Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Debelak
By the middle of Galatians 2, Paul seems to have quite a boldness in his stance concerning the gospel to the Gentiles.
However, Galatians 2:2 is a really odd verse. I'm not sure how to understand it:
2It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.
He was not self-confident of the gospel he was preaching among the Gentiles. I don't know how to read this differently. He needed the confirmation of the Jerusalem brothers. Sure, after meeting them, being inwardly confirmed and seeing their vascillations, he had more boldness to talk about them as ones who were "purportedly of repute." But at the time reported in Galatians 2:2, his self-confidence in the very gospel he was preaching was contingent on the approval of the Jerusalem "pillars." No? This bit of self-doubt by Paul in Galatians 2:1 is really remarkable to me. What caused this? 14 years of preaching to the Gentiles and he feared that he "had run in vain"? What to make of this?
Peter
|
Darby glosses the issue in his Synopsis.
He essentially says that Paul worked independently for many years but that God had confirmed all of his working so that when he finally went to Jerusalem in a way meant to preserve the oneness between Jerusalem and Antioch, the leadership in Jerusalem could basically do nothing else but rubber stamp God's work through Paul once he laid his thinking out to them.
Looks like Paul was essentially seeking the Jerusalem imprimatur and was somewhat surprised that Jerusalem had little else to impart. Darby assigns the imprimatur-seeking to God's desire for oneness in the Body but that seems overly generous in the context of Paul's discussion of "those who were reputed to be something." Calling out the "reputed pillars" is more likely to cause division than oneness, in my experience. Paul had to know this and the sometimes inflammatory language of Galatians makes it seem possible that he was even seeking this result.
On a perhaps related note? In Gal. 2:13, "even Barnabas was carried away in their hypocrisy" and in Acts 15:39, "Barnabas, taking Mark along, sailed away to Cyprus." Apparently Paul had at least two problems with Barnabas right around the same time. Perhaps the "sharp contention" in Acts 15 wasn't merely about the appropriateness of giving Mark a second chance after his previous failure in Pamphylia, which has never made all that much sense to me...