Galatians and the Jerusalem Council

Southern Presbyterian · #1 (**permalink**) 08-06-2007, 01:33 PM

As breifly as possible, and without going into the "Northern vs Southern Galatia" debate, when do you think the book of Galatians was written in relation to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)? Before or after?

Answerman · #2 (**permalink**) 08-06-2007, 01:58 PM

Based on the fact that Paul had to confront Peter on this issue, I believe that it must have happened after. Of course the fact that Peter demonstrated that he can be weak at times (as when he denied Jesus), I could be wrong. It just seemed to me that Peter was more bold to stand up for his Lord after Christ's resurrection, even to the point of risking his life, that he would not have made this kind of mistake.

Southern Presbyterian · #3 (**permalink**) 08-09-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Answerman

Based on the fact that Paul had to confront Peter on this issue, I believe that it must have happened after. Of course the fact that Peter demonstrated that he can be weak at times (as when he denied Jesus), I could be wrong. It just seemed to me that Peter was more bold to stand up for his Lord after Christ's resurrection, even to the point of risking his life, that he would not have made this kind of mistake.

I know several who hold this view. However, it seems entirely consistent with what we know about Peter for him to be inconsistent. I really don't think Apostleship = sinless perfection either.

Putting that aside, are there other arguments from within the text of Galatians or Acts that would give us a reasonable timeline?

Anyone?

Contra_Mundum · #4 (**permalink**) 08-09-2007, 04:25 PM

For the present, I am persuaded by Robert Reymond's presentation (Paul: Missionary Theologian, 2000, Mentor Press) that Galatians was written prior to the Jerusalem council (Acts 15). (see page 8, chronology, and chapters 6 & 7)

Reymond believes Galatians was Paul's first ecclesial letter, and sent ("so soon!" Gal. 1:6) after his missionary labors to them. And it is to address issues raised in part by Peter's lapse in Antioch that (Acts 15:2) Paul and Barnabas make the march to Jerusalem.

fredtgreco · #5 (**permalink**) 08-09-2007, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wythe County Calvinist

As breifly as possible, and without going into the "Northern vs Southern Galatia" debate, when do you think the book of Galatians was written in relation to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)? Before or after?

Before. In terms of Paul's times in Jerusalem:

Acts 9:26-31 correlates to Galatians 1:18ff.

Acts 11 correlates to Galatians 2:1ff.

And Galatians was written sometime before (perhaps even on the eve) of the events of Acts 15.

If Galatians was written after Acts 15, then why wouldn't Paul have stated the decision of the Council? Its weight would have been devastating against the Judaizers.

VirginiaHuguenot · #6 (**permalink**) 08-09-2007, 06:23 PM

I don't have an opinion at present, but I did consult a few sources to see what some others think:

Before
John Calvin
Thomas Boston

After
J.G. Machen
Matthew Henry's Commentary (Joshua Bayes)
Matthew Poole's Annotations (John Collinges)
James Ussher
John Eadie
John Brown of Edinburgh
John Trapp
David Dickson
Loraine Boettner
Dutch Annotations
English Annotations (Daniel Fealty)
Martin Luther

No opinion stated
Geneva Annotations
John Diodati
James Ferguson

Other
William Perkins says Gal. 2 is not written of any of the journeys described in Acts.

Southern Presbyterian · #7 (**permalink**) 08-09-2007, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

I don't have an opinion at present, but I did consult a few sources to see what some others think:

Before
John Calvin
Thomas Boston

After
J.G. Machen
Matthew Henry's Commentary (Joshua Bayes)
Matthew Poole's Annotations (John Collinges)
James Ussher
John Eadie
John Brown of Edinburgh
John Trapp
David Dickson
Loraine Boettner
Dutch Annotations
English Annotations

No opinion stated
Geneva Annotations
John Diodati
James Ferguson

Other
William Perkins says Gal. 2 is not written of any of the journeys described in Acts.

Great information. Thanks Brother Andrew!

My commentaries are limited to Brown, Calvin, Luther, and Matthew Henry. I could not draw a consensus from just the four sources.

And I didn't even think to look in Paul: Missionary Theologian as Pastor Bruce suggested.

Thanks to all for the input and information. If anyone else has thoughts or comments, please post them.

Lord bless you all!

Southern Presbyterian · #8 (**permalink**) 08-09-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

If Galatians was written after Acts 15, then why wouldn't Paul have stated the decision of the Council? Its weight would have been devastating against the Judaizers.

I think this is the most convincing of all the "Before" arguments. Yet it is an argument from silence (more or less). I'm still not fully persuaded.... yet.

armourbearer · #9 (**permalink**) 08-09-2007, 07:16 PM

A number of fallacies are committed with respect to this issue in an attempt to be decisive on a point which is not of any real importance. The message of the book is not affected either way. Some of the older commentators could maintain it was written from Rome and arrive at the same interpretation as those who maintain it was written prior to the Council.

Paul's visit to Jerusalem in 2:2 could not have been the visit recorded in Acts 11. Paul says he went up "by revelation" for the purpose of clearing away differences in doctrine, whereas in Acts 11 he was sent by the church for the purpose of providing relief. It is likely that the 2:2 visit is unrecorded in Acts.

The idea that Paul would have mentioned the Council as a definitive answer on the issue is presumptuous. Most of the letter is concerned with the way the Galatians now stood disaffected towards Paul's apostleship. From an historical perspective, Paul played second fiddle to the "pillars" at the Council. If the letter was written post-Council , his choice to include the confrontation with Peter was far more germane, as it showed apostleship itself was bound by consistent commitment to the truth. To simply state the decision of the Council would foster the feeling of pride which the false teachers had in the apostles as ones who knew Jesus after the flesh.

I think it is best to state one's case tentatively, and not make the interpretation of the book rest on this incidental fact. There is a natural desire to tie up loose ends, and create a definitive timeline of Paul's movements and letters, but it was never the intention of the Holy Spirit to minister to our historical curiosity in providing us with the infallible Word.

Southern Presbyterian · #10 (**permalink**) 08-09-2007, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

A number of fallacies are committed with respect to this issue in an attempt to be decisive on a point which is not of any real importance. The message of the book is not affected either way. Some of the older commentators could maintain it was written from Rome and arrive at the same interpretation as those who maintain it was written prior to the Council.

Paul's visit to Jerusalem in 2:2 could not have been the visit recorded in Acts 11. Paul says he went up "by revelation" for the purpose of clearing away differences in doctrine, whereas in Acts 11 he was sent by the church for the purpose of providing relief. It is likely that the 2:2 visit is unrecorded in Acts.

The idea that Paul would have mentioned the Council as a definitive answer on the issue is presumptuous. Most of the letter is concerned with the way the Galatians now stood disaffected towards Paul's apostleship. From an historical perspective, Paul played second fiddle to the "pillars" at the Council. If the letter was written post-Council , his choice to include the confrontation with Peter was far more germane, as it showed apostleship itself was bound by consistent commitment to the truth. To simply state the decision of the Council would foster the feeling of pride which the false teachers had in the apostles as ones who knew Jesus after the flesh.

I think it is best to state one's case tentatively, and not make the interpretation of the book rest on this incidental fact. There is a natural desire to tie up loose ends, and create a definitive timeline of Paul's movements and letters, but it was never the intention of the Holy Spirit to minister to our historical curiosity in providing us with the infallible Word.

Thank you, Rev. Winzer, for this most cogent reply. I wish I could put things as neatly into words. You have a gift, brother.

Certainly placing a date to Galatians will not in any way take away from or add to this master work of the Holy Spirit at the hand of Paul. I've thought all along that Paul is arguing for the authority of his Apostleship in chapter 2, therefore he would not argue from a position that would cause the Galatians to doubt his authority to deal with them as an Apostle (does that make sense?). He wanted no second guessing when it comes to the matter of properly preaching the Gospel. Therefore, his Apostolic authority had to be paramount. IMO.

Blessings.

armourbearer · #11 (**permalink**) 08-09-2007, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wythe County Calvinist

I've thought all along that Paul is arguing for the authority of his Apostleship in chapter 2, therefore he would not argue from a position that would cause the Galatians to doubt his authority to deal with them as an Apostle (does that make sense?). He wanted no second guessing when it comes to the matter of properly preaching the Gospel. Therefore, his Apostolic authority had to be paramount. IMO.

Chap. 5:2, "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."