Paul never doubted his Gospel, and anyone who believes that has understood nothing of his letters.
At the center of Paul’s narrative in Galatians 2 stands a sentence as short as it is misleading:
“…so that I might not be running or have run in vain.”
For many, this verse is proof that Paul—despite his sharp tone in Galatians 1—was a balanced man, capable of prudence, ready to confront his ideas with the “esteemed” ones in Jerusalem.
This is entirely false.
Such an interpretation not only clashes with the rest of the epistle, but ignores basic logic, the biblical context, and Paul’s actual personality.
1. THE OFFICIAL VERSION: Paul goes to Jerusalem to make sure he wasn’t mistaken
Traditional theology claims that Paul, though confident in his Gospel, felt the need for confirmation. He went to Jerusalem to “double-check,” to avoid doctrinal isolation, acting with “spiritual wisdom” in the face of a potential rift between Gentile and Jewish Christianity.
But this version rests on a completely superficial reading of the text.
2. MAJOR INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS
A. Paul shows no hesitation in chapter 1
“My gospel is not from man.” (Gal. 1:11)
“Even if I or an angel from heaven…” (Gal. 1:8)
“I did not receive it from a man, nor was I taught it.” (Gal. 1:12)
A man who says these things does not go to Jerusalem to make sure he “has not run in vain.” It makes no sense.
If Paul is fanatical about anything, it is that his Gospel needs no validation.
B. Paul isn’t afraid of authority—he defies it
“Those who were reputed to be something—whatever they were makes no difference to me…” (Gal. 2:6)
It’s clear: he doesn’t care about others’ opinions, no matter how “esteemed.”
He accepts only the verdict of “the truth of the Gospel”—which he himself possesses. There is no sign that he was interested in consensus or formal approval.
C. The key phrase in Gal. 2:2 is a philosophical PARADOX
“I went up because of a revelation… so that I might not run in vain.”
This statement creates an artificial rupture in the text. It does not fit the speech, and it makes no sense in context:
We don’t know who received the revelation (Paul or someone else?).
We don’t know what was revealed.
But we know with certainty that Paul never questions his Gospel.
Therefore the expression cannot be taken literally.
It is a rhetorical paradox, meant to create a false impression of openness.
In reality, he went fully confident, with the goal of obtaining recognition—not correction.
3. THE COHERENCE OF THE NARRATIVE WITHOUT THIS PARADOX
If we remove this sentence or reinterpret it as paradox, everything becomes clear:
- Paul goes to Jerusalem because of a revelation (likely received by someone else, not him).
- He takes Titus with him—a Greek, uncircumcised—the supreme proof that he had no intention of giving ground.
- Titus is not forced to be circumcised—so Paul gets exactly what he wants.
- He does not yield “for a moment” (Gal. 2:5).
- He receives nothing additional (Gal. 2:6).
➡ Paul does not negotiate. Paul imposes. And he succeeds.
4. THE PARADOX IS NOT WEAKNESS—IT’S TECHNIQUE
Instead of believing that Paul was “uncertain,” we must understand what he is actually doing here:
He inserts a paradoxical statement that can be interpreted by the untrained reader as “humility.”
But in reality, it is a rhetorical maneuver meant to soften the brutality of his discourse without yielding anything.
Anyone who reads Galatians 1–2 carefully, as a whole, understands that Paul:
- submits to no one,
- asks no advice,
- and allows no one to judge him.
The official version—depicting Paul as humble, prudent, and unsure—is nothing but a fiction built on the convenient interpretation of a single sentence.
In the next article, we will show how this paradox was used to construct a completely false image of Paul’s mission—and how this rhetorical trick still shapes the way many understand authority and revelation today.