Acts, without mention of any intervening visit, tells of the apostle Paul's Famine Visit (Acts 11:27-30, 12:27), which had been to bring relief supplies to the mother church at Jerusalem, and his visit of Acts 15 to place before the apostles the question of whether or not a Gentile had to first become a Jew to be a real Christian. In Galatians Paul made neither reference to his Famine Visit nor his Acts 15 visit. Rather, he went into considerable detail about his Conversion Visit  to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-30) when he met Peter and his Private Visit to Jerusalem when he conferred with the apostles Peter, John, and James (Galatians 2:1-10) about doctrinal matters. He did not discuss the Acts 15 conference visit as it had not yet occurred when he wrote his letter to the Galatians.

F. F. Bruce, in his Galatians article in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, states that "Galatians gives valuable information about a conference not recorded in Acts, at which Jerusalem 'pillars' agreed that Paul and Barnabas should continue their gentile ministry while they would concentrate on apostolic witness to the Jews" (Bruce 1986:702). Bruce points out that the "demarcation of Gal. 2:9 may have been intended geographically and not in a strict racial sense, the Jerusalem apostles were not forbidden to evangelize Gentiles residing in Judea" (Bruce 1986:700).

Pheme Perkins summarizes the argument of scholars, such as F. F. Bruce (Bruce 1986:702) and Richard L. Longenecker (Longenecker 1990:lxxxiii), who reject the notion that Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-30 are reports of the same event. She writes:

Scholars continue to disagree over the relationship between Paul�s account in Galatians 2:1�10 and the description of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15:1�30. Those who think that two different meetings are being described emphasize the fact that Paul refers to his meeting as a private one (Gal. 2:2), Acts 15:6 clearly envisages a public meeting. If the apostolic decree referred to at the conclusion of the Jerusalem meeting were in effect, it is difficult to see how the problems in Galatians 2:11�14 or even the conflict over eating idol meat in 1 Corinthians 8 could have arisen. Conservative scholars reject the identification of Galatians 2:1�10 and Acts 15:1�30. They propose various arrangements in the actual historical order of events to harmonize the Pauline material with other accounts of his visits to Jerusalem in Acts. The usual result of such proposals is to locate all the events referred to in Galatians before the council of Acts 15. (Perkins 1994:118.)

The visits referred to by Paul in Galatians were the Conversion Visit (Galatians 1:18) and The Private Visit (Galatians 2:1). The latter came about due to a "revelation" causing Paul to travel to the mother headquarters church at Jerusalem to confer privately with James, Peter, and John. Paul fails to mention any relief being brought to Jerusalem. Rather, the visit was the result of "a revelation." This private visit to the apostles at Jerusalem was to "set before them the gospel" he preached among the Gentiles. Why? He writes: "for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain" (Galatians 2:2). He did not want to err in what he taught.

Paul brought his Gentile associate Titus with him and Barnabas to Jerusalem. There, meeting with the headquarters leadership team, Paul recounted his efforts to bring the gospel to the Greeks. He reported that he taught the Gentiles they did not have to be circumcised according to the Law of Moses to be Christians. Jamieson, Fausset, Brown explain the sense of Galatians 2:4. They write:

What I did concerning Titus (viz., by not permitting him to be circumcised) was not from contempt of circumcision, but "on account of the false brethren" (Acts 15:1, 24) who, had I yielded to the demand for his being circumcised, would have perverted the case into a proof that I deemed circumcision necessary. (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown 1961:1262.)

The apostles listened and confirmed that Paul's teaching on circumcision of the gentiles was identical to their own. This was consistent with the decision Peter had previously announced to the mother church following Cornelius� baptism (Acts 10:47). They did not compel Titus to be circumcised. James, Peter, and John confirmed that Paul was the "Apostle to the Gentiles" as Peter was to the Jews (Galatians 2:7). The trip resulted in the preservation of unity for the whole Christian community.

There is no evidence in Galatians of an open hearing or large public debate as described in Acts 15. There is no reference in Galatians to a decree of the Jerusalem Conference. There is no support in Paul's statements suggesting that Galatians had been written by Paul prior to the Acts 15 public conference and before the Messianic Pharisee detractors came to Antioch (Acts 15:1-3). These detractors Paul labels as false brethren, not true Christians. They were foes disguised as friends seeking to destroy "our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus" by teaching that gentiles must first become Jews and observe Torah in order to become Christians (Galatians 2:4, cf. Acts 11:3, 17-18). The sense of Paul's description is not that these false brethren were sent by James to Antioch with this false teaching but "may mean merely that they came from the Church at Jerusalem under James' bishopric" (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown 1961:1263). This is further evidence that the epistle to the Galatians was written before the letter sent by the Jerusalem apostles to the gentile brethren (Acts 15:23-29).

As to reversion into Judaism Paul writes "You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? (Galatians 3:1-2). In the NASB alternate rendering Verse 2 reads "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of Law, or by the hearing of faith?"

Now, in the Pauline sense what are works of Law? circumcision, ritual purity (washings), animal sacrifice, halakah (oral Torah), and otherwise living by the written Torah. Doing these things will not save anybody. Since the death of the Messiah Jesus of Nazareth, ending the Old Covenant, no amount of living by Torah, oral or written, results in God's favor, forgiveness, the receipt of God's Holy Spirit, or salvation. Consider Galatians 3:10: "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, CURSED IS EVERY ONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM" (Galatians 3:10). Observing Torah does not forgive sin nor reconcile one with God. No, all men and women have sinned and subject to the curse of the Law [the death penalty] except the Lord Jesus Christ, and only through him does anyone have salvation (Acts 4:12). This fact does not, however, relieve Christians of their obligation to obey God.

The material in Acts 15 indicates that later Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others, went to Jerusalem at the insistence of the brethren at Antioch not by "revelation" as he did on the previous visit. He did not need a revelation to conclude that the situation was so out of hand that he needed to appeal to the apostles at the headquarters, mother church of Jerusalem. The Conference Visit (Galatians 2:1) and the Jerusalem Proceeding Visit (Acts 15:1-3) were not one and the same. So argue Raymond Brown and John Meier. They contend that the incident at Galatians 2:11�14 preceded the events and decree of Acts 15 thus distinguishing between the Galatians 2:1 and the Acts 15 visits to Jerusalem. The evidence suggests that the Conference Visit occurred before the Acts 15 Jerusalem proceeding which dates the epistle prior to the conference. This is consistent with Longenecker�s determination that the epistle precedes the Jerusalem proceeding (which he calls a Council). He writes:

It seems best, therefore, to conclude that Paul wrote Galatians on the eve of the Jerusalem Council, before the issues arising from the Antioch episode had been resolved. (Longenecker 1990:lxxxii.)

Following the Conference Visit account Paul preceded to provide a summary of a visit by Peter to Antioch while Paul was there. This report described what must have been a courtesy visit by the "Apostle to the Circumcision" to the headquarters of the "Apostle to the Gentiles." These events were set forth in Galatians 2:13-3:1 (NIV) as:

2:11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. ¹²Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. ¹³The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? ¹⁵ We who are Jews by birth and not �Gentile sinners� ¹⁶know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. ¹⁷If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! ¹⁸If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. ¹⁹For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. ²⁰I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

In verse 11 Paul uses the phrase "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch." The rhetorical style and force of such language necessitates this visit follow the previous matters being discussed. Hence the Antioch visit followed the private visit by Paul and preceded the Acts 15 Jerusalem Conference deliberations. This required Peter�s stay at Antioch (Galatians 2:11-21) to fall between the Private Visit (Galatians 2:1-10) and the Jerusalem Conference Visit (Acts 15:1-30).

In context, the table fellowship cited indicates that a series of public meals of the assembled church had occurred. Eating meals in common with the Gentiles (Galatians 2:12) was what the church brethren witnessed. In the course of this series of public meals Peter suddenly withdrew and the rest of the ethnic Jews in the congregation joined him (Galatians 2:13).

What events in the life of the early church would have brought the apostle to the Circumcision to Antioch of Syria where consistent and regular table fellowship would occur such that all could observe it? It would seem to be annual Feast of Tabernacles, for which the apostle Peter was a special guest. This feast together with the Last Great Day in 49 CE was Tuesday, September 30 through Tuesday, October 7.^F1

The community of Judeo-Christians at Antioch consisted of former Jews and former gentiles. They collectively made up the Church of God. In today�s world Christians view the world as consisting of Jews and Gentiles as if these are the only options. This was not the paradigm of the ancient church. The early Christians saw the world as divided into three disparate groups�Christians (the people of God), Jews (spiritual gentiles), and gentiles. Peter�s actions forced the community to see itself as two discrete groups�Christians who were ethnic Jews and ethnic gentile Christians. This introduced disunity into the congregation based upon a racist pharisaic theology that both Paul and Peter rejected.

Paul reports that Peter, knowing better, succumbed to "fear" (Galatians 2:12) in a display of hypocritical behavior. There is no suggestion of a disagreement or a rift. Both apostles understood that the "Law of Moses" no longer had any command over human behavior whether Jewish, Gentile, or Christian. Paul�s point is that the Church consists of one people� Christians�not Jews and Gentiles.

When the apostle Peter visited Antioch of Syria he did not observe the "Law of Moses" (Galatians 2:12-14) but rather he lived and behaved like any ordinary converted Christian of gentile descent and not as an observant Jew. Then arrived some of the trouble making "Pharisees who believed," that is the Messianic Pharisees who were observant Jews who believed in Jesus as the Messiah. Peter became apprehensive and withdrew from public table fellowship with the Christians of gentile descent. Such table fellowship was forbidden traditional Jews who adhered to the Law of Moses (Acts 11:3).

The apostle Paul orally scolded Peter for his unwarranted behavior for it not only made the brethren of Gentile descent feel inferior but also implied that they were not "real" Christians. Granting him the benefit of the doubt, Peter out of real or imagined fear sought to avoid controversy by withdrawing from those who were of Gentile descent to make it less offensive and more tolerable for the visitors. Peter presumably recognized the visitors as people with whom he did not want to tangle nor create some kind of furor. This behavior is consistent with the conciliatory approach utilized within the mother church Jerusalem. Peter chose to avoid confrontation and argument. Obviously he did not want to cause a commotion with Messianic Pharisees at Jerusalem. Paul was furious and did not let the issue slip.

Why did a group of Messianic Pharisees come to Antioch? Did they follow Peter to check-up on him? They differed theologically from Peter. They were partisan and believed they were theologically allied with James. The context suggests that in Jerusalem Peter lived publicly as an observant Jew but was suspect by the Messianic Pharisee faction (the nascent Ebionites). He feared them for all the trouble they could sir up�debate, argument, strife, and confusion. Peter avoided confrontation. In a city where tempers were quick, and mob fanaticism ruled, diversity in Christianity was not yet an issue�but unity certainly was. Diversity developed first by splinter heresy and later in the Judeo-Christian community by sheer distance. There was cultural diversity but theological unity within the Church of God. By the end of the first century diversity was primarily due to heresy.

Six years later, when Paul visited Jerusalem ca. CE 56, James informed him of charges the local Jewish community had made concerning him as his adversaries had been promoting hatred toward him. James said that the Jews of Jerusalem had been told that Paul taught "all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs" (Acts 21:21 NKJV). As Paul had been maliciously smeared and slandered. James suggested he openly conform to Temple ritual as an act of refutation to discredit and deny the substance of the accusation (Acts 21:23-24).

This illustrates the strategy employed by the church at Jerusalem to survive in a sensitive and often hostile religious environment. They conformed to certain Jewish practices, including circumcision, to avoid unnecessary conflict and to maintain the peace. James admitted his own accountability for the decision at the Jerusalem conference of CE 49 when he stated that it was not Paul but rather the officials of the Jerusalem church who issued the decree discharging Gentile members of the church from such matters (Acts 21:25). Physical circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant not the New. Christians were free, whether of Jewish or Gentile origin, to circumcise their children and to practice various of the customs but they were not bound to do so. Paul wrote to the Romans that he was a Jew who was inwardly circumcised in the heart (Romans 2:29).

In summary, the Galatians 1:17-2:10 account of two of Paul�s trips to Jerusalem following his conversion concluded prior to the details of the Acts 15 conference. Galatians 2:11-14 addressed the pre-conference trip of Peter to Antioch. Paul wrote Galatians in late autumn CE 49 probably from Antioch of Syria just prior to the Jerusalem conference. It was the first written of Paul�s extant letters.

Based upon this discussion and analysis, and assigning a late 49 or early CE 50 Jerusalem Conference date, perhaps in December or January, for the Jerusalem Conference yielded a plausible conversion date for Paul in CE 35 which is consistent with a CE 30 date for a Wednesday crucifixion.

The first is the perception of Paul of his own ministry. In Acts of the Apostles there is a hint of his, and his associates� disposition at Acts 9:15. The commission set forth in Verse 15 was threefold: (1) To teach the Gentiles, (2) To appear before kings, and (3) To bear Christ Jesus� name before the children of Israel. In The Private Visit Paul received confirmation of that commission by James, Peter and John who acknowledged him as the apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:9).

Paul distinctly referred to himself as an apostle in Galatians 1:1. The ordination of Barnabas and Paul as apostles apparently occurred at Acts 13:1-3 (NIV) as follows:

13:1 In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. ²While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." ³ So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Having fasted and prayed they ordained Barnabas and Paul as apostles through praying and the laying on of hands of the elders then present. Note that the authorization at the ordination was imputed to God and not the leadership of the mother headquarters church at Jerusalem. It was an independent intervening event which Paul later utilized in establishing his authority. Thereafter they saw them off on the First Apostolic Tour which was to last about two years. Barnabas held the pre-eminent position at this time and is mentioned first, indicating that he was leading the team. In Acts 14:4 during the course of the First Apostolic Tour they were referred to as "apostles" for the first time in sets of the Apostles.

The reference in Acts 14:4 refers back to Acts 13:3 which confirms that an ordination had occurred. Some writers would have this reference minimized by assigning it as a mistake at the time of writing of Acts of the Apostles. As one of Paul�s associates it is ludicrous to think that Luke would not be sufficiently well-informed to know the occasion of Paul�s ordination as an apostle and certainly as Paul�s apostleship at times was often in question.

The second is that there was no substantive cause to go into the details of The Famine Visit in Galatians as it would have been superfluous to discuss it. The simple explanation is that the story was not relevant to the issues addressed in Galatians. The Famine Visit had nothing to do with apostolic credentials and circumcision. Acts of the Apostles does not indicate any contact between Barnabas and Paul with apostles at Jerusalem in the course of The Famine Visit. The apostles may quite possibly not even have been in the city when the relief was delivered.

Based upon evidence reviewed to this point The Famine Visit and The Private Visit were distinct and separate events. The thrust of Paul�s account in Galatians 1-2 was not to establish a Pauline chronology but rather the utilization of three critical events as persuasive evidence in re-establishing his credibility and authority with Christians of Gentile origin whose faith had been cleverly manipulated and undermined by Judaizing elements within the church. The Judaizers were possibly elders i.e. ministers.

^F1Using the calculated Hebrew calendar.

Page last edited: 04/13/06 07:40 PM

Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�
Please Visit Our Site Often