Holy Bible

I went up to Jerusalem. Galatians 2:1 The journey to Jerusalem I. WHICH? The third ( Acts 15:2 ), the first being that of the previous chapter ( Acts 9:26 ), the second that of Acts 11:30 , both the purpose and time of which forbid its being confounded with them. Both Galatians 2 . and Acts 15 . agree in time, geography, persons, intent, and subsequent events. II. WHEN? Fourteen years after, when by experiences, trials, and achievements, Paul had earned the right to take the position he had assumed. Let young Christians learn from this to wait until experience and service give them the right to assert their equality with their elders. III. WHAT FOR? To fight and win the battle of Christian liberty, equality, and fraternity. IV. WITH WHOM? Titus, a representative of the cause he was fighting; Barnabas, an unexceptionable witness of the justice of his cause.

Benson Commentary Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. Galatians 2:1 . Then fourteen years after my conversion: I went up again to Jerusalem — This seems to be the journey mentioned Acts 15., several passages here referring to that great council, wherein all the apostles showed that they were of the same judgment with him. From the history which the apostle gives of himself to the Galatians in the preceding chapter, it appears that from the time of his conversion, to his coming with Barnabas from Tarsus to Antioch, he had no opportunity of conversing with the apostles in a body, consequently in that period he was not made an apostle by them. And by relating in a similar way, in this chapter, what happened when he went up from Antioch to Jerusalem, fourteen years after his conversion, in company with Barnabas, he proves to them that he was an apostle before he had that meeting with the apostles in a body; for at that time, instead of receiving the gospel from the apostles, he communicated to them the gospel, or doctrine, which he preached among the idolatrous Gentiles: not because he acknowledged them his superiors, or was in any doubt about the truth of his doctrine, but lest it might have been suspected that his doctrine was disclaimed by the apostles, which would have marred his success among the Gentiles. And took Titus with me also — Though he was uncircumcised, that I might therein show my Christian liberty, and assert that of my Gentile brethren, against those who are so zealous in their attempts to invade it. “This is the earliest mention that we meet with of Titus, for he is no where mentioned by St. Luke in the Acts; and what we read of him in the second epistle to the Corinthians, ( 2 Corinthians 2:13 ; 2 Corinthians 7:6 ; 2 Corinthians 7:14 ; 2 Corinthians 8:6 ,) as well as in that to Timothy, ( 2 Timothy 4:10 ,) was later by some years. He is here said to have been a Greek, ( Galatians 2:3 ,) and being born of Gentile parents, was not circumcised; but where or when he was converted is uncertain; only we may conclude he was converted by Paul, from the title he gives him of his own son after the common faith, Titus 1:4 ; and as he now took Titus with him from Antioch to Jerusalem, so he employed him afterward on several occasions, and appears to have regarded him with great affection and endearment.” — Doddridge. Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. Galatians 2:2 . And I went up — Not by any command from the apostles, nor to receive instructions in my work from them; but by revelation — From God, directing me to go. The apostle does not say to whom the revelation was made: it might be made to Paul himself, or to some of the prophets then residing at Antioch. But this circumstance, that he went in consequence of a revelation, shows evidently that the occasion of the journey was of great importance. It was, therefore, as has been observed above, very probably the journey which, at the desire of the church at Antioch, Paul and Barnabas undertook for the purpose of consulting the apostles and elders in Jerusalem concerning the circumcision of the converted proselytes, of which we have an account Acts 15., &c., where see the notes. Some indeed have been of opinion, that the journey to Jerusalem here spoken of, was posterior to that council. But as there is no evidence that Paul and Barnabas travelled together any more after they returned to Antioch from the council, but rather evidence to the contrary, ( Acts 15:39 ,) that opinion cannot be admitted. And communicated unto them — To the chief of the church in Jerusalem; that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles — (See Acts 15:4 ,) namely, touching justification by faith alone; not that they might confirm me therein, but that I might preclude or remove prejudice from them. But privately to them which were of reputation — Or to those of eminence, as the original expression here evidently signifies. He did not declare the doctrine which he preached publicly at first, but spoke severally to the apostles one by one; lest I should run, or should have run in vain — That is, Lest, being suspected to preach differently from them, I should lose the fruit either of my present or past labours. For the other apostles might have greatly hindered the success of his labours, had they not been fully satisfied both of his mission and doctrine. In using the word run, the apostle beautifully expresses the swift progress of the gospel; and in speaking of running in vain, he alludes to a race, in which the person who loses the prize is said to run in vain. Galatians 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: Galatians 2:3 . But neither Titus, &c. — As if he had said, That the apostles, to whom I communicated the doctrine which I preach, acknowledged it to be the true gospel of Christ, is evident from this, that not even Titus, who was with, me, though a Greek, or converted Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised — In order to his being received as a true member of the Christian Church; a clear proof that none of the apostles insisted on circumcising the Gentile believers. The sense seems to be, It is true, some of those false brethren would gladly have compelled Titus to be circumcised, but I utterly refused it. And that because of false brethren — That is, I was averse to, and opposed the circumcision of Titus, because the Jews, who professed the Christian religion, yet urged the observation of the ceremonial law as necessary to salvation, ( Acts 15:1 ,) and so were real enemies to the gospel. Or, the sense may be, that Titus was not compelled, by the apostles and elders of Jerusalem, to be circumcised, on account even of the false brethren, who, when they found that Titus was not circumcised, complained of Paul to his brethren apostles on that account. Unawares brought in — Made members of the church at Jerusalem upon their great pretences to piety, without due consideration and trial; who came in privily — To our meetings at Jerusalem; to spy, &c. — To find out and condemn our freedom from the law of Moses, which we Gentiles have obtained by Christ Jesus’s gospel. Or, as some explain the clause, these false brethren had got themselves introduced secretly, that is, by persons that did not know their real character, into the meetings which Paul had with the apostles, to observe whether he would stand to the defence of that liberty from the ceremonial law before the apostles, which he preached among the Gentiles. That they might bring us into bondage — That in case I had not maintained our liberty, they might thence take occasion to bring back the Christian Gentiles, and whole church, under the yoke of the ceremonial law. To whom we gave place, no, not for an hour — Yielded to them in allowing the ceremonies, in no degree. With such wonderful prudence did the apostle use his Christian liberty; circumcising Timothy, ( Acts 16:3 ,) because of weak brethren, but not Titus, because of false brethren; that the truth of the gospel — The true genuine gospel, or the purity of gospel doctrine; might continue with you — And other churches of the Gentiles. So that, as if he had said, we defend for your sakes the privileges which you would give up. Galatians 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: Galatians 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. Galatians 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: Galatians 2:6-8 . But of those who seemed to be somewhat — Who were most esteemed among the apostles; whatsoever they were — How eminent soever; it maketh no matter — No difference; to me — So that I should alter either my doctrine or my practice. God accepteth no man’s person — For any eminence in gifts or outward prerogatives: he does not show favour to any man on account of his birth, office, riches, or any external circumstance, Job 34:19 . The apostle’s meaning is, that God did not prefer Peter, James, and John, to him, because they were apostles before him, far less did he employ them to make him an apostle; they, who seemed to be somewhat — Or rather, who undoubtedly were in high repute, as the expression ?? ????????? signifies; added nothing — Communicated neither knowledge, nor spiritual gifts, nor authority; to me — Far less did they pretend to make me an apostle. But when they saw — Namely, by the effects which I laid before them, Galatians 2:8 ; Acts 15:12 ; that the gospel of the uncircumcision — That is, the charge of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised heathen; was intrusted to me, as that of the circumcision — The charge of preaching the gospel to the Jews; was committed to Peter — “By saying that he was intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter was with that of the circumcision, Paul put himself on a level with Peter. In like manner, his withstanding Peter publicly for withdrawing himself from the converted Gentiles, is a fact utterly inconsistent with the pretended superiority of Peter above the other apostles, vainly imagined by the Roman pontiffs, for the purpose of aggrandizing themselves as his successors, above all other Christian bishops.” For he that wrought effectually in, or by, Peter — To qualify him for the apostleship of the circumcision, to support him in the discharge of that office, and to render his exercise of it successful; the same was mighty in me — Wrought also effectually in and by me, for and in the discharge of my office toward the Gentiles. Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; Galatians 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Galatians 2:9-10 . And when James — Probably named first because he. was bishop of the church in Jerusalem; and Cephas — Speaking of him at Jerusalem, he calls him by his Hebrew name; and John — Hence it appears that he also was at the council, though he be not particularly named in the Acts. Who seemed to be — Or, as in Galatians 2:6 , who undoubtedly were; pillars — The principal supporters and defenders of the gospel; perceived — After they had heard the account I gave them; the grace of apostleship which was given to me, they in the name of all, gave me and Barnabas — My fellow-labourer; the right hands of fellowship — They gave us their hands, in token of receiving us as their fellow-labourers, mutually agreeing that I and those in union with me should go to the heathen chiefly — “Barnabas, equally with Paul, had preached salvation to the idolatrous Gentiles, without requiring them to obey the law of Moses: wherefore, by giving them the right hands of fellowship, the three apostles acknowledged them to be true ministers of the gospel, each according to the nature of his particular commission. Paul they acknowledged to be an apostle of equal authority with themselves; and Barnabas they acknowledged to be a minister sent forth by the Holy Ghost to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. This distinction it is necessary to make, because it doth not appear that Barnabas was an apostle, in the proper sense of the word. The candour which the apostles at Jerusalem showed on this occasion, in acknowledging Paul as a brother apostle, is remarkable, and deserves the imitation of all the ministers of the gospel in their behaviour toward one another.” And they — With those that were in union with them; chiefly to the circumcision — The Jews. “In pursuance of this agreement, the three apostles abode, for the most part, in Judea, till Jerusalem was destroyed. After which, Peter, as tradition informs us, went to Babylon, and other parts in the East, and John into the Lesser Asia, where he was confined some years in Patmos, for the testimony of Jesus, Revelation 1:9 . But James was put to death at Jerusalem, in a popular tumult, before that city was destroyed.” — Macknight. Only desiring that we would remember the poor Christians in Judea — So as to make collections for them as we proceeded in our progress through the churches of the Gentiles; the same which I also was forward to do — Greek, ? ??? ????????? ???? ????? ??????? , which very thing I was eager, or in haste to do. It is probable, that in so readily acceding to the proposal made by the apostles at Jerusalem, to collect money for the destitute saints in Judea, St. Paul was influenced by a more generous principle than that of merely relieving the necessities of the poor. For as the Jewish believers were extremely unwilling to associate with the converted Gentiles, Paul might hope that the kindness, which he doubted not the Gentiles would show in relieving their Jewish brethren, would have a happy influence in uniting the two into one harmonious body or church. Galatians 2:10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Galatians 2:11 . But, &c. — The argument here comes to the height: Paul reproves Peter himself; so far was he from receiving his doctrine from man, or from being inferior to the chief of the apostles; when Peter was come to Antioch — After Barnabas and I were returned thither; I withstood him to the face — Or opposed him personally in the presence of the church there, then the chief of all the Gentile churches; because he was to be blamed — For the fear of man, Galatians 2:12 ; for dissimulation, Galatians 2:13 ; and for not walking uprightly, Galatians 2:14 . To show what kind of interpreters of Scripture some of the most learned fathers were, Dr. Macknight quotes Jerome here as translating the phrase, ???? ???????? , which we render to the face, secundum faciem, in appearance; supposing Paul’s meaning to be, “that he and Peter were not serious in this dispute; but, by a holy kind of dissimulation, endeavoured on the one hand, to give satisfaction to the Gentiles, and on the other not to offend the Jews. By such interpretations as these, the fathers pretended to justify the deceits which they used for persuading the heathen to embrace the gospel!” From the instance of Peter’s imprudence and sin, here recorded, the most advanced, whether in knowledge or holiness, may learn to take heed lest they fall. For before certain persons — Who were zealous for the observation of the ceremonies of the law; came from James — Who was then at Jerusalem; he did eat with the converted Gentiles — In Antioch, on all occasions, and conversed freely with them; but when they were come he withdrew — From that freedom of converse; and separated himself — From them, as if he had thought them unclean: and this he did, not from any change in his sentiments, but purely as fearing them of the circumcision — Namely, the converted Jews, whom he was unwilling to displease, because he thought their censures of much greater importance than they really were. The Jews, it must be observed, reckoned it unlawful to eat with the proselytes of the gate; that is, such proselytes to their religion as had not submitted to the rite of circumcision, nor engaged to observe the whole ceremonial law, (see Acts 10:28 ; Acts 11:3 ,) some meats permitted to them being unclean to the Jews; and the other believing Jews — Who were at Antioch, and had before used the like freedom; dissembled with him — In thus scrupulously avoiding all free converse with their Gentile brethren; insomuch that Barnabas also — Who with me had preached salvation to the Gentiles without the works of the law, Acts 13:39 ; was carried away — Namely, by the force of authority and example in opposition to judgment and conviction, and even against his will, as the word ????????? , here used, appears to imply; with their dissimulation — Or hypocrisy. Galatians 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. Galatians 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Galatians 2:14 . When I saw that, in this matter, they walked not uprightly — ??? ??????????? , did not walk with a straight step, or in a plain and straight path; according to the truth of the gospel — That is, according to their own knowledge of the simplicity of the true gospel doctrine; I said to Peter, before them all — That is, in the hearing of Barnabas and all the Judaizers: see Paul single against Peter and all the Jews! If thou, being a Jew — And having been brought by circumcision under the strongest engagements to fulfil the whole law; livest after the manner of the Gentiles — Conversing and eating freely with them, as since the vision which thou sawest thou hast done; and not as do the Jews — Not observing the ceremonial law, which thou knowest to be now abolished; why compellest thou the Gentiles — By refusing to eat and converse freely with them, as if the distinction of meats was necessary to be observed in order to salvation, and by withdrawing thyself, and all the ministers, from them; to live as do the Jews — ?????????? , to Judaize; to keep the ceremonial law, or be excluded from church communion. What is here recorded, probably took place at the conclusion of some of their meetings for public worship; for on these occasions it was usual, after the reading of the law and the prophets, to give the assembly exhortations. Had this offence of Peter been of a private nature, undoubtedly, as duty required, Paul would have expostulated with him privately upon it, and not have brought it, at least in the first instance, before such a number of persons: but as it was a public affair, in which many persons were deeply concerned, the method Paul took was certainly most proper. And in thus openly reproving Peter, he not only acted honestly, but generously; for it would have been mean to have found fault with him behind his back, without giving him an opportunity to vindicate himself, if he could have done it. “Perhaps,” says Macknight, “Peter in this, and in a former instance, may have been suffered to fall, the more effectually to discountenance the arrogant claims of his pretended successors to supremacy and infallibility.” Galatians 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Galatians 2:15-16 . We — St. Paul, to spare St. Peter, drops the first person singular, and speaks in the plural number; Galatians 2:18 , he speaks in the first person singular again by a figure, and without a figure, Galatians 2:19 , &c. Who are Jews by nature — By birth, and not proselytes. As in the first part of his discourse, where the apostle speaks only of himself and Peter, he meant to speak of all the teachers of the gospel; so in this second part, where he describes his own state, he in effect describes the state of believers in general. And not sinners of the Gentiles — That is, not sinful Gentiles; not such gross, enormous, abandoned sinners as the heathen generally are. It is justly observed by Dr. Whitby here, that the word sinners in Scripture signifies great and habitual sinners; and that the Jews gave the Gentiles that appellation, on account of their idolatry and other vices. Accordingly, Matthew 26:45 , the clause, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners, means, is delivered into the hands of the Gentiles, as is evident from Matthew 20:18-19 . Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law — Not even of the moral law, much less of the ceremonial; but by the faith of Jesus Christ — The faith which Jesus Christ hath enjoined and requires as the means of men’s justification, namely, faith in the gospel, in its important truths and precious promises: or, rather, by faith in Jesus Christ, as the true Messiah, the Son of God, in whom alone there is salvation for guilty, depraved, weak, and wretched sinners; the faith whereby we make application to him, and rely on him for salvation, present and eternal: learn of him as a Teacher, depend on him as a Mediator, become subject to him as a Governor, and prepare to meet him as a Judge. See on Romans 3:28 ; Romans 4:1-25 . Even we — And how much more must the Gentiles, who have still less pretence to depend on their own works? have believed in Jesus Christ — To this great purpose; that we might be justified — As has been said before; by faith in Christ — This is the method that we, who were brought up Jews, have taken, as being thoroughly sensible we could be justified and saved no other way: for by the works of the law, whether ceremonial or moral, shall no flesh living, whether Jew or Gentile, be justified — Since no human creature is capable of fully answering its demands, or can pretend to have paid a universal and unsinning obedience to it. Hitherto the apostle had been considering that single question, “Are Christians obliged to observe the ceremonial law?” But he here insensibly goes further, and by citing this passage, shows that what he spoke directly of the ceremonial, included also the moral law. For David undoubtedly did so, when he said, ( Psalm 143:2 , the place here referred to,) In thy sight shall no man living be justified; which the apostle likewise explains, ( Romans 3:19-20 ,) in such a manner as can agree only with the moral law. Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Galatians 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. Galatians 2:17-19 . But if while we seek to be justified by Christ — Through the merit of his obedience unto death, by simply believing in him, and in the truths and promises of his gospel; we ourselves are still found sinners — Continue in sin; if we are still under the guilt and power of sin, in an unpardoned, unrenewed state; is therefore Christ the minister of sin — Does he countenance sin, by giving persons reason to suppose that they are justified through believing in him as the true Messiah, while they continue to live in the commission of sin? God forbid — That any thing should ever be insinuated so much to the dishonour of God, and of our glorious Redeemer. For if I build again — By my sinful practice; the things which I destroyed — Or professed that I wished to destroy, by my preaching, or by my believing; I make myself a transgressor — I show that I act very inconsistently, building up again what I pretended I was pulling down. In other words, I show myself, not Christ, to be a transgressor; the whole blame lies on me, not on him or his gospel. As if he had said, The objection were just, if the gospel promised justification to men continuing in sin. But it does not. Therefore if any, who profess the gospel, do not live according to it, they are sinners, it is certain, but not justified; and so the gospel is clear. For I through the law — Understood in its spirituality, extent, and obligation; applied by the Holy Spirit to my conscience, and convincing me of my utter sinfulness, guilt, and helplessness; am dead to the law — To all hope of justification by it, and therefore to all dependance upon it; see notes on Romans 7:7-14 ; That I may live to God — Not that I may continue in sin. For this very end, I am delivered from the condemnation in which I was involved, am justified, and brought into a state of favour and acceptance with God, that I might be animated by nobler views and hopes than the law could give, and engaged, through love to God, his people, and all mankind, to a more generous, sublime, and extensive obedience than the law was capable of producing. Galatians 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. Galatians 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Galatians 2:20-21 . The apostle proceeds in describing how he was freed from the dominion as well as guilt of sin, and how far he was from continuing in the commission of it. I am crucified with Christ — To sin, to the world, and all selfish and corrupt desires and designs; my old man, my sinful nature, with its affections and lusts, is crucified with him; that is, through his death on the cross, and the grace procured for me, and bestowed on me thereby, that the body of sin may be destroyed, Romans 6:6 . In other words, I have such a sense of his dying love in my hearty and of the excellence of that method of justification and salvation which he hath accomplished on the cross, that in consequence of it, I am dead to all the allurements of the world and sin, as well as to all views of obtaining righteousness and life by the law. Nevertheless I live — A new and spiritual life, in union with God through Christ, and in a conformity to his will; yet not I — The holy, happy life which I now live, is neither procured by my own merit, nor caused by my own power. Or, as ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? is more properly rendered, I live no longer, namely, as to my former sinful self, state, and nature, being made dead to the world and sin; but Christ liveth in me — By his word and Spirit, his truth and grace; and is a fountain of life in my inmost soul, from which all my tempers, words, and actions flow. And the life that I now live in the flesh — Even in this mortal body, and while I am surrounded with the snares, and exposed to the trials and troubles of this sinful world; I live by the faith of — Or rather, as the apostle undoubtedly means, by faith in, and reliance on, the Son of God — The spiritual life which I live, I derive from him by the continual exercise of faith in his sacrifice and intercession, and through the supplies of grace communicated by him; who loved me — With a compassionate, benevolent, forgiving, and bountiful love; to such a degree that he gave himself — Delivered himself up to ignominy, torture, and death; for me — That he might procure my redemption and salvation. In the meantime I do not frustrate — Or make void, in seeking to be justified by my own works; the grace of God — His free, unmerited love in Christ Jesus, which they do who seek justification by the law; for if righteousness come by the law — If men may be justified by their obedience to the law, ceremonial or moral; then Christ is dead in vain — There was no necessity for his dying in order to their salvation, since they might have been saved without his death; might, by the merit of their own obedience, have been discharged from condemnation, and by their own efforts made holy, and consequently have been both entitled to, and fitted for, eternal life. Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. Chapter 7 PAUL AND THE FALSE BRETHREN. Galatians 2:1-5 "FOURTEEN years" had elapsed since Paul left Jerusalem for Tarsus, and commenced his Gentile mission. During this long period-a full half of his missionary course-the Apostle was lost to the sight of the Judean Churches. For nearly half this time, until Barnabas brought him to Antioch, we have no further trace of his movements. But these years of obscure labour had, we may be sure, no small influence in shaping the Apostle’s subsequent career. It was a kind of Apostolic apprenticeship. Then his evangelistic plans were laid; his powers were practised; his methods of teaching and administration formed and tested. This first, unnoted period of Paul’s missionary life held, we imagine, much the same relation to his public ministry that the time of the Arabian retreat did to his spiritual development. We are apt to think of the Apostle Paul only as we see him in the full tide of his activity, carrying "from Jerusalem round about unto Illyricum" the standard of the cross and planting it in one after another of the great cities of the Empire, "always triumphing in every place"; or issuing those mighty Epistles whose voice shakes the world. We forget the earlier term of preparation, these years of silence and patience, of unrecorded toil in a comparatively narrow and humble sphere, which had after all their part in making Paul the man he was. If Christ Himself would not "clutch" at His Divine prerogatives, { Php 2:5-11 } nor win them by self-assertion and before the time, how much more did it become His servant to rise to his great office by slow degrees. Paul served first as a private missionary pioneer in his native land, then as a junior colleague and assistant to Barnabas, until the summons came to take a higher place, when "the signs of an Apostle" had been fully "wrought in him." Not in a day, nor by the effect of a single revelation did he become the fully armed and all-accomplished Apostle of the Gentiles whom we meet in this Epistle. "After the space of fourteen years" it was time for him to stand forth the approved witness and minister of Jesus Christ, whom Peter and John publicly embraced as their equal. Paul claims here the initiative in the momentous visit to Jerusalem undertaken by himself and Barnabas, of which he is going to speak. In Acts 15:2 he is similarly placed at the head of the deputation sent from Antioch about the question of circumcision. The account of the preceding missionary tour in Acts 13:1-52 ; Acts 14:1-28 , shows how the headship of the Gentile Church had come to devolve on Paul. In Luke’s narrative they are "Barnabas and Saul" who set out; "Paul and Barnabas" who return. { Acts 13:2 ; Acts 13:7 ; Acts 13:13 ; Acts 13:43 ; Acts 13:45-46 ; Acts 13:50 ; Acts 14:12 ; Acts 14:14 ; Acts 15:2 ; Acts 15:12 } Under the trials and hazards of this adventure at Paphos, Pisidian Antioch, Lystra-Paul’s native ascendency and his higher vocation irresistibly declared themselves. Age and rank yielded to the fire of inspiration, to the gifts of speech, the splendid powers of leadership which the difficulties of this expedition revealed in Paul. Barnabas returned to Antioch with the thought in his heart, "He must increase; I must decrease." And Barnabas was too generous a man not to yield cheerfully to his companion the precedence for which God thus marked him out. Yet the "sharp contention" in which the two men parted soon after this time, { Acts 15:36-40 } was, we may conjecture, due in some degree to a lingering soreness in the mind of Barnabas on this account. The Apostle expresses himself with modesty, but in such a way as to show that he was regarded in this juncture as the champion of the Gentile cause. The "revelation" that prompted the visit came to him. The "taking up of Titus" was his distinct act ( Galatians 2:1 ). Unless Paul has deceived himself, he was quite the leading figure in the Council; it was his doctrine and his Apostleship that exercised the minds of the chiefs at Jerusalem, when the delegates from Antioch appeared before them. Whatever Peter and James may have known of surmised previously concerning Paul’s vocation, it was only now that it became a public question for the Church. But as matters stood, it was a vital question. The status of uncircumcised Christians, and the Apostolic rank of Paul, constituted the twofold problem placed before the chiefs of the Jewish Church. At the same time, the Apostle, while fixing our attention mainly on his own position, gives to Barnabas his meed of honour; for he says, "I went up with Barnabas,"-"we never yielded for an hour to the false brethren,"-"the Pillars gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles." But it is evident that the elder Gentile missionary stood in the background. By the action that he takes Paul unmistakably declares, "I am the Apostle of the Gentiles"; {Comp. Romans 11:13 ; Romans 15:16-17 } and that claim is admitted by the consenting voice of both branches of the Church. The Apostle stepped to the front at this solemn crisis, not for his own rank or office’s sake, but at the call of God, in defence of the truth of the gospel and the spiritual freedom of mankind. This meeting at Jerusalem took place in 51, or it may be, 52 A.D. We make no doubt that it is the same with the Council of Acts 15:1-41 . The identification has been controverted by several able scholars, but without success. The two accounts are different, but in no sense contradictory. In fact, as Dr. Pfleiderer acknowledges, they "admirably supplement each other. The agreement as to the chief points is in any case greater than the discrepancies in the details; and these discrepancies can for the most part be explained by the different standpoint of the relaters." A difficulty lies, however, in the fact that the historian of the Acts makes this the third visit of Paul to Jerusalem subsequently to his conversion; whereas, from the Apostle’s statement, it appears to have been the second. This discrepancy has already come up for discussion in the last chapter. Two further observations may be added on this point. In the first place, Paul does not say that he had never been to Jerusalem since the visit of Galatians 1:18 ; he does say, that on this occasion he "went up again," and that meanwhile he "remained unknown by face" to the Christians of Judea { Galatians 1:22 } - a fact quite compatible, as we have shown, with what is related in Acts 11:29-30 . And further, the request addressed at this conference to the Gentile missionaries, that they should "remember the poor," and the reference made by the Apostle to his previous zeal in the same business ( Galatians 2:9-10 ), are in agreement with the earlier visit of charity mentioned by Luke. 1. The emphasis of Galatians 2:1 rests upon its last clause, - taking along with me also Titus. Not "Titus as well as Barnabas"-this cannot be the meaning of the "also" - for Barnabas was Paul’s colleague, deputed equally with himself by the Church of Antioch; nor "Titus as well as others"-there were other members of the deputation, { Acts 15:2 } but Paul makes no reference to them. The also ( ??? ) calls attention to the fact of Paul’s taking Titus, in view of the sequel; as though he said, "I not only went up to Jerusalem at this particular time, under Divine direction, but I took along with me Titus besides." The prefixed with (sun-) of the Greek participle refers to Paul himself: compare Galatians 2:3 , "Titus who was with me." As for the "certain others" referred to in Acts 15:2 , they were most likely Jews; or if any of them were Gentiles, still it was Titus whom Paul had chosen for his companion; and his case stood out from the rest in such a way that it became the decisive one, the test-case for the matter in dispute. The mention of Titus’ name in this connection was calculated to raise a lively interest in the minds of the Apostle’s readers. He is introduced as known to the Galatians; indeed by this time his name was familiar in the Pauline Churches, as that of a fellow-traveller and trusted helper of the Apostle. He was with Paul in the latter part of the third missionary tour - so we learn from the Corinthian letters-and therefore probably in the earlier part of the same journey, when the Apostle paid his second visit to Galatia. He belonged to the heathen mission, and was Paul’s "true child after a common faith," { Titus 1:4 } an uncircumcised man, of Gentile birth equally with the Galatians. And now they read of his "going up to Jerusalem with Paul," to the mother-city of believers, where are the pillars of the Church-the Jewish teachers would say-the true Apostles of Jesus, where His doctrine is preached in its purity, and where every Christian is circumcised and keeps the Law. Titus, the unclean Gentile, at Jerusalem! How could he be admitted or tolerated there, in the fellowship of the first disciples of the Lord? This question Paul’s readers, after what they had heard from the Circumcisionists, would be sure to ask. He will answer it directly. But the Apostle goes on to say, that he "went up in accordance with a revelation." For this was one of those supreme moments in his life when he looked for and received the direct guidance of heaven. It was a most critical step to carry this question of Gentile circumcision up to Jerusalem, and to take Titus with him there, into the enemies’ stronghold. Moreover, on the settlement of this matter Paul knew that his Apostolic status depended, so far as human recognition was concerned. It would be seen whether the Jewish Church would acknowledge the converts of the Gentile mission as brethren in Christ; and whether the first Apostles would receive him, "the untimely one," as a colleague of their own. Never had he more urgently needed or more implicitly relied upon Divine direction than at this hour. "And I put before them (the Church at Jerusalem) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles-but privately to those of repute: am I running (said I), or have I run, in vain?" The latter clause we read interrogatively, along with such excellent grammatical interpreters as Meyer, Wieseler, and Hofmann. Paul had not come to Jerusalem in order to solve any doubt in his own mind; but he wished the Church of Jerusalem to declare its mind respecting the character of his ministry. He was not "running as uncertainly"; nor in view of the "revelation" just given him could he have any fear for the result of his appeal. But it was in every way necessary that the appeal should be made. The interjected words, "out privately," etc., indicate that there were two meetings during the conference, such as those which seem to be distinguished in Acts 15:4 ; Acts 15:6 ; and that the Apostle’s statement and the question arising out of it were addressed more pointedly to "those of repute." By this term we understand, here and in Acts 15:6 , "the apostles and elders," { Acts 15:1-41 } headed by Peter and James, amongst whom "those reputed to be pillars" are distinguished in Acts 15:9 . Paul dwells upon the phrase ?? ????????? , because, to be sure, it was so often on the lips of the Judaisers, who were in the habit of speaking with an imposing air, and by way of contrast with Paul, of "the authorities" (at Jerusalem)-as the designation might appropriately be rendered. These very men whom the Legalists were exalting at Paul’s expense, the venerated chiefs of the mother Church, had on this occasion, Paul is going to say, given their approval to his doctrine; they declined to impose circumcision on Gentile believers. The Twelve were not stationary at Jerusalem, and therefore could not form a fixed court of reference there; hence a greater importance accrued to the Elders of the city Church, with the revered James at their head, the brother of the Lord. The Apostle, in bringing Titus, had brought up the subject-matter of the controversy. The "gospel of the uncircumcision" stood before the Jewish authorities, an accomplished fact. Titus was there, by the side of Paul, a sample-and a noble specimen, we can well believe-of the Gentile Christendom which the Jewish Church must either acknowledge or repudiate. How will they treat him? Will they admit this foreign protege of Paul to their communion? Or will they require him first to be circumcised? The question at issue could not take a form more crucial for the prejudices of the mother Church. It was one thing to acknowledge uncircumcised fellow-believers in the abstract, away yonder at Antioch or Iconium, or even at Caesarea; and another thing to see Titus standing amongst them in his heathen uncleanness, on the sacred soil of Jerusalem, under the shadow of the Temple, and to hear Paul claiming for him-for this "dog" of a Gentile-equally with himself the rights of Christian brotherhood! The demand was most offensive to the pride of Judaism, as no one knew better than Paul; and we cannot wonder that a revelation was required to justify the Apostle in making it. The case of Trophimus, whose presence with the Apostle at Jerusalem many years afterwards proved so nearly fatal, { Acts 21:27-30 } shows how exasperating to the legalist party his action in this instance must have been. Had not Peter and the better spirits of the Church in Jerusalem laid to heart the lesson of the vision of Joppa, that "no man must be called common or unclean," and had not the wisdom of the Holy Spirit eminently guided this first Council of the Church, Paul’s challenge would have received a negative answer: and Jewish and Gentile Christianity must have been driven asunder. The answer, the triumphant answer, to Paul’s appeal comes in the next verse: "Nay, not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." Titus was not circumcised, in point of fact-how can we doubt this in view of the language of Galatians 2:5 : "Not even for an hour did we yield in subjection?" And he "was not compelled to be circumcised"-a mode of putting the denial which implies that in refusing his circumcision urgent solicitation had to be withstood, solicitation addressed to Titus himself, as well as to the leaders of his party. The kind of pressure brought to bear in the case and the quarter from which it proceeded, the Galatians would understand from their own experience. { Galatians 6:12 ; comp. Galatians 2:14 } The attempt made to bring about Titus’ circumcision signally failed. Its failure was the practical reply to the question which Paul tells us ( Galatians 2:2 ) he had put to the authorities in Jerusalem; or, according to the more common rendering of Galatians 2:2 b, it was the answer to the apprehension under which he addressed himself to them. On the former of these views of the connection, which we decidedly prefer, the authorities are clear of any share in the "compulsion" of Titus. When the Apostle gives the statement that his Gentile companion "was not compelled to be circumcised" as the reply to his appeal to "those of repute," it is as much as to say: "The chiefs at Jerusalem did not require Titus’ circumcision. They repudiated the attempt of certain parties to force this rite upon him." This testimony precisely accords with the terms of the rescript of the Council, and with the speeches of Peter and James, given in Acts 15:1-41 . But it was a great point gained to have the liberality of the Jewish Christian leaders put to the proof in this way, to have the generous sentiments of speech and letter made good in this example of uncircumcised Christianity brought to their doors. To the authorities at Jerusalem the question put by the delegates from Antioch on the one side, and by the Circumcisionists on the other, was perfectly clear. If they insist on Titus’ circumcision, they disown Paul and the Gentile mission: if they accept Paul’s gospel, they must leave Titus alone. Paul and Barnabas stated the case in a manner that left no room for doubt or compromise. Their action was marked, as ver. 5 declares { Galatians 2:5 }, with the utmost decision. And the response of the Jewish leaders was equally frank and definite. We have no business, says James, { Acts 15:19 } "to trouble those from the Gentiles that turn to God." Their judgment is virtually affirmed in Galatians 2:3 , in reference to Titus, in whose person the Galatians could not fail to see that their own case had been settled by anticipation. "Those of repute" disowned the Circumcisionists; the demand that the yoke of circumcision should be imposed on. the Gentiles had no sanction from them. If the Judaisers claimed their sanction, the claim was false. Here the Apostle pauses, as his Gentile readers must have paused and drawn a long breath of relief or of astonishment at what he has just alleged. If Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, even at Jerusalem, who, they might ask, was going to compel them?-The full stop should therefore be placed at the end of Galatians 2:3 , not Galatians 2:2 . Galatians 2:1-3 form a paragraph complete in itself. Its last sentence resolves the decisive question raised in this visit of Paul’s to Jerusalem, when he "took with him also Titus." 2. The opening words of Galatians 2:4 have all the appearance of commencing a new sentence. This sentence, concluded in Galatians 2:5 , is grammatically incomplete; but that is no reason for throwing it upon the previous sentence, to the confusion of both. There is a transition of thought, marked by the introductory But, from the issue of Paul’s second critical visit to Jerusalem ( Galatians 2:1-3 ) to the cause which made it necessary. This was the action of "false brethren," to whom the Apostle made a determined and successful resistance ( Galatians 2:4-5 ). The opening "But" does not refer to Galatians 2:3 in particular, rather to the entire foregoing paragraph. The ellipsis (after "But") is suitably supplied in the marginal rendering of the Revisers, where we take it was to mean, not "Because of the false brethren Titus was not (or was not compelled to be) circumcised, " but "Because of the false brethren this meeting came about, or I took the course aforesaid." To know what Paul means by "false brethren," we must turn to Galatians 1:6-9 ; Galatians 3:1 ; Galatians 4:17 ; Galatians 5:7-12 ; Galatians 6:12-14 , in this Epistle; and again to 2 Corinthians 2:17 ; 2 Corinthians 3:1 ; 2 Corinthians 4:2 ; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 ; 2 Corinthians 11:12-22 ; 2 Corinthians 11:26 ; Romans 16:17-18 ; Php 3:2 . They were men bearing the name of Christ and professing faith in Him, but Pharisees at heart, self-seeking, rancorous, unscrupulous men, bent on exploiting the Pauline Churches for their own advantage, and regarding Gentile converts to Christ as so many possible recruits for the ranks of the Circumcision. But where, and how, were these traitors "privily brought in"? Brought in, we answer, to the field of the Gentile mission; and doubtless by local Jewish sympathisers, who introduced them without the concurrence of the officers of the Church. They "came in privily":-slipped in by stealth-"to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus." Now it was at Antioch and in the pagan Churches that this liberty existed in its normal exercise-the liberty for which our Epistle contends, the enjoyment of Christian privileges independently of Jewish law-in which Paul and his brother missionaries had identified themselves with their Gentile followers. The "false brethren" were Jewish spies in the Gentile Christian camp. We do not see how the Galatians could have read the Apostle’s words otherwise; nor how it could have occurred to them that he was referring to the way in which these men had been originally "brought into" the Jewish Church. That concerned neither him nor them. But their getting into the Gentile fold was the serious thing. They are the certain who came down from Judea, and taught the (Gentile) brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, "ye cannot be saved"; and whom their own Church afterwards repudiated. { Acts 15:24 } With Antioch for the centre of their operations, these mischief-makers disturbed the whole field of Paul and Barnabas’ labours in Syria and Cilicia. { Acts 15:23 ; Galatians 1:21 } For the Galatian readers, the terms of this sentence, coming after the anathema of Galatians 1:6-9 , threw a startling light on the character of the Judean emissaries busy in their midst. This description of the former "troublers" strikes at the Judaic opposition in Galatia. It is as if the Apostle said: "These false brethren, smuggled in amongst us, to filch away our liberties in Christ, wolves in sheep’s clothing-I know them well; I have encountered them before this. I never yielded to their demands a single inch. I carried the struggle with them to Jerusalem. There, in the citadel of Judaism, and before the assembled chiefs of the Judean Church, I vindicated once and for all, under the person of Titus, your imperilled Christian rights." But as the Apostle dilates on the conduct of these Jewish intriguers, the precursors of such an army of troublers, his heart takes fire; in the rush of his emotion he is carried away from the original purport of his sentence, and breaks it off with a burst of indignation: "To whom," he cries, "not even for an hour did we yield by subjection, that the truth of the gospel might abide with you." A breakdown like this-an anacotuthon, as the grammarians call it-is nothing strange in Paul’s style. Despite the shipwrecked grammar, the sense comes off safely enough. The clause, "we did not yield," etc., describes in a negative form, and with heightened effect, the course the Apostle had pursued from the first in dealing with the false brethren. In this unyielding spirit he had acted, without a moment’s wavering, from the hour when, guided by the Holy Spirit, he set out for Jerusalem with the uncircumcised Titus by his side, until he heard his Gentile gospel vindicated by the lips of Peter and James, and received from them the clasp of fellowship as Christ’s acknowledged Apostle to the heathen. It was therefore the action of Jewish interlopers, men of the same stamp as those infesting the Galatian Churches, which occasioned Paul’s second, public visit to Jerusalem, and his consultation with the heads of the Judean Church. This decisive course he was himself inspired to take; while at the same time it was taken on behalf and under the direction of the Church of Antioch, the metropolis of Gentile Christianity. He had gone up with Barnabas and "certain others"-including the Greek Titus chosen by himself-the company forming a representative deputation, of which Paul was the leader and spokesman. This measure was the boldest and the only effectual means of combating the Judaistic propaganda. It drew from the authorities at Jerusalem the admission that "Circumcision is nothing," and that Gentile Christians are free from the ritual law. This was a victory gained over Jewish prejudice of immense significance for the future of Christianity. The ground was already cut from under the feet of the Judaic teachers in Galatia, and of all who should at any time seek to impose external rites as things essential to salvation in Christ. To all his readers Paul can now say, so far as his part is concerned: The truth of the gospel abides with you. Galatians 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: Chapter 8 PAUL AND THE THREE PILLARS. Galatians 2:6-10 WE have dealt by anticipation, in chap. 6, with several of the topics raised in this section of the Epistle-touching particularly the import of the phrase "those of repute," and the tone of disparagement in which these dignitaries appear to be spoken of in Galatians 2:6 . But there still remains in these verses matter in its weight and difficulty more than sufficient to occupy another chapter. The grammatical connection of the first paragraph, like that of Galatians 2:2-3 , is involved and disputable. We construe its clauses in the following way:- -1 Galatians 2:6 begins with a But, contrasting "those of repute" with the "false brethren" dealt with in the last sentence. It contains another anacoluthon (or incoherence of language) due to the surge of feeling remarked in Galatians 2:4 , which still disturbs the Apostle’s grammar. He begins: "But from those reputed to be something"-as though he intended to say, "I received on my part nothing, no addition or qualification to my gospel." But he has no sooner mentioned "those of repute" than he is reminded of the studied attempt that was made to set up their authority in opposition to his own, and accordingly throws in this protest: "what they were aforetime, makes no difference to me: man’s person God doth not accept." But in saying this, Paul has laid down one of his favourite axioms, a principle that filled a large place in his thoughts; {Comp. Romans 2:11 ; 1 Corinthians 1:27-31 ; 1 Corinthians 15:9-10 ; Ephesians 6:9 ; Colossians 3:25 } and its enunciation deflects the course of the main sentence, so that it is resumed in an altered form: "For to me those of repute imparted nothing." Here the me receives a greater emphasis; and for takes the place of but. The fact that the first Apostles had nothing to impart to Paul, signally illustrates the Divine impartiality, which often makes the last and least in human eyes equal to the first. -2 Galatians 2:7-9 state the positive, as Galatians 2:6 the negative side of the relation between Paul and the elder Apostles, still keeping in view the principle laid down in the former verse. "Nay, on the contrary, when they saw that I have in charge the gospel of the uncircumcision, as Peter that of the circumcision ( Galatians 2:7 )-and when they perceived the grace that had been given me, James and Cephas and John, those renowned pillars of the Church, gave the right-hand of fellowship to myself and Barnabas, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles, while they laboured amongst the Jews" ( Galatians 2:9 ). -3 Galatians 2:8 comes in as a parenthesis, explaining how the authorities at Jerusalem came to see that this trust belonged to Paul. "For," he says, "He that in Peter’s case displayed His power in making him (above all others) Apostle of the Circumcision, did as much for me in regard to the Gentiles." It is not human ordination, but Divine inspiration that makes a minister of Jesus Christ. The noble Apostles of Jesus had the wisdom to see this. It had pleased God to bestow this grace on their old Tarsian persecutor; and they frankly acknowledged the fact. Thus Paul sets forth, in the first place, the completeness of his Apostolic qualifications, put to proof at the crisis of the circumcision controversy; and in the second place, the judgment formed respecting him and his office by the first Apostles and companions of the Lord. 1. "To me those of repute added nothing." Paul had spent but a fortnight in the Christian circle of Jerusalem, fourteen years ago. Of its chiefs he had met at that time only Peter and James, and them in the capacity of a visitor, not as a disciple or a candidate for office. He had never sought the opportunity, nor felt the need, of receiving instruction from the elder Apostles during all the years in which he had preached Christ amongst the heathen. It was not likely he would do so now. When he came into conference and debate with them at the Council, he showed himself their equal, neither in knowledge nor authority "a whit behind the very chiefest." And they were conscious of the same fact. On the essentials of the gospel Paul found himself in agreement with the Twelve. This is implied in the language of Galatians 2:6 . When one writes, "A-adds nothing to B," one assumes that B has already what belongs to A, -and not something different. Paul asserts in the most positive terms he can command, that his intercourse with the holders of the primitive Christian tradition left him as a minister of Christ exactly where he was before. "On me," he says, "they conferred nothing"-rather, perhaps, "addressed no communication to me." The word used appears to deny their having made any motion of the kind. The Greek verb is the same that was employed in Galatians 1:16 , a rare and delicate compound. Its meaning varies, like that of our confer, communicate, as it is applied in a more or less active sense. In the former place Paul had said that he "did not confer with flesh and blood"; now he adds, that flesh and blood did not confer anything upon him. Formerly he did not bring his commission to lay it before men; now they had nothing to bring on their part to lay before him. The same word affirms the Apostle’s independence at both epochs, shown in the first instance by his reserve toward the dignitaries at Jerusalem, and in the second by their reserve toward him. Conscious of his Divine call, he sought no patronage from the elder Apostles then; and they, recognising that call, offered him no such patronage now. Paul’s gospel for the Gentiles was complete, and sufficient unto itself. His ministry showed’ no defect in quality or competence. There was nothing about it that laid it open to correction, even on the part of those wisest and highest in dignity amongst the personal followers of Jesus. So Paul declares; and we can readily believe him. Nay, we are tempted to think that it was rather the Pillars who might need to learn from him, than he from them. In doctrine, Paul holds the primacy in the band of the Apostles. While all were inspired by the Spirit of Christ, the Gentile Apostle was in many ways a more richly furnished man than any of the rest. The Paulinism of Peter’s First Epistle goes to show that the debt was on the other side. Their earliest privileges and priceless store of recollections of "all that Jesus did and taught," were matched on Paul’s side by a penetrating logic, a breadth and force of intellect applied to the facts of revelation, and a burning intensity of spirit, which in their combination were unique. The Pauline teaching, as it appears in the New Testament, bears in the highest degree the marks of original genius, the stamp of a mind whose inspiration is its own. Modern criticism even exaggerates Paul’s originality. It leaves the other Apostles little more than a negative part to play in the development of Christian truth. In some of its representations, the figure of Paul appears to overshadow even that of the Divine Master. It was Paul’s creative genius, it is said, his daring idealism, that deified the human Jesus, and transformed the scandal of the cross into the glory of an atonement reconciling the world to God. Such theories Paul himself would have regarded with horror. "I received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you": such is his uniform testimony. If he owed so little as a minister of Christ to his brother Apostles, he felt with the most sincere humility that he owed everything to Christ. The agreement of Paul’s teaching with that of the other New Testament writers, and especially with that of Jesus in the Gospels, proves that, however distinct and individual his conception of the common gospel, none the less there was a common gospel of Christ, and he did not speak of his own mind. The attempts made to get rid of this agreement by postdating the New Testament documents, and by explaining away the larger utterances of Jesus found in the Gospels as due to Paulinist interpolation, are unavailing. They postulate a craftiness of ingenuity on the part of the writers of the incriminated books, and an ignorance in those who first received them, alike inconceivable. Paul did not build up the splendid and imperishable fabric of his theology on some speculation of his own. Its foundation lies in the person and the teaching of Jesus Christ, and was common to Paul with James and Cephas and John. "Whether I or they," he testifies, "so we preach, and so ye believed". { 1 Corinthians 15:11 } Paul satisfied himself at this conference that he and the Twelve taught the same gospel. Not in its primary data, but in their logical development and application, lies the specifically Pauline in Paulinism. The harmony between Paul and the other Apostolic leaders has the peculiar value which belongs to the agreement of minds of different orders, working independently. The Judaisers, however, persistently asserted Paul’s dependence on the elder Apostles. "The authority of the Primitive Church, the