Welcome back to my study/review of The Epistle to the Galatians. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Galatians 1:18-24
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God because of me.
__________________________________
By way of reminder, Paul rebuked the Galatians in the previous section of verses, saying, “but even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” He explains in this section of verses that the Gospel, as originally delivered, comes from God and nobody has the authority to modify it or to replace it.
Paul then explains his own backstory and how he received the Gospel from Jesus Christ, personally and directly. He seems to know that his biography might be used against him by some of those he is rebuking, as Paul did not train as a disciple under Christ for three years (as did the other Apostles.) However, Paul uses his biography as a tool to affirm his authority.
In the previous section of verses, I spent some time on the topic of Paul’s somewhat mysterious trip to Arabia (v. 17.) Here we cover his background after that. We’ll start by looking at Ellicott’s Bible Commentary and its note for verse 18:
(18) After three years.—This date is probably to be reckoned from the great turning-point in the Apostle’s career—his conversion. It need not necessarily mean three full years, just as the three days during which our Lord lay in the grave were not three full days. It may have been only one whole year and parts of two others; but the phrase may equally well cover three whole years. This ambiguity shows the difficulty of constructing any precise system of chronology.
To see.—The word used is a somewhat peculiar one, and is applied specially to sight-seeing—in the first instance of things and places, but secondarily also of persons. It would be used only of something notable. St. Paul’s object was to make the personal acquaintance of St. Peter as the head of the Christian community, not to seek instruction from him.
Peter.—The true reading here is undoubtedly Cephas. There is a natural tendency in the MSS. to substitute the more common name for the less common. St. Paul seems to have used the two names indifferently.
Roman Catholic commentators argue from this passage, not without reason, that St. Peter must at this time have taken the lead in the Church.
Fifteen days.—Only a small portion of this time can have been actually spent in the company of St. Peter, as we gather from the Acts that much of it must have been occupied by public disputations with the Greek-speaking Jews. (See Acts 9:28-29.)
This verse is notable because it seems to indicate that Simon Peter (Cephas) was the head of the Church. As the commentary note states, this has been used as evidence by Catholics that Peter was the first Pope. In fact, Paul’s use here of Simon’s new Christ-given name also points us in that direction. Paul refers to him as “Rock” – almost as though that name is a formal title, just as much as it is a personal name.
The note also reminds us that Paul’s visit to meet Peter included some disputes. Some even use those disputes to bolster an argument that Peter and Paul were at odds with each other. However, even the text of Acts indicates that the dispute was resolved amicably. Further, we get more evidence of Peter’s acceptance of Paul from Peter’s own writings:
2 Peter 3: 14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Peter describes Paul, not as an outlaw, but as a beloved brother. Further, he warns us against those who would use Paul’s writings to their own destructive ends. It stands to reason then that when we interpret the New Testament, we should do so in a manner than harmonizes the teachings of Peter and Paul, rather than arguing for their separateness.
In fact, the early Church did exactly that. Peter and Paul have been celebrated by the Church, jointly as a Feast Day, since the early days of the Church. There is a tradition even that the early Roman Christians chose to celebrate them together as the co-founders of a new Christian Rome. So… they were celebrated together on the day that pagan Romans celebrated Remus and Romulus.
The point here is that the two were harmonious and viewed that way from the days of the early Church.
Now that this is settled… let’s move on to the note from Ellicott on verse 19:
(19) Other of the apostles.—From the form of this phrase it would appear that James, the Lord’s brother, was considered to be an Apostle. In what sense he was an Apostle will depend very much upon who he was (see the next Note). If he was a cousin of our Lord, and identical with James the son of Alphæus, then he was one of the original Twelve. If he was not the son of Alphæus, but either the son of Joseph alone or of Joseph and Mary, then the title must be given to him in the wider sense in which it is applied to Paul and Barnabas.
The Lord’s brother.—What relationship is indicated by this? The question has been already dealt with in the Notes on the Gospels. (See Notes on Matthew 12:46; Matthew 13:55; John 7:3; John 7:5.) The present writer has nothing to add, except to express his entire agreement with what has been there said, and his firm conviction that the theory which identifies the “brethren of the Lord” with His cousins, the sons of Clopas, is untenable. A full account of the James who is here mentioned will be found in the Introduction to the Epistle which goes by his name.
This is another interesting point of debate that exists much more today than it did in the early Church. To the extent that it has become an issue, it centers around whether Mary, the Blessed Mother, was a perpetual virgin. The Catholic and Orthodox traditions (as well as some Protestant traditions) hold that she was. However, many Protestant traditions – particularly in the last couple of centuries, hold that verses such as this one prove Mary could not have been perpetually virgin.
Every time you see the word “brother” used in the NT, in reference to someone’s relationship with Jesus, the word being used is the Greek adelphos.
ἀδελφός
Transliteration
adelphos (Key)
Pronunciation
ad-el-fos’
Part of Speech
masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From ἄλφα (G1) (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb)
ἀδελφός adelphós, ad-el-fos’; from G1 (as a connective particle) and δελφύς delphýs (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like G1):—brother.
While the world adelphos *can* be used literally, it need not necessarily be literal. The early Church tradition did not hold that it was literal. Even within the Gospels, if Jesus had a literal brother, He would have been violating Jewish law to give the care of His Mother to Joh, who was not a literal brother. If you look at the Greek translation of the Old Testament (written prior to the birth of Jesus), Abraham is described as the adelphos of Lot – who we know to be his nephew, not his brother.
So… I would advise anyone who insists on arguing against the perpetual virginity of Mary to be careful. You’re taking a side that runs against 1) the majority Christian view today, 2) the historical view since antiquity, and 3) the context provided within the text (context wherein Jesus gives care of His Mother to John.) You’ve got a *lot* riding on the English translation of a Greek word that does not have to be translated literally.
Whether James is a literal brother or a cousin (which seems textually more likely), there does seem to have been a significant transformation for him at some point between when he is mentioned by the Gospels and mentioned again in the Book of Acts. He is known in history as “James the Just.”
Anyway… continuing on, again in Ellicott, now at verse 20:
(20) A solemn asseveration of the truth of these statements as to the extent of the Apostle’s relation with the elder disciples.
(21) Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.—We gather from the parallel narrative in Acts 9:30; Acts 11:25-26, that the course which the Apostle followed was this:—He was first conveyed secretly by the disciples to the sea-port Cæsarea Stratonis; there he took ship and sailed for Tarsus. Here he was found, somewhat later, by Barnabas, and taken to Antioch, where he remained a year. It would thus appear that the order in which the two names, Syria and Cilicia, occur does not represent the order in which the two provinces were visited. The Apostle, reviewing his past career at a distance of time, and with a certain special object in view, which is not affected by the geographical direction of his movements, speaks in this general way. It hardly seems necessary to suppose an unrecorded visit to Syria on the way to Tarsus, though that, of course, is possible. Still more gratuitous is the supposition that there is any contradiction between the historical narrative and our Epistle, for such generalities of expression are what most persons may constantly detect themselves in using. The accuracy of the pedant neither belongs to St. Paul’s Epistles nor to real life.
Regions.—The Greek word here is the same as that which is translated “parts” in Romans 15:23, where see the Note.
(22) Was unknown by face.—The Greek is a shade stronger: I continued unknown. If in Jerusalem itself the Apostle had not had time to receive instruction from any one, still less was this the case with the other Christian communities of Judæa. To these he was not known even by sight. At the same time, so far were they from manifesting any opposition to his teaching, that their one thought was joy to hear of his conversion.
The churches of Judæa.—Judæa is here distinguished from Jerusalem. The phrase is noticeable as pointing to the spread and early organisation of the Church at a date removed by not more than ten years from our Lord’s ascension.
Which were in Christ.—This is added in order to distinguish the Christian from the Jewish communities. It means, however, something more than merely “Christian.” The various sections of the Christian Church not only professed a common creed, and were called by a common name, but they stood in the same direct and personal relation to Christ as their Head. It was His presence diffused among them which gave them unity.
The note here clarifies the specifics of Paul’s travels, relying on other sources of information. This backstory also helps scholars to provide some likely dates for the writing of this letter to the Galatians. Either way, it’s interesting that Paul – multiple years now after his conversion of the road to Damascus – remains relatively unknown (though not unknown to the leaders of the Church.)
Finally, we’ll look at the commentary notes for verses 23 and 24, and finish Chapter 1:
(23) Had heard.—Rather, were hearing.
The faith.—Not quite, as yet, “the body of Christian doctrine,” which was in process of forming rather than already formed, but the one cardinal doctrine of faith in Christ. (Comp. Romans 1:5, and Note there.)
(24) They glorified God in me.—This verse represents the proper attitude of Christian hero-worship. An eminent Christian is like a “city set on a hill.” But the admiration which he attracts does not rest in him; it is made the occasion for giving praise to God.
Verse 24 touches on an interesting dilemma. It is easy to read and project onto Paul’s words pride or vanity or self-glorification when none of those things are intended. He’s simply being honest about the results of the work he’s done. We have to be careful of our impulse to project a motive, especially when doing so gives us a self-justification for tearing someone down. In this case, Paul’s life and his actions do not look like the life and actions of a man who is puffed up and vain. It also would not have been any better if he’d written dishonestly in order to avoid the appearance of pride. *That* would have been vanity.
That takes us to the end of Chapter 1. Paul spends most of this letter explaining his authority for writing, and he will be diving into the reason for his letter when we get into chapter 2.