Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 2:2

And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

2. by revelation ] In the Acts no mention is made of this divine intimation. It would seem to have been concurrent with the external commission from the Church. The account of this visit is not contradictory to, or even inconsistent with St Luke’s narrative in Acts 15. They supplement one another. “The account of the Acts is fuller; that of the Galatians only brings out the chief points. Luke, in keeping with the documentary character of the Acts, gives us the public transactions of the Council at Jerusalem; Paul taking a knowledge of these for granted, shortly alludes to his private conference and agreement with the Apostles. Both together give us a complete history of that remarkable convention”. Schaff.

The phrase ‘by revelation’ is used by St Paul (Eph 3:3) of the means by which the will and purpose of God in the Gospel were communicated to him. How this revelation is effected we know not. It consists in the temporary uplifting of the veil which hides “the things not seen”, and always implies the sure conviction of its reality and Divine origin on the part of the recipient. Comp. Gal 1:12.

communicated ] not as a would-be disciple, but as one on a footing of equality.

to them ] i.e. the Church at Jerusalem.

that Gospel which I preach ] St Paul was still preaching the same Gospel among the Gentiles. It was the same in principle and substance, however varying in its application to the diverse characters and circumstances of those to whom it came.

privately ] Privately, not secretly. There is here no hint of any suppression of the truth. The object of this private consultation was to prepare for the public conference, and was alike an act of respectful courtesy towards the officers of the Church, and a wise precaution to ensure orderly proceedings at the Council.

to them which were of reputation ] Better, ‘to those of high reputation’, the leaders, pillars of the Church. The same expression occurs with slight additions Gal 2:6 ; Gal 2:9.

lest in vain ] It was very important that there should be unanimity at the Council. If at the first synod of the Church, it should appear that St Paul was preaching a different Gospel among the Gentiles from that which was taught by the Apostles in Juda, the result could not fail to be distrust of the former (so prone are men to test truth by the numbers and position of its advocates), and thus the success of his labours would be impaired.

Most commentators suppose the Apostle to fear lest his work for the future should be hindered, and that in the past undone. The construction of the original is peculiar and difficult. The particle rendered ‘or’, may mean ‘than’ or ‘more than’. And so the sense would be, ‘Lest I should run less successfully than heretofore’. The metaphor of a ‘race’ as descriptive of a course of life or of labour is a familiar one with St Paul. Act 20:24; 2Ti 4:7.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

And I went up by revelation – Not for the purpose of receiving instruction from the apostles there in regard to the nature of the Christian religion. It is to be remembered that the design for which Paul states this is, to show that he had not received the gospel from human beings. He is careful, therefore, to state that he went up by the express command of God. He did not go up to receive instructions from the apostles there in regard to his own work, or to be confirmed by them in his apostolic office, but he went to submit an important question pertaining to the church at large. In Act 15:2, it is said that Paul and Barnabas went up by the appointment of the church at Antioch. But there is no discrepancy between that account and this, for though he was designated by the church there, there is no improbability in supposing that he was directed by a special revelation to comply with their request. The reason why he says that he went up by direct revelation seems to be to show that he did not seek instruction from the apostles; he did not go of his own accord to consult with them as if he were dependent upon them; but even in a case when he went to advise with them he was under the influence of express and direct revelation, proving that he was commissioned by God as much as they were.

And communicated unto them that gospel … – Made them acquainted with the doctrines which he preached among the pagans. He stated fully the principles on which he acted; the nature of the gospel which he taught; and his doctrine about the exemption of the Gentiles from the obligations of the Law of Moses. He thus satisfied them in regard to his views of the gospel; and showed them that he understood the system of Christianity which had been revealed. The result was, that they had entire confidence in him, and admitted him to entire fellowship with them; Gal 2:9.

But privately – Margin, Severally. Greek ( kat’ idian. The phrase means that he did it not in a public manner; not before a general assembly; not even before all the apostles collected together, but in a private manner to a few of the leaders and chief persons. He made a private explanation of his motives and views, so that they might understand it before it became a matter of public discussion. The point on which Paul made this private explanation was not whether the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles, for upon that they had no doubt after the revelation to Peter Acts 10; but whether the rites of the Jews were to be imposed on the Gentile converts. Paul explained his views and his practice on that point, which were that he did not impose those rites on the Gentiles; that he taught that people might be justified without their observance; and that they were not necessary in order to salvation. The reasons why he sought this private interview with the leading men in Jerusalem he has not stated. But we may suppose that they were something like the following:

(1) The Jews in general had very strong attachment to their own customs, and this attachment was found in a high degree among those who were converted from among them to the Christian faith. They would be strongly excited, therefore, by the doctrine that those customs were not necessary to be observed.

(2) If the matter were submitted to a general assembly of converts from Judaism, it could not fail to produce great excitement. They could not be made readily to understand the reasons why Paul acted in this manner; there would be no possibility in an excited assemblage to offer the explanations which might be desirable; and after every explanation which could be given in this manner, they might have been unable to understand all the circumstances of the case.

(3) If a few of the principal men were made to understand it, Paul felt assured that their influence would be such as to prevent any great difficulty. He therefore sought an early opportunity to lay the case before them in private, and to secure their favor; and this course contributed to the happy issue of the whole affair; see Acts 15. There was indeed much disputation when the question came to be submitted to the apostles and elders Act 15:7; many of the sect of the Pharisees in that assembly maintained that it was needful to teach the Gentiles that the Law of Moses was to be kept Act 15:5; and no one can tell what would have been the issue of that discussion among the excitable minds of the converts from Judaism had not Paul taken the precaution, as he here says, to have submitted the case in private to those who were of reputation. and if Peter and James had not in this manner been satisfied and had not submitted the views which they did, as recorded in Act 15:7-21, and which terminated the whole controversy.

We may just remark here that this fact furnishes an argument such as Paley has dwelt so much on in his Horae Paulinae – though he has not referred to this – of what he calls undesigned coincidences. The affair in Acts 15 and the course of the debate, looks very much as if Peter and James had had some conference with Paul in private, and had had an opportunity of understanding fully his views on the subject before the matter came before the apostles and elders in public, though no such private conference is there referred to by Luke. But on turning to the Epistle to the Galatians, we find in fact that he had on one occasion before seen the same Peter and James Gal 1:18-19; and that he had had a private interview with those of reputation on these very points, and particularly that James, Peter, and John had approved his course, and given to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship; Gal 2:9. Thus understood, the case here referred to was one of the most consummate instances of prudence that occurred in the life of Paul; and from this case we may learn:

(1) That when a difficulty is to be settled involving great principles, and embracing a great many points, it is better to seek an opportunity of private explanation than to submit it to a general multitude or to public debate. It is not well to attempt to settle important points when the passions of a general assembly may be excited, and where prejudices are strong. It is better to do it by private explanations, when there is an opportunity coolly to ask questions and to state the facts just as they are.

(2) The importance of securing the countenance of influential men in a popular assembly; of having men in the assembly who would understand the whole case. It was morally certain that if such men as Peter and James were made to understand the case, there would be little difficulty in arriving at an amicable adjustment of the difficulty.

(3) Though this passage does not refer to preaching the gospel in general, since the gospel here submitted to the men of reputation was the question referred to above, yet we may remark, that great prudence should be used in preaching; in stating truths that may excite prejudices, or when we have reason to apprehend prejudices; and that it is often best to preach the gospel to men of reputation kat’ idian separately, or privately. In this way the truth can be made to bear on the conscience; it may be better adapted to the character of the individual; he may put himself less in a state of defense, and guard himself less against the proper influences of truth. And especially is this true in conversing with persons on the subject of religion. It should be if possible alone, or privately. Almost any person may be approached on the subject of religion if it is done when he is alone; when he is at leisure, and if it is done in a kind spirit. Almost anybody will become irritated if you address him personally in a general assembly, or even with his family around him. I have never in more than in one or two instances been unkindly treated when I have addressed an individual on the subject of religion if he was alone; and though a minister should never shrink from stating the truth, and should never be afraid of man, however exalted his rank, or great his talents, or vast his wealth, yet he will probably meet with most success when he discourses privately to them which are of reputation.

To them which were of reputation – Meaning here the leading men among the apostles. Tyndale renders this, which are counted chefe. Doddridge, those of greatest note in the church. The Greek is, literally, those who seem, more fully in Gal 2:6; who seem to be something, that is, who are persons of note, or who are distinguished.

Lest by any means I should run, or had run in vain – Lest the effects of my labors and journeys should be lost. Paul feared that if he did not take this method of laying the case before them privately, they would not understand it. Others might misrepresent him, or their prejudices might be excited, and when the case came before the assembled apostles and elders, a decision might be adopted which would go to prove that he had been entirely wrong in his views, or which would lead those whom he had taught, to believe that he was, and which would greatly hinder and embarrass him in Iris future movements. In order to prevent this, therefore, and to secure a just decision, and one which would not hinder his future usefulness, he had sought this private interview, and thus his object was gained.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Gal 2:2

And I went up by revelation.

I went up by revelation

I. A fact.

1. Paul was not summoned by the apostles, who, by taking no action, must virtually have endorsed his conduct.

2. Paul was sent by the Spirit of God.

(1) He was no stranger to these revelations (Eph 3:3).

(2) He had them at every crisis in his career–through inner promptings and prohibitions (Act 16:6-7); through dreams and visions (Act 16:9-10; Act 18:9; Act 22:18-21; Act 27:23); and through inspired men (Act 13:2; Act 21:11).

3. Paul was sent to strengthen his inspired mission by securing a co-operation of the apostles.

II. The explanation of a seeming discrepancy. Act 15:2 describes Paul as sent by the Church. But revelation may have–

1. Governed the action of the Church.

2. Confirmed the desire of the Church.

3. Occurred concurrently to the mind of Paul and the Church. Paul was dismissed from Jerusalem (Act 9:35) by his anxious brethren; but not without urgent directions from Christ (Act 22:17; Act 22:21). The historian looks at these events from the outside, the autobiographer from within.

Learn:

1. Not to follow the wisest counsels until Christ has spoken (Pro 3:6). The course will thus be

(1) clear;

(2) safe;

(3) successful.

2. When Christ has spoken obey

(1) promptly;

(2) courageously;

(3) with the best powers of the mind. Pauls consummate tact here to be noted.

3. Leave the responsibility with the great Commissioner.

4. Look for His approbation and reward.

The private conference

I. Its members.

1. Paul.

2. Those of reputation; i.e., the supreme court of appeal in the opinion of his adversaries. In disputes appeal to the fountain-head, otherwise time and effort are wasted.

II. Its business. To discuss Pauls gospel.

1. Paul professed to receive it by revelation from Christ.

2. The apostles received it from Christs tips.

3. Both were found to be in harmony. We have scriptural warrant for frank explanations in religious matters.

III. Its purpose. Lest I should run. Paul wanted the hearty sympathy of his brethren, and–

1. Adopted measures calculated to secure it.

(1) Paid them proper deference,

(2) but relied on the merits of his cause.

2. Because if he gained the leaders he would secure the following.

3. Because a schism between the Jewish and Gentile Churches was imminent, and the cause of Catholicity in danger.

Learn:

1. The value of conciliatory measures.

2. The importance of tact even in religion.

The conciliatory character of St. Paul

You have heard the fable of the Traveller, the Wind, and the Sun. The Traveller was enveloped in a thick cloud. The Wind and Sun contended which could most easily induce him to lay the cloak aside. The Wind made the attempt first; but the Traveller drew his cloak more closely to him. The Suns turn came, and as the warmth of his rays increased, the Traveller gradually relaxed his hold. Each step made him feel that the cloak was more and more a burden; he laid it aside. The Sun had succeeded where the Wind had failed. What can never be done by violent attack may often be easily accomplished by gentle persuasion. (Dean Howson.)

Pauls tact and tolerance

Such men as St. Paul, who have seen much of the world, and made human nature and character their careful study, and who know how much is due to education, association, habit, are inevitably tolerant and invariably indifferent to mere varieties of feeling and peculiarities of manner. When men of St. Pauls intelligence are animated by a desire to do good, they easily accommodate themselves to idiosyncrasies of race and disposition. In a word they possess tact, and an earnest, conscientious, self-denying, active, generous nature, which is also gifted with discretion, and wields an irresistible influence. And, on the other hand, they who live in a little world of their own, be they apostles or ordinary men, contract a narrow and exclusive temper, set great store by trifles, are conservative and tenacious on minor points, insist on literal obedience, are passionately fond of conformity, are jealous for the letter, are slow to understand the spirit. (Paul of Tarsus.)

A noble example

I made it a rule that I would not let a day pass without speaking to some one about their souls salvation; and if they do not hear the gospel from the lips of others, there will be three hundred and sixty-five in a year who shall hear the gospel from my lips. There are five thousand Christians here to-night; cannot they say, We will not let a day pass without speaking a word to some one about salvation. (D. L. Moody.)

Private effort neglected

The well-known Rev. Alex. R. C. Dallas was an officer in Wellingtons Peninsular wars before he became a clergyman, and at Cadiz, in Spain, he used to be much in the company of another officer named Cumming, who was always considered steady. Their meeting again in their old age was thus described by Mr. Dallas: Many years after it had pleased God to enlighten my mind, and to impart to me the knowledge of His salvation in Christ Jesus, I was walking in the Strand, and met Cumming near Temple Bar. He was aged and limped, having suffered from a paralytic stroke; but we knew each other immediately. I gave him my arm, and walked back with him nearly to Charing Cross. My great anxiety was to speak to him of Christ. We began to speak about old times, and especially our eventful march in Spain together. At length I came to the great subject that was upon my heart; he listened to me attentively, and at last he said, My dear Dallas, I knew all that long before I knew you, and many times I prayed God to convert you when you were in the world. I often put Spanish tracts under your pillow: I looked at him, Dallas continues, with great surprise, and I told him that I did not know whether to be grateful to him for his prayers or angry with him for his silence to myself. Why did he not tell me of Christs salvation, if he knew it so well? What a lesson is this for those who shrink from confessing Christ before the worldly!

An important mission

I. The communication of the gospel was made with great faithfulness. From the account given in the Acts it is evident that an assembly of the whole Church was called together, and that the question submitted to them was, whether the keeping of the law was necessary to justification or no. Pauls testimony was unequivocal.

II. This communication was made with signal prudence. Previous to, or independent of, Pauls teaching before the whole assembly, he sought out the most prominent members of the Church, and carefully made known to them what God had done by him. In this Paul displayed great wisdom.

III. In this communication Paul was most anxious that the gospel should triumph. It was not of himself he was thinking when he spoke of running in vain. Lessons:

1. Members of Churches should endeavour to promote the unity of the whole body.

2. Much may be done in the interests of peace without any sacrifice of principle. Paul declared the gospel faithfully; and yet he disarmed the opposition of many of his antagonists. (R. Nicholls.)

How to succeed in questions of great delicacy and importance

I. Seek Divine direction.

II. Proceed cautiously.

III. Secure by private appeal the influence of the wise and good. (J. Lyth.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 2. I went up by revelation] This either means, that he went up at that time by an express revelation from God that it was his duty to do so, made either to the Church of Antioch to send these persons to Jerusalem, or to these persons to go according to the directions of that Church; or the apostle here wishes to say, that, having received the Gospel by revelation from God, to preach Christ among the Gentiles, he went up according to that revelation, and told what God had done by him among the Gentiles: or it may refer to the revelation made to certain prophets who came to Antioch, and particularly Agabus, who signified by the Spirit that there would be a dearth; in consequence of which the disciples purposed to send relief to their poor brethren at Jerusalem. See Ac 11:27-30.

But privately to them which were of reputation] . To the chief men; those who were highest in reputation among the apostles. , according to Hesychius, is , the honourable. With these the apostle intimates that he had some private conferences.

Lest by any means] And he held these private conferences with those more eminent men, to give them information how, in consequence of his Divine call, he had preached the Gospel to the Gentiles, and the great good which God had wrought by his ministry; but they, not knowing the nature and end of his call, might be led to suppose he had acted wrong, and thus laboured in vain; and that, if he still continued to act thus, he should labour in vain. It was necessary, therefore, that he should give the apostolic council the fullest information that he had acted according to the Divine mind in every respect, and had been blessed in his deed.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

And I went up by revelation; revelation signifieth Gods immediate declaration of his will to him, that he would have him take this journey; which is not at all contradicted by Luke, saying, Act 15:2,3, that their journey was determined by the Christians at Antioch. God, to encourage Paul, had let him know it was his will he should go; and also put it into the Christians hearts at Antioch, to choose him to the journey. His motions from one place to another were much by revelation, or immediate order and command from God, Act 16:9; Act 22:18; 23:11.

And communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles; he saith, he communicated, or made a report or relation of, (in which sense the word is used, Act 25:14), that doctrine of the gospel which he had preached amongst the Gentiles; he, doubtless, more particularly means, the abolition of circumcision, and no necessity of the observance of the law of Moses contained in ordinances.

But privately to them which were of reputation; but he saith that he did it privately, and to men of reputation; by which he meaneth the apostles, or some other Christians of greatest eminency.

Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain; lest he should have prejudiced himself, as to the course of the gospel, which he metaphorically compareth to a race: see 1Co 9:26.

Objection. If any ask how this influenced Paul, so as to make him privately to communicate the doctrine which he had amongst the Gentiles preached publicly? It is easily answered:

1. That the consent of those who were apostles before him to the doctrine which he preached, was of great moment to persuade all Christians to embrace it; and by this means he obviated the scandal of being singular in the doctrine which he preached.

2. Besides that Paul was now at Jerusalem, which was the chief place of the Jews residence, to whom God indulged a greater liberty for the ceremonial usages, than to the churches of the Gentiles, wlto had not been educated in that religion. And had Paul openly there declared the liberty of Christians from circumcision, and the ceremonial usages, he had both enraged those who as yet continued in the Jewish religion, and possibly given no small offence to those who had been educated in that religion, though they were converted to the faith of the gospel, they not fully yet understanding the liberty of Christians from that yoke. By one or both of which ways, had Paul openly at Jerusalem published the doctrine which he had publicly preached in Damascus and Arabia, and other places of the Gentiles, his labours might have been rendered useless, and he might also have been less successful in his further course of preaching it.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

2. by revelationnot frombeing absolutely dependent on the apostles at Jerusalem, but byindependent divine “revelation.” Quite consistent with hisat the same time, being a deputy from the Church of Antioch, as Ac15:2 states. He by this revelation was led to suggest thesending of the deputation. Compare the case of Peter being led byvision, and at the same time by Cornelius’ messengers, to go toCsarea, Ac 10:1-22.

I . . . communicated untothemnamely, “to the apostles and elders” (Ac15:2): to the apostles in particular (Ga2:9).

privatelythat he andthe apostles at Jerusalem might decide previously on the principlesto be adopted and set forward before the public council (Ac15:1-29). It was necessary that the Jerusalem apostles shouldknow beforehand that the Gospel Paul preached to the Gentiles was thesame as theirs, and had received divine confirmation in the resultsit wrought on the Gentile converts. He and Barnabas related to themultitude, not the nature of the doctrine they preached (asPaul did privately to the apostles), but only the miracles vouchsafedin proof of God’s sanctioning their preaching to the Gentiles(Ac 15:12).

to them . . . ofreputationJames, Cephas, and John, and probably some of the”elders”; Ga 2:6,”those who seemed to be somewhat.”

lest, c.”lest Ishould be running, or have run, in vain” that is, that theymight see that I am not running, and have not run, in vain. Paul doesnot himself fear lest he be running, or had run, in vain; butlest he should, if he gave them no explanation, seem so tothem. His race was the swift-running proclamation of the Gospelto the Gentiles (compare “run,” Margin, for “Word. . . have free course,” 2Th3:1). His running would have been in vain, had circumcision beennecessary, since he did not require it of his converts.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And I went up by revelation,…. He was not sent for by the apostles at Jerusalem, nor did he go of himself, nor only by the vote of the church at Antioch, but by a divine revelation; not a revelation made to the church, or by the prophets there, but by God himself to him; he had a secret impulse from the Spirit of God, and a private intimation given him, that it was the will of God he should go up at this time; which is no ways inconsistent with his being sent by the church, but served as a confirmation to him, that what they determined was right, and according to the mind of God:

and communicated unto them that Gospel, which I preach among the Gentiles; that self-same Gospel, which he had preached, and still continued to preach to the Gentiles; relating to free and full remission of sin by the blood of Christ, justification by his righteousness without the works of the law, and freedom from all the rituals and bondage of the Mosaic dispensation: for as the Gospel he preached was all of a piece, uniform and consistent, so he did not preach one sort of doctrine to the Gentiles, and another to the Jews; but the very self-same truths which were the subject of his ministry in the Gentile world, which were a crucified Christ, and salvation alone by him, these he communicated, laid before, and exposed unto the consideration of the elders and apostles at Jerusalem; not with a view either to give or receive instructions, but to compare their sentiments and principles together; that so it might appear that there, was an entire harmony and agreement between them; and this he did not publicly, to the whole church, at least at first, and especially the article of Christian liberty, which respects the freedom of the believing Jews, from the yoke of the law; for as yet they were not able to bear this doctrine; they could pretty readily agree that the Gentiles were not obliged to it, but could not think themselves free from it; wherefore the apostle, in great prudence, did not avouch this in the public audience:

but privately to them which were of reputation; or “who seemed to be”, i.e. somewhat, very considerable persons; not in their own opinion, or appearance only, but in reality, they seemed to be, and were pillars in the house of God; particularly he means James, Cephas, and John, then in great esteem with the saints, and deservedly honoured and respected by them, they being faithful labourers in the word and doctrine; so the Jewish doctors a call men of great esteem, , who “seem to be”, or “are accounted of”, a word to which the phrase here used answers: these were spiritual men, capable of judging of all spiritual things; men of full age, whose senses were exercised to discern between truth and error; and were very proper persons for the apostle to lay the scheme of his ministry before, and the various truths he insisted on in it: these he met “privately”, or “separately”, and “singly”, as it may be rendered; he either conversed with the apostles alone, and all together, in some private house; or separately, one by one, in their own houses, and there freely and familiarly discoursed with them about the several doctrines of the Gospel; and particularly this, of freedom from the law: his end in it was, as he says,

lest by any means I should run, or had run in vain: which is said, not with regard to himself, as if he had entertained any doubt of the doctrines he had preached, and needed any confirmation in them from them; for he was fully assured of the truth of them, and assured others of the same; or that he questioned the agreement of the apostles with him; or that his faith at all depended on their authority; but with regard to others, and his usefulness among them. The false teachers had insinuated that his doctrine was different from that of the apostles in Jerusalem, and so endeavoured to pervert the Gospel he preached, and overthrow the faith of those that heard him; and could this have been made to appear, it would in all likelihood have rendered, in a great measure, his past labours in vain, and have prevented his future usefulness: some read these words as an interrogation, “do I in any manner run, or have I run in vain?” no; from the account he laid before the church, the elders, and apostles, both in private and in public, Ac 15:4 it clearly appeared what success attended his ministry, how many seals he had of it, what numbers of souls were converted under it, and how many churches were planted by his means; for by “running” here is not meant the Christian course he ran, in common with other believers, which lies in the exercise of grace, and the discharge of duty; but the course of his ministry, which he performed with great activity, application, diligence, and constancy, until he had finished it.

a Vid. Sol. Ben Melech in Psal. xl 17.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

By revelation ( ). In Ac 15:2 the church sent them. But surely there is no inconsistency here.

I laid before them ( ). Second aorist middle indicative of old word , to put up, to place before, with the dative case. But who were the “them” ()? Evidently not the private conference for he distinguishes this address from that, “but privately” (‘ ). Just place Ac 15:4f. beside the first clause and it is clear: “I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,” precisely as Luke has recorded. Then came the private conference after the uproar caused by the Judaizers (Ac 15:5).

Before them who were of repute ( ). He names three of them (Cephas, James, and John). James the Lord’s brother, for the other James is now dead (Ac 12:1f.). But there were others also, a select group of real leaders. The decision reached by this group would shape the decision of the public conference in the adjourned meeting. So far as we know Paul had not met John before, though he had met Peter and James at the other visit. Lightfoot has much to say about the Big Four (St. Paul and the Three) who here discuss the problems of mission work among Jews and Gentiles. It was of the utmost importance that they should see eye to eye. The Judaizers were assuming that the twelve apostles and James the Lord’s brother would side with them against Paul and Barnabas. Peter had already been before the Jerusalem Church for his work in Caesarea (Ac 11:1-18). James was considered a very loyal Jew.

Lest by any means I should be running or had run in vain ( ). Negative purpose with the present subjunctive () and then by a sudden change the aorist indicative (), as a sort of afterthought or retrospect (Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 201; Robertson, Grammar, p. 988). There are plenty of classical parallels. See also 1Th 3:5 for both together again.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

By revelation [ ] . It was specially and divinely revealed to me that I should go. In what way, he does not state.

Communicated [] . Only here and Act 25:14. ‘Ana up, tiqenai to set. To set up a thing for the consideration of others : to lay it before them.

Unto them [] . The Christians of Jerusalem generally.

Privately [ ] . The general communication to the Jerusalem Christians was accompanied by a private consultation with the leaders. Not that a different subject was discussed in private, but that the discussion was deeper and more detailed than would have befitted the whole body of Christians.

To them which were of reputation (toiv dokousin). Lit. to those who seem; are reputed. Men of recognized position, James, Cephas, John. Not his adversaries who were adherents of these three. It is not to be supposed that he would submit his gospel to such. The expression is therefore not used ironically. Paul recognizes the honorable position of the three and their rightful claim to respect. The repetition of the phrase (lv. 6, 9) may point to a favorite expression of his opponents in commending these leaders to Paul as models for his preaching; hardly (as Lightfoot) to the contrast between the estimation in which they were held and the actual services which they rendered to him. He chooses this expression because the matter at stake was his recognition by the earlier apostles, and any ironical designation would be out of place. 44 Lest by any means I should run or had run in vain. Better, should be running. Comp. Philip. ii. 16. This is sometimes explained as implying a misgiving on Paul ‘s part as to the soundness of his own teaching, which he desired to have set at rest by the decision of the principal apostles. On this explanation mh pwv will be rendered lest in some way or other. But such a misgiving is contrary to Paul ‘s habitual attitude of settled conviction respecting that gospel which he had received by revelation, and in the preaching of which he had been confirmed by experience. In consulting the Christians at Jerusalem Paul had principally in view the formal indorsement of his work by the church and its leaders. Their formal declaration that he had not been running in vain would materially aid him in his mission. Mh pwv is therefore to be taken as marking an indirect question, whether – not possibly; and the sense of the whole passage is as follows : “I laid before them that gospel which I preach to the Gentiles, that they might examine and settle for themselves the question whether I am not possibly running or had run in vain.” The investigation was to be for their satisfaction, not for Paul ‘s. 45 Run [] is a favorite metaphor with Paul. See Rom 9:16; 1Co 9:24, 26; Gal 5:7; Phi 2:16; Phi 3:13, 14.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “And I went up by revelation,” (aneben de kata apokalupsin) “and I went up according to, or based on, a revelation, a Divine disclosure;” This is the method by which God disclosed His will and purpose in the life of Paul, “by revelation”, a divine unveiling, Act 16:9.

2) “And communicated unto them,” (Gk. kai anetemen autos) the elders, apostles, and Jerusalem church brethren, before whom he publicly appeared and spoke, Act 15:4. Here they declared “all things that God had done with them.”

3) “That gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,” (to euangelion ho kerusso en tois ethnesin) “The (same) gospel which I herald (proclaim) among the nations,” on all foreign fields, Act 15:12. Note that the early gospel message was accompanied by miracles and wonders among the Gentiles, evidences of Divine sanction of Paul’s ministry.

4) “But privately to them which were of reputation,” (kat idian de tois dokousin) “But privately to those, the ones of reputation,” Peter, James, and John. Luke recounts Paul’s Public appearance at the Jerusalem conference, while Paul himself reviews his private council, Gal 2:8-10; Act 15:4.

5)“Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain,” (me pos lis kenon trecho e edramon) “Lest I should run, move about, or had run in vain,” with regards to influence on the Jerusalem and Judean brethren and churches. Paul did not believe God called any man to be a failure, void of influence in His work. He therefore sought always to guard and defend his integrity and testimony of influence, Php_2:16; Joh 4:24; 1Th 3:5.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

2. And I went up according to revelation. (41) He now proceeds to prove his apostleship and his doctrine, not only by works, but also by a Divine revelation. Since God directed that journey, which had for its object the confirmation of his doctrine, the doctrine was confirmed, not by the concurrence of men only, but likewise by the authority of God. This ought to have been more than enough to overcome the obstinacy of those who blamed Paul by holding up the names of the apostles. For although, up to this time, there had been some room for debate, the communication of the mind of God put an end to all discussion.

I communicated to them. The word communicated claims our first attention; for the apostles do not describe to him what he ought to teach, but, after listening to his own account of his doctrine, express their concurrence and approbation. But, as his opponents might allege that, by cunning dissimulation on many points, he had gained the favor of the apostles, he expressly states that he “communicated to them that doctrine which he preacheth among the Gentiles;” which removes all suspicion of hypocrisy or imposture. We shall see what followed; for the apostles did not take it amiss that he had not waited to obtain their sanction. On the contrary, without dispute or expostulation, they approved of his labors; and did so by the direction of the same Spirit, under whose guidance Paul had performed his journey to Jerusalem. Thus, he was not made an apostle by them, but acknowledged to be an apostle. But this point will be treated more fully afterwards.

Lest by any means. What then? Shall the word of God fall, when it is unsupported by the testimony of men? Though the whole world were unbelieving, yet the word of God remains firm and unshaken: and they who preach the gospel by the command of God are not uselessly employed, even when no fruit is produced by their labors. This is not Paul’s meaning; but, as the consciences of men, so long as they doubt and hesitate, derive no benefit from the ministry of the word, so a preacher is said, so far as men is concerned, to run in vain, when his labors are ineffectual, and unaccompanied by proper edification.

It was, therefore, a formidable weapon for shaking weak consciences, when the doctrine which Paul preached was falsely declared by impostors to be at variance with the doctrine of the apostles. Multitudes in this manner fell away. The certainty of faith, indeed, does not depend on the agreement of human opinions; but, on the contrary, it is our duty to rest in the naked truth of God, so that neither men nor all the angels together, could shake our faith. Yet ignorant persons, who have imperfectly understood, and never have cordially embraced, sound doctrine, feel the temptation to be almost irresistible, while teachers of acknowledged eminence are found to entertain opposite views. Nay, strong believers are sometimes powerfully affected by this stratagem of Satan, when he holds out to their view the “strife and divisions” (1Co 3:3) of those who ought to have been

“

perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” (1Co 1:10.)

It is hard to tell how many were driven from the gospel, how many had their faith shaken, by the mournful controversy about the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, because, on a question of the highest moment, very distinguished men were observed to take opposite sides.

On the other hand, the agreement of all who teach in the Church is a powerful aid for the confirmation of faith. Since, therefore, Satan was laboring so insidiously to hinder the progress of the gospel, Paul resolved to meet him. When he had succeeded in demonstrating that he held the same views with all the apostles, every hinderance was removed. Weak disciples were no longer perplexed by the inquiry, whom they ought to follow. His meaning may be thus summed up: “That my former labors might not be thrown away and rendered useless, I have set at rest the question which disturbed many minds, whether I or Peter deserved your confidence; for in all that I had ever taught we were perfectly at one.” If many teachers in our own day were as heartily desirous as Paul was to edify the Church, they would take more pains to be agreed among themselves.

(41) “ Et y montai par revelation.” “And I went up thither by revelation.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(2) By revelation.Revelations seem to have been vouchsafed to the Apostle in various waysmost frequently in dreams or nocturnal visions (Act. 16:9; Act. 18:9; Act. 23:11; Act. 27:23), but also in a state of trance (Act. 22:17), and through other undefined modes of intimation (Act. 16:6-7; Act. 20:22-23). By what particular form of revelation he was guided in this instance does not appear. It would seem that this inward spiritual guidance granted privately to the Apostle coincided with a formal commission from the Church at Antioch (Act. 15:2), which, as the external and apparent side of the transaction, is naturally related by the historian, while it is just as naturally omitted by the Apostle, whose thoughts are directed rather to his own personal conduct and motives.

Communicated unto themi.e., the Church at Jerusalem. A distinction appears to be drawn between what the Apostle said in his public intercourse with the Church and the more detailed conference or conferences into which he entered privately with the Apostles.

Which I preach.The present tense is noticeable. The gospel which the Apostle had been preaching up to the time of the Council of Jerusalem was the same as that which he still preached at the time of his writing to the Galatians. It had undergone no change in its essential features, especially in the one doctrine which he was most anxious to impress upon the Galatiansthe doctrine of justification by faith.

Privately to them which were of reputation.Better, more simply, to them of repute. The present tense is again used, the Apostle hinting, not only at the position which the Judaic Apostles held at the time of the Council, but also at the way in which their authority was appealed to by the Judaising partisans in Galatia. There is a slight shade of irony in the expression. It is not so much those which were of reputation in the gathering at Jerusalem as those who are still held to be the only authorities now.

Who are meant by them of repute appears more distinctly from Gal. 2:9, where James, Peter, and John are mentioned by name.

Lest by any means.The Apostle did not really want confidence in his own teaching. And yet he was aware that it rested solely upon his own individual conviction, and upon the interpretation that he had put upon the intimation to him of the divine will. There was, therefore, still a certain element of uncertainty and room for confirmation, which the Apostle desired to receive. His character hits the happy mean between confidence in his cause (self-confidence, or self-reliance, as it would be called if dealing with a lower sphere), without which no great mission can be accomplished, and opinionatedness or obstinacy. He, therefore, wished to make assurance doubly sure, and it is this confirmed and ratified certainty which animates his whole language in writing to the Galatians. Something of it, perhaps, is reflected back upon his account of the earlier stages in the process through which his opinions had gone, given in the last chapter.

I should run, or had run.St. Paul here introduces his favourite metaphor from the foot-races, such as he might see in the Isthmian games at Corinth. (Comp. especially, for a similar reference to his own career, Php. 2:16; 2Ti. 4:7.)

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

2. By revelation Note on Act 15:4. Paul was publicly appointed to go to Jerusalem to discuss the question of circumcision, and he was doubtless divinely admonished to go and settle the query of his apostleship. So the parents of Jesus were concurrently admonished by the death of Herod and by divine intimation to return from Egypt. Prof. Lightfoot has collected three other such concurrences. Act 9:29-30, compared with Act 22:17, etc.; Act 13:2-4; and Act 15:28. Paul mentions this revelation to show that his apostleship, and the sanction of his apostleship, came alike, not from man, but from God.

Communicated Explained, set forth. It was, no doubt, a matter of great interest to those home apostles to know the secret of this young evangelist’s power of winning Gentiles to Christ, of spreading the gospel over distant lands, and of building churches in the great metropolises. Before the assembling in full council, those of reputation the pillars had consultation with him privately, to form their preparatory opinion. These pillars were (Gal 2:9) James, Cephas, and John. Lest, depends upon communicated.

Run in vain This does not mean lest my work should appear to be in vain, but lest it should be rendered vain. He entered into full, harmonious concert with the pillars of the Palestinean Church, lest they should, by fatal opposition through misunderstanding, destroy all his work. The opposition of the pillars implied the opposition of the entire apostolic college, and the entire Palestinean Church. This would, to all human view, be a devastating division in the young religion; and, as historically cutting off Paul’s Churches from the original fountain head, would have destroyed them, as, perhaps, the Churches of Galatia were destroyed, and still more completely.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And I went up by revelation and I laid before them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately before those who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run in vain.’

Paul emphasises that the reason that he did what he did was because God had brought home to him that he must do it. He had not done it because he had felt a need for their guidance, or for their approval, but because he had felt that God wanted him to.

The wisdom of God in this is apparent from the fact that Paul can now certify it here. Godly men like Paul often do not recognise that there are certain niceties that need to be observed so as to ensure that the outward appearance conforms to the inner certainties. But he had done so. Thus he knew that there was unity and agreement between them, and it was important that the whole church knew. They needed to be seen to stand together.

‘I went up by revelation.’ God forced on Paul the necessity to finally establish the agreement of his teachings with those of the Apostles. This was quite apart from, even though indirectly connected with, the question of whether circumcision was necessary for Gentile converts. 

‘I laid before them the Gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.’ And at that stage he had discussed with them all the essentials of what he preached. This once and for all therefore refuted the charge that his preaching differed from that of the Apostles, and from the true Jerusalem church.

‘But privately before those who were of repute.’ He had not wanted these matters to side-track any other purposes of the visit, but he had been concerned to demonstrate to ‘those of repute’ and to himself that he was on the right track and in full agreement with them. So he had consulted with them privately. It is noteworthy that here he accepts that the Apostles were guardians of the truth of the Gospel as Jesus had declared in John 14-16.

We do not know exactly who ‘those who were of repute’ were but they clearly included the leading Apostles (Gal 2:9). And this also established that he had consulted with the very people (the leaders of the Jerusalem church), although only after a long period, whom the Judaisers were citing as their authority.

‘Those of repute.’ The constant repetition of this phrase and equivalents by Paul (Gal 2:2; Gal 2:6 a, 6 b, 9) suggests that it was one hurled against him by the Judaisers who probably cited ‘those of repute’ as their authority. It especially covers Peter, John and James, the Lord’s brother (Gal 2:9).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Gal 2:2. I went up by revelation, Some suppose that this means only that he went up according to the revelation which he mentions as having received, ch. Gal 1:12. But it seems rather to be here implied, that in their sending Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, the church at Antioch were directed by a revelation made, either immediately to St. Paul himself, or to some other of the prophets there. The conference which he had in private with the chief of the church of Jerusalem, concerning the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles, seems not to have been barely concerning the doctrine of their being free from the law of Moses: that had been openly and warmly disputed at Antioch, and was known to be the business which they came about to Jerusalem. But it is probable that it was to explain to them the whole doctrine which he had received by revelation; by the fulness and perfection whereof [for it is said, Gal 2:6 that in the conference they added nothing to it] they might see and own what he preached to be the truth, and him to be one of themselves, as indeed they did. ‘, them, signifies those at Jerusalem: the words ‘ are exegetical, shewing the particular manner, and persons, and import, but privately to the more eminent. It was sufficient for his purpose to be owned by those of greatest authority; and so we see he was by James, Peter, and John, Gal 2:9 and therefore it was safest and best to give an account of the gospel that he preached in private to them, and not publicly to the whole church. St. Paul uses the word running for “taking pains in the gospel.” The metaphor is probably taken from the Olympic games. He seems here to give two reasons, why at last, after fourteen years, he communicated to the chief of the apostles at Jerusalem the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles; when, as he shews to the Galatians, he had formerly declined all communication with the converted Jews. First, he appears to intimate that he did it by revelation. Secondly, he gives another reason; namely, that if he had not communicated as he did with the leading men there, and satisfied them of his doctrine and mission his opposers might unsettle the churches which he had planted, or should plant, by urging, that the apostles knew not what it was that he preached, nor had ever owned it for the gospel, or him for an apostle. Of the readiness of the Judaizing seducers to take any such advantage against him, he had lately an example in the church at Corinth.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Gal 2:2 . ] continuing the narrative, with emphatic repetition of the same word, as in Rom 3:22 ; 1Co 2:6 ; Phi 2:8 , et al . Klotz, ad Devar . p. 361; Baeumlein, Partik . p. 97.

] in conformity with a revelation received . What an essential element for determining the bearing of the whole narrative! Hence . . . is not parenthetical (Matthias). But what kind of it was whether it was imparted to the apostle by means of an ecstasy (Act 22:17 ; 2Co 12:1 ff.), or of a nocturnal appearance (Act 16:9 ; Act 18:19 ; Act 23:11 ; Act 27:23 ), or generally by a prophetic vision (so Ewald), or by a communication from the Spirit (Act 16:6-7 ; Act 20:22-23 ), or in some other mode remains uncertain. According to Act 15:2 , he was deputed by the church of Antioch to Jerusalem; but with this statement our does not conflict (as Baur and Zeller maintain): it simply specifies a circumstance having reference to Paul himself individually, that had occurred either before or after that resolution of the church, and was probably quite unknown to Luke. Luke narrates the outward cause, Paul the inward motive of the concurrent divine suggestion, which led to this his journey; the two accounts together give us its historical connection completely . Comp. Act 10 , in which also a revelation and the messengers of Cornelius combine in determining Peter to go to Caesarea. The state of the case would have to be conceived as similar, even if our journey were considered identical with that related Act 11:12 ., in which case would apply not possibly to the prophesying of Agabus, but likewise to a divine revelation imparted to Paul himself . Hermann ( de P. ep. ad Gal. trib. prim. capp. Lips. 1832, also in his Opusc . V. p. 118 ff.), as before him Schrader, and after him Dav. Schulz ( de aliquot N.T. locor. lectione et interpr . 1833), have explained it: “ explicationis causa , i.e. ut patefieret inter ipsos, quae vera esset Jesu doctrina.” No doubt might express this relation: comp. Wesseling, ad Herod . ii. 151; Matthiae, p. 1359; Winer, p. 376 [E. T. 502]. But, on the one hand, the account of Acts as to the occasion of our journey does not at all require any explaining away of the revelation (see above); and, on the other hand, it would by no means be necessary, as Hermann considers that on our interpretation it would, that should have been written, since Paul’s object is not to indicate some sort of revelation which was not to be more precisely defined by him, but to express the qualifying circumstance that he had gone up not of his own impulse, but at the divine command, not , but , conformably to revelation . Moreover, it is the only meaning consonant with the aim of the apostle, who from the beginning of the epistle has constantly in view his apostolic dignity, that here also, as in Gal 1:12 ; Gal 1:6 , . should express a divine revelation (comp. Eph 3:3 ), as in fact the word is constantly used in the N.T. in this higher sense: comp. Gal 1:12 .

] I laid before them , for cognisance and examination. Comp. Act 25:14 ; Mal 3:9Mal 3:9 , and Grimm thereon. Among Greek authors, in Plutarch, Polyb., Diog. L., etc.

] that is, the Christians at Jerusalem , according to the well-known use of the pronoun for the inhabitants of a previously named city or province; Bernhardy, p. 288; Winer, p. 587 [E. T. 788]. The restriction of the reference to the apostles (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Calvin, Koppe, Schott, Olshausen, and others), who are of course not excluded, is, after , even still more arbitrary [54] than the view which confines it to the presbyterium of the church (Winer, Matthies). Reuss also (in the Revue thol . 1859, p. 62 ff.) wrongly denies the consultation of the church .

. .] The main doctrine of which is that of justification by faith . Chrysostom aptly remarks, . The present tense denotes the identity which was still continuing at the time the epistle was written (comp. Gal 1:16 ); does not, however, mean among the nations (Usteri), but that it was his gospel to the Gentiles which Paul laid before the mother-church of Jewish Christianity. Comp. Rom 11:13 .

] sc . . . But apart , that is, in one or more separate conferences, to those of repute . On , comp. Mat 17:19 ; Mar 4:34 ; Mar 9:28 ; Valckenaer, ad Eur. Phoen . p. 439. It is, like the more usual in the classical authors (Thuc. i. 132. 2, ii. 44. 2; Xen. Mem . iii. 7. 4, Anab . v. 7. 13, vi. 2. 13; Ast, Lex. Plat . II. p. 88), the contrast to or (comp. 1MMal 4:5 ). singles out the aestumatos from the body of Christians at Jerusalem. This, however, is not meant to apply to the esteemed members of the church generally (comp. , Act 15:22 ), but (see on Gal 2:9 ) to James the brother of Christ, Peter , and John . The other apostles who were still alive appear already to have ceased from personal connection with the church at Jerusalem. Gal 2:6-7 ; Gal 2:9 show, that it is not the anti-Pauline partisan adherents of those three who are referred to (Grotius); and, indeed, it would have been entirely opposed to his apostolic character to lay his gospel specially before the in this sense . Moreover, the designation of the three apostles as is not “an ironical side-glance” (Schwegler, I. p. 120), nor has it proceeded from the irritation of a bitter feeling against those who had habitually applied this expression to these apostles (Cameron, Rckert, Schott, comp. Olshausen); but it is used in a purely historical sense: for an ironical designation at this point, when Paul is about to relate his recognition on the part of the earlier apostles, would be utterly devoid of tact, and would not be at all consonant either to the point of view of a colleague , which he constantly maintains in respect to the other apostles, or to the humility with which he regards this collegiate relation (1Co 15:8 ff.). He has, however, purposely chosen this expression (“ the authorities ”), because the very matter at stake was his recognition . Homberg, Paulus, and Matthies wrongly assert that means putantibus , and that the sequel belongs to it, “ qui putabant, num forte in vanum currerem .” Gal 2:5-6 ; Gal 2:9 testify against this interpretation; and the introduction of into the notion of is arbitrary, and cannot be supported by such passages as Hom. Il . x. 97, 101 (see, on the contrary, Hartung, Partikell . II. p. 138 f.). Besides, it would have been inconsistent with apostolic dignity to give such a private account to those who were suspicious. In classical authors also , without anything added to define it, means those of repute, who are much esteemed, nobiles . See Eur. Hec . 295, and thereon Schaefer and Pflugk; Porphyr. de abstin . ii. 40, et al.; Kypke, II. p. 274; Dissen, ad Pind. Ol . xii. 56. Comp. also Clem. Cor . I. 57. Just so the Hebrew . See Gesenius, Thes . I. p. 531; Buxtorf, Lex. Talm . p. 839 f. Comp. , Plat. Pol . x. p. 618 A; Herod. i. 65; Blomfield, Gloss. in Aesch. Pers . p. 109.

But why did Paul submit his gospel not merely to the Christians in Jerusalem generally, but also specially to the three apostles? By both means he desired to remove every suspicion which might anywhere exist in the minds of others (comp. Chrysostom), that he was labouring or had laboured in vain; but how easy it is to understand that, for this purpose, he had to address to the apostles a more thorough and comprehensive statement, and to bring forward proofs, experiences, explanations, deeper dialectic deductions, etc., [55] which would have been unsuitable for the general body of Christians, among whom nothing but the simple and popular exposition was appropriate! Therefore Paul dealt with his colleagues . But we must not draw a distinction as to matter between the public and the private discussion, as Estius and others have done: “publice ita contulit, ut ostenderet gentes non debere circumcidi et servare legem Mosis privato autem et secreto colloquio cum apostolis habito placuit ipsos quoque Judaeos ab observantia Mosaicae legis esse liberandos,” etc. In this way Paul would have set forth only the half of his gospel to the mass of the Christians there; and yet this half-measure, otherwise so opposed to his character, would not have satisfied the Jewish-Christian exclusiveness. Thiersch also ( Kirche im apost. Zeitalt . p. 128) wrongly holds (comp. Lange, apost. Zeitalt . p. 100) that the subject of the private discussion was Paul’s apostolic dignity; it was nothing else than . . . and only in so far his apostolic legitimacy. The object of the private discussion was, in Winer’s opinion: “ut ne, si his (the ) videretur P. castigandus, publica expostulatione ipsius auctoritas infringeretur.” But this also is not in accordance with the decided character of Paul; and if he had dreaded a public expostulation , he would not have ventured first to set forth his gospel publicly , because the apostles, in the event of disapproval, would not have been able to withhold public contradiction. The view that the private discussion with the preceded the general discussion with the church (so Neander, p. 277; Lekebusch, Apostelgesch . p. 295), runs counter to the account of our passage, which represents the course of events as the converse.

] Taken by itself, may signify either lest possibly, ne forte , and thus express directly the design of the (so, following the Vulgate and the Greek Fathers, Erasmus, Luther, and most expositors, including Winer, Fritzsche, Rckert, Schott), or whether not possibly, num forte (Usteri, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, Wieseler), thus indirectly interrogative . The former interpretation is decidedly to be rejected, because the indicative aorist does not suit it; for, according to the Greek use of the particles of design with the indicative aorist or imperfect (see on Gal 4:17 ), the would not actually have taken place; and besides this, we should have to assume without any ground for doing so in the context that and are said ex aliorum judicio , [56] and that is subjunctive, although by its connection with it evidently proclaims itself indicative. Hence must be rendered num forte , and the reference of the num is supplied by the idea, “for consideration, for examination,” included in (Hartung, Partikell . II. pp. 137, 140). The passage is therefore to be explained: “ I laid before them my gospel to the Gentiles, with a view to their instituting an investigation of the question whether I am not possibly running or have run in vain .” The apostle himself, on his own part , was in no uncertainty about this question, for he had obtained his gospel from revelation, and had already such rich experience to support him, that he certainly did not fear the downfall of his previous ministry (Holsten [57] ); hence is by no means to be understood, with Usteri and Hilgenfeld, also Buttmann, neut. Gr . p. 303, and Holsten, as implying any uncertainty or apprehension of his own ( in order to see , in order to be certain, whether ). But he wanted to obtain the judgment and declaration of the church and the apostles (so, correctly, Wieseler); comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew . II. 2, p. 44 f., who, however, heil. Schr. N.T. I. p. 86, supplies only ( without . . . .) after . , thus making . . . the matter itself laid before them; but this would be at variance with the essential idea of laying before them the gospel , of which Paul is speaking, for he does not repeat , and that alone . According to Hofmann, the state of the case would amount to this, that Paul desired to have the answer to the question . . . from the only, and not also from the church , a view which would neither harmonize with the position of the latter (comp. Act 15:22 f.), nor would leave apparent in the text any object for his submitting his gospel to the church at all. Observe, moreover, that the apostle does not say ( whether possibly ); but, with the delicate tact of one who modestly and confidently submits himself to the judgment of the church and the apostles, while hostile doubts as to the salutary character of his labours are by no means unknown to him, he writes , whether not possibly (Gal 4:11 ; 1Th 3:5 ), that is, in the positive sense, whether perhaps . [58] In no case has the apostle in . . . expressed the intention of procuring for himself a conviction of the correctness of his teaching. [59]

] in cassum . See Jacobs ad Anthol . VII. p. 328. Comp. the passages from Josephus in Kypke; from the LXX., Isa 65:23 et al.; from the N.T., 2Co 6:1 , Phi 2:16 , 1Th 3:5 . Comp. also the use of , , , and the like, in Bernhardy, p. 221. Paul conceives his running as vain , that is, not attaining the saving result aimed at, [60] if his gospel is not the right and true one.

] a figurative expression, derived from the running in the stadium , for earnestly striving activity in this case, official activity, as in Phi 2:16 , 2Ti 4:7 ; in other passages, Christian activity in general, as 1Co 9:24 f., Gal 5:7 , Heb 12:1 . Comp. Rom 9:16 . The present indicative transfers us into the present time of the , from which then looks back into the past. A clear and vivid representation. As to the indicative generally with the indirect interrogative , whether not , see Bernhardy, p. 397; Hermann, ad Viger . p. 810; also Ellendt, Lex. Soph . II. p. 104.

[54] If applied to the apostles, there was no need for regarding (with Chrysostom and others) as a more precise definition of ; for if so, Paul would have expressed himself in a way very illogical and liable to misunderstanding, because would be without meaning, if it was not intended to denote some act different from the general . Paul must have written simply . . ., . This remark applies also against the view of Baur and Zeller, who, although they allow that the language warrants our view, take the sense to be, “I set it forth to them, but only to those of highest repute in particular.” On the contrary, if applied to the apostles, the meaning, as the passage runs, would have to be taken as Schott (comp. Olshausen) gives it: “doctrinam apostolis omnibus exposui, privatim vero (uberius ac diligentius) iis, qui magni aestumantur, apostolis auctoritate insignibus, Petro, Johanni, Jacobo.” But how improbable it is in itself, that Paul should have held such a separate conference with a select few of the apostles, and should not have vouchsafed an equally circumstantial and accurate exposition of his teaching to the whole of the apostles as such! Apart, however, from this, the three appear to have been the only apostles present in Jerusalem at that time.

[55] This was a case in which the principle beyond doubt applied, , 1Co 2:6 .

[56] Those who do not agree with this, fall into forced interpretations, as Fritzsche, Opusc , p. 175: “ne forte frustra etiam tum, quum epistolam ad Galatas scriberet , apostolus laboraret, aut ante iter jam laboravisset.”

[57] Against Holsten’s exaggeration Hilgenfeld (in his Zeitschr . 1860, p. 117 f.) has justly declared himself. The counter remarks of Holsten, z. Ev. d. Petr. u. Paul . p. 277, are immaterial.

[58] In . . ., let us conceive to ourselves the moment when the apostle has laid his gospel before those assembled, and then says as it were, “Here you have my gospel to the Gentiles; by it you may now judge whether I am perhaps labouring in vain , or if from the present I look back upon the past have so laboured! ” The supposition of irony (Mrcker in the Stud. u. Krit . 1866, p. 537) is not warrantable amidst the gravity of the whole surrounding circumstances.

[59] Winer (p. 470) justly lays stress upon this in opposition to Fritzsche, but is of opinion (with de Wette) that Paul desired to obviate the frustration involved in . . ., by inducing the assent of the apostles to his gospel, “because without this assent and recognition the Christians who had been converted by him would have remained out of communion with the others” (de Wette). But this latter idea is unnecessarily introduced; and even in the event of non-recognition, Paul, looking to his direct calling and the revelation he had received, could not have regarded it as involving the result of his labour being in vain.

[60] Comp. the classical , Plat. Rep . p. 486 C.

Note .

Act 15:4 ; Act 15:12 must not be adduced as proof either for or against (Fritzsche, Wieseler, and others) the identity of our journey with that of Act 15 . The two facts that related in Act 15:4 ; Act 15:12 , and that expressed by . . . in Gal 2:2 are two different actions, both of which took place at that visit of the apostle to Jerusalem, although what is stated in our passage was foreign to the historical connection in Act 15 , and therefore is not recorded there. The book of Acts relates only the transactions conducive to his object, in which Paul took part as deputy from the church at Antioch . What he did besides in the personal interest of his apostolic validity and ministry, namely, his laying his gospel as well before the church (not to be identified with the assembly of the council) as before the also separately, forms the subject of his narrative in Gal 2 , which is related to that in the Acts, not as excluding it and thereby impugning its historical character, but as supplementing it (contrary to the view of Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld). Comp. on Act 15:19 f. As to the non-mention of the apostolic decree, see Introd. 3.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Ver. 2. By revelation ] i.e. By God’s special direction; for he ordereth a good man’s goings, Psa 37:23 .

I communicated unto them ] , I laid open the matter freely and familiarly, as unto bosom friends.

But privately ] For all good men are not fit to be trusted with secrets, but only such as can both keep counsel and give counsel.

Or had run in vain ] Lest, if it should be thought that I had not held good correspondence with those other apostles, I might lose the fruit of my ministry.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2 .] not only carries on the narrative, emphatically repeating the verb (Mey.), but carries on the refutation also but I went up (not for any purpose of learning from or consulting others, but) &c. : So II. . 484, , and other examples in Hartung, i. p. 168. Of his undertaking the journey , nothing is said in the Acts, all that is related there being, the appointment by the church of Paul and Barnabas and others to go. What divine intimation Paul may have received, inducing him to offer himself for the deputation, we cannot say: that some such occurred, he here assures us, and it was important for him to assert it, as shewing his dependence only on divine leading, and independence of any behests from the Jerusalem church. Meyer well remarks that the history itself of the Acts furnishes an instance of such a double prompting: Peter was induced by a vision, and at the same time by the messengers of Cornelius, to go to Csarea.

Schrader would give a singular meaning to ; that his visit was for the purpose of making known the Gospel which he preached, &c. Hermann (de ep. ad Gal. trib. prim, capp., cited by Meyer) agrees: “ explicationis causa, i.e. ut patefieret inter ipsos qu vera esset Jesu doctrina .” But it is against this sense, that (1) the N. T. usage of always has respect to revelation from above , and (2) this very phrase, , is found in ref. Eph. used absolutely as here, undoubtedly there signifying by revelation . Hermann’s objection that for this meaning, . would be required, is nugatory: not the particular revelation (concrete) which occasioned the journey, but merely the fact that it was by (abstract) revelation, is specified.

] (reff.): so Aristoph. Nub. 1436, . See more examples in Wetst.

] to the Christians at Jerusalem, implied in . above: see reff. This wide assertion is limited by the next clause, . &c. c., Calv., Olsh., al. take to mean the Apostles : in which case, the stress by and by must be on , I communicated it ( indeed , would more naturally stand here on this interpretation) to them, but privately (i.e. more confidentially , but how improbable, that St. Paul should have thus given an exoteric and esoteric exposition of his teaching) . Chrys. is quoted for this view by Mey., but not quite correctly; , , . , . , , , . Estius, characteristically enough, as a Romanist; ‘publice ita contulit, ut ostenderet gentes non debere circumcidi et servare legem Mosis, privato autem et secreto colloquio cum apostolis habito placuit ipsos quoque Judos ab observantia Mosai legis esse liberandos.’

. . ] but (limits the foregoing ; q. d., “when I say ‘to them,’ I mean.” Ellic. Exo 2 , questions this, and understands to introduce another conference, more private than that just mentioned) in private (in a private conference: not to be conceived as separate from, but as specifying, the former ) to those that were eminent (more at length Gal 2:6 , . These were James, Cephas, and John, Gal 2:9 , who appear to have been the only Apostles then at Jerusalem. Olsh. supposes the words to imply blame , not in the mind of the Apostle himself, but as reflecting on the unworthy exaltation of these Apostles by the Judaizing teachers. He illustrates this by , 2Co 11:5 ; but an expression of such feeling here seems out of place, and it is better to understand as describing mere matter of fact; see examples in Kypke and Elsner), lest by any means I should (seem to) be running, or (to) have run, in vain . , , , . . , Thdrt.: so also Chrys., Thl., Calv., al. The construction of two moods after the same conjunction is found elsewhere in Paul: cf. 1Th 3:5 . The present subjunctive implies continuance in the course; the 2 aorist indicative , the course already run. It is quite out of the question, that this last clause should express a bon fide fear, lest his ministry should really be, or have been, in vain, without the recognition of the church at Jerusalem (De W., al.): such a sentiment would be unworthy of him, and, besides, at variance with the whole course of his argument here. The reference must be (as Thdrt. above) to the estimation in which his preaching would be held by those to whom he imparted it. When we consider the very strong prejudices of the Jerusalem church, this feeling of anxiety, leading him to take measures to prevent his work from being tumultuously disowned by them, is surely but natural. On and , see reff. (The grammatical difficulty is well discussed in Ellicott’s note.)

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Gal 2:2 . . This statement of Paul’s motive is in no way inconsistent with the independent statement in the Acts that he was deputed by the Church. The revelation may have come to Paul himself, and in that case he prompted the decision of the Church, of which he and Barnabas were at that time the ruling spirits; or it may have been made through the Spirit to the Church, in which case Paul would count it right at once to obey his voice. Two different methods of action are here specified, public addresses describing the nature and result of the Apostle’s preaching among the Greeks, and private interviews with individual brethren or groups of brethren. The term does not imply secrecy in these communications. The context shows that the point at issue was the circumcision of Gentile converts. . As this phrase recurs four times in eight verses, it is necessary to determine its true meaning with some precision. nowhere else conveys the idea of superiority implied in our versions, of reputation ( of repute R.V.). The two passages adduced in its support do not stand the test of criticism: in Eur., Heracl. , 897 there is an obvious ellipsis of , in Hec. , 295 of . In the latter indeed appears to be a cynical comment of the deposed queen on the unreality of outward glory.

In fact , like seem in English, was either a neutral term which expressed according to the context any impression, good or bad, produced by the appearance of an object, or it laid stress on the unreality of the mere outward semblance. The Greeks dwelt often on the contrast between and embodied in the famous line of schylus . In Gal 2:6 this contrast reappears in the antithesis between and . In Gal 2:9 , on the contrary, , coupled as it is there with , denotes the high estimate formed of the Three. The elliptical phrase in Gal 2:2 should in like manner be interpreted by the context. I take it to mean . Paul, as he states, brought the matter in private interviews before those whom it seemed right to approach in that way, sc. , influential opponents, whose hostility he was anxious to deprecate. It was of vital moment to the welfare of the Greek Churches at that time to avoid a breach with Jerusalem. Besides embracing a minority of Jewish Christians, they were leavened through and through with Jewish influences, so that a quarrel might have led to a disastrous schism in all the existing Churches. More than this, they relied still mainly on the Old Testament for the basis of their theology and morals. The abundant promise of harvest among the Greeks rested still on the nucleus of devout Gentiles who had been prepared by the teaching of the synagogue for the lessons of Christ’s Apostles. . The present subjunctive is coupled here with the aorist indicative, as it is in 1Th 3:5 , to express the fear of present failure, coupled with a dread that past labours had been rendered futile.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

by according to. Greek. kata. App-104.

revelation. Greek. apokalupsis. App-106. The decision of Act 15:2 was Divinely guided

communicated Greek. anatithemi. See Act 25:14 (declared),

unto = to.

that = the.

gospel, See App-140.

preach. Greek. kerueso. App-121.

among, Greek. en. App-104.

privately. See Act 23:19.

which were, &c. Literally who seemed. Greek. dokio. See verses: Gal 2:6-8.

lest . . . means. Greek. me pos.

in vain = for (Greek. eis) no effect. Compare 2Co 6:1.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

2.] not only carries on the narrative, emphatically repeating the verb (Mey.), but carries on the refutation also-but I went up (not for any purpose of learning from or consulting others, but) &c.:-So II. . 484, ,-and other examples in Hartung, i. p. 168. Of his undertaking the journey , nothing is said in the Acts, all that is related there being, the appointment by the church of Paul and Barnabas and others to go. What divine intimation Paul may have received, inducing him to offer himself for the deputation, we cannot say: that some such occurred, he here assures us, and it was important for him to assert it, as shewing his dependence only on divine leading, and independence of any behests from the Jerusalem church. Meyer well remarks that the history itself of the Acts furnishes an instance of such a double prompting: Peter was induced by a vision, and at the same time by the messengers of Cornelius, to go to Csarea.

Schrader would give a singular meaning to ; that his visit was for the purpose of making known the Gospel which he preached, &c. Hermann (de ep. ad Gal. trib. prim, capp., cited by Meyer) agrees: explicationis causa, i.e. ut patefieret inter ipsos qu vera esset Jesu doctrina. But it is against this sense, that (1) the N. T. usage of always has respect to revelation from above, and (2) this very phrase, , is found in ref. Eph. used absolutely as here, undoubtedly there signifying by revelation. Hermanns objection that for this meaning, . would be required, is nugatory: not the particular revelation (concrete) which occasioned the journey, but merely the fact that it was by (abstract) revelation, is specified.

] (reff.): so Aristoph. Nub. 1436, . See more examples in Wetst.

] to the Christians at Jerusalem, implied in . above: see reff. This wide assertion is limited by the next clause, . &c. c., Calv., Olsh., al. take to mean the Apostles: in which case, the stress by and by must be on ,-I communicated it (indeed,- would more naturally stand here on this interpretation) to them, but privately (i.e. more confidentially,-but how improbable, that St. Paul should have thus given an exoteric and esoteric exposition of his teaching) . Chrys. is quoted for this view by Mey., but not quite correctly; , , . , . , , , . Estius, characteristically enough, as a Romanist; publice ita contulit, ut ostenderet gentes non debere circumcidi et servare legem Mosis,-privato autem et secreto colloquio cum apostolis habito placuit ipsos quoque Judos ab observantia Mosai legis esse liberandos.

. . ] but (limits the foregoing ; q. d., when I say to them, I mean. Ellic. ed. 2, questions this, and understands to introduce another conference, more private than that just mentioned) in private (in a private conference: not to be conceived as separate from, but as specifying, the former ) to those that were eminent (more at length Gal 2:6, . These were James, Cephas, and John, Gal 2:9,-who appear to have been the only Apostles then at Jerusalem. Olsh. supposes the words to imply blame, not in the mind of the Apostle himself, but as reflecting on the unworthy exaltation of these Apostles by the Judaizing teachers. He illustrates this by , 2Co 11:5; but an expression of such feeling here seems out of place, and it is better to understand as describing mere matter of fact; see examples in Kypke and Elsner), lest by any means I should (seem to) be running, or (to) have run, in vain. , , , . . , Thdrt.: so also Chrys., Thl., Calv., al. The construction of two moods after the same conjunction is found elsewhere in Paul: cf. 1Th 3:5. The present subjunctive implies continuance in the course; the 2 aorist indicative , the course already run. It is quite out of the question, that this last clause should express a bon fide fear, lest his ministry should really be, or have been, in vain, without the recognition of the church at Jerusalem (De W., al.): such a sentiment would be unworthy of him, and, besides, at variance with the whole course of his argument here. The reference must be (as Thdrt. above) to the estimation in which his preaching would be held by those to whom he imparted it. When we consider the very strong prejudices of the Jerusalem church, this feeling of anxiety, leading him to take measures to prevent his work from being tumultuously disowned by them, is surely but natural. On and , see reff. (The grammatical difficulty is well discussed in Ellicotts note.)

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Gal 2:2. , by revelation) As Paul had revelations he had no need to learn from men. This revelation had been communicated to him for an important reason.-) set before them [communicated], as equals are wont to do, not that they should confirm me, but that they should confirm others, Act 15:2.-, to them) at Jerusalem. This is treated of Gal 2:3-4.- ) apart, privately) all were not capable of comprehending it.- , who were held in reputation) In antithesis to Paul, who was less acknowledged. [The apostles are principally intended, Gal 2:9.-V. g.] comp. 2Co 11:5. Hesychius; , . This is brought under consideration, Gal 2:6-7.-, lest by any means) this word depends on , I set forth [communicated]. I should run, says he, or had run in vain, if circumcision had been judged necessary.-, I should run) with the swift victory of the Gospel.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Gal 2:2

Gal 2:2

And I went up by revelation;-Paul was directed by the Holy Spirit to go up to Jerusalem and let the apostles decide the question. The Holy Spirit had decided it for Paul, and he taught the decision to the people; but the disaffected portion of the disciples denied his apostleship, and ability to decide such questions. [We can well conceive that amid the disputes at Antioch Paul sought counsel from God, and received a special reply, which moved him to undertake the journey. This revelation, guiding Pauls movements, attests his close relation to God. In Lukes account (Act 13:1-2) of this he tells of the appointment of Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem in order to promote the settlement of the anxious controversy.]

and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles-[The persons to whom this communication was made were the disciples in Jerusalem. Perhaps we can more clearly understand what is meant here by referring to Act 25:14-21. There we are told that Festus laid Pauls case before Agrippa with the view of careful consultation concerning it. So here Paul, in harmony with the purpose for which he had gone to Jerusalem, laid before the brethren the gospel he was preaching to the Gentiles-the conditions of salvation and the obligations of believers. It should be noted that the word preach is in the present tense, which asserts the continuity and consistency of his preaching, even to the moment of writing this epistle.]

but privately-He did this privately because he had been more or less misrepresented by his detractors. These private consultations were a wise precaution to avoid misunderstanding. Such private conferences are usually held in connection with public assemblies for the purpose of preparing and maturing business for final action.

before them who were of repute,-James, Cephas, and John, and others who were reputed leaders of the church in Jerusalem.

lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain.-[The whole phrase implies that Paul saw in the existing situation a danger that his work on behalf of the Gentiles, both past and future, might be rendered ineffectual by the opposition of the Jerusalem church, or of certain men in it, and the disapproval of the apostles, and fearing this, he sought to avert it.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

by: Act 16:9, Act 16:10, Act 18:9, Act 23:11

communicated: Gal 2:9, Gal 1:16, Act 15:4, Act 15:12, 1Co 1:23, 1Co 2:2

privately: or, severally

which: Gal 2:6, Gal 2:9, Ecc 10:1, Act 5:34, Phi 2:29

I should: Mat 10:16, 1Co 9:26, Phi 2:16, 1Th 3:5

Reciprocal: Exo 18:23 – God Act 15:2 – they determined Act 26:16 – in the Rom 11:13 – the apostle Rom 16:7 – who Rom 16:25 – my gospel 1Co 9:24 – so run 1Co 15:14 – General 2Co 1:17 – according 2Co 12:1 – visions Gal 4:11 – lest 1Th 1:5 – our 1Th 2:1 – in vain

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Gal 2:2. -But I went up by revelation. Jerusalem stood on a high plateau; but to go up refers, as with us, to it as the capital, 1Ki 12:28; Mat 20:17-18; Mar 3:22; Act 15:2, etc. See C. B. Michaelis, Dissertatio Chorographica notiones superi et inferi evolvens, etc., 37, in vol. v. of Essays edited by Velthusen, Kuinoel, and Ruperti. Lest the visit should be misunderstood, the is repeated and put in emphasis, while the iterative and explanatory at once carries on the argument, and has a sub-adversative force: I went up, as I have said, but I went up according to revelation. Klotz-Devarius, 2.361; Hartung, 1.168. The nature of that divine revelation we know not. The apostle was no stranger to such divine promptings. He had received the gospel by revelation, and in the same way had often enjoyed those divine suggestions and counsels which shaped his missionary tours. Act 16:6-7; Act 16:9. The apostles did not summon him to account, asking why he had assumed the name and professed to do the work which so specially belonged to them. Granville Penn renders openly, palam, as if opposed to , privately,-a useless departure from usage. Schrader, Schulz, and Hermann render the same phrase in the words of the latter: explicationis causa, ut patefieret inter ipsos, quae vera esset Jesu doctrina. The preposition itself may bear such a meaning (Winer, 49), but this phrase cannot; for it would be contrary to the New Testament use of the noun, and would be in the face of the apostle’s very argument for his independent position. Nor is . required for the common interpretation. See Eph 3:3; also, Gal 1:12; Gal 1:16. The apostle does not specify the individual revelation, but affirms absolutely that it was under revelation that he went up, and not under human suggestion or control. He went up by revelation, not by a particular revelation. Yet the turn given to the words by Whitby is inadmissible: according to the tenor of my revelation, which made me an apostle of the Gentiles. What happened in Jerusalem is next told:

-And I communicated to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.

is rendered in the Vulgate contuli cum eis. Compare Act 25:14; 2Ma 3:9; and Wetstein in loc. It does not exactly mean, to leave in the hands of (Green, Gr. Gram. p. 82), but to tell with a view to confer about it. Jerome adds: inter conferentes aequalitas est. The noun implied in is to be found in the term -no uncommon form of antecedent. Mat 4:23; Mat 9:35; Mat 11:1; Mat 12:9; Luk 5:14; Act 8:5; Winer, 22, 3, a; Bernhardy, p. 288. The are the Christians in Jerusalem, not the elders, as is held by Winer hesitatingly, and by Matthies decidedly-auf die Vorsteher und Aeltesten in der Gemeinde; nor yet the apostles (Calvin, Schott, and Olshausen),-a view which would not only make a distinction among the apostles, but also a difference in the mode and extent of the communication, as if he had told as much as he chose to the apostolic college, but opened himself more fully and unreservedly to a select committee of them. The gospel propounded by him was-

-the present indicating its continuous identity and his enduring work; that conference made no change upon it. The gospel so characterized was, indeed, the great scheme of mercy, but especially in the free form in which he presented it,-unhampered by legal or Mosaic restrictions, unconditioned by any distinctions of race or blood- , as Chrysostom describes it-its characteristic tenet being justification without works of law. Though he was speaking in the heart of Judaism, and among Jewish believers who were zealous of the law, he did not modify his vocation in describing it, or present it as his exceptional work. Where it was most suspected and opposed, where it was sure to provoke antipathy, he gloried in it. But, as if correcting himself, he suddenly adds-

-but privately to them of reputation. These words seem to qualify the and to confine them to a very particular class, though to state the persons communicated with, first so broadly and then with pointed restriction, seems peculiar. Some therefore suppose that there were two conferences-a first and more public one, and a second and more select one. Such is the view of De Wette, Meyer, Windischmann, Ellicott, Bisping, and many others. But why should the apostle first to all appearance proclaim his gospel publicly, and then afterward privately-first to the mass, and then to a coterie? The doctrine of reserve propounded by the Catholic Estius is not to be admitted. We prefer the view of Chrysostom who admits only one conference; and he is followed by Calovius, by Alford apparently, and Webster and Wilkinson. There is no occasion, however, to mark the clause with brackets, as is done by Knapp. Going up under revelation, the apostle made known his gospel to those in Jerusalem, privately, however, to them who were of reputation. The reason, as given by Theodoret, is, that so many were zealous for the law- . That there was a public meeting and discussion is true, as recorded in Acts 15; but the apostle does not allude to it here in definite terms. He seems to state the general result first, and then, as if referring to the revelation under which he acted, he suddenly checks himself, and says he communicated with them of reputation. Thus he may have distinguished his general mission, which is perhaps alluded to in Act 15:4, from the special course of conduct which his revelation suggested. The church at Antioch deputed the apostle in consequence of the Judaizers; the Judaizers in Jerusalem thought their cause betrayed by the favourable reception given to Paul, and their agitation in the metropolis seems to have necessitated the public conference. But the revelation may have referred more to the matters which were treated of in confidence with the noted brethren.

The phrase is privately. Mat 17:19; Mat 20:17; Mat 24:3; Mar 4:34. It does not mean especially (Baur), or preferably, as Olshausen and Usteri give it. The margin of the common version has severally, and the Genevan reads particularly; but the Syriac correctly, , between me and them. It corresponds to in the classics as opposed to or . The peculiar phrase is rightly rendered, to them which are of reputation- (Theodoret), or, as Hesychius defines it, . There needs no supplied insertion of after the participle, as Bagge supposes. Thus AElian says of Aristotle, , Hist. Var. xiv.; is in contrast with , in reference to the weight of their word or opinions. Euripides, Hecuba, 294, 295. Pflugk in his note refers to Pindar, Nem. 7.30, ; to Eurip. Troad. 608, and Heracl. 795. See Pindar, Ol. 13.56, and Dissen’s note. Borger quotes from Porphyry a clause in which is in contrast to . Similarly the Hebrew , H3108. See Frst, Lex. sub voce. Wycliffe’s version is wrong in rendering to those that semeden to be summewhat. And there is no ground for the supposition of Cameron, Rckert, Schott, and Olshausen, that the phrase was chosen as one often in the mouths of the party who preferred them as leaders. Nor is there any irony in it, for the apostle is making a simple historical reference- (OEcumenius)-to his intercourse with them and its results,-all as confirmatory of his own separate and independent commission.

-lest I might be running or have run in vain. The figure of the two verbs is a common one. Php 2:16; 2Ti 4:7; Gal 5:7; and also 1Co 9:24, Heb 12:1. The meaning of , in vain, may be seen, 2Co 6:1, Php 2:16, 1Th 3:5, Sept. Isa 65:23; Kypke, in loc. It is surely prosaic in Jowett to refer to the journey to Jerusalem, which he had already accomplished. Homberg, Gabler, Paulus, and Matthies connect this clause with -qui putabant num forte in vanum currerem. Wieseler says that he mentions this connection simply as a philologische Antiquitt.

Allied to this view is one originally held by Fritzsche (Conjectanea), by Green, and similarly by Wieseler, that may mean num forte. In such a case the verb is in the present indicative. Green renders it thus: I laid my gospel before them, that they might judge whether I was running or had run in vain (Gr. Gram. pp. 80-83). But is ne forte, and is dependent on . Hofmann also regards the clause as a direct question to which a negative answer is anticipated; but the question in such a case would, as Meyer says, be made by . OEcumenius proposes also to take it , but as containing a confirmatory result, that he had not run in vain. Gwynne, finding that all his predecessors have mistaken the real meaning, thus puts it: I submitted the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, so that I run not now, nor was then running in vain; but it is simply ungrammatical to make signify adeo non, and his doctrinal arguments rest on a misconception. At the same time the inference of Augustine is too strong, that if Paul has not conferred with the apostles, ecclesia illi omnino non crederet. Contra Faust. lib. 28. The verb is subjunctive, 1Th 3:5, and indicative. Stallbaum, Plato, Phaed. p. 84, E, vol. 1.127-8. It does not require that the first should be indicative because the second is, for the use of the mode depends on the conception of the writer. Krger, 54, 8, 9. The first verb in the present subjunctive, where perhaps an optative might have been expected, describes Paul’s activity as still lasting; and the past is regarded by Fritzsche in a hypothetical sense-proposui . . . ne forte frustra cucurrissem,-that is to say, which might perchance have been the case if I had not held this conference at Jerusalem. Or the change of mood, causing also change of tense, may mark that the event apprehended had taken place. Winer, 56, 2, and examples in Gayler, Partic. Negat. p. 327; A. Buttmann, p. 303. There was fear in the apostle’s mind of something disastrous, and that generally is expressed: whether I be running or had run in vain,-the idea of apprehension being wrapt up in the idiom. Mat 25:9; Rom 11:21. But to what does or can the apostle refer?

1. The cannot refer to his commission, the validity of which depended not on human suffrage, and of which he never could have any doubt, nay, which he was employed at that moment in justifying.

2. Nor can the phrase refer to the matter of his preaching. He had received it by revelation, and its truth was independent altogether of the results of any conference or the decisions of any body of men. Chrysostom asks, Who would be so senseless as to preach for so many years without being sure that his preaching was true? Some Catholic expositors hold, however, that his preaching needed the sanction of the other apostles or of the church. See Corn. a-Lapide, in loc., who stoutly contends against all Novantes or Reformers who do not act like Paul, and consult mother church.

3. Nor can the words mean that he doubted the efficacy or success of his labours. So many sermons preached, so many sinners converted, so many saints blessed and revived, so many churches founded, so many baptisms administered by himself or in connection with his apostleship and followed so often by the visible or palpable descent of the Divine Spirit, were surely manifold and unmistakeable tokens that he had not run in vain. And these realities were unaffected by the opinions of any parties in Jerusalem. Tertullian is bold enough in hitting Marcion to barb his weapon by the supposition, that the apostle was in doubt as to his system, that he wished auctoritas antecessorum et fidei et praedicationi suae. Adver. Marcion. 4.2, vol. ii. p. 163, Opera, ed. OEhler.

4. Nor probably can we regard the whole matter as merely subjective, with Chrysostom, Beza, Borger, Winer, Rckert, Meyer, and Ellicott,-that is, lest in the opinion of others I be running or had run in vain; or as Theodoret plainly puts it, . This, we apprehend, is only the truth partially, not wholly. It was not the mere opinion others might form of the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles, but more the mistaken action to which it might lead. He was now under a commission to ask advice on a certain point, the point which characterized his gospel among the Gentiles. This private conference enabled him to state what his views were on this very question; and his apprehension was, that if it should be misunderstood, all his labour would be lost, if his free and unhampered mode of offering Christ to poor heathens were disallowed. Should the church, in defiance of his arguments, experience, and appeals, insist on compliance with circumcision as essential to admission to the church, then on this point which signalized his preaching as the apostle of the Gentiles, his labour would be so far in vain, and the Gentile churches would be in danger of losing their precious freedom. No man who had laboured so long and so hard to maintain a gospel unrestricted by any ceremonial conditions would wish his labour to be in vain, or so in vain as to be authoritatively interfered with, and frustrated as far as possible by being disowned. And the question involved so much, that to enjoin it was to introduce another gospel. No wonder that in connection with so momentous a matter fraught with such interest to all the Gentile churches, the apostle of the Gentiles went up by revelation. But he gained his point, and that point was the non-circumcision of Gentile converts, as the next verse shows. We do not suppose, with Thiersch, that the reality of his apostleship was the matter laid before the private conference after the public settlement of the controversy, so that thus the faithful at large were spared the trial of a question for which they were not prepared, the recognition of Paul’s apostleship being much more difficult than the rights of the Gentiles. History of the Christian Church, p. 121, Eng. trans. But it was his gospel, not his office, which he set before them. Winer’s view is as remote from the point: Ut ne, si his videretur paribus castigandus, publica expostulatione ipsius auctoritas infringeretur. He had not run in vain-

Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians

Gal 2:2. The English word revelation always comes from the same Greek word, and any special part of the lexicon definition that is to be applied must be determined by the connection in any given case. However, its general definition is proper in the present verse, namely, the one word “instruction.” So the verse means that Paul was instructed to go up to Jerusalem, hence his move was not merely from a personal desire. That Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles. This does not imply that Paul preached one Gospel to the Gentiles and a different one to the Jews. No, it is a declaration that he always preached the same one wherever he went, which is what he teaches in chapter 1:6-9. The part of this same Gospel that was confused in the minds of the Jewish brethren was that which admits the Gentiles to all the benefits of salvation without requiring them to accept circumcision. (See Act 15:1.) Paul knew that the “rank and file” of the Jewish Christians were so perplexed over this subject that he would have difficulty in convincing them if he approached them as a group, hence his plan was first to present the matter to a few of the more able thinkers. The original foi reputation is defined by Thayer, “to seem, be accounted, reputed,” and he explains it to denote, “those who are reputed to be somewhat of importance, and therefore have influence.” Lest . . . in vain. If the Jewish Christians were to continue in this perverted teaching concerning the Gospel, it would upset the work of Paul among them. To avoid such a result, he used the tactful plan just explained.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Gal 2:2. By revelation. In consequence of a divine monition such as he often experienced (comp. Act 16:6-7; Act 19:21; Act 20:22-23; Act 22:17; Act 27:23; 2Co 12:1). This was the inward, personal motive. Luke in Act 15:2 omits this, but mentions the external, or public occasion, namely, the appointment by the church of Antioch, which sent him and Barnabas as delegates to represent the interests of Gentile Christianity. This appointment may have been either prompted or confirmed by the inner revelation. So Peter, according to Acts 10, was induced both by a vision and by the messengers of Cornelius, to go to Csarea.

And communicated to them, or laid before them, i.e., the Christians at Jerusalem (Gal 2:1), the whole congregation. This implies a public transaction in open council, which is described in the Acts. Paul confines himself to an account of the private and personal agreement with the leading Apostles, because the decision and pastoral letter of the council (Act 15:22 ff.) had already been communicated by him to his churches (Act 16:4). The decree was a compromise intended for a special emergency, and not for universal and permanent use. But it was no doubt interpreted by the Judaizing teachers in a sense contrary to the meaning of the chief Apostles, and hence the importance of referring to their personal understanding with Paul.

Privately, or apart, in private conference, as distinct from the discussion in open council. Such private conferences are always held in connection with public assemblies, for the purpose of preparing and maturing business for final action. Bengel: All were not capable of comprehending it

Those of chief reputation, the leading men who enjoyed the greatest authority among the Jewish Christians, the pillar Apostles, namely James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). Similar is the expression, the very chiefest Apostles (2Co 11:5; 2Co 12:11). The men of chief reputation is a term of honor, but as repeated in Gal 2:6; Gal 2:9 in connection with something, and pillars, it seems to imply a slight tint of irony. The blame is, of course, not intended for the Apostles themselves, whose testimony in his favor it is his purpose here to relate, and whom he always treated with fraternal esteem and love, but for the Judaizers who unduly exalted them above Paul. He feels himself equal to them before men, and yet in his deep humility before God he calls himself the least of the Apostles and unworthy of the high name, because he persecuted the church of God (1Co 15:9). See Excursus.

Lest perchance, etc., lest my apostolic labors past and present should be fruitless, not in themselves nor in the judgment of Paul, but in the judgment of the Jewish Christians. The non-recognition of the Gentile churches by the mother church of Jerusalem would have interfered also with the progress of his mission and unsettled many of his weaker converts, as the example of the Galatians shows. The expression run is taken from the image of a race, to which the Christian life is frequently compared (Php 2:16; 2Ti 4:7; 1Co 7:24 f.; Gal 5:7; Heb 12:1). Bengel: I should run with the swift victory of the gospel.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Gal 2:2. And I went up Not by any command from the apostles, nor to receive instructions in my work from them; but by revelation From God, directing me to go. The apostle does not say to whom the revelation was made: it might be made to Paul himself, or to some of the prophets then residing at Antioch. But this circumstance, that he went in consequence of a revelation, shows evidently that the occasion of the journey was of great importance. It was, therefore, as has been observed above, very probably the journey which, at the desire of the church at Antioch, Paul and Barnabas undertook for the purpose of consulting the apostles and elders in Jerusalem concerning the circumcision of the converted proselytes, of which we have an account Acts 15., &c., where see the notes. Some indeed have been of opinion, that the journey to Jerusalem here spoken of, was posterior to that council. But as there is no evidence that Paul and Barnabas travelled together any more after they returned to Antioch from the council, but rather evidence to the contrary,

(Act 15:39,) that opinion cannot be admitted. And communicated unto them To the chief of the church in Jerusalem; that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles (See Act 15:4,) namely, touching justification by faith alone; not that they might confirm me therein, but that I might preclude or remove prejudice from them. But privately to them which were of reputation Or to those of eminence, as the original expression here evidently signifies. He did not declare the doctrine which he preached publicly at first, but spoke severally to the apostles one by one; lest I should run, or should have run in vain That is, Lest, being suspected to preach differently from them, I should lose the fruit either of my present or past labours. For the other apostles might have greatly hindered the success of his labours, had they not been fully satisfied both of his mission and doctrine. In using the word run, the apostle beautifully expresses the swift progress of the gospel; and in speaking of running in vain, he alludes to a race, in which the person who loses the prize is said to run in vain.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

And I went up by revelation: and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain. [Paul went up to Jerusalem because he was outwardly appointed to do so by the church at Antioch (Act 15:2), and inwardly prompted to do so by the Lord. This revelation may have come to Paul through some prophet (Act 13:1-2), but it was more likely by the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Act 10:17-19; Act 11:12; Act 16:6-7), but the important point to note is, that as his gospel came from God, so also its sanctioning was brought about by God. Paul wisely consulted with the apostolic leaders (Act 15:4) before entering the council, lest, through some misunderstanding, he might encounter their opposition, and so have his work destroyed, for he recognized that if his labors were discountenanced at the fountain-head, all that he had done would be in vain. According to his characteristic use of metaphors, he describes his labors under the figure of the Grecian race.]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Verse 2

By revelation; under divine guidance. He did not go to seek direction from the apostles at Jerusalem.–Them which were of reputation. James, Peter, and John, are particularly mentioned, Galatians 2:9.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

This verse indicates that the apostle might have been having some doubts about the gospel that he had been preaching. I have to wonder if he had run into some Judaizers that were attempting to change his mind as to the simplicity of the gospel.

He went by revelation. In other words God had directed him to do this by a vision or revelation of some sort. He seemed to be sharing with them what he had been preaching to be sure he wasn’t running the course in vain.

Vain has the thought of empty. It is used of vessels that are empty. I would assume that he speaks of being empty handed at the judgment when he is evaluated by the Lord as to his works.

This idea of whether he was doubting what he had been preaching interests me. Why else would he phrase it this way if he did not want to double check what he had been doing for some time. Actually something that he seemed to have a real confidence in earlier in the book.

He went to great length to show that his message was from above, not from man, and here he seems to be double checking with man.

The answer is clear as you take a moment and read Act 15:1 ff. Some had come from Judea (area of Jerusalem) preaching circumcision as an integrated part of salvation. Paul and Barnabus had some serious discussions with these men and all decided to go to the apostles to discern the matter.

Wouldn’t it be great to have the apostles to go to to find out if the socks women wear under long skirts should be black or white, and other catastrophic church problems? All the problems that seem to come to fester and split churches could be handled by the apostles. Humm, maybe that is one reason the apostles died off so quickly – so we would go to the Word for our decision making rather than other men.

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson

2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, {a} in vain.

(a) Unfruitful, for as touching his doctrine, Paul does not doubt it, but because there were certain reports being spread about him, that he was of another opinion than the rest of the apostles were, which thing might have hindered the course of the Gospel. Therefore he labours to remedy this dangerous situation.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The first reason Paul went to Jerusalem evidently stemmed from one of two events. Agabus’ vision of an impending famine and the Antioch Christians’ consequent desire to send a gift to their hungry Jerusalem brethren may have prompted his visit (Act 11:27-30). On the other hand Paul may have received a vision himself. In either case a divine revelation was one factor that moved Paul to visit Jerusalem then.

Paul’s fear that he "should run . . . in vain" (lit.) may seem to refer to concern that the Jerusalem apostles upon hearing what he had been preaching would disapprove of it. However this cannot have been his fear. He previously said he was absolutely certain that his gospel, which came to him by special revelation, was the true gospel (Gal 1:11-12). He also said he did not need to get it approved by the other apostles (Gal 1:16-17). It seems rather that Paul feared that if he did not contact the Jerusalem apostles (Peter, James, and John) his critics might undermine his evangelistic work. They might point to the fact that Paul had had no fellowship with the Jerusalem apostles. They might go on to suggest that there was no fellowship because there was a difference of opinion between Paul and the other apostles over the gospel message. To avoid this possibility Paul met with Peter, James, and John privately. They may have met in private because Paul was a wanted man in Jerusalem at this time, and a public meeting could have resulted in more harm than good.

There may have been at least two other reasons for this meeting.

". . . positively expressed, his concern was to assure that they would recognize his converts as genuine Christians and members of the Church. He was concerned, in other words, with officially securing the freedom of the Gentiles from the requirements of the law and their equality of status with Jewish Christians.

 

"Implicit in this concern for Gentile freedom was concern for the unity of the Church: Paul’s anxiety was not lest refusal of recognition on the part of the Jerusalem authorities should thereby render his own work invalid and his Gentile Christians non-Christian, but lest such refusal should bring about a rupture of the one Church into two separate branches of Jewish and Gentile Christianity" [Note: Fung, p. 90.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)