The Chronological Problem of Galatians 2:1-10

By Stanley D. Toussaint

Without a doubt, the outstanding problem in reconciling Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians with the book of Acts is the relating of Galatians 2:1–10 with Luke’s record. W. L. Knox calls this “the central problem of Acts.”[1] Simply put the problem is this: Which of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem recorded in Acts is discussed in Galatians two? Can the Acts account be squared with Paul’s autobiography in Galatians without facing hopeless discrepancies? According to Luke’s record Paul was in Jerusalem five times following his conversion. First, there was the visit to Jerusalem after Paul left Damascus (Acts 9:26–30). It is clear this corresponds with Galatians 1:18–20. Second, there was the famine visit recorded in Acts 11:27–30 and 12:25. Third, Paul visited Jerusalem at the time of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:1–30). The fourth brief visit to Jerusalem following the second missionary journey is recorded in Acts 18:22. The fifth and final visit occasioned Paul’s Caesarean imprisonment (Acts 21:15—23:35 ).

It is almost certain Galatians 2:1–10 is not viewing Paul’s fourth visit of Acts 18:22 and it cannot be describing the fifth.[2] Unless Luke has omitted one of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem,[3] a rather unlikely alternative, the reconciliation of Galatians 2:1–10 with the Acts record is limited to two possibilities. In Galatians two Paul is referring either to his second or to his third visit to Jerusalem.[4]

In either case, Luke’s reliability has been called into question because of the difficulties involved in reconciling Galatians with Acts. Bruce states concerning Luke’s record of the Jerusalem council: “His account of this occasion has been impugned by a number of scholars as tendentious and largely unhistorical, mainly because of the difficulty of reconciling it with the evidence of the Pauline evidences difficulty that has been felt by more conservative scholars as well.”[5] Burton is a case in point. In his outstanding commentary on Galatians, Burton takes Galatians 2:1–10 to be a description of Acts 15 but declares Luke to be inaccurate in his record of both the second and third visits.[6] Undoubtedly there are problems, but they are by no means insurmountable and certainly no solution needs to accuse either Luke or Paul of errors or inaccuracies.

Galatians Two and the Jerusalem Council

It is possible that Paul is describing the Jerusalem council in Galatians two. A considerable amount of evidence is amassed in favor of this position.[7] First, the issues which are discussed are the same in both passages. The question revolves around the necessity of circumcision and the keeping of the Mosaic law.

Second, the same people are involved in both. James, Peter, Paul, and Barnabas are all mentioned in both Acts and Galatians 2. While Titus is referred to in Galatians 2:3 and he is not named in Acts 15, he would be included in the “certain others” of Acts 15:2. The “false brethren” of Galatians 2:4 correspond with the “certain ones from Judea” in Acts 15:1.

Third, the same geography is considered in both accounts. Antioch and Jerusalem both figure prominently in Acts 15 and Galatians 2.

Fourth, Galatians is similar to Romans and First and Second Corinthians and therefore must have been written about the same time. Romans and the Corinthian Epistles were certainly written after the Jerusalem council. Galatians 2 therefore most probably looks back to this important milestone in the early church.

Finally, the aorist tense of ἐσπούδασα in Galatians 2:10 implies the famine visit had taken place a considerable time before the agreement described in Galatians was reached.[8] It is assumed the aorist tense refers back to the famine visit and the accord that was reached at the Jerusalem council. This however is an unwarranted assumption. The present tense of μνημονεύωμεν with the aorist ἐσπούδασα gives the impression that Paul should continue to remember the poor just as he had endeavored to do. It actually makes better sense to refer the entire verse to the famine visit since charity was the business at hand at that time.

There are also a number of objections to this view. One difficulty is this: If Galatians 2 refers to the Jerusalem council, why doesn’t Paul refer to its official pronouncement? There is no reference in the entire epistle to the decree of the Jerusalem council. This objection is answered by saying Paul is attempting to prove his independence of the church at Jerusalem and the apostles. For Paul to acknowledge the power of the decision of the council would be to subject himself to human authority. However, Acts 15:30—16:5 indicates Paul did use the decrees of the council when his position had to be vindicated in the face of opposition from Judaizers.

Another formidable difficulty is found in the omission in Galatians of any reference to the famine visit to Jerusalem, if Galatians 2:1–10 is made to correspond with the Jerusalem council. This is very important. In this sections of Galatians, Paul is carefully showing his independence of human authority in his reception and proclamation of his gospel. One by one he discusses his contacts with Jerusalem. If Galatians 2:1–10 refers to the Jerusalem council and Galatians 1:18–20 corresponds with Acts 9:26–30 (a fact no one disputes), then Paul purposely omits his second visit to Jerusalem. He leaps from the first to the third contact with the church at Jerusalem. This objection is answered by asserting Paul did not see any apostles in the famine visit; he only saw elders (cf. Acts 11:30). Paul, it is stated, is concerned in Galatians with mentioning only his contacts with the apostles, of whom he saw none in the famine visit. Because of the severe persecutions in Jerusalem at that time, it is assumed the apostles were driven out of the city. However, this is an assumption which is difficult to prove. In Acts 8:1 during a time of persecution, all were scattered except the apostles. In fact, Acts 12:17 strongly implies “James and the brethren” were in Jerusalem at the time of the persecution and Peter certainly was.

How then do we account for the lack of mention of apostles in Acts 11:30? It was simply a matter of responsibility.[9] The church at Antioch sent relief to the elders at Jerusalem so that the elders could direct the distribution. This was not the work of the apostles (Acts 6:2–4). Moreover, Acts 11:30 does not say Paul saw no apostles. It simply states the relief was turned over to the elders in Judea just as the church at Antioch had directed Paul and Barnabas to do. To say, therefore, that Paul omits any reference to the famine visit in Galatians tends to make his defense in Galatians 1:17—2:10 rather inaccurate.

The third objection relates to the kind of conferences described in Galatians 2 and Acts 15. The Acts account describes a public conference whereas Galatians 2 looks at a private meeting. The two therefore must be different. Those who feel Galatians 2 and Acts 15 are to be reconciled account for this difficulty by saying the private conference preceded the public one. Paul would not endanger his whole position in a public council without having first discussed it in private with the apostles. This is possible but it tends to give the impression the Jerusalem council, which Luke so strongly emphasizes, was little more than a rubber stamp.

Galatians Two and the Famine Visit

The proponents of the view which equates the visit of Galatians 2:1–10 with the second or famine visit also claim weighty support for their position.[10] First, one gains the distinct impression as he reads Galatians 1:17—2:10 that Paul is carefully listing in order his contacts with Jerusalem. The famine visit would correspond then with his second contact described in Galatians 2:1–10.

Second, Galatians 2:2 asserts Paul went up to Jerusalem by revelation and this fits with the circumstances of Acts 11:27–28. It must be acknowledged, however, that Paul also could have gone to the Jerusalem council by revelation although no such fact is mentioned by Luke. In Acts 9:29–30, Luke states Paul fled from Jerusalem because his opponents were seeking his life. Nothing is said of a revelation. However, Paul in Acts 22:17–21 testifies he left Jerusalem because of a vision. It is possible therefore for Luke to have omitted any reference to a special revelation in Acts 15. Nevertheless the prominence given to revelation in both Acts 11:27–28 and Galatians 2:2 argues for their identification.

Third, Peter’s vacillation as described in Galatians 2:11–14 is easier to explain if it occurred before the Jerusalem council than after it. To this it is replied the response of Peter in Galatians 2:11–14 is completely in character with his vacillating personality. But the fact remains, it is easier to explain Peter’s actions if they transpired before the Jerusalem council than after it.

Fourth, it is easier to explain Luke’s omission of a private conference in Acts 11 than it is to account for Paul’s omission of a visit to Jerusalem in Galatians.

Fifth, Paul’s use of πάλιν in connection with Jerusalem in Galatians 2:1 indicates he is marking out his contacts with Jerusalem, not merely his conferences with the apostles.

This view also has some problems. The first and primary difficulty involves chronology. It is known the famine occurred between the dates of A.D. 44 and 48 because Josephus states the time of the famine as being in the procuratorships of C. Cuspius Fadus (44–46) and Tiberius Alexander (46–48). It is probable then that the famine visit took place about A.D. 46. If the three years mentioned in Galatians 1:18 is added to the fourteen years of Galatians 2:1, the famine visit may have taken place about fifteen years after Paul’s conversion.[11] Paul’s conversion would have occurred then in A.D. 31. This would hardly leave sufficient time for the growth of the church described in Acts one to seven to take place. It is very possible however to say the fourteen years of Galatians 2:1 are to be reckoned from Paul’s conversion. It would be from this great turning point in his life that Paul would measure everything. If this method of measuring is followed, then the chronology is no real problem.

A second objection to this view is the reference to the former visit in Galatians 4:13. It implies Paul made two trips to Galatia before he wrote this epistle; therefore, the Jerusalem council preceded the writing of Galatians. This objection can be met by noting the itinerary of Paul’s first journey. The apostle retraced his steps through the cities of Galatia on his first journey so he in effect visited them twice. Needless to say, this view assumes the South Galatian theory.

To this writer it seems best to say Galatians 2:1–10 refers to the famine visit. The problems are not insuperable and the evidence in its favor strong.

A Sequence of Events

If the conclusion of the preceding discussion is reached, then the following represents the probable succession of events: (1) Paul and Barnabas return to Antioch of Syria from the famine visit to Jerusalem described in Acts 11. (2) They embark on the first missionary journey and return to Antioch. (3) Reports of Judaizers working in the Galatian churches founded by them come to the missionaries. (4) Paul writes Galatians from Antioch of Syria. (5) The Jerusalem council was held shortly after the writing of Galatians.

This sequence of events would date the epistle about A.D. 48 and would make it Paul’s earliest extant epistle. This series of events also helps to explain why Paul could not deal with the heresy in the Galatian churches personally. The press and importance of the Jerusalem council would necessitate his presence in Jerusalem and a trip to Galatia would be impossible at this time.

If ease of explanation and logical order is to be considered in Galatians, it seems best to equate the visit of Paul to Jerusalem described in Galatians 2:1–10 with the famine visits of Acts 11.

Notes

1. W. L. Knox, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 40.
2. A few hold Galatians 2:1–10 is describing the fourth visit. Cf. John Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul, pp. 64-73; D. T. Rowlinson, “The Jerusalem Conference and Jesus’ Nazareth Visit,” The Journal of Biblical Literature, 71:69–74, April, 1952. This view however is generally considered to be radical and unsatisfactory. To hold it one must accuse Luke of some serious inaccuracies.
3. Cf. T. W. Manson, “St. Paul in Ephesus: The Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 24:59–80, April, 1940. He feels Galatians 2:1–10 describes a visit to Jerusalem made by Paul and Barnabas just before their first missionary journey.
4. Enslin accepts none of these alternatives. He believes Luke used a “Jerusalem” source and an “Antiochian” account of the apostolic council in Jerusalem. He failed to recognize they were two accounts of the same event and therefore separated them and made it appear as though Paul made two visits to Jerusalem. The famine visit is actually the Jerusalem council viewed from the viewpoint of the church at Antioch and the Acts 15 record is the same event from the vantage point of the Jerusalem church. This “interpretation” is again too extreme and impugns Luke’s ability and accuracy. Cf. Morton Scott Enslin, Christian Beginnings, pp. 227-30.
5. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts, p. 298.
6. Ernest DeWitt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, p. 117.
7. Cf. Burton, op. cit., p. 117; O. Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, pp. 40-52; John Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, pp. 140-45; C. F. Hogg and W. E. Vine, The Epistle to the Galatians, pp. 123-28; J. G. Machen, The Origin of Paul’s Religion, pp. 78-100; Richard B. Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 238-40; Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia, pp. 78-80.
8. Burton, op. cit., p. 115.
9. W. W. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, pp. 52-53.
10. F. F. Bruce, op. cit., pp. 298-300; John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, translated by William Pringle, pp. 46-48; Martin H. Franzmann, The Word of the Lord Grows, p. 54; Robert C. Hoerber, “Galatians 2:1–10 and the Acts of the Apostles,” Concordia Theological Monthly, 31:482–91, August, 1960; W. L. Knox, op. cit., pp. 40-53; W. M. Ramsay, op. cit., pp. 55-60; Douglass Round, The Date of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, p. 21; Merrill C. Tenney, Galatians: The Charter of Christian Liberty, pp. 76-82.
11. This figure is reached when the ancient method of counting a fractional part of time as a whole is employed. By this method the three years could actually be a year and a half or even less. The fourteen years could be thirteen and a half years. The total then would be fifteen.