Keeping The True Gospel
KEEPING THE TRUE GOSPEL
GALATIANS 2:1-5
There’s always a subtle temptation to substitute a religion that depends on rules and good works for the true gospel.
Paul continues to recount the story of his dealings with the Jerusalem church. There are some difficult problems of identification posed by 2:1, for the natural question to ask is, which visit to Jerusalem in Acts matches the description given here? And, “after fourteen years” from when?
The most likely solution to what has been called one of the most complicated problems of New Testament criticism is: first, that this paragraph refers to the visit of Acts 11:30, and secondly that Paul is counting from the time of his conversion, which probably occurred in AD 33. This would bring us to the date AD 46 for the second Jerusalem visit.
But these are minor matters in comparison with the chief point that Paul is wishing to establish. Two short visits to the Jerusalem apostles could hardly have meant that he was seeking their permission to evangelize, and when the second interview took place, Paul had already gained considerable experience as an evangelist in Syria and Cilicia (1:21) and at Tarsus in particular (Acts 9:30; 11:25).
So far from being at odds with Peter and James—as his enemies had insinuated to the Galatians—Paul received their blessing. He brought with him a test case in the person of Titus (2:3). The latter’s presence clearly sharpened the issue which lay at the heart of the debate: ought Gentile Christians to be received into the church on equal terms with Jewish Christians, without the imposition of the rite of circumcision?
A careful reading of 2:3-5 does nothing to clear up an obvious ambiguity: was Titus circumcised, or not? If he was, the wording is at least clear that the surgical operation was not carried out due to “submission” (2:5), but rather out of deference to the tender susceptibilities of Jewish Christians in the capital city. Otherwise—and the view that Titus was not circumcised is to be preferred—Paul stood firm under pressure, refused to concede the need for Titus’ circumcision, and did so on the supremely vital ground that first, advocates of circumcision were insincere (2:4), and secondly, the truth of the gospel should be maintained at all costs (2:5). Only on this conclusion can we make sense of his later insistence in 4:8–5:12 that circumcision is an invitation to spiritual ruin.