Commentary on Galatians (14)

Here the text itself forbids us from making it the other side of a contrast between independence and solidarity. This is not to say that there was no solidarity, nor to say that Paul did not prefer it, but it is not the main concern of this passage.

First, Paul went in response to a revelation, meaning that he might not have gone at all if he had not been sent by a divine command. The visit was occasioned by special divine guidance – it was not originally on Paul's agenda, but was added to it by the Lord. Therefore, the visit itself and the setting forth of the gospel before the Jerusalem leaders could not have come from Paul's own desire to gain their approval, as if he needed them to confirm that what he had been preaching was true, or as if he needed assurance that he had been called by Christ to preach. He needed no approval, confirmation, assurance, or permission from them.

Second, he went and presented his gospel "for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain." This does not contradict our approach to this passage unless we ignore the surrounding verses, and unless we impose our own cultural concerns and categories upon it. If this means that Paul wanted a confirmation of the accuracy of his message, so that he would not have done all that he did for nothing, then certainly he would be undermining himself. He had just said that his message came to him by divine revelation, but if so, then there was no superior or even equal authority by which his message could be verified, and it would be strange to require human confirmation at this point. The same is true regarding his calling and authority. These came to him by revelation, from Jesus Christ himself, and to require human approval at this time would undermine and contradict this.

The context explains what Paul means. Verse 5 says that he did not give in "so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you," that is, with the Galatians or with Gentiles in general. Although this statement is immediately applicable to verses 3 and 4, it also reflects his concern in verse 2 and in an upcoming passage, verses 11-14. Paul's concern was not directly about solidarity, but about whether Jerusalem would consider his message and ministry legitimate so that his work would not be frustrated by a contradictory doctrinal pronouncement or contravening missionary effort from Jerusalem. Gaining Jerusalem's official agreement was also an effective tactic against the Judaizers, although not a necessary one.

That is, from an individual's perspective, Paul wished to preserve his previous work and minimize hindrance for his future labor. From a broader perspective, he wished to protect the true gospel that so many among the Gentiles had already believed, so that they could hold fast to it and circulate it. He presented his message to the Jerusalem leaders, not hoping for a confirmation for his own assurance, but hoping for agreement so that the gospel – which he already knew to be true by revelation – would not be taken away or otherwise undermined and attacked among the Gentiles.

Paul's concern, then, was the effectiveness of his efforts, and not the truth of his message or the legitimacy of his ministry – he was assured of the latter by divine revelation. And precisely because he was sure about the truth of his message and the legitimacy of his ministry, if the Jerusalem leaders had disagreed with him and censored him, Paul would have defied them and went his own way. This would have produced a great schism between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, dividing Jerusalem and Antioch, so to speak, and might have severely undermined the effectiveness of Paul's previous and future missionary efforts.

Let us be clear as to what all of this means. If Jerusalem had rejected Paul's message and ministry, he would have rejected them and continued with his work – he was not seeking their approval, since he had Christ's command to preach and a revelation as to what he was to preach. Paul would have been in the right, and Jerusalem in the wrong. This would have added to the tremendous pressure that he was already experiencing from those who claimed to be believers. Keep in mind that the apostle Paul was not the apostle Paul that all Christians revere today. During his lifetime he constantly came under suspicion and criticism even from those who were supposedly his brothers in Christ. So we can understand why he did not want Jerusalem to work against him. He was not there to seek approval for his message and ministry, and based on verses 6-10, he did not even seek a close partnership. He knew he was legitimate, but he was there to make sure that Jerusalem would not get in his way.