it had been a long time since Paul had visited Jerusalem.
Another issue concerning the chronology of this passage in Galatians is the question of whether or not it is synonymous with the Jerusalem Council that is described in Acts 15. While many scholars believe that this is the case, there is still no clear consensus.47 The two passages are very different and many scholars see them as referring to two different events.48 Holmberg is one scholar who understands the two passages to be referring to the same conference. While he questions the historicity of Acts in many places, in this instance he feels that Luke and Paul were describing the same conference from different viewpoints.49 Even though Paul’s account in Galatians would be considered a primary source, Holmberg stresses the need for caution because Paul was an active participant in the events that took place and definitely not an objective observer.50
Marshall is representative of those who do not see the conference in Acts 15 and the one described by Paul here in Galatians 2 as referring to the same event. He understands that this visit by Paul to Jerusalem to be synonymous with the one that Luke referred to in Acts 11:29-30.51 Guthrie also adopts this view, thinking that it is easier to fit Paul’s account of Galatians 2:1-10 into Luke’s narrative in Acts 11:29-30.52 If this view is correct, it is much easier to deal with the differences between the account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 and the meeting between Paul, Barnabas, and some of the Jerusalem apostles here in Galatians 2:1-10. They are dealing with two completely different events.53
Our purpose here is not to write a history of the early church or a chronology of Paul’s life, but to examine the relationship that existed between Peter and Paul.54 It will focus attention on the passage at hand and treat Acts 15 later in the study. As has been mentioned, scholars are divided about where Galatians 2:1-10 fits in with Luke’s chronology. That issue will not be resolved in this book. This passage will, however, tell us what Paul said about his trip to Jerusalem, as well as tell us what he says about his encounter with Peter while he was there.
One of the first things that can be seen about Paul’s trip to Jerusalem in Galatians 2 is how different it was from his trip in Galatians 1. In Galatians 1, he went to Jerusalem, “to get acquainted with Peter.” It appears that on his first trip Paul was traveling by himself. On this trip, however, Paul was traveling with Barnabas and Titus. Paul says that the reason for this second trip was, “in response to a revelation.” Paul goes on to say that he, “set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders . . .” So, while Paul’s first trip was informal and involved just him and Peter and James, this trip appears to be much more formal.55 Paul does not tell the reader what the revelation was that prompted this trip.56 In verse 2, Paul only stated that he met with those, “who seemed to be leaders.” In verse 9, he will identify these leaders as James, Peter, and John.
While this account in Galatians was not written by Paul to explain his relationship with Peter, he does provide a few clues as to how he perceived that relationship. One of the first clues that can be seen is in the tone of the passage. There is no evidence of animosity or conflict in Paul’s writing. In fact, by the very act of going to Jerusalem to meet with some of the apostles regarding the gospel that he was preaching, two very important things about Paul can be seen. First of all, this visit showed a high level of respect for the Jerusalem apostles.57 The phrase that Paul uses in referring to them, “those who seemed to be leaders,” has been seen by some to be disrespectful and disparaging. According to Dunn, the phrase is neutral and can be interpreted in different ways. He says that, here, Paul is using it as an acknowledgement of, “the high standing in which the pillar apostles were held (by others), without constituting an endorsement by Paul himself.”58 Morris, however, understands that what Paul is saying is that he selected those apostles who appeared to be the most “significant leaders and laid his case before them.”59 Paul seems to be acknowledging the Jerusalem apostles in a respectful way, while at the same time, still maintaining his own independence from them. Paul is also careful not to establish any type of superiority over Peter, James, and John.60
Another phrase that Paul used in describing James, Peter, and John is in verse 9 where he refers to them as, “those reputed to be pillars.” This is another place in which Paul could be interpreted as being sarcastic and disrespectful. Morris acknowledges that the phrase, “is not exactly cordial.”61 Guthrie, however, makes the point that what Paul is doing here is using the language of his opponents. “They were apparently drawing a distinction between Paul and the ‘pillars.’ The ‘pillars’ were held in repute, but by implication Paul was not.”62 Paul never attempts to downplay the authority of the Jerusalem apostles. What he does do, however, is to make the case that his own apostolic authority is just as valid as theirs is.
Paul wants his readers to understand that it is not merely one’s external appearance or one’s background that makes someone an apostle. This is what he says in verse 6, “God does not judge by external appearance.” The call of God and then the signs and deeds of an apostle must be present in someone’s life if they are a true apostle.63 In no way does Paul disparage the apostleship of the three that he meets with. At every point he seems to hold them in high esteem. His only concern is that his apostleship and equality with them also be acknowledged.
Paul makes it clear that this meeting with James, Peter, and John was a private one. The subject matter that Paul needed to discuss with them was very sensitive, as well as controversial, and it would not have been appropriate for this discussion to take place in a public forum.64 This private meeting with some of the leading Jerusalem apostles shows that Paul regarded their opinions and input as valuable and also implies some measure of trust that they would be understanding and willing to listen to Paul with open minds. Ramsay understands that this was a formal visit that was very important for the future of the church. At the same time, however, it was a meeting of friends who shared a mutual respect for each other’s calling and ministry.65 This does not mean that there were never differences of opinion, as will be seen when Galatians 2:11-14 is examined. It does mean, however, that there could still be a basic unity and harmony between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles, even though they may not have agreed on every item of doctrine.66
The second thing that is observed in this visit of Paul to Jerusalem is his desire for unity in the church. It was never Paul’s desire to see two churches coexisting, one for the Jews and another for the Gentiles.67 This conviction that he had that there was only one church may have been one of the driving forces that brought him to Jerusalem for this meeting.68 It appears that Paul was the one who made the effort to initiate this meeting with the Jerusalem apostles so that he could, “set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.” Cousar believes that he would have gone to Jerusalem, “with a certain amount of apprehension about whether the leadership there is really subject to the gospel and whether the unity of the church can be maintained.”69
As it turned out, Paul did not have anything to worry about. The unity of the church did not break down and agreements were reached that would have far-reaching consequences for the church.70 The result of the meeting was that a division of labor was established. Paul would continue his ministry to the Gentile world while Peter and the Jerusalem apostles would continue their ministry to the Jewish world. In making this delineation among mission fields, the Jerusalem apostles acknowledged and validated both Paul’s calling and his message.71 He said that they, “added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.”
Paul goes on to say that at the conclusion of the meeting James, Peter, and John gave him and Barnabas, “the right hand of fellowship.” After an agreement was reached, all of the men shook hands on it. This was a pledge of friendship and agreement.72 Guthrie points out that, “Then as now refusal to shake hands would have been regarded as an open testimony to disunity.”73 The shaking of hands by all of the apostles symbolized the unity of the fellowship that they shared.74
The conclusion that can be drawn from this passage is that the meeting described in Galatians 2:1-10 ends on a positive and friendly note. There is no indication of disunity or animosity between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders. On the contrary, Paul goes to great lengths to show that he and James, Peter, and John were all unified in the gospel that they preached as well