But I let you know, brethren, [as to] the glad tidings which were announced by me, that they are not according to man.
Paul opens with a fact, not an argument. The message he brought to Galatia did not come from a human mind. Much hangs on this. If the gospel came from men, men may change it. If it came from God, no one may touch it.
The letter is severe, yet the word Paul uses here for his readers is warm. One writer notes how often it recurs, and against what background.
The letter he wrote to the Galatians under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is the most solemn, sharp, and combative letter that ever came from his pen. It contains no word of praise or thanksgiving, unlike his other letters. It begins right after the greetings with "I wonder…" and ends before the final greeting with "From now on let no one trouble me…" (Gal 1:6; 6:17). Still, he is full of love for his children in the faith (Gal 4:19). Again and again he calls them "brothers" (Gal 1:11; 3:15; 4:12, 28, 31; 5:11, 13; 6:1, 18).
Something had changed in Galatia, and it made a plain fact need saying again.
False human teachings had since poured into their minds and corrupted them. Their treacherous guides also worked hard to belittle Paul's ministry, unfairly comparing his late-born claim to be an apostle with the claims of the original disciples. So he had to state again, in this formal way, that his gospel was genuine and came from God. That gospel had once been its own witness to their gladdened hearts, and had shown others its source by its effects.
The denial is total: no human source, no human channel, no human teacher.
In verse 1 he tells them he was an apostle, not from men, or by a man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father. Now Paul tells them the same is true of his gospel. The good news he announced to them is not according to man. He did not receive it from man, and no one taught it to him. This good news was not prepared in the minds of clever men. It was not reasoned out from the Old Testament. Neither Peter nor any of the other twelve apostles had told it to Paul. Paul had not gone to a college or Bible school to learn it.
That source explains why he could hold it firmly and refuse whatever men added.
He had not learned it from any man. He held it directly from the lips of the Lord, when He revealed Himself to him in glory… He might well hold it firmly and refuse all else that man might add to it. It made no difference what excuse men had for teaching better than the Lord Himself — whether they sought to add the law to the gospel, or claimed to know a better way of producing holiness than the means used by God.
The phrase is not only about where the message started. It is also about what kind of message it is — and what kind of message man would have written instead.
First, the good news that he preached was "not according to man." Men dream of a gospel that would exalt man. It would offer him blessing as the result of his own efforts. God's good news does bring eternal blessing to man. But it brings that blessing in a way that gives eternal glory to God.
It also gives a plain test for the preaching we hear.
"I like hearing Mr. So-and-so," is the cry. "He speaks so reasonably. There is such common sense. He has such faith in humanity, and makes you feel so much more hopeful and content in this rather discontented world." Quite so! The fact is, it is all so thoroughly after man. That is why it is all so pleasing to the natural man. Yet it is false. It is not the gospel of God.
Paul's claim is not that the other apostles preached something wrong. Commentators are careful here: his message agreed with theirs and went further.
The apostles announced Christ as the Messiah. They made known forgiveness of sins through His name. But they did not bring out the heavenly glory of Christ as Paul did. He brought out all these truths, and more that they never touched on. That is why he so often speaks of "my gospel." Of course, in the great truths of the gospel, there could be no difference between what Paul and the other apostles preached. But what Paul preached went far beyond theirs. There was nothing contradictory.
- Source. Clever men did not think out Paul's gospel. No one reasoned it out from the Old Testament. Peter and the other apostles did not hand it to him. No school taught it.
- Character. It came from God, so it never does what a man-made message does. It never offers blessing as the reward of man's own effort.
- Reach. It agreed with what the other apostles preached. It went further and brought out the heavenly glory of Christ, which they had not touched.
- Guard. Paul had his message straight from the Lord. So he could hold it firmly and refuse what men added — law, or a better route to holiness.
- Test. Preaching that flatters people and leaves them comfortable is "after man," however reasonable it sounds.
For neither did I receive them from man, neither was I taught [them], but by revelation of Jesus Christ.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
For ye have heard [what was] my conversation formerly in Judaism, that I excessively persecuted the assembly of God, and ravaged it;
Paul has just claimed that his gospel came to him by revelation, not from any human teacher. Now he offers his own life story as the evidence. Why would a man offer his worst record as proof of his message? And what does that record say about the religion the Galatians were drifting back into?
Someone could doubt the claim in verse 12. So Paul answers with history. Nobody taught him the gospel. He was hunting down the very people who could have taught it.
The next point he brings into his argument is his earlier way of life. Speaking of his gospel, he says he did not receive it from any man, and no one taught it to him. It came by the revelation of Jesus Christ. They might have raised a doubt about this; but he shows that all his previous life was opposed to the gospel. There was not another such opponent of Christ as he had been. "For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it." There may be a small word here for them. They were beginning to persecute everyone who opposed their ideas about the law, and were getting into a bitter spirit.
Another writer sets Saul's zeal beside what others were doing at the same time.
While others were hearing the gospel preached and coming into the Church, he was persecuting it. His zeal for the Jew's religion and the traditions of the fathers completely blinded him to the preaching of the apostles. It is clear, then, that in his unconverted days he was unreached by the preaching of others.
The verse describes a settled, ongoing campaign, not a single outburst. One writer gives a literal rendering. It brings out that repeated action and explains what "Judaism" means.
"For you heard of my manner of life formerly in Judaism, that surpassingly I kept persecuting the assembly of God, and I kept making havoc of it." Galatians 1:13 [Judaism means the Jewish rites, customs and ceremonies.]
His crime was not a scandalous private life. It was his will set against God's purpose — and he was religious the whole time.
What made him chief of sinners was not immorality. It was the dreadful will and purpose with which he set himself against the purpose and mind of God. Listen to his own account of it: "I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth."
Paul names a whole religion here, not just his own past. That naming carries a warning for readers who were mixing that religion into their faith.
In his life he combined three things: great zeal for Jewish tradition, progress in Judaism that went further than others of his own age, and heavy persecution of the church of God. Twice in verses 13 and 14 he speaks of "the Jews' religion." This is significant. The Galatians had fallen into the trap of trying to bring the very essence of that religion into the gospel. He would have them realise — and us also — that far from being an addition to the gospel it is opposed to it. He had been brought clean out of it by his conversion.
Paul does not say he persecuted a congregation. He uses a phrase that reaches wider than any one city, and the Lord treated the attack as aimed at Himself.
Paul persecuted the Church (1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13; Philippians 3:6). He did not persecute only the believers at Jerusalem, but through them the whole Church. He even heard a voice asking, "Why are you persecuting Me?" (Acts 9:4-5).
Grace reached Saul while he was still hunting Christians. That starting point left him no room for a gospel of law.
Grace is the foundation of it all — free, sovereign grace. What use were his privileges as a Jew to a man caught red-handed on his mission of blood, as Saul now is! This is not a repentant sinner asking for and finding mercy. He is an enemy, and it is as an enemy that he is reconciled to God. Legality is an impossibility for a man in his position. He cannot dream of any of those half-gospels with which men fool themselves first and then their hearers.
- Proof. Paul's past is his evidence. The one man who could not have learned the gospel from Christians is the man who was destroying them.
- Religion. His sin was not immorality. It was a will set against God, driven by religious zeal and family tradition.
- Opposition. Naming "the Jews' religion" twice is a warning. What the Galatians were adding to the gospel does not support it — it stands against it.
- Reach. He attacked "the church of God," not one local group. The risen Christ took the blows as aimed at Himself.
- Grace. God reconciled him while he was still an enemy. That is why no half-gospel of law ever had room in his preaching.
and advanced in Judaism beyond many [my] contemporaries in my nation, being exceedingly zealous of the doctrines of my fathers.
Paul is defending where his message came from, and he does it by describing the man he used to be. Before God stopped him, he was no bystander to the religion the Galatians were now drifting into. He was out in front of his whole generation in it.
The verse pictures forward motion. One writer renders the phrase as cutting a track ahead of everyone else, and pauses to define the word "Judaism":
"and in Judaism I kept blazing a path ahead of and beyond many of my own age in my nation, being more exceedingly zealous of my ancestral traditions." Galatians 1:13-14 [Judaism means the Jewish rites, customs and ceremonies.]
One writer shows what these traditions bought a man, and where tradition turns dangerous:
The scribes and others held on to these traditions with great tenacity. A Jew's standing among men grew in proportion to his zeal for spreading and developing them. Before his conversion, Saul of Tarsus gained distinction in Jerusalem by his devotion to the tradition of his fathers... So tradition becomes evil when it adds to the word of God, or takes something away from it. Once fully developed, it becomes a harmful substitute for the word of God.
Paul did not learn his message from other preachers. His past life proves it:
His zeal for the Jew's religion and the traditions of the fathers blinded him to the preaching of the Apostles. It is clear, then, that no preaching from others reached him in his unconverted days.
See where his zeal for the law finally took him:
He knew all about this Judaism which they were getting back into. He did not speak as one who had been a stranger to it. On the contrary, he had made the very greatest advances. He was an enthusiast for the law, beyond the people of his own nation around him. As evidence of this, he went beyond them all in persecuting the Church of God and destroying it. How the essential opposition of principles comes out here! Here he was following only the human school. The traditions of his fathers stirred up his zeal, with all their appeal to nature and self-interest.
For the Galatians, that religion looked like a helpful addition to the gospel:
Twice in verses 13 and 14 he speaks of "the Jews' religion." This matters. The Galatians had fallen into the trap of trying to bring the very heart of that religion into the Gospel. He wants them to see — and us also — that it is not an addition to the Gospel at all. It is against it. His conversion had brought him clean out of it.
Older translations render "Judaism" in this verse as "the Jews' religion."
Paul reached the top of that system. Here is what the prize was worth:
He was allowed to win the prize in the great legal struggle with his "equals in his own nation." He won it only so that he might throw it down at the foot of the Cross, like a withered, worthless thing... As the chief of legalists, Saul stood no nearer to Christ than he did as the chief of sinners. His noblest efforts in the school of legalism held no more justifying merit than his wildest acts against the name of Christ. He was saved by grace, saved by blood, saved by faith.
Paul was sincere in his old religion. Sincerity was not enough:
We may have been completely sincere in our religious convictions. But if they came from tradition instead of from God, the light of God's truth wakes us up to a discovery. In the very thing we were most proud of, we were most contrary to God... Those who take their religion from tradition, and not from the Word of God, are the fiercest opponents of the doctrines of grace.
- Tradition — inherited rules gave a man his standing among his peers. They turn harmful the moment they add to the word of God or take from it.
- Advance — Paul outran his own generation in that system. He speaks about it as an insider, not as a stranger to it.
- Blindness — the same zeal that lifted his reputation closed his ears to the apostles' preaching. No man taught him the gospel.
- Worthlessness — he won the legal contest, then threw the prize down at the cross. The chief legalist stood no nearer to Christ than the chief of sinners.
- Warning — sincerity is no safeguard. A religion taken from tradition instead of Scripture can set a man against God at the point where he is proudest.
But when God, who set me apart [even] from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,
Paul is defending where his gospel came from. He traces it past his training and his teachers, back to God's own pleasure before he was born — and then to the grace that stopped him while he was still fighting Christ.
Older translations open the verse, "But when it pleased God." Paul's new life and his message both trace back to one source:
Notice first how directly and solemnly he refers everything to the supreme will and power of God. "It pleased God." Here we listen to the voice of the new creature acknowledging its Maker and giving Him glory. As a Christian apostle and minister of God, both he himself and his teaching are distinctly "of God."
Some translations read "separated me from my mother's womb." A servant's life before faith is not wasted ground:
Jeremiah 1:5 and Galatians 1:15-16 show that God marks out and calls His servants even before they are born. In view of this He shapes the vessel for His purposes and arranges all the circumstances of his later life. God designs everything he passes through to prepare and train him for his divine calling in life. This is so even while he may still be unconverted, and may not yet know his heavenly calling.
The verse names two acts, not one. The second is the greater:
He shows that it was God who called him away from the law. The Galatians were beginning to take up that law again. When Paul was in the very middle of it, he was an enemy of Christ. It pleased God to separate him from his mother's womb. But to call him, he insists, was much more; this call was of grace.
What Paul was set apart from mattered to readers who were slipping back into law-keeping:
Three steps in Paul's history are plainly marked for us. First, God set him apart even before his birth. Then He called him by the grace of the gospel. Third, God revealed His Son in him, so that He might be the theme of his testimony among the nations. Paul was born of the purest Hebrew stock. Even so, he needed to be set apart as much as if he had been a pagan. God set him apart from his Judaism — a point of much importance to the Galatians.
The call came to a man who was hunting Christians at the time:
A short time before, he had been a persecutor. He had advanced in Judaism beyond many others of his own age and nation. Now sovereign grace lays hold of him, while he is at his most active against the name of the Lord. He becomes an apostle sent directly by the Lord to the Gentiles, sent by a glorified Jesus.
That timing exposes what all his religious effort had really been:
The words are an open confession. For years he had given himself to hard work, to eager learning, and to loyalty to the Jews' religion. All of it was only an empty (though ignorant) effort to block the purpose of God. His will was set against God's, while he no doubt persuaded himself that the stronger his will, the more he pleased God.
God's choice of vessel fits the message the vessel would carry:
God's sovereignty in the choice of the vessel is strikingly seen. Who was more suitable to write the letter to the Galatians? Who was better fitted to press justification by faith alone, apart from works? Who better fitted to pour contempt on the first man and all his efforts to be righteous? Who was better fitted to show the believer's complete deliverance from law? Could a converted tax collector do it as well?
The verse is not a special case reserved for apostles:
God has spoken in this world, and He is still speaking. He has spoken of the Son, and He still speaks only of Him. This had a captivating effect on the apostle. We may not be up to it, but in our measure we too should know what we are separated to. The word saint which we bear says that we are separated. The same grace that separated the apostle has separated us.
- Pleasure. It starts with God's own pleasure. Paul traces everything back to God's supreme will, not to his training or his choice.
- Providence. God set him apart before birth. He then shaped Paul's whole unconverted life to fit the work ahead.
- Call. Being set apart before birth was much. The call by grace was much more, and it came while he was still fighting the name of the Lord.
- Purpose. He was set apart from his own religion, needing that as much as any pagan did. He was set apart for the message of justification by faith alone.
- You. The word saint means separated. The same grace that separated Paul separates every believer.
was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I may announce him as glad tidings among the nations, immediately I took not counsel with flesh and blood,
Paul is defending where his gospel came from. God stepped into the life of a man who was destroying the church, and sent him out with a message. Two questions run through the verse. What did God reveal? And why did Paul then consult no one?
Saul could give only one reason for that meeting on the Damascus road.
It was all grace. Paul had done nothing to earn such a meeting as that on the Damascus road. Paul had only tried to persecute and kill Christ's people. Paul had been persecuting the Christ. And this is the man the Christ chooses, to set him apart to the good news. What grace! Why did He choose Saul of Tarsus? The only reason Saul can give is God's grace, and that "God was pleased to reveal His Son in me." … Is it any wonder that Paul could not, and would not, give up grace? The law could only have condemned Saul to death, but grace makes him a chosen instrument.
Older translations read "in me" rather than "to me" — the wording used above. One writer builds his point on it, and sets it beside what Peter received.
Notice how unusual the expression is — "to reveal His Son in me". He is the only apostle who uses the phrase, and it is typical of him. To Peter the Father revealed His Son (Matt. 16); but Paul's word goes further. It involves union with Christ, and Paul was the one honoured to teach this truth. He learned the first part of it at his conversion. This huge fact came home to him: in persecuting the saints he was persecuting Christ, for the saints were in Him and He in them.
What God revealed inside Paul did not stay hidden. Others saw the Son of God by looking at him.
God was pleased to take away the veil that now hides His Son from view. So the glory of the Son of God changed the whole of Saul's life. And in him God unveiled His Son to those around him. Many a man and woman came to know the Son of God through the sight that Saul of Tarsus had of Him on the Damascus road. God used Paul to tell out the gospel. But Paul's own person also gave the strongest witness to its power.
What Saul received was not reserved for apostles. Only the commission attached to it was his alone.
This is true conversion, true faith. Sovereign grace reveals the Son of God in us, a glorified Man, and — if we have already understood the truth — a Saviour who has borne all our sins. But it is the revelation of Christ in us. In Saul's case, this revelation was also in order that he might preach Him among the Gentiles.
God revealed His Son in Paul so that Paul would preach Him among the Gentiles — the nations outside Israel. That shaped the whole character of his message.
So the gospel God commissioned Paul to preach was not just the announcement of certain truths. It was about the person God had revealed in him. He preached the Jesus who had appeared to him in heavenly glory as the Son of God. The gospel came to the Gentiles in the power of that revelation, so that they would be brought into the light of the glory of God. In that light flesh shows up as wholly bad and condemned. Yet in that same light there is life, righteousness, and glory for man. Paul had not dimmed this revelation by consulting flesh and blood. Flesh and blood could have no part in revealing it, or in helping it.
Paul did not go to Jerusalem for approval, and he presses that as proof. Where the ESV says "consult with anyone," older translations read "confer with flesh and blood."
Did he need to go up to Jerusalem to receive apostolic ordination, or even apostolic instruction? Not for a moment did he dream of such a thing. He says, "I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me." So he proves with care that he had nothing to do with apostolic authority, teaching, or succession. The Spirit knew well all that would come in later through the false claims of men.
Another writer makes this a rule for every believer.
The moment we confer with flesh and blood, our testimony and service are spoiled, because flesh and blood can never obey. We must obey God's command at once, through grace. Then we are blessed, and God is glorified. God's own word as the basis of what we do will always give our actions strength and steadiness. If we act only on impulse, the action will fade as soon as the impulse fades.
- Pleasure — The cause is God's good pleasure alone. The persecutor had nothing to offer; grace made him a chosen instrument.
- Person — The gift was not information but a Person. Paul then preached the Christ in glory whom God had unveiled in him.
- Inside — "In me" goes further than "to me." It carries union with Christ. Saul learned that the moment he heard that persecuting the saints was persecuting Christ.
- Ordinary — Every believer receives this same revealing of the Son of God within. That is true conversion. Only the errand to the nations was Paul's alone.
- Immediate — The revelation came straight from God. No human approval could add to it. Consulting flesh and blood would only have spoiled the service.
nor went I up to Jerusalem to those [who were] apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and again returned to Damascus.
Paul answers those who questioned his standing with a travel record. He names the place he skipped — Jerusalem, home of the first apostles — and the place he went instead: Arabia.
The obvious move for a new convert with a new message was to seek out the recognised leaders. Paul did not go. Such a trip would have damaged the very thing that made his apostleship distinct.
Had Paul gone up to present his credentials to the others, he would have lowered and obscured his apostleship. He would have done all he could to destroy its special blessedness and peculiar glory. But he was not disobedient to the heavenly vision. And God held the reins, to keep the truth pure and unspoiled... Some time later he does see Jerusalem, but he sees no more than Peter and James — not the apostles as a body, officially.
The question behind his choice is whether any human office had to approve him first.
Did he need to go up to Jerusalem to receive apostolic ordination, or even apostolic instruction? Not for a moment did he dream of such a thing... So he carefully proves that he had nothing to do with apostolic authority, teaching, or succession. The Spirit knew well everything that would come in later through the false claims of men.
The wording concedes something to his critics. What Paul will not concede is where his message came from.
Some men were made apostles at an earlier date than Paul could claim for himself (Gal. 1:17). He fully accepts them; yet from them he received neither his apostolic commission nor the gospel he preached. He was an apostle of Jesus Christ, one sent by Him, and by God the Father, who raised Him from the dead.
Instead of a conference, Paul chose a desert. Solitude did for him what a meeting could not.
He went into Arabia, into the desert. He needed privacy, to be alone with God, so he could take in the wonderful truth he had received. This is worth noting for all of us, and above all for young converts who may feel the pull to seek publicity when they need to be out of sight. From the wilderness Paul goes not to Jerusalem, but returns again to Damascus — the place of his wonderful conversion.
That region already had a history of men who went there to be alone with God.
Arabia is a very large country. Mount Sinai, where God gave Moses the law, is in Arabia. Elijah had gone away into Arabia to escape from Jezebel, and to be alone with God. And I am sure Saul of Tarsus also went to Arabia to be alone with God... Every true servant of God must have time to be alone with God.
The book of Acts never mentions this trip, and commentators differ on where it fits. One places it right after the conversion, before any preaching at all:
A time of quiet, away from everyone, came at just the right moment. A short stay in Arabia provided it... Looking at the account he gives us of this part of his life, we would place it just after his conversion. It came before any public ministry, or even any contact with the disciples in Damascus.
Another places it later, inside the "many days" of Acts 9:23:
People may wonder where that visit to Arabia fits in, the one he writes about in Galatians 1:17. We think it probably happened during the "many days" that verse 23 of our chapter mentions, since he tells us that he "returned again to Damascus."
The years before Paul ever saw Jerusalem were not wasted. God arranged them, and they kept his gospel independent of the twelve apostles in Jerusalem.
The Spirit of God appears to include in the first verses the three years the apostle spent in Arabia. That fact carries great weight, coming right after his conversion. The Epistle to the Galatians uses it with great force (Gal. 1:17), to prove how little man, even the twelve, had to do with it... God meant it to stand apart from Jerusalem and the twelve. His call, his apostleship, and the gospel he preached came straight from the prime source of grace, truth, and authority: the risen Head and God Himself.
- Not Jerusalem. Going up for approval would have dimmed the glory of an apostleship given straight from heaven. God held the reins, so the truth stayed pure.
- Not succession. Paul never asked the earlier apostles to ordain him or teach him. The Spirit put that on record, against every later claim built on apostolic succession.
- Not rivalry. He grants that others were apostles before him, and accepts them fully. He just received neither his commission nor his gospel from them.
- But Arabia. The desert gave him privacy to take in what he had received. Moses and Elijah had been alone with God in that same wilderness. New believers often need quiet more than publicity.
- And proof. Three years away, then back to Damascus instead of Jerusalem. That is the evidence: his call, his office and his message came from the risen Christ.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to make acquaintance with Peter, and I remained with him fifteen days;
Paul is defending himself. Some had told the churches of Galatia that his message and his authority were second-hand, borrowed from the leaders at Jerusalem. His answer is plain autobiography, and it includes this short, late visit to Peter.
The visit only matters because of what others were saying about Paul. His critics had their own account of where his authority came from.
These teachers who pressed the Jewish law came from Jerusalem. Of course, they presented themselves as carrying all the authority of that great centre of the apostles behind them. They painted Paul as an upstart apostle. He was not part of the original band of apostles, they said, and so he lacked full and proper authority. That is why the apostle begins his letter with some personal history.
The delay is the first argument. Before Jerusalem came Arabia and Damascus, and that ordering was not accidental.
God planned it this way on purpose. Saul went to Arabia, then returned to Damascus, and only after three years did he go up to Jerusalem. He did not go to receive office from the hands of the apostles, but to get to know Peter. He stayed only fifteen days, and saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. In this God put to death the Jewish system at its best, and all order handed down by succession.
So do the three years start at his conversion, or at his return from Arabia? One writer leaves it open:
We cannot be sure whether this period starts at his conversion or at his return from Arabia. But Scripture is often unclear on such small points, and that will never trouble a sound-minded believer.
The verse says he went to visit Peter, that is, to get to know him. That purpose carries the weight of the whole argument.
The Apostle had spent three years in Arabia and Damascus. Then he paid a visit of fifteen days to Peter at Jerusalem. The only other Apostle he saw was James, the brother of our Lord. So this visit was not an official one to receive instructions or ordination. It was a personal one, to get to know Peter.
The number is small, and Paul offers it as evidence instead of hiding it.
He went only to get to know Peter, and stayed with him — how long? Fifteen days. That is far too short a time, if it were a question of proper training in the testimony of the twelve apostles. But in fact he did not see the twelve. He saw Peter... So he accepts the challenge that unbelief had thrown down. He is glad to admit what they counted a defect.
Why Peter? One writer answers by looking at the work each man was given.
God had formed him, and God saw that the right time had come for him to go to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (the Aramaic name for Peter). Why did Paul feel the need to visit Peter? Peter had opened the door for the Gentiles (Acts 10), and the Lord had used him. But now the Lord was preparing Paul as the vessel He would use widely among the Gentiles, so they needed this contact. Paul went to see Cephas to tell him what had happened to him... Paul did not need a crash course from Peter, not at all. He went to have fellowship with him, and so that Peter could judge whether Paul's mission was right or not. In those fifteen days Peter would have had time enough to correct him, if that had been needed. But it was not long enough to train him for the mission. God had trained him during those three years in Arabia.
Scripture does not record what the two men said to each other.
We would like to know what these men of God discussed at that time, but the Spirit of God has not chosen to lift the veil. We may be sure that many precious details of our Lord's life on earth came into their everyday talk, for Peter had seen them himself. And Saul would surely tell his new friend and brother something of what he had learned in God's school, both in Damascus and in Arabia.
Paul's point is about where his commission came from. It is not about keeping his distance from other believers.
Paul's teaching was independent of human teaching (1:11-17). It was independent of the churches of Judea (1:18-24). And I would add: it was independent of the other apostles too. He was in fellowship with them, but they had not sent him.
- Charge. Teachers from Jerusalem called Paul a late, unauthorised apostle. He answers with dates and facts.
- Delay. Three years passed before he went up. He had already preached his message before Jerusalem ever saw him.
- Purpose. He went to get to know Peter, not to take orders or ordination from him.
- Duration. Fifteen days is far too short to train a man. God had already trained him in Arabia, and Paul points to the short stay as his proof.
- Fellowship. His calling did not come from the apostles, yet he shared fellowship with them: separate source, one Lord.
but I saw none other of the apostles, but James the brother of the Lord.
Paul is defending where his message came from: not from Jerusalem or the twelve apostles, but straight from Christ. This verse is part of his proof — a record of which leaders he met on that first visit back, and which he did not.
Paul names his contacts so that no one could claim the Jerusalem church gave him his commission.
Paul visited Jerusalem and stayed with the Apostle Peter for fifteen days. The letter to the Galatians is one fierce protest against an attack on the gospel of the grace of God. That attack came by bringing in Jewish legal principles. Paul was careful to define his position as the Apostle to the Gentiles. He owed that position directly to God's appointment. It had no connection with Jerusalem or with the other apostles sent to Israel. The matter was very serious; the very foundations of the faith were at stake. That is why he was so careful to state which apostle he had met, and to point out that he had met no other.
Paul's independence did not make him distant from other workers.
Why did he not see the rest? The only reasonable explanation is that they were away elsewhere on their Master's work... This verse means one thing above all. His heart was fully open to the comfort of being with his fellow workers in the ministry. Yet his own liberty of service did not depend on their approval in any way.
More than one man in the New Testament is called James, so Paul's phrase pins down which one he means.
The James who wrote the letter of James was not the brother of John. Herod killed that James in the very early years, as recorded in Acts 12:2. The writer was the James spoken of in Acts 15:13 and Acts 21:18. Paul calls him "James, the Lord's brother," in Galatians 1:19. He also acknowledges him as one of the "pillars" of the church in Jerusalem in Galatians 2:9. As far as we can tell, he never went out to Judea or Samaria or to the ends of the earth. He stayed in Jerusalem, and there he came to hold a position of great authority.
One writer reads "brother" in its plain family sense, and answers the idea that these were Joseph's children by an earlier marriage.
But James was not a "disciple." He was one of the Lord's brothers, and they did not believe the whole time the Lord was living here below: "For not even his brothers believed in him" (John 7:5). "His brothers" were sons of Mary born after His own birth. Some would like to make them sons of an earlier marriage of Joseph. We know nothing of such a marriage, and neither do they. We do know that Scripture is quite plain.
Paul drops the phrase in without a word of explanation. That plainness is the point.
Yet only a few verses further down in this same chapter I read the words: "James, the Lord's brother." Paul writes it as simply as he might have written, "I saw Timothy," or "I saw Peter." It was probably only a little over thirty years since James shared the same humble home with "the carpenter" of Nazareth... These simple words tell me that my Lord is truly Man. The first verse of Galatians tells me with trumpet tones that Jesus is truly God. The nineteenth verse tells me with equal certainty that He is also truly Man.
Commentators differ on whether the verse counts James among the apostles. Some read it as a straightforward inclusion: "he was the Lord's brother, and an Apostle likewise" (C. E. Stuart). Others say the sentence will not carry that weight.
He was probably not one of the twelve apostles. Acts 1:14 first mentions the Lord's brothers meeting with the apostles, and it speaks of them as distinct from the apostles... Scholars say that the Greek wording of Galatians 1:19 does not have to mean that James the Lord's brother was an apostle.
The man Paul met in Jerusalem had once refused to believe. Seeing Jesus alive changed him.
"Then He appeared to James" — one of the Lord's brothers, who did not believe in Him in the days before Calvary. The Lord's death atoned for that sinful unbelief. His appearing in resurrection swept it away. So James loved to speak of himself as the servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.
- Brother. The title is family language in its plain sense — James grew up in the same home as Jesus, a son of Mary born after Him.
- Brother proves manhood. Paul names Him in passing as somebody's brother. Verse 19 shows the Lord Jesus is truly Man, as verse 1 shows He is truly God.
- Brother once unbelieving. James did not believe during the Lord's life. Then the risen Christ appeared to him, and the doubter became a servant.
- Brother, not sponsor. Paul names him to prove independence, not debt. He enjoyed the fellowship, but his freedom to serve rested on no one's approval.
- Brother debated. Commentators differ on whether the verse ranks James among the apostles. The Greek allows both readings, and Paul's argument does not depend on settling it.
Now what I write to you, behold, before God, I do not lie.
Right in the middle of a plain account of his travels, Paul stops and calls God as witness that he is telling the truth. Why does so plain a story need such a heavy guarantee, and who was saying otherwise?
The details Paul has just given — three years away, fifteen days with Peter, one other apostle seen — are ordinary enough. So why the oath?
Why make such a solemn declaration to confirm a story so likely in itself, and told so simply and plainly? We can be sure what lay behind it. While Paul was away, people were trying to spoil God's work in the Galatian churches, and they had made misleading claims about his earlier history. Those claims had no doubt done real damage. So he is not content to correct a false statement with a true one. He also appeals to the God in whose name and power he claimed to work. That fits a man who claimed so clearly to be God's minister and messenger.
The attack was not on Paul's travels but on his honesty.
Paul is answering his enemies, the false teachers. They said Paul did not receive his teaching or his authority from the apostles at Jerusalem. No, Paul says, I did not. And I will prove from my own history that it was impossible for me to receive either my authority or my teaching from men. And now in verse 20 he makes it doubly sure. It is like our Lord's words that He loved so well, "truly, truly." Paul adds, "In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!" His enemies had suggested that his conduct had been deceitful, and perhaps they had said he was not truthful. So Paul makes this solemn statement that should close the mouths of his enemies.
Their real target lay one step further back: discredit the man, and you discredit his commission.
This is a short parenthesis. Why does Paul say this? There had been false teachers among the Galatians. Their only way to attack Paul was to question whether he was a real apostle. That is why Paul stressed his divine call: "an apostle—not from men nor through man" (1:1). And that is why he gave so many historical details. He wanted them to understand what God had done and what had happened to him.
Paul's travel notes are evidence. Every gap in time and place puts distance between him and any human source for his message. That distance was God's own design.
His call was in no way from men, nor through man. It came through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from among the dead. The gospel he preached was the same: it was not according to man. He did not receive it from man, and no one taught it to him. It came by revelation of Jesus Christ. God meant it to be independent of Jerusalem and the twelve apostles. Paul's call, his apostleship, and his gospel came straight from the first source of grace, truth, and authority: the risen Head and God Himself.
Jesus told His hearers not to swear, and James repeats it. Yet Paul calls God as his witness. Commentators say the two do not clash.
It is a complete mistake to think that either of them forbids an oath taken in court. The examples given rule that out. They are not the kind a judge requires in court or on any other formal occasion. They were, or could be, the common phrases of everyday speech… Even with no judge present, on a serious enough occasion, we find the apostle confirming what he taught the believers by something equivalent: Romans 1:9; Romans 9:1; 2 Corinthians 1:23; Galatians 1:20; Philippians 1:8.
Paul wrote one line before God. The same awareness can shape how anyone speaks.
The Apostle adds solemn weight to his words by reminding us that he speaks "before God," and adds, "I do not lie." It would be good for us all if we always spoke as those consciously in the presence of God, and could truly say, "before God, I do not lie."
- Attacked. False teachers could not answer Paul's gospel. So they went after his history and his honesty.
- Answered. He does more than correct their story with a true one — he stakes his standing as God's messenger on every detail.
- Evidenced. The dates and distances prove God's design. Paul's call and his gospel came straight from the risen Christ, not from Jerusalem.
- Allowed. A serious appeal to God on a serious occasion is not the casual swearing Jesus and James forbid.
- Applied. "Before God" is a way to live, not just a phrase to write — speak always as those aware they stand in His presence.
Then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
Paul is defending where his message came from. His answer is a travel note: after a fifteen-day visit to Jerusalem he headed north, away from that centre — and the direction is the argument.
The verse leaves out a great deal. One writer fills in what happened and traces the map:
In Acts 9 we saw that Paul preached boldly in Jerusalem, and so the Jews "were seeking to kill him." What an example of diligence Paul is to us there. He was in Jerusalem only fifteen days, but in that short time he found opportunity to preach boldly. The Lord met him in a vision in the temple and told him to leave. As we have seen, the brothers sent him to his native home in Tarsus. Paul leaves all this out of Galatians, though it is so much to his credit. He says only, "Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia." Tarsus was a city in Cilicia, and it was "no obscure city." Cilicia and Syria had close ties in many ways, so that often they were almost one. Cilicia is northeast of Syria. You will remember that Damascus was in Syria. So you can see that Paul was going further and further away from Jerusalem in his work for the Lord.
Some said Paul worked under licence from Jerusalem. His travel note answers them:
Paul's teaching was independent of human teaching (1:11-17) and independent of the Judean churches (1:18-24). I want to add that it was independent of the other apostles too. He was in fellowship with them, but they did not send him. They recognised the work he had done in Cilicia and they glorified God in him, so there was a form of fellowship. But his point was that the Judean churches had not sent him to Cilicia.
Acts sends Saul from Caesarea to Tarsus; Galatians names two whole provinces. Is that a clash?
Galatians 1:21 is no real difficulty. It only tells us that he then came to the regions of Syria and Cilicia, which was easy by ship. The next verse shows that he was still unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ.
Years pass between this verse and Barnabas coming to find him. Tarsus seems to have been his base:
From Jerusalem, by way of Caesarea, to Tarsus was his recorded route, as we have seen. At Tarsus he appears to have stayed some time. The broader language of this verse lets us fairly infer that he made it his headquarters while he served the gospel in those parts. There at least Barnabas sought him out and found him.
Those quiet years left something behind in that region:
So before Barnabas went out to call him in Acts 11, Paul had worked there, although we do not know exactly how long. Assemblies had probably formed there, because we have references to assemblies in that region. For example, Acts 15:23 says: "The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings."
Why the silence? One writer gives a reason:
The Spirit of God never occupies us with the private lives even of the holiest of His people. Otherwise they might come between our souls and Christ. Admiration of man comes more easily to the natural heart than admiration of Christ. A veil is therefore drawn over the whole of Saul's stay in his native place.
Being a stranger to the Judean churches sounds like a dent in his credentials. One writer reads it the other way:
Was this then a reproach? Let it be so: it was true. It was really part of God's wonderful ways with him. It showed the true character of Christianity and of its ministry, in contrast to Judaism. It was therefore not only for him, but for the instruction of the Galatians and of us all. Once understood, it completely cut away all the earthly baby-clothes of the heavenly church and of the Christian. Those who lived in Jerusalem were too ready to keep the clothes and the cradle. These had their place and use at first, but they had no claim to a place among the Gentiles.
- Distance as direction. Each stage of Paul's service carried him further from Jerusalem — not drift, but route.
- Distance as proof. No Judean church sent him to Cilicia. He was in fellowship with the other apostles, but they did not send him.
- Distance as harmony. The two provinces named here fit the Acts account of a sea journey to Tarsus.
- Distance as fruit. Those hidden years bore fruit. The letter from Jerusalem later greets assemblies in that very region.
- Distance as doctrine. He was a stranger to the Judean churches. That showed the faith is not tied to an earthly centre. The cradle had served its purpose; it could not go out to the nations.
But I was unknown personally to the assemblies of Judaea which [are] in Christ;
Paul is still answering one question: where did his message and his commission come from? He had spent only fifteen days in Jerusalem, then moved north to Syria and Cilicia, and the believers in Judea had never even seen his face.
What could sound like a weakness is Paul's evidence. He had no letters and no backing from the assemblies in Judea.
After his visit to Jerusalem he went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. He received no messages and no authority from the assemblies of Judea. They did not even know his face. When they heard what he was doing, they did not interfere with him or give him instructions and advice. They did not complain that he was preaching apart from the authority of the twelve apostles.
The wording is careful. Paul does not say he was unknown in Jerusalem itself, but in Judea.
We must notice the difference between the "assemblies of Judea" and the assembly of Jerusalem. The assembly in Jerusalem had almost surely got to know Paul in person, though he was there only fifteen days. But he left so suddenly, that the assemblies outside Jerusalem had no chance to get to know him.
His critics treated his distance from Judea as a defect. One writer admits the charge, then shows why God arranged it that way.
Was this then a reproach? So be it: it was true. It was really part of God's wonderful ways with him. It showed the true character of Christianity and of its ministry, in contrast with Judaism. So it was not only for him, but for the teaching of the Galatians, and of us all. Understood rightly, it cut away all the earthly baby-clothes of the heavenly church and of the Christian. Those who lived in Jerusalem were too ready to keep the clothes and the cradle. These had their place and use at first, but no claim to be kept up among the Gentiles.
Paul does not just say "the churches of Judea." Two more words set them apart from every other Jewish gathering in the land.
Paul describes the assemblies which were in Judea as in Christ. This was true of all of them, but it marked out the assemblies in Judea as distinct from any synagogue of the Jews. They were assemblies of Christ, and in Christ. No Jew could ever have used these terms and truths, or even claimed to accept them.
Paul had known the other assemblies of Judea well. He had once hunted believers inside them.
There were other assemblies in Judea which were not in Christ. He had once been well known to those. From city to city he hunted the blameless sheep of Jesus, imprisoning and beating in every synagogue those who believed and called on that name. But no assembly of God's living worshippers in Judea had ever seen his face until the time he speaks of.
The Galatians were drifting toward Jewish law and looking to Judea as the model. Paul points out what Judea itself had done with the news about him.
The Galatian behaviour amounted to blaming God. These churches did not blame God, and they did not find fault with his testimony. They glorified God in Paul. The Galatians were looking with longing at these early churches of Judea. Yet those churches were glorifying God in him, while the Galatians themselves quarrelled with the rich mercy God had been showing the Gentiles.
Grace had changed the man, and the change left Galatia with no excuse.
How transforming is divine grace! It turns a thief into a giver, and a persecutor into a preacher. But what a rebuke for the assemblies of Galatia! They were criticizing the devoted apostle, and slighting him because his ministry had no Jewish source.
The Judean believers knew Paul only from a report. Notice where their response went.
As the good news of the change in Saul of Tarsus kept going round among the assemblies of Judea, they kept glorifying God. Can you not guess what thanks and praise went up to God in their prayer meetings? A very early writer said: "He does not say, They marvelled at me, or praised me, or were struck with admiration of me. He attributes it all to grace. They glorified God, he says, in me."
- Unknown — the Judean assemblies had never seen Paul's face, and he offers that fact as proof, not apology.
- Unattached — no message, no authority and no instructions came from them. His commission came from somewhere else.
- Unearthly — the broken link with Jerusalem showed that Christianity is heavenly, unlike Judaism.
- Unlike the synagogue — "in Christ" set these gatherings apart from every synagogue in the land.
- Unearned praise — they knew him only by report, yet they glorified God in him. That rebuke still stands over any church that values credentials above grace.
only they were hearing that he who persecuted us formerly now announces the glad tidings of the faith which formerly he ravaged
The believers in Judea had never met Paul. All they had was a report passing from group to group about the man who once hunted them down. That report carries Paul's whole defence: his message came from no human headquarters, yet the churches nearest Jerusalem thanked God for it.
Paul's argument rests on a fact that looks like a weakness. The churches of Judea had never seen his face. One writer treats that gap as part of God's design:
Was this then a reproach? Let it be so: it was true. It was really part of God's wonderful ways with him. It showed the true character of Christianity and of its ministry, in contrast with Judaism. So it was not only for him, but for the instruction of the Galatians, and of us all. Once you see this, it cuts away every earthly baby-wrapping from the heavenly church and from the Christian. Those who lived in Jerusalem were too ready to keep the baby clothes and the cradle. These had their place and use at first, but no one should keep them going among the Gentiles.
Notice what those churches did not do when the news reached them:
After his visit to Jerusalem he went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. So far from receiving any communications, or authority, from the assemblies of Judea, he was unknown to them even by face. This only they knew, that the one-time persecutor was now a preacher of the faith which once he had sought to destroy. They heard what he was doing. They did not interfere with the Apostle or send him instructions and advice. They did not complain that he was preaching apart from the authority of the twelve apostles. Instead they glorified God for all that He was doing in and through the Apostle.
The change in the man is the miracle. But the verse also shames the Galatians. The churches with most reason to distrust Paul were the ones praising God for him:
How transforming is divine grace, turning a thief into a giver (Eph. 4:28), and a persecutor into a preacher; but what a rebuke for the assemblies of Galatia! They were criticising the devoted apostle and slighting him, because his ministry had no Jewish source. Meanwhile the assemblies of Judea glorified God for His admirable work of sovereign favour — and from them he might have expected some prejudice.
The verse names what he preaches — "the faith." One writer sets out how much that phrase covers:
What is the faith? It is the whole body of truth revealed by God at the beginning; that which was given by God once for all to the saints (Jude 3). It comes from its divine source, so it is (1) God's revelation. It finds expression in Christ and in the Scriptures, so it is (2) the truth. It is a present unseen system in which believers are to stand fast, so it is called (3) the faith — "the faith of God's elect" (Titus 1:1).
The talk kept circulating, and the praise kept rising with it:
How vivid the whole scene is! We can see those early Christians talking together: "Brother, have you heard? Saul of Tarsus, who helped kill Stephen, is preaching the good news!"… As the good news of the change in Saul of Tarsus kept going round among the assemblies of Judea, they kept glorifying God. Can you not guess what thanks and praise went up to God in their prayer meetings? A very ancient writer has said, "He does not say, They marvelled at me; they praised me; they were struck with admiration of me: but he attributes all to grace. They glorified God, he says, in me."
Paul's conversion was not only about Paul. It was set up as a pattern for others:
What grace in God; what a change in the man! It is the same grace towards all who are saved, but Saul was a marvellous testimony to it. That testimony would make the grace plain and clear to all. The apostle himself says: "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display His perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in Him for eternal life" (1 Tim. 1:15-16).
- Report, not résumé — the Judean churches knew Paul only by report. He was a stranger to them, so his message came from no human headquarters.
- Grace, not credentials — they sent him no authority and no advice. They thanked God for what He was doing through him.
- Faith, not opinion — what he once destroyed and now preaches is the whole body of truth God gave once for all to the saints.
- Mercy, not merit — Christ saved the foremost of sinners to display His patience. Paul is the example for everyone who would believe later.
- Glory, not applause — they did not praise Paul. The credit ran past the man to the grace that changed him, and that rebuked the Galatians' criticism.
and they glorified God in me.
Paul ends the story of his early years with other people's praise, not with his own achievements. Why did that praise go to God and not to the preacher, and why did Paul tell the Galatians about it?
These assemblies knew Paul only by rumour. One writer points to the tenses in the original. They describe action that keeps repeating, and he paints the scene they imply:
These verses use the imperfect and present tenses, which show continuous action. "I remained unknown … they kept on hearing … our persecutor … keeps on announcing the good news of the faith he once kept on destroying." How vivid the whole scene is! We can see those early Christians talking together: "Brother, have you heard? Saul of Tarsus, who helped kill Stephen, is preaching the good news!" … The news of the change in Saul of Tarsus kept going round the assemblies of Judea. And they kept glorifying God. Can you not guess what thanks and praise went up to God in their prayer meetings? A very ancient writer has said, "He does not say, They marvelled at me; they praised me; they admired me: but he credits everything to grace. They glorified God, he says, in me."
The change from persecutor to preacher is what set the praise going. One writer places it beside another reversal that grace produces. Then he turns it against his readers:
How transforming God's grace is! It turns a thief into a giver (Eph. 4:28), and a persecutor into a preacher. But what a rebuke for the assemblies of Galatia! They were criticizing the devoted apostle. They slighted him because his ministry did not come from a Jewish source. Meanwhile the assemblies of Judea — the very people he might have expected prejudice from — glorified God for His wonderful work of sovereign grace.
The ESV ends this verse "because of me." The older translation these writers follow reads "in me." That same phrase appears earlier in the chapter, where God unveiled His Son in Paul. One writer reads the two together and sees Paul himself as the evidence:
God was pleased to take away the veil that now hides His Son from view. So the glory of the Son of God changed all of Saul's life, and in him God unveiled His Son to those around him. Many men and women came to know the Son of God through the sight that Saul of Tarsus had of Him on the Damascus road. Paul was not only the instrument God used to spread the gospel. In his own person he also gave the strongest proof of its power.
The false teachers in Galatia argued that Paul's message needed backing from the twelve apostles in Jerusalem. Notice what the believers closest to Jerusalem did when they heard about him:
When they heard what he was doing, they did not interfere with the Apostle. They did not give him instructions or advice. They did not complain that he was preaching without the authority of the twelve. Instead they glorified God for all that He was doing in and through the Apostle. So the very man these false teachers were trying to belittle was the man in whom the assemblies in Judea, the centre of the legal system, found reason to glorify God.
The Galatians looked to the churches of Judea as their model. Paul shows them that those churches praised God for the very thing they were resisting:
These churches did not blame God, which is what the Galatians' conduct amounted to. They did not find fault with his testimony either. They glorified God in Paul. The Galatians were gazing longingly at these early churches of Judea. Those churches were glorifying God in Paul, while the Galatians themselves were quarrelling with the rich mercy God had been showing the Gentiles.
The praise itself was evidence of God at work. He worked not only in the man they talked about, but in those who talked:
The Judean assemblies received the report that their former persecutor now preached what he had once fought against. And they glorified God in him. What sweet fruit of the grace of God, which worked powerfully in them as well as in him!
- Grace changes — the grace that turns a thief into a giver turned a persecutor into a preacher. The change, not the man's ability, is what the report carried.
- Grace shows — "in me" points back to the phrase used earlier in the chapter. God unveiled His Son in Paul, and people who never saw the Damascus road saw the gospel's power in the man himself.
- Grace travels — no one in Judea knew Paul's face. Only a rumour kept circulating, and it reached assemblies he had never visited.
- Grace redirects — they did not marvel at Paul, praise Paul, or admire Paul. They glorified God in him. They sent him no instructions, no advice, no authority.
- Grace rebukes — the Judean believers, at the heart of the legal system, praised God for what the Galatians were quarrelling with. To slight the messenger was to blame the God who sent him.
Then after a lapse of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with [me];
Paul has been defending where his message came from — not from men, but by revelation. Here he picks up the story with a date, a journey, and two companions. Each detail is part of the argument.
The number matters more than it first appears. Those years were not empty.
God ordered it so that no less than fourteen years passed between two visits. The first was the fifteen days he spent with Peter, a few years after his conversion (see Gal. 1:18). The second is this visit to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus, the one Acts 15 speaks of. So into those fourteen years came his time of service at Antioch (Acts 11:25-26), and his first missionary journey (Acts 13 and 14). So when he went up he was no beginner looking to be taught what to preach. He was a well-tested apostle with a clear message of his own.
The gap also settles a bigger question about church authority.
The important thing for the Spirit of God was to remove every excuse for connecting Paul's mission or ministry with Jerusalem. The principle of apostolic succession is cut off by implication. Years passed before these visits. Even more telling is what the visits were like when he did go. Both rule out any idea that his ministry came from Jerusalem.
The verse does not say when the count begins. Writers on the passage leave it open.
We do not know from which point these fourteen years are to be counted, from his calling or from the time he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas.
The trip was not a courtesy call. Judaising teachers were pressing Gentile believers to be circumcised and live under the Jewish law.
After fourteen years he went up again to Jerusalem, and the reason was the Judaising Christians. False brothers had been brought in unnoticed. They came in secretly to spy out the freedom the Gentiles had in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring them into slavery... Paul and Barnabas had strongly resisted these false brothers, who had come down from Jerusalem. But God had not allowed them to succeed. No doubt this was so that Jerusalem itself, and the apostles linked with the assembly there, would be the ones to recognise the liberty of the Gentiles. Otherwise there would have been two churches: one bound by the law at Jerusalem, and one free from the law at Antioch. By the wisdom of God, Jerusalem itself declared that Christians from the nations were not under the law. So all remained united.
Titus was a Greek and had never been circumcised. Paul still brought him into Jerusalem.
He went up with Barnabas, taking Titus with him. It was by revelation, not by summons from Jerusalem, and not to gain a title from it... This was not the smallest concession to Jewish prejudice. It was a powerful blow against it. So, going up with Barnabas, he took Titus, a Gentile, along with him; and even so by revelation. The aim was that the twelve apostles should secure Gentile liberty, and that the church at Jerusalem should condemn the Judaizers. That is the opposite of getting his authority from either.
Taking him was itself an answer before any discussion began.
Paul was so clear, and knew the Lord's mind so well, that he says those at Jerusalem added nothing to him when they met. He was so clear about it that he took Titus with him, uncircumcised as he was. For Paul the question was already settled, and taking Titus proved it.
Barnabas is the other name in the verse, and his later history gives the mention weight. He and Paul went up together over this very question.
The question was raised whether the Gentile disciples had to be circumcised. So Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem about it (Paul is now usually named first). Acts 15... Later Paul proposed that they revisit the cities where they had preached. Barnabas insisted on taking his nephew Mark; but Paul objected, because Mark had left the work earlier. Barnabas held to his wish, so they parted. In this way these two valuable servants of the Lord were separated, who had risked their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus.
- Fourteen years — the long gap rules out the idea that Paul's message came down to him from Jerusalem.
- No beginner — he had already served at Antioch and finished a missionary journey. He arrived as a tested apostle with a message of his own.
- No summons — he went by revelation, not because Jerusalem called him, and not to gain standing from it.
- Titus in person — an uncircumcised Greek walked in beside him. His presence answered the question before anyone spoke.
- One church, not two — Jerusalem itself declared Gentile believers free from the law. God kept the church from splitting into a law-bound half and a free half.
and I went up according to revelation, and I laid before them the glad tidings which I preach among the nations, but privately to those conspicuous [among them], lest in any way I run or had run in vain;
Paul went up to Jerusalem by God's direction, not by a summons from the church there. Two questions follow: why confer with anyone if his message came by revelation, and what did he fear when he spoke of running in vain?
The believers at Antioch had decided that Paul should go to Jerusalem. Galatians gives the reason underneath that decision.
Paul speaks of it here to show that he went up only because it was the will of God. He did not go because it depended on the authority of those at Jerusalem. But the gospel itself was in question. So he was content to tell the others what he had been preaching. He did this privately, though, with those who were pillars, in case he should in any way have run in vain.
Some readers ask whether this clashes with the account in Acts:
How does this verse relate to Acts 15:2? There is no conflict. It was important that Paul was not sent by men. That is why in Galatians 2 he makes the point that even when he went up to Jerusalem, he went by divine revelation. Acts 15:2 is simply God's confirmation of the decision of the brothers in Antioch.
A ruling made at Antioch would have cost more than it gained.
Suppose a decision at Antioch had won the case for the Gentiles, and they had kept their liberty despite the Jews. Then there would have been an immediate danger of two assemblies forming and of unity being lost. So all of Paul's spiritual and apostolic power was not enough to overcome the opposing spirit at Antioch and settle the question. It was God's will that Jerusalem should settle it. The Christian Jews themselves — the apostles, the elders, and the whole assembly — were to pronounce the freedom of the Gentiles. In that way holy liberty and unity would both stand.
Paul had a reason for taking the leaders aside first.
Here we can see the wisdom of the apostle. He spoke privately to the leaders before the public discussion came on. That way it would be clear that there was no contradiction in the teaching of those who worked among Jews or among Gentiles — whatever difference there might be. He laid before the twelve the gospel he preached among the Gentiles. Did they judge it defective, as those who had misled the Galatians did? Did they add anything to him? The context shows they did neither.
Paul told them what he preached, but not everything he knew.
Notice how the Holy Spirit speaks of Paul communicating his gospel to those in Jerusalem. This was a death-blow to the insinuation that he had received it in some irregular way... There are two things to take account of in communicating truth. It must be certain that it is truth from God, and it must also be truth suited to those you address. They might have needed all of it, but they were not in a condition to receive it. The more precious the truth, the greater the harm, in a sense, if you give it to people who are not in a state to profit by it... Some people are still under law and do not know their death to it in Christ's death and resurrection. Such people first need a firm footing in the grace of God.
Commentators differ on the exact fear behind the phrase. None reads it as self-doubt.
The last part of the verse — making sure he was not running or had not run in vain — does not show doubt on the apostle's part. But someone had to call the other apostles to face this question: was Paul's ministry from God, or had his work of past years been wasted? There can be no halfway point here for Paul: there must be a definite declaration.
Others point to the danger among the converts already gathered:
He went up and communicated to them the gospel he was preaching. The opposition ran so high that he did this first of all in private, with "those who seemed influential." Legalism was sweeping the crowd, and he did not want that outbreak to work disaster among those who had been gathered from the Gentiles. This is what he means when he says he did it to make sure he was not running or had not run in vain. There was no yielding to the opposition in the slightest degree.
The verse cuts against the man who will not be questioned.
The opinion of a worldly-minded believer is clearly of little or no value, but that of a godly and mature believer may well be highly valued. In Galatians 2:2 the apostle Paul gives us an example of this. He was the apostle to the Gentiles, and received his gospel and his instructions on how to preach it by direct revelation from the Lord — yet he was not above conferring privately with those who were reputed to be spiritual men in Jerusalem.
- Revelation — Paul went by God's word, not by Jerusalem's permission. Acts and Galatians do not clash; God confirmed the decision made at Antioch.
- Location — God willed that Jerusalem should settle it. Jewish believers themselves declared Gentile freedom, so liberty and unity both stood.
- Privately — the leaders heard him first. Then no gap could appear between the two ministries.
- Restraint — he told them true things, not all things. Truth must fit the hearer, or even the most precious truth does harm.
- Vain — the fear was never self-doubt. It was for the converts already gathered. Paul yielded to the opposition in nothing.
(but neither was Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, compelled to be circumcised;)
Paul took Titus with him to Jerusalem. Titus was a Greek believer who had never been circumcised, and Jerusalem was where the push to add the law to faith was strongest. What happened there answers the question the Galatians were getting wrong: does a Gentile need anything besides Christ?
Calling Titus a Greek may say less about his nationality than you expect.
The word "Greek" has three meanings in the New Testament. First, a Greek by nationality. Second, set against a Jew, it means any Gentile — he need not be Greek by nationality. Third, in a wider sense, it means all nations who are not Jews, but who lived under the influence of Greek learning and customs. In this verse, we believe the meaning is simply that Titus was a Gentile.
This verse breaks into Paul's account of his visit.
The apostle had referred to these facts. He set out his gospel to them, privately to those of reputation. Along with that, he took Titus with him. Everyone knew Titus was a Greek, and yet no one compelled him to be circumcised. Paul leaves all this to weigh on the minds of the Galatians... If you read the third verse as an aside in brackets, it makes the passage clearer.
The word "compelled" carries the memory of a fight.
The word "compelled" in this verse tells us that the Jewish teachers made very strong efforts to force circumcision on Titus. As we read further down in this chapter, we will be astonished at the power that these men had in the Church in those days. Clearly they were determined not to receive Titus as a Christian unless he agreed to be circumcised. That mark was a sign that he was under the law.
Titus at that meeting was more than a travel detail.
Titus was a living demonstration of the liberty of the gospel of grace. That liberty belongs to both Jewish and Gentile believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why it was so important. If they had forced Titus to be circumcised, it would have implied that Paul's ministry had been in vain. But the decision in Jerusalem showed that the leaders agreed with Paul's teaching and supported it.
Bringing an uncircumcised man into Jerusalem took nerve. One writer names what drove it.
In this Paul was very bold; yet it was not the boldness of defiance, but of Christian liberty. In front of everyone, he took an uncircumcised Gentile brother into the very centre of Judaism. Who that was taught by God could refuse him, however full of Jewish feeling that person was?... But Titus, unlike Timothy, was a pure Gentile. To circumcise him in order to please believers among the Jews would have compromised the truth of the gospel. Titus was saved as a Gentile, entirely apart from ordinances or works of law.
Paul later circumcised Timothy. That looks like the opposite decision, so one writer explains what was at stake in each case.
Timothy's father was a Greek, so Timothy had not been circumcised, and Jewish circles would not have accepted him. Paul knew this and circumcised him. On the surface that seems totally at odds with his attitude to Titus — see Galatians 2:3-5. But with Titus the whole truth of the gospel hung on the question, while with Timothy no such question was involved at all. In Timothy's case it was simply a matter of removing something that would have got in the way of his service for the Lord. Paul was not concerned to keep up an appearance of consistency that would have been only skin-deep.
Circumcision itself carried no weight either way.
"Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing." In itself it makes no difference. But the moment anyone tries to impose it, we must resist firmly. Otherwise the liberty of the gospel is broken into, or conscience towards God is wounded. Here it was "false brothers," not unbelieving Jews, who tried to impose circumcision and so make the gospel Jewish.
Compulsion is only half the danger. A second writer points to the other half.
Comparing Galatians 2:3 with 1 Timothy 4:3-5, we see how man's will is as ready to demand as to forbid... Grace knows what is consistent with the truth of the gospel.
- Greek — Titus was a Gentile through and through, saved apart from ordinances or works of law.
- Compelled — teachers pushed hard, refusing to own him as a Christian without the mark of the law.
- Proof — Titus stood in Jerusalem uncircumcised, living evidence that faith in Christ needs nothing added to it.
- Timothy — Paul circumcised him when nothing was at stake. He refused for Titus, because the truth of the gospel hung on it.
- Truth — circumcision counts for nothing either way. But the moment someone demands it, resist, and the liberty of the gospel stands.
and [it was] on account of the false brethren brought in surreptitiously, who came in surreptitiously to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage;
Paul is telling the Galatians why he went up to Jerusalem. Here he names the reason: men who were not what they seemed had slipped into the Christian company. They were not after a small custom. Their target was the freedom believers have in Christ, and their aim was slavery.
Paul's description has two parts, and each does its own work.
In Galatians 2:4, Paul refers to these as "false brothers secretly brought in". Notice they were "brought in", and so he calls them "brothers", but he brands them as "false".
The word Paul uses describes an entry nobody noticed. One writer reaches for a modern military picture to show how it worked.
They were not true believers in Christ at all. They had outwardly accepted Christianity. But they knew nothing of the power of the precious blood of Christ to cleanse their sins. They were only professing Christians… Someone had brought these false brothers in by stealth, without the other brothers knowing. The Greek word describes what we now call "fifth columnists." These are enemies brought in secretly. They pretend to be friends and do their evil work from the inside, instead of attacking from the outside as honest men do.
Commentators differ on how much malice to read into their first arrival. One writer calls their profession premature rather than planned fraud:
We need not suppose that all, or even any, of the people described here joined the Church with openly fraudulent intentions at the start. But their confession of the name of Christ was certainly premature, if not insincere. Their hearts were still willingly wearing the yoke from which Jesus died to set His people free.
Paul says they came to spy. One writer explains who sent them and what the visit was for.
The enemy had sent false brothers, spies, into that public gathering to spy out the liberty of the brothers. The liberty they had in Christ Jesus was at stake. The enemy used these spies, these false brothers (not believers), to examine the territory. They were preparing to return later with a greater attack.
Another writer sees no confusion in it at all:
It was no misunderstanding of principles that caused them to act this way. Their motives were wilfully, deliberately evil. That is a strong statement, but the Spirit of God inspired it.
They were looking in from the outside at something they had never known.
Paul plainly hints at what these false brothers aimed at. This shows the connection between legalism and the untruthfulness of those who come in secretly to spy out a liberty they do not understand.
Their aim was to put believers under law. One writer says what law does to a person:
Paul urges us not to be trapped by the yoke of bondage. Law occupies me with myself, and a man who is occupied with himself is bound to be wretched. There is nothing in him that can answer to God's claims… Liberty — freedom — is what belongs to a Christian. It is not liberty for the flesh, but freedom from the flesh, and from all that kept the soul in bondage, darkness, and distance.
Paul treated two of his own companions differently. One writer names the principle behind it.
Paul resisted the circumcision of Titus, yet he allowed the circumcision of Timothy. The cases look alike, but Paul acted very differently. Behind that difference lies a principle. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing. In itself the matter does not count either way. But the moment someone tries to impose it, we must firmly resist, so that the liberty of the gospel is not damaged and conscience towards God is not wounded. Here it was "false brothers," not unbelieving Jews, who tried to impose circumcision, and so to bring the gospel under Jewish law.
The words Paul chose are strong ones.
The word "to spy out" is used in the Greek Old Testament for spying out a city. It means to spy out with the intention of overthrowing, as an enemy does… These false teachers were so sure of success that they had no doubt they would bring the church of God into abject slavery — slavery with no hope of release. That is the true position of those who are under the law.
- False — Paul lets the name "brothers" stand because they were brought in. He marks them "false": Christians in name only, strangers to the cleansing power of Christ's blood.
- Secretly — they slipped in as pretended friends and worked from the inside. Commentators differ on whether the deceit was planned from the start or grew from a heart still wearing the old yoke.
- Spying — they came to inspect a freedom they did not understand, aiming to overthrow it and return with a greater attack.
- Bondage — their goal was to put believers under law. Law occupies a person with himself and leaves him wretched, since nothing in him can meet God's claims.
- Refusal — circumcision in itself is nothing. But when someone demands it, believers must resist, or the freedom of the gospel is lost.
to whom we yielded in subjection not even for an hour, that the truth of the glad tidings might remain with you.
Paul looks back at a crisis in Jerusalem. False brothers had slipped in to inspect the freedom believers have in Christ, and they pushed for Titus to be circumcised. Paul would not give ground for a moment, because he says the survival of the gospel among his readers hung on it.
Paul did not just disagree with these men. He refused to take a place under them. One writer shows why that word matters:
Let us mark well what the word "submission" means. Error never puts itself on a level with truth. It makes a bold bid for the mastery. It is one form of the natural opposition of the flesh to the Spirit, and Satan is the one who stirs up the flesh in all its forms. So if we tolerate open error in doctrine, we give the devil both a place and the first place in the house of God.
The same writer notes that Scripture elsewhere tells believers to yield to one another:
He will not compromise when the truth is at stake, not even on the plea of showing grace and love. Other Scriptures tell us to "be subject to one another" (1 Peter 5:5). But when the issue is "false brothers," and the truth is at stake, the apostle will not submit for an hour.
The demand looked like a small thing. What it added to Christ made it a different gospel:
They had to be circumcised. Circumcision was not put exactly in the place of faith. But after they believed, it was brought in as a way to get righteousness. It was something added to the work of Christ. This might seem a small matter, but the apostle never wrote more strongly than he did on this subject. Their different gospel, which was not really another gospel, said this: having Christ was not enough without circumcision and the law.
Paul did not argue the case with words only. He kept an uncircumcised Greek believer at his side:
Titus was a living demonstration of the liberty of the gospel of grace for both Jewish and Gentile believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why it was so important. If they had forced Titus to be circumcised, it would have meant that Paul's ministry had been in vain.
Paul's refusal here can look inconsistent. One writer sets the two cases side by side and names the principle that settles them:
The apostle resisted the circumcision of Titus, and yet he allowed the circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:1-3). The two cases look alike, but the apostle acted very differently in each. "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing." It does not matter in itself. But the moment someone tries to impose it, we must resist firmly and at once. If we do not, the liberty of the gospel is damaged, or conscience towards God is wounded. Here it was "false brothers," not unbelieving Jews, who tried to impose circumcision, and so to make the gospel Jewish.
Another writer points to what was really at stake in Titus's case:
It shows how something we must resist firmly in one situation may be allowed in another. In the case of Titus, they demanded circumcision to set up a principle that cut at the very root of the gospel.
Paul made this stand for his readers, not for his own name. Older translations end the verse with "remain with you," and one writer weighs that word:
Others might yield, for the sake of peace. But Paul would never yield — no, not even for an hour. The word translated "remain" carries the sense of "firm possession." Paul and Barnabas fought a bitter fight. They fought so that we in China, and the whole Church of God, might hold a precious truth firmly and never give it up. That truth is complete justification and sanctification by faith alone, and not by works of the law.
- Threat. The pressure came from inside the church. It was "false brothers," not unbelieving Jews, who pushed for circumcision.
- Demand. What they asked for looked small, but it added something to the work of Christ — and an added gospel is a different gospel.
- Refusal. Paul refused to agree, and refused to take a place under them. To tolerate open error is to give the devil the first place in God's house.
- Discernment. Circumcision was nothing in itself. Paul allowed it for Timothy and refused it for Titus. What decides the matter is whether someone is forcing it on you.
- Result. Paul stood firm for his readers — so that the gospel would be their firm possession, and the Church's after them.
But from those who were conspicuous as being somewhat -- whatsoever they were, it makes no difference to me God does not accept man's person; for to me those who were conspicuous communicated nothing;
Paul is telling the story of his visit to Jerusalem. Here he reaches the men that city looked up to. Their standing carried no weight with him. God does not weigh people that way, and these men gave him nothing he did not already have.
Paul is answering an accusation. Teachers in Galatia had built their case on where his message came from.
The false brothers had tried to make the churches in Galatia believe that Paul was not a true apostle. Their reason was that he had not received his authority or his teaching from the apostles at Jerusalem. Paul has shown us that he received both from the Lord Jesus Christ, and not from any man. These false brothers wanted to make Peter and James and John head of the church, so that everyone had to receive authority from them. These men were apostles. They had seen the Lord and been with Him on earth, and people looked up to them as men of very great importance. But Paul rejected their authority outright. To Paul, Peter was only a man.
"God shows no partiality" is the reason Paul gives for his own attitude. God does not measure a person the way people do.
Apart from these false brothers there were those in the church "who seemed to be influential." Because of their gift and spiritual state, such men might rightly hold a leading place. Even so, their prominent position carried no weight with the Apostle when the truth was in question. God shows no partiality. With God what counts is not how prominent a man is before others — not the person — but what there is of Christ in the person. Paul may honour such men and love them as brothers, but they added no authority to what he had already received from Christ.
Even Peter and Paul had to learn this lesson themselves.
"God shows no partiality": a hard saying. Who can hear it? Peter had to learn it through a clear revelation from heaven (see Acts 10). Paul learned it by kicking against the goads, until the grace of God subdued him. And we have to learn the same lesson under God's hand. God does not look at personal qualification, or at the things we do, or at official position. He looks at what His own grace makes a person to be in Christ, and at the gift He gives by His sovereign will.
Paul puts himself on level ground with men who had walked with Jesus. Why could such men add nothing to what he knew?
The language here is not belittling toward them. It is a frank, straightforward statement of truth. When he says, "what they were makes no difference to me," he adds, "God shows no partiality." So he places himself on the same level, as far as personalities are concerned. The truth does not gain its character from the importance of its messengers. Could those men who had actually lived with the Lord on earth give nothing to enlighten Paul? No, their knowledge was not greater than his. The revelations given to Paul were of a higher character than the gospel the others had preached. His ministry is connected with Christ ascended and glorified, Head of the new creation and of the church.
The phrase is not a boast that Paul learned no facts from anyone.
"Added nothing to me" refers to authority and capacity rather than to information.
The wording may also run the other way — that they laid nothing on him.
His own words are: they "added nothing to me." It is also possible that the meaning is: they "imposed nothing on me."
The verse is often read as though Paul were putting down the older apostles. Commentators reject that reading.
Paul honours the men whom the Lord truly called as apostles, and whose faithfulness to their trust confirmed that title. Nothing in the words used here belittles or undervalues those whom the Lord had called before him. In themselves both he and they were nothing. As God's ministers and Christ's apostles they stood on the same footing, whatever the difference in gift.
The visit produced the opposite of what Paul's critics predicted.
These Jewish teachers hinted that Paul and the other apostles did not really agree. All such hints came to nothing. It turned out that Paul was the one who gave, not Peter, and the three leading men there had given him the right hand of fellowship.
- Charge — Critics said Paul's gospel needed approval from Jerusalem. The verse is his answer, not an attack on the older apostles.
- Standard — God shows no partiality. What counts before Him is not prominence, but what there is of Christ in the person.
- Weight — Truth does not gain its character from the importance of its messengers. Reputation settles nothing when truth is in question.
- Scope — "Added nothing" is about authority and capacity, not information. Some read it as "imposed nothing on me."
- Outcome — The leaders at Jerusalem did not correct Paul. They received from him and gave him the right hand of fellowship.
but, on the contrary, seeing that the glad tidings of the uncircumcision were confided to me, even as to Peter that of the circumcision,
When Paul went up to Jerusalem, the leaders there did not correct his message or license it. They looked at what he preached and saw what God had already settled. That raises a second question: were Peter's gospel and Paul's two different messages?
Jewish teachers in Galatia hinted that Paul and the apostles did not really agree. The meeting showed the opposite. It also showed which way the teaching flowed.
These Jewish teachers hinted that Paul and the other apostles did not really agree. Every such hint failed. It turned out that Paul was the one who gave the teaching, not Peter. The three leading men there had given Paul the right hand of fellowship.
"Uncircumcised" here means the Gentiles, and "circumcised" means the Jews. The words name who each man was sent to. They do not mark out two rival messages.
We must not think that the "good news of the uncircumcised" differs in any way from the "good news of the circumcised." It is not a different good news. There is only one good news, but it goes to different people: one to the Gentiles, the other to the Jews. We must also notice that Paul stands on equal ground with Peter. One is the apostle to the nations, the other is the apostle to the Jews. Peter is not set even slightly above Paul.
Commentators differ on how far the two preachings resembled each other. One says the message itself is not different at all. Another says each apostle began from a different point.
Every careful reader of Scripture will see this. In both Peter and Paul the gospel was the Spirit's testimony to Christ, yet the two preachings had clearly different marks. Peter spoke of One who had walked here, well known by all the Jews. Wicked men crucified Him, yet God raised Him up and lifted Him to glory. In His name forgiveness of sins is now preached to all. Paul, on the other hand, starts with His glory.
The two commissions had different goals in view. One aimed to free Israel's believers from bondage under law. The other reached further still.
We should watch closely the distinction drawn here between the gospel of the uncircumcision and the gospel of the circumcision. Peter was entrusted with the second. Its main aim was to bring the elect of Israel out of bondage under law into the adoption and liberty of sons. The gospel of the uncircumcision holds more. Besides the fullest explanation of God's free grace and of the mystery of the Church, it also contains distinct and special prophecy.
The split of the work followed the gift of God. Each man served where God had already blessed him.
Apostleship in the work of the gospel depended upon the gift of God. God had worked among the Gentiles through Paul and Barnabas. He had worked in the same way among the Jews through Peter... They owned the grace of God in that work. So they agreed that each should serve according to his gift, in the sphere God had entrusted to him. So Paul became the apostle to the Gentiles, to whom Christ had sent him; and Peter the apostle to the Jews only, among whom God had blessed him.
Peter's own letters show where his work lay.
They saw that God had entrusted Paul with the gospel of the uncircumcision, just as He had entrusted Peter with that of the circumcision. So God had worked, and they bowed to it. Peter's own letters... fit this arrangement that God set in place, for both are written to believing Jews. Peter left the work among the Gentiles to the far mightier hand of Paul.
- Entrusted — Paul's trust came from God, not from Jerusalem. At the meeting he gave the teaching; he did not receive it.
- Recognised — The leaders saw what God had already given, and agreed with it. Recognising grace in another servant is not the same as granting it.
- Empowered — God's own working through a man marked out his sphere. So each served where God had blessed him.
- Bounded — Peter's field was the Jews, Paul's the nations. Peter's letters match that, and he left the Gentile work to Paul.
- Shared — One gospel, two missions, and neither apostle above the other. The message never split; only the fields did.
(for he that wrought in Peter for [the] apostleship of the circumcision wrought also in me towards the Gentiles,)
The verse sits inside a parenthesis in Paul's account of his meeting with the leaders at Jerusalem. It settles the question the Galatian troublemakers had raised: did Paul's gospel come from God? His answer points not to human approval but to the one Worker behind both his mission and Peter's.
One writer explains "worked" with a second word: energized. God gave the drive as well as the commission.
"He that worked in (energized) Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision, worked also in me (energized me) toward the Gentiles." God gave both Peter and Paul divine power. He stirred them with divine zeal to carry out the commissions He had entrusted to them.
"The circumcision" means the Jewish people, marked out by that sign; the Gentiles are everyone else. God sent the two men to different audiences. The verse traces both results back to one source.
Whether among Jews or Gentiles, it was God who worked; and the labourers were only the vessels of His grace. It is a happy thing to see these men recognizing the grace given to each other. God had called and commissioned them alike. Yet their line of work was quite different, and neither had received any kind of authority from the other.
Paul does not argue that Jerusalem licensed him. He argues that God did through him what God had already done through Peter. The leaders only agreed with what they saw.
Apostleship in the work of the gospel depended on the gift of God. Now as God had worked among the Gentiles through Paul and Barnabas, He had likewise worked among the Jews through Peter... and owning the grace of God in the work, they agreed that each should labour according to their gifts, in the spheres entrusted to them by God.
Those at Jerusalem did not hand Paul a mandate; they recognised one.
They in no way controlled his ministry, but saw the grace that God had given him. Looking at God and at His power at work in Paul, they felt that he and Barnabas were the most fitting persons to deal with the uncircumcision.
Two apostles with separate audiences could have become two parties. This verse explains why they did not.
There was unity. Why was this unity there? Because the One who worked in Peter was the same One who was working in Paul. That is where the unity came from. It was not a man-made unity, it was a divine unity, and they were subject to it.
The same power reached men at opposite ends of the social scale: the untrained and the highly educated.
Peter and John were "uneducated, common men," yet that did not stop God from working powerfully through them. Saul of Tarsus had been brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and that by itself was no help to him. He could say that the One who worked in Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision was mighty in him toward the Gentiles. It was the same power in both, and there is no other power.
The verse gives Peter one field of work. That limit matters, because of what many have since claimed for him.
Notice also that Paul stands on an equal footing with Peter. One is the apostle to the nations, the other the apostle to the Jews. Peter is not set in the smallest degree above Paul... Sadly, many millions of Gentiles today believe that Peter is the head of the church, and even its foundation. The Lord blessed Peter greatly, but he is the apostle of the circumcision, and only of the circumcision.
Yet the two fields were never sealed off from each other.
Peter was above all the apostle of the circumcision. Yet it was through him that God first opened the door of the kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles. And though Paul had gone to the Gentiles, the Spirit of God used him to write to believers of the circumcision the finest treatise on what Christ and Christianity mean for the law and the prophets... With admirable wisdom the Lord directs the work and the workmen, but never exclusively. The apostle Paul is here the proof of it on one side, as Peter is on the other.
- One Worker. The same God energized Peter toward the Jews and Paul toward the Gentiles — one power operating in two men.
- One Gift. Apostleship came from God's gift, not from any human permission. The leaders at Jerusalem recognised Paul's calling; they did not grant it.
- One Unity. The same One worked in both men. So their agreement was not a truce between rivals but a divine unity they submitted to.
- Two Spheres. Peter's field was the circumcision, Paul's the nations. They were equal in rank, different in scope, and never sealed off from each other.
- No Credentials Needed. The unschooled apostle and Gamaliel's pupil were carried by the same power. Background neither qualifies nor disqualifies a servant.
and recognising the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were conspicuous as being pillars, gave to me and Barnabas [the] right hands of fellowship, that *we* [should go] to the nations, and *they* to the circumcision;
Paul has just laid his gospel before the leading men at Jerusalem. This verse records their answer: a handshake. So what did that handshake do? Did Jerusalem give Paul his licence to preach, or only recognise what God had already done?
Paul's word for these three men is a building word, and Scripture uses it in more than one way.
Collectively God's apostles and prophets are called the foundation of the Church (Ephesians 2:20). Individually they are here called "pillars." The word hardly needs explaining, since its force and fitness are easy to see. Each faithful witness is a pillar of the truth that he maintains. The Church, or true assembly of the faithful, is collectively the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15)… John, James and Cephas were what they seemed to be: inspired witnesses and scribes of Christ.
Which James is named first here? Not the apostle John's brother, who died early. One writer identifies him as the Lord's brother, the James who speaks up in Acts and wrote the letter carrying his name:
The James who wrote the letter of James was not the brother of John. Herod killed that James in the very early years, as recorded in Acts 12:2. The author of the letter was the James spoken of in Acts 15:13 and Acts 21:18. Paul calls him "James, the Lord's brother," in Galatians 1:19. In Galatians 2:9 he acknowledges him as one of the "pillars" of the Church in Jerusalem.
Others hold that he was the apostle James son of Alphaeus, and read the plain name here as marking him off from the Lord's brother:
The writer was no other than James "the little," son of Alphaeus or Clopas… the same man who took the lead after the martyrdom of the son of Zebedee, as is plain in the Acts (Acts 12:17; Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18). Compare 1 Corinthians 15:7 and Galatians 2:9, 12.
Where did Paul's authority to preach come from?
As the model minister of Christ, he received his commission and authority to preach from Christ Himself. It did not come from man, and it did not come from the church. He takes great pains in Galatians 1 to prove that this was from God. He never went to Jerusalem, not even to the apostles, to get authority to preach. They only recognised him.
The gift was the Lord's to give, and that decided what the three could do with it:
Paul had received his commission straight from heaven. Peter, James and John could rejoice to acknowledge the grace and the gift of the Lord Jesus Christ to this chosen vessel of mercy. But they did not dare to add anything to it, or to come in between the Master and His servant.
How did they decide who should go where? They looked at where God was already working.
He puts James first among the pillars, as we see in Acts 15… Apostleship in the work of the gospel depended on the gift of God. God had worked among the Gentiles through Paul and Barnabas, and He had worked in the same way among the Jews through Peter… They saw the grace of God in this work. So they agreed that each should labour according to their gifts, in the spheres God had entrusted to them.
The division was of hearers, not of message — and it left neither man above the other:
We must not think that the good news for the uncircumcised differs in any way from the good news for the circumcised. It is not a different good news. There is only one good news, and it goes to two different groups: one to the Gentiles, the other to the Jews. Notice also that Paul stands on an equality with Peter.
The three could have hedged their welcome. They did not.
There is great beauty in verse 9. James, Peter and John approve Paul's ministry without reserve. These men are recognised as pillars of Christianity, yet they show no hint of envy and no thought of limiting, qualifying or adding to Paul's distinctive ministry… How sweet this unity is! In holy subjection under the hand of God, it can show itself in such diversity.
The handshake settled the fields of work as well as the friendship.
They saw that God had given him grace, as He had given it to them, and their hands gave a ready outward confirmation of the glad conviction in their hearts. Taking the circumcision as their own appointed field, they joyfully sent their fellow workers off on their own separate charge, to seek Christ's "other sheep" among the Gentiles (John 10:16).
Why does Paul tell this story at all? He is answering a charge made against him.
These Jewish teachers hinted that Paul and the other apostles did not really agree. All such hints came to nothing. It turned out that Paul was the one who passed on the truth, not Peter, and that the three leaders there had given the right hand of fellowship to Paul.
- Grace seen. What the three pillars perceived in Paul was grace given by God — the whole handshake rests on that sight.
- Grace owned. They only recognised him; they never authorised him. His commission came directly from Christ, and they dared add nothing to it.
- Grace divided. Each went where God had already worked through him: Paul to the nations, Peter to the circumcision. One gospel, two audiences, equal apostles.
- Grace without envy. No limiting, no qualifying, no jealousy — unity shown in real diversity of service.
- Grace vindicated. The claim that Paul stood apart from the older apostles collapses; the pillars shook his hand.
only that we should remember the poor, which same thing also I was diligent to do.
The leaders in Jerusalem added nothing to Paul's gospel — no circumcision, no law, no conditions — except one request: remember the poor. That request shows what a gospel of grace looks like in practice, and Paul was already doing it.
The force of this verse lies in what came before it. Paul's opponents claimed the apostles in Jerusalem had to correct his gospel. Instead, those leaders backed it and asked for one thing.
He went up this time by a revelation from God. He met with James, Peter and John in private, and told them the gospel he preached. They fully endorsed it and added nothing to it. Their only wish was that he should remember the poor — which, Paul writes, he had been eager to do. So the meeting with those who seemed to be pillars added nothing to his gospel.
This was not general charity. It pointed to believers in Jerusalem with a particular history.
We cannot overlook how often the poor believers at Jerusalem are remembered. No doubt their circumstances gave them a special claim. Hardship had likely set in, and persecution had left some widows and orphans. There were not only many believers there. Jerusalem was also the one place where, so far as we read, they sold their possessions and goods to give to all, as anyone had need. But there, in part through this surprising witness of unselfish love, poverty came later. And no one among the Gentile churches urged help for the believers in Judea as strongly as our apostle did.
This letter was written to keep believers from going back under law. Yet the one thing asked of Paul was giving, not rule-keeping.
How strikingly beautiful in such a letter is this desire of James, Peter and John, for it is the effect of the grace of God known and enjoyed. This is another contrast to mere law-keeping, for the Law gave nothing: it only demanded... God gave His own beloved Son. We prove that we truly know Him by showing the same mercy, grace and kindness to others.
Jewish and Gentile believers had plenty to keep them apart. This one request tied them together.
Remember that Paul and Barnabas had already visited Jerusalem with gifts for the poor Jewish Christians, sent by the Gentile Christians (Acts 11:27-30; 12:25). The brothers at Jerusalem ask the Gentile Christians to remember the poor, even though they are not under law and not required to be circumcised. This care of the poor was a very strong bond between the Gentile believers and the Jewish believers. There was much to divide them, and much to cause jealousy between them. But the loving care of their wealthier Gentile brothers for the poor believers in Judea bound these Jewish and Gentile Christians together.
Why this request in particular? One writer weighs two reasons, then looks past both to Christ Himself.
Why, we may ask, this particular request? Was it only because experience had taught them how hard it is to combine charity with active ministry? Or did it point to the poverty of many believers at Jerusalem, still suffering the effects of the famine foretold long before? Whichever it was, we cannot help noticing in it a provision for keeping practical and sympathetic unity among the naturally different elements that make up the Church of God... If we know and keep in mind Christ's poverty, we will not ignore His quiet but clear calls on our sympathy. They reach us in the known troubles and needs of those who bear His name (1 John 3:17-18; 4:20).
Paul says he was already eager to do this. His other letters show what that eagerness looked like in practice.
About the collection for the believers, we see how constantly the apostle keeps in mind what the leaders at Jerusalem urged on him: that he should remember the poor. He gave the same directions here as he had given to the assemblies of Galatia. On the first day of the week, the Christian's day, each was to set aside a sum as God had prospered him. Then no collection would be needed when the apostle arrived... He clearly did not want casual giving or a passing impulse. He wanted a systematic recognition of the goodness of God, and of how much we need one another.
- Only one. The leaders at Jerusalem added nothing to Paul's gospel. They asked one thing: remember the poor. Paul was already doing it.
- The poor. These were believers in Judea. Persecution, famine, and their own earlier selling of possessions to share with all had left them poor.
- Grace, not law. The one request was to give. That is the mark of grace enjoyed. The law gave nothing; it only demanded.
- The bond. Jewish and Gentile believers had much to divide them. Money carried from Gentile hands to Jewish need held them together.
- The habit. Paul turned the request into a habit: money set aside on the first day of the week. Not impulse, but a steady recognition that we need one another.