17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Ara

Peter, when he made the great confession of his Lord's Divinity (Matt. xvi. 17), "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me] This would obviously have been his right and natural course, if he had to derive his instruction and authority from them. As to the fact of the case, this is in harmony with what we learn elsewhere. St Luke says of his course at Damascus, "Straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues" (Acts ix. 20); and he says himself to Agrippa that he exercised his mission "first unto them of Damascus," before he did so in Jerusalem and Judæa (xxvi. 20). It is interesting to compare with this the third account of the events connected with his conversion. This was in the speech to the angry mob at Jerusalem. There it is his wisdom to adopt the course which is precisely contrary to that adopted in the Epistle to the Galatians, and to lay as much stress as possible on Jerusalem. From Acts xxii. 17 we might hastily at first sight infer, if we possessed no other information, that St Paul came instantly from Damascus to Jerusalem.

but I went into Arabia] We should have known nothing of this journey into Arabia, were it not for the apologetic circumstances under which this part of the Epistle to the Galatians is written. For the meaning of the word "Arabia," as to whether it is to include the Great Peninsula by the Red Sea, or to be restricted to some region near to Damascus, and for the purpose he had in view in going away into Arabia, whether it was missionary work or solitary meditation, see a longer Note at the end of Chapter IV. It may be remarked here that the contrast is very sharp between the going away into Arabia and the conferring with "flesh and blood," and that if solitude and separation from all human conference was the end he had in view, his thoughts and feelings might naturally turn to the region which was connected with the histories of Moses and Elijah. This supposi tion too suits the train of thought in iv. 24, 25. It is evident that the remembrance of Arabia was vividly and forcibly in his mind at the time of the writing of this Epistle.

returned again unto Damascus] A similar remark may be made as to the vividness of his thoughts of Damascus at this time. The place is named in a very remarkable and unexpected way in an epistle which was nearly contemporary. See 2 Cor. xi. 32, 33. Another point too must be observed, which likewise

has considerable evidential value. Damascus is not named above as the place near which the supreme revelation was made to St Paul; but here the fact drops from his pen quite naturally, but unintentionally, and as it were accidentally. Paley has caught this point with his usual sagacity. "I desire it to be remarked how incidentally it appears that the affair passed at Damascus. In what may be called the direct part of the account, no mention is made of the place of his conversion at all. A casual expression at the end, and an expression brought in for a different purpose, alone fixes it to have been at Damascus. Nothing can be more like simplicity and undesignedness than this is." Hora Paulinæ,' Gal. ii.

18, 19. He now proceeds to mention his first journey to Jerusalem, which was not made till after three years, which was undertaken for the specific purpose of making acquaintance with Peter, and which resulted in a visit lasting only about a fortnight, during this statement it is essential to compare Acts which he saw only one other Apostle. With ix. 23-30 and xxii. 17—21. The first of these passages describes the circumstances which caused St Paul to leave Damascus, the first and second together inform us of the causes why he quitted Jerusalem after his short stay in that city. These accounts must be reconciled with one another and with that which is before us; and it is important that the reconciliation should be without traces of contrivance. This will be subject of a longer Note at the end of Chapter II. Our business thought and argument. at present is to follow the train of St Paul's

"And

18. after three years] Not till after three years. This period of time may have been three complete years, or one complete year with parts of two others. This interval corresponds with the "many days" of Acts ix. 23; and we find in the Old Testament a curious parallel, in which the same two phrases are used as synonymous. Shimei dwelt at Jerusalem many days; and it came to pass, at the end of three years, that two of the servants of Shimei ran away," 1 K. ii. 38, 39. The time from which St Paul reckons the three years is, doubtless, his conversion. I went up to Jerusalem] See note on the preceding verse. It was a great proof of courage and stedfast will, and of confidence in the Gospel and in God, that he should have gone direct to the head-quarters of persecution, "to the very place from which he had been sent to overthrow the Christian faith.”

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. 20 Now the things which I write

to see Peter] From Acts ix. 22—25 we learn the external circumstances of persecution which caused St Paul to quit Damascus; and the account is confirmed by what he himself tells us in the second letter to the Corinthians (xi. 31, 32), which was nearly contemporaneous with the Epistle before us. From this passage we learn the inner motive which directed his steps toward Jerusalem. There is no inconsistency in the two statements; and it is natural that we should learn the one from the history and the other from a letter. St Paul earnestly wished to make the acquaintance of St Peter; and no wish could be more natural. The verb here employed (iσrophora) denotes more than would appear from the English version. It means close and painstaking inquiry into that which deserves careful investigation. St Peter's character, special experience, personal recollection of Christ, work at Pentecost and in the conversion of Cornelius; these were necessarily subjects of the deepest interest to his brother Apostle.

abode with him fifteen days] Not long enough for tuition in the Gospel, if all knowledge of the Gospel came to St Paul through St Peter. And this is the point urged in the argument. But we, on the other hand, are bound to see something else in this meeting, though it is mentioned for a specific purpose. It was long enough for a mutual influence to be established, of great and permanent value to the Church at large. Commentators and critics have not paused on this meeting with the careful thought which it deserves. See a sermon on the subject in Canon Cook's 'Church Doctrine and Spiritual Life,' p. 228. He specially traces the influence of St Peter in St Paul's account of the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. xv.), and the influence of St Paul on St Peter in the latter's manner of presenting the doctrine of salvation in his First Epistle.

19. other of the apostles saw I none, save James] Canon Cook sees in the mention of the special appearance to James after the resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 7) a reminiscence of this intercourse at Jerusalem. Paley points out the natural and easy coincidence of this notice of James with the information derived from the Acts concerning the presence of this Apostle at Jerusalem during this period.

20. behold, before God, I lie not] St Paul confirms the veracity of his statement by a solemn oath. This is quite according to his manner, when he has serious matter in hand

not.

21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;

22 And was unknown by face

which must not be doubted. Compare Rom. ix. 1 and 2 Cor. i. 18.

21-24. He now points out that on leaving Jerusalem his life was spent for a considerable time in the far-off regions of Syria and Cilicia, in such entire separation from Palestine that the members of the Christian communities in Judæa did not even personally know him, while yet (and this addition is important) they were in thorough sympathy with him, and rejoiced that their former persecutor was now spreading the truth which he and they believed.

21. Afterwards] He does not mention the circumstances which forced him to leave Jerusalem suddenly after the short fortnight spent with St Peter. These circumstances are given partly in Acts ix. 29, 30, partly in Acts xxii. 17-21. It was not to his purpose here to name either the persecution which arose in consequence of his faithful preaching, or the command which he received during his vision in the Temple. It is enough for the present argument if he points out that the time spent in Jerusalem was very short, that he had no intercourse then with the general body of the Apostles, and that "afterwards" he was in a region very remote.

the regions of Syria and Cilicia] The statement in Acts ix. 30 is that "the brethren," to ensure his safety, took him down from Jerusalem to Cæsarea on the coast, and then sent him to Tarsus-from which place afterwards (xi. 25, 26) Barnabas brought him to Antioch. There is nothing in this inconsistent with what we find in this part of the Epistle to the Galatians. The phrase "Syria and Cilicia" is a generic term, which we find similarly used in Acts xv. 23, 41. The course of the range of Mount Taurus causes Cilicia to have a closer geographical affinity with northern Syria

than it has with the rest of Asia Minor. Moreover Cilicia was often a political dependency of Syria. The more important name is naturally placed first. We find the word "regions" (Xipara) used in the same vague general way in Rom. xv. 23, and 2 Cor. xi. 10. But again, these four verses cover a considerable space of time, and include the work done with Barnabas at Antioch. More important work was, in fact, done during this period in Syria than in Cilicia. The expressions of v. 23 (see the notes there) denote continuity of occupation on his part, with the coming of Jews to Jerusalem from time to time.

22. unknown by face unto the churches of

unto the churches of Judea which were in Christ :

23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past

Judea] In Jerusalem itself he was undoubtedly well known. But he had not travelled about as a missionary in Judæa, like Philip, whom we find near Gaza and at Azotus (Acts viii. 26, 40), or like Peter, whom we find at Lydda and Joppa (ix. 35, 43). These are specimens of the places in which Christian communities were formed. We should observe how St Paul (as in v. 13) speaks of these communities as bodies outside of, and independent of, the Jewish Church. The remark made in this verse, says Schwoller in Lange's Commentary, "belongs also to the proof that he had not been a disciple of the Apostles; for, had he stood in near connection with them, he could not but have been known to the Churches of Judæa."

23. they had heard] This is not a correct translation of the Greek, which denotes "they were hearing from time to time," and is similar in form to what we find in the preceding verses, "I was unknown all the while." the faith] The use of this word as definition of Christianity is remarkable, and

a

now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

24 And they glorified God in

me.

strikes a kind of key-note for the remainder of the Epistle.

which once he destroyed] He had done his best to destroy it. The Greek verb is the same as that which is translated "wasted" in v. 13.

24. they glorified God in me] He is careful to say that they praised not him but God. We have here an exemplification of the precept given in the Sermon on the Mount, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." For the expression “in me" see on v. 16. Compare Exod. xiv. II. Meyer says here, "With the impression which Paul thus made on the congregations of Judæa the hateful plotting of the Jews in Galatia against him stood in striking contrast; hence this added clause." The primary point of the Apostle's argument is that his Christianity could not have been formed under the influence of the Apostles at Jerusalem; but a secondary point of the argument is, that in all his earlier work he had the sympathy and respect of the Christians in Judæa

CHAPTER II.

1 He sheweth when he went up again to Jeru salem, and for what purpose: 3 and that Titus was not circumcised: 11 and that he

CHAP. II. This chapter, in which St Paul pursues his historical argument, is divisible into two well-defined sections, having reference to two very marked occasions, one at Jerusalem and the other at Antioch. On the former his independent Apostleship was recognised by the other Apostles themselves (1-10), on the latter he openly resisted St Peter, when that

a great amount of feeling is condensed into a few words, and partly from another fact, that something is taken for granted, which the Galatians would easily understand, though it must be a matter of conjecture to us. It seems probable that he had been accused of time-serving, because he had conciliated various classes of persons by becoming "all things to all men." His conscience too might tell him (and if this were so, he would certainly acknowledge it) that he had once been by no means indifferent to the favourable opinion of

men.

resisted Peter, and told him the reason, 14 why he and other, being Jews, do believe in Christ to be justified by faith, and not by works: 20 and that they live not in sin, who are so justified.

Apostle was compromising the freedom of the Gospel by weak accommodation to Judaism. Within the first section there occurs, by the way (3—5), a collateral argument drawn by St Paul from the fact that he refused to consent to the circumcision of Titus, because, under the circumstances of the moment, this would have compromised the freedom of the

Gospel. At the close of the second section (17-21) is a condensed argument on the general principles involved in the doctrine of free justification.

I-10. AT THE COUNCIL IN JERUSALEM, ST PAUL REFUSED TO CIRCUMCISE TITUS, AND HIS INDEPENDENT APOSTLESHIP WAS RECOGNISED BY THE OTHER Apostles. It is assumed that this visit to Jerusalem is identical with that which is described in Acts XV. I-35. The difficulties connected with this question are discussed in a longer note at the end of the chapter.

1. Then fourteen years after] A long period, he says, elapsed, during which he had no opportunity of obtaining instruction from, or acting under the influence of, other Apostles. All this time he was engaged in the work of an independent Apostleship. For the question as to the moment of time, from which these "fourteen years" are reckoned, whether it is his conversion, or the last-mentioned visit to Jerusalem, reference must be made to the longer note. The point of importance in the argument is that he was labouring in the cause of Christ many years, without any interference from the older Apostles, and without any dependence upon them.

I went up again to Jerusalem] For the question whether he had not been there at all since the last-mentioned visit, or whether he had not been there under circumstances which afforded an opportunity of being instructed and directed by the older Apostles, reference must again be made to the longer note. The expression "went up" denotes, as in i. 17, the going to a metropolis. As to the place from which he thus went up, it is to be presumed that it was "the regions of Syria and Cilicia." See i. 21.

with Barnabas] Close attention must be given to this mention of Barnabas, partly because it supplies some help towards determining the chronology of the incidents here described, partly because he had an important biographical connection with these incidents, partly because there is extreme interest in every point of association between St Paul and this friend.

and took Titus with me also] The occurrence of this name also must be very carefully marked. It does not appear in the narrative of the Acts at all. See note on Acts xv. 2. But his companionship with St Paul at this time, besides its relation to the topic immediately before us, is an important link of con

nection between this Epistle and the Second Epistle to the Corinthians which was nearly contemporary. Cp. 2 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 6, 13, 14, viii. 6, 16, 23, xii. 18, and see the Introduction. It seems evident that Titus was much in St Paul's mind and heart about the time when he wrote the Epistle to the Galatians: and this may have quickened his recollection of what happened in reference to him on an earlier occasion.

2. I went up by revelation] Probably through a prophet, as in Acts xiii. 1. See Introd. to the Acts, pp. 317, 324. In this there is nothing inconsistent with what we learn from Acts xv. 2, where we are told that he was sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, in order to promote the settlement of an anxious controversy. In the history his outward commission is named, in the epistle the inward communication to himself. This is quite natural: and we have parallel cases both in i. 18 above, compared with Acts ix. 23-25, and in Acts xxii. 18 compared with Acts ix. 29, 30. In each of these cases we have an inward subjective communication on the one hand, and the pressure of outward objective circumstances on the other. Nor is it out of place here to refer to Acts x. 17, 18, 19, xi. 11, 12. The sending of messengers by Cornelius cooperated with the revelation made to St Peter's mind and conscience. And indeed it may be added that similar experience is common in the ordinary course of Christian life.

and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles] The persons to whom this communication was made were, of course, the Christians in Jerusalem. For the meaning of the word "communicated" (aveðéμŋv), we should refer to Acts xxv. 14, the only other passage in the New Testament where this verb is used. There we are told that Festus laid St Paul's case before Agrippa II., with the view of careful consultation concerning it. So here St Paul (in harmony with the commission named in Acts xv. 2) laid before his fellow-Christians at Jerusalem a statement of his manner of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. We should observe that the word "preach" is in the present tense. This asserts the continuity and consistency of his manner of preaching, even to the moment of his writing this letter. See note above on εὐαγγελίζωμαι (i. 16).

but privately to them which were of reputation] It is to be regretted that both here and below in v. 6 and v. 9 the A. V. has changed the tense of the original. "Them which are of reputation" is the phrase which St Paul

which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run,

in vain.

uses. It is no part of his plan to depreciate the older Apostles, while he asserts the independence, both of his own call to be an Apostle, and of his knowledge of the Gospel. The difficulty of his position is that he must both render due honour to them and also firmly maintain his own ground; and neither of these points is overlooked in any part of his argument. That he should have privately conferred with the leading men in Jerusalem, before the public discussion of the anxious question in hand, was an indication of true wisdom; and it furnishes an example very useful to ourselves on critical occasions. The words in Acts xv. 4, "they declared what things God had done with them," are quite in harmony with all that is stated here.

lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain] The personality of St Paul here comes to view, in a startling manner, through the sudden use of one of his characteristic metaphors. We find the same imagery, drawn from the foot-race, in a lively form below (v. 7)—"Ye were running well: who put a sudden hindrance in your way?" Images drawn from the Greek Games, and especially the foot-race, are conspicuous in St Paul's spoken and written words, while on this Third Missionary Journey, perhaps because Corinth was much in his thoughts. See I Cor. ix. 24-26; Rom. ix. 16; Acts xx. 24. We find in an epistle of later date (Phil. ii. 16) the exact phrase (eis kevòv tpéxew) which is used here. To turn now from the form of St Paul's language to his motive on this occasion at Jerusalem, he acted with great caution lest his past work or his present work should be to no purpose. The nature of his apprehension seems well expressed by Bishop Lightfoot. He was anxious "lest the Judaic Christians, by insisting on the Mosaic ritual, might thwart his past and present endeavours to establish the Church on a liberal basis." A mistake in his conduct at this time might have compromised the future liberty of the Gentile churches. Moreover there was imminent risk of a schism.

3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised] He now introduces an incident, connected with the visit to Jerusalem, wh.ch, through his firmness, was made to express a great principle and resulted in benefit to the Galatian Christians themselves. Those who went with St Paul from Antioch to Jerusalem (Acts xv. 2) were probably all representatives of Gentile Christianity. Titus certainly was. That he was a man too of some mark, as to position

3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

and character, seems clear from the office which he afterwards held in Crete. See the Epistle to Titus. Strong pressure was brought to bear on St Paul to cause Titus to be circumcised. It might easily have been represented as a conciliatory act, like the making common cause with the Nazarites afterwards at Jerusalem (Acts xxii. 22—24), a course which St James recommended, and which St Paul adopted. But the circumstances on this earlier occasion were peculiar. The question of the necessity of circumcision for Gentile converts had been raised. See Acts xv. I. Before the later occasion this question had been settled for ever. This was largely due to St Paul's firmness.

As to apparent inconsistency in St Paul's conduct in comparison with what he did subsequently in the case of Timothy, the plausibility of such an accusation was probably in St Paul's mind as he wrote. He caused Timothy to be circumcised soon afterwards: and this must have been known to the Galatians, because the Apostle was then on his way to his first visit among them, and Timothy had been among them the companion of his labours. See Acts xvi. 1-3. But the two cases were very different. Titus was a pure Gentile. Timothy was half a Jew. This is perhaps one reason why so much stress is laid in the present passage on the Heathen parentage of Titus. Moreover the question of circumcision in relation to Gentile converts had been settled before the beginning of the Second Missionary Journey. Thus the two cases were as different as possible. It was quite consistent in St Paul at Lystra to circumcise Timothy "because of the Jews which were in those quarters-for they knew all that his father was a Greek," and to refuse to circumcise Titus at Jerusalem "because of false brethren," who wished to bring the Christian Church "into bondage."

But a question has been raised, and has been argued on two sides by opposing commentators, as to whether the meaning of this passage is that St Paul refused on this occasion, though urgently pressed, to circumcise Titus, or whether Titus really was circumcised, but only as an act of free concession and friendly arrangement, not under any compulsion. The original Greek would bear either interpretation. But the grammatical construction in this paragraph is peculiarly intricate: and when no help is to be gained from this source, it seems natural to decide the question by the general course of the argument. And surely the main point of the case, and the whole tone of the Epistle, require us to believe that St Paul resisted and refused. Moreover, if he