Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 1:18
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
18. It was not till three years after his conversion that St Paul went up to Jerusalem to visit St Peter.
to see ] to become personally acquainted with. The word in the original is used of those who visit great and famous cities. He was introduced to the Apostles by Barnabas (Act 9:27).
Peter ] The more probable reading is ‘Cephas’, the Aramaic equivalent of the Greek ‘Petros’, the name given by our Lord to Simon Bar-Jona (Joh 1:43; Mat 16:18).
fifteen days ] St Paul does not disguise the fact that he spent a fortnight in the society, perhaps as the guest of Peter. But, as Bengel observes, it was hardly long enough for him to have been made an apostle by Cephas. Part too (perhaps a great part) of the time was spent in disputation with the Grecian Jews. The visit was terminated by their conspiring to take his life (Act 9:29-30), and by a command of the Lord in a vision to go unto the Gentiles (Act 22:17-21).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Then after three years – Probably three years after his departure from Jerusalem to Damascus, not after his return to Arabia. So most commentators have understood it.
Went up to Jerusalem – More correctly, as in the margin, returned.
To see Peter – Peter was the oldest and most distinguished of the apostles. In Gal 2:9, he, with James and John, is called a pillar. But why Paul went particularly to see him is not known. It was probably, however, from the celebrity and distinction which he knew Peter had among the apostles that he wished to become particularly acquainted with him. The word which is here rendered to see ( historesai) is by no means that which is commonly employed to denote that idea. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament; and properly means to ascertain by personal inquiry and examination, and then to narrate, as a historian was accustomed to do, whence our word history. The notion of personally seeing and examining, is one that belongs essentially to the word, and the idea here is that of seeing or visiting Peter in order to a personal acquaintance.
And abode with him fifteen days – Probably, says Bloomfield, including three Lords days. Why he departed then is unknown. Beza supposes that it was on account of the plots of the Grecians against him, and their intention to destroy him Act 9:29; but this is not assigned by Paul himself as a reason. It is probable that the purpose of his visit to Peter would be accomplished in that time, and he would not spend more time than was necessary with him. It is clear that in the short space of two weeks he could not have been very extensively taught by Peter the nature of the Christian religion, and probably the time is mentioned here to show that he had not been under the teaching of the apostles.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Gal 1:18
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem.
St. Pauls return to Jerusalem
He returned from a spiritual as Ezra had from a bodily captivity, and to his renewed mind all things appeared new. What an emotion smote his heart at the first distant view of the Temple, that house of sacrifice, that edifice of prophecy. Its sacrifices had been realized; its prophecies fulfilled. As he approached the gates, he might have trodden the very spot where he had assisted in the death of Stephen, and he entered them perfectly content, were it Gods will, to be dragged to the same fate. When he entered the city, what deep thoughts were suggested by the haunts of his youth, and by the sight of those spots where he had so eagerly sought that knowledge which he had now so eagerly abandoned. What an intolerable burden he had cast off. He felt as a glorified spirit may be supposed to feel on revisiting the scenes of its fleshly sojourn. (Archdeacon Evans.)
The abode with Peter
The fifteen days were doubtless spent in conversation about the mission and life of Christ; and it seems certain–though St. Paul repudiates the presumption that he derived any part of his authority, or of the exposition which he gave of the gospel, from any person whatsoever–that he must have heard during this fortnight many of those facts of the private life of Christ, which were so well known to the chief of the Twelve, and many of those discourses which Peter so clearly remembered. (Paul of Tarsus.)
Christian friendship
I. The visit to peter.
1. After three years seclusion Paul would yearn for fellowship with such a heart as Peters.
2. The visit shows us that
(1) he was not primarily in quest of knowledge, nor
(2) to secure an ecclesiastical status.
3. It was a visit of pure friendship.
II. The lessons it suggests. That Christian friendship is–
1. All-embracing. It includes differences of rank, gifts, culture, temperament.
2. No men could be more diverse than Peter and Paul, and yet neither disparaged or envied the other.
II. Equalizing. Paul could now meet on equal terms the most distinguished men of his day: Peter the premier apostle, James the Lords brother. One is your Master, etc.
III. Hospitable. Paul, once a dreaded persecutor, now found a welcome and a home from the chief of the persecuted. Peter a married man. Fraternal intercourse and fellowship:—
I. The nature of Christian fellowship.
1. A fellowship in Christ.
2. A fellowship of love.
3. A fellowship in which individual interests are advanced by mutual help.
II. The advantages of Christian fellowship.
1. Their fellowship would be profitable, because each would contribute towards a clearer apprehension of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit.
2. The fellowship would be profitable, because it would assure each that the Christian life is one of great trial.
3. The fellowship would be profitable, because each of the apostles would see that the Christian life is one of certain comfort.
III. To secure Christian fellowship often requires personal sacrifice. To see Peter and the others, Paul undertook a considerable journey, and exposed himself on the one hand to the scorn and enmity of his former friends, and on the other to the coldness and suspicion of the disciples in Jerusalem. Lessons:
1. That the opportunities for Christian fellowship are usually brief; they should therefore, when presented, be diligently improved. Paul could only remain fifteen days at Jerusalem: the persecutions of his enemies compelled him to leave.
2. Such opportunities being made the most of, lead to glorious results in time and eternity. Who can tell how much the Christian world is indebted to the harmonious fellowship of Peter, James, and Paul at Jerusalem? (R. Nicholls.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 18. After three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter] These three years may be reckoned either from the departure of Paul from Jerusalem, or from his return from Arabia to Damascus.
To see Peter – , to become personally acquainted with Peter; for this is the proper import of the verb , from which we have the word , history, which signifies a relation of things from personal knowledge and actual acquaintance. How far this is, now, from the sense in which we must take the word, ninety-nine of every hundred of our histories sufficiently show. They are any thing but true relations of facts and persons.
And abode with him fifteen days.] It was not, therefore, to get religious knowledge from him that he paid him this visit. He knew as much of the Jewish religion as Peter did, if not more; and as to the Gospel, he received that from the same source, and had preached it three years before this.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
These three years were spent partly in Arabia, partly at Damascus, whither he returned; and he, being there, was not idle, but, as Luke informs us, preached Christ in the synagogues, confounded the Jews, proving that this was the very Christ, which made the Jews take counsel to kill him: here it was that he escaped them, by being let down over the wall in a basket, Act 9:20,22-25. Then he went to Jerusalem, where his conversion, and call to preach the gospel, was not heard of, (possibly in regard of the remoteness of Arabia, where he had spent most of those three years; or in regard of the troubled state of the church at Jerusalem at this time), insomuch that the disciples were afraid to admit him to join with them, until Barnabas had given testimony concerning him, Act 9:27. He tells us here that he stayed there but
fifteen days; during which time Luke tells us, Act 9:29, he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
18. after three yearsdatingfrom my conversion, as appears by the contrast to “immediately”(Ga 1:16). This is the samevisit to Jerusalem as in Ac 9:26,and at this visit occurred the vision (Act 22:17;Act 22:18). The incident whichled to his leaving Damascus (Act 9:25;2Co 11:33) was not the main causeof his going to Jerusalem. So that there is no discrepancy inthe statement here that he went “to see Peter”; or rather,as Greek, “to make the acquaintance of”; “tobecome personally acquainted with.” The two oldest manuscriptsread, “Cephas,” the name given Peter elsewhere in theEpistle, the Hebrew name; as Peter is the Greek(Joh 1:42). Appropriate to theview of him here as the apostle especially of the Hebrews. It isremarkable that Peter himself, in his Epistles, uses the Greekname Peter, perhaps to mark his antagonism to the Judaizerswho would cling to the Hebraic form. He was prominent among theapostles, though James, as bishop of Jerusalem, had the chiefauthority there (Mt 16:18).
abodeor “tarried”[ELLICOTT].
fifteen daysonlyfifteen days; contrasting with the long period of three years,during which, previously, he had exercised an independent commissionin preaching: a fact proving on the face of it, how little he owed toPeter in regard to his apostolical authority or instruction. TheGreek for “to see,” at the same time impliesvisiting a person important to know, such as Peter was. Theplots of the Jews prevented him staying longer (Ac9:29). Also, the vision directing him to depart to the Gentiles,for that the people of Jerusalem would not receive his testimony(Act 22:17; Act 22:18).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem,…. Not three years after his return to Damascus, but after his conversion; and now it was that he moved to become a member of the church at Jerusalem; but they did not care to admit him, fearing that he was not a disciple, till such time that Barnabas took him, and brought him to the Apostles Peter and James, and related his conversion and his boldness in preaching the Gospel at Damascus: his view in going up to Jerusalem at this time was partly his own safety, being obliged to fly from Damascus, but chiefly
to see Peter. The Alexandrian copy, and another, read “Cephas”, and so does the Ethiopic version, the same with Peter: not to see what sort of a man he was, but to pay him a Christian visit; to converse with him about spiritual things; to know how the work of God went on under him, as the minister of the circumcision; and to relate to him, what success he had met with as the minister of the uncircumcision; but not to receive the Gospel from him, or to be ordained a preacher of it by him; for he had been three years already in the work of the ministry, before he made him this visit; and besides, his stay with him was very short, nor could he have received much from him, in so short a time, in an ordinary way:
and abode with him fifteen days; and even all this time was not wholly spent in conversation with him; for he was, during this time, coming in and going out at Jerusalem, where he preached boldly in the name of Christ, and disputed against the Grecians.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Then after three years ( ). A round number to cover the period from his departure from Jerusalem for Damascus to his return to Jerusalem. This stay in Damascus was an important episode in Paul’s theological readjustment to his new experience.
To visit Cephas ( ). First aorist infinitive of , old verb (from , one who knows by inquiry), to gain knowledge by visiting. Only here in N.T. If we turn to Ac 9:26-30, we shall see that the visit of two weeks to Peter came after Barnabas endorsed Paul to the suspicious disciples in Jerusalem and probably while he was preaching in the city. It was a delightful experience, but Peter did not start Paul upon his apostleship. He visited him as an equal. Peter no doubt had much to say to Paul.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
To see [] . N. T. o.
1. To inquire into :
2. to find out by inquiring :
3. to gain knowledge by visiting; to become personally acquainted with. In LXX, only 1 Esd 1:33, 42, to relate, to record. Often in Class. The word here indicates that Paul went, not to obtain instruction, but to form acquaintance with Peter.
Cephas. See on Mt 16:18; Joh 1:42; 1Co 1:12.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1 ) “Then after three years,” (epita meta tria ete) “Then after three years,” three years after his conversion, he went to Jerusalem to visit Peter, a faithful and zealous apostle who had both preached the mighty message of Pentecost and been sent of the church to work among the Samaritans.
2) “I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,” (anelthon eis lerosoluma historesai kephan) “I went, of my own accord, unto Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Peter), Act 9:26-28. Here he was both received into the church, then “sent forth” (Gk. stello), sent forth as a missionary from the Jerusalem brethren to Tarsus, his birthplace.
3) “And abode with him fifteen days,” (kai epemeina pros auton hemeras dekapente) “and remained with him (for) fifteen days,” and received information while tarrying with him. Peter had visited Samaria, the maritime plain, and Caesarea by the seaside, and baptized many of Samaria, Act 8:14-16; Act 8:25.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
18. Then after three years. It was not till three years after he had begun to discharge the apostolic office, that he went up to Jerusalem. Thus, he did not, at the outset, receive the calling of men. But lest it should be supposed that he had separate interests from theirs, and was desirous to avoid their society, he tells us that he went up for the express purpose to see (31) Peter. (32) Although he had not waited for their sanction before undertaking the office, yet it was not against their will, but with their full consent and approbation, that he held the rank of an apostle. He is desirous to shew that at no period was he at variance with the apostles, and that even now he is in full harmony with all their views. By mentioning the short time that he remained there, he shews that he had come, not with a view to learn, but solely for mutual intercourse.
(31) “ ̔ιστορεῖν signifies either ‘to ascertain any thing by inquiry, or any person by personal examination;’ but sometimes, as here, to visit for the purpose of becoming acquainted with any one by personal communication.’ So Josephus, Bell. 6:1-8, ὃν (scil. Julianum), ἱστόρησα, ‘whom when I came to know and be with.’ See Act 9:26.” — Bloomfield.
(32) “The distinguished guest of a distinguished host.” — Grotius.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
c)
His visit to Jerusalem was not long enough for instruction in the gospel. Gal. 1:18-24
TEXT 1:1824
(18) Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. (19) But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother. (20) Now touching the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. (21) Then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. (22) And I was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judea which were in Christ: (23) but they only heard say, He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc; (24) and they glorified God in me.
PARAPHRASE 1:1824
18 Then, after three years from my conversion, I went up to Jerusalem, to become acquainted with Peter; and being introduced to him by Barnabas, who knew how the Lord had appeared to me, I abode in his house fifteen days.
19 But, though I abode these days in Jerusalem, I saw no other of the apostles at that time, except James, the Lords cousin-german.
20 Now, the things I write to you concerning myself, to shew that I am not an apostle of men, behold, in the presence of God I declare with assurance, I do not falsely represent them.
21 After the fifteen days were ended, I went first into the regions of Syria, and from thence into my native country Cilicia.
22 And I was personally unknown to the Christian churches in Judea; so that I could not receive either my commission or my doctrine from them.
23 But only they heard, that he who formerly persecuted the Christians, was become a zealous preacher of the facts concerning Christ which formerly he endeavoured to disprove.
24 And they praised God on account of my conversion, who had been so bitter an enemy to them.
COMMENT 1:18
then after three years I went up to Jerusalem
1.
This is after his Arabian trip and his experience at Damascus of being close to a martyrs death.
2.
Act. 9:26-30 tells of his trip there.
a.
The disciples were afraid of him.
b.
Barnabas told of Pauls conversion.
3.
Paul then preached, going in and out of Jerusalem.
4.
Grecian Jews sought to kill him, but the brethren helped him escape and he went to Tarsus.
5.
The three years causes one to think of the apostles three years of training under Christ. Some feel Paul was trained three years in Arabia.
to visit Cephas (alternate reading: to get acquainted with Cephas)
1.
Notice that he was preaching before he went to Jerusalem, and enemies sought to kill him there as in Damascus. Act. 9:26-29
2.
Why were they not trying to kill Peter?
a.
Probably because Peter was not giving the emphasis about Gentiles having equal rights as Paul was.
b.
Probably because of Pauls radical change. Peter was of Galilee. Paul was one of them formerly and they turned on him.
c.
The apostles seem to have been spared some persecution. Act. 8:2
and tarried with him fifteen days
1.
This would be rather a brief time for instruction.
2.
Jesus kept his disciples about three years; how could Paul expect to be qualified in fifteen days under Peters teaching?
Gal. 1:18-20 AND Act. 9:26-28 COMPARED
Some few texts in the Bible seem to contradict each other until examined closely.
One such problem area has to do with harmonizing Act. 9:26-28 and Gal. 1:18-20. The problem is this: Saul of Tarsus, following his conversion, preached Christ for some time at Damascus, then went to Jerusalem, hoping to confer with brethren there.
According to the account in Acts, the disciples aware of his former antagonism, were afraid of him. Barnabas then vouched for him, after which he mingled freely with the apostles.
When we read the account in Galatians, it at first seems to vary. Remember Luke the historian says that he traced accurately his information before writing.
In Gal. 1:20, Paul says that he was not telling a lie which is really writing under an oath.
Paul seems to say that he spent fifteen days with Cephas (Peter) Gal. 1:20, but saw none of the other apostles except James the Lords brother. Basically, two difficulties face us: 1. Was James an apostle? 2. Did Paul meet with other apostles besides Peter?
What is meant by the word apostle? This is a key to the understanding. Were men called apostles who were not of the original twelve?
Consider the senderIt will not do to use the term apostle loosely; it is never so used in the Scripture. An apostle is not only one who is sent; he is one sent or commissioned by some specific person or group. It is unfair to speak of an apostle without reference to his sender, just as it would be to speak of an ambassador without reference to the ruler or government which sent him or gave him his commission. Jesus was an apostle of God, and was faithful to Him who appointed Him (Heb. 3:1-2). Paul and the twelve were apostles of Christ, for He specifically appointed and commissioned them. Saul and Barnabas were apostles of the church in Antioch, for the church sent them on their mission (Act. 13:1-3; Act. 14:14).
A study of the epistles show that many men were called apostles.
Certain brethren assigned to accompany Paul with a collection were named as apostles (rendered messengers) of the churches (2Co. 8:23). Epaphroditus was an apostle (messenger) of the church in Philippi (Php. 2:25). Others said they were apostles, but were not (2Co. 11:13; Rev. 2:2). The word was clearly specific, and never used carelessly.
But James the Lords brother was not an apostle. He was spoken of as a pillar in Gal. 2:9. He was not an apostle of Christ, for no evidence exists to certify his appointment. He was a leader in the church at Jerusalem, but nothing indicates that the church ever commissioned or appointed him for a specific mission. He seems to have sent apostles (messengers) to Antioch.
The apparent contradiction is clarified through studying the language in which the word of God came to us. It reveals that there were other kinds of apostles.
A careful study of Gal. 1:19 in the original language easily solves both difficulties; the solution is in the phrase, other of the apostles. The New Testament Greek uses two words for other. Allos means another of the same kind, and heteros, another of a different kind. This is illustrated in Gal. 1:6-7 as Paul marveled that the Galatians were so soon removed to a different gospel, which was not another; it was heteros, different in kind; not alios, merely another of the same kind. In Gal. 1:19 Paul used heteros, thus distinguishing James in kind from the apostles.
Those who like to study language will best appreciate the following discussion.
In the New Testament, writers commonly expressed the comparison, than, not with a conjunction, but with the ablative case. Such phrases as more than, greater than, and rather than, were normally expressed in this way. Here Paul uses heteros with the ablative case. The passage might well be rendered, But other than the apostles, I saw no one except James, the Lords brother, Yes, Paul did see the other apostles; and, no, he did not refer to James as an apostle.
WORD STUDY 1:18
Cephas was the Aramaic equivalent of the Greek name Peter. Both names are simply the common word for rock, as Simon was designated by Jesus in Mat. 16:18.
COMMENT 1:19
but other of the apostles saw I none
1.
Only two apostles were seen, so he could not have been instructed by all of them.
2.
It is doubtful if James were an apostle as seen by the study unless by a special calling.
3.
It seems Paul places him as an apostle, and that should settle it.
James, the Lords brother
1.
Is this James the author of the book of James?
a.
Yes, some say.
b.
See McGarveys Evidences of Christianity.
2.
There were three Jamesand some say a fourth:
a.
James, the elder, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was one of the twelve (Mat. 10:1-42). He was martyred under Herod Agrippa in 44 A.D.
b.
James, the younger, son of Alphaeus was also an apostle (Mat. 10:1-42).
c.
James, the brother of the Lord, is named in this text.
1)
He is believed to have been a pillar in the church at Jerusalem. James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles and they unto the circumcision. Gal. 2:9
2)
He may have been made an apostle by a special appearance of the Lord. 1Co. 15:7 then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles.
3)
His judgment prevailed in the council at Jerusalem. Act. 15:13-29
4)
According to Josephus he was stoned by order of Annas, the High Priest, about 63 A.D.
5)
Some feel he was a cousin rather than a brother.
d.
James the Less (Greek littleshort of stature) is considered by some to be a fourth, but could be the same as (b).
COMMENT 1:20
before God I lie not
1.
This amounts to an oath before God.
2.
He was willing to call Gods witness to the proof of his apostleship.
3.
This is to establish the truthfulness of the history of his early experiences with the Lord.
COMMENT 1:21
the regions of Syria and Cilicia
1.
Pauls reasons for leaving Damascus are seen in Act. 9:22-25; the Jews took counsel to kill him. While in Jerusalem, he was in a trance and the Lord spoke: And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles. Act. 22:17-21
2.
Cilicia formed the part of Syria in Asia Minor, which part was separated from Syria proper by the high ridge of Mt. Taurus.
COMMENT 1:22
I was still unknown by face
1.
He had not held any meetings to give them a chance to become acquainted.
2.
No doubt because of persecution, the Christians were not assembling in great meetings to hear this converted Jew.
COMMENT 1:23
But they only heard say
1.
He had a reputation that was second hand: they had not actually seen this former persecutor.
a)
Once he was a havoc maker.
b)
Now he preaches what he once destroyed.
2.
Paul didnt have time to appear before all the scattered Christians.
COMMENT 1:24
they glorified God in me
1.
It was not because he urged circumcision and the law of Moses, but because he urged faith in Jesus Christ.
2.
They rejoiced that an enemy was now a friend.
STUDY QUESTIONS 1:1824
111.
How many years are named in this verse?
112.
Was it three years after his Arabian trip, or was it three years after his conversion?
113.
Could he have spent three years receiving instruction from Christ as did the other apostles?
114.
Was Paul interested in any one disciple in Jerusalem?
115.
Why was Peters life in jeopardy, while Paul had already faced death?
116.
Was fifteen days very long for Paul to receive instruction?
117.
Why does Paul discuss the time element?
118.
What apostles did Paul see?
119.
Why were the others not seen?
120.
Was the Lords brother an apostle? Cf. also 1Co. 15:7
121.
How many James were there?
122.
Was the Lords brother the author of the book of James?
123.
Did Paul feel that these words were extremely important? (Gal. 1:20)
124.
Who was called as a witness to the truth?
125.
Where did Paul go from Jerusalem?
126.
Locate his destination on a map.
127.
Why did he leave Jerusalem?
128.
Was Pauls face a familiar Christian face in Judea?
129.
Why did the Christians not gather in great numbers to hear him?
130.
Was Paul known to be a Christian?
131.
What was reported concerning him?
132.
Did all of them believe the report?
133.
What is meant by glorifying God in Paul?
134.
Do we glorify God in our preachers today?
135.
If we speak against a preacher, how serious is it?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(18) After three years.This date is probably to be reckoned from the great turning-point in the Apostles careerhis conversion. It need not necessarily mean three full years, just as the three days during which our Lord lay in the grave were not three full days. It may have been only one whole year and parts of two others; but the phrase may equally well cover three whole years. This ambiguity shows the difficulty of constructing any precise system of chronology.
To see.The word used is a somewhat peculiar one, and is applied specially to sight-seeingin the first instance of things and places, but secondarily also of persons. It would be used only of something notable. St. Pauls object was to make the personal acquaintance of St. Peter as the head of the Christian community, not to seek instruction from him.
Peter.The true reading here is undoubtedly Cephas. There is a natural tendency in the MSS. to substitute the more common name for the less common. St. Paul seems to have used the two names indifferently.
Roman Catholic commentators argue from this passage, not without reason, that St. Peter must at this time have taken the lead in the Church.
Fifteen days.Only a small portion of this time can have been actually spent in the company of St. Peter, as we gather from the Acts that much of it must have been occupied by public disputations with the Greek-speaking Jews. (See Act. 9:28-29.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(18-24) Nor did that consultation with the elder Apostles, which had hitherto been impossible, take place when, at last, after the lapse of three years, the Apostle did go up to Jerusalem. He saw indeed Peter and James, but for so short a time that he could have learnt nothing essential from them. To the rest of the churches of Juda he was known only by report; and they were too rejoiced at his conversion to show any jealousy of him.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
18. Three years Styled many days by Luke. Act 9:23. In addition to what we have there said, we add the following from Lightfoot: “ Many days in the Septuagint denotes any indefinite period, however long.
Gen 37:34; 2Sa 14:2; 1Ki 3:11, ‘a long life.’”
See Peter The Greek word is expressive, to be acquainted with Peter. For Peter, the better reading is Cephas, as in Gal 2:11.
Fifteen days That is, a fortnight, including, perhaps, two sabbaths; departing doubtless on the fifteenth day. “This,” says Wordsworth, “was long enough for Peter to have detected and exposed him had he been unsound.” It was too short, Paul argues, for him to have borrowed Peter’s gospel.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Paul Had Then Met Peter and Much Later Conferred With The Leading Apostles To Ensure That What He Preached Was in Accordance with What They Taught ( Gal 1:18 to Gal 2:3 ).
‘Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and stayed with him for fifteen days. And I saw no other of the Apostles, but I did see James, the Lord’s brother.’
Paul is still concerned that they recognise that he was not just a humanly taught man, or a man under instruction from anyone but God. Yet he does not want them to see him as independent of Jesus’ chosen Apostles. To him the oneness of the church was all important. It was that that the Lord’s Supper testified to (1Co 10:16-17). Thus he mentions this visit which followed his period of preaching in Damascus, while stressing that during it he only conversed with Peter, and that over a period of a mere fifteen days, and with James the Lord’s brother.
‘Then after three years.’ Presumably three years after his conversion (although ‘three years’ may signify two part years with a full year in between, thus one and a half to two years. Compare how Jesus rose ‘three days’ after His death, that is ‘on the third day’). This included his Damascene ministry as well as his period in Arabia (Act 9:19-25).
‘I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas.’ This is probably the visit mentioned in Act 9:26-30). If so the reference to ‘the Apostles’ there must signify ‘the Apostolate as represented by Peter’ and possibly James the Lord’s brother, although James is not necessarily said to be an Apostle. ‘To visit’ (’istoreo) means strictly ‘to visit with a view to getting to know’ someone. Thus Paul is stressing his intention to become known to Peter while not suggesting that he had anything to learn from him. It was not surprising that Paul wanted to meet the leader of the band who had been specially set apart by Jesus, and to share fellowship with him and learn something of the life of Jesus from a disciple’s point of view. This last is emphasised by the fact that he also mentions ‘James, the Lord’s brother’ (always elsewhere simply called James), who obviously knew Jesus like no one else did. He had been His younger brother, His ‘kid brother’.
‘And I saw no other Apostles but I did see James, the Lord’s brother.’ Presumably the other Apostles were absent from Jerusalem. James, the Lord’s brother saw the risen Jesus (1Co 15:7), united with the Apostles prior to Pentecost (Act 1:14), and was prominent in the Jerusalem church (Act 12:17; Act 15:13), after the death of James the Apostle, the brother of John (Act 12:2). It is possible that he was seen as replacing James among the twelve, although it is never so stated. But he was certainly a rock in Jerusalem until he was martyred by stoning around 62 AD in an interregnum period for Roman procurators.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Paul’s visit to Jerusalem:
v. 18. Then, after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
v. 19. But other of the apostles saw I none save James, the Lord’s brother.
v. 20. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
v. 21. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,
v. 22. and was unknown by face unto the churches of Judea which were in Christ;
v. 23. but they had heard only that he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
v. 24. And they glorified God in me. Just how long Paul remained in Arabia cannot be ascertained; many commentators believe that his trip was only of short duration, his activity in Damascus occupying the greater part of the time. Three years after his conversion and call to his apostolic office, after his flight from Damascus, he made the journey up to Jerusalem, Act 9:26-29. His object in doing so, as he hastens to add, was not to receive his commission to preach at the hands of the apostles, but to visit Peter, to become personally acquainted with him It was Barnabas who at that time introduced Paul to Peter, Act 9:27. That he could not have taken a course of instruction in the Christian doctrine at that time is shown by the fact that he remained in Jerusalem only fifteen days. He undoubtedly consulted with Peter, but he spent much of the time also with the other brethren and in disputes with the Jews, Act 9:29, as well as in the Temple, where, in a trance, he received the command to set out on his missionary work among the Gentiles, Act 22:17-21. Incidentally, Paul states, he saw none of the other apostles at that time, all being absent from Jerusalem in the work of their calling. Only James, the brother of the Lord, had been present besides Peter. And lest any person in the Galatian congregations, under the influence of the false teachers, should question this statement, the apostle adds a solemn oath, asserting and attesting that he was not writing a falsehood. Not only his apostolic dignity, but the truth of the Gospel preached by him was at stake, and he felt it necessary to make such a strong exclamation.
The apostle now summarizes, giving an account of his early missionary labors. Having left Jerusalem, he went to his home city, Tarsus in Cilicia, Act 9:30, and afterward was active, with Barnabas, in Antioch, the metropolis of Syria, Act 11:26. This again shows that the apostles were not his teachers, but that he himself was at once minister and apostle with full authority. And as a further proof of his not having been a disciple of the apostles he refers to the fact that he was unknown by sight to the congregations of Judea that were in Christ; they did not even know him personally, as they undoubtedly would have, had he spent a longer time in their midst as a pupil of one or several apostles. Note that the congregations and therefore the Christians composing them are described as being in Christ; the Lord is the power by which they came into being, their inspiration, their life. Mark also that the congregations of Judea are here spoken of as many local organizations, not as mere branches of the mother congregation in Jerusalem. The only report about Paul that came to these brethren in Judea stated that the former persecutor was now preaching the faith which he once was destroying, that is, had attempted to exterminate. Whereas he had formerly made every effort to hinder men from believing in Christ, he now bent all his powers to have men come to the faith. And so they glorified and praised God in the apostle, rightly ascribing the change in his attitude entirely to the grace of God working in his heart, even as it does today.
Summary
After a brief introduction and doxology, Paul states his reason for writing the epistle and then immediately enters upon the historical and apologetical part of his letter by defending his apostolic commission.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Gal 1:18. After three years That is, from his conversion. The Apostle seems to have used great caution, to prevent any suspicion that he had gone even to St. Peter for the sake of instruction; for he says, first, that he went only to see him, and then that he abode with him; but says not a word of having been taught by him.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Gal 1:18 . ] After that , namely, after my second sojourn in Damascus whence he escaped, as is related Act 9:24 f.; 2Co 11:32 f. The more precise statement of time then follows in the words (comp. Gal 2:1 ), in which the terminus a quo is taken to be either his conversion (as by most expositors, including Winer, Fritzsche, Rckert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Caspari) or his return from Arabia (Marsh, Koppe, Borger). The former is to be preferred, as is suggested by the context in . Comp. also on Gal 2:1 .
.] This is (contrary to Jerome’s view) the first journey to Jerusalem, not omitted in the Acts (Laurent), but mentioned in Act 9:26 . The quite untenable arguments of Khler ( Abfassungszeit , p. 1 f.) against this identity are refuted by Anger, Rat. temp . p. 124 f. It must, however, be conceded that the account in Acts must receive a partial correction from our passage (see on Act 9:26 f.); a necessity, however, which is exaggerated by Baur, Hilgenfeld, and Zeller, and is attributed to intentional alteration of the history on the part of the author of Acts, it being supposed that the latter was unwilling to do the very thing which Paul in our passage wishes, namely, to bring out his independence of the original apostles. But this consciousness of independence is not to be exaggerated, as if Paul had felt himself “alien in the very centre of his being” from Peter (Holsten).
] in order to make the personal acquaintance of Cephas; not, therefore, in order to obtain instruction. But the position of Peter as (Theodoret) in the apostolic circle, especially urged by the Catholics (see Windischmann and Reithmayr), appears at all events from this passage to have been then known to Paul and acknowledged by him. , coram cognoscere , which does not occur elsewhere in the N.T., is found in this sense applied to a person also in Joseph. Bell . vi. 1. 8, , , Antt . i. 11. 4, viii. 2. 5; frequently also in the Clementines . It is often used by Greek authors (comp also the passages from Josephus in Krebs, Obss . p. 318) in reference to things, as , , . . . See Wetstein and Kypke. Bengel, moreover, well says: “grave verbum ut de re magna; non dixit (as in Joh 12:21 ) sed .” Comp. Chrysostom.
] Comp. 1Co 16:7 . , with , conveys the direction of the intercourse implied in . Comp. Mat 26:55 ; Joh 1:1 ; and the passages in Fritzsche, ad Marc . p. 202. Comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph . II. p. 653.
] For the historical cause why he did not remain longer, see Act 9:29 ; Act 22:17 ff. The intention , however, which induced Paul to specify the time, is manifest from the whole connection, that the reader might judge for himself whether so short a sojourn, the object of which was to become personally acquainted for the first time with Peter, could have been also intended for the further object of receiving evangelic instruction, especially when Paul had himself been preaching the gospel already so long (for three years). This intention is denied by Rckert, because the period of fifteen days was not so short but that during it Paul might have been instructed by Peter. But Paul is giving an historical account; and in doing this the mention of a time so short could not but be welcome to him for his purpose, without his wishing to give it forth as a stringent proof. This, notwithstanding what Paul emphatically adds in Gal 1:19 , it certainly was not, as is evident even from the high representative repute of Peter. [36] But the briefer his stay at that time, devoted to making the personal acquaintance of Peter, had been, the more it told against the notion of his having received instruction, although Paul naturally could not, and would not, represent this time as shorter than it had really been . Rckert’s arbitrary conjecture is therefore quite superfluous, that Paul mentions the fifteen days on account of the false allegation of his opponents that he had been first brought to Christianity by the apostles, or had, at any rate, spent a long time with them and as their disciple, but that he sought ungratefully and arrogantly either to conceal or deny these facts. According to Holsten, Peter and James were the representatives of the ., who in consequence could not have exerted any influence on Paul’s Gentile gospel. But this they were not at all. See on Gal 2:1 ff. and on Act 15 .
[36] Hofmann is of opinion that Paul desired his readers to understand that he could not have journeyed to Jerusalem in order to ask the opinion and advice of the “ apostolic body ” there. As if Peter and James could not have been “ apostolic body ” enough! Taking refuge in this way behind the distinction between apostles and the apostolic body was foreign to Paul.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
II
PAUL’S VISIT TO JERUSALEM
Gal 1:18-2:21
This discussion commences at Gal 1:18 and extends through chapter 2, completing the historical part of the letter. It is evident that there is a relation between Paul’s visit to Jerusalem, the headquarters of the apostles, and his independent authority as an apostle and his special gospel. There is a special value of this letter to the Galatians in that it gives definite information concerning matters more briefly and more generally given in Acts, which certainly saves us from erroneous inferences that would necessarily be deduced from the account in Acts alone. This is most evident in the history of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem after his conversion, and the intervals between the visits. Five of these visits are recorded in Acts, as follows: First visit Act 9:26-30 ; Act 22:17-21 ; second visit Act 11:27-30 ; Act 12:25 ; third visit Act 15:1-30 ; fourth visit Act 18:22 (this one we would not know if we did not look closely at the Greek); fifth visit Act 21:15-23:25 .
These are the five visits, so far as Acts records them, of Paul to Jerusalem after his conversion. I raise two additional questions: (1) What visits had he made to Jerusalem before his conversion? And (2) did he ever visit Jerusalem after the history in Acts closes? The answer to which is that while he lived at Tarsus he received his theological education at Jerusalem; that was doubtless his first visit, at least it is the first of which we have any account. But as he did not know Christ personally, he evidently was not in Jerusalem during the lifetime of Christ; therefore he must have gone back to Tarsus. But we do find him again in Jerusalem a rabbi of the Cilician synagogue, an opponent of Stephen, and a member of the Sanhedrin, and the object of his second visit was to become a member of the Sanhedrin, but that is all before his conversion.
After the history in the book of Acts closes we have no means of knowing that Paul ever visited Jerusalem. Indeed, we have only scraps of information concerning what he did after the first imprisonment at Rome. We gather some information from the letters to Timothy and Titus. Whether that included another visit to Jerusalem we do not know.
What is the relation of his visit to Jerusalem to his special and independent gospel and his independent apostolic authority? The Roman Catholics teach that Peter was the first pope, and that all authority was derived from Peter; therefore if their position be correct, Paul must have derived his authority from Peter. This letter to the Galatians grinds to fine powder the whole Roman Catholic theory of the pope, and hence it was one of the books of the New Testament that was so tremendously read in the Reformation.
Of the first and third of these visits to Jerusalem, recorded by Luke in Acts, we find parallel accounts in this letter to the Galatians. There was no occasion in this letter to refer to the second visit to Jerusalem, for at that time he simply went up to carry some alms to Jerusalem, and had no opportunity to have any conversation with the apostles. The persecution was raging; James was killed and Peter was in prison, and as soon as Peter got out he left; so, that visit to Jerusalem is not germane to our discussion, but the third visit is. The fourth and fifth visits to Jerusalem cannot touch this letter because they took place after this letter was written; so that the thing that we are to study ‘in this chapter is the bearing of these two visits upon Paul’s independent, apostolic authority and his independent gospel, viz.: The first visit, as recorded in Act 9 and the parallel account in Gal 1 , and the third visit, as recorded in Act 15 and paralleled by Gal 2 .
We may best get at the additional and more definite information in this letter by comparing the two accounts thus: First, by reading Act 9:17-19 , then Gal 1:15-17 , then Act 9:20-25 , then Gal 1:18 (except last clause), then Act 9:26-27 , then Gal 1:18 (last clause) to Gal 1:20 , then Act 9:28-29 (except last clause), then Act 22:17-21 , then Act 9:29 (last clause) to Act 9:31 , and then Gal 1:21-24 . (For an arrangement of these passages in parallel columns see “An Interpretation of the English Bible,” Acts, chap. 18.)
The following are the new and more definite particulars that we gather from inserting the Galatian passage that way: First, we learn from Galatians the time interval, three years, between his conversion and his first visit to Jerusalem. That three years after he was converted had passed before he ever saw Jerusalem or any of the twelve apostles. Second, we learn what he did in this interval of three years and what he did not: (1) That his call to the apostleship was not only directly from the Lord himself, but his acceptance of it and obedience to it was instant, without conferring with flesh and blood. His call was not at Jerusalem but at Damascus, not through Peter, but through Christ directly; Christ did not tell him to go to Peter, but the Holy Spirit selected the special man, Ananias, and sent him to him. (2) That, as his call to the apostleship was not dependent on the ratification of the twelve, he was set apart from his mother’s womb. (3) That his apostolic call had its emphasis in a different direction from the emphasis of the call of the twelve apostles, their mission being to preach to the Jews primarily, and his being to preach primarily to the Gentiles. (4) That instead of having been instructed in the gospel by the original twelve, he went, not to Jerusalem, but to Arabia to receive his gospel from the Lord himself by direct revelation. (5) That instead of waiting to act on his call to preach until the twelve refused it or authorized it, he commenced his preaching at Damascus and not at Jerusalem. (6) That he had been exercising his apostolic call and receiving revelations and preaching for three years before he was ever seen by any of the original twelve. (7) That when he did go to Jerusalem he saw only one of the apostles Peter but he saw James, the brother of our Lord, who was not an apostle. So we must infer that at the time of his visit the other eleven apostles were out on the field. He saw but one, and he was there only fifteen days, and while there that fifteen days Jesus, in a vision in the Temple, peremptorily ordered him to leave them, to go to the Gentile work. See how these points are brought out and urged by the Judaizing Christians, inasmuch as he was not one of the twelve, and not commissioned by the twelve, therefore he was not a true apostle. He is explaining all this in his defense. (8) That for nine years after leaving Jerusalem, while he was preaching and establishing churches in Syria and Cilicia, they did not see his face. It was during this Cilician period that he received the revelation recorded in 2Co 12 . So that not a shred of his authority as an apostle, not a word of his gospel, is derived from the original twelve or from any other man. Galatians says nothing about the fact, but I will interpolate, that from Antioch he and Barnabas went to the heathen on their first missionary tour, not under Jerusalem direction, but under specific and direct authority of the Holy Spirit.
The object of Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem, after he had finished his Cilician tour, was simply to carry alms to the poor saints in Jerusalem, because of a revelation of a famine through a prophet. There could have been no conversation with the apostles from the fact that the persecution by Herod was raging, in which James was killed, and when Peter got out of prison he immediately left. There is another matter stated in Acts, though Galatians does not refer to it. We find in Acts 13-14 that when he did go out as a foreign missionary he did not go under any authority conferred by the twelve apostles, but that he and Barnabas were sent out particularly by the Holy Spirit, and that this first missionary tour that we find recorded was under special, direct orders from God and not from man.
In order to get at the account of his third visit to Jerusalem we have to carefully read nearly all of Act 15 and every bit of Gal 2 . The object of this visit was (1) to find out how these Judaizing Christians were supported, (2) to carry out this divine injunction. (He says in the letter to the Galatians that when he made those three visits to Jerusalem he did not go because he was summoned, but by special revelation, showing that he was still under divine guidance.) (3) To show that the initiative was not taken by the Jerusalem church, but by the church at Antioch. Certain Judaizing Christians had a gospel similar to that of those who had come to Antioch and taught that they could not be saved without becoming Jews that they would have to be circumcised or faith would not save them at all. Paul and Barnabas squarely met them, but inasmuch as the disturbance had come on the ground of comity, they carried the question to the church where it originated. Just as one would do if he were the pastor of the Broadway Church in Fort Worth, and some of the people of Dallas were to come and raise a row in the church a row that involved his ministerial authority then he ought to refer this to those Dallas people, saying, “Do you send these men here, or do they come by your authority?” So we see that in that third visit to Jerusalem he went with a definite object in view, not in order that he might be made an apostle, but in order to settle a great question of salvation, and that very question was being agitated in the Galatian church then, that is, the necessity of being a Jew in order to be saved.
Galatians says that Paul went to that meeting to take a test case, and the test case was Titus. Titus was converted, had been baptized and received into the church, and he determined to take Titus up there and say, “Now do you demand that Titus shall be circumcised in order to be saved?” Then he went up as he said, by revelation, to have the matter settled forever as to whether he was an apostle to the Gentiles or not. So we learn in Galatians that when he got there and sprung that question upon Titus, though Titus was not circumcised, they lost the case. Then we learn from Galatians that before the church met in conference Paul had met the elders and the pastor of the church, James, and sprung this question on them, “Do you acknowledge that this authority that I have to go to the heathen is from God, just as your authority to go to the circumcision is from God?” And he said that they conceded and gave him the right hand of fellowship, he and Barnabas only. This is a very important matter that we learn from Gal 2 , but that isn’t all that we learn. He says that from them he received nothing; that they conceded that he was not behind them in anything; that the pillars of the church at Jerusalem the apostles and the pastor acknowledged that they conferred nothing on him, and that he was their equal. He did not get his gospel from them, but this is not the cream of the case. He adds something that we do not find anywhere else. The Holy Spirit and the apostles and the church at Jerusalem united in the decision, embodied it in writing upon all of these points, and sent it to the churches where these questions were likely to come up.
We come now to a most startling fact. After this happened Peter made a visit to Antioch, and when he first got there he did as he did in the case of Cornelius took a meal with the Gentiles. Here come some people from Jerusalem, and while they admit that a man did not have to become a Jew to be a Christian, yet they contend that they must not violate the old law about eating with the Gentiles. We learn from Galatians that it shook Peter, and we have already learned that Peter was easily shaken, and that it shook Barnabas also. In this new question we learn that Paul alone stood up and contended to Peter’s face and rebuked him. What a position for a pope! He told him that he was tearing down what he had already established; that what God at Joppa had shown him that he had cleansed, man should not call unclean. But Peter was dissimulating and holding back because certain of these Judaizing teachers from Jerusalem came up there and ‘insisted that this business must stop.
What would have been the effect if Paul had not taken the stand he did? Christianity would have been a mere sect; it would have lost its individuality; its wings would have been clipped; it could neither fly nor soar; it could only crawl, and it would have perished at Jerusalem but for that fight that Paul made. What would we think if the “upper tens” of our church would say, “I am willing to welcome these poor people to the church, but don’t expect me to go to see them. We can’t do that”? I have always contended that but for Paul’s going away into Arabia and receiving his gospel direct from the Lord Jesus Christ, instead of having it handed down to him by somebody else, and the stand that he took when this great controversy threatened to rend Christianity of that day in its struggling childhood, we Gentiles would have had no gospel, and what the Jews would have had would not have been worth anything. It was a question of life and death. The very essence of the gospel was involved. It was as if they proposed to take the keystone out of the arch, or the foundation from under the building.
There are some incidental questions on Galatians 1-2 that we had better look at a little. Paul said that when he went to Jerusalem that first time, he saw James, our Lord’s brother. Here come up some theories. The extreme theory held by the Catholic Church, the middle theory held by the Church of England, and the other theory held by Baptist, viz.: What is meant by calling these the Lord’s brothers and sisters? The Catholics say that they were only his cousins; that Mary never bore but one child; that she was born a virgin, so she remained a virgin, and they claim that her body was taken up to heaven as was the body of Elijah “the Assumption of the Virgin” and that she was immaculately conceived, as Christ was conceived. That is what they call the doctrine of “the Immaculate Conception.” The second theory is that they were children of Joseph by a former marriage. But there is not a hint of such a marriage in the Bible. The third theory is that they were children of Joseph and Mary, the mother of our Lord. People, who, for sentimental reasons, believe that Mary had not a lot of children after Christ, who believe that they were not Mary’s children, evolve that thing out of their own consciousness. The fact is that James and Jude who wrote books of the New Testament, and some sisters were actually half brothers and sisters of our Lord, and the children of Joseph and Mary. They were half brothers of Jesus because they had the same mother, but their father was not his; God was his father.
Another thing Paul says is that those churches in Judea from whom it was alleged that he derived his authority and his gospel, did not even know his name, but they held him in respect and glorified God in him. I took that as my text when I was appointed to preach the annual sermon before the American Baptist Publication Society in Chicago “They Glorified God in Paul” showing that the workman is known by his works. They said there was a mighty revolution in this Saul of Tarsus; that somebody did it, and glory to the one that did ‘it. Somebody made him the mightiest power as an evangelical force that earth has ever known. Who did it? God. So they glorified God in Paul, and brethren will glorify God in us as our lives are pure and as our work is faithful, but if we live in sin as any other sinner, and if we preach something that God did not give us to preach, if conviction and conversion do not follow our ministry, if our preaching does not stir up others, then I am sure that people will never attempt to glorify God in us. They will find nothing to glorify.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the special historical value of this letter to the Galatians?
2. In what particular is this most evident?
3. How many and what visits of Paul to Jerusalem recorded in Acts, and what the scripture for each?
4. What visits had he made to Jerusalem before his conversion, and what the proof?
5. Did Paul ever visit Jerusalem after history in book of Acts closes?
6. What is the relation of his visits to Jerusalem to his special and independent gospel and his independent apostolic authority?
7. To which of these visits recorded in Acts do we find parallel accounts in Galatians, and why are not the other visits to Jerusalem referred to in Galatians?
8. Where in Acts are the sections corresponding to the two visits to Jerusalem recorded in Galatians?
9. How may we best get at the additional and more definite information in this letter?
10. What are these new and more definite particulars that we gather from inserting the Galatian passages in the Acts passages?
11. What was the object of Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem, and what opportunity did this visit afford for conversation with the twelve apostles, and why?
12. What matter stated in Acts brought in here by the author?
13. What the object of Paul’s third visit to Jerusalem, what the case at Antioch, and what two important matters were settled authoritatively on this visit?
14. What social questions sprang up at Antioch soon after this, what its history, how settled, and what if Paul had not taken the stand that he did?
15. What is the bearing of Paul’s independent gospel and apostleship, together with Gal 1:12-2:14 on the alleged primacy and supremacy of Peter?
16. What are the three theories of our Lord’s relation to James, and which is the true one?
17. What did Paul here say of the churches in Judea, and how may the people glorify God in the preacher?
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
Ver. 18. To see Peter ] Not by way of idle visit, but thoroughly to observe the history of his Christian practice for godly imitation. a Historiae sunt fidae monitrices. Histor is a faithful warning.
a , videndo observare.
18 24 .] But after a very short visit to Peter at Jerusalem, he retired to Syria and Cilicia .
18 .] At first sight, it would appear as if the three years were to be reckoned from his return to Damascus : but on closer examination we see that . stands in opposition to above, and the . . . here answers to . . . there. So that we must reckon them from his conversion : . . . ruling the whole narrative. See also on ch. Gal 2:1 .
This is the journey of Act 9:26 , where see note. There is no real discrepancy between that account and this. The incident which led to his leaving Damascus (Act 9:25 . 2Co 11:32-33 ) has not necessarily any connexion with his purpose in going to Jerusalem : a purpose which may have been entertained before, or determined on after, that incident. To this visit must be referred the vision of Act 22:17-18 .
. . ] to make the acquaintance of Cephas not to get information or instruction from him: see reff., and Ellic. here. Peter was at this early period the prominent person among the Apostles; see note on Mat 16:18 .
. ] originally a pregnant construction, but from usage become idiomatic. See reff.
. . ] mentioned to shew how little of his institution as an Apostle he could have owed to Peter. Why no longer , see in Act 9:29 ; Act 22:17-21 . [On the form see Moulton’s Winer, p. 313, note 5.]
Gal 1:18 . . The thrice-repeated in this verse, in Gal 1:21 , and in Gal 2:1 , singles out three events in the Apostle’s life bearing on his intercourse with the Church of Jerusalem: his first introduction to them, his departure to a distant sphere of labour, and his return to Jerusalem with Barnabas. The object of this sketch was not to write a history of those years, but to fix attention on certain salient incidents which threw light on the real nature of his intercourse with Jerusalem. . A different preposition is here employed from that used in Gal 2:1 , which describes a mission within fourteen years. In this case no precise date is implied; for the object is not to date the visit, but to show that three full years at least had elapsed before Paul had any intercourse with the Twelve. : to enquire of Cephas, i.e. , to obtain information from him. This is the usual meaning of the verb; in Herodotus, and elsewhere, it denotes visits paid to places of interest with a view to getting information about them on the spot. The circumstances in which Paul found himself at that time make this sense very appropriate. He had been suddenly driven from his ministry at Damascus, and was compelled to seek a new sphere. He could not turn to any adviser more valuable than Peter for determining his future course. For that Apostle was not only prominent in the general government of the Church, but had taken the lead in its expansion by his visits to Samaria, to the maritime plain, and to Csarea, and by his baptism of Gentiles. In spite, therefore, of the danger of revisiting Jerusalem, Paul repaired thither to consult Peter as to how he could best serve Christ. . Several MSS. give the Greek form, , of this name; but the Hebrew form appears to be the original reading throughout the Epistle, except in Gal 2:7-8 . At Jerusalem he was probably known by the name Cephas, but in the Greek Church at large by the name Peter. . Both in the Acts and in the Pauline Epistles this verb denotes the continuance or prolongation of a stay. . This can hardly be = , I abode with him . The clause expresses rather the motive for Paul’s lingering at Jerusalem, I tarried to see him fifteen days .
This narrative is so independent of the account given of Paul’s first meeting with the Twelve in Act 9:26-29 , that some critics question the identity of the two visits. But it is clear that both passages alike refer to Paul’s first return to Jerusalem, after a prolonged sojourn at Damascus; and the subtle harmony of the two narratives is as conspicuous as their independence in details. The history states the bare fact that Paul, finding his life in imminent danger from the Jews at Damascus, fled to Jerusalem; the Epistle explains why he encountered so obvious a danger; the Epistle states that he prolonged his stay to see Peter; the history explains that he was unable to gain access to the Apostles for a time. The history records the principal events of the visit from the historical point of view, e.g. , the apprehensions felt by the Christian body, the intervention of Barnabas, the attempts on Paul’s life; the autobiography passes these by as foreign to its purpose, but is far richer in personal details, relating incidentally the date, the motive, and the duration of the visit, and particularising the brethren whom Paul saw on the occasion; whereas in the Acts mention is merely made of the disciples generally.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gal 1:18-24
18Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20(Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) 21Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24And they were glorifying God because of me.
Gal 1:18 “Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem” Paul freely admitted that he visited Jerusalem. The emphasis of this sentence is that Paul had no contact with Jerusalem or the Twelve until three years after his conversion. The book of Acts records five visits by Paul to Jerusalem, but Galatians only records two. It is very difficult to know which of the visits recorded in Acts are similarly recorded in the book of Galatians or if there were additional visits. Most people believe that this visit mentioned in Gal 1:18 is equal to the visit recorded in Act 9:26-30. See Introduction, Date and Recipients, C.
“to become acquainted with” This is a Greek phrase from which we get our English word “history.” Paul went (1) to get to know Peter or (2) for the specific purpose of learning from Peter the teachings of Jesus. Yet Paul did not stay with Peter the entire time (cf. Act 9:28-30). He was preaching in the area and probably just spent the evenings and the Sabbath with him. This verse also emphasizes that he only stayed for fifteen days, which is much too short a stay for extended instruction. However, from the Pauline terminology and theology so obvious in I and 2 Pet., Peter may have learned more from Paul than Paul did from Peter.
NASB, NRSV,
NJB”Cephas”
NKJV, TEV”Peter”
Cephas (Aramaic for “rock”) is found in MSS P46, P51, *, A, B. Peter (Greek for boulder) is found in MSS c, D, F, G, K, L, and P. Paul uses “Cephas” in Gal 2:9; Gal 2:11; Gal 2:14.
Gal 1:19 “But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother” This Greek sentence is very ambiguous. The context implies that James was an apostle, but this meaning is not certain. It (apostles) could refer to Peter in Gal 1:18. James seems to be an “apostle” in the same sense as Barnabas (cf. Act 14:4; Act 14:14); Andronicus and Junias (cf. Rom 16:7); Apollos (cf. 1Co 4:9); Epaphroditus (Php 2:25); or Silvanas and Timothy (cf. 1Th 2:6; Act 18:5). This James was identified as the Lord’s half-brother (cf. Mat 13:55; Mar 6:3), in order to differentiate him from James the Apostle, part of the Inner Circle, who was killed very early (cf. Acts 12). For several generations the church in Jerusalem had a physical relative of Jesus as their leader. Several biblical passages (cf. Act 12:17; Act 15:13; Act 21:18; 1Co 15:7; and Jas 1:1) indicate that James was a very important leader in the Church in Jerusalem. See SPECIAL TOPIC: JAMES, THE HALF-BROTHER OF JESUS at Gal 2:9.
For “apostles” see Special Topic: Send at Gal 1:1.
Gal 1:20 “I assure you before God that I am not lying” Paul knew the seriousness of oath-taking and still felt that it was important to assert his truthfulness by oath (cf. Rom 9:1; 1Ti 2:7). Paul also employed God as a witness to his truthfulness elsewhere (cf. Rom 1:9; 2Co 1:23; 2Co 4:2; 2Co 11:31; 1Th 2:5; 1Th 2:10). Paul was certain of the divine origin and content of his message.
Gal 1:21 “Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia” Syria and Cilicia were Roman provinces but the smaller province of Cilicia was not totally independent (cf. Act 15:41). This may be the reason it was mentioned second, even though in chronology it is first, Paul’s work was in Cilicia first, for it was the area in which Tarsus, his hometown, was located. This seems to be recorded in Act 9:30. Paul’s time in Syria is recorded in conjunction with Antioch which was the capital of the Roman province of Syria. This period is recorded in Act 11:25-26.
Gal 1:22 “but I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea” The word “unknown” in Greek is reflected in the English cognate “agnostic.” “Knowledge” [gnosis] in this case has the alpha privitive which negates it. This is somewhat surprising because Paul was a famous persecutor of the Church, however, not all of the churches knew who he was, and he did not seek recognition from the churches of Palestine for his ministry.
“”churches” See Special Topic at Gal 1:2.
Gal 1:23-24 Although Paul did not seek affirmation from these early Jewish Christian churches, they gave it to him (cf. Gal 1:24) when they heard about his ministry among the Gentiles. This is another point in his argument against the Jewish “Christian” false teachers who said that he did not have proper authority.
“the faith” This term may have several distinct connotations. For the most part the presence or absence of the article does not help clarify which meaning.
1. OT background means “faithfulness” or “trustworthiness,” therefore, it is used of our faithing the faithfulness of God or our trusting in the trustworthiness of God
2. in our accepting or receiving God’s free offer of forgiveness in Christ
3. in the sense of faithful, godly living
4. in the collective sense of the Christian faith or truth about Jesus (cf. Act 6:7 and Jud 1:3; Jud 1:20)
In several passages, such as 2Th 3:2, it is difficult to know which sense Paul had in mind. Here, option #4 is best.
after. Greek. meta, App-104. This was three years from his conversion, viz. A D. 37. See App-180.
see. Greek. historeo. App-133.
Peter. The texts read Kephas, also in Gal 2:11, Gal 2:14. See Joh 1:42.
abode. Greek. epimeno. See Act 10:48.
with. Greek. pros. App-104. This first visit was cut short by the murder plot of Act 9:29, and the command in the trance of Act 22:17-21.
18-24.] But after a very short visit to Peter at Jerusalem, he retired to Syria and Cilicia.
Gal 1:18. , three) After he had given proofs of the apostolic office.-) a weighty expression,[5] as referring to an important matter. He did not say [though Engl. Vers. so renders it, to see], but , which, (says Chyrs.) is said by those who accurately observe ( ) great and splendid cities. Plutarch represents Solon and many others as having travelled for the purpose of acquiring great wisdom and information (). Julian, when he was about to consult the diviners in the cities of Greece, alleged as the cause of his going, the extensive information of Greece ( ), and of the schools there. Greg. Naz., Or. 4, Cresoll. theatr. rhet., p. 163.-, Peter) Therefore Paul preferred him to the other apostles, ch. Gal 2:7.-, fifteen) during so short a time, Paul means to say, Peter would not have been able to have made me an apostle. [It is profitable to observe rather carefully, what are the dealings of God with thee, that when circumstances permit, thou mayest confidently appeal to them even after a long interval.-V. g.]
[5] Th. , ; to become acquainted with anything by visiting and inquiry, Pol. ix. 14, 3. , , to become acquainted with one by a face to face interview.-ED.
See Wahl. Clav.
Gal 1:18
Gal 1:18
Then after three years-The date is probably to be reckoned from the great turning point in his life-his conversion. If the visit to Arabia was short, most of this time would be spent at Damascus, probably after his return there. Luke says: When many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel together to kill him: but their plot became known to Saul. And they watched the gates also day and night that they might kill him: but his disciples took him by night, and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket. (Act 9:23-25). After many days corresponds to after three years, which evidently means three years after his conversion.
I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas,-It was quite natural that he should wish to form the personal acquaintance of Peter, to whom the Lord had given the keys of the kingdom. Pauls object was to show that he was independent of human instruction and direction and fully equal to the older apostles. It was in this, his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion, that he assayed to join himself to the disciples: and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. (Act 9:26-27). It is probable that Barnabas was acquainted with him prior to his conversion.
and tarried with him fifteen days.-He was hurried away by a message from the Lord, who said to him: Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem; because they will not receive of thee testimony concerning me. (Act 22:18). The mention of the brief duration of the stay is intended, especially in contrast with the three years of absence from Jerusalem, to show how impossible it was to regard him a disciple of the twelve, learning all that he knew of the gospel from them.
from Christ, not from Men
Gal 1:18-24
Pauls first visit to Peter must have been of absorbing interest. Doubtless the two traversed together the holy scenes of the Lords ministry, and Peter told the story of Gethsemane and Calvary with minute detail to ears that drank in every circumstance. How many inquiries would be addressed to the eyewitness of that sacred death and of the open grave! Paul was not ignorant of the facts, but wished to view them in the new light of faith and love. Such conversation as that which occupied these two souls gives us a glimpse of what may be expected when Gods people are gathered into the many mansions of the Fathers house.
The sudden termination of this visit to Jerusalem is described in Act 9:28. Without delay Paul had to leave the city and start for his home in distant Tarsus, where he was to spend two or three years until the good Barnabas came to summon him to help in Antioch. See Act 11:25-26. Probably during this interval the Apostle began to evangelize the regions named in Gal 1:21. Let us see to it that we receive no glory from man, but that men see God in us and us in God. We are nothing; He is all, and to Him be the glory, Psa 115:1.
I went up: or, I returned, Act 9:26-29, Act 22:17, Act 22:18
Reciprocal: Act 9:27 – the apostles Act 9:28 – coming Gal 1:17 – went Gal 2:1 – fourteen
Gal 1:18. -Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem. What must have been his emotions as he passed the scene of his conversion, or if he entered the holy city by the gate through which he had left it? The adverb , then-after his return to Damascus-is a connecting link in his narrative. The point from which the three years are to be computed is fixed by some at the return from Arabia (Borger, Rckert, Jatho). The majority, however, date them from his conversion. That event had just been referred to by him, in its origin, nature, and design. God had set him apart, called him and qualified him, and this event of events to him stood out so prominently in its solitary grace and grandeur, that he reckons from it without any formal reference. The dominates the whole paragraph. How much of this time was spent in Arabia, and how much in the two sojourns at Damascus, is a question for the solution of which we have no proper data. The first stay seems to be indicated by the words , and the second by , in Act 9:19; Act 9:23. This last phrase is indefinite, but coupled with the verb seems to denote a considerable space. Eichhorn, Howson, Anger, suppose the three years to have been wholly spent in Arabia. The are in contrast with the of Gal 1:16, and refers back to the previous . The object of the visit to Jerusalem was
-to make the acquaintance of Cephas. The reading of the received text is well sustained, having in its favour D, F, K, L, 3, the Vulgate, and many of the fathers; while has A, B, 1, three MSS., Syriac, Coptic, and AEthiopic. The rarer name is to be preferred. The verb , occurring only here, has sometimes in earlier Greek the sense of knowing through inquiry, or of asking; Hesychius defines it by . In later Greek it denotes to visit as applied to places or things, and to persons in the sense of making the acquaintance of-coram cognoscere. It differs from in that it implies that what is to be seen is worthy of a visit of inspection. See Kypke, in loc., and so Chrysostom illustrates it. Thus , Josephus, Antiq. 8.25; similarly, Bell. Jud 6:1; Jud 6:8, he says of Julian the Bithynian centurion, ; and often in the Clementines, as adduced by Hilgenfeld: Homiliae, 1.14, 9.22, 9.6, etc. But these instances, as usual, refer to things, not persons.
Paul did not go to consult Cephas, or get any information essential to the validity of his office and work, but to visit him as a noted apostle,-one whom it would be gratifying to know through private and confidential intercourse.
But even this first visit to Jerusalem, three years after his conversion, was a very brief one:
-and I abode with him fifteen days. so used does not differ in meaning from with a dative. Mat 26:55; Joh 1:1; 1Co 16:6-10. A similar construction is often quoted from AEschyl. Prom. 351; Eurip. Ion, 916. Fritzsche on Mar 6:3 warns, however, that there are many cases in which, though somewhat similar, cannot have this meaning-quae aliquam motus significationem habeant,-cases which even Wahl has not distinguished satis feliciter. Luk 16:20; Luk 22:56; Act 5:10; Act 13:31.
It is needless to lay special stress on the in , for it seems to be neither distinctly local nor intensive. It may denote rest (Ellicott), and thus give a fuller meaning to the compound verb than the simple one would have borne. The verb is followed in the New Testament by , Act 28:14; by , Php 1:24; by , 1Co 16:7; and by a simple dative, Rom 6:1; Rom 11:22-23, Col 1:23, 1Ti 4:16. In the latter case there is a difference of meaning, qui in aliqua re manet et perseverat. Winer, De verborum cum praep. compos. 2.11. The form is for the more classical and the fuller . Khner, 353. The later form occurs often at an earlier period, as in the Tabulae Heracleenses (Lightfoot). Jerome, finding a hidden meaning in the number fifteen, supposes it to mean here plena scientia. Why the visit was so brief is told in Act 9:29. The Hellenists with whom he had been disputing went about to slay him, and the brethren, on becoming aware of the conspiracy, brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus. A simultaneous reason is assigned by himself. He was praying in the temple, and fell into a trance,-identified on slight grounds by Schrader and Wieseler as the rapture described in 2Co 12:2,-and the Master appeared and said to him, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. He pleads now for Jerusalem as a field of labour, because his history was so well known to the Hellenists whose prejudices he understood from experience. The excuse is not listened to: not Hellenism but heathenism was again formally assigned to him as his field of labour. Begone, was the reply, I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. Act 22:17-21.
Gal 1:18. After three years is dated from his conversion, and includes the time spent in Arabia and Damascus. The time spent in the last place was divided between the days immediately after his conversion, and his return from Arabia. (See verse 17 and Act 9:19-22.) The special purpose for Paul’s Journey to Jerusalem was to see Peter. As this was his first visit to that city since his conversion, it is not strange that he had not met Peter before. The words to see are from HIS-TOREO, and this is the only place in the Greek New Testament where the word is used. Thayer defines it, “1, to inquire into, examine, investigate. 2, to find out, learn by inquiry. 3, to gain knowledge of by visiting; to become personally acquainted with, know face to face.” All of this was after the three years, in the course of which Paul had been preaching the Gospel elsewhere, hence it does not contradict verse 17. Neither does it leave any room for saying that he went up there to receive the Gospel from Peter (which would have contradicted verse 12). But the importance of the apostle Peter created a desire in Paul to “become personally acquainted with him,” and to “know him face to face.” He spent fifteen days in the city while visiting Peter.
Gal 1:18. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to make the acquaintance of (or, to become acquainted with) Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. This first visit of Paul to Jerusalem after his conversion is the same as the one mentioned in Act 9:25, and took place A. D. 40. The three years must be reckoned from his conversion (A. D. 37). It was quite natural that he should wish to make the personal acquaintance (to see in the English version is not strong enough) of Peter, the leader of the Twelve. The fact implies the high position of Peter, but no superior authority. Pauls object is to show that he was independent of human instruction and direction, and fully equal to the older Apostles. In ch. Gal 2:11, he relates that he even publicly reproved Peter at Antioch, which would have been an act of flagrant insubordination, had Peter been his superior in rank and authority. Cephas is the reading of the best MSS. throughout this Epistle and the Epistle to the Corinthians, except Gal 2:7-8, instead of Peter, which arose from an explanatory gloss. This Syro-Chaldaic name was given to Simon by Christ (Joh 1:43), and was adhered to by the Judaizers. It was, perhaps, in silent opposition to them that Peter in his Epistles used the Greek form.Fifteen days, or, as we would say a fortnight, too short a time to become a disciple of Peter, as much of it was occupied by public disputations with the Hellenists. The reason of his short stay at Jerusalem was the persecution of the Greek Jews (Act 9:28-29), and the express command of the Lord to go to the Gentiles (Act 22:17-21).
Here is a third evidence to prove, that St. Paul received his ministry and message by divine revelation from Jesus Christ, and not from man, or by man. He acknowledges that not till three years after his conversion, when he had preached the gospel in the deserts of Arabia, had he ever seen Peter, or any other of the apostles, and consequently could not receive the knowledge of the gospel from him or them, as his adversaries the false apostles would insinuate and suggest. True, after his three years preaching in, and his return from Arabia, he went up to Jerusalem, and saw Peter and James, and conversed with them for fifteen days: But the shortness of his stay with them is an evidence that he went not up to Jerusalem to learn the gospel from them, much less to pay homage to St. Peter as the prince of the apostles; for St. Paul often affirms, in his epistles, that he was not inferior to St. Peter, nor came behind the chiefest of the apostles; but it was only a familiar and friendly visit, given by one minister of Christ to another, in token of mutual consent and agreement in the same truth preached by both; and by no means to receive ordination from Peter, or divine instructions (for he had a higher teacher than him, even Christ himself) or to acknowledge any subjection to him, by owning his supremacy over all the apostles; as the church of Rome would bear us in hand he did, in defiance of what St. Paul himself declares to the contrary. But we cannot help it, if men who have their credulity at their own disposal, and can believe what they list, will yield their assent to what is contrary to divine revelation and the reason of things. Very evident it is to any impartial observer, that St. Paul’s visit at Jerusalem was a visit of civil courtesy, yet for the spiritual consolation and mutual edification both of himself and the apostles, whom he thus visited.
From hence learn, 1. That the ministers of Christ should be so far from living at variance with, or at any distance in affection from each other, that they ought to maintain correspondency and familiarity with one another, and to give friendly visits to each other, in token of their harmony and mutual agreement in the same divine truths delivered by them. Thus did our apostle here; he took a journey to Jerusalem to see Peter, and James, our Lord’s kinsman.
Learn, 2. From the shortness of his visit and stay at Jerusalem, though it was in the most delightful and desirable, yea, most profitable company, yet it was but for fifteen days; he hastens away to his charge again.
Thence note, that though the ministers of Christ may and ought to visit each other, as an evidence of reciprocal affection, and in order to mutual direction, edification and consolation; yet ought their meetings to be neither so frequent, nor of so long continuance, that thereby their several flocks should suffer prejudice: After a short time spent in visiting, we must return to our business, and mind, above all things, our ministerial charge: I went to see Peter, but abode with him only fifteen days.
Gal 1:18-19. Then, after three years Wherein I had given full proof of my apostleship; I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter And converse with him; and abode with him fifteen days During which they doubtless discoursed at large together on the mutual success of their ministry. This being Pauls first visit to Jerusalem since his conversion, the brethren there shunned him, suspecting that he feigned himself a disciple with a view to betray them. But Barnabas, who probably had learned the particulars of his conversion from Ananias, took and brought him to the apostles, (Peter and James,) and declared to them how he had seen the Lord in the way, Act 9:27. It does not appear that on this occasion any thing was said, either by Barnabas or by Saul, concerning Christs making Saul an apostle at the time he converted him, or concerning his sending him to preach to the idolatrous Gentiles, as is related by the apostle himself, Act 26:16-18. These things were not mentioned in Jerusalem till Paul went up to the council, fourteen years after his conversion, Gal 2:2; Gal 2:7-9. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother Or kinsman, as the word here signifies; for he was the son of Alpheus, by Mary the sister of our Lords mother. That Paul made so short a stay at Jerusalem, at this time, was probably owing to Christs appearing to him in a trance, while in the temple, and commanding him to depart quickly from Jerusalem, Act 22:18. The brethren also, it seems, advised him to depart, because the Hellenist Jews were determined to kill him.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:18-24. Not till he had been three years a Christian and a Christian preacher did he come in contact with the earlier apostles; and then but slightly. He visited Cephas at Jerusalem, spending a fortnight with him (cf. 1Co 15:3-7?); and he also met James, the brother of Christ (the Gr. may mean either this one other apostle or this important non-apostolic personage: no real difference to the argument). Evidently stories had been put about that Paul had been instructed by the apostolic college. There is no truth in them! After the one brief and limited contact, he pursued his own career in his native province of Cilicia and at Antioch (compare Act 9:30; Act 11:25 ff.), favourably heard of in Judan churches, but not known (Gal 1:23). The narrative of Acts again fails to tally at points with Pauls first-hand evidence. We may well accept the statement that Barnabas did much for Paul at Jerusalem and at Antioch; but one doubts whether Pauls preaching at Jerusalem (Act 9:29; Act 22:18) can be historical. It is far-fetched to hold, with some, that the church at Jerusalem may have known him but not provincial churches in Juda! More likely Juda includes Galilee (Luk 4:44 mg.*) than excludes the capital. Provincial Jewish churches have no independent importance in Pauls argument. (Yet possibly 1Th 2:15, drave out us, implies some preaching to Jews at home; unless it is Silas who is here speaking.)
SECTION 6. PAULS VISIT TO, AND EARLY DEPARTURE FROM, JERUSALEM. CH. 1:18-24.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem, to make acquaintance of Cephas; and I remained with him fifteen days. But no other of the Apostles did I see, except James, the brother of the Lord. The things which I write to you, behold before God I do not lie.
Then I came into the regions of Syria and of Cilicia. And I was unknown by face to the Churches of Judaea, the Churches in Christ. But only they were hearing that, He who persecuted us formerly now announces as good news the faith which formerly he was laying waste. And they were glorifying God in me.
Gal 1:18. Then: Gal 1:18; Gal 1:21; Gal 2:1 : three consecutive steps in the historic narrative.
After three years: possibly only one whole year and parts of two others, as in Mat 27:63, Mar 8:31. they were measured probably from Pauls conversion, as is immediately in Gal 1:16. If the visit to Arabia was short, most of this time would be spent at Damascus. probably after Pauls return there.
To-make-acquaintance-of Cephas: a purpose very different from a desire to obtain apostolic sanction for his work.
Cephas: see under 1Co 1:12.
Fifteen days: exact length of a memorable visit, fixed indelibly in the mind of Paul. This short sojourn, sufficient to make acquaintance of Peter, would give no time for training in Gospel truth.
For the bearing of this verse on Act 9:17; Act 9:26, see Diss. i. 2.
Gal 1:19. The brother of the Lord: to distinguish this James from (Act 12:2) the brother of John, who was not then put to death.
Except James: or but only James. Grammatically the words so rendered do not necessarily imply that James was himself an apostle. See under Gal 2:16. But here Paul cannot wish to say that besides Peter he saw no one, or no Christian, at Jerusalem except James. Cp. Act 9:28 ff. And the whole Context, which refers specially to the apostles, shows that to these the exception refers. It implies fairly that James, if not himself actually and usually called an apostle, was yet so closely related to the apostles that the statement that at Jerusalem Paul saw no apostle except Peter needed to be qualified by the statement that he also saw James. And this agrees exactly with the prominent position of James, attested by his mention in Gal 2:9 before Peter and John. The apostles held ( 1Co 12:28) the first rank in the Church: and in the first rank stood certainly James. This lessens the apparent discrepancy in Act 9:27, by permitting us to speak of Peter and James as apostles. The others, possibly, were away from Jerusalem on evangelical work.
Gal 1:20. This protestation (peculiar in N. T. to Paul: Rom 9:1; 2Co 11:31; 1Ti 2:7) implies some difficulty, fancied or real, in the foregoing statement; and proves its great importance. It is most easily explained by supposing that Pauls opponents boldly asserted, or insinuated, in order to prove that he had been unfaithful, that he had received a formal commission from the whole apostolic band; and that from this he derived his authority in the Church. To contradict any such assertion, Paul assures us in these solemn words that his purpose in going to Jerusalem was to become acquainted with Peter, and that he saw there no other leader of the Church except James. Thus, by directing attention to a matter of importance, this apparently casual protest helps us to understand Pauls argument.
Gal 1:21-24. A third step in Pauls narrative, following (1) Gal 1:15-17 and (2) Gal 1:18-20.
Syria and Cilicia: adjoining provinces, far from Jerusalem: mentioned together in the same order in Act 15:23; Act 15:41. Syria is put first as nearer to Jerusalem, and as the more important. See Diss. i. 2. From Tarsus Barnabas brought Paul to Antioch, the Capital of Syria, where he laboured (Act 11:26) a whole year. Thus agree the statements here and in the Book of Acts. The indefinite term regions of, Syria, etc. suggests various journeys within or around these provinces.
Gal 1:22. The Churches of Judaea; possibly do not include that at Jerusalem. For the people and life of the surrounding country are so different from those of a metropolis that the latter seems hardly to belong to the former: and it is not likely that Paul would be fifteen days in Jerusalem without meeting some Christians there. Similarly, from Jerusalem apparently (Joh 2:13) Jesus went (Joh 3:22) into the Judaean land. Yet in 1Th 2:14, similar words certainly include Jerusalem. And it may be objected that if to these Paul was known it was immaterial to say that he had not visited the Churches in the small towns around. On the apparent contradiction with Act 9:28, see Diss. i. 2. Perhaps these words were added to complete the account of Pauls relations with the Jewish Christians, and to give opportunity for the statement in Gal 1:24 of their accord with him.
The Churches in Christ: a comment on these Judaean Christians, testifying their union with Christ and therefore the genuineness of their profession. So 1Th 2:14. The plural Churches suggests, as in Gal 1:2, that they were not united into one organised whole.
Unknown by face; hardly implies that they had never seen his face even as a persecutor, and therefore does not prove that Paul refers only to Churches outside Jerusalem. For, if they had never met him as a Christian, he would be, as to personal intercourse, still unknown to them.
Gal 1:23-24. The only contact of Paul with the Christians of Judaea was that from time to time news came that their former persecutor was now preaching the Gospel. Of this Gospel, faith was a chief element. (Another chief element was the Cross of Christ: 1Co 1:18.) Paul announced as-good-tidings that God saves all who believe. Formerly he was at work crushing out this teaching by destroying (same word in Gal 1:13, Act 9:21) those who announced it. Cp. Act 6:7, obeyed the faith; Rom 1:5.
Glorified: see under Rom 1:21; Rom 15:6; Rom 15:9; 1Co 6:20.
In me: Joh 17:10. In the changed conduct of Paul there shone forth to the Christians of Judaea the grandeur of God, awakening their admiration. This was his earnest desire: that in my body Christ shall be magnified, Php 1:20. Since this admiration was voluntary, they are said to have themselves glorified God. These words attest the agreement of the Judaean Christians with Paul at this early stage of his career, so far as he was known to them; and thus prepare the way for the formal agreement in 7.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
Act 9:26 mentions this visit “And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.”
The Greek suggests the idea of getting to know Peter rather than to just see him. The word is “historeo” and relates to examine, to find out and to know, thus get to know Peter. The Net Bible notes suggest an even stronger usage of the word here and it is well within the meaning – to gain information. This would indicate more than a social, get to know visit and would suggest that he was there to gain some information of some sort.
Act 22:17 was also a part of the trip to Jerusalem. ” And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; 18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. 19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: 20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. 21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.”
Just some historical facts that again picture the fact that he was not seeking out the apostles for the sake of gaining information or direction. It seems he had direction from the Lord. He may have been consulting with Peter about what the Lord had told him, indeed, may have been relaying a message from the Lord, or at least informing Peter of his plans to evangelize.
One might draw application from the disciples standing afar off from this former persecutor of the brethren. One might say that you should be questioning of people, but others in hind sight would suggest that the disciples might have missed great blessing by not talking and welcoming Paul – not that they did not have reason to be standoffish. We should great all comers, and allow time and the Lord to show us whether there is danger or not.
2. The events of Paul’s early ministry 1:18-24
This section continues the point of the previous one. Paul was not dependent on the other apostles for his ministry any more than he was for the message he proclaimed. This explanation would have further convinced his readers of the divine source and authority of his message.
"Then" (Gr. Epeita, "Next") introduces the next event in Paul’s experience chronologically (cf. Gal 1:21; Gal 2:1). He gave a consecutive account of his movements omitting no essential steps. He did so to show that he had functioned as an apostle before contacting other apostles. His critics seem to have been saying that the other apostles had really sent Paul.
It was three years after his conversion, not after his return to Damascus, that Paul finally revisited Jerusalem and met Peter, for the first time, and James (i.e., A.D. 37). [Note: Fung, p. 73; Morris, p. 59.] He went there "to get personally acquainted with" them, not to get information from them or to make inquiry of them. [Note: O. Hofius, "Galatians 1:18: historesai Kephan," Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 75 (1984):73-84. Cf. R. Schnackenburg, "Apostles before and during Paul’s Time," in Apostolic History and the Gospel, p. 290, footnote 1.] These were hardly indications that he had to check his message with them. Furthermore he only stayed 15 days and did not see any of the other apostles. If he had needed to work out a theology consistent with the teaching of the other apostles, extended meetings with all of them would have been necessary.
"These brothers [of the Lord] have been regarded (a) by the Orthodox churches as sons of Joseph by a previous marriage (the ’Epiphanian’ view), (b) in Roman Catholic interpretation as Jesus’ first cousins, the sons of ’Mary wife of Clopas,’ who was the Virgin’s sister (Joh 19:25; the ’Hieronymian’ view), and (c) by Protestant exegetes as Jesus’ uterine brothers, sons of Joseph and Mary (the ’Helvidian’ view). This last view accords best with the natural implications of Mar 6:3, where the context suggests that the brothers, together with the sisters unspecified by name, were, like Jesus himself, children of Mary." [Note: Fung, p. 75. Cf. Gunther Bornkamm, Paul, p. 28.]
Chapter 6
PAUL AND THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.
Gal 1:18-24
FOR the first two years of his Christian life, Paul held no intercourse whatever with the Church at Jerusalem and its chiefs. His relation with them was commenced by the visit he paid to Peter in the third year after his conversion. And that relation was more precisely determined and made public when, after successfully prosecuting for fourteen years his mission to the heathen, the Apostle again went up to Jerusalem to defend the liberty of the Gentile Church. {Gal 2:1-10}
A clear understanding of this course of events was essential to the vindication of Pauls position in the eyes of the Galatians. The “troublers” told them that Pauls doctrine was not that of the mother Church; that his knowledge of the gospel and authority to preach it came from the elder Apostles, with whom, since his attack upon Peter at Antioch, he was at open variance. They themselves had come down from Judea on purpose to set his pretensions in their true light, and to teach the Gentiles the way of the Lord more perfectly.
Modern rationalism has espoused the cause of these “deceitful workers.” {2Co 11:13-15} It endeavours to rehabilitate the Judaistic party. The “critical” school maintain that the opposition of the Circumcisionists to the Apostle Paul was perfectly legitimate. They hold that the “pseud-apostles” of Corinth, the “certain from James,” the “troublers” and “false brethren privily brought in” of this Epistle, did in truth represent, as they claimed to do, the principles of the Jewish Christian Church; and that there was a radical divergence between the Pauline and Petrine gospels, of which the two Apostles were fully aware from the time of their encounter at Antioch. However Paul may have wished to disguise the fact to himself, the teaching of the Twelve was identical, we are told, with that “other gospel” on which he pronounces his anathema; the original Church of Jesus never emancipated itself from the trammels of legalism; the Apostle Paul, and not his Master, was in reality the author of evangelical doctrine, the founder of the Catholic Church. The conflict between Peter and Paul at Antioch, related in this Epistle, supplies, in the view of Baur and his followers, the key to the history of the Early Church.
The Ebionite assumption of a personal rivalry between the two Apostles and an intrinsic opposition in their doctrine, hitherto regarded as the invention of a desperate and decaying heretical sect, these ingenious critics have adopted for the basis of their “scientific” reconstruction of the New Testament. Pauls Judaising hinderers and troublers are to be canonised; and the pseudo-Clementine writings, forsooth, must take the place of the discredited Acts of the Apostles. Verily “the whirligig of time hath its revenges.” To empanel Paul on his accusers side, and to make this Epistle above all convict him of heterodoxy, is an attempt which dazzles by its very daring.
Let us endeavour to form a clear conception of the facts touching Pauls connection with the first Apostles and his attitude and feeling towards the Jewish Church, as they are in evidence in the first two chapters of this Epistle.
1. On the one hand, it is clear that the Gentile Apostles relations to Peter and the Twelve were those of personal independence and official equality.
This is the aspect of the case on which Paul lays stress. His sceptical critics argue that under his assertion of independence there is concealed an opposition of principle, a “radical divergence.” The sense of independence is unmistakable. It is on that side that the Apostle seeks to guard himself. With this aim he styles himself at the outset “an Apostle not from men, nor by man”-neither man-made nor man-sent. Such apostles there were; and in this character, we imagine, the Galatian Judaistic teachers, like those of Corinth, professed to appear, as the emissaries of the Church in Jerusalem and the authorised exponents of the teaching of the “pillars” there. Paul is an Apostle at firsthand, taking his commission directly from Jesus Christ. In that quality he pronounces his benediction and his anathema. To support this assumption he has shown how impossible it was in point of time and circumstances that he should have been beholden for his gospel to the Jerusalem Church and the elder Apostles. So far as regarded the manner of his conversion and the events of the first decisive years in which his Christian principles and vocation took their shape, his position had been altogether detached and singular; the Jewish Apostles could in no way claim him for their son in the gospel.
But at last, “after three years,” Saul “did go up to Jerusalem.” What was it for? To report himself to the authorities of the Church and place himself under their direction? To seek Peters instruction, in order to obtain a more assured knowledge of the gospel he had embraced? Nothing of the kind.
Not even “to question Cephas,” as some render following an older classical usage-“to gain information” from him; but “I went up to make acquaintance with Cephas.” Saul went to Jerusalem carrying in his heart the consciousness of his high vocation, seeking, as an equal with an equal, to make personal acquaintance with the leader of the Twelve. Cephas (as he was called at Jerusalem) must have been at this time to Paul a profoundly interesting personality. He was the one man above all others whom the Apostle felt he must get to know, with whom it was necessary for him to have a thorough understanding.
How momentous was this meeting! How much we could wish to know what passed between these two in the conversations of the fortnight they spent together. One can imagine the delight with which Peter would relate to his listener the scenes of the life of Jesus; how the two men would weep together at the recital of the Passion, the betrayal, trial and denial, the agony of the Garden, the horror of the cross; with what mingled awe and triumph he would describe the events of the Resurrection and the Forty Days, the Ascension, and the baptism of fire. In Pauls account of the appearances of the risen Christ, {1Co 15:4-8} written many years afterwards, there are statements most naturally explained as a recollection of what he had heard privately from Peter, and possibly also from James, at this conference. For it is in his gospel message and doctrine, and his Apostolic commission, not in regard to the details of the biography of Jesus, that Paul claims to be independent of tradition. And with what deep emotion would Peter receive in turn from Pauls lips the account of his meeting with Jesus, of the three dark days that followed, of the message sent through Ananias, and the revelations made and purposes formed during the Arabian exile. Between two such men, met at such a time, there would surely be an entire frankness of communication and a brotherly exchange of convictions and of plans. In that case Paul could not fail to inform the elder Apostle of the extent of the commission he had received from their common Master; although he does not appear to have made any public and formal assertion of his Apostolic dignity for a considerable time afterwards. The supposition of a private cognisance on Peters part of Pauls true status makes the open recognition which took place fourteen years later easy to understand. {Gal 2:6-10}
“But other of the Apostles,” Paul goes on to say, “saw I none, but only James the brother of the Lord.” James, no Apostle surely; neither in the higher sense, for he cannot be reasonably identified with “James the son of Alphaeus”; nor in the lower, for he was, as far as we can learn, stationary at Jerusalem. But he stood so near the Apostles, and was in every way so important a person, that if Paul had omitted the name of James in this connection, he would have seemed to pass over a material fact. The reference to James in 1Co 15:7 – a hint deeply interesting in itself, and lending so much dignity to the position of James-suggests that Paul had been at this time in confidential intercourse with James as well as Peter, each relating to the other how he had “seen the Lord.”
So cardinal are the facts just stated (Gal 1:15-19), as bearing on Pauls apostleship, and so contrary to the representations made by the Judaisers, that he pauses to call God to witness his veracity: “Now in what I am writing to you, lo, before God, I lie not.” The Apostle never makes this appeal lightly; but only in support of some averment in which his personal honour and his strongest feelings are involved. {see Rom 9:1; 2Co 1:17-18; 2Co 1:23; 1Th 2:5} It was alleged, with some show of proof, that Paul was an underling of the authorities of the Church at Jerusalem, and that all he knew of the gospel had been learned from the Twelve. From ver. 2 onwards he has been making a circumstantial contradiction of these assertions: He protests that up to the time when he commenced his Gentile mission, he had been under no mans tutelage or tuition in respect to his knowledge of the gospel. He can say no more to prove his case. Either his opposers or himself are uttering falsehood. The Galatians knew, or ought to know, how incapable he is of such deceit. Solemnly therefore he avouches, closing the matter so far, as if drawing himself up to his utmost height: “Behold, before God, I do not lie!”
But now we are confronted with the narrative of the Acts, {Act 9:26-30} which renders a very different account of this passage in the Apostles life. (To Act 9:26-27 of Lukes narrative we have already alluded in the concluding paragraphs of chapter 5.) We are told there that Barnabas introduced Saul “to the Apostles”; here, that he saw none of them but Cephas, and only James besides. The number of the Apostolate present in Jerusalem at the time is a particular that does not engage Lukes mind; while it is of the essence of Pauls affirmation. What the Acts relates is that Saul, through Barnabas intervention, was now received by the Apostolic fellowship as a Christian brother, and as one who “had seen the Lord.” The object which Saul had in coming to Jerusalem, and the fact that just then Cephas was the only one of the Twelve to be found in the city, along with James-these are matters which only come into view from the private and personal standpoint to which Paul admits us. For the rest, there is certainly no contradiction when we read in the one report that Paul “went up to make acquaintance with Cephas,” and in the other, that he “was with them going in and out at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord”; that “he spake and disputed against the Hellenists,” moving their anger so violently that his life was again in danger, and he had to be carried down to Caesarea and shipped off to Tarsus. Saul was not the man to hide his head in Jerusalem. We can understand how greatly his spirit was stirred by his arrival there, and by the recollection of his last passage through the city gates. In these very synagogues of the Hellenists he had himself confronted Stephen; outside those walls he had assisted to stone the martyr. Pauls address, delivered many years later to the Jewish mob that attempted his life in Jerusalem, shows how deeply these remembrances troubled his soul. {Act 22:17-22} And they would not suffer him now to be silent. He hoped that his testimony to Christ, delivered in the spot where he had been so notorious as a persecutor, would produce a softening effect on his old companions. It was sure to affect them powerfully, one way or the other. As the event proved, it did not take many words from Sauls lips to awaken against, him the same fury that hurried Stephen to his death. A fortnight was time quite sufficient, under the circumstances, to make Jerusalem, as we say, too hot to hold Saul. Nor can we wonder, knowing his love for his kindred, that there needed a special command from heaven, {Act 22:21} joined to the friendly compulsion of the Church, to induce him to yield ground and quit the city. But he had accomplished something; he had “made acquaintance with Cephas.”
This brief visit to the Holy City was a second crisis in Pauls career. He was now thrust forth upon his mission to the heathen. It was evident that he was not to look for success among his Jewish brethren. He lost no opportunity of appealing to them; but it was commonly with the same result as at Damascus and Jerusalem. Throughout life he carried with him this “great sorrow and unceasing pain of heart,” that to his “kinsmen according to the flesh,” for whose salvation he could consent to forfeit his own, his gospel was hid. In their eyes he was a traitor to Israel, and must count upon their enmity. Everything conspired to point in one direction: “Depart,” the Divine voice had said, “for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.” And Paul obeyed. “I went,” he relates here, “into the regions of Syria and Cilicia” (Act 22:21).
To Tarsus, the Cilician capital, Saul voyaged from Judea. So we learn from Act 9:30. His native place had the first claim on the Apostle after Jerusalem, and afforded the best starting-point for his independent mission. Syria, however, precedes Cilicia in the text; it was the leading province of these two, in which Paul was occupied during the fourteen years ensuing, and became the seat of distinguished Churches. In Antioch, the Syrian capital, Christianity was already planted. {Act 11:19-21} The close connection of the Churches of these provinces, and their predominantly Gentile character, are both evident from the letter addressed to them subsequently by the Council of Jerusalem. {Act 15:23-24} Act 15:41 shows that a number of Christian societies owning Pauls authority were found at a later time in this region. And there was a highroad direct from Syro-Cilicia to Galatia, which Paul traversed in his second visit to the latter country; {Act 18:22-23} so that the Galatians would doubtless be aware of the existence of these older Gentile Churches, and of their relation to Paul. He has no need to dwell on this first chapter of his missionary history. After but a fortnights visit to Jerusalem, Paul went into these Gentile regions, and there for twice seven years-with what success was known to all-“preached the faith of which once he made havoc.”
This period was divided into two parts. For five or six years the Apostle laboured alone; afterwards in conjunction with Barnabas, who invited his help at Antioch. {Act 11:25-26} Barnabas was Pauls senior, and had for some time held the leading position in the Church of Antioch; and Paul was personally indebted to this generous man. He accepted the position of helper to Barnabas without any compromise of his higher authority, as yet held in reserve. He accompanied Barnabas to Jerusalem in 44 (or 45) A.D., with the contribution made by the Syrian Church for the relief of the famine-stricken Judean brethren-a visit which Paul seems here to forget. But the Church at Jerusalem was at that time undergoing a severe persecution; its leaders were either in prison or in flight. The two delegates can have done little more than convey the moneys entrusted to them, and that with the utmost secrecy. Possibly Paul on this occasion never set foot inside the city. In any case, the event had no bearing on the Apostles present contention.
Between this journey and the really important visit to Jerusalem introduced Gal 2:1, Barnabas and Paul undertook, at the prompting of the Holy Spirit expressed through the Church of Antioch, {Act 13:1-4} the missionary expedition described in Act 13:1-52; Act 14:1-28. Under the trials of this journey the ascendency of the younger evangelist became patent to all. Paul was marked out in the eyes of the Gentiles as their born leader, the Apostle of heathen Christianity. He appears to have taken the chief part in the discussion with the Judaists respecting circumcision, which immediately ensued at Antioch; and was put at the head of the deputation sent up to Jerusalem concerning this question. This was a turning-point in the Apostles history. It brought about the public recognition of his leadership in the Church. The seal of man was now to be set upon the secret election of God.
During this long period, the Apostle tells us, he “remained unknown by face to the Churches of Judea.” Absent for so many years from. the metropolis, after a fortnights flying visit, spent in private intercourse with Peter and James, and in controversy in the Hellenistic synagogues where few Christians of the city would be likely to follow him, Paul was a stranger to the bulk of the Judean disciples. But they watched his course, notwithstanding, with lively interest and with devout thanksgiving to God (Gal 1:22-23). Throughout this first period of his ministry the Apostle acted in complete independence of the Jewish Church, making no report to its chiefs, nor seeking any direction from them. Accordingly, when afterwards he did go up to Jerusalem and laid before the authorities there his gospel to the heathen, they had nothing to add to it; they did not take upon themselves to give him any advice or injunction, beyond the wish that he and Barnabas should “remember the poor,” as he was already forward to Gal 2:1-10. Indeed the three famous Pillars of the Jewish Church at this time openly acknowledged Pauls equality with Peter in the Apostleship, and resigned to his direction the Gentile province. Finally, at Antioch, the head-quarters of Gentile Christianity, when Peter compromised the truth of the gospel by yielding to Judaistic pressure, Paul had not hesitated publicly to reprove him. {Gal 2:11-21} He had been compelled in this way to carry the vindication of the gospel to the furthest lengths; and he had done this successfully. It is only when we reach the end of the second chapter that we discover how much the Apostle meant when he said, “My gospel is not according to man.”
If there was any man to whom as a Christian teacher he was bound to defer, any one who might be regarded as his official superior, it was the Apostle Peter. Yet against this very Cephas he had dared openly to measure himself. Had he been a disciple of the Jewish Apostle, a servant of the Jerusalem Church, how would this have been possible? Had he not possessed an authority derived immediately from Christ, how could he have stood out alone, against the prerogative of Peter, against the personal friendship and local influence of Barnabas, against the example of all his Jewish brethren? Nay, he was prepared to rebuke all the Apostles, and anathematise all the angels, rather than see Christs gospel set at nought.
For it was in his view “the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, committed to my trust!”. {1Ti 1:2}
2. But while Paul stoutly maintains his independence, he does this in such a way as to show that there was no hostility or personal rivalry between himself and the first Apostles. His relations to the Jewish Church were all the while those of friendly acquaintance and brotherly recognition.
That Nazarene sect which he had of old time persecuted, was “the Church of God” (Gal 1:13). To the end of his life this thought gave a poignancy to the Apostles recollection of his early days. To “the Churches of Judea” he attaches the epithet in Christ, a phrase of peculiar depth of meaning with Paul, which he could never have conferred as matter of formal courtesy, nor by way of mere distinction between the Church and the Synagogue. From Pauls lips this title is a guarantee of orthodoxy. It satisfies us that the “other gospel” of the Circumcisionists was very far from being the gospel of the Jewish Christian Church at large. Paul is careful to record the sympathy which the Judean brethren cherished for his missionary work in its earliest stages, although their knowledge of him was comparatively distant: “Only they continued to hear that our old persecutor is preaching the faith which once he sought to destroy. And in me they glorify God.” Nor does he drop the smallest hint to show that the disposition of the Churches in the mother country toward himself, or his judgment respecting them, had undergone any change up to the time of his writing this Epistle.
He speaks of the elder Apostles in terms of unfeigned respect. In his reference in Gal 2:11-21 to the error of Peter, there is great plainness of speech, but no bitterness. When the Apostle says that he “went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,” and describes James as “the Lords brother,” and when he refers to both of them, along with John, as “those accounted to be pillars,” can he mean anything but honour to these honoured men? To read into these expressions a covert jealousy and to suppose them written by way of disparagement, seems to us a strangely jaundiced and small-minded sort of criticism. The Apostle testifies that Peter held a Divine trust in the Gospel, and that God had “wrought for Peter” to this effect, as for himself. By claiming the testimony of the Pillars at Jerusalem to his vocation, he shows his profound respect for theirs. When the unfortunate difference arose between Peter and himself at Antioch, Paul is careful to show that the Jewish Apostle on that occasion was influenced by the circumstances of the moment, and nevertheless remained true in his real convictions to the common gospel.
In view of these facts, it is impossible to believe, as the Tendency critics would have us do, that Paul when he wrote this letter was at feud with the Jewish Church. In that case, while he taxes Peter with “dissimulation,” {Gal 2:11-13} he is himself the real dissembler, and has carried his dissimulation to amazing lengths. If he is in this Epistle contending against the Primitive Church and its leaders, he has concealed his sentiments toward them with an art so crafty as to overreach itself. He has taught his readers to reverence those whom on this hypothesis he was most concerned to discredit. The terms under which he refers to Cephas and the Judean Churches would be just so many testimonies against himself, if their doctrine was the “other gospel” of the Galatian troublers, and if Paul and the Twelve were rivals for the suffrages of the Gentile Christians.
The one word which wears a colour of detraction is the parenthesis in Gal 2:6. “whatever aforetime they (those of repute) were, makes no difference to me. God accepts no mans person.” But this is no more than Paul has already said in Gal 1:16-17. At the first, after receiving his gospel from the Lord in person, he felt it to be out of place for him to “confer with flesh and blood.” So now, even in the presence of the first Apostles, the earthly companions of his Master, he cannot abate his pretensions, nor forget that his ministry stands on a level as exalted as theirs. This language is in precise accord with that of 1Co 15:10. The suggestion that the repeated conveys a sneer against the leaders at Jerusalem, as “seeming” to be more than they were, is an insult to Paul that recoils upon the critics who utter it. The phrase denotes “those of repute,” “reputed to be pillars,” the acknowledged heads of the mother Church. Their position was recognised on all hands; Paul assumes it, and argues upon it. He desires to magnify, not to minify, the importance of these illustrious men. They were pillars of his own cause. It is a maladroit interpretation that would have Paul cry down James and the Twelve. By so much as he impaired their worth, he must assuredly have impaired his own. If their status was mere seeming, of what value was their endorsement of his? But for a preconceived opinion, no one, we may safely affirm, reading this Epistle would have gathered that Peters “gospel of the circumcision” was the “other gospel” of Galatia, or that the “certain from James” of Gal 2:12 represented the views and the policy of the first Apostles. The assumption that Peters dissimulation at Antioch expressed the settled doctrine of the Jewish Apostolic Church, is unhistorical. The Judaisers abused the authority of Peter and James when they pleaded it in favour of their agitation. So we are told expressly in Act 15:1-41.; and a candid interpretation of this letter bears out the statements of Luke. In James and Peter, Paul and John, there were indeed “diversities of gifts and operations,” but they had received the same Spirit; they served the same Lord. They held alike the one and only gospel of the grace of God.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary