Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Wednesday, July 17, 2013 Read – Galatians 2:1-10 Paul tells us that fourteen years later he made a second visit to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1) taking Barnabas and Titus with him. Paul does not tell us that the journey originated in Antioch and he says nothing about Barnabas coming to Tarsus to bring him to Antioch to help with the work that is going on there. Barnabas shows up “out of the blue” in Paul’s account. Of course it is likely that Luke has told us how the meeting of these two came about (Acts 11:25-26). We have every reason to believe that the book of Acts reflects historical reality about that. Paul also tells us that he made this journey to Jerusalem in “response to a revelation” (Galatians 2:2). How are we to understand what Paul means by that? Luke told us that the reason Paul, Barnabas and others journeyed to Jerusalem was because “individuals from Judea” had come to Antioch proclaiming that “unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). Perhaps it was this reality that motivated Paul to travel to Jerusalem since he does say that he decided to go there and “laid before them … the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain” (Galatians 2:2). At any rate, we can be quite sure that Luke and Paul are talking about the same meeting in Jerusalem. One significant note that Paul tells about which is omitted by Luke is the presence of Titus, a Gentile who was not circumcised and who was a co-worker with Paul (Galatians 2:1, 3). Perhaps Luke was unaware of Titus – or perhaps Luke omitted Titus since he was an uncircumcised Gentile and would have put a different slant on the story. We simply do not know why Luke does not mention him. Incidentally, Luke has told his readers of a short visit by Saul and Barnabas to deliver food aid to the church in Jerusalem because of a severe famine (Acts 11:30). Paul mentions nothing about this “second visit” claiming instead that his visit after fourteen years was the “second visit” he made to Jerusalem – and that visit had nothing to do with bringing food. Did Paul simply forget the short visit – a possibility, but since bringing food aid to Jerusalem was such a large part of his mission forgetting such a visit is unlikely. We will notice that Luke downplays the food offering Paul was collecting – perhaps this “second visit” he thinks Paul made reflects Paul’s later visit in which he was indeed bringing food aid – the visit during which Paul was arrested. On the other hand Luke’s connection of this visit with the famine of 46-48AD seems genuine. Sorting out this discrepancy is not easy. We will just need to let it stand. It is clear that at the heart of the meeting was the issue of circumcision. Luke and Paul are in exact agreement about that. And Luke and Paul report that the decision that was made was that circumcision was not required (Acts 15:19; Galatians 2:3, 6, 9). The tone of the meeting, however, is markedly different. Luke paints the story in harmonic colors. Paul remembers it with some hostility. The role of the leaders in Jerusalem is also spoken of in very different ways. Luke gives the Jerusalem leaders, especially Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, incredible authority and they are really the driving forces in the story. Saul/Paul and Barnabas have only a minor role and none of their words are recorded. On the other hand, Paul speaks of Peter and James along with John as “supposed to be acknowledged leaders … acknowledged pillars” (Galatians 2:6, 9) in less than respectful language. Paul says, “What they actually were makes no difference to me, God shows no partiality” (Galatians 2:6). Paul does not budge from his position that he does not need to have his work authenticated by anyone! In Paul’s view it is Peter, whom he refers to as Cephas, who has the dominant role – James does not speak a word! As I mentioned the decision that is reached regarding circumcision is exactly the same in Luke’s account in Acts and in Paul’s account in Galatians. That fact is an important one – and we can say that there is complete agreement about the major issue in the controversy. The fact that the early church took the stand it did regarding circumcision was crucial for the expansion of the church and it was indeed a bold decision! Yet, it is important for us to notice that the agreement was not without some marked differences of opinion between Luke and Paul. We will remember that in Acts James adds four injunctions to the primary decision. Yes, the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised, but they are required to abstain from the pollution of idols, from fornication, from eating what is strangled, and from blood (Acts 15:20). Paul concludes the agreement by saying that “nothing was added to him” (Galatians 2:6) and “they asked only one thing, that we should remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do” (Galatians 2:10). It is impossible to reconcile these two views of the decision. How are we to understand this discrepancy? Perhaps Paul simply did not acknowledge that any injunctions were added – could he have understood them as friendly suggestion? Not likely. Perhaps the injunctions were not part of the initial agreement. After all, it was only when “certain people from James” came to Antioch that the trouble flares up (Galatians 2:12). It is possible that Paul left Jerusalem with the agreement exactly as he states it and that later James attempted to add to it – and Luke has merged these two into one. Of course we are not able to come to a conclusion about any of that – we can only speculate. The point is that what Luke portrays as a harmonious outcome that all joyfully agreed to is not the outcome that Paul talks about. From Paul’s point of view the story does not end with everyone “living happily ever after.” The controversy lives on. To be sure a major breakthrough happened in the decision regarding circumcision – and that is the most important thing about the whole event! Why did Luke report a harmonious understanding? Why did Paul object? We will look more closely at that tomorrow.