Paul believed that, in Christ, uncircumcised Gentiles were sons of Abraham. He argued

such radical views in his letter to the Galatians, and he laid them before the pillars (Gal

2:2), but did he express them to others in Jerusalem? I propose that Paul deliberately kept

quiet about his true position on the inclusion of Gentiles during his Gal 2:1-10 visit to

Jerusalem, except in confidential conversations with Peter, James, and John. Here's why.

Paul wrote, "To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I

became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win

those under the law." (1 Cor 9:20). By keeping quite about his controversial opinions about

Gentiles, Paul might more easily win Jews for Christ in Jerusalem.

More importantly, Paul's silence avoided unnecessary conflict with Christ-believers in

Jerusalem who were zealous for the law. We know from Acts 20:21-26 that many of the

believers were zealous and that measures had to be taken to avoid conflict with them. This

explains why Paul presented his gospel to only the pillars, and did so in a confidential

meeting (Gal 2:2). Gal 2:4-5 further confirms that Paul wanted to keep his full gospel

confidential - "But because of false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on

the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain

with you."

Acts 15 which shows that Paul was on a delicate diplomatic mission to secure the right of

uncircumcised Gentiles to be members of the church. God-fearers were accepted in

synagogue communities so the inclusion of Gentiles in the church was relatively

uncontroversial. However, Paul went much further than this, since he believed that Gentiles,

in Christ, had the same status as Jews. This would have been much more difficult for the

Jerusalem elders to swallow, so it was important that Paul kept quiet about it. If they had

found out what Paul really thought they would have proposed a counter-resolution in

defense of the ethnic boundary. Discretion is the better part of valour and it was expedient

for Paul to keep a diplomatic silence about his more radical views.

A meeting of all the elders (Acts 15) was convened a few days or weeks after Paul had met

privately with the pillars (Gal 2:1-10). The issue of Gentiles in the church was discussed

and James and Peter did all the talking. Paul kept quiet about his views on the subject,

speaking only on other matters: "The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to

Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through

them among the Gentiles" (Acts 15:12)". Paul's low profile during the Acts 15 meeting

surprises many commentators, but fits the thesis precisely. It seems that Paul, James and

Peter had agreed before the meeting that James and Peter would do the talking and that

Paul would stay out of the discussion to avoid revealing his radical position.

In his letter to the Galatians Paul does not mention the public meeting of Acts 15 or the

decree. This demonstrates that the issue of conversion without circumcision (which is the

subject of Galatians) was not the subject of the Acts 15 meeting or the decree. But that

issue would surely have been brought up in the Acts 15 meeting if the elders and Pharisee

Christ-believers had known about Paul's views. The harmonious agreement at the end of the

Acts 15 meeting therefore demonstrates that Paul had prevented his views from leaking

out.

Paul's policy of conflict avoidance during his Gal 2:1-10 visit is further demonstrated by the

later Antioch incident (Gal 2:11-14). In Antioch Peter was, for the first time, forced to

choose between siding with Paul and siding with members of the circumcision partly over

whether to eat with Gentiles. The fact that the clash with Peter took place in Antioch, and

not earlier in Jerusalem, confirms that the circumcision party members in Jerusalem were

kept in ignorance. Peter and Paul probably ate with Titus in Jerusalem, but did not tell

anyone that he was a Greek. This suggests that Titus could pass himself off as a Jew, and

this would be the case if he was Timothy and therefore had a Jewish mother.

Finally, the Galatians were misled about what Paul actually believed. They thought that he

preached circumcision (at least as the necessary final step of conversion) (Gal 5:2-12), and

they assumed that his earlier preaching of non-circumcision had been only a ploy to attract

Gentiles (Gal 1:6-11). This confusion is explicable if Paul had been conspicuously silent

about his gospel of Gentile inclusion, when dealing with Jews. His policy of being a "Jew to

the Jews" etc. explains the confusion that resulted in Galatia.

This hypothesis also demonstrates that Gal 2:1-10 is in complete harmony with Acts 15.

This is important for Pauline chronology and for an assessment of the accuracy of Acts.

A further implication is that the false brothers (Gal 2:4-5) did not excert pressure on Paul in

Jerusalem because Acts 15 as well as the later Antioch incident (Gal 2:11-14) show that

Paul successfully avoided public controversy in Jerusalem, at least on the issues

addressed in the letter to the Galatians. It is therefore likely that the non-yielding of Paul to

the "false brothers" (Gal 2:4-5) was in Galatia rather than Jerusalem. Very probably the

false brothers were Jews on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. We will see that they discovered that

Titus's father had been a Greek and leaked this information in Galatia.

Back to Titus-Timothy index