Galatians 2 Study Notes

2:1 This reference to fourteen years could be to a full fourteen calendar years or twelve full years and fractions of the first and last. The time could look back to: (1) Paul’s conversion (1:15-16), (2) Paul’s previous trip to Jerusalem (1:18-19), or (3) Paul’s trip to Syria and Cilicia (1:21). Scholars debate whether this refers to Paul’s visit to Jerusalem in Ac 11:29-30 or to his visit for the Jerusalem Council in Ac 15. Paul’s relationship with Barnabas, whose name means “Son of Encouragement” (Ac 4:36), began in Jerusalem (Ac 9:27). Titus was a convert under Paul (Ti 1:4) who became an effective minister (2Co 2:13; 7:13; Ti 1:5).

2:2 Paul presented . . . the gospel he was preaching to the leaders (at least James, Peter, and John; see note at v. 9) for the sake of helpful discussion. Not running . . . in vain reflects concern over brewing disunity in the church. Paul met privately with the leaders (Gk dokousin; lit “the recognized ones”) in Jerusalem makes it unlikely he was talking about the Jerusalem Council, which was larger and more public (Ac 15:6,12).

2:3 To make it clear that he had not adjusted his gospel message during this private conference with the church leadership in Jerusalem, Paul used Titus (see note at v. 1) as a test case. Had Paul caved in to the view that had recently been preached in the Galatian churches (that it was necessary for a Gentile to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to become a Christian; 2:16; 5:2-3), Titus, a Gentile convert, would have been compelled to be circumcised; but he was not, reflecting the fact that Paul’s gospel was accepted by the recognized church leaders in Jerusalem.

2:4 False brothers (Gk pseudadelphoi) reflects that they were not really Christians. This group heard that Paul was having private discussions about the gospel and the Gentiles, and they found a deceptive way to “crash the party” to try to curtail freedom . . . in Christ and enslave Christians to the law, which was happening in the Galatian churches (5:1).

2:5 To maintain the truth of the gospel, Paul did not submit even momentarily to their argument about circumcision.

2:6 James, Peter, and John were the recognized “pillars” of the church (v. 9). What they once were . . . God does not show favoritism was not meant as disparaging to them. However, as Paul recounted in vv. 11-14, he encountered problems in Syrian Antioch from: (1) those who were claiming authority from James (v. 12), and (2) Peter’s hypocritical attempt to appease that group.

2:7-8 Paul was not saying in these verses that there are two different gospel messages. Rather, he had been appointed by God as the apostle to the Gentiles (Ac 22:21; Rm 11:13), and Peter served as an apostle to the Jews. God was at work in each ministry.

2:9 The unity of viewpoint between Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem church was symbolized by the right hand of fellowship—a common sign of friendship and agreement.

2:10 To remember the poor was the main reason why Paul and Barnabas had made this trip to Jerusalem (Ac 11:28-30).

2:11 Because of the hypocritical behavior of Peter (Cephas) in Antioch, Paul opposed him to his face.

2:12-13 Peter’s fear-based hypocrisy was even more flagrant because, besides eating with the Gentiles in the church at Syrian Antioch, he had been previously instructed by a vision to fellowship with Cornelius, the Gentile (Ac 10). The words of James at the Jerusalem Council did not reflect that he believed it was necessary for Gentiles to be circumcised in order to be Christians (cp. Ac 15:1-5 with Ac 15:13-21), but James did counsel respect by the Gentiles for traditional Jewish practices (Ac 15:20-21). Peter’s hypocrisy swayed the rest of the Jews in the church at Antioch, including Barnabas.

2:14 As soon as Paul determined that the truth of the gospel was hanging in the balance, he confronted Peter (Cephas) in front of everyone (i.e., in a church meeting). Peter’s behavior, in eating Gentile meals prior to the group “from James” arriving in Antioch (vv. 11-12), showed he believed it was right to live like a Gentile among Gentiles. Thus, his later decision to compel the Gentiles in the church at Antioch to live like Jews was seen as inconsistent and hypocritical.

2:15 Theologically, Paul knew all people (not just Gentiles) are sinners (Rm 3:23). He was likely using a phrase Gentile sinners that his opponents, who were Jews by birth and apparently conceited about it, used to describe non-Jews. But because of God’s gracious covenant with Israel, the Jews did have certain spiritual advantages (Rm 9:4-5).

2:16 Justification is a legal idea, meaning “to be declared (not made) righteous.” Faith means trusting in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross. When Paul speaks of the message we . . . believed, the plural “we” may refer to: (1) “all the brothers” with Paul at that time (1:2); (2) Paul and the Galatians, who believed when they first heard Paul’s preaching (3:2); or (3) both.

2:17 Paul’s opponents in Syrian Antioch and Galatia were apparently depicting his message of being justified by faith in Jesus Christ alone as “lowering” Jews spiritually to the level of being sinners, which somehow would make Christ . . . a promoter of sin (i.e., by making Jews common “sinners”). Paul’s response to this preposterous idea was the strongest possible negation—absolutely not!

2:18 Having believed a law-free gospel of justification by faith, Paul could not go back and rebuild the false gospel message (salvation through “the works of the law”; v. 16) he previously had torn down. If he did this, he would be a lawbreaker in the sense of sinning against grace.

2:19-20 Paul meant by his statement through the law I died to the law that because Jesus died under the law (3:13), Paul was now separated from the law. I died refers to being crucified with Christ, as if the believer died on the cross with Jesus. The Christian continues to live physically, but spiritually this new life is by faith in Christ.

2:21 If it were possible to gain God’s righteousness through keeping the law, the death of Christ on the cross would have been for nothing, but since salvation via the law is not possible, the only alternative is justification by faith in Christ.