The Paradox in Galatians 2:2 – The Method by Which a “Reasonable” Paul Was Manufactured

In the first article, I dismantled the idea that Paul went to Jerusalem to verify his Gospel. Now I will go further: I will show how the paradox in Galatians 2:2 became a key tool in manipulating the public perception of Paul.

It is a simple but effective phenomenon: you take a sentence that does not fit the rest of the discourse and present it as essential. From that moment on, everything Paul says is reinterpreted as if he were “moderate,” “balanced,” and “open to dialogue.”

But this Paul exists nowhere in his letters. He is an artificial construct born from a single paradoxical sentence.

1. Paul Is NOT a Man of Balance — He Is a Man of Absolute Direction

Anyone who reads all of Paul’s letters immediately notices several constants:

• An authoritarian tone: “I command you…,” “Let no one judge you…,” “I, not the Lord…”
• Exclusion of any other gospel: “Accursed be anyone” who preaches something different—including Paul himself, if he were to deviate.
• Refusal of submission: he is not influenced by Peter, by Barnabas, or by the “reputed pillars.”

In other words, Paul does not oscillate. He does not “weigh options.”

He does not consult.

He does not retreat.

He does not doubt.

He considers himself sent directly by God and acts accordingly.

2. How Does the PARADOX in Galatians 2:2 Work?

“…so that I might not be running or have run in vain.”

This sentence—placed strategically—introduces a fracture in the internal logic of the text. It matches nothing he says before or after. And yet, it is presented as the “turning point” of an otherwise confident man.

The truth is different.

This sentence is a rhetorical paradox designed to:

• soften the brutality of the discourse in Galatians 1;
• create the impression of “openness” toward consensus;
• while yielding absolutely nothing doctrinally.

In other words, it is a false window—a mask placed on an inflexible construction.

3. The Unprepared Reader Falls into the Paradox Trap

A paradox works psychologically: it creates the impression of depth and humility.

But in Paul’s case, it is not a sign of depth—it is a strategy.

The reader:

• relaxes: “Look, he’s not as harsh as he seemed…”;
• begins to interpret other passages in a more “balanced” light;
• and misses the essential point: Paul never wavers.

He does not ask for approval.

He does not wait for validation.

On the contrary, he demands that others follow him without question.

4. Paul Is Not the “Democratic Model” of Dialogue — He Is an Absolute Authority

“Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”
—1 Corinthians 11:1

No other apostle claims such a position.

Peter, James, and John speak about Jesus, repentance, and holiness. But they never ask to be personally imitated.

Paul does it constantly.

For him, the Gospel is tied to his own person, and his authority flows from that identity.

This is why the idea that he had a moment of sincere doubt in Galatians 2:2 is absurd.

If the apostles had said something different, he would have confronted them directly—which he actually does when necessary at Antioch.

He would never have withdrawn because they declared that he had “run in vain.”

5. Even Luke’s Legitimising Portrait in Acts Confirms the Opposite of the Traditional Interpretation

Luke’s account in Acts cannot be treated as neutral historical confirmation of Paul’s divine commission. It is a legitimising portrait constructed in Paul’s favour. Nevertheless, even within that favourable portrait, Paul is never presented as a man who submits his Gospel to Jerusalem for correction.

• In Acts 13, Luke presents Paul as “set apart by the Holy Spirit,” with no dependence upon Jerusalem’s authority.
• In Acts 15, Luke does not portray Paul as seeking doctrinal correction. Paul and Barnabas defend the position they already hold, and the council produces a decision that permits their mission to continue.
• In Acts 21, Luke says that Agabus warns Paul about the suffering awaiting him in Jerusalem. Paul continues regardless. He does not reconsider his direction or submit his mission for validation.

These passages do not prove that Paul was truly sent or guided by God’s Spirit. They reveal how Luke constructs Paul’s authority.

But even within that construction, Paul acts in a straight line—certain of his mission and unwilling to allow Jerusalem to determine the content of his Gospel.

He does not hesitate.

He does not ask for advice.

He does not question his work.

Therefore, Acts cannot honestly be used to transform Galatians 2:2 into a confession of doctrinal uncertainty.

6. The Paradox Does Not Need to Be Explained Away — It Needs to Be Dismantled

Those who try to “explain” the paradox in Galatians 2:2 treat it as a genuine confession. But it does not fit the rest of the context.

Therefore, it should not be allowed to become the interpretive key through which the entire personality and discourse of Paul are rewritten.

At this point, two different academic questions must be distinguished.

The first is textual. The phrase is present in the surviving manuscript tradition, including Papyrus 46, the earliest substantial surviving manuscript of Paul’s letters, dated to approximately AD 200. The textual apparatus records only the graphical variation between μή πως and μήπως, not a manuscript tradition from which the sentence is absent.

Therefore, the phrase cannot be declared a demonstrated late gloss on the basis of manuscript evidence.

The second question is literary and rhetorical. Here an academic discussion does exist. J. C. O’Neill’s radical reconstruction of Galatians proposed that parts of the letter, including material surrounding Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem, resulted from later editorial activity. That remains a conjectural redactional hypothesis rather than a conclusion proved by surviving manuscripts.

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor offered a different explanation in his study “To Run in Vain (Gal 2:2).” He argued that Paul used the sentence as a deliberate rhetorical trick—a calculated concession intended to make his opponents believe that he had recognised Jerusalem’s authority before turning their own premise against them. François Tolmie later cited this interpretation as a “conscious literary sleight of hand,” even while questioning parts of Murphy-O’Connor’s reconstruction of the audience.

This academic discussion confirms the real problem: the sentence is not naturally read as a sincere admission that Paul doubted his Gospel.

The manuscript evidence does not permit us to prove that a later redactor added it. But neither does the presence of the sentence compel us to accept the traditional portrait of a humble Paul seeking apostolic correction.

Within the argument of Galatians, it functions as an apparent concession that yields nothing.

Whether it originated as Paul’s own rhetorical device or as part of later editorial shaping cannot be established from manuscript evidence alone. What can be established from the discourse is that it does not express the Paul revealed by the rest of the letter: a man prepared to have his Gospel corrected by Jerusalem.

CONCLUSION

Paul never hesitated for a moment.

The paradox in Galatians 2:2 functions as a piece of rhetorical theatre.

It offers an apparent point of balance within an extremely radical construction. But once it is no longer treated as a confession of sincere doctrinal doubt—and is understood for what it is, a rhetorical paradox—everything makes sense.

Paul is certain that he is right.

He goes to Jerusalem not to ask for approval, but to secure a favourable decision.

And if he had not received it, he would have moved forward anyway.

This is obvious from everything he does.

The later interpreter seized one strategically useful sentence and used it to manufacture a different Paul: moderate, humble, consultative, and willing to be corrected.

That Paul does not exist in the letter.

The next article will show why Paul needed such a decision—and how his entire missionary strategy rests on legitimacy, not dialogue.