gospel” (Gal 2:5, 14); other times he calls it “the gospel of Christ” (1:7), “the gospel preached by me” (1:11), or “the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles” (2:2). Reading the beginning of the letter (1:6–7), one has the impression that there is no difference between the gospel preached by Paul and “the gospel of Christ.” The only difference seems to be a difference of place and audience. Instead of preaching in the land of Israel, Paul is preaching in pagan †Gentile territory. However, the fact that Paul came to Jerusalem to present his gospel to church leaders clearly implies the presence of certain differences. In 2:2 it is impossible to substitute “the gospel of Christ” for “the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles.” Paul could not write “I presented the gospel of Christ to them,” because the apostles in Jerusalem knew that gospel much earlier than Paul.

  Paul’s gospel is therefore not identical with the gospel of Christ but is a specific way of presenting it. Paul realized that preaching the gospel to pagan Gentiles required some differences in content. Paul needed to discern: What are the essential elements of the gospel of Christ? Which elements of Jewish tradition are necessarily tied to the gospel—and thus need to be presented to Gentiles—and which are not? This kind of discernment would not have been easy for a Jew raised to worship God according to Jewish traditions. However, Paul had received a revelation of the mystery of Christ that enlightened his understanding. He realized that preaching to the Gentiles, far from being a circumstance that led to distorting the gospel of Christ, led to a clearer and more profound recognition of what is specific to Christian faith, distinguishing it from nonessential elements of Jewish tradition.

  However, the existence of two ways of presenting the gospel, and two ways of living it out in the Church—one for Jews and another for Gentiles (see commentary on 2:7)—could not fail to raise serious problems. A discussion and clarification by the apostles was indispensable.

  [2:2]

  Paul recounts that his trip to Jerusalem was undertaken in accord with a revelation. He does not give the least hint of the form this revelation took. It could have been an interior illumination or perhaps a prophetic word given through someone else, which the community recognized as the voice of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 13:1–2). In Jerusalem, Paul presented his gospel to the leaders of the Church to hear their judgment about it. Paul does not say “the gospel that I was preaching” but the gospel that I preach, indicating that he did not change his manner of preaching the gospel afterward.

  Paul refers to the Jerusalem leaders to whom he presented his gospel by a word the NABRE translates in different verses as those of repute, those “reputed to be important,” and those “reputed to be pillars” (Gal 2:2, 6, 9, italics added).1 The same word appears in Mark 10:42, where it is translated as “those . . . recognized” as rulers, which captures the sense better. The meaning is not that the leaders appear to be something that does not correspond to reality. Texts from Euripides, Plato, and other Greek writers show that these expressions designate recognized leaders, people with titles who have a public charge that confers visibility and not merely appearance. Paul probably uses this general term because the group was composed not exclusively of apostles but also of presbyters (according to Acts 15:6) and because he wants to highlight the official character of the meeting and its conclusion.

  Paul concludes Gal 2:2 by expressing his personal goal for the meeting: so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain. The Greek phrase translated here “so that I might not” is used only by Paul in the New Testament, and it always refers to a fear or danger to avoid.2 Some interpreters want to deny any concern here on Paul’s part since Paul has no doubts about his gospel. But Paul is not expressing anxiety that he has made a mistake about the gospel. Rather, the context indicates that Paul’s concern for the fruitfulness of his ministry has to do with the importance of maintaining communion with the church in Jerusalem. It was not enough to preach the gospel accurately. It was also necessary to maintain unity with the mother church. True fruitfulness in ministry requires the preaching of the truth but at the same time the building and preserving of unity. Without unity, Paul would be running “in vain.” This is why he felt it necessary to present his way of preaching the gospel to those responsible and to reach an explicit agreement with them.

  The way Paul expresses himself reveals humility on his part and not the rigid and prideful attitude that some interpreters attribute to him. Paul did not write, “I presented my gospel to them to force them to recognize the correctness of my position”; instead he wrote, “I presented my gospel to them to avoid the danger of my running in vain.” Through divine revelation, he understood the need to maintain unity with the mother church in Jerusalem (2:1).

  Paul’s Resistance to “False Brothers” (2:3–5)

  3Moreover, not even Titus, who was with me, although he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, 4but because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, that they might enslave us— 5to them we did not submit even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain intact for you.

  NT: Acts 15:1–2, 5, 24; 2 Cor 11:13

  [2:3]

  Paul notes at once the initial result of the meeting: Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. “Those of repute” in Jerusalem did not require circumcision for Titus as a necessary condition for full †ecclesial communion. Titus is referred to as a Greek, a word Paul often uses interchangeably with “†Gentile.”3 Paul had received Titus into the Church and had made him his companion and coworker without requiring him to be circumcised.4

  This is the first time in the letter Paul provides us a specific indication of the controversial issue and the content of the “different gospel” he excoriates in 1:6–7. Paul was preaching the †gospel without requiring circumcision of the Gentiles who converted. His gospel did not include circumcision even though, according to Gen 17:14, it was a mandatory condition of belonging to God’s †covenant people. Paul’s opponents wanted to impose this requirement on Gentile converts (Gal 5:2, 3, 6, 11; 6:12–13), but Paul understood the teaching of Scripture differently, as he will explain. As far as Paul is concerned, resisting the imposition of circumcision on Gentile believers is essential!

  [2:4]

 
; Paul’s mention of circumcision brings to his mind the extreme tension of the period immediately before his second visit to Jerusalem.5 According to Acts, visitors arrived in Antioch from Judea who began telling the Gentile Christians there, “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). That teaching aroused “no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas” (15:2). Luke notes that the same disturbing discussions were taking place in Jerusalem: “But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law’” (Acts 15:5). Recalling this period as he writes years later, Paul shows his feelings in a tumultuous style and slightly confusing syntax. He categorizes his opponents as not true Christians but false brothers.6 According to Paul, these †Judaizers slipped in to spy on our freedom, aiming to enslave us.

  LIVING TRADITION

  St. Augustine on the Purpose of the Letter to the Galatians

  Augustine summarizes the circumstances and purpose of Galatians with admirable clarity in the opening words of his commentary:

  The reason why the Apostle writes to the Galatians is so that they might understand what it is that God’s grace accomplishes for them: they are no longer under the law. For though the grace of the gospel had been preached to them, there were some from the circumcision who still did not grasp the real benefit of grace. Despite being called Christians, they were still wanting to be under the burdens of the law—burdens which the Lord God had not imposed on those serving righteousness, but on those serving sin [1 Tim 1:8–11]. That is, he had given a righteous law to unrighteous people to point out their sins [Rom 3:20], not take them away. He takes away sins only by the grace of faith which works through love [Gal 5:6].