Commentary on Galatians (20)

Paul's broken and agitated language continues into verse 6, perhaps denoting great distress over the items being addressed. The expression, "those who seemed to be important," occurs in various forms in 2:2, 2:6 (twice), and 2:9. This is better seen in a translation like the ESV, since the NIV obscures the repetition and consistency. The ESV translates the expression as "those who seemed influential." The NASB has "those who were of reputation," and the RSV, "those who were reputed to be something." Verse 9 says, "those reputed to be pillars," but of course the connection with 2:2 and 2:6 must not be missed.

This notable use of the expression is probably sarcastic. Given the context and purpose of the passage (2:1-10), as well as the interruption within verse 6 itself (which we will examine below), Paul is obviously not stressing the exalted status of the Jerusalem apostles. To illustrate, it is likely that sarcasm is intended if within several sentences of broken and agitated language I were to refer to a group of men thus: "Those somebodies…those important people…oh, those big shots!…those high and mighty ones!"

As mentioned, it is possible that Paul is at least a little annoyed with the Jerusalem apostles in that they failed to prevent the Judaizers from going as far as they did. It is also possible that they were not very strong at implementing that aspect of the gospel under discussion, as suggested by 2:11-13. That said, the apostles were probably not the primary target of Paul's hostility here, even if a degree of disappointment with their performance is implied. He assumes their legitimacy in verses 7-9, and part of his present argument depends on this. Rather, the main force of the sarcasm is more likely directed against the inordinate deference – whether as a matter of conviction or merely a tool for manipulation – that the Judaizers attribute to the Jerusalem leaders, and in connection with this, their deprecation of Paul's ministry and authority through a false contrast against these apostles.

The interruption within verse 6 reads, "whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance." "Whatever they were" refers to the differences between Paul and "those who seemed to be important." These are probably the things that the Judaizers hold against Paul as the advantages that the Jerusalem apostles have over him, such as their earthly association with Jesus, including the fact that James is the natural brother of the Lord.

The carnal man equates these natural distinctions with spiritual advantages. But whether the Jerusalem apostles possess any spiritual advantage over Paul because of their earthly distinctions and experiences depends on how closely they followed the Lord's doctrine and example. Regarding this, the Gospels record their repeated confusion and unbelief. It was not until after the resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that these apostles began to exhibit the knowledge, maturity, and boldness that Christ demanded from them. But the same resources that made them strong in the faith have been given to Paul, who has forsaken all human credentials so that he may know Christ in the power of his resurrection (Philippians 3:10).

Thus the Judaizers form their opinions about the spiritual status of men based on superficial, earthly, and non-spiritual factors. On the other hand, God's judgment transcends appearances, human credentials and associations, and other natural distinctions, showing "no partiality" (ESV). Therefore, the Judaizers' perspective is fundamentally contrary to God's, so that their respect for the apostles and their disdain for Paul count for nothing.

As long as we kowtow to human associations and credentials, we will fail to perceive true spiritual fruit and power, and we will fail to recognize counterfeit spiritual authority. From the perspective of one who has been called by God to the ministry, unless he is delivered from this carnal mentality, he will never attain the full extent of the spiritual freedom and boldness granted by the divine commission. He will be easily intimated by men, since his opponents will almost always include those who possess greater human recognition. But one who submits to God's perspective and standard of judgment can say with Paul that superficial credentials are irrelevant. They make no difference to him because they make no difference to God. And since God is not swayed by them, then neither is he.

The end of verse 6 completes the thought that Paul started in verse 2, so that we could read, "I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders…those men added nothing to my message." Again, it was not that Paul submitted his message and ministry before the apostles for their evaluation. He knew that he was right, and if the apostles had contradicted him or attempted to add to his message, they would have been wrong, and Paul would have continued without change, although perhaps less effectively due to resistance from Jerusalem. So without implying submission or inferiority, the verse makes a factual statement, that the Jerusalem apostles added nothing to Paul's gospel. This in turn means that, although it makes no difference to Paul, the apostles agree with him and not the Judaizers.

The solidarity between Paul and Jerusalem is deeper than the mere fact that the apostles "added nothing" to his message. Verses 7 and 8 indicate that the apostles acknowledge two things – that Paul has been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, and that God has been at work in Paul's ministry as he carries out this task. Thus these verses describe a positive recognition of Paul's legitimacy and authority.

This recognition is in turn characterized by two things. First, Paul's legitimacy and authority are not conferred but perceived by the apostles. God was the one who conferred upon Paul his ministry to the Gentiles. Jerusalem could neither replace nor oppose God on the matter. Second, the legitimacy and authority of Paul parallel that of Peter, whose place is usually not questioned at least because of his earthly association with Christ and foundational role in the church since the beginning. And if Paul is just as legitimate and authoritative as Peter, then to undermine Paul is also to undermine Peter.

If this discredits the Judaizers' account of Paul's relationship with Jerusalem, verse 9 proceeds to complete the refutation. "Those who seemed important" are finally named – they are James, Peter, and John, the "pillars" of the Jerusalem church. Contrary to the hopes and claims of the Judaizers, instead of censoring or correcting Paul's message, they gave him "the right hand of fellowship." This clasping of the right hand signals an official friendship between the two parties.

This in effect puts the Judaizers, who oppose Paul, outside of the apostolic circle and the main thrust of the Christian movement. Thus since Jerusalem agrees with Paul, and Paul disagrees with the Judaizers, this means that the Judaizers are in fact the real deceivers and false teachers, and the enemies of the gospel. By this point in the letter, Paul has provided more than sufficient refutation to all those arguments of the Judaizers that are based on personal attacks, although he will go even further starting from verse 11, which will then lead to his main theological summary and argument.

Nevertheless, contrary to some commentators, there is no indication of a close partnership here. Still more remote is the suggestion that the text balances out the emphasis of Paul's independence in the previous passage. Neither is there any suggestion of "mutual accountability" or direct cooperation. Even if their relationship entails any of this, it cannot be derived from these statements. All that can be inferred from the passage is that they agreed to go their separate ways knowing that they would labor toward the same overall goal.

These errors of interpretation seem to come from a modern philosophy of ministry, taken from recent secular policies regarding business management and human cooperation, and imposed by force upon the biblical text. Theological errors often occur when a non-biblical theory or standard is accepted as "good," and since the Bible teaches that which is "good," it is then assumed that it also endorses this theory or standard. This reverses the proper order. Rather, since the Bible is our ultimate authority, we derive from it our idea of good, and then evaluate any theory or standard by this. And when we do this, we see that the Bible does not teach a rigid principle of "team ministry," or "mutual accountability," and neither does it condemn ministries that exercise some sort of independence from the usual authority structures. Thus we must refrain from making either positive or negative judgments regarding a church, ministry, or person on this basis alone.

These apostles agreed to focus on different parts of the church's overall mission. Christ commanded his disciples to preach to the world, but the commission belongs to the entire church, and not to any one person. Moreover, the work of evangelization consists of more than the act of speaking the gospel. Many related tasks must be done to make it possible and effective. These include the generation and distribution of financial resources, the work of administration, theological research and education, ministries of mercy, and bringing up godly children by their parents in the home. All these and many other factors contribute to the church's overall success in fulfilling Christ's command for spiritual world conquest. And the recognition of this principle is necessary before the church could properly honor the role of each member of Christ's body (1 Corinthians 12:14-26).

"The poor" in verse 10 probably refers to impoverished Jewish believers, and thus "their poor" in some translations. Many of the Jerusalem Christians lived in abject poverty, due to famine, persecution, and other factors. The second part of the verse seems to exhibit some indignation on Paul's part, as he was already eager to do that "very thing" requested by the apostles. If there is any indication of direct cooperation between Paul and Jerusalem, here it is in verse 10, although the nature of this cooperation would be a different sort than what commentators wish to find, and sometimes illegitimately deduce, from the previous verses. This is not to assert that there is any malice between Jerusalem and Antioch. Rather, the point is that although the passage indicates an essential agreement between the two, it does not offer evidence of an intimate and involved ministry partnership as alleged by some commentators.