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.