The Purpose of His Going Up to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1–2)

A divine impulse moved Saint Paul to go to Jerusalem; he intended thereby to set before the senior Apostles how he teaches, lest he be running in vain.

Gal. 2:1–2. Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up by revelation and set before them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but in private before those of repute, lest perhaps I was running or had run in vain.

After his first time in Jerusalem, three years after his conversion, Saint Paul withdrew to Cilicia. From there Saint Barnabas called him to Antioch, that together they might more successfully build up the church there. In the year 44 there was a famine under the Emperor Claudius. The prophet Agabus, who had come from Jerusalem to Antioch, moved the Antiochians to send relief to the brothers living in Jerusalem. They collected, “as each one had,” and sent alms to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul (Acts 11:28–30). Of this second visit to Jerusalem Saint Paul does not make mention; he passed over it because it presented nothing great for the purposes of his Letter. After this time in Jerusalem Saint Paul with Barnabas, by divine instruction, traveled to preach in Cyprus and in the regions of Pamphylia and Lycaonia in Asia Minor. When they returned again to Antioch and remained there “no little time with the disciples” (Acts 14:28), there “came down some men from Judea” and began to teach the Antiochians that unless they were circumcised according to the custom of Moses, they could not be saved. Saint Paul and Barnabas defended Gospel freedom, but did not succeed in quieting the congregation. It was decided to send Paul and Barnabas and certain others “to the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this question” (Acts 15:1–2). Of this going, his third journey, Saint Paul now makes mention in his Letter to the Galatians. Blessed Theodoret writes: “Paul and Barnabas spent much time in Antioch and won over very many of the Gentiles, commanding them to live according to the law of grace. But some defenders of the law, coming from Judea, attempted to persuade those who believed from among the Gentiles to desire a life according to the law. The great preachers of truth, Barnabas and Paul, rejected their teaching. Wishing to convince the assembly of believers that this was pleasing also to the great Apostles, they went to Judea, informed the Apostles of what they had done, and brought Letters which clearly commanded not to lay upon the Gentiles the yoke of the law, but to ‘abstain from things offered to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication’ (Acts 15:29). This, I believe, is what the Divine Apostle is here recounting.”

Some think that what is spoken of here is Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem with the alms; others suppose it is of some visit after the Council. The latter opinion cannot be accepted because after the Council shortly thereafter the holy Paul and Barnabas went different ways on preaching journeys and did not meet again. Nor can the first opinion be accepted because there is insufficient time. The famine was in the year 44, which would be the eighth or ninth year after Saint Paul’s conversion; yet he says “after fourteen years.” And moreover, this opinion cannot be accepted because at that time there was persecution of Christians in Jerusalem from Herod: the apostle James, son of Zebedee, was killed; Saint Peter was in prison (Acts 12). Consequently, at that time it would have been unsuitable to hold a council, and there would have been no one to convene it. Thus both these suppositions present difficulties, whereas, comparing the account in Acts of the Apostolic Council with what Saint Paul says here, one cannot but see perfect agreement between them. The difference lies only in this: that Saint Paul speaks more of his own aims, under divine guidance, and of the significance of the Council specifically for his preaching, as the purposes of his Letter required—more than of the actual proceedings of the Council and other details of the matter.

Why does Saint Paul set forth this account of years? In order to impress upon them that for so long a time he had been preaching the Gospel without communication with the senior Apostles, and yet it turned out to be in agreement with their teaching. How could this have come to pass? Only because his teaching also came from the same Source as theirs, that is, from God, who revealed His will to mankind concerning salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ.

“I went up with Barnabas, taking Titus with me.” Barnabas, a Cypriot from among the Jews, who believed before Saint Paul and at first guided him, but afterward yielded him the preeminence; Titus, of pagan Gentile parents, converted or finally established in the faith by Saint Paul and baptized without circumcision, and then, by the gifts given to him, taken by Paul as his companion and co-worker. In Acts it is said only that with Saints Paul and Barnabas certain others went to Jerusalem (Acts 15:2), without naming them. Among these others was Titus. But there was no need to name him separately from the others; here Saint Paul had a particular reason: he wished to show that if he dared bring an uncircumcised man into the midst of those attached to the Law, this meant that in defending Gospel freedom he would not shrink from any obstacle; and on the other hand, that he had no thought he would be rebuked for this in Jerusalem by those who rightly understood the matter of Christian faith. Blessed Jerome writes: “The holy Paul took with him Barnabas, who was circumcised, and Titus, who was uncircumcised, from among the Gentiles, so that ‘at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established’ (Deut. 19:15). Hereby he shows that if he resolved to bring with him Titus uncircumcised to those who knew that he was abolishing circumcision, he did this for the sake of Christian faith and Gospel freedom.”

“I went up by revelation,”—that is, by divine impulse, indication, command from on high. “He makes the reason for the first ascent to Jerusalem to be Peter and the meeting with him, whereas the reason for the second is a revelation of the Spirit” (Saint Chrysostom). “He speaks thus in order to reassure those who might wonder why, after so long a time, he finally went there. By saying ‘by revelation,’ he made it clear that this was the will of God” (Blessed Augustine). “He added ‘by revelation’ so that you would not judge him to be foolish, seeing that what he did was not a human affair but a work of divine Providence, which ordains both the present and the future” (Saint Chrysostom).

That Acts says Paul and Barnabas were sent by the Church of Antioch does not contradict this. That is the external course of events, whereas this is the hidden direction determined by impulses from on high. This latter is fitting in its place. This revelation was known to the Apostle Paul alone and was either before or during the decision of the Antiochian assembly. Saint Luke did not know of this circumstance and did not mention it in Acts. What marvel is it that there was also a revelation to Saint Paul about this, when his entire life was directed by impulses from on high? He was converted by the appearance of the Lord (Acts 9:3); the Lord appeared to him in the temple and commanded him to depart from Jerusalem on his first time there (Acts 22:17-18); at another time he was caught up to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:1 and onward); the Spirit of God forbade him to go to Asia or Bithynia, and a night vision directed him to Macedonia (Acts 16:6-9); in Corinth the Lord in a night vision encouraged him: “Do not be afraid; I am with you; there are many people in this city who belong to me” (Acts 18:9-10); and again in Jerusalem when he was seized and put in bonds (Acts 23:11). It can be supposed that not all the divine guidances given to him have been remarked.

In the present case the importance of the matter seemed to require a special impulse from on high. The time had come to solemnly determine and express the relationship of the old covenant ordinances to Christianity, of grace to the Law. Seven or eight years before this, it had been made clear to Saint Peter that uncircumcision does not close off the entrance of God’s grace into the souls of believers. On this occasion there arose a movement in Jerusalem among those attached to the Law. Saint Peter assured them that it was God’s will to receive the uncircumcised into the Church for faith’s sake alone, without circumcision. From that time the conviction of this began to spread increasingly. Yet many remained wavering. Meanwhile the successes of the Gospel among the Gentiles expanded through the preaching of Saint Paul with Barnabas. Report of this held everyone’s attention on this same matter, and troubled some while comforting and encouraging others. The time had come to solemnly determine and declare that the ancient Law was not an instrument of grace nor a condition for receiving it, but that it comes down by another, new path. During his preaching Saint Paul had already gained enough experiences assuring him of the needlessness of the Law for the children of grace. His account of this was to incline all voices to this side. And so came the command from the Lord to Saint Paul to go to Jerusalem with this question.

Saint John of Damascus writes: “In the beginning, when Saint Paul had just received the Gospel, he did not go to Jerusalem and did not present it to the Apostles. He himself had no need of this, being taught by Christ the Lord Himself. Yet when enough time had passed and he had long preached the Gospel among the Gentiles without requiring them to be circumcised, some were scandalized, seeing that Peter and those with him did not abolish circumcision, but this one alone did so. Wherefore the Holy Spirit, wishing to cut off this scandal, commanded him to go with witnesses of his preaching and to set before the Apostles how he preaches the Gospel, so that their agreement with him would be manifest and the scandal thereby ended.” Ecumenius, having stated the same thought, added: “so that it might be revealed that there is no discord in preaching, but that those (Peter and those with him) are accommodating to circumcision by a certain stewardship (allowing it as a measure of prudence).” The same word is found in Ambrosiaster: “While the fame of the successes of Saint Paul’s preaching was growing, there spread among those believers from among the Jews who had not yet fully rejected the Law the opinion that he was teaching contrary to the other Apostles. This scandalized many, so that even among the Gentiles disturbing thoughts could arise: is not Saint Paul introducing some other teaching among them different from what the other Apostles, who were with the Lord, hand down? Wherefore Paul was instructed from on high to go to Jerusalem with witnesses of his preaching—Barnabas and Titus, one a Jew, the other a Gentile—so that if anyone afterward were scandalized, he would be reassured by their testimony (that is, the testimony of both that the other Apostles agreed with Paul). He proclaimed to all how he had taught and with what success, so that they might know that he had not departed from the rule of the Gospel. He did this for the sake of concord and peace, by divine instruction, to turn away from himself suspicion of disagreement with them, and so that this might serve for the benefit of the Gentiles, informing them that his Gospel was in agreement with the Apostles.”

“I laid before them”—in Greek, as it were laid upon them, or as it were submitted the whole matter to their judgment. Jerome says: “ανεθεμην—expresses when we communicate to another what we ourselves know, as if placing it in his heart and mind. But one thing means to communicate something, another to learn something. Among those who communicate (their thoughts to one another) there is equality, whereas between the learner and the teacher, the one who learns is inferior.”

I laid before “them.” Whom do “them” mean? If we read the thought from above, it means the Apostles. After my conversion, he says, I did not immediately go to the senior Apostles; I went after three years to see Peter and, except for him, I saw only James; then, after fourteen years, I went and laid my Gospel before them. With this word the thought rests upon the Apostles. And in Acts too it is said that the church at Antioch sent Saints Paul and Barnabas to the Apostles and elders (Acts 15:2). Yet if we pay attention to the following words: “but in private to those of repute,” then “them” will mean the same as all the Christians there—both Apostles and elders and all believers. I conducted an open discourse before all about my preaching and God’s grace manifested among the Gentiles. From Acts it is evident that Saint Paul and Barnabas, both on the journey and in Jerusalem, recounted to everyone what God had done through them among the Gentiles (Acts 15:3-4); and they did the same later at the Council itself (Acts 15:12). But in vain do the heterodox hope to prove by this that in the primitive Church the assembly decided matters of faith. Everything was made known to the assembly for its instruction, comfort, and confirmation in faith; the decision of the question belonged to the Apostles and elders, after they had deliberated it thoroughly in private with the greatest among them. The assembly was obliged to receive this decision as law for itself.

“The Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,”—namely, salvation by faith without the works of the Law. All the justifying and purifying ordinances of the Old Testament were replaced by faith in grace given through the mysteries concerning Christ Jesus, our Lord. Thus taught Saint Paul and established this everywhere in the Churches he gathered, particularly from among the Gentiles. He says “I preach” to indicate the form of Gospel preaching established once for all, his unchanging catechism. “I went up,” he says, “by revelation and laid before them.” Surely this too was by revelation. It was in the purposes of Providence; this was necessary according to the degree of the Church’s education, which the Lord Himself was conducting.

“But in private to those of repute.” Those of repute—the same as in verse 6 “those who seemed to be something” and in verse 9 “those reputed to be pillars,”—those held in high regard among Christians. This is not a disparaging expression but an honorific one. The Greek δοκουσι—those who seem, are shown, stand in view of all, whom all regard as the most reliable guides to the true path of salvation. Theodoret says: “he said: ‘those of repute’—that is, the famous.” Saint Chrysostom writes: “When he says ‘those of repute,’ it is not to deprive them of the respect due to them, for even of himself he says: ‘I also think that I have the Spirit of God’ (1 Cor. 7:40)—which simply means a man who moderates his own standing and does not deny what he possesses. So too here, when he says ‘those of repute,’ he speaks according to the common opinion of them and his own.” Saint Paul set forth his Gospel to them in private. Why in private? Because not all among the believers could yet bear everything. Prudence required that some things be passed over in silence until the fitting time. And again, in private it was easier to discuss difficulties that might arise or unclear aspects of the matter. All of this signified that Saint Paul was in the close and mutually trustful relations with the chief Apostles—an important point for the purposes of his Letter.

Blessed Augustine says: “That Paul set forth his Gospel separately to those who were greatest in the Church, after he had set it forth to all, was not done because what was spoken to all there was untrue, and what was true was spoken to the few here; but because he held back publicly what infants in the faith could not yet bear, as he himself says, he gave milk and not solid food even to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 3:2). One must never lie; but sometimes it is useful to be silent about some truth.‘The same thought appears in Blessed Jerome. Saint Chrysostom writes:’Why in private? Whoever wishes to reform matters of common doctrine sets them forth not in private but before all. But Paul did not do this. For he did not wish to learn something or correct anything, but rather to remove the occasion for deception from those who wished to seduce others. When everyone in Jerusalem was scandalized if anyone allowed departing from the Law and forbade the use of circumcision (for this reason James even said: ‘You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses’ (Acts 21:20); when I say scandalized, he did not dare openly before all to set forth his preaching, but laid it before ‘in private, before those of repute,’ with Barnabas and Titus, so that they would be reliable witnesses before his accusers that even the Apostles found nothing wrong with his preaching, but on the contrary confirmed it.”

“That I might not run in vain, or have run in vain”. These words directly suggest that Saint Paul is entering into consultation with the senior Apostles in order to assure himself that he is acting rightly. But in one who has been taught the Gospel from above, directly from the Lord Himself, such wavering about the truthfulness of the Gospel cannot be supposed, especially given the circumstance that he also came to Jerusalem to present his Gospel by revelation. Therefore, we must understand that the Apostle acted this way not for his own assurance, not whether he was running in vain, but for the assurance of others—one could say, all others besides himself. Saint Chrysostom brings out very forcefully the inappropriateness of such doubt in Saint Paul: “What do you say, Paul? When you didn’t make up your mind to present it at first, or within three years, how after already fourteen years pass do you ask whether you are running in vain? How much better it would have been to do this right at the beginning rather than after so many years! Why then did you labour at all? Who could be so foolish as to preach for so many years and not know whether he is preaching well?… So we cannot agree that this blessed soul was in such uncertainty about his own actions. Does he not himself say: ‘I run thus, not uncertainly; thus I fight, not as one beating the air’ (1 Cor. 9:26)? And if ‘not uncertainly,’ how could he say of himself: ‘That I might not run in vain, or have run in vain’?”

A little above (at the 17th verse of the 1st chapter) Saint Chrysostom also speaks of the very ascent to Jerusalem, saying it was undertaken by Saint Paul not for his own sake, but for others: “He did not come there in order to learn, but in order to convince others. For from the very beginning he held the same opinion that the Apostles later affirmed—namely, that one should not be circumcised. But since others still considered him unworthy of trust and preferred to believe those who were in Jerusalem, he went there not in order to learn something greater, but to convince his opponents that those in Jerusalem agreed with him on this. So from the very beginning he saw what needed to be done, and had no need of a teacher; so that in what the Apostles confirmed after lengthy deliberation, he was immovably established from above even before their deliberation. Luke, declaring this, said that Paul argued much and at length against this matter even before his journey to Jerusalem (Acts 15:2).”

For whom exactly was this done? Some say it was for the opponents of Saint Paul, some for the believers generally, some for the churches founded by Saint Paul, some for the work of his preaching in general. The opponents of Saint Paul taught that without observing the old law there is no salvation, and that whoever teaches otherwise labours in vain, acts not according to God’s plan, builds not on a firm foundation. From this it followed that Saint Paul, who did not bind them to circumcision and other Jewish practices, was running in vain. In support of this they pointed to the other Apostles, saying in effect: those ones act according to God’s wisdom, the direct disciples of the Lord, do not oppose the observance of the law and therefore do not run in vain; but this one runs in vain. Saint Paul, having now set forth before all and privately his Gospel, which he preaches, and having summoned the common agreement and solemn, declared at the Council, approval of his teaching, demolished the foundation on which his opponents were relying, and closed their mouths. Now it became clear to all that if he agrees with the Apostles in everything, then he also acts according to God’s wisdom, builds on a firm foundation like the others, and consequently does not run in vain. He speaks as if to say: so that my enemies may not have grounds to say I am running in vain or have run in vain, and so that others, hearing their slanders against me, that I preach differently from the Apostles, may not yield to their insinuations that I labour in vain. Blessed Jerome remarks that adherents of the law “spread the notion that he runs in vain who thinks the old law should not be observed.” These were the critics of Saint Paul, and Saint Chrysostom holds that they “respected Peter and John more and thought that he (Saint Paul) did not agree with them, since he preached the Gospel without circumcision, while they tolerated it, and therefore they thought he was acting against the law and labouring in vain. Therefore, he says, I went up and laid before them the Gospel, not so that I myself might learn something from them, but so that I might convince those people that I am not running in vain.” After this, all those whom the critics of Saint Paul might have led astray were guarded from the danger of being deceived by them, being convinced that the teaching of Saint Paul was the common teaching of all the messengers sent by God to proclaim the saving truth. Saint Paul’s preaching received through this a firm foundation, and there was no longer any danger that he might run in vain, that is, that anyone should hope to detach from him those who had embraced his teaching and thus render his labour fruitless. Some paraphrase it thus: “That I might not run in vain”—so that my labour might not be lost or so that nothing from my labour might be lost. The thought is presupposed: you convert someone, but then these come along and persuade them that there is indeed a divinely-granted teaching on earth, but in its present form it is taught only by the senior Apostles, while this one disagrees with them—they persuade them of this and tear away from the truth those who have already embraced it: my labour becomes vain. So that this might not happen either to those who have already believed or to those who are to believe, I now, by God’s inspiration, secure the common approval of all for the Gospel which I preach, so that the mouths of false teachers may be closed and the one truth of God concerning Christ Jesus our Lord may triumph.