Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 2:6
But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person: ) for they who seemed [to be somewhat] in conference added nothing to me:
6. But of these ] Rather, “But from those”. The sentence would have run regularly “From those of reputation I gained no new enlightenment”, but having been interrupted by a parenthesis (whatsoever person) the structure is changed. “To me, I say, these eminent persons gave no new instruction”.
who seemed to be somewhat ] nearly as in Gal 2:2. ‘Those of considerable reputation’, though here perhaps not without a shade of irony.
whatsoever they were ] Rather, ‘ once were’, i.e. as the chosen companions of Christ during His earthly ministry.
God accepteth no man’s person ] The force of this Hebraism is well illustrated by its use, Act 10:34. “God does not confine His favours to those upon whom He has already bestowed them, however abundantly”.
for they who seemed ] ‘for’ is here merely resumptive: ‘to me, I say, those of reputation (is there not a tinge of irony in the repetition of the phrase?) imparted nothing new’.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
6 9. The construction is again broken and irregular. The punctuation of the Rev. Vers. makes the sense clear. “But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man’s person) they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me: but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision (for He that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles); and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision”.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But of those who seemed to be somewhat – See Gal 2:2. This undoubtedly refers to those who were the most eminent among the apostles at Jerusalem. There is an apparent harshness in our common translation which is unnecessary. The word used here ( dokounton) denotes those who were thought to be, or who were of reputation; that is, men who were of note and influence among the apostles. The object of referring to them here is, to show that he had the concurrence and approbation of the most eminent of the apostles to the course which he had pursued.
Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me – Tyndale renders this, What they were in time passed, it maketh no matter to me. The idea seems to be this. Paul means to say that whatever was their real rank and standing, it did not in the least affect his authority as an apostle, or his argument. While he rejoiced in their concurrence, and while he sought their approbation, yet he did not admit for a moment that he was inferior to them as an apostle, or dependent on them for the justness of his views What they were, or what they might be thought to be, was immaterial to his claims as an apostle, and immaterial to the authority of his own views as an apostle. He had derived his gospel from the Lord Jesus; and he had the fullest assurance that his views were just. Paul makes this remark evidently in keeping with all that he had said, that he did not regard himself as in any manner dependent on them for his authority. He did not treat them with disrespect; but he did not regard them as having a right to claim an authority over him.
God accepteth no mans person – See the Act 10:34 note; Rom 2:11 note. This is a general truth, that God is not influenced in His judgment by a regard to the rank, or wealth, or external condition of anyone. Its particular meaning here is, that the authority of the apostles was not to be measured by their external rank, or by the measure of reputation which they had among men. If, therefore, it were to be admitted that he himself were not in circumstances of so much external honor as the other apostles, or that they were esteemed to be of more elevated rank than he was, still he did not admit that this gave them a claim to any higher authority. God was not influenced in His judgment by any such consideration; and Paul therefore claimed that all the apostles were in fact on a level in regard to their authority.
In conference – When I conferred with them, Gal 2:2. They did not then impose upon me any new obligations; they did not communicate anything to me of which I was previously ignorant.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Gal 2:6
But of those who seemed to be somewhat.
Authority and trust
I. A man who has truth on his side can be indifferent to mere authority. Because–
1. Mere authority has no weight with the Author of truth.
2. The man of truth can gain nothing from the sanction of mere authority.
II. Authoritative decisions derive what value they possess from the truth. The apostles pronounced on what they saw.
1. That the gospel of the uncircumcision and the circumcision was committed respectively to Paul and Peter.
2. That God wrought equally by both.
3. That both alike had Divine grace for their work.
God no accepter of persons
I. Spiritual excellence and not the accidents of external condition alone avails with God. Take some illustrations.
1. From Scripture: the choice of Abraham and Moses.
2. From providence.
(1) Wealth and power are administered impartially.
(2) Health on the whole is equally shared by rich and poor.
(3) Genius is confined to no class.
(4) So with the blessings of happiness, life, and age.
3. From the administration of redemption. Wilberforce in parliament, Bunyan in his cottage.
4. From the day of judgment and its results.
II. Why God has no respect of persons except in relation to moral goodness.
1. Accidents in condition, seemingly great to us, bear no such relation to Him.
2. They are not the essential and true elements of our being.
III. Why does God supremely value spiritual excellence?
1. It is the true basis of worth in every intelligent creature.
(1) Angels;
(2) man as man.
2. It is Gods own spiritual reflection, and therefore the true basis of friendship with Him. (J. Foster, B. A.)
Pauls non-indebtedness to the apostles
Paul wished to show that his apostolate, both in its origin and by the tenor of the facts which preceded this visit, was independent of the Twelve, and derived no authority from Jerusalem. He could not brook rival, still less superior, in the work that was before him, nor submit to any control whatsoever on the part of any man, however eminent he might be. This had been his constant determination from the first day of his Christianity, and he was not likely to forego it after so many years of missionary labour, and in the case of persons who owed all their knowledge of the gospel to him, till such time as these meddling emissaries had striven to misrepresent him, had repudiated his authority, and called in question the completeness of the gospel he preached. (Paul of Tarsus.)
Usefulness better than mere capacity
A monstrous vat, certainly, is the great tun of Heidelberg. It might hold eight hundred hogsheads of wine at the least; but what is the use of such wasted capacity, since, for nearly a hundred years, there has not been a drop of liquor in it! Hollow and sounding, empty and void and waste; vintages come and go, and find it perishing of dry rot. An empty cask is not so great a spectacle after all, let its size be what it may, though old travellers called this monster one of the wonders of the world. What a thousand pities it is that many men of genius and of learning are, in respect of usefulness, no better than this huge but empty tun of Heidelberg! Very capacious are their minds, but very unpractical. Better be a poor household kilderkin, and give forth ones little freely, than exist as a useless prodigy, capable of much and available for nothing. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Having a right estimate of ones self
A great deal of misery would be prevented, if ministers would endeavour to form an honest estimate of their qualifications, and, as a consequence, seek appointments for which they are specially qualified. If one might teach unpleasant doctrines through the medium of a figure, one can imagine how inconvenient it would be in the event of a great cathedral clock wearing out, for a neat Geneva watch to put itself forward as a candidate for the vacancy. The Geneva might be a beautiful little thing, and might keep the most exact time, and might be called endearing names by ladies and little children; yet, to speak the language of charity, it might hardly be adapted to be set a hundred and fifty feet above the ground, in a circular vacancy at least ten feet in diameter. In such a case its very elevation would become its obscurity. On the other hand, it would be quite as inconvenient ii a great cathedral clock, weary of city work, should ask to be carried about as a private timekeeper. There is amoral in the figure. That moral points towards the law of proportion and adaptation. One can imagine the petted Geneva looking up from a ladys hand, and calling the cathedral clock a great, coarse thing, with a loud and vulgar voice, which indicated the most offensive presumption; and we can imagine the cathedral clock looking down, with somewhat of disdain, upon the little timekeeping toy. Oh, that some sensible chronometer would say to the rivals, Cease your contention; you are both useful in your places. The one as a private chaplain, the other as a city orator, may tell the world to redeem its flying time. (Joseph Parker, D. D.)
Seeming Christians not always real ones
A servant girl once said she should not have known her master and mistress were religious had she not heard that they took the sacrament. It was a pity they took it. If a man rolled on a bed of spices you would soon know where he had been, and if a man went with Jesus he must be perfumed with the spirit of Jesus. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
God accepteth no mans person
With God there is no free man but His servant, though in the galleys; no slave but the sinner, though in a palace; none noble but the virtuous, if never so basely descended; none rich but he that possesseth God, even in rags; none wise but he that is a feel to himself and the world; none happy but he whom the world pities. Let me be free, noble, rich, wise, happy, to God. (Bp. Hall.)
God accepteth no mans person
A North German periodical gives the following story as told by a Bible colporteur: In one of my journeys I came to Varzin while the Imperial Chancellor was residing there. After I had done a long days work, I went to the inn. I was there asked if I would go to evening prayers at Bismarcks house, as the daughter of the host was going. I accepted the invitation, and when I got there I found myself in a spacious and very suitable room which had been built for the purpose. It was well filled with servants, farm labourers, and villagers, some of whom, having seen me before, greeted me kindly. Soon afterwards Prince Bismarck made his appearance, nodding kindly right and left as he passed. He then said–I hear we have a Bible-man among us, and he looked me straight in the face in his kindly way. You will be so kind as to conduct service for us this evening: I rose up and answered–It would be displacing your highness for me to when the prince interrupted me with, Ah, my good man, what does highness signify? Here in Gods sight we are all poor sinners; so come here and take my place this evening, and conduct the service for us: So of course I accepted his invitation, the prince taking his place amongst the audience; and when it was over he shook me warmly by the hand, and wished me Gods richest blessing on my way.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 6. Those who seemed to be somewhat] . Those who were of acknowledged reputation; so the words should be understood, see Ga 2:2. The verb , to seem, is repeatedly used by the best Greek writers, not to call the sense in question, or to lessen it, but to deepen and extend it. See Clarke on Lu 8:18. Perhaps this verse had best be translated thus, connecting with : But there is no difference between those who were of acknowledged reputation and myself; God accepts no man’s person; but, in the conferences which I held with then, they added nothing to me-gave me no new light; did not attempt to impose on me any obligation, because they saw that God had appointed me my work, and that his counsel was with me.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
But of those who seemed to be somewhat: the word translated seemed, is the same with that in Gal 2:2, which we there translate of reputation. The apostle means the same persons that were of the greatest reputation, and so the following words,
to be somewhat, do import, Act 5:36; 8:9. We must not understand the apostle, by this expression, to detract from the just reputation that the apostles, and these eminent Christians at Jerusalem, had; he only taketh notice here of them, as magnified by the false teachers of this church, to the lessening of himself; and as those who seemed to be somewhat, must be interpreted as relating to these mens estimation of them; that seemed to you to be somewhat, though I seem nothing to you.
Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; whatsoever they were formerly, suppose (as probably some of these Galatians had said) that they saw Christ in the flesh, were immediately called by him, when I was a Pharisee, &c.
God accepteth to mans person; hath no regard to what a man hath been, but to what he is.
For they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me; when I came to confer and discourse with them, about the doctrine which I and they had taught, I learned no new doctrine from them, different from what I had before taught, neither did they reprove or correct me, for any thing which I had taught amiss; we were all of the same mind.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
6. Greek, “Fromthose who,” c. He meant to complete the sentence with “Iderived no special advantage” but he alters it into “they .. . added nothing to me.”
acceptethso as to showany partiality; “respecteth no man’s person” (Eph6:9).
seemed to besomewhat that is, not that they seemed to bewhat they were not, but “were reputed as persons ofsome consequence“; not insinuating a doubt but that theywere justly so reputed.
in conference addedor”imparted”; the same Greek as in Ga1:16, “I conferred not with flesh and blood.” As I didnot by conference impart to them aught at my conversion, so they nowdid not impart aught additional to me, above what I already knew.This proves to the Galatians his independence as an apostle.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But of these, who seemed to be somewhat,…. Not the false brethren, but the Apostles James, Cephas, and John, who were , “men of great esteem”: high in the opinion of all good men; not that they were looked upon to be more than human, as Simon Magus gave out that he was “some great one”, and his followers thought him to be “the great power of God”; for such an extravagant conceit of these men was never entertained; nor were they thought to be something when they were nothing, for they really were somewhat; they were ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of grace; they were the Lord’s ambassadors, and the apostles of the Lamb. However, says the apostle,
whatsoever they were; , “formerly”, some time ago, which our version does not so fully express,
it maketh no matter to me, God accepteth no man’s person. This is said, not by way of slight or contempt, but in vindication of himself, whom the false teachers endeavoured to lessen, by giving high encomiums of the apostles at Jerusalem. It looks as if they had upbraided the apostle with being a persecutor of the church before his conversion, when nothing of such a nature could be laid to the charge of these men, and therefore he was not to be set upon a level with them: to which he may be thought to reply in such manner as this, that as for himself, it is true, he had been an injurious person to the saints; and he was ready to own it, for his own humiliation, and to illustrate the grace of God in his conversion; and as these excellent men, what they were before their conversion, it was no concern of his; though, perhaps, was he disposed to inquire into their characters then, some blemishes might be found therein, as well as in his; but it is not what he and they had been, but what they now were: he could have observed, that they were persons formerly of a very low figure in life, of mean occupations, fishermen by employment, and very illiterate persons, when he was bred a scholar at the feet of Gamaliel; but he chose not to make such observations, he knew that God was no respecter of persons, nor was he influenced by any such external circumstances, but chose whom he pleased to such an high office; and that he, who of fishermen made them apostles, of a persecutor had made him one also. Or these false teachers perhaps had objected to him, that these valuable men had been with Christ from the beginning, were eyewitnesses of his majesty, heard the doctrines of the Gospel from his lips, and saw his miracles, had had a similar conversation with him, when he was a preacher of much later date, and could not pretend to such advantages, and therefore ought not to be equalled to them: his answer is, that whatever privileges of this kind they had enjoyed, as could not be denied but they were considerable, yet this mattered not, nor did it make any great difference between him and them; he had seen Christ too, though as one born out of due time; had received an immediate commission from him to preach his Gospel, and was appointed an apostle by him as they were, without any respect of persons: and whereas it might have been urged, that these men had entertained different sentiments from him formerly, concerning the observance of the law, he signifies he had nothing to do with that, to their own master they stood, to whom they must give an account, who, without respect of persons, will render to every man according to his works: and, adds he,
for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me; whatever opinions they formerly gave into, in their conversation with him, when he communicated the Gospel he preached to them, they found no fault with it; they did not go about to correct it; nor did they make any addition to it; the scheme of truths he laid before them, which had been the subject of his ministry, was so complete and perfect, containing the whole counsel of God, that they had nothing to add unto it; which shows the agreement between them, that he did not receive his Gospel from them, the perfection of his ministry, and that he was not a whit behind them in knowledge and gifts.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Somewhat (). Something, not somebody. Paul refers to the Big Three (Cephas, James, and John). He seems a bit embarrassed in the reference. He means no disrespect, but he asserts his independence sharply in a tangled sentence with two parentheses (dashes in Westcott and Hort).
Whatsoever they were ( ). Literally, “What sort they once were.”
Hopoioi is a qualitative word (1Thess 1:9; 1Cor 3:13; Jas 1:24). Lightfoot thinks that these three leaders were the ones who suggested the compromise about Titus. That is a possible, but not the natural, interpretation of this involved sentence. The use of (but) in verse 6 seems to make a contrast between the three leaders and the pleaders for compromise in verses 4f.
They, I say, imparted nothing to me ( ). He starts over again after the two parentheses and drops the construction and changes the construction (anacoluthon) to (nominative case), the men of reputation and influences whom he names in verses 8f. See the same verb in 1:16. They added nothing in the conference to me. The compromisers tried to win them, but they finally came over to my view. Paul won his point, when he persuaded Peter, James, and John to agree with him and Barnabas in their contention for freedom for the Gentile Christians from the bondage of the Mosaic ceremonial law.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Render the passage as follows : “But to be something from (at the hands of) those who were of repute, whatever they were, matters nothing to me (God accepteth not man’s person), for those who were of repute imparted nothing to me.”
To be something [ ] . Comp. chapter Gal 11:3; Act 5:36; 2Co 12:11. To be in good standing as an evangelist or apostle, approved and commissioned by high authorities.
From those who were of repute [ ] . From, at the hands of; as receiving my indorsement or commission from them. Comp. chapter Gal 1:1. Of repute, see on verse 2.
Whatsoever they were [ ] . Pote in N. T. is invariably temporal, and points here to the preeminence which these apostles had formerly, up to the time of Paul ‘s visit, enjoyed, because of their personal connection with Jesus. 46 Maketh no matter to me [ ] . Paul does not say, as A. V. and Rev., that the standing and repute of the apostles were matters of indifference to him, but that he was indifferent about receiving his commission from them as recognized dignitaries of the church. The construction is : “To be something [ ] at the hands of [] those who were of repute matters nothing to me.”
God accepteth no man’s person. Or more strictly, accepteth not the person of man. Parenthitical. Lambanein proswpon to receive or accept the face is a Hebraism. See on Jas 2:1. In O. T. both in a good and a bad sense; to be gracious, and to show favor from personal or partisan motives. In N. T. only here and Luk 20:21, both in a bad sense. Similar Hebraistic expressions are blepein eijv proswpon to look at the face, Mt 22:16 : qaumazein proswpa to admire the countenances, Jude 1:16 kaucasqai ejn proswpw to glory in the face, 2Co 5:12. For – to me. Explaining the previous statement. To be of consequence because commissioned by those in repute matters nothing to me (God accepteth not man’s person), for although they might have asserted their high repute and authority to others, to me they did not, as shown by their imposing on me no new requirements.
In conference added nothing [ ] . In conference is an attempt to conform the sense to chapter Gal 1:16. The verb without the accusative, as there, means to confer with. Here, with the accusative, the meaning is laid upon or imposed on. Rend. therefore, imposed nothing on me. They imposed on me no new [ ] requirements; no conditions or limitations of my missionary work. 47
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “But of those who seemed to be somewhat,” (apo de ton dokounton eimai ti) “but from the ones seeming to be something,” putting on an outward show, who only deceive themselves, Gal 6:3; Rom 12:3; 1Co 8:2. Reputation counts not so much as character with God.
2) “Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me:” (hopoioi pote esan ouden moi diapherei) “of what kind they were then nothing matters to me; mere reputation or official position, both of which Paul once held among the Jews, he no longer counted of real importance in the sight of God.
3) “(God accepteth no man’s person:)” (prosopon (ho) theos anthropou ou lambanei) “The person of no man does God receive,” without regard to his reputation. He seeks for new characters, not old, hypo-persons with worldly reputation, or religious reputation, apart from -truth, Act 10:34; Rom 2:11. God looks on the heart, not on the outward appearance.
4) “For they who seemed to be somewhat in conference,” (gar oi dokountes) “For those seeming of reputation,” the chiefest of the apostles, Peter, James, and John.
5) “Added nothing to me,” (emoi ouden prosanethento) “added not one thing to me,” or when calculated, added up for what they were, added nothing to me. They communicated no further revelation to Paul, 2Co 12:11.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
6. Of those who seemed to be somewhat. (42) Paul is not yet satisfied, without making the Galatians understand that he had learned nothing from Peter and the apostles. Hence Porphyry and Julian (43) accuse the holy man of pride, because he claims so much for himself that he cannot endure to learn anything from others; because he boasts of having become a teacher without any instruction or assistance; and because he labors so hard not to appear in an inferior character. But any one who will consider how necessary that boasting was, will acknowledge that it was holy boasting, and worthy of the highest praise; for, if he had yielded this point to his opponents, that he had profited under the apostles, he would have furnished them with two charges against him. They would immediately have said, “And so you made some progress; you corrected your past errors, and did not repeat your former rashness.” Thus, in the first place, the whole doctrine which he had hitherto taught would have fallen under suspicion; and, secondly, he would ever afterwards have possessed less authority, because he would have been reckoned but an ordinary disciple. We find, therefore, that it was not on his own account, but by the necessity under which he lay to establish the doctrine, that he was led to this holy boasting. The controversy has no reference to individuals, and therefore cannot be a struggle of ambition; but Paul’s determination was that no man, however eminent, should throw into the shade his apostleship, on which the authority of his doctrine depended. If this be not enough to silence those dogs, their barking is sufficiently answered.
Whatsoever they were. These words must be read as a separate clause; for the parenthesis was intended to assure his opponents that he did not concern himself with the opinions of men. This passage has been variously interpreted. Ambrose thinks that it is a passing reference to the folly of attempting to lower Paul by holding up the apostles; and represents him as saying; “As if I were not equally at liberty to object that they were poor, illiterate men, while I, from my early years, enjoyed a liberal education under the care of Gamaliel. But I pass over all this, because I know that there is no respect of persons with God.” Chrysostom and Jerome take a harsher view of the words, as an indirect threatening of the most distinguished apostles. “Whatsoever they may be, if they swerve from duty, they shall not escape the judgment of God; neither the dignity of their office, nor the estimation of men, shall protect them.” But another interpretation appears to me more simple, and more agreeable to Paul’s design. He admits that they were first in the order of time, but contends that this did not prevent him from being their equal in rank. He does not say that it is of no consequence to him what they are at present; but he is speaking of a period now past, when they were already apostles, and when he was opposed to the faith of Christ. In short, he does not choose that what is past shall decide the matter; and refuses to admit the proverb, that he who comes first has the best right.
No man’s person. Besides the interpretations which I have mentioned, a third is not unworthy of notice, — that in the government of the world distinctions of rank are admitted, but in the spiritual kingdom of Christ they can have no place. There is plausibility in the statement, but it is in reference to worldly government, that it is said,
“
Ye shall not respect persons in judgment,.” (Deu 1:17.)
But I do not enter into that argument, for it does not affect this passage. Paul simply means, that the honorable rank which the apostles had attained did not prevent him from being called by God, and raised, all at once, from the lowest condition to be their equal. The difference between them, though great, is of no value in the sight of God, who does not accept persons, and whose calling is not influenced by any prejudices. But this view may likewise appear liable to objection; for, granting it to be true, and a truth which must be carefully maintained, that in our intercourse with God there is no respect of persons, how does this apply to Peter and his fellow-apostles, who were venerable, not merely for their rank, but for true holiness and spiritual gifts?
The word person is contrasted with the fear of God and a good conscience; and this is its ordinary acceptation in Scripture. (Act 10:34 1Pe 1:17.) But piety, zeal, holiness, and other similar graces, were the principal grounds of the esteem and respect in which the apostles were held; while Paul speaks contemptuously of them, as if they had possessed nothing but the outward forms.
I reply: Paul is not discussing the real worth of the apostles, but the idle boasting of his adversaries. In order to support their own unfounded pretensions, they talked in lofty terms of Peter, and James, and John, and took advantage of the veneration with which they were regarded by the Church, for accomplishing their earnest desire of degrading Paul. His object is not to inquire what the apostles are, or what opinion must be formed respecting them when controversy is laid aside, but to tear off the disguises which the false apostles wore. As in a subsequent part of the Epistle he treats of circumcision, not in its real character, but in the false and impious notion attached to it by those impostors, so he now declares that the apostles were in the sight of God disguises, by which those persons attempted to shine in the world; and this is evident from the words. Why did they prefer them to Paul? because they were his predecessors in office. This was a mere disguise. In any other point of view, they would have been highly esteemed, and the gifts of God manifested in them would have been warmly admired by one so singularly modest as the apostle Paul, who elsewhere acknowledges that he was “the least of the apostles,” and unworthy to occupy so exalted a station.
“
I am the least of the apostles, and not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.” (1Co 15:9.)
They communicated nothing to me. It might also be rendered, “they communicated nothing with me;” for it is the same word which he formerly used twice. (44) But the meaning is the same. When the apostles had heard Paul’s gospel, they did not on the other side bring forward their own, (as is commonly done when something better and more perfect is desired,) but were satisfied with his explanation, and simply and unhesitatingly embraced his doctrine, so that not even on the most doubtful point did a single word of debate pass between them. Nor are we to suppose that Paul, presuming on his superiority, took the lead in the discussion, and dictated to his brethren. On the contrary, his faith, about which unfavourable rumors had been spread, was fully explained by him, and sanctioned by their appropation.
(42) “ Τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι, the men ‘who appeared to be somewhat,’ that is, persons of highest character and estimation. For though this word signifies to ‘appear,’ or ‘seem,’ yet it is not always used in a diminutive or disparaging sense, but to denote what they really are, and what others think them to be. Thus, τῶν ᾿Ελλήνων δοκοῦντεςδιαφέρειν (AElian) are persons esteemed as the principal men of Greece; and Aristotle is said σόφος ἄνηρ καὶ ὦν καὶ εἶναι δοκῶν, both to be, and to be esteemed as a wise man.’ “Chandler.
(43) Porphyry, ( Πορφύριος.) a Greek philosopher, (whose original name was Malchus,) and Julian, the Roman emperor, (commonly called “the apostate,”) were able and virulent opponents of Christianity. Their writings drew forth powerful defences, by which all their arguments were triumphantly confuted. — Ed.
(44) “ ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς ”, Gal 2:2
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
TEXT 2:610
(6) But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not mans person)they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me: (7) but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision (8) (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles): (9) and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; (10) only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do.
PARAPHRASE 2:610
6 Besides, from the greatest of the apostles I received nothing: Whatever they were during their attendance on Christ, is no lessening of me, as an apostle. God does not shew favour to men on account of external advantages. He did not raise them who attended Christ during his ministry, above me. For to me, they who were of greatest reputation communicated neither knowledge, nor spiritual gifts, nor authority: Far less did they pretend to make me an apostle.
7 But, on the contrary, perceiving by what Jesus said when he appeared to me, that the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles was committed to me, even as the preaching of the gospel to the Jews had been committed to Peter;
8 For God, who wrought inwardly in Peter the gifts of inspiration, and miracles, and languages, to fit him for preaching to the Jews, wrought inwardly also in me the same gifts, in order to fit me for converting and instructing the Gentiles in every country whither I was to go.
9 And thus knowing the grace of apostleship which was bestowed on to me, James, and Peter, and John, who were esteemed chief supporters of the church, gave to me and Barnabas their right hands, in token of my fellowship with them in the apostolic office, and in token that Barnabas was sent forth by the Holy Ghost, to preach the gospel to the Gentiles; and agreed that we should travel among the Gentiles, while they preached to the Jews in Judea.
10 The only thing they desired was, that we would remember to make collectings for the poor, among the Gentiles; which very thing I also made haste to do among the converted Gentiles in Antioch.
COMMENT 2:6
But from those who were reputed to be somewhat
1.
The first ones chosen to be apostles would naturally carry much prestige.
2.
No primacy of Peter is indicated here, although he must be referred to, as seen in verse eight.
whatsoever they were maketh no matter
1.
They could not rest upon their early calling.
2.
Their prestige was not to be the deciding factor.
3.
Truth, and not person of men, was to be the issue.
they imparted nothing to me
1.
Paul was not egotistical; he was simply stating that he had a revelation of the gospel, so how could men teach him?
2.
He was blessed by their fellowship but the meeting was not to give Paul a message.
WORD STUDY 2:6
Accepteth not mans person is literally does not take the face. In the court system of that day, judges often based their verdicts on who the defendant was. The penalty for a slave would be drastically different from the penalty for a master. Likewise, the stranger or alien could not expect the same leniency the judges friend would receive. Ideal justice, like the blindfolded statue holding the impartial scales, treats all men on the same basis. As the perfect example of this ideal, God does not take a persons face.
COMMENT 2:7
I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision
1.
Are there two gospels? No.
2.
Paul explains in verse eight what is meant: there is only one message.
3.
It meant to whom the gospel was to be preached.
COMMENT 2:8
wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of circumcision
1.
The gospel was to be preached first to the Jew, Rom. 1:16
2.
The apostles agreed on areas of service and Paul was to go to Gentiles. Gal. 2:9
3.
It seems the words gospel and apostleship can be used interchangeably in verses seven and eight.
wrought for me also unto the Gentiles
1.
It is also translated was mighty in me for the Gentiles.
2.
Cf. Act. 9:15 But the Lord said . . . He is a chosen vessel.
COMMENT 2:9
they perceive the grace that was given unto me
1.
They could see:
a.
The evidence of his salvationthe Holy Spirit.
b.
The evidence of his own working of miracles.
c.
The evidence of his own power in preaching.
2.
Several verses using this same expression to show reference to Pauls apostleship. Cf. 1Co. 3:10; Rom. 12:3; Rom. 15:5
James, Cephas and John
1.
This James is believed to be the half-brother of Christ.
2.
Notice that James is named first. There is no papal primacy here, or Peters name would appear first.
reputed to be pillars
1.
Pillars are supports for the main building.
2.
The strength of a local church is its local leadership as it stands upon Christ, the bedrock.
a.
Weak elders mean a sagging church.
b.
The church is the pillar and ground of the truth. 1Ti. 3:15
c.
No nation is stronger than the church within it.
gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship
1.
This is an open gesture of common acceptance.
2.
Strike hands is seen in the O.T.
a.
Cf. Job. 17:3 . . . who is there that will strike hands with me.
b.
Cf. Pro. 6:1 My son, if thou are become surety for thy neighbor, if thou hast stricken thy hands, for a stranger . . .
that we should go unto the Gentiles and they unto the circumcision
1.
This is the first comity agreement of the church.
2.
The Gentiles have no special requirements given in this agreement.
3.
This was to make certain a wide preaching of the Gospel.
a.
This agreement was not among denominations to give all men a chance to hear the Gospel.
b.
The gospel allows no favoritism.
WORD STUDY 2:9
The Greek word for fellowship (koinoniacoin oh NEE ah) was a favorite expression for the most intimate of human relationships, marriage. It was called the fellowship of life. The close association, or partnership, of this word signifies a sharing and participation in each others life.
The right hand of fellowship in this verse not only approved Paul and Barnabas as fellow Christians, but also as fellow teachers and leaders. It was a formal recognition of the share they had in each others ministries, and amounted to an endorsement.
COMMENT 2:10
only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do.
1.
The poor probably referred to the Christians within the province of James, Peter, and John.
2.
Pauls zeal to do this is evident both before and after the conference.
a.
On his very first trip to Jerusalem, he took relief for the Judean brethren.
b.
Cf. also 1Co. 16:1; 2Co. 8:1-5; 2Co. 9:1-8; Rom. 15:25-27; Act. 24:17.
STUDY QUESTIONS 2:610
162.
Could the reputed ones refer to the primacy of Peter taught by some?
163.
Was prestige more important to Paul than truth?
164.
Did Paul receive any new truth from the reputed ones?
165.
Does Paul teach that there are two gospels?
166.
Did his preaching differ from Peters?
167.
Were Paul and Peter commissioned by the same authority?
168.
Could the word gospel and apostleship refer to the same commission?
169.
Could the gospels mentioned refer to areas of service rather than to content?
170.
How did Paul decide that he was to go to the Gentiles?
171.
Who perceived Pauls grace?
172.
How was this grace manifested?
173.
Who were the pillars?
174.
How did the pillars react?
175.
Did they agree on areas of work?
176.
Is this comparable to comity agreements?
177.
Who was the James named here?
178.
If the men are named in order of importance, what does this do to the doctrine of the primacy of Peter?
179.
What is the right hand of fellowship?
180.
What exhortation was given to Pauls group?
181.
Did Paul show interest in it?
182.
Who would poor refer to?
183.
Was Pauls word zeal well spoken?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(6) The Apostle returns from his digression on the case of Titus to give the result of his experience with the elder Apostles, in continuation of Gal. 2:3. I did indeed hold conference with them privately; but with all their advantages, real or assumed, I learnt nothing from them that I did not already know, and they ended by recognising the independence and validity of my mission.
But of these who seemed to be somewhat.Translate rather, But from those who are reputed to be somewhat. The phrase corresponds to them which are of reputation in Gal. 2:2; and here, as there, it is important to keep the present tense. It is not only those who were of authority at the Council, but those who are the great authorities with you Galatians now. The Apostle speaks with a certain amount of irony. From these very great authorities, these persons of such especial reputation [I got nothing].
Whatsoever they were.We shall, perhaps, not be wrong in keeping to the Authorised version, though some of the best commentators translate rather, What they (once) were, with a stress on were, and referring to the advantage which they possessed over St. Paul in having known Christ after the flesh through their early call to the Apostleship.
God accepteth no mans person.This phrase is a curious instance of a Greek expression framed after the analogy of the Hebrew, and yet in the process contracting a different signification, through the influence of the idiomatic use of one of the Greek expressions involved. To accept the face in the Old Testament is used in a good sense of showing favour to any one, but without any imputation of partiality. To accept the face (or person) in the New Testament always carries with it the idea of partiality; the word for face being idiomatically used for a mask, and hence coming to mean the outward, assumed, accidental characteristics of a man as opposed to his real and inward character. (Comp. Mat. 22:16; Luk. 20:21; Act. 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; Jas. 2:1; Jas. 2:9; Jud. 1:16.) The meaning here is that even if the elder Apostles had seen with their eyes, and looked upon and handled the Word of Life (1Jn. 1:1), God would not regard the advantages implied in this more than any other external advantage of birth, position, natural gifts, &c.
For they who seemed to be somewhat.The same phrase as in Gal. 2:2 : they who were of reputation. There is here another break in the regular construction of the sentence. The Apostle begins as if he were going to finish differently: From those who are reputed to be somewhat . . . I received nothing in the conference which I had with them; but he suddenly changes his point of view: From those who are reputed to be somewhat (sentence left unfinished) to me, I say, these reputable persons added nothing.
In conference added nothing.Added in conference is all one word in the Greek, and corresponds to communicated in Gal. 2:2. The idea of adding (i.e., imparting fresh knowledge) seems, however, to be derived rather from the context than from the form of the Greek compound, as our translators apparently supposed.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
6-10. Having dismissed the case of the Judaists and the Council, Paul now touches the question vital with the Galatians: What were your final relations, Paul, with the pillars? And this he now answers. These pillars, on whom you so much lean, though they are only my co-equal apostles, agreeing that Peter and myself had one Christianity yet different fields, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. Undoubtedly there are slightly disparaging terms of expression regarding the apostles, and these arise from two sources: 1. St. Paul uses terms derived from his first impressions on arriving at Jerusalem. He had been but transiently there since his schooling under Gamaliel. He had been “roughing it” for fourteen years as foreign missionary. On arriving at the sacred capital he finds three apostles looming up as pillars, as if not only the apostolate, but the Church, seemed all but embodied in them. It costs him some effort to adjust his conceptions to this seeming, and to present his history in a fore-council to them. 2. He intimates that the Galatians, in subjecting his apostolate to the decision of these pillars, do make them over tall, and he is willing to diminish the surplusage. He, too, is a pillar, and all the pillars are of equal height. There is no proof, and no probability, that, as Renan maintains from this passage, any contrariety existed between Paul and these apostles. Christianity was not thus divided into two hostile camps.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
6. Seemed to be somewhat In special contrast to those who seemed to be no-what at all the factionists. From this point the narrative flows in a clear yet troubled current, like a pure stream rippling among pebbles. The reader’s eye may leap from this clause to Gal 2:9, where Paul fairly begins again, all that intervenes being a tangle of parentheses. The main thought is, that the three seeming pillars accepted him as a fourth.
Whatsoever person These clauses are a first parenthesis; for they connect subordinately with somewhat.
No matter to me Paul here retraces his impressions at the time. He brought his case before them as accidental, not essential, superiors. Their position was of no importance to him.
Accepteth person Prof. Lightfoot notes that this phrase in the Old Testament Hebrew means to favour one, without necessarily including any invidious sense. But in the New Testament Greek the word person originally signifying an actor’s theatrical mask acquires the idea of something assumed upon and over the real being. To accept the person, then, is to favour him, not for or according to his real desert or quality, but according to some external advantages, as rank, dress, wealth, reputation. Paul, appearing at Jerusalem, was conscious that his call was equally divine; his qualifications, at least, as great; his labours and successes more abundant. And so he knew the divine Eye saw. These pillars are lofty metropolitans, and I am a hard looking itinerant; but God is not deceived by externals.
Added nothing In spite of their seeming. They imparted to me no new gospel. I had derived from Christ by revelation all they could tell me. Quite the reverse, as he will next show.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But from those who were reputed somewhat, (whatever they were it does not matter to me, God does not accept a man’s person); they, I say, who were of repute, imparted nothing to me, but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with that of circumcision (for he who wrought for Peter in the apostleship of circumcision wrought for me also to the Gentiles), and when they perceived the grace of God that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the uncircumcision and they to the circumcision.’
In this rather convoluted sentence Paul now sums up the situation. He stresses that he had had nothing important to learn from these great Apostles (‘they who were of repute imparted nothing to me’). On the contrary they had recognised his special ministry to the Gentiles, and that God was working through him as He was through them, and they had confirmed their approval of his activities by offering ‘the right hands of fellowship’. The offering of the right hand, the sword hand, was an evidence of a willingness for peace and non-belligerence. It was accepting the terms that had been laid out, and doing it in a spirit of common agreement.
‘Those who were reputed somewhat.’ This describes the men held in repute, which included Cephas (Peter), John, and James, the Lord’s brother, to whom the Judaisers pointed as their authority. The ministry of the twelve appears at this point to have mainly been limited to Jews, so that the question of circumcision had never really arisen, and all converts had been required to conform to Jewish ritual and probably initially attend the synagogues. The few exceptions, like Cornelius and his band (Acts 10-11), had been left as a grey area. The Judaisers, seeing this, had misunderstood their position.
‘Whatever they were it does not matter to me, God does not accept a man’s person.’ Paul is pointing out that he is not impressed by titles of office or by men’s supposed importance. It is their ministry that counts. For as he will point out in 1 Corinthians, each is accountable to God and must not be exalted above others. A man is not accepted for his position because of who he is, but because of the quality of his service (1Co 3:5-15). He is not here criticising the Apostles. He had consulted the Apostles, and they had proved themselves to Paul by the stance they took, and were approved by their successful ministry. He is, however, stressing that in the end all must be judged by how they stand up for the truth.
‘When they saw that I had been entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with that of circumcision (for he who wrought for Peter in the apostleship of circumcision wrought for me also to the Gentiles), and when they perceived the grace of God that was given to me.’ Peter’s main ministry was to Jews and in this he was hugely successful (later his ministry would necessarily expand), but he had recognised how God was working powerfully through Paul and had acknowledged that the grace of God was at work there too. They had agreed that the Gospel of the uncircumcision and the Gospel of the circumcised was the same Gospel. The difference was simply in the approach to be taken in particular circumstances.
The change of address from Cephas (Aramaic) to Peter (Greek) may here reflect the context in view, that it is speaking of his Apostleship to the Jews, to many of whom he would be Cephas, but now as seen in the eyes of the Gentiles, to whom he would be Peter. Paul uses Cephas when seeing him as the authority who was in and from Jerusalem
‘James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the uncircumcision and they to the circumcision.’ The result of the mutual recognition was specific authorisation from the twelve for them to continue their ministry among the Gentiles in the same way as they had ministered already. The deliberate joining of right hands stressed their unity and oneness and agreement to the compact. This sign of acceptance was widely known in the ancient world. This was final confirmation that ‘those who were reputed’ actually backed Paul and his ministry and teaching.
James is probably placed first because he was by now the recognised senior elder of the Jerusalem church. This would strongly suggest that, as the brother of Jesus, he was seen as being on the same level as the Apostles. On the other hand Paul may have named him first to demonstrate that he was not overawed by the twelve, or in recognition that he was the Lord’s brother.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The result of the visit to Jerusalem:
v. 6. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man’s person;) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me;
v. 7. but contrariwise, when they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
v. 8. (for He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles;)
v. 9. and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen and they unto the circumcision.
v. 10. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. Paul’s great agitation is here again evident, for he breaks the construction of the sentence again and again, apparently losing the thread of his discourse, but he never fails to bring out the central idea which he has in mind. He wants to emphasize his independent apostolic commission, and this fact is brought out in spite of the involved construction: But of those that were in repute as being something, whatever they may have been, it makes no difference to me; the face of a man God does not accept, for to me those in repute imparted nothing. In his anxiety to emphasize the point he wishes to make in the proper manner, Paul does not finish his first sentence, although he brings out the thought. Those that were esteemed highly in the congregation of Jerusalem had no word of disapprobation for the content and manner of Paul’s preaching, and on the other hand they had no instruction for him, they did not attempt to teach him anything as to his doctrine. And in order that this fact might be impressed upon the minds of the false teachers and their followers in the midst of the Galatian congregations, he explains his use of the word “in repute” by the parenthetical remark that the status of these people in no way impressed him, for God does not judge according to outward appearance and station. His apostolic authority and power did not rest upon their commission and approval. They had not prescribed the form of his doctrine. “This he says in order to show that he, in the judgment of the very apostles of whom the false teachers boasted against Paul, had taught correctly, and that the apostles stood on his side against the false apostles, who boasted of the authority of men.”
The entire manner of the leaders in the congregation at Jerusalem not only did not express disapproval of Paul and his ministry: But on the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, just as Peter with that of the circumcision (for He that was operative for Peter with regard to the apostleship of the circumcision was operative also in me toward the heathen), and found out about the grace which was given to me, James and Peter and John being the men, they that were esteemed to be pillars, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (with the understanding) that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision. During the conference which was held at Jerusalem between James, as the head of the local church, Act 21:18, Peter, and John, on the one side, and Barnabas and Paul, on the other, the situation was fully discussed, from every angle. And the result of the discussion was that they all agreed, from the evidence offered: It is God’s will that Paul preach the Gospel chiefly to the heathen, just as it seems clear that Peter has a special call to preach Jesus to the Jews. Thus each one recognized the problem which was given him, attempting the solution, however, not in his own wisdom; for Paul, in repudiating false charges against his authority also in this instance, gives all glory to God, since it was He that was operative in both Peter and him, in the one to work with great success among the Jews, in the other to be equally successful among the Gentiles. So the men that were considered pillars, according to the judgment of men, recognized without reserve, fully acknowledged, the calling of Paul which had been entrusted to him by grace and confirmed by special gifts of grace. To the evidence afforded by the success of his labors among the heathen was added the conviction that this was due to the grace of God. This frank acknowledgment was just as openly manifested when they all shook hands in token of fellowship and agreed that the arrangement by which Paul was to devote himself to preaching the Gospel among the Gentiles and the others to teaching the Jews was to be observed. Not as though Peter and John would not have dared to instruct a Gentile or Paul and Barnabas a Jew, as Luther remarks. “The mutual understanding between the two groups of apostles obviously did not imply an absolute restriction of each to one section of the Church. All converts alike were members of a single united Church; circumstances of themselves forbade any definite division: Paul opened his ministry everywhere in the synagogue, and numbered Jews as well as Greeks among his converts. So Peter, again, is next found at Antioch.”
There was one more point in the agreement, however, which Paul expressly mentions, since it was of such importance in his work: Only that the poor we should keep in mind, which, indeed, I was zealous to do. The frankness, integrity, and truthfulness of Paul is here brought out, as well as his disinterestedness, his unselfishness. That he kept the poor in Judea in mind at all times is apparent in many passages of his letters, 1Co 16:1; 2Co 8:9. “The poor whom he, Rom 15:26, calls the poor saints are those whom the Jews, for the sake of Christ, had deprived of their goods and possessions… or those that had given their possessions to the congregation, as is written Act 4:32; probably also those that suffered want in the famine which, as Luke mentions in Acts, chap. 11:28, happened under Emperor Claudius. ” Paul purposely brings forward this bit of evidence in order to emphasize the contrast between the Jewish Christian opposition to him in the work of the Judaizing teachers and his approved zeal and affection for the Jewish Christians
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Gal 2:6. But of those who seemed to be somewhat, St. Paul having shewn, in the preceding verses, what passed between the false brethren, and him, now proceeds to shew what passed between the chief of the brethren and himself; and therefore some introduce the verse with these words: Thus we behaved ourselves towards the false brethren; but of those, &c. However the words, who seemed to be somewhat, may answer the original, they certainly carry to an English ear a diminishing and ironical sense, contrary to the meaning of the Apostle, who speaks here of those for whom he had a real esteem, and who were truly of the first rank; for it is plain by what follows, that he means Peter, James, and John. Besides, the phrase being taken in a good sense, Gal 2:2 and translated those of reputation, the same mode of expression should have been retained when the same term occurs. Every one sees that there is something implied at the beginning of this verse. Most commentators add the words, I learned nothing; but this enervates the reason subjoined at the close of the verse;I learned nothing of them,for they taught me nothing; but it is very good reasoning, and suited to his purpose, to say that it was nothing at all to him how much those great men were in Christ’s favour; “But as for those who were really men of eminence, what they were or are, matters not at all to me in the present instance; God accepts not the person of any man, but communicates the gospel to whom he pleases, as he has done to me by revelation, without their help: for in their conference with me, they added nothing to me;they taught me nothing new, nor had they any thing to object against what I preached to the Gentiles.” Peter, James, and John, who appear from Gal 2:9 to be the persons here spoken of, seem, of all the apostles, to have been most in esteem and favour with their Master during his conversation upon earth: “But yet that,” says St. Paul, “is of no moment now to me. The gospel which I preach, and which God, who is no respecter of persons, has been pleased to commit to me by immediate revelation, is not the less true; nor is there any reason for me to recede from it in a tittle; for these men of the first rank could find nothing to add, alter, or gainsay.” This is suitable to St. Paul’s design here, to let the Galatians see, that as he, in his carriage, had never favoured circumcision; so neither had he any reason, by preaching circumcision, to forsake the doctrine of liberty in respect to the law of Moses, which he had preached to them as a part of that gospel delivered to him by revelation.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Gal 2:6 . Paul having described in Gal 2:3-5 the momentous result of his relations towards the Christians in Jerusalem ( , Gal 2:2 ), now passes on (corresponding to the , Gal 2:2 ) to his relations towards the apostles , explaining that the same result had then followed his discussions with them.
The construction is anacoluthic
On , which may mean either to reckon oneself to be something great , or to be esteemed great by others (so here), see Wetstein. Comp. Plat. Euthyd . p. 303 C, . The same persons are meant who are referred to in Gal 2:2 by . But the addition of , and the . . . which follows, betray here a certain irritation in reference to the opponents, who would not concede to Paul an estimation equal to that given to the original apostles, as if belonged pre-eminently to the latter.
] Now come the parenthetical remarks, on account of which Paul leaves his . standing alone, but which he introduces, lest the high estimation of those apostles which in itself, according to the real (and by him undisputed) circumstances of the case, he by no means calls in question should lead to the inference that he had needed instruction from them. Comp. the subsequent . ., and the thought already floating before the apostle’s mind in the anacoluthic (see above). Wieseler affirms too generally, that “Paul desired to check the overvaluing of the older apostles.” The real state of the case is this: Paul, with all decision, by way of countervailing that of those men of high standing which he does not dispute, throws into the scale his own independence of them. And the weight of this countervailing lies precisely in , so far as the latter belongs to , and is not, as Hofmann will have it, an appendage to .
The , with a direct or indirect interrogative, is the strengthening cunque or tandem which occurs constantly in Greek authors (Khner, ad Xen. Mem . i. 1), although not elsewhere in the N.T. (comp. 2Ma 14:32 ); see also Ellendt, Lex. Soph . II. p. 615 f. Whosoever they were , in whatsoever high repute they stood [74] while I was then with them, it is all the same to me . Rckert makes mean, “whether high or low, apostles or what else;” holding that Paul speaks intentionally in an indefinite way of these men in high repute, as if he did not exactly know that they were apostles (?), in order to give the less offence in what he said. How strange this would be! for every reader knew whom he meant. And how unsuitable to his purpose! for what Paul desires to tell, is the recognition he received from the apostles . Many refer back to the lifetime of Jesus , when those apostles had been His trusted disciples: some taking as olim (Vulgate, Jerome, Pelagius, Luther, Beza, and others, including Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Ewald); and others, with us, as cunque (“quiqui illi fuerunt, etiam si ab ipso Jesu instituti, perinde est,” Hermann; comp. Winer). But in the case of James (see on Gal 2:9 ) this reference would not be even historically applicable, or it would need at least to be applied to a different kind of relation (that of kinship ); see Hilgenfeld. And besides, there is nothing at all to indicate any such retrospective reference to that remote past; the context points merely to the time of Paul’s sojourn in Jerusalem. Hence also it must not, with others still, be referred to what was quite foreign to the apostle’s aim the pre-Christian condition of the apostles, in which they had been sinners (Estius; comp. Augustine), or and fishermen (Ambrose, Thomas, Cajetanus, Cornelius a Lapide, and others), being likewise understood as olim . [75]
] matters to me nothing . See Schaefer, ad Dion. Hal . p. 294; Lobeck, ad Phryn . p. 394.
] , an asyndetic, and thereby more forcible and weighty, statement of the reason for . “ Dei judicium sequebatur Paulus,” Bengel. , , properly, to accept the countenance of any one (not to dismiss), is used in the O.T. both in a good sense ( to be inclined, or gracious, to any one , Gen 19:21 ; Gen 32:21 , et al .) and in a bad sense, implying a favour and respect which is partial , determined by personal considerations (Lev 19:15 ; Deu 10:17 , et al.; Sir 4:27 ; 3 Esr. 4:39). In the N.T. it is used solely in this bad sense (Mat 22:16 ; Mar 12:14 ; Luk 20:21 ; Jud 1:16 . Comp. Act 10:34 ; Jas 2:9 ; Rom 2:11 ; Eph 6:9 ; Col 3:25 ; Jas 2:1 ). The transposed arrangement of the words lays the chief emphasis upon , and then by makes us sensible of the contrast between the manner and dignity of the divine procedure and such partiality for human authority. Comp. Hom. Od . xix. 363 f., .
] Proof , not of his independence of the apostles generally, but specially for what he had just said, . , from personal experience . Hence is emphatically placed first: “ for to me for my part although others may have received instruction from them, to me they have communicated nothing.” Paul’s idea therefore is, that if God had been partial, He would not have placed him on such parity with the , that to him , etc. Rckert, wrongly anticipating, says that the prefixed finds its antithesis in Gal 2:11 : “ to me they have communicated nothing, etc.; but indeed, when Peter came to Antioch, I was compelled to admonish him .” But in this case, at least Gal 2:11 must have begun with or . According to Wieseler, Paul in is thinking of “to me, the former persecutor ,” an idea gratuitously introduced. In Hofmann’s view the antithesis is intended to be, that not to him from the others was anything submitted, but the converse . Comp. in Chrysostom, and the paraphrase of Erasmus. But if this were so, Paul must have written . . . , just as afterwards . . . , in order to have given at least a bare indication of this alleged antithesis.
] quite as in Gal 1:16 (comp. also Hofmann): they addressed no communications (“nihil contulerunt,” Vulgate) to me , namely, in order to instruct and advise me, a sense which is here also demanded by the context; see the sequel, and comp. Gal 1:12 . It is usually understood: , (Chrysostom), “nihil illi praesumserunt iis adjicere , quae prius a Christo accepta docueram inter gentes,” Beza; as also Valla, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Koppe, Morus, Borger, Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, [76] and others. Comp. Wieseler, Mrcker, and Hilgenfeld: “They submitted nothing in addition to that which had been submitted by me; they approved the gospel, which I am preaching among the Gentiles.” But expresses merely the direction , and not insuper (see on Gal 1:16 ). Should , however, be understood as to impose , would certainly express the idea novum , opus imponere (Xen. Mem . ii. 1. 8); as Rckert (so also Bretschneider and Lechler, p. 412) explains it, “ they imposed on me no further obligations ,” the observance of the law being the point principally alluded to. Comp. also Zeller, Apostelgesch . p. 235. But in opposition to this view, apart from the fact that it involves a quite needless departure from the signification of the same word in Gal 1:16 , the circumstance is decisive, that in the middle would necessarily mean “ suscipere novum opus,” as Xen. Mem. l.c ., and not “ imponere novum opus,” even though the comparison of the apostle’s obligation to a burden (comp. 1Co 9:16 f.) should appear sufficiently justified by the legal nature of the matters imposed.
] either the accusative of the object, or more strongly (comp. Gal 1:16 ), in no point , in no respect whateGalatians Gal 2 :The idea that a revelation is intended as the contents of . (Holsten), must be sought for in the context: it is not conveyed by the words per se .
[72] Comp. Dav. Schulz, who believes that quidnam tandem, adversus me actum est? is suppressed.
[73] Comp. Olshausen, who, however, assumes that in using Paul had at first some other phrase in his mind, but that he afterwards inexactly followed it up with . In all essential points Matthias agrees with Rckert, as does also Reithmayr, who improperly compares Xen. Cyr . iv. 1. 4.
[74] Not: how friendly and brotherly they were towards me (Matthias), to which meaning is far from suited.
[75] It was entirely in opposition to the context, that Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Jerome referred it to the earlier teaching of the apostles; taking Paul to say, that whether at an earlier date they had been Judaizers or not was to him a matter of indifference.
[76] Baur arbitrarily (I. p. 141, Exo 2 ) brings in the thought, “They have brought forward nothing against me, wherein I should have had to acknowledge them in the right.” is made to mean, nothing conclusive and convincing nothing whereby they would have confuted him and brought him over to their side (comp. Baur in the theol. Jahrb . 1849, p. 463). There is not the most remote allusion in the passage to any conflict between Paul and the original apostles; on the contrary, it implies the complete understanding on both sides, which was the result of the discussion. The conflict affected the members of the church who were stirred up by the and the false brethren themselves (vv. 3 5).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
(6) But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: (7) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (8) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) (9) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. (10) Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. (11) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (12) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. (13) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. (14) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (15) We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
I do not think it necessary to swell the pages of the Poor Man’s Commentary on the subject, (and which hath long since ceased, as well as all the parties of it,) concerning Paul’s reproving Peter. It should seem very clearly from the history, that Paul’s doctrine, and Peter’s, were both essentially, one and the same, on all the grand points of the Gospel. 1Pe 1:5 . They only differed, as to the indulgence Peter had shown to the Gentiles, in relation to common food. Since the Holy Ghost had taught Peter by the vision on the house top, (see Act 10:9 .) that there was nothing common or unclean which God had sanctified, Peter had no longer scrupled to eat with the Gentiles. But, when certain Jews came with James, fearing that these might take offence at this Christian liberty, in accommodation to their prejudices, the Apostle withdrew from them. Had Peter been more firm in this liberty, he would not have incurred the displeasure of Paul. But we learn from it, that great men, and the greatest of men, are but men. No where can we look for perfection, but to the Lord Jesus. And sweetly hath the Holy Ghost caused the frailties of his saints to be recorded, purposely to teach the Church her own nothingness, in her best characters, and that all her excellency is alone in Christ.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
Ver. 6. Seemed to be somewhat ] Opinion sets the price; when gold is raised from 20s. to 22s., the gold is the same, estimation only raiseth it.
In conference added nothing to me ] They could tell him nothing which he knew not before; when they came to talk together, he found that they did not only hold and teach the same things, but in iisdem verbis, in iisdem syllabis, in the selfsame words and syllables as he did, as Melancthon wisheth all men would.
Whatsoever they were ] Augustine being oppressed with the authority of the Fathers, saith he regardeth not quis, sed quid, the worth of the man, but the weight of his reasons.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
6 .] He returns to his sojourn in Jerusalem, and his intercourse with the . The construction is difficult, and has been very variously given. It seems best (and so most Commentators) to regard it as an anacoluthon. The Apostle begins with , having it in his mind to add or the like: but then, going off into the parenthesis &c., he entirely loses sight of the original construction, and proceeds with &c., which follows on the parenthesis, the rendering a reason (this is still my view, against Ellic. whose note see) for the &c. De Wette and others think that the parenthesis ends at , and the construction is resumed from &c. in an active instead of in a passive form: but it seems better, with Meyer, to regard the parenthesis as never formally closed, and the original construction not resumed. Other ways are; (1) most of the Greek Fathers (Chrys. hardly says enough for this to be inferred as his opinion), and others (e.g. Olsh., Rckert) take as belonging to , as if it were : so Thl., , &c. The preposition seems capable, if not exactly of this interpretation, of one very nearly akin to it, as in and the like expressions: but the objection is, that it is unnatural to join with which lies so far from it, when . so completely fills up the construction. (2) Homberg (Parerg. p. 275: Meyer) renders, ‘ ab illis vero, qui videntur esse aliquid, non differo .’ But as Meyer remarks, though may bear this meaning, certainly cannot. (3) Hermann assumes an aposiopesis, and understands ‘ what should I fear? ’ but an aposiopesis seems out of place in a passage which does not rise above the fervour of narrative. See other interpretations in Meyer and De Wette.
. may be either subjective (‘ those who believe themselves to be something ’), or objective (‘ those who have the estimation of being something ’). The latter is obviously the meaning here.
is understood by some to mean ‘ once ,’ ‘ olim :’ ‘whatever they once were, when Christ was on earth:’ so vulg. (‘ quales aliquando fuerint ’), Pelag., Luth., Beza, al. But this is going out of the context, and unnecessary.
The emphasis is on , and is again taken up by the below. Phrynichus (p. 384) condemns as not used by the best writers, but Lobeck (note, ibid.) has produced examples of it, as well as of the more approved construction , from Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle.
. ] q. d. ‘I wish to form all my judgments according to God’s rule which is that of strict unbiassed justice.’ See Eph 6:9 .
] as in ch. Gal 1:16 , imparted . As I, at my first conversion, did not impart it to flesh and blood, so they now imparted nothing to me: we were independent the one of the other. The meaning ‘ added ’ ( , , , Chrys.; so Thdrt., and most Commentators, and E. V. ‘ in conference added ’) is not justified by the usage of the word: see note, as above. Rckert, Bretschneider, Olsh., al. explain it: ‘ laid on no additional burden .’ But this is the active, not the middle, signification of the verb: see Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 8, where is not ‘to impose on another additional duties,’ but ‘to take them on a man’s self.’
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Gal 2:6 . The author here resumes the broken thread of the narrative, which he interrupted after Gal 2:2 in order to show that his conciliatory attitude at Jerusalem was not due to weakness or irresolution. He now proceeds to relate the sequel of the advances which he made at Jerusalem to the Pharisaic party. The repetition of the phrase , and the fresh transition from the plural to the singular , indicate the fresh shifting of the scene from Antioch back to Jerusalem. The first clause is left unfinished, for the mention of these men who seemed to be anything leads the author to interrupt his narrative again that he may challenge their right to be heard; he breaks, accordingly, into the disparaging comment, what manner of men they had once been, maketh no matter a forcible expression of his disappointment at finding so little Christian sympathy or life where he had hoped to find so much. After this parenthesis he remoulds the form of his sentence; and , the subject of , becomes the subject of the verb . Instead, therefore, of concluding the sentence in its original form, and stating that from those who so seemed he got no response, he writes, to me, I say, those who so seemed communicated nothing further . . These are identified with in Gal 2:2 . They are there described as men whom it was thought advisable to approach in private, here as men who were thought to be anything, i.e. , to have any weight in the Church. The English version somewhat suggests that they held high office and were in positions of dignity, perhaps Apostles; but the Greek order in that case must have been , nor can that emphasis be justified in rendering the enclitic after . They were probably party-leaders, but the Apostle writes of them with scant respect as men who were now little better than a name. : What manner of men they had once been maketh no matter to me . The margin of the Revised Version rightly renders as an indirect interrogative dependent on , and gives to its true sense of formerly, in time past (as in Gal 1:13 ; Gal 1:23 ). Coupled as it is here with , has the force of a pluperfect, and contrasts the character of these men as reported from past time with what Paul actually found them to be: he could get no brotherly help or counsel from them. Therefore he pronounces the adverse judgment upon them ( ); for, like his Master (Luk 20:21 ), he regarded no man’s person, if weighed in the balance and found wanting. . This clause forms an antithesis to in Gal 2:2 . Paul had laid before them an account of his successful ministry among the Greeks, but they had no further response to make in the shape of Christian sympathy, or of fresh argument in justification of their prejudices against him and his teaching.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
of = from. Greek. apo. App-1.
seemed. Greek. dokeo, as in Gal 2:2.
somewhat. Greek. ti, neut. of tis. App-123.
were = once were.
maketh, &c. = matters (Greek. diaphero)
nothing (Greek. ouden). Compare Gal 4:1. See Act 27:27.
God. App-98.
no. Greek. ou. App-105.
man’s. Greek. anthropos. App-123. Here is the Figure of speech Anacoluthon, App-6. He breaks off at “somewhat”, and resumes with “for”, changing the construction.
for = but.
in conference added. Same as “conferred”, Gal 1:16.
nothing. Greek. ouden, as above.
to me. This is emph. and in the Greek comes at the beginning of the sentence.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
6.] He returns to his sojourn in Jerusalem, and his intercourse with the . The construction is difficult, and has been very variously given. It seems best (and so most Commentators) to regard it as an anacoluthon. The Apostle begins with , having it in his mind to add or the like: but then, going off into the parenthesis &c., he entirely loses sight of the original construction, and proceeds with &c., which follows on the parenthesis, the rendering a reason (this is still my view, against Ellic. whose note see) for the &c. De Wette and others think that the parenthesis ends at , and the construction is resumed from &c. in an active instead of in a passive form: but it seems better, with Meyer, to regard the parenthesis as never formally closed, and the original construction not resumed. Other ways are; (1) most of the Greek Fathers (Chrys. hardly says enough for this to be inferred as his opinion), and others (e.g. Olsh., Rckert) take as belonging to , as if it were : so Thl., , &c. The preposition seems capable, if not exactly of this interpretation, of one very nearly akin to it, as in and the like expressions: but the objection is, that it is unnatural to join with which lies so far from it, when . so completely fills up the construction. (2) Homberg (Parerg. p. 275: Meyer) renders,-ab illis vero, qui videntur esse aliquid, non differo. But as Meyer remarks, though may bear this meaning, certainly cannot. (3) Hermann assumes an aposiopesis, and understands what should I fear? but an aposiopesis seems out of place in a passage which does not rise above the fervour of narrative. See other interpretations in Meyer and De Wette.
. may be either subjective (those who believe themselves to be something), or objective (those who have the estimation of being something). The latter is obviously the meaning here.
is understood by some to mean once, olim: whatever they once were, when Christ was on earth: so vulg. (quales aliquando fuerint), Pelag., Luth., Beza, al. But this is going out of the context, and unnecessary.
The emphasis is on , and is again taken up by the below. Phrynichus (p. 384) condemns as not used by the best writers, but Lobeck (note, ibid.) has produced examples of it, as well as of the more approved construction , from Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle.
.] q. d. I wish to form all my judgments according to Gods rule-which is that of strict unbiassed justice. See Eph 6:9.
] as in ch. Gal 1:16,-imparted. As I, at my first conversion, did not impart it to flesh and blood, so they now imparted nothing to me: we were independent the one of the other. The meaning added ( , , , Chrys.; so Thdrt., and most Commentators, and E. V. in conference added) is not justified by the usage of the word: see note, as above. Rckert, Bretschneider, Olsh., al. explain it: laid on no additional burden. But this is the active, not the middle, signification of the verb: see Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 8, where is not to impose on another additional duties, but to take them on a mans self.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Gal 2:6. ) Supply , , …, and construe, , , … It is of no importance to me, what sort of persons in particular [whatsoever] those were, who were of the number of those more distinguished. The preposition is put in the same way, while the article is omitted, Mar 5:35; Luk 11:49. Not only the three, James, Peter, and John, were , highly distinguished. He therefore says . , viz. ; 2Co 11:5.- ) to be (accounted) something, among those, who did not so esteem Paul.- ) is here enclitic, not an adverb of time.-, God) Paul followed the judgment of God. He asserts the Divine authority; he does not disparage that of the apostles.-, for) The reason assigned [aetiologia] not of the thing but of the word. Paul had just made a preface, and points out the reason why he did so, and proposes the subject itself. In like manner, for occurs, ch. Gal 6:7. The preface is, that he does not depend on the consent of others; afterwards, however, he shows that consent.- ) they added [imparted]
[7] nothing to me, i.e. they found no fault in my doctrine. It often happens that a man, who wishes to find fault or admonish, does it modestly, under the appearance of communicating information. Those, who took the lead, antecessores, as Tertullian calls , used no such method in regard to Paul. I set forth, , to them, Gal 2:2; they had nothing to add.[8]
[7] Wahl. Clav. renders the verse here in the middle, Animus est, novum aliquid imponere; i.e. they were not disposed to impose any new burden or obligation on me.-ED.
[8] , the implying addition.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Gal 2:6
Gal 2:6
But from those who were reputed to be somewhat-So far from Paul receiving the gospel from the apostles, those who in conference seemed to be the most important, most referred to, added nothing to him, taught him nothing that had not already been revealed to him, showing that God had as fully entrusted his will to Paul as to the chiefest of the apostles.
(whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not mans person)-they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me:-In this parenthesis he evidently refers not to personal character but to standing, which the three here referred to had by reason of their personal relation to Jesus while he was in the flesh, in the case of James as his brother, in that of Peter and John as his personal followers. This fact of their history was undoubtedly referred to by the opponents of Paul as giving them standing and authority wholly superior to any that he could claim. (cf. 2Co 5:16; 2Co 10:7). Paul answers that the facts of this sort do not concern him, have no significance. Apostleship rests on a present relation to the glorified Christ, open to him equally with them.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
these who: Gal 2:2, Gal 2:9, Gal 6:3, 2Co 11:5, 2Co 11:21-23, 2Co 12:11, Heb 13:7, Heb 13:17
it maketh: Gal 2:11-14, Job 32:6, Job 32:7, Job 32:17-22, Mat 22:16, Mar 6:17-20, Mar 12:14, Luk 20:21, 2Co 5:16
God: Job 34:19, Act 10:34, Rom 2:11, 1Pe 1:17
in: Gal 2:10, Act 15:6-29, 2Co 12:11
Reciprocal: Deu 10:17 – regardeth 1Ki 15:13 – his mother 2Ch 19:7 – respect of persons Psa 82:2 – accept Mal 2:9 – have been partial in Joh 2:4 – what Rom 16:7 – who Gal 1:16 – immediately Gal 5:10 – whosoever Jam 1:26 – seem
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gal 2:6. -But from those high in reputation. The construction is plainly broken and involved. It is evident from this clause that the first intention was to end the sentence with ; or, judging from the words actually employed, it might or would have been -but from those high in reputation nothing was added to me; instead of which he writes: From them who are high in reputation-to me these persons high in reputation added nothing. The construction begins with , and passively, then two parenthetical clauses intervene, and the parenthesis is not formally terminated, but passes into the connected active clause, . Winer, 63. The apostle is still asserting his apostolic independence. First, generally, he went into conference with the , and he got nothing from them-no additional element of information or authority. His commission did not receive any needed imprimatur from them. But, secondly, the apostle, on referring to the , and while such a result as we have just given is before his mind, is anxious that his relation to them should be distinctly apprehended-that he met them on a perfect equality; and so he interjects, Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me. Then, thirdly, to show that this declaration was no disparagement of them on any personal ground, he subjoins, as if in defence or explanation, God accepteth no man’s person. And, lastly, going back to his intended statement, but with an emphatic change of construction, he concludes, To me, it is true, those who are high in reputation added nothing. The anakolouthon is the result of mental hurry, the main thought and subordinate ideas struggling for all but simultaneous utterance,-his anxiety to be distinctly understood in a matter of such high moment as the independency of his apostleship and teaching, leads him to commence with a statement, then to guard it, and then to explain the very guard. This throng of ideas throws him off from his construction which he does not formally resume, but ends with a different and decided declaration. Such, generally, is, we think, the structure of these clauses of terse outspokenness.
More particularly: -But from them who were esteemed something,-literally, who were or are in high estimation; qui videbantur, Vulgate; which seme to be great, Tyndale. The is resumptive of the thought first alluded to in Gal 2:2, but going off from the previous statement. The phrase is not to be taken subjectively, or as meaning who thought themselves to be something. Examples of similar language are: , Plato, Gorg. p. 472, A; , Apolog. 41, E. See also Wetstein, in loc. There is apparently a slight element of depreciation in these quotations, but not in the clause before us. If those in whose estimation they stood so high were the Judaizing faction, such an inference might be legitimate, and Bengel and Wieseler adopt it; but if the persons who held them in honour were the church-and such seems the case from Gal 2:9 -then the words simply indicate the high position of the individuals referred to. See under Gal 2:2. The next clause is explanatory-
, -whatsoever they were, it matters nothing to me; quales aliquando fuerint, Vulgate. Some give the sense of olim, and understand the reference to be to the apostles and their past connection with Christ during His public ministry (Luther, Beza, Hilgenfeld, Olshausen); while others refer it to the life of the apostles prior to their call by Christ-Whatever they had been-sinners (Estius after Augustine); or but unlearned and ignorant fishermen (Ambrosiaster, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, Cajetan, and a-Lapide). Others suppose a reference to previous opinions subversive of the gospel held by them (Gwynne), or to the past time, when they were apostles, but himself was alienus a fide Christi (Calvin). Hofmann and Usteri make it whether apostles or not. The first of these views is not without plausibility, for the prevailing sense of in the New Testament is temporal; but it is too pointed to be contained in these simple words, and the reference is one not employed by the apostle usually when he maintains his equality. He says that he had what they had as in 1Co 9:1; 1Co 15:10, but does not refer to their personal connection with Christ as giving them any official advantage over him, for he was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles- . 2Co 11:5. The apostle speaks simply of their position in the church when he conferred with them, or rather, of the honour they were held in at the period of his writing. The , therefore, may be used in an intensive sense-cunque-as often in interrogations.
-nothing to me it matters: the stress on -utter indifference. The present does not express his present view of the case, but his view at the time, vividly recalled, or assuming the present. Phrynichus says, p. 394, , quoting Demosthenes against the use of the dative , as here. Lobeck, however, quotes in correction from Aristotle, , De Part. Animal. 8.555; Xenophon, Hier. 1, 7, . Plato uses both dative and accusative, Alcibiades, 1.109 B; and AElian also has , Hist. Animal. 14.26, vol. i. p. 327, ed. Jacobs. Chrysostom writes too strongly in saying that he presses hard on the apostles for the sake of the weak. Theophylact, on the other hand, says, -not vilipending those holy men. It matters nothing to me, and the reason is-
-God accepteth no man’s person. The asyndeton, or want of any connecting particle, gives point to the statement (Winer, 60), and by the peculiar order of the words the emphatic is placed next the contrasted . The phrase is a Hebraism, a translation of , which means to favour, to show favour,-used first of all in a good sense-of God in Gen 19:21; Gen 32:20; 1Sa 25:35; 2Ki 3:14; Job 42:8;-then specially in a bad sense to show undue favour to, Lev 19:15; Deu 10:17; Psa 82:2; Pro 18:5; Sir 4:27. But in the New Testament the phrase is invariably used in a bad sense: Mat 22:16; Mar 12:14; Luk 20:21, etc.;-to favour one for mere face or appearance, Jam 2:1-7. Hence the nouns , , and the corresponding verb. God is impartial in the bestowment of His gifts and in the selection of His instruments. The apostle takes God for his model, and he judges and acts accordingly. I acted, as if he had said, in my estimate of these men, and in my conference with them, without regard to such external elements as often influence human judgments and occasionally warp them. He showed no undue leaning on them, though they justly stood so high in the esteem and confidence of the mother church in Jerusalem. Koppe’s conjecture, that the apostle might be thinking of his mean bodily appearance, is really bathos. Chrysostom gives another turn to the thought: Although they allow circumcision, they shall render an account to God; for God will not accept their persons because they are great in rank and station. But this future and judicial reference is not in the context, which is describing present feeling and events.
The resumed statement is:
-to me in fact those in repute communicated nothing,- emphatic. If assign a reason, it may be connected with , -it matters nothing to me, for they added nothing to me; or it may be joined to the preceding clause, -God is impartial, for He has put me on the same level (auf so gleiche Linie, Meyer) with the persons so high in reputation. Both connections appear unnatural, linking what is the main thought to a clause subordinate and virtually parenthetical. Nor will bear to be translated mihi inquam (Peile, Scholefield). But may be regarded rather as explicative. Donaldson, 618, says is often placed first with an explanatory clause. Composed of , verily, combined with , therefore, it signifies the fact is, in fact, as the case stands. Klotz-Devarius, 2.233; Khner, 324, 2.
The verb is to impart, to communicate; in the middle voice-on their part. This is the real signification of the verb, though the idea of additional or new be found in it by Beza, Erasmus, Bengel, Winer, Usteri, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, and others; but – in composition will not signify insuper. Though, however, the signification of the verb be simply they imparted, the sense or inference plainly is, they imparted nothing new,-as Meyer has it, um mich zu belehren. The men of note, , imparted nothing-nothing which was so unknown, that he felt himself instructed in his preaching or strengthened in his commission. The least that can be said is, they did not interfere with him, and they felt that they could not. Chrysostom is therefore too strong when he explains it, , , . In a word, the apostle makes this statement in no spirit of vainglory, but simply narrates the naked facts.
Other forms of exegesis have been tried. 1. Some render the first clause, as Gomarus, Borger, Bagge, quod attinet ad-as regards the persons high in repute,-thus giving the sense of , and rendering the next clause, as Theophylact, , or as Olshausen paraphrases, I do not trouble myself about the distinguished apostles in the matter. 2. Homberg in his Parerga, p. 275, thus renders: ab illis vero, qui videntur esse aliquid, non differo. Vult enim, he adds, se non esse minorem reliquis, quanticunque etiam fuerint. This interpretation makes superfluous, and also , consueto pleonasmo; and Homberg quotes in justification several examples which are far from bearing him out-admitting, too, that the clause is the same in meaning with . (Similarly Ewald.) 3. Elsner, throwing aside, renders, qui videbantur esse aliquid nihil ad me, nulla ab illis pervenit ad me utilitas. 4. Heinsius, keeping , renders, de iis autem qui existimantur esse aliquid, qualescunque ii fuerint, nihil mihi accedit,-a meaning which the verb will not bear. 5. Bengel’s paraphrase is, Nihil mea interest quales tandem fuerint illi ex insignioribus, etc.: this would require in the last clause , and the paraphrase is very loose and disjointed. 6. As remote from the context, and subversive of the order of thought, are the two methods proposed by Kypke, which need not be given at length; one of them, reckoned by him the preferable, being, It matters not to me whether these false brethren were held in high esteem or not. 7. Rckert gives the sense as, Was ihn anlangt, ist es mir ganz gleichgultig-an exegesis not unlike that of Castalio, Calovius, Zachariae. 8. Still worse is the exegesis of Zeltner, given by Wolf: Of those who seemed to be somewhat-, what? What, in a word, of those in repute? What they were formerly, whether they held another opinion or not, I am not concerned;-the view also of Schrader. 9. Hermann proposes an aposiopesis, -quid metuerim? But this is not the kind of style for such an oratorical pause. 10. Khler joins the clause to the last clause of the previous verse: That the truth of the gospel might remain with you, (as a gift) from those who were high in reputation. But this exegesis mars the unity of thought, and the persons high in reputation were not specially concerned with the preaching and permanence of a free gospel among the Gentiles. 11. Wordsworth, after Bengel, calls paraphrastic, and takes it as indicating origin or quarter: But it is no matter to me what sort of persons were from those who seemed to be somewhat. So also Gwynne, who finds the syntax to be remarkably simple, and its parsing a schoolboy’s exercise. On the other hand, Laurent conjectures that the difficulty arises from the apostle’s habit of adding marginal notes to his epistles after he had dictated them, and that Gal 2:6 is one of these notes: Neutest. Studien, p. 29, Gotha 1866. 12. Hofmann contrives to construe without any anakolouthon, making the parenthesis begin with , and ending it with , which words he dissevers from Gal 2:7 for this purpose,-a clever but quite unnatural mode of sequence. All these forms of exegesis, more or less ingenious, are out of harmony with the context and the plain significance of the terms employed, in such broken and hurried statements.
They not only gave me no instructions, as if my course had been disapproved by them, but on the contrary- -their conduct was the very opposite; neither jealousy, nor disparagement of me-far from it,-but on the contrary, they gave me the right hand of fellowship.
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Gal 2:6. Having disposed of the false brethren brought in, Paul gave his attention to the men of the city of Jerusalem; doubtless they were the ones referred to in Act 15:1. This group might even have included some of the apostles living in Jerusalem who were somewhat confused on the subject at hand. These men seemed (were reputed) to be somewhat (something) on account of their previous standing with God. But that would not have anything to do with whether they were right or wrong in the present controversy. However, out of respect for their reputation, Paul listened to them but was not told anything that he did not know already. That is the meaning of in conference added nothing to me.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Gal 2:6. From those reputed to be something; lit., those who have the estimation of being something, that is, something great, or those who are held in chief reputation, who are looked up to as authorities, the pillar apostles, Gal 2:9, or as Paul expresses it in 2Co 11:5; 2Co 12:11, the very chiefest apostles. It appears from Gal 2:9 that he means the older Apostles, James, Peter, and John, who were justly regarded as the pillars of the Church. The expression may be depreciatory (comp. Gal 6:3), according to the context. He does not, as already remarked, depreciate his colleagues, but disapproves the extravagant overestimate put upon them by the Judaizers in behalf of their own narrow and exclusive system and in opposition to Paul. His high sense of independence, far from being identical with pride, rested in his humility and was but the complement to his feeling of absolute dependence on God.
What they once (formerly) were, refers to their advantages in the personal intercourse with Christ, on which the Judaizers laid great stress, and on which they based the superiority of the Twelve. Paul made no account of the knowledge of Christ after the flesh (2Co 5:16), which was of no benefit to the Jews without faith.
God accepteth not mans person, or God is no regarder of person. A Hebraizing expression for impartiality. To regard a mans person, his face, wealth, rank, and external condition, as distinct from his intrinsic merits, is partiality, and this God never exercises (comp. Act 10:34; Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25).
For to me those, I say,reassumption of the unfinished sentence in another form, instead of: From those of chief reputationI received no new instruction.
Added (or communicated, imparted) nothing, i.e., by way of supplementing or correcting my exposition of the Gospel (Gal 2:2), but on the contrary they were satisfied with it and with my mode of converting the Gentiles. (Others explain: laid no additional burden on me, namely, the ceremonial law; but they laid no burden on him at all.)
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
As if the apostle had said, “When I came up to Jerusalem, thus I behaved myself toward the false brethren, as I have here declared; but now, for those who seemed to be somewhat, that is, Peter, James, and John, who were of chief reputation among the apostles, and more than ordinary ministers of Jesus Christ, being the foundations of the Christian church, laid by Christ himself, although they had some external advantages above me, as being apostles before me, and having conversed with Christ, and seen him here on earth, which I never did; yet this maketh no matter to me: for God values no man for these outward favours and benefits: Neither in that conference about circumcision, did they add anything to me, either by their authority or instruction; they added nothing, they corrected nothing, but approved all things, both what I did and said: From whence it evidently appears, that my authority was equal with theirs, and my doctrine the same with theirs also.”
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Gal 2:6-8. But of those who seemed to be somewhat Who were most esteemed among the apostles; whatsoever they were How eminent soever; it maketh no matter No difference; to me So that I should alter either my doctrine or my practice. God accepteth no mans person For any eminence in gifts or outward prerogatives: he does not show favour to any man on account of his birth, office, riches, or any external circumstance, Job 34:19. The apostles meaning is, that God did not prefer Peter, James, and John, to him, because they were apostles before him, far less did he employ them to make him an apostle; they, who seemed to be somewhat Or rather, who undoubtedly were in high repute, as the expression signifies; added nothing Communicated neither knowledge, nor spiritual gifts, nor authority; to me Far less did they pretend to make me an apostle. But when they saw Namely, by the effects which I laid before them, Gal 2:8; Act 15:12; that the gospel of the uncircumcision That is, the charge of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised heathen; was intrusted to me, as that of the circumcision The charge of preaching the gospel to the Jews; was committed to Peter By saying that he was intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter was with that of the circumcision, Paul put himself on a level with Peter. In like manner, his withstanding Peter publicly for withdrawing himself from the converted Gentiles, is a fact utterly inconsistent with the pretended superiority of Peter above the other apostles, vainly imagined by the Roman pontiffs, for the purpose of aggrandizing themselves as his successors, above all other Christian bishops. For he that wrought effectually in, or by, Peter To qualify him for the apostleship of the circumcision, to support him in the discharge of that office, and to render his exercise of it successful; the same was mighty in me Wrought also effectually in and by me, for and in the discharge of my office toward the Gentiles.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man’s person)–they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me [Having exposed the Judaists and set forth his triumph over them, and shown them to be no-what, he now turns to discuss those who by reason of their office, influence, etc., seem to be somewhat. Thus, he reaches the main question which the Galatians were asking, viz.: “What, Paul, was your final attitude toward the apostles, those great pillars of the church universal?” He recognizes that in the very putting of such a question they were, so far as he was concerned, exalting the Jerusalem apostles above their true height. He was himself a pillar of equal altitude, and no more to be measured by them than they by him. Though, says he, these men, buttressed by a multitude of followers and by their established official position, seemed indeed to be more important than a lone stranger such as I, yet God is not deceived by such seeming. He knew me to be an apostle as well as they; and they added no gospel fact or doctrine to my store, nor did they impart to me any new authority, or suggest any change in what I preached]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 6
Added nothing; gave me no new light on the principles of Christianity.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Paul’s reference to James, Peter, and John may sound a bit insolent, but his point was that they were not superior as apostles to him as an apostle. They contributed nothing to his authority or message.
"The repetition of the expression ’men of high reputation’ from Gal 2:2 (where NEB has ’men of repute’ for the same Greek expression [hoi dokountes]) seems to indicate that it is a title given by the Jerusalem church to its leaders, which Paul uses, possibly with a tinge of irony, in depreciation of the arrogant and extravagant claims which the Judaizers were making for the Jerusalem leaders." [Note: Ibid., p. 95.]
The expression "allows Paul both to acknowledge the fact that these men possess authority and power and to remain at a distance with regard to his own subservience to such authority." [Note: Betz, p. 92.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 8
PAUL AND THE THREE PILLARS.
Gal 2:6-10
WE have dealt by anticipation, in chap. 6, with several of the topics raised in this section of the Epistle-touching particularly the import of the phrase “those of repute,” and the tone of disparagement in which these dignitaries appear to be spoken of in Gal 2:6. But there still remains in these verses matter in its weight and difficulty more than sufficient to occupy another chapter.
The grammatical connection of the first paragraph, like that of Gal 2:2-3, is involved and disputable. We construe its clauses in the following way:-
(1) Gal 2:6 begins with a But, contrasting “those of repute” with the “false brethren” dealt with in the last sentence. It contains another anacoluthon (or incoherence of language) due to the surge of feeling remarked in Gal 2:4, which still disturbs the Apostles grammar. He begins: “But from those reputed to be something”-as though he intended to say, “I received on my part nothing, no addition or qualification to my gospel.” But he has no sooner mentioned “those of repute” than he is reminded of the studied attempt that was made to set up their authority in opposition to his own, and accordingly throws in this protest: “what they were aforetime, makes no difference to me: mans person God doth not accept.” But in saying this, Paul has laid down one of his favourite axioms, a principle that filled a large place in his thoughts; {Comp. Rom 2:11; 1Co 1:27-31; 1Co 15:9-10; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25} and its enunciation deflects the course of the main sentence, so that it is resumed in an altered form: “For to me those of repute imparted nothing.” Here the me receives a greater emphasis; and for takes the place of but. The fact that the first Apostles had nothing to impart to Paul, signally illustrates the Divine impartiality, which often makes the last and least in human eyes equal to the first.
(2) Gal 2:7-9 state the positive, as Gal 2:6 the negative side of the relation between Paul and the elder Apostles, still keeping in view the principle laid down in the former verse. “Nay, on the contrary, when they saw that I have in charge the gospel of the uncircumcision, as Peter that of the circumcision (Gal 2:7)-and when they perceived the grace that had been given me, James and Cephas and John, those renowned pillars of the Church, gave the right-hand of fellowship to myself and Barnabas, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles, while they laboured amongst the Jews” (Gal 2:9).
(3) Gal 2:8 comes in as a parenthesis, explaining how the authorities at Jerusalem came to see that this trust belonged to Paul. “For,” he says, “He that in Peters case displayed His power in making him (above all others) Apostle of the Circumcision, did as much for me in regard to the Gentiles.” It is not human ordination, but Divine inspiration that makes a minister of Jesus Christ. The noble Apostles of Jesus had the wisdom to see this. It had pleased God to bestow this grace on their old Tarsian persecutor; and they frankly acknowledged the fact.
Thus Paul sets forth, in the first place, the completeness of his Apostolic qualifications, put to proof at the crisis of the circumcision controversy; and in the second place, the judgment formed respecting him and his office by the first Apostles and companions of the Lord.
1. “To me those of repute added nothing.” Paul had spent but a fortnight in the Christian circle of Jerusalem, fourteen years ago. Of its chiefs he had met at that time only Peter and James, and them in the capacity of a visitor, not as a disciple or a candidate for office. He had never sought the opportunity, nor felt the need, of receiving instruction from the elder Apostles during all the years in which he had preached Christ amongst the heathen. It was not likely he would do so now. When he came into conference and debate with them at the Council, he showed himself their equal, neither in knowledge nor authority “a whit behind the very chiefest.” And they were conscious of the same fact.
On the essentials of the gospel Paul found himself in agreement with the Twelve. This is implied in the language of Gal 2:6. When one writes, “A-adds nothing to B,” one assumes that B has already what belongs to A, -and not something different. Paul asserts in the most positive terms he can command, that his intercourse with the holders of the primitive Christian tradition left him as a minister of Christ exactly where he was before. “On me,” he says, “they conferred nothing”-rather, perhaps, “addressed no communication to me.” The word used appears to deny their having made any motion of the kind. The Greek verb is the same that was employed in Gal 1:16, a rare and delicate compound. Its meaning varies, like that of our confer, communicate, as it is applied in a more or less active sense. In the former place Paul had said that he “did not confer with flesh and blood”; now he adds, that flesh and blood did not confer anything upon him. Formerly he did not bring his commission to lay it before men; now they had nothing to bring on their part to lay before him. The same word affirms the Apostles independence at both epochs, shown in the first instance by his reserve toward the dignitaries at Jerusalem, and in the second by their reserve toward him. Conscious of his Divine call, he sought no patronage from the elder Apostles then; and they, recognising that call, offered him no such patronage now. Pauls gospel for the Gentiles was complete, and sufficient unto itself. His ministry showed no defect in quality or competence. There was nothing about it that laid it open to correction, even on the part of those wisest and highest in dignity amongst the personal followers of Jesus.
So Paul declares; and we can readily believe him. Nay, we are tempted to think that it was rather the Pillars who might need to learn from him, than he from them. In doctrine, Paul holds the primacy in the band of the Apostles. While all were inspired by the Spirit of Christ, the Gentile Apostle was in many ways a more richly furnished man than any of the rest. The Paulinism of Peters First Epistle goes to show that the debt was on the other side. Their earliest privileges and priceless store of recollections of “all that Jesus did and taught,” were matched on Pauls side by a penetrating logic, a breadth and force of intellect applied to the facts of revelation, and a burning intensity of spirit, which in their combination were unique. The Pauline teaching, as it appears in the New Testament, bears in the highest degree the marks of original genius, the stamp of a mind whose inspiration is its own.
Modern criticism even exaggerates Pauls originality. It leaves the other Apostles little more than a negative part to play in the development of Christian truth. In some of its representations, the figure of Paul appears to overshadow even that of the Divine Master. It was Pauls creative genius, it is said, his daring idealism, that deified the human Jesus, and transformed the scandal of the cross into the glory of an atonement reconciling the world to God. Such theories Paul himself would have regarded with horror. “I received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you”: such is his uniform testimony. If he owed so little as a minister of Christ to his brother Apostles, he felt with the most sincere humility that he owed everything to Christ. The agreement of Pauls teaching with that of the other New Testament writers, and especially with that of Jesus in the Gospels, proves that, however distinct and individual his conception of the common gospel, none the less there was a common gospel of Christ, and he did not speak of his own mind. The attempts made to get rid of this agreement by postdating the New Testament documents, and by explaining away the larger utterances of Jesus found in the Gospels as due to Paulinist interpolation, are unavailing. They postulate a craftiness of ingenuity on the part of the writers of the incriminated books, and an ignorance in those who first received them, alike inconceivable. Paul did not build up the splendid and imperishable fabric of his theology on some speculation of his own. Its foundation lies in the person and the teaching of Jesus Christ, and was common to Paul with James and Cephas and John. “Whether I or they,” he testifies, “so we preach, and so ye believed”. {1Co 15:11} Paul satisfied himself at this conference that he and the Twelve taught the same gospel. Not in its primary data, but in their logical development and application, lies the specifically Pauline in Paulinism. The harmony between Paul and the other Apostolic leaders has the peculiar value which belongs to the agreement of minds of different orders, working independently.
The Judaisers, however, persistently asserted Pauls dependence on the elder Apostles. “The authority of the Primitive Church, the Apostolic tradition of Jerusalem”-this was the fulcrum of their argument. Where could Paul, they asked, have derived his knowledge of Christ, but from this fountain-head? And the power that made him could unmake him. Those who commissioned him had the right to overrule him, or even to revoke his commission. Was it not known that he had from time to time resorted to Jerusalem; that he had once publicly submitted his teaching to the examination of the heads of the Church there? The words of Gal 2:6 contradict these malicious insinuations. Hence the positiveness of the Apostles self-assertion. In the Corinthian Epistles his claim to independence is made in gentler style, and with expressions of humility that might have been misunderstood here. But the position Paul takes up is the same in either case: “I am an Apostle. I have seen Jesus our Lord. You-Corinthians, Galatians-are my work in the Lord.” That Peter and the rest were in the old days so near to the Master, “makes no difference” to Paul. They are what they are-their high standing is universally acknowledged, and Paul has no need or wish to question it; but, by the grace of God, he also is what he is. {1Co 15:10} Their Apostleship does not exclude or derogate from his.
The self-depreciation, the keen sense of inferiority in outward respects, so evident in Pauls allusions to this subject elsewhere, is after all not wanting here. For when he says, “God regards not mans person, ” it is evident that in respect of visible qualifications Paul felt that he had few pretensions to make. Appearances were against him. And those who glory in appearance were against him too. {2Co 5:12} Such men could not appreciate the might of the Spirit that wrought in Paul, nor the sovereignty of Divine election. They “reckoned” of the Apostle “as though he walked according to flesh”. {2Co 10:2} It seemed to them obvious, as a matter of course, that he was far below the Twelve. With men of worldly wisdom the Apostle did not expect that his arguments would prevail. His appeal was to “the spiritual, who judge all things.”
So we come back to the declaration of the Apostle in Gal 1:11 : “I give you to know, brethren, that my gospel is not according to man.” Man had no hand either in laying its foundation or putting on the headstone. Pauls predecessors in Apostolic office did not impart the gospel to him at the outset; nor at a later time had they attempted to make any addition to the doctrine he had taught far and wide amongst the heathen. His Apostleship was from first to last a supernatural gift of grace.
2. Instead, therefore, of assuming to be his superiors, or offering to bestow something of their own on-Paul, the three renowned pillars of the faith at Jerusalem acknowledged him as a brother Apostle.
“They saw that I am intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision.” The form of the verb implies a trust given in the past and taking effect in the present, a settled fact. Once for all, this charge had devolved on Paul. He is “appointed herald and apostle” of “Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, -teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth”. {1Ti 2:6-7} That office Paul still holds. He is the leader of Christian evangelism. Every new movement in heathen missionary enterprise looks to his teaching for guidance and inspiration.
The conference at Jerusalem in itself furnished conclusive evidence of Pauls Apostolic commission. The circumcision controversy was a test not only for Gentile Christianity, but at the same time for its Apostle and champion. Paul brought to this discussion a knowledge and insight, a force of character, a conscious authority and unction of the Holy Spirit, that powerfully impressed the three great men who listened to him. The triumvirate at Jerusalem well knew that Paul had not received his marvellous gifts through their hands. Nor was there anything lacking to him which they felt themselves called upon to supply. They could only say, “This is the Lords doing.; and it is marvellous in our eyes.” Knowing, as Peter at least, we presume had done for many years. {Gal 1:18} the history of Pauls conversion, and seeing, as they now did the conspicuous Apostolic signs attending his ministry, James and Cephas and John could only come to one conclusion. The gospel of the uncircumcision, they were convinced, was committed to Paul, and his place in the Church was side by side with Peter. Peter must have felt as once before on a like occasion: “If God gave unto him a gift equal to that He gave to me, who am I, that I should be able to hinder God?” {Act 11:17} It was not for them because of their elder rank and dignity to debate with God in this matter, and to withhold their recognition from His “chosen vessel.”
John had not forgotten his Masters reproof for banning, the man that “followeth not with us”. {Luk 9:49; Mar 9:38} They “recognised,” Paul says, “the grace that had been given me”; and by that he means, to be sure, the undeserved favour that raised him to his Apostolic office. {See Rom 1:5; 1Co 15:10; Eph 3:2; Eph 3:7-8; 1Ti 1:13} This recognition was given to Paul. Barnabas shared the “fellowship.” His hand was clasped by the three chiefs at Jerusalem, not less warmly than that of his younger comrade. But it is in the singular number that Paul speaks of “the grace that was given me, ” and of the “trust in the gospel” and the “working of God unto Apostleship.”
Why then does not Paul say outright, “they acknowledged me an Apostle, the equal of Peter?” Some are bold enough to say – Holsten in particular – “Because this is just what the Jerusalem chiefs never did, and never could have done.” We will only reply, that if this were the case, the passage is a continued suggestio falsi. No one could write the words of Gal 2:7-9, without intending his readers to believe that such a recognition took place. Paul avoids the point-blank assertion, with a delicacy that any man of tolerable modesty will understand. Even the appearance of “glorying” was hateful to him. {2Co 10:17; 2Co 11:1; 2Co 12:1-5; 2Co 12:11}
The Church at Jerusalem, as we gather from Gal 2:7-8, observed in Paul “signs of the Apostle” resembling those borne by Peter. His Gentile commission ran parallel with Peters Jewish commission. The labours of the two men were followed by the same kind of success, and marked by similar displays of miraculous power. The like seal of God was stamped on both. This correspondence runs through the Acts of the Apostles. Compare, for example, Pauls sermon at Antioch in Pisidia with that of Peter on the Day of Pentecost; the healing of the Lystran cripple and the punishment of Elymas, with the case of the lame man at the Temple gate and the encounter of Peter and Simon Magus. The conjunction of the names of Peter and Paul was familiar to the Apostolic Church. The parallelism between the course of these great Apostles was no invention of second-century orthodoxy, set up in the interests of a “reconciling hypothesis”; it attracted public attention as early as 51 A.D., while they were still in their mid career. If this idea so strongly possessed the minds of the Jewish Christian leaders and influenced their action at the Council of Jerusalem, we need not be surprised that it should dominate Lukes narrative to the extent that it does. The allusions to Peter in 1Co 1:12; 1Co 3:22; 1Co 9:5 afford further proof that in the lifetime of the two Apostles it was a common thing to link their names together.
But had not Peter also a share in the Gentile mission? Does not the division of labour made at this conference appear to shut out the senior Apostle from a field, to which he had the prior claim? “Ye know, said Peter at the Council, “how that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” {Act 15:7} To Peter was assigned the double honour of “opening the door of faith” both to Jew and Gentile. This experience made him the readier to understand Pauls position and gave him the greater weight in the settlement of the question at issue. And not Peter alone, but Philip the Evangelist and other Jewish Christians had carried the gospel across the line of Judaic prejudice, before Paul appeared on the scene. Barnabas and Silas were both emissaries of Jerusalem. So that the mother Church, if she could not claim Paul as her son, had nevertheless a large stake in the heathen mission. But when Paul came to the front, when his miraculous call, his incomparable gifts and wonderful success had made themselves known, it was evident to every discerning mind that he was the man chosen by God to direct this great work. Peter had opened the door of faith to the heathen, and had bravely kept it open; but it was for Paul to lead the Gentile nations through the open door, and to make a home for them within the fold of Christ. The men who had laboured in this field hitherto were Pauls forerunners. And Peter does not hesitate to acknowledge the younger Apostles special fitness for this wider province of their common work; and with the concurrence of James and John he yields the charge of it to him.
Let us observe that it is two different provinces, not different gospels, that are in view. When the Apostle speaks of “the gospel of the uncircumcision” as committed to himself, and that “of the circumcision” to Peter, he never dreams of any one supposing, as some of his modern critics persist in doing, that he meant two different doctrines. How can that be possible, when he has declared those anathema who preach any other gospel? He has laid his gospel before the heads of the Jerusalem Church. Nothing has occurred there, nothing is hinted here, to suggest the existence of a “radical divergence.” If James and the body of the Judean Church really sympathised with the Circumcisionists, with those whom the Apostle calls “false brethren,” how could he with any sincerity have come to an agreement with them, knowing that this tremendous gulf was lying all the while between the Pillars and himself? Zeller argues that the transaction was simply a pledge of “reciprocal toleration, a merely external concordat between Paul and the original Apostles.” The clasp of brotherly friendship was a sorry farce, if that were all it meant-if Paul and the Three just consented for the time to slur over irreconcilable differences; while Paul in turn has glossed over the affair for us in these artful verses! Baur, with characteristic finesse, says on the same point: “The was always a division; it could only be brought into effect by one party going , the other .. As the Jewish Apostles could allege nothing against the principles on which Paul founded his evangelical mission, they were obliged to recognise them in a certain manner; but their recognition was a mere outward one. They left him to work on these principles still further in the cause of the gospel among the Gentiles; but for themselves they did not desire to know anything more about them.” So that, according to the Tubingen critics, we witness in Gal 2:9 not a union, but a divorce! The Jewish Apostles recognise Paul as a brother, only in order to get rid of him. Can misinterpretation be more unjust than this? Paul does not say, “They gave us the right hand of fellowship on condition that, ” but, “in order that we should go this way, they that.” As much as to say: The two parties came together and entered into a closer union, so that with the best mutual understanding each might go its own way and pursue its proper work in harmony with the other. For Paul it would have been a sacrilege to speak of the diplomatic compromise which Baur and Zeller describe as “giving the right hand of fellowship.”
Never did the Church more deeply realise than at her first Council the truth, that “there is one body and one Spirit; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all”. {Eph 4:4-6} Paul still seems to feel his hand in the warm grasp of Peter and of John when he writes to the Ephesians of “the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself for chief corner-stone; in whom the whole building fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord”. {Gal 2:20-21} Alas for the criticism that is obliged to see in words like these the invention of second-century churchmanship, putting into the mouth of Paul catholic sentiments of which in reality he knew nothing! Such writers know nothing of the power of that fellowship of the Spirit which reigned in the glorious company of the Apostles.
“Only they would have us remember the poor”-a circumstance mentioned partly by way of reminder to the Galatians touching the collection for Jerusalem, which Paul had already set on foot amongst them. {1Co 16:1} The request was prompted by the affectionate confidence with which the Jewish chiefs embraced Paul and Barnabas. It awakened an eager response in the Apostles breast. His love to his Jewish kindred made him welcome the suggestion. Moreover every deed of charity rendered by the wealthier Gentile Churches to “the poor saints in Jerusalem,” was another tie helping to bind the two communities to each other. Of such liberality Antioch, under the direction of the Gentile missionaries, had already set the example. {Act 11:29-30}
James, Peter, John, and Paul- it was a memorable day when these four men met face to face. What a mighty quaternion! Amongst them they have virtually made the New Testament and the Christian Church. They represent the four sides of the one foundation of the City of God. Of the Evangelists, Matthew holds affinity with James; Mark with Peter; and Luke with Paul. James clings to the past and embodies the transition from Mosaism to Christianity. Peter is the man of the present, quick in thought and action, eager, buoyant, susceptible. Paul holds the future in his grasp, and schools the unborn nations. John gathers present, past, and future into one, lifting us into the region of eternal life and love.
With Peter and James Paul had met before, and was to meet again. But so far as we can learn, this was the only occasion on which his path crossed that of John. Nor is this Apostle mentioned again in Pauls letters. In the Acts he appears but once or twice, standing silent in Peters shadow. A holy reserve surrounds Johns person in the earlier Apostolic history. His hour was not yet come. But his name ranked in public estimation amongst the three foremost of the Jewish Church; and he exercised, doubtless, a powerful, though quiet, conciliatory influence in the settlement of the Gentile question. The personality of Paul excited, we may be sure, the profoundest interest in such a mind as that of John. He absorbed, and yet in a sense transcended, the Pauline theology. The Apocalypse, although the most Judaic book of the New Testament, is penetrated with the influence of Paulinism. The detection in it of a covert attack on the Gentile Apostle is simply one of the mares nests of a super-subtle and suspicious criticism. John was to be the heir of Pauls labours at Ephesus and in Asia Minor. And Johns long life, touching the verge of the second century, his catholic position, his serene and lofty spirit, blending in itself and resolving into a higher unity the tendencies of James and Peter and Paul, give us the best assurance that in the Apostolic age there was indeed “One, holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.”
Pauls fellowship with Peter and with James was cordial and endeared. But to hold the hand of John, “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” was a yet higher satisfaction. That clasp symbolised a union between men most opposite in temperament and training, and brought to the knowledge of Christ in very different Ways, but whose communion in Him was deep as the life eternal. Paul and John are the two master minds of the New Testament. Of all men that ever lived, these two best understood Jesus Christ.