What's Next
As mentioned, I am continuing to work on the Commentary on Galatians. I will either post entire chapters as they are completed, or I will split them into parts when posting them.
Meanwhile, I will occasionally release articles, sermons, letters, and various "scraps" as they become available.
A number of articles were released on this site before the series on Galatians started. I will be compiling them into a book. The articles being considered include the following:
Blasphemy and Mystery in Theology
A Culture of Irreverence, Part 1
A Culture of Irreverence, Part 2
God's Holiness and Evil Thoughts
God Passive Only Relative to Himself
Internal Change and External Conduct
Commentary on Galatians (19)
Second, we know the motive of the false brothers. Paul writes that they advance their doctrine "to make us slaves." Later in the letter he adds, "Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh" (6:13). The evil intention of these false brothers is to claim the Gentile as their own disciples and to subjugate their faith under their own customs. The circumcision of the Gentiles would signify the success of their proselytization campaign, and not a covenant relationship with God.
Some commentators again insinuate that Paul's judgment is false or unfair. They seem rather keen to affirm the sincerity of the Judaizers, and relativize the controversy so that it becomes only a matter of perspective. A few describe the Judaizers' intention in almost noble terms. But if these are not false brothers, and if their motive is not evil, then Paul would be wrong to speak as he does. The commentators cannot affirm biblical inspiration on the one hand and so flippantly suggest errors and exaggerations on the other.
The matter of inspiration and inerrancy is settled as a separate and prior question, but once it is assumed, the only possible interpretation here is that these are sham-Christians who introduce their false doctrine with selfish and sinister intentions. Since we have addressed this revolt against biblical authority under the first point, we will not take time to repeat our complaint.
The verse, like many others, raises the issue of judging motives. Since only God can perceive a person's thoughts and dispositions, and in ourselves we have no such ability, it is usually assumed that it is wrong for a man to declare or judge another's intentions. Although the principle is correct, the inference is false. This is because the common assumption ignores the fact that God has revealed much information about people's thoughts and intentions in Scripture (Hebrews 4:12).
We cannot perceive a person's heart, but God can perceive it and tell us about it. We can then repeat and apply his verdict. The refusal to do this does not come from a humble spirit, but a defiance against divine authority and biblical inspiration. Our inability to directly perceive people's thoughts and motives thus becomes an excuse to avoid confrontation. True humility readily applies the divine verdict against human depravity. But the arrogant and rebellious man pretends that God has not spoken.
Third, we know the significance of the dispute. Paul notes that nothing less than "the truth of the gospel" is at stake. Since the gospel is the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16), and since to have no gospel or a false gospel is to be "eternally condemned" (Galatians 1:6-9), salvation itself is at stake. This theological controversy is literally a matter of life and death – that is, of eternal life and death, and of heaven and hell.
Paul fought hard to preserve this true gospel, so that its truth – the truth that saves – could remain. And this is why when the Galatians were tempted to follow another way, Paul called them stupid (3:1). Likewise, the Reformers fought to set men free from Rome, so that men might continue to have access to salvation through Christ. And like the Galatians, those who are attracted by the doctrines of Rome are very stupid people, since there is no salvation in the Catholic religion, but only futility and damnation.
But Rome is not the sole enemy of the gospel. Some have infiltrated our ranks, claiming to be Protestants or Evangelicals, to introduce confusion into the proper understanding of justification by faith. Here we have in mind the theologies of the New Perspective, the Federal Vision, some versions of so-called Messianic Christianity, and so on. Although the circumstances differ from Paul's day, the darkness of men's hearts remains the same, and the conflict is similar on the spiritual plane.
The present passage offers us the encouragement, understanding, and the authority to oppose them without restraint. These are false brothers who spread heresies out of evil motives, and at stake is again the truth of the gospel. Of course, we must avoid making unwarranted generalizations, lest we falsely condemn others. But after careful examination, we must apply the divine verdict – a false gospel is a false gospel, and a false brother is a false brother. When faced with a false gospel, whether it is something similar or different from what is considered here – the threat is always against the true gospel, and thus demands the same decisive and vehement reaction.
In a sense, there is no such thing as a petty theological disagreement, because the truth is at stake each time. Truth is never trivial, and whenever we believe something that is not the truth, we believe a lie. However, we do not fight, or split, or expel people from the church over every dispute, for we tolerate some theological disagreements in order to maintain peace and to allow discussion. The line is not drawn between important and unimportant doctrines, since there is no such thing as an unimportant biblical doctrine. Instead, the line that is drawn defines the relative significance of these important doctrines. When the dispute affects salvation, so that the consequence more final, then the matter is more urgent, and our reaction more drastic.
The line that defines the relative significance of biblical doctrines is often drawn here, that is, with salvation as the pivotal point. But this is in fact not strict enough, since it is determined by man-centered concerns. Even more important than the salvation of our souls, our deliverance from hellfire into everlasting life and peace, is the honor and glory of God. This is the end of our salvation in the first place. Therefore, false doctrines that misrepresent the nature of God are to be combatted with the same force and haste as those that obscure man's way to salvation through Christ.
For example, the heresy of open theism, even if we suppose for the moment that it does not affect salvation, cannot be long tolerated. Otherwise, it would be as if we say, "Let God suffer dishonor for a while. He can endure it, and no harm will come to him. The truth will be clear to all on the last day. Meanwhile, it is more important to address those false doctrines that threaten our salvation." To think this way is to allow self-preservation to dictate our spiritual priorities. This point is often obscured, since salvation is indeed the most noble among our many needs and wants. Still, we cannot take the sinful attitude that it is more urgent to save men than to defend God's honor, so that we pursue the former but neglect the latter, or make the former our highest reference point in theology and ministry rather than the latter.
Commentary on Galatians (18)
Justification by faith is deeply ingrained in some believers, so that they are quick to condemn as false brothers those who deny or distort the doctrine. This is biblical and commendable, but it does not mean that they are free from the pattern of hypocrisy above. The sin of paying lip service to a biblical teaching while opposing its application is rampant, and shows itself when it comes to many other doctrines.
For example, some of us have been persecuted by professing believers for affirming that Scripture means what it says when it states that non-Christians are fools – that is, morons and idiots. There are Christians who acknowledge that unbelievers are "fools" in a poetic sense, a sense that is ambiguous and that carries little meaning and offense. But by it we mean that all non-Christians are stupid people, that they are intellectually retarded and defective.
Scripture is just as clear about this as its teaching that non-Christians are sinners. And here also, we do not mean sinners in a poetic sense, but we mean that non-Christians are wicked and filthy people. And this is what we were before God saved us. There should be nothing vague, or poetic, or beautiful about the idea. Any professing believer who does not have this meaning in mind when he uses the word "sinners" implicitly denies a basic tenet of the Christian faith, and this also reflects negatively on his understanding of salvation.
As long as Christians affirm these two teachings only in a poetic sense, they are paying lip service to God and Scripture, but they are exposed when they criticize someone who actually applies them. We affirm with Scripture that all non-Christians are stupid and evil. They are not smart and not good. For us this is not a matter of personal satisfaction, nor is it a mere debate tactic, as it has been alleged even by those who claim to be Christians. It is first a matter of reverence toward God and Scripture. It is a matter of biblical inerrancy.
Because the Bible is inerrant, then it is correct when it calls non-Christians stupid and evil, and we are correct when we repeat this teaching. Those Christians who dare to oppose this expose themselves as enemies of Christ – they affirm the message on the one hand, but oppose the application on the other. These hypocrites are useless as servants of God. They are the very problems that true ministers of the gospel labor to overcome.
Scripture does not refer to the intellectual aspect of man's fallen condition with a rather respectable-sounding term like "the noetic effects of sin" – it calls them morons.14 Even if the teaching produces no theological or practical significance, we must still affirm it just because it is the truth that God has revealed in Scripture. But the implications are in fact tremendous and far-reaching.
Only when we affirm with Scripture that the non-Christian is both stupid and evil, and not just evil, do we truly acknowledge the full extent of his fall. And then we may in turn affirm the corresponding solution in Christ. Thus to underplay either aspect of man's fall is to obscure the glory of the gospel. What an evil thing it is to do this. And this is why those who oppose us on this issue commit a great sin against the Lord and treachery against all the believers who contend for the true gospel, since not only do they refuse to proclaim the full extent of the fall and the full power of salvation, but they persecute those who do. And in this manner they have become enemies against the grace of Christ, devaluing and dishonoring his blood and his sacrifice.
These hypocrites pay lip service to the inerrancy of Scripture, but when God speaks something in it that they find difficult to accept, that stirs up their fear of men, or that threatens their respectability or appearance before the world, they turn from it and refuse to accept it. Then, when someone merely repeats and applies what God says on the subject, they throng to silence him. The real object of their hatred is the Lord. They resent him for saying such things.
Of course, justification by faith and the noetic effects of sin are just two examples of how men often pretend to agree with divine revelation, but pick up stones against anyone who dares to apply it, and who is humble enough before God to proclaim it without question or hesitation. This pattern of hypocrisy is seen in professing believers regarding just about anything that the Bible teaches.
As another example, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." A person does not really believe this passage unless he can say, "If you are a homosexual or an adulterer, unless you repent, believe the gospel, and turn from your sins, God will send you to hell, where you will suffer extreme pain and agony forever." This is what the passage means. But nowadays those who call themselves Christians profess belief in Scripture on the one hand, and instead of warning homosexuals and adulterers, they ordain them to the ministry.
NOTES
14 See Vincent Cheung, "A Moron By Any Other Name," "Professional Morons," and Commentary on Ephesians.
Commentary on Galatians (17)
Some commentators stumble over Paul's characterization of the Judaizers as "false brothers." Among those who call themselves Evangelicals, the reluctance to accept Paul's verdict tends to be less blatant, but it is difficult to shake the impression that they struggle with it. To illustrate, L. Ann Jervis writes, "In defending himself Paul caricatures his opponents as false," "He obviously feels threatened by their actions," and "Whether Paul's presentation of the rival evangelists' position is fair or not, it is clear that Paul was willing to go to almost any lengths to defend the Gentiles' rights to be believers in Jesus Christ without having to adopt the Jewish law."12
In commenting on the term "false brothers," R. Alan Cole writes, "It is tempting to see in this a denial that these Judaizers are acting the part of true brothers at all. They are utterly lacking in love."13 How "acting in love" carries any relevance to what Paul means by the term is unexplained. But other than that, the statement is curiously padded. So the fact that Paul calls them false does not settle the question but only makes it "tempting" to see them as false. And even if they are false, it is not that they are false brothers, but that they are not "acting the part of true brothers."
Then, he writes, "But the NEB may be right in going further with its blunt translation 'sham-Christians.' In this case, Paul would be denying the very reality of the Christian faith of the Judaizers." He entertains the possibility that it "may be right" to understand the term "false brothers" to mean…well, false brothers. And if they are false brothers, then "the very reality of the Christian faith" is also denied to the Judaizers. This is correct despite the weak language. To say it more clearly, the meaning here is that if these people are false brothers as Paul says, then they are sham-Christians – that is, not Christians – or people who pretend to be Christians.
He continues, "This is a serious charge; but Paul knew them far better than we can ever do." If this offers hope that Cole tries to take biblical inerrancy seriously, he squashes it as he completes the thought and writes, "although it is true that in theological controversy he sometimes uses extreme language (Phil. 3:2)." If read by itself, the second part of the statement could mean that Paul sometimes uses strong words against his opponents, but these words accurately describe their true condition. This would be acceptable, but Cole means something else. The remark is said against the first part of the statement, which says that Paul knew his opponents better than we can ever do when he calls them false brothers. And Cole says this in the context of considering whether the term "false brothers" means that the Judaizers were non-Christians who pretend to be Christians.
In other words, the second part of Cole's statement neutralizes the first, meaning that although Paul knew his opponents better when he calls them false brothers, he sometimes uses "extreme language," so that what he says might be an exaggeration. So, although Cole refrains from denying that the term "false brothers" means what it obviously does, since "Paul knew them far better than we can ever do," that he sometimes uses "extreme language" – exaggerated language – means that in this case we cannot be sure whether the Judaizers are really non-Christians after all.
He offers Philippians 3:2 as an example that Paul uses extreme language. The verse says, "Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh." The denunciation is indeed strong, but by what standard may we call it extreme, in the sense that it is an exaggeration that is in fact untrue and inaccurate? Christ himself used stronger language than this against the Pharisees. If we read Scripture on its own terms – on God's terms – then we will say that this is an appropriate way to describe the Judaizers and false teachers. If the language seems extreme, it is because the errors that it addresses are so extreme, vile, and evil. But Cole takes it as a reflection on Paul and not the Judaizers.
Cole fails to see Paul's language from the proper perspective because he reads Scripture on his own terms, by a standard formed from his culture, background, and personality. So when Paul's language appears extreme on this scale – that is, Cole's personal comfort – he takes it as an exaggeration, and in a way that renders it a false statement. The idea of "false" in the term "false brothers" is not one of degree, but it is an absolute. People cannot be more or less false Christians – they are either Christians or they are not. And Paul says they are not. If this is an exaggeration, then this means that Paul calls them false Christians when they are in fact true Christians. Thus by his comment Cole commits himself to a denial of biblical inerrancy, although this might not be his intention.
One who has not been disappointed with such "scholarship" over and over again might be surprised that any Christian commentator could stumble over the term given what Paul says in 1:6-9. There he asserts, more than one time and in more than one way, that anyone who preaches and/or believes a "gospel" different than the one that he preached to the Galatians and different than the one that they first accepted is "eternally condemned." Since the individuals in 2:4 advance a different doctrine, they are therefore false brothers, destined for hell. The reasoning is so simple and direct that one would expect any child to understand it.
Even more perplexing is that commentators seem to have less resistance against this emphatic passage than the mere term "false brothers." And by this fact we have located the underlying spiritual problem – namely, they affirm the message but oppose the application. In other words, they are hypocrites who pay lip service to the inspiration of Scripture, but balk at any concrete application of a teaching that they in fact oppose. Paul is permitted to say anything he wishes until he applies it to actual people. If they are reluctant to apply biblical condemnations against those in the distant past, even those whom the entire New Testament denounces as the enemies of God, we wonder if anyone in the present day could be condemned in their eyes.
This reluctance to accept Paul's application of 1:6-9 to the individuals in 2:4 disqualifies them as biblical expositors or for any sort of ministry, because they have dismissed the whole point of Paul's letter to the Galatians. The apostle stresses in the strongest manner possible that anyone who preaches or believes anything different, such as the Judaizers, are eternally condemned. Later he would add, "for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing" (2:21), so that the Judaizers' message is a denial of the gospel and the work of Christ. Now if that does not make them "false," what does? The commentators feign assent to Paul's message, but draw back when he applies it to actual people in the same letter. This makes it certain that the flock of God cannot depend on them as biblical expositors or as guardians of the faith.
NOTES
12 L. Ann Jervis, Galatians (Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), p. 54.
13 R. Alan Cole, Galatians (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), p. 105.
Commentary on Galatians (16)
The historical aspect of the situation – what happened and when it happened – carries some significance with the Galatians, since Paul is probably responding to something that the Judaizers said. Perhaps they distorted the facts to assert their doctrine. But if so, then the Galatians would know the exact situation that Paul is addressing – it is the very one that the Judaizers mentioned, only that Paul is now telling his side and setting the record straight.
However, just because the historical aspect of the passage is important to the Galatians does not mean that we must know as much about it as they do in order to derive from it the full benefits intended for us. There are some uncertainties as to Paul's meaning concerning the historical side of the situation, but unlike the Galatians, we are not directly affected by the Judaizers' attack. Of course, we do face false teachers who assert similar doctrinal distortions, and we find that Scripture equips us with the principles to answer them, no matter how they arise in each generation.
So, regarding the historical aspect of the passage, if the information is not there, then it means that we do not need to know it. What we do know is that at a given place and a given time, and possibly on the same occasion as 2:1-2, Paul and his companions were pressured into circumcising Titus. They resisted, and maintained that Gentiles could receive complete salvation by faith in Jesus Christ without undergoing circumcision, and without adopting Jewish laws and customs. These are God's people in the truest and fullest sense, and they are spiritually inferior to no one. This is so that the truth of the gospel might remain with the Galatians, and with the Gentiles. All of this lies on the surface of the text – there is still more to notice on this level, as we will see below – and it is best to refrain from speculation beyond this point, but derive from the passage only what is there. In this way we avoid the danger of building elaborate interpretations, especially ones that affect doctrine and conduct, on conjectures and uncertainties.
That said, although we can infer only a little about the history, the passage provides much information that is relevant to any generation about this doctrinal aberration and the proper perspective with which we must confront it. And this information is communicated in such a manner that does not demand a precise understanding of the historical details behind the text. Thus it may not tell us everything that we wish to know to satisfy our curiosity, but it contains everything that Paul wishes to convey and that God requires us to learn.
First, we know the nature of the troublemakers – Paul calls them "false brothers." These are people who claim to be Christians, but their claim is false. This means that they are in fact non-Christians, and therefore destined for hell. They are false believers not only because of the manner in which they assert their false doctrine (i.e. "infiltrated our ranks"), but as discussed earlier (1:6-9), because of the fact that they believe and/or preach this false doctrine. Those who affirm or promote such a doctrine in any way are unbelievers, but it is important to keep in mind that they claim to be believers.
This point is most significant. There are those who reject the faith outright without pretense, but then there are those who claim to be something that they are not. For example, although Catholic doctrine differs in its doctrinal aberrations, in principle it affirms the same errors as those addressed by Paul's letter. This makes one equivalent to the other, since they both fall under the apostle's broad condemnation against a different gospel, not that there is any other.
Since this is the case, it necessarily means that all Catholics who believe as Catholics should (not just what they call themselves) are in fact non-Christians, even though they claim to be Christians. And in turn this means that God will send all Catholics to hell, where they will suffer everlasting extreme torment, just like he would the rest of the non-Christians and unbelievers. In practice, this means that Catholics must never be treated as if they are Christians, although they claim to depend on Jesus Christ for their salvation (since this is not all that they claim). They are no more closer to salvation than Mormons, Buddhists, and atheists. They are unregenerate individuals that are legitimate targets for evangelism – they need to hear the true gospel and turn away from their sacrilegious beliefs and rituals.
Commentary on Galatians (15)
There are difficulties with verses 3-5, and their exact meaning remains the subject of debate. The trouble has to do with the broken and agitated language in the Greek, and the relation of these verses to the event described in those surrounding it. The result is that it is not completely clear as to what happened and when it happened. However, the ambiguities and uncertainties are historical in nature, and in this case do not affect the theological significance of Paul's statements. In other words, we might be curious about the historical aspect of the situation described, but the difficulties presented do not generate confusion for any issue that relates to doctrine and conduct.
A simple way to illustrate the difficulties is to read these verses in a more literal translation, such as the ESV, which retains some of the confusion in the original language: "But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in – who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery – to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you." In contrast, the NIV smoothes out the language in its translation, and conveys well what Paul is probably saying, but in doing so it also obscures some of the problems.
For the sake of convenience, let us assume that the visit to Jerusalem in Galatians 2:1 overlaps with either the visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11 or the one in Acts 15, although as mentioned earlier, there is no definitive reason for insisting that it must be identified with either. But we shall tolerate the assumption for now, since it narrows our options and helps to illustrate the various possible interpretations.
If Galatians 2:1 refers to the visit in Acts 11, then the main purpose of the visit was famine relief. Then 2:2 would mean that, while he was there, Paul had a private meeting with the leaders to discuss his message and ministry. The difficulty is in how verses 3-5 fit into this scenario. It could be that while he was there along with his companions, some of the Judaizers in Jerusalem took the opportunity to challenge Paul's gospel, appealing to the case of Titus to make their attack concrete, and putting pressure upon them to circumcise him. Note that if 2:1 overlaps with Acts 11, this would suggest or at least permit an early date for the letter to the Galatians.
Or, we could note the fact that verse 6 directly continues the thought that 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." This is in fact Paul's primary assertion here. We will mention this again when we come to verse 6, but its significance at this point is that this makes verses 3-5 an interjection into a thought that Paul begins in verse 2 and continues in verse 6. Since there is nothing in these verses that necessarily associates this event in verses 3-5 with the visit in Jerusalem, it is possible that these verses refer to something that happened on another occasion altogether.
That is, it might be that Paul is bringing up this dispute over Titus because he just mentioned in verse 1 that he brought him to Jerusalem on this visit, which might or might not be the same occasion as the incident mentioned here in verses 3-5. If this is correct, then it means that while Titus was present at Jerusalem on this visit, and as Paul presented the gospel of salvation by faith alone, the matter of circumcising Titus was not even mentioned by the Jerusalem leaders. Rather, it was assumed by all involved that circumcision was not required. The matter only arose when, on a separate occasion, some "false brothers" pressed the issue with Paul and his men.
If this is the case, then when Paul writes that some false brothers "infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom that we have in Christ and to make us slaves," he could be referring to the dispute that happened at Antioch (Acts 15:1-5), and that occasioned the Jerusalem council. And if Galatians 2:1-2 overlaps with Acts 15, then 2:3-5 would have occurred prior to 2:1-2. That verses 3-5 is an interjection describing a separate occasion would be consistent with the broken language that we find in these verses; however, there is still nothing in verses 1-6 to require this interpretation.
If Galatians 2:1 overlaps with Acts 15, 2:2 might be referring to a private meeting between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders that convened apart from a larger conference. Then, if 2:4 also overlaps with Acts 15, did the false brother infiltrate this private meeting or the larger session? In any case, we read in Acts 15:5, "Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, 'The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.'"
Once we assume that 2:4 overlaps with Acts 15, Paul's disordered and agitated language at this point suggests to some interpreters a sense of irritation and disappointment that he had with the Jerusalem leaders – this would, of course, include the apostles. Indeed, for a church that had been established since the beginning, how did Judaizers with such strong sentiments against the true gospel manage to infiltrate their meetings? Such individuals should have been corrected, silenced, or expelled years before. What were they still doing there among the Christians?
The word translated "infiltrated" in the NIV actually suggests the idea of "smuggled" or even "planted" in, or as in the ESV, "secretly brought in." This implies that the Judaizers had a powerful backer among the Jerusalem leaders, although interpreters usually exonerate the likes of Peter and James. Then again, it is pointed out that since verses 4 and 5 do not necessarily overlap with 2:1-3, Paul could be referring to the Judaizers in Jerusalem while thinking of their behavior in Antioch, that is, to denote what type of people they were.
Further, when the Judaizers rose to oppose the gospel, why did Paul even have to stand his ground? That is, they were in Jerusalem after all, and it was up to the church leaders there to moderate the meeting. When an anti-gospel proposal was asserted, they should have immediately slammed it down and silenced it. The fact that pressure was applied to Paul and his companions, and that they had to stand their ground for the gospel when he was in the Jerusalem territory seems to indicate that these leaders, including the apostles, had been weak in protecting this essential aspect of the gospel, namely, that both Jews and non-Jews are saved only through faith in Christ apart from Jewish laws and customs.
Some even see from the text the possibility that the Jerusalem leaders had asked Paul and his companions to give in to the Judaizers, although they did not agree with their doctrine. But even if the "we" in verses 4 and 5 includes the Jerusalem apostles, so that they did not take part in urging the circumcision of Titus, the question remains as to why the Judaizers had a voice there in the first place. In this view, although the Jerusalem apostles agreed with Paul's gospel in principle, to his great consternation and disappointment, they did not do all that they could to preach and enforce it.
Again, there is insufficient evidence in the text to require this understanding. However, we cannot rule it out simply because it suggests some serious deficiencies in the Jerusalem leaders. Their inspiration as apostles and the inerrancy of Scripture are not at all in question here, and the biblical evidence confirms that they agreed with Paul's message (2:6-10). But that they were weak in enforcing the aspect of the gospel now under discussion was entirely possible, considering Peter's compromise and hypocrisy in 2:11-14, and some might say, also their behavior in passages like Acts 21:17-25.
That Paul was strong where they were weak was perhaps what qualified him above others to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (2:7-9) – a gospel that is unencumbered by Jewish laws and customs – and to withstand the severe persecution that came because of it (5:11). His disordered and agitated language, then, can be explained by the fact that he was irritated and disappointed with the Jerusalem leaders on this issue. One intention of this section of the letter, however, is to show that the apostles agreed with his message and endorsed his ministry. And therefore the tension is generated, as Barclay writes, in Paul trying to avoid saying too little on the one hand and saying too much on the other.
That said, we affirm once again that this is only one possible interpretation, but one that is likely if all of Galatians 2:1-5 overlaps with Acts 15. Moreover, verses 6-10 prevent us from taking our interpretation too far toward such a direction, since it indicates Jerusalem's agreement with Paul's message and endorsement of his ministry. So if they compromised at all (e.g. 2:11-14), it was only because they were weak in character, and not because they disagreed with Paul in doctrine or preached a different message.