Galatians 2:6

Gal_2:6

But of those who seemed to be somewhat.

Authority and trust

I. A man who has truth on his side can be indifferent to mere authority. Because--

1. Mere authority has no weight with the Author of truth.

2. The man of truth can gain nothing from the sanction of mere authority.

II. Authoritative decisions derive what value they possess from the truth. The apostles pronounced on what they saw.

1. That the gospel of the uncircumcision and the circumcision was committed respectively to Paul and Peter.

2. That God wrought equally by both.

3. That both alike had Divine grace for their work.

God no accepter of persons

I. Spiritual excellence and not the accidents of external condition alone avails with God. Take some illustrations.

1. From Scripture: the choice of Abraham and Moses.

2. From providence.

(1) Wealth and power are administered impartially.

(2) Health on the whole is equally shared by rich and poor.

(3) Genius is confined to no class.

(4) So with the blessings of happiness, life, and age.

3. From the administration of redemption. Wilberforce in parliament, Bunyan in his cottage.

4. From the day of judgment and its results.

II. Why God has no respect of persons except in relation to moral goodness.

1. Accidents in condition, seemingly great to us, bear no such relation to Him.

2. They are not the essential and true elements of our being.

III. Why does God supremely value spiritual excellence?

1. It is the true basis of worth in every intelligent creature.

(1) Angels;

(2) man as man.

2. It is Gods own spiritual reflection, and therefore the true basis of friendship with Him. (J. Foster, B. A.)

Pauls non-indebtedness to the apostles

Paul wished to show that his apostolate, both in its origin and by the tenor of the facts which preceded this visit, was independent of the Twelve, and derived no authority from Jerusalem. He could not brook rival, still less superior, in the work that was before him, nor submit to any control whatsoever on the part of any man, however eminent he might be. This had been his constant determination from the first day of his Christianity, and he was not likely to forego it after so many years of missionary labour, and in the case of persons who owed all their knowledge of the gospel to him, till such time as these meddling emissaries had striven to misrepresent him, had repudiated his authority, and called in question the completeness of the gospel he preached. (Paul of Tarsus.)

Usefulness better than mere capacity

A monstrous vat, certainly, is the great tun of Heidelberg. It might hold eight hundred hogsheads of wine at the least; but what is the use of such wasted capacity, since, for nearly a hundred years, there has not been a drop of liquor in it! Hollow and sounding, empty and void and waste; vintages come and go, and find it perishing of dry rot. An empty cask is not so great a spectacle after all, let its size be what it may, though old travellers called this monster one of the wonders of the world. What a thousand pities it is that many men of genius and of learning are, in respect of usefulness, no better than this huge but empty tun of Heidelberg! Very capacious are their minds, but very unpractical. Better be a poor household kilderkin, and give forth ones little freely, than exist as a useless prodigy, capable of much and available for nothing. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Having a right estimate of ones self

A great deal of misery would be prevented, if ministers would endeavour to form an honest estimate of their qualifications, and, as a consequence, seek appointments for which they are specially qualified. If one might teach unpleasant doctrines through the medium of a figure, one can imagine how inconvenient it would be in the event of a great cathedral clock wearing out, for a neat Geneva watch to put itself forward as a candidate for the vacancy. The Geneva might be a beautiful little thing, and might keep the most exact time, and might be called endearing names by ladies and little children; yet, to speak the language of charity, it might hardly be adapted to be set a hundred and fifty feet above the ground, in a circular vacancy at least ten feet in diameter. In such a case its very elevation would become its obscurity. On the other hand, it would be quite as inconvenient ii a great cathedral clock, weary of city work, should ask to be carried about as a private timekeeper. There is amoral in the figure. That moral points towards the law of proportion and adaptation. One can imagine the petted Geneva looking up from a ladys hand, and calling the cathedral clock a great, coarse thing, with a loud and vulgar voice, which indicated the most offensive presumption; and we can imagine the cathedral clock looking down, with somewhat of disdain, upon the little timekeeping toy. Oh, that some sensible chronometer would say to the rivals, Cease your contention; you are both useful in your places. The one as a private chaplain, the other as a city orator, may tell the world to redeem its flying time. (Joseph Parker, D. D.)

Seeming Christians not always real ones

A servant girl once said she should not have known her master and mistress were religious had she not heard that they took the sacrament. It was a pity they took it. If a man rolled on a bed of spices you would soon know where he had been, and if a man went with Jesus he must be perfumed with the spirit of Jesus. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

God accepteth no mans person

With God there is no free man but His servant, though in the galleys; no slave but the sinner, though in a palace; none noble but the virtuous, if never so basely descended; none rich but he that possesseth God, even in rags; none wise but he that is a feel to himself and the world; none happy but he whom the world pities. Let me be free, noble, rich, wise, happy, to God. (Bp. Hall.)

God accepteth no mans person

A North German periodical gives the following story as told by a Bible colporteur: In one of my journeys I came to Varzin while the Imperial Chancellor was residing there. After I had done a long days work, I went to the inn. I was there asked if I would go to evening prayers at Bismarcks house, as the daughter of the host was going. I accepted the invitation, and when I got there I found myself in a spacious and very suitable room which had been built for the purpose. It was well filled with servants, farm labourers, and villagers, some of whom, having seen me before, greeted me kindly. Soon afterwards Prince Bismarck made his appearance, nodding kindly right and left as he passed. He then said--I hear we have a Bible-man among us, and he looked me straight in the face in his kindly way. You will be so kind as to conduct service for us this evening: I rose up and answered--It would be displacing your highness for me to when the prince interrupted me with, Ah, my good man, what does highness signify? Here in Gods sight we are all poor sinners; so come here and take my place this evening, and conduct the service for us: So of course I accepted his invitation, the prince taking his place amongst the audience; and when it was over he shook me warmly by the hand, and wished me Gods richest blessing on my way.

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal 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 οι δοκουντες 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, Gal 2:8; Act 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 8

PAUL AND THE THREE PILLARS.

Gal_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 Gal_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 Gal_2:2-3, is involved and disputable. We construe its clauses in the following way:-

(1) Gal_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 Gal_2:4, which still disturbs the Apostles 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: mans 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. Rom_2:11; 1Co_1:27-31; 1Co_15:9-10; Eph_6:9; Col_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) Gal_2:7-9 state the positive, as Gal_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 (Gal_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" (Gal_2:9).

(3) Gal_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 Peters 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 Gal_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 Gal_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 Apostles 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. Pauls 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 Peters 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 Pauls 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 Pauls 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 Pauls 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 Pauls 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". {1Co_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 Pauls dependence on the elder Apostles. "The authority of the Primitive Church, the Apostolic tradition of Jerusalem"-this was the fulcrum of their argument. Where could Paul, they asked, have derived his knowledge of Christ, but from this fountain-head? And the power that made him could unmake him. Those who commissioned him had the right to overrule him, or even to revoke his commission. Was it not known that he had from time to time resorted to Jerusalem; that he had once publicly submitted his teaching to the examination of the heads of the Church there? The words of Gal_2:6 contradict these malicious insinuations. Hence the positiveness of the Apostles self-assertion. In the Corinthian Epistles his claim to independence is made in gentler style, and with expressions of humility that might have been misunderstood here. But the position Paul takes up is the same in either case: "I am an Apostle. I have seen Jesus our Lord. You-Corinthians, Galatians-are my work in the Lord." That Peter and the rest were in the old days so near to the Master, "makes no difference" to Paul. They are what they are-their high standing is universally acknowledged, and Paul has no need or wish to question it; but, by the grace of God, he also is what he is. {1Co_15:10} Their Apostleship does not exclude or derogate from his.

The self-depreciation, the keen sense of inferiority in outward respects, so evident in Pauls allusions to this subject elsewhere, is after all not wanting here. For when he says, "God regards not mans person, " it is evident that in respect of visible qualifications Paul felt that he had few pretensions to make. Appearances were against him. And those who glory in appearance were against him too. {2Co_5:12} Such men could not appreciate the might of the Spirit that wrought in Paul, nor the sovereignty of Divine election. They "reckoned" of the Apostle "as though he walked according to flesh". {2Co_10:2} It seemed to them obvious, as a matter of course, that he was far below the Twelve. With men of worldly wisdom the Apostle did not expect that his arguments would prevail. His appeal was to "the spiritual, who judge all things."

So we come back to the declaration of the Apostle in Gal_1:11 : "I give you to know, brethren, that my gospel is not according to man." Man had no hand either in laying its foundation or putting on the headstone. Pauls predecessors in Apostolic office did not impart the gospel to him at the outset; nor at a later time had they attempted to make any addition to the doctrine he had taught far and wide amongst the heathen. His Apostleship was from first to last a supernatural gift of grace.

2. Instead, therefore, of assuming to be his superiors, or offering to bestow something of their own on-Paul, the three renowned pillars of the faith at Jerusalem acknowledged him as a brother Apostle.

"They saw that I am intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision." The form of the verb implies a trust given in the past and taking effect in the present, a settled fact. Once for all, this charge had devolved on Paul. He is "appointed herald and apostle" of "Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, -teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth". {1Ti_2:6-7} That office Paul still holds. He is the leader of Christian evangelism. Every new movement in heathen missionary enterprise looks to his teaching for guidance and inspiration.

The conference at Jerusalem in itself furnished conclusive evidence of Pauls Apostolic commission. The circumcision controversy was a test not only for Gentile Christianity, but at the same time for its Apostle and champion. Paul brought to this discussion a knowledge and insight, a force of character, a conscious authority and unction of the Holy Spirit, that powerfully impressed the three great men who listened to him. The triumvirate at Jerusalem well knew that Paul had not received his marvellous gifts through their hands. Nor was there anything lacking to him which they felt themselves called upon to supply. They could only say, "This is the Lords doing.; and it is marvellous in our eyes." Knowing, as Peter at least, we presume had done for many years. {Gal_1:18} the history of Pauls conversion, and seeing, as they now did the conspicuous Apostolic signs attending his ministry, James and Cephas and John could only come to one conclusion. The gospel of the uncircumcision, they were convinced, was committed to Paul, and his place in the Church was side by side with Peter. Peter must have felt as once before on a like occasion: "If God gave unto him a gift equal to that He gave to me, who am I, that I should be able to hinder God?" {Act_11:17} It was not for them because of their elder rank and dignity to debate with God in this matter, and to withhold their recognition from His "chosen vessel."

John had not forgotten his Masters reproof for banning, the man that "followeth not with us". {Luk_9:49; Mar_9:38} They "recognised," Paul says, "the grace that had been given me"; and by that he means, to be sure, the undeserved favour that raised him to his Apostolic office. {See Rom_1:5; 1Co_15:10; Eph_3:2; Eph_3:7-8; 1Ti_1:13} This recognition was given to Paul. Barnabas shared the "fellowship." His hand was clasped by the three chiefs at Jerusalem, not less warmly than that of his younger comrade. But it is in the singular number that Paul speaks of "the grace that was given me, " and of the "trust in the gospel" and the "working of God unto Apostleship."

Why then does not Paul say outright, "they acknowledged me an Apostle, the equal of Peter?" Some are bold enough to say - Holsten in particular - "Because this is just what the Jerusalem chiefs never did, and never could have done." We will only reply, that if this were the case, the passage is a continued suggestio falsi. No one could write the words of Gal_2:7-9, without intending his readers to believe that such a recognition took place. Paul avoids the point-blank assertion, with a delicacy that any man of tolerable modesty will understand. Even the appearance of "glorying" was hateful to him. {2Co_10:17; 2Co_11:1; 2Co_12:1-5; 2Co_12:11}

The Church at Jerusalem, as we gather from Gal_2:7-8, observed in Paul "signs of the Apostle" resembling those borne by Peter. His Gentile commission ran parallel with Peters Jewish commission. The labours of the two men were followed by the same kind of success, and marked by similar displays of miraculous power. The like seal of God was stamped on both. This correspondence runs through the Acts of the Apostles. Compare, for example, Pauls sermon at Antioch in Pisidia with that of Peter on the Day of Pentecost; the healing of the Lystran cripple and the punishment of Elymas, with the case of the lame man at the Temple gate and the encounter of Peter and Simon Magus. The conjunction of the names of Peter and Paul was familiar to the Apostolic Church. The parallelism between the course of these great Apostles was no invention of second-century orthodoxy, set up in the interests of a "reconciling hypothesis"; it attracted public attention as early as 51 A.D., while they were still in their mid career. If this idea so strongly posessed the minds of the Jewish Christian leaders and influenced their action at the Council of Jerusalem, we need not be surprised that it should dominate Lukes narrative to the extent that it does. The allusions to Peter in 1Co_1:12; 1Co_3:22; 1Co_9:5 afford further proof that in the lifetime of the two Apostles it was a common thing to link their names together.

But had not Peter also a share in the Gentile mission? Does not the division of labour made at this conference appear to shut out the senior Apostle from a field, to which he had the prior claim? "Ye know, said Peter at the Council, "how that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." {Act_15:7} To Peter was assigned the double honour of "opening the door of faith" both to Jew and Gentile. This experience made him the readier to understand Pauls position and gave him the greater weight in the settlement of the question at issue. And not Peter alone, but Philip the Evangelist and other Jewish Christians had carried the gospel across the line of Judaic prejudice, before Paul appeared on the scene. Barnabas and Silas were both emissaries of Jerusalem. So that the mother Church, if she could not claim Paul as her son, had nevertheless a large stake in the heathen mission. But when Paul came to the front, when his miraculous call, his incomparable gifts and wonderful success had made themselves known, it was evident to every discerning mind that he was the man chosen by God to direct this great work. Peter had opened the door of faith to the heathen, and had bravely kept it open; but it was for Paul to lead the Gentile nations through the open door, and to make a home for them within the fold of Christ. The men who had laboured in this field hitherto were Pauls forerunners. And Peter does not hesitate to acknowledge the younger Apostles special fitness for this wider province of their common work; and with the concurrence of James and John he yields the charge of it to him.

Let us observe that it is two different provinces, not different gospels, that are in view. When the Apostle speaks of "the gospel of the uncircumcision" as committed to himself, and that "of the circumcision" to Peter, he never dreams of any one supposing, as some of his modern critics persist in doing, that he meant two different doctrines. How can that be possible, when he has declared those anathema who preach any other gospel? He has laid his gospel before the heads of the Jerusalem Church. Nothing has occurred there, nothing is hinted here, to suggest the existence of a "radical divergence." If James and the body of the Judean Church really sympathised with the Circumcisionists, with those whom the Apostle calls "false brethren," how could he with any sincerity have come to an agreement with them, knowing that this tremendous gulf was lying all the while between the Pillars and himself? Zeller argues that the transaction was simply a pledge of "reciprocal toleration, a merely external concordat between Paul and the original Apostles." The clasp of brotherly friendship was a sorry farce, if that were all it meant-if Paul and the Three just consented for the time to slur over irreconcilable differences; while Paul in turn has glossed over the affair for us in these artful verses! Baur, with characteristic finesse, says on the same point: "The κοινωνια was always a division; it could only be brought into effect by one party going εις τα εθνη, the other εις την.. As the Jewish Apostles could allege nothing against the principles on which Paul founded his evangelical mission, they were obliged to recognise them in a certain manner; but their recognition was a mere outward one. They left him to work on these principles still further in the cause of the gospel among the Gentiles; but for themselves they did not desire to know anything more about them." So that, according to the Tubingen critics, we witness in Gal_2:9 not a union, but a divorce! The Jewish Apostles recognise Paul as a brother, only in order to get rid of him. Can misinterpretation be more unjust than this? Paul does not say, "They gave us the right hand of fellowship on condition that, " but, "in order that we should go this way, they that." As much as to say: The two parties came together and entered into a closer union, so that with the best mutual understanding each might go its own way and pursue its proper work in harmony with the other. For Paul it would have been a sacrilege to speak of the diplomatic compromise which Baur and Zeller describe as "giving the right hand of fellowship."

Never did the Church more deeply realise than at her first Council the truth, that "there is one body and one Spirit; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all". {Eph_4:4-6} Paul still seems to feel his hand in the warm grasp of Peter and of John when he writes to the Ephesians of "the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself for chief corner-stone; in whom the whole building fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord". {Gal_2:20-21} Alas for the criticism that is obliged to see in words like these the invention of second-century churchmanship, putting into the mouth of Paul catholic sentiments of which in reality he knew nothing! Such writers know nothing of the power of that fellowship of the Spirit which reigned in the glorious company of the Apostles.

"Only they would have us remember the poor"-a circumstance mentioned partly by way of reminder to the Galatians touching the collection for Jerusalem, which Paul had already set on foot amongst them. {1Co_16:1} The request was prompted by the affectionate confidence with which the Jewish chiefs embraced Paul and Barnabas. It awakened an eager response in the Apostles breast. His love to his Jewish kindred made him welcome the suggestion. Moreover every deed of charity rendered by the wealthier Gentile Churches to "the poor saints in Jerusalem," was another tie helping to bind the two communities to each other. Of such liberality Antioch, under the direction of the Gentile missionaries, had already set the example. {Act_11:29-30}

James, Peter, John, and Paul- it was a memorable day when these four men met face to face. What a mighty quaternion! Amongst them they have virtually made the New Testament and the Christian Church. They represent the four sides of the one foundation of the City of God. Of the Evangelists, Matthew holds affinity with James; Mark with Peter; and Luke with Paul. James clings to the past and embodies the transition from Mosaism to Christianity. Peter is the man of the present, quick in thought and action, eager, buoyant, susceptible. Paul holds the future in his grasp, and schools the unborn nations. John gathers present, past, and future into one, lifting us into the region of eternal life and love.

With Peter and James Paul had met before, and was to meet again. But so far as we can learn, this was the only occasion on which his path crossed that of John. Nor is this Apostle mentioned again in Pauls letters. In the Acts he appears but once or twice, standing silent in Peters shadow. A holy reserve surrounds Johns person in the earlier Apostolic history. His hour was not yet come. But his name ranked in public estimation amongst the three foremost of the Jewish Church; and he exercised, doubtless, a powerful, though quiet, conciliatory influence in the settlement of the Gentile question. The personality of Paul excited, we may be sure, the profoundest interest in such a mind as that of John. He absorbed, and yet in a sense transcended, the Pauline theology. The Apocalypse, although the most Judaic book of the New Testament, is penetrated with the influence of Paulinism. The detection in it of a covert attack on the Gentile Apostle is simply one of the mares nests of a super-subtle and suspicious criticism. John was to be the heir of Pauls labours at Ephesus and in Asia Minor. And Johns long life, touching the verge of the second century, his catholic position, his serene and lofty spirit, blending in itself and resolving into a higher unity the tendencies of James and Peter and Paul, give us the best assurance that in the Apostolic age there was indeed "One, holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church."

Pauls fellowship with Peter and with James was cordial and endeared. But to hold the hand of John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved," was a yet higher satisfaction. That clasp symbolised a union between men most opposite in temperament and training, and brought to the knowledge of Christ in very different Ways, but whose communion in Him was deep as the life eternal. Paul and John are the two master minds of the New Testament. Of all men that ever lived, these two best understood Jesus Christ.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

2:6-10 Paul’s message was in harmony with the Jerusalem apostles, but their affirmation was not the source of Paul’s authority (1:12, 16-20).

2:6 The Jerusalem apostles’ reputation as great leaders was probably derived from their personal acquaintance with Jesus’ earthly ministry, which did not give them greater apostolic authority than Paul had. What mattered most was Christ’s personal commission (see 1 Cor 9:1; cp. 2 Cor 12:11-12). • God has no favorites: The Judaizers probably regarded the Jerusalem apostles’ earthly relationship with Jesus as an advantage. Paul argues that such favoritism is inconsistent with God’s character (cp. Lev 19:15-16; Deut 1:17; 2 Chr 19:7; Job 13:10; Ps 82:1-2; Prov 18:5; Mal 2:8-9).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Gal 2:6. Ἀπὸ) Supply οἱ, οἱ ἀπὸ, κ.τ.λ., and construe, οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει, ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν ἀπὸ, κ.τ.λ. It is of no importance to me, what sort of persons in particular [‘whatsoever’] those were, who were of the number of those more distinguished. The preposition is put in the same way, while the article is omitted, Mar 5:35; Luk 11:49. Not only the three, James, Peter, and John, were δοκοῦντες, highly distinguished. He therefore says ἀπὸ τῶν. Οἱ δοκόυντες, viz. οἱ ὑπὲρ λίαν ἀπόστολοι; 2Co 11:5.—εἰναί τι) to be (accounted) something, among those, who did not so esteem Paul.—ὁποῖοί ποτε) ποτὲ is here enclitic, not an adverb of time.—Θεὸς, God) Paul followed the judgment of God. He asserts the Divine authority; he does not disparage that of the apostles.—γὰρ, for) The reason assigned [aetiologia] not of the thing but of the word. Paul had just made a preface, and points out the reason why he did so, and proposes the subject itself. In like manner, for occurs, ch. Gal 6:7. The preface is, that he does not depend on the consent of others; afterwards, however, he shows that consent.—οὐδὲν προσανέθευτο) they added [imparted]

[7] nothing to me, i.e. they found no fault in my doctrine. It often happens that a man, who wishes to find fault or admonish, does it modestly, under the appearance of communicating information. “Those, who took the lead,” antecessores, as Tertullian calls τοῦς δοκοῦντας, used no such method in regard to Paul. I set forth, ἀνεθέμην, to them, Gal 2:2; they had nothing to add.[8]

[7] Wahl. Clav. renders the verse here in the middle, “Animus est, novum aliquid imponere;” i.e. they were not disposed to impose any new burden or obligation on me.—ED.

[8] προσανέθεντο, the πρὸς implying addition.—ED.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal_2:6. Paul having described in Gal_2:3-5 the momentous result of his relations towards the Christians in Jerusalem (αὐτοῖς, Gal_2:2), now passes on (corresponding to the κατʼ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσι, Gal_2:2) to his relations towards the apostles, explaining that the same result had then followed his discussions with them.

The construction is anacoluthic. For when the apostle wrote ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι, he had it in view subsequently to finish his sentence with οὐδὲν ἔλαβον, οὐδὲν ἐδιδάχθην, or something of that kind; but by the intervening remarks ὁποῖοί ποτε … λαμβάνει he was completely diverted from the plan which he had begun, so that now the thought which floated before his mind in ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι is no longer brought into connection with these words, but is annexed in the form of a ground (γάρ) to πρόσωπον Θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει; and this altered chain of thought occasions ἐμοί to be now placed emphatically at the beginning. Properly speaking, therefore, we have here a parenthesis beginning with ὁποῖοι, which, without any formal conclusion, carries us back again by ἐμοὶ γὰρ κ.τ.λ. to the main thought, leaving the words ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι entirely unconnected, and merely pointing back by means of οἱ δοκοῦντες, as by a guide-post, to that abandoned commencement of the sentence. For it is only in substance, and not in form, that the parenthesis is concluded with λαμβάνει. Comp. Rom_5:12 ff.; Eph_2:1 ff. An anacoluthon is also assumed by Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Estius, Morus, Koppe, Rosenmüller, Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, and others; so thataccording to the usual view (Wieseler takes the correct one)with ἐμοὶ γὰρ κ.τ.λ. Paul again takes up the thread of the discourse which had broken off with ἀπὸ δὲ δοκούντων εἶναί τι, and merely continues it actively instead of passively (Winer, p. 529 [E. T. 711]). But this is opposed both by ἐμοί, which logically would not be in its proper place at the head of the resumed sentence, and also by γάρ, which does not correspond to the mere inquam (οὖν, δέ) after parentheses, but in the passages concerned (also Rom_15:27; 1Co_9:19) is to be taken as explaining or assigning a reason. Hermann makes out an aposiopesis, so that quid metuerem? has to be supplied after ἀπὸ … εἶναί τι.[72] But this is not suggested by the context, nor is it permitted by the tranquil flow of the discourse, in which no such emotion as warrants an aposiopesis is discoverable. Fritzsche supplies the very same thing which in Gal_2:4 was to be supplied after ψευδαδέλφους, making Paul say, a viris autem (nempe), qui auctoritate valerent [circumcisionis necessitatem sibi imponi non sivit]. But however easy and natural this supplement was in Gal_2:4 after ψευδαδέλφους, because it was suggested as a matter of course by the words immediately preceding, in the present case it appears both harsh and involved, as the whole body of ideas in Gal_2:4-5 intervenes and hinders the reader from going back to that supplement. And how abrupt would be the position of the following ὁποῖοι κ.τ.λ.! Lastly, the (erroneous) idea, that the apostles had demanded the circumcision of Titus, is thus violently imported into the text. Holstens involved construction (z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 273 f.)according to which ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκ. κ.τ.λ. is to be carried on to Gal_2:9 in conformity with the notion of δεξιὰς λαμβάνειν ἀπόis shown by ἐμοὶ γὰρ κ.τ.λ., where the δοκοῦντες already reappear, to be an impossible solution of the anacoluthon, which even thus is not avoided. The passage is explained without supposing either supplement or anacoluthon:1. Most simply, and without violence to the language, by Burk, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 734 ff., making εἶναί τι belong to οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει: That on the part of those in authority (by their recognition) I am something (namely, as respects my outward position), I reckon of no value. But, in reality, Paul attached to his recognition by the original apostles the true and great value which it necessarily had for him in confronting his opponents; and hence he very carefully relates it in Gal_2:7. This interpretation therefore runs counter to the context. Comp. also, against it, Märcker in Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 532 ff. 2. Just as little allowable is it (with Märcker) to connect ἀπο δὲ τ. δοκ. ἐ. τ. with the words preceding, but certainly (this enduring confirmation of Christian freedom was only possible) through the authority of the δοκοῦντες εἶναί τι. But to the signification of ἀπό, from the side of, a sense would thus be arbitrarily ascribed, which is not justified by passages such as Mat_16:21, and must have been expressed by some such explanatory addition as in Act_2:22. It was impossible also for Paulabove all in this epistleto conceive the maintenance of the truth of his Gentile gospel as conditional on the authority of the original apostles. Lastly, instead of the sentence which next follows asyndetically (ὁποῖοι κ.τ.λ.), we should expect an emphasized antithesis (such as ἀλλʼ ὁποῖοι κ.τ.λ.). 3. The Greek Fathers, Castalio, Calovius, Zachariae, Bolten, Borger, and others, interpret the passage, But as regards those of repute, it is one and the same thing to me, etc., by which, however, ἀπό is quite in violation of language interchanged with περί. So also Rückert,[73] who at the same time wishes to preserve for ἀπό its due signification (on the part of any one, it makes no difference to me; that is, what concerns him, is quite indifferent to me), without authority, however, from any actual linguistic usage. 4. Following Homberg, Ewald understands it as if it stood τῶν δὲ δοκούντων … οὐδὲν διαφέρω, But compared with those who etc., however high they once stood, I am in nothing inferior. 5. Hofmann (comp. above, against Holsten) brings ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι (ἀπό, from the side of) into regimen with Gal_2:9, and in such a manner that the three δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι in Gal_2:9 are supposed to form the subject of the period beginning with ἀπὸ κ.τ.λ. in Gal_2:6; but this mode of construction is decisively condemned by its very inherent monstrosity, with its parentheses inserted one within another; and besides this, the repetition of οἱ δοκοῦντες in Gal_2:6 would be entirely without aim and simply perplexing, if the continuation of the construction as regards ἀπὸ δ. τ. δ. ε. τ. were still to follow, as is supposed by Hofmann. Nevertheless, Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 29 f., has agreed with the latter, but has at the same time arbitrarily removed from the disjointed construction ὁποῖοι … τοὐναντίον as a marginal note of the apostle,another makeshift, whereby ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον, so violently dealt with by Hofmann, finds the connection with ἰδόντες, which it evidently has (see below), dissevered.

On δοκεῖν εἶναί τι, which may mean either to reckon oneself to be something great, or to be esteemed great by others (so here), see Wetstein. Comp. Plat. Euthyd. p. 303 C, τῶν πολλῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν σεμνῶν δὴ καὶ δοκούντων τι εἶναι οὐδὲν ὑμῖν μέλει. The same persons are meant who are referred to in Gal_2:2 by τοῖς δοκοῦσι. But the addition of τι εἶναι, and the ὁποῖοι κ.τ.λ. which follows, betray here a certain irritation in reference to the opponents, who would not concede to Paul an estimation equal to that given to the original apostles, as if εἶναί τι belonged pre-eminently to the latter.

ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν] Now come the parenthetical remarks, on account of which Paul leaves his ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκ. εἶναί τι standing alone, but which he introduces, lest the high estimation of those apostleswhich in itself, according to the real (and by him undisputed) circumstances of the case, he by no means calls in questionshould lead to the inference that he had needed instruction from them. Comp. the subsequent ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκ. οὐδὲν προσανέθ., and the thought already floating before the apostles mind in the anacoluthic ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι (see above). Wieseler affirms too generally, that Paul desired to check the overvaluing of the older apostles. The real state of the case is this: Paul, with all decision, by way of countervailing that δοκεῖν εἶναί τι of those men of high standing which he does not dispute, throws into the scale his own independence of them. And the weight of this countervailing lies precisely in ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν, so far as the latter belongs to οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει, and is not, as Hofmann will have it, an appendage to τῶν δοκοῦντων εἶναί τι.

The ποτέ, with a direct or indirect interrogative, is the strengthening cunque or tandem which occurs constantly in Greek authors (Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1), although not elsewhere in the N.T. (comp. 2Ma_14:32); see also Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 615 f. Whosoever they were, in whatsoever high repute they stood[74] while I was then with them, it is all the same to me. Rückert makes ὁποῖοι mean, whether high or low, apostles or what else; holding that Paul speaks intentionally in an indefinite way of these men in high repute, as if he did not exactly know that they were apostles (?), in order to give the less offence in what he said. How strange this would be! for every reader knew whom he meant. And how unsuitable to his purpose! for what Paul desires to tell, is the recognition he received from the apostles. Many refer ὁποῖοι ποτε ἦσαν back to the lifetime of Jesus, when those apostles had been His trusted disciples: some taking ποτέ as olim (Vulgate, Jerome, Pelagius, Luther, Beza, and others, including Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Ewald); and others, with us, as cunque (quiqui illi fuerunt, etiam si ab ipso Jesu instituti, perinde est, Hermann; comp. Winer). But in the case of James (see on Gal_2:9) this reference would not be even historically applicable, or it would need at least to be applied to a different kind of relation (that of kinship); see Hilgenfeld. And besides, there is nothing at all to indicate any such retrospective reference to that remote past; the context points merely to the time of Pauls sojourn in Jerusalem. Hence also it must not, with others still, be referred towhat was quite foreign to the apostles aimthe pre-Christian condition of the apostles, in which they had been sinners (Estius; comp. Augustine), or ἰδιῶται and fishermen (Ambrose, Thomas, Cajetanus, Cornelius a Lapide, and others), ποτέ being likewise understood as olim.[75]

οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει] matters to me nothing. See Schaefer, ad Dion. Hal. p. 294; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 394.

πρόσωπον Θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει] פְּנֵי אִישׁ אֱלֹהִים לֹא נֹשֵׂא, an asyndetic, and thereby more forcible and weighty, statement of the reason for ΟὐΔΈΝ ΜΟΙ ΔΙΑΦΈΡΕΙ. Dei judicium sequebatur Paulus, Bengel. נָשָׂא פָּנִים, πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν, properly, to accept the countenance of any one (not to dismiss), is used in the O.T. both in a good sense (to be inclined, or gracious, to any one, Gen_19:21; Gen_32:21, et al.) and in a bad sense, implying a favour and respect which is partial, determined by personal considerations (Lev_19:15; Deu_10:17, et al.; Sir_4:27; 3 Esr. 4:39). In the N.T. it is used solely in this bad sense (Mat_22:16; Mar_12:14; Luk_20:21; Jud_1:16. Comp. Act_10:34; Jam_2:9; Rom_2:11; Eph_6:9; Col_3:25; Jam_2:1). The transposed arrangement of the words lays the chief emphasis upon ΠΡΌΣΩΠΟΝ, and then by ΘΕῸς ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΥ makes us sensible of the contrast between the manner and dignity of the divine procedure and such partiality for human authority. Comp. Hom. Od. xix. 363 f., Ἦ ΣΕ ΠΕΡῚ ΖΕῪς ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ ἬΧΘΗΡΕ ΘΕΟΥΔΈΑ ΘΥΜῸΝ ἜΧΟΝΤΑ.

ἘΜΟῚ ΓᾺΡ ΟἹ ΔΟΚΟῦΝΤΕς ΟὐΔῈΝ ΠΡΟΣΑΝΈΘΕΝΤΟ] Proof, not of his independence of the apostles generally, but specially for what he had just said, πρόσωπον Θεὸς ἀνθρ. οὐ λαμβάνει, from personal experience. Hence ἘΜΟΊ is emphatically placed first: for to me for my partalthough others may have received instruction from them, to methey have communicated nothing. Pauls idea therefore is, that if God had been partial, He would not have placed him on such parity with the δοκοῦσι, that to him, etc. Rückert, wrongly anticipating, says that the prefixed ἘΜΟΊ finds its antithesis in Gal_2:11 : to me they have communicated nothing, etc.; but indeed, when Peter came to Antioch, I was compelled to admonish him. But in this case, at least Gal_2:11 must have begun with ἐγὼ δὲ or ἀλλʼ ἐγώ. According to Wieseler, Paul in ἐμοί is thinking of to me, the former persecutor, an idea gratuitously introduced. In Hofmanns view the antithesis is intended to be, that not to him from the others was anything submitted, but the converse. Comp. ΤΙΝΈς in Chrysostom, and the paraphrase of Erasmus. But if this were so, Paul must have written Οὐ ΓᾺΡ ἘΜΟῚ Κ.Τ.Λ., just as afterwards ἈΛΛᾺ ΤΟὐΝΑΝΤΊΟΝ ΑὐΤΟῚ Κ.Τ.Λ., in order to have given at least a bare indication of this alleged antithesis.

ΟὐΔῈΝ ΠΡΟΣΑΝΈΘΕΝΤΟ] quite as in Gal_1:16 (comp. also Hofmann): they addressed no communications (nihil contulerunt, Vulgate) to me, namely, in order to instruct and advise me,a sense which is here also demanded by the context; see the sequel, and comp. Gal_1:12. It is usually understood: ΟὐΔῈΝ ΠΡΟΣΈΘΗΚΑΝ, ΟὐΔῈΝ ΔΙΏΡΘΩΣΑΝ (Chrysostom), nihil illi praesumserunt iis adjicere, quae prius a Christo accepta docueram inter gentes, Beza; as also Valla, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Koppe, Morus, Borger, Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott,[76] and others. Comp. Wieseler, Märcker, and Hilgenfeld: They submitted nothing in addition to that which had been submitted by me; they approved the gospel, which I am preaching among the Gentiles. But πρός expresses merely the direction, and not insuper (see on Gal_1:16). Should ἀνατίθημι, however, be understood as to impose, πρός would certainly express the idea novum, opus imponere (Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 8); as Rückert (so also Bretschneider and Lechler, p. 412) explains it, they imposed on me no further obligations, the observance of the law being the point principally alluded to. Comp. also Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 235. But in opposition to this view, apart from the fact that it involves a quite needless departure from the signification of the same word in Gal_1:16, the circumstance is decisive, that προσανατίθημι in the middle would necessarily mean suscipere novum opus, as Xen. Mem. l.c., and not imponere novum opus, even though the comparison of the apostles obligation to a burden (comp. 1Co_9:16 f.) should appear sufficiently justified by the legal nature of the matters imposed.

οὐδέν] either the accusative of the object, or more strongly (comp. Gal_1:16), in no point, in no respect whateGalatians Galatians 2 :The idea that a revelation is intended as the contents of προσαν. (Holsten), must be sought for in the context: it is not conveyed by the words per se.

[72] Comp. Dav. Schulz, who believes that quidnam tandem, adversus me actum est? is suppressed.

[73] Comp. Olshausen, who, however, assumes that in using ἀπό Paul had at first some other phrase in his mind, but that he afterwards inexactly followed it up with οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει. In all essential points Matthias agrees with Rückert, as does also Reithmayr, who improperly compares Xen. Cyr. iv. 1. 4.

[74] Not: how friendly and brotherly they were towards me (Matthias), to which meaning οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει is far from suited.

[75] It was entirely in opposition to the context, that Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Jerome referred it to the earlier teaching of the apostles; taking Paul to say, that whether at an earlier date they had been Judaizers or not was to him a matter of indifference.

[76] Baur arbitrarily (I. p. 141, ed. 2) brings in the thought, They have brought forward nothing against me, wherein I should have had to acknowledge them in the right. Οὐδέν is made to mean, nothing conclusive and convincingnothing whereby they would have confuted him and brought him over to their side (comp. Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 463). There is not the most remote allusion in the passage to any conflict between Paul and the original apostles; on the contrary, it implies the complete understanding on both sides, which was the result of the discussion. The conflict affected the members of the church who were stirred up by the ψευδάδελφοι and the false brethren themselves (vv. 35).

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal 2:6 . The author here resumes the broken thread of the narrative, which he interrupted after Gal 2:2 in order to show that his conciliatory attitude at Jerusalem was not due to weakness or irresolution. He now proceeds to relate the sequel of the advances which he made at Jerusalem to the Pharisaic party. The repetition of the phrase οἱ δοκοῦντες , and the fresh transition from the plural εἴξαμεν to the singular ἐμοί , indicate the fresh shifting of the scene from Antioch back to Jerusalem. The first clause is left unfinished, for the mention of these men who seemed to be anything leads the author to interrupt his narrative again that he may challenge their right to be heard; he breaks, accordingly, into the disparaging comment, what manner of men they had once been, maketh no matter a forcible expression of his disappointment at finding so little Christian sympathy or life where he had hoped to find so much. After this parenthesis he remoulds the form of his sentence; and οἱ δοκοῦντες , the subject of ἦσαν , becomes the subject of the verb προσανέθεντο . Instead, therefore, of concluding the sentence in its original form, and stating that from those who so seemed he got no response, he writes, to me, I say, those who so seemed communicated nothing further . τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι . These are identified with τοῖς δοκοῦσιν in Gal 2:2 . They are there described as men whom it was thought advisable to approach in private, here as men who were thought to be anything, i.e. , to have any weight in the Church. The English version somewhat suggests that they held high office and were in positions of dignity, perhaps Apostles; but the Greek order in that case must have been τί εἶναι , nor can that emphasis be justified in rendering the enclitic τι after εἶναι . They were probably party-leaders, but the Apostle writes of them with scant respect as men who were now little better than a name. ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν …: What manner of men they had once been maketh no matter to me . The margin of the Revised Version rightly renders ὁποῖοι as an indirect interrogative dependent on διαφέρει , and gives to ποτε its true sense of formerly, in time past (as in Gal 1:13 ; Gal 1:23 ). Coupled as it is here with ποτε , ἦσαν has the force of a pluperfect, and contrasts the character of these men as reported from past time with what Paul actually found them to be: he could get no brotherly help or counsel from them. Therefore he pronounces the adverse judgment upon them ( πρόσωπον … λαμβάνει ); for, like his Master (Luk 20:21 ), he regarded no man’s person, if weighed in the balance and found wanting. ἐμοὶ … προσανέθεντο . This clause forms an antithesis to ἀνεθέμην τοῖς δοκοῦσιν in Gal 2:2 . Paul had laid before them an account of his successful ministry among the Greeks, but they had no further response to make in the shape of Christian sympathy, or of fresh argument in justification of their prejudices against him and his teaching.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6–10. Main subject resumed; his relations with the Leaders, (Gal 2:6) But (reverting to Gal 2:2) from those reputed to be something (I learned no new truths)—whatever their former personal relation to Christ was is of no matter to me (God Himself is impartial)—I write thus depreciatingly, for the leaders gave no such communication to me as taught me anything fresh; (Gal 2:7) but on the contrary when they saw that the commission has been given me to preach the Gospel to the uncircumcised Gentiles in the way that suits them, even as to Peter that to the circumcised Jews in the way that suits them, (Gal 2:8) (for He who wrought powerfully for Peter unto fulfilling his apostleship among the circumcision, wrought powerfully for me also among the Gentiles); (Gal 2:9) and when they were convinced of the special grace of such preaching that had been given me—they, I mean James, Cephas, and John, who are rightly reckoned as pillars in the Church—gave to me and Barnabas public proof of their sympathy, arranging that we should go unto the Gentiles and they unto the circumcision, (Gal 2:10) with the only condition that we should remember the poor saints at Jerusalem, which very thing, both at the time and throughout all the years of my missionary life, I was even zealous to do.

6. [ὁ] θεὸς. The article is read by אRevelation 17 but omitted by Text. Rec. with BCD.

6. ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι. The Apostle now reverts to Gal 2:2, after his parenthesis about Titus (Gal 2:3-5). I conferred privately with those of repute, but (he was going to say) I received nothing fresh from them. The warmth of his feelings, however, leads him to add point to point, so that he never completes this new sentence.

τ. δοκ. εἶναί τι. See on Gal 2:2. The present tense of the R.V. marg. is preferable to the past of A.V. and R.V. text.

ὁποῖοί ποτε (Gal 1:13; Gal 1:23) ἦσαν, “whatever kind of persons they once were.” St Paul breaks off in view of a possible objection that he ought to have submitted to the authority of the Twelve who had held the position of personal followers of Christ while He was on earth (see Gal 1:16 note). ποτέ most naturally is temporal (as in Gal 1:13; Gal 1:23) and only by accident follows ὁποῖοι. Its classical use of making a relative more general and inclusive (cf. 2Ma 14:32 μὴ γινώσκειν ποῦ ποτʼ ἐστὶν ὁ ζητούμενος) is not found in the N.T.

οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει, “it makes no matter to me.” The phrase occurs only here in the Greek Bible.

πρόσωπον … λαμβάνει. Another parenthesis explaining why he pays no special regard to the Twelve as such. I am impartial because God is.

[ὁ] θεὸς. See notes on Textual Criticism. For the reference to God cf. Gal 6:7.

πρόσωπον … ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει. The exact phrase only here. Cf. Mat 22:16 and the parallel passages, Mar 12:14; Luk 20:21; and Jud 1:16. On the meaning of προσωπολημψία see Col 3:25 note. It is a translation of the Hebrew “to lift up the face” of a prostrate suppliant, with, probably, the further connotation, from the Greek, of accepting the mask for the person, the outside service for the reality.

ἐμοὶ γὰρ. This clause is in the form of another reason why he did not submit to the Twelve—“for, in fact, they did not give me any fresh information”—but at the same time it serves as the completion of the sentence begun by ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων. See note there.

οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο, Gal 1:16; cf. Gal 2:2. The emphasis is on ἐμοί. Before me they laid nothing by way of communication, i.e. I learned nothing from them. I told them much, likely to deepen their knowledge of God’s will. They told me nothing of the kind. The πρός in itself does not here suggest anything additional, see on Gal 1:16. The connotation of consulting a person is absent here.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Greek, "From those who," &c. He meant to complete the sentence with "I derived no special advantage"; but he alters it into "they . . . added nothing to me."

accepteth--so as to show any partiality; "respecteth no man's person" (Eph 6:9).

seemed to be somewhat--that is, not that they seemed to be what they were not, but "were reputed as persons of some consequence"; not insinuating a doubt but that they were justly so reputed.

in conference added--or "imparted"; the same Greek as in Gal 1:16, "I conferred not with flesh and blood." As I did not by conference impart to them aught at my conversion, so they now did not impart aught additional to me, above what I already knew. This proves to the Galatians his independence as an apostle.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 6. Those who seemed to be somewhat] των δοκουντων ειναι τι. Those who were of acknowledged reputation; so the words should be understood, see Ga 2:2. The verb δοκειν, to seem, is repeatedly used by the best Greek writers, not to call the sense in question, or to lessen it, but to deepen and extend it. See Clarke on Lu 8:18. Perhaps this verse had best be translated thus, connecting διαφερει with απο των δοκουντων: But there is no difference between those who were of acknowledged reputation and myself; God accepts no man's person; but, in the conferences which I held with then, they added nothing to me-gave me no new light; did not attempt to impose on me any obligation, because they saw that God had appointed me my work, and that his counsel was with me.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6. Of those who seemed to be somewhat. Paul is not yet satisfied, without making the Galatians understand that he had learned nothing from Peter and the apostles. Hence Porphyry and Julian accuse the holy man of pride, because he claims so much for himself that he cannot endure to learn anything from others; because he boasts of having become a teacher without any instruction or assistance; and because he labors so hard not to appear in an inferior character. But any one who will consider how necessary that boasting was, will acknowledge that it was holy boasting, and worthy of the highest praise; for, if he had yielded this point to his opponents, that he had profited under the apostles, he would have furnished them with two charges against him. They would immediately have said, “And so you made some progress; you corrected your past errors, and did not repeat your former rashness.” Thus, in the first place, the whole doctrine which he had hitherto taught would have fallen under suspicion; and, secondly, he would ever afterwards have possessed less authority, because he would have been reckoned but an ordinary disciple. We find, therefore, that it was not on his own account, but by the necessity under which he lay to establish the doctrine, that he was led to this holy boasting. The controversy has no reference to individuals, and therefore cannot be a struggle of ambition; but Paul’s determination was that no man, however eminent, should throw into the shade his apostleship, on which the authority of his doctrine depended. If this be not enough to silence those dogs, their barking is sufficiently answered.

Whatsoever they were. These words must be read as a separate clause; for the parenthesis was intended to assure his opponents that he did not concern himself with the opinions of men. This passage has been variously interpreted. Ambrose thinks that it is a passing reference to the folly of attempting to lower Paul by holding up the apostles; and represents him as saying; “As if I were not equally at liberty to object that they were poor, illiterate men, while I, from my early years, enjoyed a liberal education under the care of Gamaliel. But I pass over all this, because I know that there is no respect of persons with God.” Chrysostom and Jerome take a harsher view of the words, as an indirect threatening of the most distinguished apostles. “Whatsoever they may be, if they swerve from duty, they shall not escape the judgment of God; neither the dignity of their office, nor the estimation of men, shall protect them.” But another interpretation appears to me more simple, and more agreeable to Paul’s design. He admits that they were first in the order of time, but contends that this did not prevent him from being their equal in rank. He does not say that it is of no consequence to him what they are at present; but he is speaking of a period now past, when they were already apostles, and when he was opposed to the faith of Christ. In short, he does not choose that what is past shall decide the matter; and refuses to admit the proverb, that he who comes first has the best right.

No man’s person. Besides the interpretations which I have mentioned, a third is not unworthy of notice, — that in the government of the world distinctions of rank are admitted, but in the spiritual kingdom of Christ they can have no place. There is plausibility in the statement, but it is in reference to worldly government, that it is said,

“Ye shall not respect persons in judgment,.” (Deuteronomy 1:17.)

But I do not enter into that argument, for it does not affect this passage. Paul simply means, that the honorable rank which the apostles had attained did not prevent him from being called by God, and raised, all at once, from the lowest condition to be their equal. The difference between them, though great, is of no value in the sight of God, who does not accept persons, and whose calling is not influenced by any prejudices. But this view may likewise appear liable to objection; for, granting it to be true, and a truth which must be carefully maintained, that in our intercourse with God there is no respect of persons, how does this apply to Peter and his fellow-apostles, who were venerable, not merely for their rank, but for true holiness and spiritual gifts?

The word person is contrasted with the fear of God and a good conscience; and this is its ordinary acceptation in Scripture. (Acts 10:34,35 1 Peter 1:17.) But piety, zeal, holiness, and other similar graces, were the principal grounds of the esteem and respect in which the apostles were held; while Paul speaks contemptuously of them, as if they had possessed nothing but the outward forms.

I reply: Paul is not discussing the real worth of the apostles, but the idle boasting of his adversaries. In order to support their own unfounded pretensions, they talked in lofty terms of Peter, and James, and John, and took advantage of the veneration with which they were regarded by the Church, for accomplishing their earnest desire of degrading Paul. His object is not to inquire what the apostles are, or what opinion must be formed respecting them when controversy is laid aside, but to tear off the disguises which the false apostles wore. As in a subsequent part of the Epistle he treats of circumcision, not in its real character, but in the false and impious notion attached to it by those impostors, so he now declares that the apostles were in the sight of God disguises, by which those persons attempted to shine in the world; and this is evident from the words. Why did they prefer them to Paul? because they were his predecessors in office. This was a mere disguise. In any other point of view, they would have been highly esteemed, and the gifts of God manifested in them would have been warmly admired by one so singularly modest as the apostle Paul, who elsewhere acknowledges that he was “the least of the apostles,” and unworthy to occupy so exalted a station.

“I am the least of the apostles, and not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.” (1 Corinthians 15:9.)

They communicated nothing to me. It might also be rendered, “they communicated nothing with me;” for it is the same word which he formerly used twice. But the meaning is the same. When the apostles had heard Paul’s gospel, they did not on the other side bring forward their own, (as is commonly done when something better and more perfect is desired,) but were satisfied with his explanation, and simply and unhesitatingly embraced his doctrine, so that not even on the most doubtful point did a single word of debate pass between them. Nor are we to suppose that Paul, presuming on his superiority, took the lead in the discussion, and dictated to his brethren. On the contrary, his faith, about which unfavourable rumors had been spread, was fully explained by him, and sanctioned by their appropation.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(6) The Apostle returns from his digression on the case of Titus to give the result of his experience with the elder Apostles, in continuation of Gal_2:3. “I did indeed hold conference with them privately; but with all their advantages, real or assumed, I learnt nothing from them that I did not already know, and they ended by recognising the independence and validity of my mission.”

But of these who seemed to be somewhat.—Translate rather, But from those who are reputed to be somewhat. The phrase corresponds to “them which are of reputation” in Gal_2:2; and here, as there, it is important to keep the present tense. It is not only “those who were of authority at the Council,” but “those who are the great authorities with you Galatians now.” The Apostle speaks with a certain amount of irony. “From these very great authorities, these persons of such especial reputation [I got nothing].”

Whatsoever they were.—We shall, perhaps, not be wrong in keeping to the Authorised version, though some of the best commentators translate rather, What they (once) were, with a stress on “were,” and referring to the advantage which they possessed over St. Paul in having “known Christ after the flesh” through their early call to the Apostleship.

God accepteth no man’s person.—This phrase is a curious instance of a Greek expression framed after the analogy of the Hebrew, and yet in the process contracting a different signification, through the influence of the idiomatic use of one of the Greek expressions involved. “To accept the face” in the Old Testament is used in a good sense of “showing favour” to any one, but without any imputation of partiality. “To accept the face” (or person) in the New Testament always carries with it the idea of partiality; the word for “face” being idiomatically used for “a mask,” and hence coming to mean “the outward, assumed, accidental characteristics of a man” as opposed to his real and inward character. (Comp. Mat_22:16; Luk_20:21; Act_10:34; Rom_2:11; Eph_6:9; Col_3:25; Jas_2:1; Jas_2:9; Jud_1:16.) The meaning here is that even if the elder Apostles had “seen with their eyes,” and “looked upon and handled the Word of Life” (1Jn_1:1), God would not regard the advantages implied in this more than any other external advantage of birth, position, natural gifts, &c.

For they who seemed to be somewhat.—The same phrase as in Gal_2:2 : they who were of reputation. There is here another break in the regular construction of the sentence. The Apostle begins as if he were going to finish differently: “From those who are reputed to be somewhat . . . I received nothing in the conference which I had with them;” but he suddenly changes his point of view: “From those who are reputed to be somewhat” (sentence left unfinished) “to me, I say, these reputable persons added nothing.”

In conference added nothing.—“Added in conference” is all one word in the Greek, and corresponds to “communicated” in Gal_2:2. The idea of “adding” (i.e., imparting fresh knowledge) seems, however, to be derived rather from the context than from the form of the Greek compound, as our translators apparently supposed.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. But of these] Rather, “But from those”. The sentence would have run regularly—“From those of reputation … I gained no new enlightenment”, but having been interrupted by a parenthesis (whatsoever … person) the structure is changed. “To me, I say, these eminent persons gave no new instruction”.

who seemed to be somewhat] nearly as in Gal_2:2. ‘Those of considerable reputation’, though here perhaps not without a shade of irony.

whatsoever they were] Rather, ‘once were’, i.e. as the chosen companions of Christ during His earthly ministry.

God accepteth no man’s person] The force of this Hebraism is well illustrated by its use, Act_10:34. “God does not confine His favours to those upon whom He has already bestowed them, however abundantly”.

for they who seemed] ‘for’ is here merely resumptive:—‘to me, I say, those of reputation (is there not a tinge of irony in the repetition of the phrase?) imparted nothing new’.

6–9. The construction is again broken and irregular. The punctuation of the Rev. Vers. makes the sense clear. “But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man’s person)—they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me: but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision (for He that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles); and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision”.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But of these, who seemed to be somewhat,.... Not the false brethren, but the Apostles James, Cephas, and John, who were "men of great esteem": high in the opinion of all good men; not that they were looked upon to be more than human, as Simon Magus gave out that he was "some great one", and his followers thought him to be "the great power of God"; for such an extravagant conceit of these men was never entertained; nor were they thought to be something when they were nothing, for they really were somewhat; they were ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of grace; they were the Lord's ambassadors, and the apostles of the Lamb. However, says the apostle,

whatsoever they were; "formerly", some time ago, which our version does not so fully express,

it maketh no matter to me, God accepteth no man's person. This is said, not by way of slight or contempt, but in vindication of himself, whom the false teachers endeavoured to lessen, by giving high encomiums of the apostles at Jerusalem. It looks as if they had upbraided the apostle with being a persecutor of the church before his conversion, when nothing of such a nature could be laid to the charge of these men, and therefore he was not to be set upon a level with them: to which he may be thought to reply in such manner as this, that as for himself, it is true, he had been an injurious person to the saints; and he was ready to own it, for his own humiliation, and to illustrate the grace of God in his conversion; and as these excellent men, what they were before their conversion, it was no concern of his; though, perhaps, was he disposed to inquire into their characters then, some blemishes might be found therein, as well as in his; but it is not what he and they had been, but what they now were: he could have observed, that they were persons formerly of a very low figure in life, of mean occupations, fishermen by employment, and very illiterate persons, when he was bred a scholar at the feet of Gamaliel; but he chose not to make such observations, he knew that God was no respecter of persons, nor was he influenced by any such external circumstances, but chose whom he pleased to such an high office; and that he, who of fishermen made them apostles, of a persecutor had made him one also. Or these false teachers perhaps had objected to him, that these valuable men had been with Christ from the beginning, were eyewitnesses of his majesty, heard the doctrines of the Gospel from his lips, and saw his miracles, had had a similar conversation with him, when he was a preacher of much later date, and could not pretend to such advantages, and therefore ought not to be equalled to them: his answer is, that whatever privileges of this kind they had enjoyed, as could not be denied but they were considerable, yet this mattered not, nor did it make any great difference between him and them; he had seen Christ too, though as one born out of due time; had received an immediate commission from him to preach his Gospel, and was appointed an apostle by him as they were, without any respect of persons: and whereas it might have been urged, that these men had entertained different sentiments from him formerly, concerning the observance of the law, he signifies he had nothing to do with that, to their own master they stood, to whom they must give an account, who, without respect of persons, will render to every man according to his works: and, adds he,

for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me; whatever opinions they formerly gave into, in their conversation with him, when he communicated the Gospel he preached to them, they found no fault with it; they did not go about to correct it; nor did they make any addition to it; the scheme of truths he laid before them, which had been the subject of his ministry, was so complete and perfect, containing the whole counsel of God, that they had nothing to add unto it; which shows the agreement between them, that he did not receive his Gospel from them, the perfection of his ministry, and that he was not a whit behind them in knowledge and gifts.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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:

Ver. 6. Seemed to be somewhat] Opinion sets the price; when gold is raised from 20s. to 22s., the gold is the same, estimation only raiseth it.

In conference added nothing to me] They could tell him nothing which he knew not before; when they came to talk together, he found that they did not only hold and teach the same things, but in iisdem verbis, in iisdem syllabis, in the selfsame words and syllables as he did, as Melancthon wisheth all men would.

Whatsoever they were] Augustine being oppressed with the authority of the Fathers, saith he regardeth not quis, sed quid, the worth of the man, but the weight of his reasons.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But of those who seemed to be somewhat - See Gal 2:2. This undoubtedly refers to those who were the most eminent among the apostles at Jerusalem. There is an apparent harshness in our common translation which is unnecessary. The word used here (δοκούντων dokountōn) denotes those who were thought to be, or who were of reputation; that is, men who were of note and influence among the apostles. The object of referring to them here is, to show that he had the concurrence and approbation of the most eminent of the apostles to the course which he had pursued.

Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me - Tyndale renders this, “What they were in time passed, it maketh no matter to me.” The idea seems to be this. Paul means to say that whatever was their real rank and standing, it did not in the least affect his authority as an apostle, or his argument. While he rejoiced in their concurrence, and while he sought their approbation, yet he did not admit for a moment that he was inferior to them as an apostle, or dependent on them for the justness of his views What they were, or what they might be thought to be, was immaterial to his claims as an apostle, and immaterial to the authority of his own views as an apostle. He had derived his gospel from the Lord Jesus; and he had the fullest assurance that his views were just. Paul makes this remark evidently in keeping with all that he had said, that he did not regard himself as in any manner dependent on them for his authority. He did not treat them with disrespect; but he did not regard them as having a right to claim an authority over him.

God accepteth no man’s person - See the Act 10:34 note; Rom 2:11 note. This is a general truth, that God is not influenced in His judgment by a regard to the rank, or wealth, or external condition of anyone. Its particular meaning here is, that the authority of the apostles was not to be measured by their external rank, or by the measure of reputation which they had among men. If, therefore, it were to be admitted that he himself were not in circumstances of so much external honor as the other apostles, or that they were esteemed to be of more elevated rank than he was, still he did not admit that this gave them a claim to any higher authority. God was not influenced in His judgment by any such consideration; and Paul therefore claimed that all the apostles were in fact on a level in regard to their authority.

In conference - When I conferred with them, Gal 2:2. They did not then impose upon me any new obligations; they did not communicate anything to me of which I was previously ignorant.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

But of those who seemed to be somewhat: the word translated seemed, is the same with that in Gal 2:2, which we there translate of reputation. The apostle means the same persons that were of the greatest reputation, and so the following words,

to be somewhat, do import, Act 5:36; 8:9. We must not understand the apostle, by this expression, to detract from the just reputation that the apostles, and these eminent Christians at Jerusalem, had; he only taketh notice here of them, as magnified by the false teachers of this church, to the lessening of himself; and as those who seemed to be somewhat, must be interpreted as relating to these men’s estimation of them; that seemed to you to be somewhat, though I seem nothing to you.

Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; whatsoever they were formerly, suppose (as probably some of these Galatians had said) that they saw Christ in the flesh, were immediately called by him, when I was a Pharisee, &c.

God accepteth to man’s person; hath no regard to what a man hath been, but to what he is.

For they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me; when I came to confer and discourse with them, about the doctrine which I and they had taught, I learned no new doctrine from them, different from what I had before taught, neither did they reprove or correct me, for any thing which I had taught amiss; we were all of the same mind.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6-10. Having dismissed the case of the Judaists and the Council, Paul now touches the question vital with the Galatians: What were your final relations, Paul, with the pillars? And this he now answers. These pillars, on whom you so much lean, though they are only my co-equal apostles, agreeing that Peter and myself had one Christianity yet different fields, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. Undoubtedly there are slightly disparaging terms of expression regarding the apostles, and these arise from two sources: 1. St. Paul uses terms derived from his first impressions on arriving at Jerusalem. He had been but transiently there since his schooling under Gamaliel. He had been “roughing it” for fourteen years as foreign missionary. On arriving at the sacred capital he finds three apostles looming up as pillars, as if not only the apostolate, but the Church, seemed all but embodied in them. It costs him some effort to adjust his conceptions to this seeming, and to present his history in a fore-council to them. 2. He intimates that the Galatians, in subjecting his apostolate to the decision of these pillars, do make them over tall, and he is willing to diminish the surplusage. He, too, is a pillar, and all the pillars are of equal height. There is no proof, and no probability, that, as Renan maintains from this passage, any contrariety existed between Paul and these apostles. Christianity was not thus divided into two hostile camps.

6. Seemed to be somewhat—In special contrast to those who seemed to be no-what at all—the factionists. From this point the narrative flows in a clear yet troubled current, like a pure stream rippling among pebbles. The reader’s eye may leap from this clause to Gal_2:9, where Paul fairly begins again, all that intervenes being a tangle of parentheses. The main thought is, that the three seeming pillars accepted him as a fourth.

Whatsoever… person—These clauses are a first parenthesis; for they connect subordinately with somewhat.

No matter to me—Paul here retraces his impressions at the time. He brought his case before them as accidental, not essential, superiors. Their position was of no importance to him.

Accepteth… person—Prof. Lightfoot notes that this phrase in the Old Testament Hebrew means to favour one, without necessarily including any invidious sense. But in the New Testament Greek the word person— originally signifying an actor’s theatrical mask—acquires the idea of something assumed upon and over the real being. To accept the person, then, is to favour him, not for or according to his real desert or quality, but according to some external advantages, as rank, dress, wealth, reputation. Paul, appearing at Jerusalem, was conscious that his call was equally divine; his qualifications, at least, as great; his labours and successes more abundant. And so he knew the divine Eye saw. These pillars are lofty metropolitans, and I am a hard looking itinerant; but God is not deceived by externals.

Added nothing—In spite of their seeming. They imparted to me no new gospel. I had derived from Christ by revelation all they could tell me. Quite the reverse, as he will next show.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But of these who seemed to be somewhat (ajpo dentwn einai ti); now from those who were reputed to be somewhat. The conjunction de does not seem to be adversative here, but simply introductory of a new particular. The writer is about to introduce, which he does in the next five verses (6-10), a fresh illustration of the independent position, which in point both of doctrine and of ministerial footing he held in relation to the first apostles and to the heads of the Jerusalemite Church, and at the same time of the full recognition which in both respects these had accorded to him. The construction of this sentence, as it proceeds, is interrupted and changed. When St. Paul wrote, from those who were reputed to be somewhat, he would seem to have meant to add, "I received nothing fresh either in knowledge of the gospel or in authority as Christ"s minister," or some-tiring to that effect; but in his indignant parenthesis asserting his independence with respect to those whom his gainsayers in Galatia would seem to have pronounced his superiors, both in knowledge and in office, he loses sight of the beginning of the sentence, and begins it afresh in another form with the words (ejmoi gar oiJ dokountev), for they who were of repute, etc. Reputed to be somewhat; that is, thought highly of. The phrase is of frequent occurrence, both in Greek and in Latin authors. It is obvious that he refers to the twelve and the leaders of the mother Church of Jerusalem. Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me (oJpoioi pote hsan oujden moi diaferei); of what sort they at any time were maketh no matter to me. The oJpoioi (of what sort) is suggested by the preceding ti (somewhat), and the hsan (they were) by the dokountwn (reputed); from those reputed to be somewhat whatever they really were. The comparison of the usage of oJpoiov in other passages (Act_26:29; 1Co_3:18; 1Th_1:9; Jam_1:24) hardly favours the specific interpretation, "how great." In respect to the pote, in a classical author, as Bishop Light foot observes, we should have no hesitation in taking it as equivalent to cunque. But the word occurs in the New Testament in thirty-one ether places, and in not one is it eunque, but always the adverb of time, either "sometime," "in time past," as above, Gal_1:13, Gal_1:23; Joh_9:13; or "any time," as 1Co_9:7; swpon 1Th_2:5. The latter shade of meaning seems the more appropriate here. The any time, though not to be limited to, would, however, cover the time when the twelve were in personal attendance upon our Lord a circumstance which St. Paul"s detractors were no doubt wont to hold up as a mark of distinction not possessed by him. It seems best to take of what sort as dependent upon the following words, maketh no matter to me. This last clause is not exactly equivalent to "I care not," as if it were an almost supercilious waving aside of the consideration; it is rather a grave assertion of a matter of fact. Whatever were the gifts of knowledge and spiritual insight which the twelve or other heads of the Jerusalemite Church possessed, or whatever their ministerial privileges or authority, whether derived from personal intercourse with the Lord Jesus when upon earth or in any other way, Paul"s knowledge of the gospel and Paul"s apostolic authority were neither of them at all affected by them. Now, at the time that he is writing this Epistle, he was just the same in respect to the possession of the essential truth of the gospel and to his apostolic authority as if he had had no intercourse with the spiritual rulers of the Jewish Church. God accepteth no man"s person (pro Qeopou ouj lambanei). The order of the words in the Greek throws especial emphasis upon "person:" person of man God accepteth not; that is, it is never on account of his person that God accepteth a man. This phrase, "accept a man"s person," is of frequent occurrence in the Bible. In the New Testament it is always used in a bad sense, which in the Old is by no means the case. This difference is due, as Bishop Lightfoot observes, to the secondary sense of actor"s mask attaching to the Greek noun, the actor on the Greek stage, as also on the Roman, being wont to wear a mask suited to the character in which he appeared; whence also proswpon got to signify this character itself. The corresponding technical term among the Romans was persona, a word never used of the natural face, as proswpon was. This explains the adoption of this last term in its Anglicized form by our English translators in the phrase now before us. With the like metaphorical application of the idea as that which was so common among the Romans, the word person" seemed well fitted to denote the part, or certain accessories of the part, which a man plays on the stage, so to speak, of human life, in contradistinction to his more interior and essential character. The phrase denotes accepting a man, for example, for his worldly rank or position, for his office, for his nationality, even for his Church status. (see Jam_2:1, Jam_2:9; Act_10:34; 1Pe_1:17) The special adjuncts of a man"s person referred to in the present passage are those of the outward call aforetime to be apostles and personal attendants upon the Lord Jesus while upon earth, and, in the case of St. James the Lord"s brother, personal relationship to him. And St. Paul means to intimate that his knowledge of Divine truth and his ministerial fidelity and efficiency might be as real and as great, if God"s will were so, as the knowledge and ministerial fidelity and efficiency of the twelve and St. James, whom his gainsayers were honouring so far above him merely for their person"s sake. God made no such difference between him and them, but wrought with him just as much. For they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me (ejmoi gar oiJ dokountev oujdeqento); for to me they who were of repute in conference added nothing. The verb prosaneqento, as it stands here, appears related to the ajneqemhn of ver. 2. I laid before them my gospel; they imparted to me nothing fresh (prov). Thus Chrysostom and Theodoret. in Gal_1:16, where the same verb occurs (see note) there is nothing to accentuate the prov, as there is here. The "for" appears related to the foregoing clause. That God does not respect man for his person was evidenced by the fact that Paul"s knowledge of the gospel was already so complete and his work was so honoured by God, that those whose person seemed to many so markedly superior to his, found that all they had to do was to frankly recognize his teaching as already adequate and complete, and his work as standing on a perfectly equal footing with their own.

Vers. 6-9.

The apostle takes counsel with the other apostles on perfectly equal terms.

He is still asserting his apostolic independence.

I HIS REBUKE OF THOSE WHO LEANED UPON AUTHORITY. "Those high in reputation; whatsoever they were, it maketh no difference to me: God respecteth no man"s person." The apostle does not mean to disparage either the reputation or the authority of the other apostles. It was not his interest to do so, because it was important for him to show that he was even acknowledged by them. But the false brethren had unduly exalted the authority of the "pillar apostles," so as to establish a sort of papacy in the Church. He was, therefore, led to show that, in matters of faith, the authority of individuals has no weight; that we are bound to lean upon God, not upon men, even though they he persons of position and respectability. "God accepteth no man"s person." He may employ whom he pleases to carry out his work, and can qualify them fully for the purpose. The Galatians were "respecters of persons," inasmuch as they depreciated the apostle, because the twelve were apostles before him and enjoyed the peculiar privilege of personal intercourse with the Lord on earth. The apostle declares, in fact, that God did not prefer James, or Cephas, or John to him, much less employ them to appoint him to apostolic office.

II THE APOSTLES ADDED NOTHING TO HIS INFORMATION OR AUTHORITY BY THEIR ACTION AT THE CONFERENCE. "They who seemed to be somewhat added nothing to me." He got nothing from them; they added nothing to his knowledge of the gospel: he received no new instructions; they were perfectly independent one of another. They did not interfere with the course he had hitherto pursued, much less question its rightness.

III THE APOSTLES, ON THE CONTRARY, PRACTICALLY APPROVED HIS COURSE. "But contrariwise, when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.

1. They acknowledged his perfect equality with Peter.

(1) As to apostolic commission. "When they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter." These words suggest:

(a) That the gospel is a solemn trust. There are many human trusts from which men naturally shrink because of the risk, labour, and anxiety involved in their faithful discharge. Yet the apostle thanked God that the weightiest of all trusts had been committed to him who was "a blasphemer, a persecutor, and injurious". (1Ti_1:13) Still he could say," Who is sufficient for these things?

(b) The gospel is one, though it may be addressed to different circles of hearers. It is not implied in the apostle"s language that there were two separate gospels one for the Jews, and another for the Gentiles; for both Peter and Paul, as we know by their discourses and their Epistles, were in complete harmony as to the way of a sinner"s salvation.

(c) The gospel was committed to Paul, not by Peter or any other apostle, but by God himself.

(2) As to apostolic success. "For he that wrought effectually for Peter toward the apostleship of the circumcision, the same wrought for me toward the Gentiles.

(a) The equal success of the two apostles. The false brethren boasted that Peter"s gospel was most effectual in conversions, and that he himself was a mighty worker of miracles. The success of Paul was equally manifest.

(b) The true source of success in both cases was God himself, who worked mightily in the two Apostles (Php_2:13; 1Co_12:6) All gifts, all adaptation, all power, come from him. Thus Divine appointment was signified equally in both cases by the effectual working of God.

2. The apostles acknowledged his official status and prerogative by giving him the right hand of fellowship in respect of future labours. "But when James, Cephas, and John, who have the reputation of being pillars, became aware of the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the heathen and they to the circumcision." They recognized him as a fellow-labourer, "for the grace given to him," both in respect to his success and his calling by grace to the apostleship.

(1) Mark the wisdom of a division of labour. They made a sort of convention as to the limits of their future labours a convention, however, which could not always be very strictly observed. Paul was, no doubt, mainly concerned with the Gentiles, but usually preached first to the Jews in all places that he visited. Peter and John resided in their later years among the Gentiles. But it was an arrangement, notwithstanding, that was well calculated to promote the growth of Christianity at a time of great friction between the Jewish and Gentile elements in the Christian Church.

Peter could not have been universal bishop or pope, if he was the apostle of the circumcision; for he practically conceded to Paul the apostolate of the largest part of the world the Gentile nations.

(2) The important bearing of this convention upon the position and authority of the apostle. Those who so frankly entered into this arrangement "had the reputation of being pillars in the Church." They were so regarded even by the "false brethren" and the Judaists everywhere. Their act was therefore calculated to cut the ground from under the feet of the disaffected, who would see in it an approval of Paul"s gospel.

(a) The apostle does not call the three pillars apostles, but those in reputation," for one of them, James the Lord"s brother, was not an apostle.

(b) Peter was not head of the Church, for he received exactly the same commission as Paul. Even James is mentioned here before Peter, evidently because of his permanent connection with the great centre of Jewish Christianity. It was very important for Paul to be able to quote James on his side.

(c) The gospel does not stand upon the authority of one apostle, any more than of twelve. It is the gospel of God.

(d) The conduct of the apostles in this whole transaction is worthy of general imitation. They first examined Paul"s doctrine and listened with candour to his explanations, and then gave up their particular opinions when they became convinced of his Divine commission.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And they who undoubtedly were something - Above all others. What they were - How eminent soever. It is 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. In that conference added nothing to me - Neither as to doctrine nor mission.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

VERSE 6. But of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me.

This is a good point in Paul’s refutation. Paul disparages the authority and dignity of the true apostles. He says of them, "Which seemed to be somewhat." The authority of the apostles was indeed great in all the churches. Paul did not want to detract from their authority, but he had to speak disparagingly of their authority in order to conserve the truth of the Gospel, and the liberty of conscience.

The false apostles used this argument against Paul: "The apostles lived with Christ for three years. They heard His sermons. They witnessed His miracles. They themselves preached and performed miracles while Christ was on earth. Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh. Now, whom ought you to believe: Paul, who stands alone, a mere disciple of the apostles, one of the last and least; or will you believe those grand apostles who were sent and confirmed by Christ Himself long before Paul?"

What could Paul say to that? He answered: "What they say has no bearing on the argument. If the apostles were angels from heaven, that would not impress me. We are not now discussing the excellency of the apostles. We are talking about the Word of God now, and the truth of the Gospel. That Gospel is more excellent than all apostles.

VERSE 6. God accepteth no man’s person.

Paul is quoting Moses: "Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty." (Lev 19:15) This quotation from Moses ought to shut the mouths of the false apostles. "Don’t you know that God is no respecter of persons?" cries Paul. The dignity or authority of men means nothing to God. The fact is that God often rejects just such who stand in the odor of sanctity and in the aura of importance. In doing so God seems unjust and harsh. But men need deterring examples. For it is a vice with us to esteem personality more highly than the Word of God. God wants us to exalt His Word and not men.

There must be people in high office, of course. But we are not to deify them. The governor, the mayor, the preacher, the teacher, the scholar, father, mother, are persons whom we are to love and revere, but not to the extent that we forget God. Least we attach too much importance to the person, God leaves with important persons offenses and sins, sometimes astounding shortcomings, to show us that there is a lot of difference between any person and God. David was a good king. But when the people began to think too well of him, down he fell into horrible sins, adultery and murder. Peter, excellent apostle that he was, denied Christ. Such examples of which the Scriptures are full, ought to warn us not to repose our trust in men. In the papacy appearance counts for everything. Indeed, the whole papacy amounts to nothing more than a mere kowtowing of persons and outward mummery. But God alone is to be feared and honored.

I would honor the Pope, I would love his person, if he would leave my conscience alone, and not compel me to sin against God. But the Pope wants to be adored himself, and that cannot be done without offending God. Since we must choose between one or the other, let us choose God. The truth is we are commissioned by God to resist the Pope, for it is written, "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Act 5:29)

We have seen how Paul refutes the argument of the false apostles concerning the authority of the apostles. In order that the truth of the Gospel may continue; in order that the Word of God and the righteousness of faith may be kept pure and undefiled, let the apostles, let an angel from heaven, let Peter, let Paul, let them all perish.

VERSE 6. For they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.

The Apostle repeats: "I did not so confer with the apostles that they taught me anything. What could they possibly teach me since Christ by His revelation had taught me all things? It was but a conference, and no disputation. I learned nothing, neither did I defend my cause. I only stated what I had done, that I had preached to the Gentiles faith in Christ, without the Law, and that in response to my preaching the Holy Ghost came down upon the Gentiles. When the apostles heard this, they were glad that I had taught the truth."

If Paul would not give in to the false apostles, much less ought we to give in to our opponents. I know that a Christian should be humble, but against the Pope I am going to be proud and say to him: "You, Pope, I will not have you for my boss, for I am sure that my doctrine is divine." Such pride against the Pope is imperative, for if we are not stout and proud we shall never succeed in defending the article of the righteousness of faith.

If the Pope would concede that God alone by His grace through Christ justifies sinners, we would carry him in our arms, we would kiss his feet. But since we cannot obtain this concession, we will give in to nobody, not to all the angels in heaven, not to Peter, not to Paul, not to a hundred emperors, not to a thousand popes, not to the whole world. If in this matter we were to humble ourselves, they would take from us the God who created us, and Jesus Christ who has redeemed us by His blood. Let this be our resolution, that we will suffer the loss of all things, the loss of our good name, of life itself, but the Gospel and our faith in Jesus Christ--we will not stand for it that anybody take them from us.

Martin Luther — Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535), English translation by Theodore Graebner (Zondervan, 1939) — public domain (U.S. copyright not renewed). Text from a community e-Sword module.

The result of the visit to Jerusalem:

v. 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;

v. 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;

v. 8. (for He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles;)

v. 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.

v. 10. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

Paul’s great agitation is here again evident, for he breaks the construction of the sentence again and again, apparently losing the thread of his discourse, but he never fails to bring out the central idea which he has in mind. He wants to emphasize his independent apostolic commission, and this fact is brought out in spite of the involved construction: But of those that were in repute as being something, whatever they may have been, it makes no difference to me; the face of a man God does not accept, for to me those in repute imparted nothing. In his anxiety to emphasize the point he wishes to make in the proper manner, Paul does not finish his first sentence, although he brings out the thought. Those that were esteemed highly in the congregation of Jerusalem had no word of disapprobation for the content and manner of Paul’s preaching, and on the other hand they had no instruction for him, they did not attempt to teach him anything as to his doctrine. And in order that this fact might be impressed upon the minds of the false teachers and their followers in the midst of the Galatian congregations, he explains his use of the word "in repute" by the parenthetical remark that the status of these people in no way impressed him, for God does not judge according to outward appearance and station. His apostolic authority and power did not rest upon their commission and approval. They had not prescribed the form of his doctrine. "This he says in order to show that he, in the judgment of the very apostles of whom the false teachers boasted against Paul, had taught correctly, and that the apostles stood on his side against the false apostles, who boasted of the authority of men."

The entire manner of the leaders in the congregation at Jerusalem not only did not express disapproval of Paul and his ministry: But on the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, just as Peter with that of the circumcision (for He that was operative for Peter with regard to the apostleship of the circumcision was operative also in me toward the heathen), and found out about the grace which was given to me,—James and Peter and John being the men, they that were esteemed to be pillars,—they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (with the understanding) that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision. During the conference which was held at Jerusalem between James, as the head of the local church, Act 21:18, Peter, and John, on the one side, and Barnabas and Paul, on the other, the situation was fully discussed, from every angle. And the result of the discussion was that they all agreed, from the evidence offered: It is God’s will that Paul preach the Gospel chiefly to the heathen, just as it seems clear that Peter has a special call to preach Jesus to the Jews. Thus each one recognized the problem which was given him, attempting the solution, however, not in his own wisdom; for Paul, in repudiating false charges against his authority also in this instance, gives all glory to God, since it was He that was operative in both Peter and him, in the one to work with great success among the Jews, in the other to be equally successful among the Gentiles. So the men that were considered pillars, according to the judgment of men, recognized without reserve, fully acknowledged, the calling of Paul which had been entrusted to him by grace and confirmed by special gifts of grace. To the evidence afforded by the success of his labors among the heathen was added the conviction that this was due to the grace of God. This frank acknowledgment was just as openly manifested when they all shook hands in token of fellowship and agreed that the arrangement by which Paul was to devote himself to preaching the Gospel among the Gentiles and the others to teaching the Jews was to be observed. Not as though Peter and John would not have dared to instruct a Gentile or Paul and Barnabas a Jew, as Luther remarks. "The mutual understanding between the two groups of apostles obviously did not imply an absolute restriction of each to one section of the Church. All converts alike were members of a single united Church; circumstances of themselves forbade any definite division: Paul opened his ministry everywhere in the synagogue, and numbered Jews as well as Greeks among his converts. So Peter, again, is next found at Antioch."

There was one more point in the agreement, however, which Paul expressly mentions, since it was of such importance in his work: Only that the poor we should keep in mind, which, indeed, I was zealous to do. The frankness, integrity, and truthfulness of Paul is here brought out, as well as his disinterestedness, his unselfishness. That he kept the poor in Judea in mind at all times is apparent in many passages of his letters, 1Co 16:1; 2Co 8:9. "The poor whom he, Rom 15:26, calls the poor saints are those whom the Jews, for the sake of Christ, had deprived of their goods and possessions... or those that had given their possessions to the congregation, as is written Act 4:32; probably also those that suffered want in the famine which, as Luke mentions in Acts, chap. 11:28, happened under Emperor Claudius. " Paul purposely brings forward this bit of evidence in order to emphasize the contrast between the Jewish Christian opposition to him in the work of the Judaizing teachers and his approved zeal and affection for the Jewish Christians

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As if the apostle had said, "When I came up to Jerusalem, thus I behaved myself toward the false brethren, as I have here declared; but now, for those who seemed to be somewhat, that is, Peter, James, and John, who were of chief reputation among the apostles, and more than ordinary ministers of Jesus Christ, being the foundations of the Christian church, laid by Christ himself, although they had some external advantages above me, as being apostles before me, and having conversed with Christ, and seen him here on earth, which I never did; yet this maketh no matter to me: for God values no man for these outward favours and benefits: Neither in that conference about circumcision, did they add anything to me, either by their authority or instruction; they added nothing, they corrected nothing, but approved all things, both what I did and said: From whence it evidently appears, that my authority was equal with theirs, and my doctrine the same with theirs also."

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's person)--they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me [Having exposed the Judaists and set forth his triumph over them, and shown them to be no-what, he now turns to discuss those who by reason of their office, influence, etc., seem to be somewhat. Thus, he reaches the main question which the Galatians were asking, viz.: "What, Paul, was your final attitude toward the apostles, those great pillars of the church universal?" He recognizes that in the very putting of such a question they were, so far as he was concerned, exalting the Jerusalem apostles above their true height. He was himself a pillar of equal altitude, and no more to be measured by them than they by him. Though, says he, these men, buttressed by a multitude of followers and by their established official position, seemed indeed to be more important than a lone stranger such as I, yet God is not deceived by such seeming. He knew me to be an apostle as well as they; and they added no gospel fact or doctrine to my store, nor did they impart to me any new authority, or suggest any change in what I preached]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6–10. But of these who seemed to be somewhat. Who held high positions in the church; the apostles at Jerusalem; Peter, James and John, who are mentioned below. Whatsoever they are, it maketh no matter. However high their position, that does not alter the facts. They who seemed to be somewhat in conference. The leaders in the conference described in Acts 15. Added nothing to me. They gave me no new instructions or authority. They had no change to suggest in the gospel I preached.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

added nothing to me

The word "me" here represents what Paul was teaching. AT: "added nothing to what I teach" or "did not tell me to add anything to what I teach" (See: Metonymy)

On the contrary

"Instead" or "Rather"

I had been entrusted

This can be stated in active form. AT: "God trusted me" (See: Active or Passive)

translationWords

preach

good news

circumcise

Gentile

Peter

Jew

apostle

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

6.] He returns to his sojourn in Jerusalem, and his intercourse with the δοκοῦντες. The construction is difficult, and has been very variously given. It seems best (and so most Commentators) to regard it as an anacoluthon. The Apostle begins with ἀπὸ δὲ ῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι, having it in his mind to add οὐδὲν προσελαβόμην or the like: but then, going off into the parenthesis ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν &c., he entirely loses sight of the original construction, and proceeds with ἐμοὶ γάρ &c., which follows on the parenthesis, the γάρ rendering a reason (this is still my view, against Ellic. whose note see) for the οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει &c. De Wette and others think that the parenthesis ends at λαμβάνει, and the construction is resumed from ἀπὸ δέ &c. in an active instead of in a passive form: but it seems better, with Meyer, to regard the parenthesis as never formally closed, and the original construction not resumed. Other ways are; (1) most of the Greek Fathers (Chrys. hardly says enough for this to be inferred as his opinion), and others (e.g. Olsh., Rückert) take ἀπό as belonging to διαφέρει, as if it were περί: so Thl., οὐδεμία μοι φροντίς περὶ τῶν δοκούντων, &c. The preposition seems capable, if not exactly of this interpretation, of one very nearly akin to it, as in βλέπετε ἀπό and the like expressions: but the objection is, that it is unnatural to join διαφέρει with ἀπό which lies so far from it, when όποῖοί ποτε ἦσ. so completely fills up the construction. (2) Homberg (Parerg. p. 275: Meyer) renders,—‘ab illis vero, qui videntur esse aliquid, non differo.’ But as Meyer remarks, though διαφέρω ἀπό τινος may bear this meaning, certainly διαφέρει μοι ἀπό τινος cannot. (3) Hermann assumes an aposiopesis, and understands ‘what should I fear?’ but an aposiopesis seems out of place in a passage which does not rise above the fervour of narrative. See other interpretations in Meyer and De Wette.

οἱ δοκοῦντ. εἶναί τι may be either subjective (‘those who believe themselves to be something’), or objective (‘those who have the estimation of being something’). The latter is obviously the meaning here.

ποτε is understood by some to mean ‘once,’ ‘olim:’ ‘whatever they once were, when Christ was on earth:’ so vulg. (‘quales aliquando fuerint’), Pelag., Luth., Beza, al. But this is going out of the context, and unnecessary.

The emphasis is on μοι, and is again taken up by the ἐμοὶ γάρ below. Phrynichus (p. 384) condemns τίνι διαφέπει as not used by the best writers, but Lobeck (note, ibid.) has produced examples of it, as well as of the more approved construction τί διαφέρει, from Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle.

πρόσεπ … λαμβ.] q. d. ‘I wish to form all my judgments according to God’s rule—which is that of strict unbiassed justice.’ See Eph 6:9.

προσανέθεντο] as in ch. 1:16,—imparted. As I, at my first conversion, did not impart it to flesh and blood, so they now imparted nothing to me: we were independent the one of the other. The meaning ‘added’ (οὐκ ἐδίδαξαν, οὐ διώρθωσαν, οὐδὲν προσέθηκαν ὧν ᾔδειν, Chrys.; so Thdrt., and most Commentators, and E. V. ‘in conference added’) is not justified by the usage of the word: see note, as above. Rückert, Bretschneider, Olsh., al. explain it: ‘laid on no additional burden.’ But this is the active, not the middle, signification of the verb: see Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 8, where προσαναθέσθαι is not ‘to impose on another additional duties,’ but ‘to take them on a man’s self.’

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι “And from those who were accounted to be something.” On τῶν δοκούντων, etc., cf. v. 2. The verb which this phrase was to have limited is left unexpressed, the construction being changed when the thought is resumed after the parenthesis οποῖοι, etc. The apostle doubtless had in mind when he began the sentence παρέλαβον οὐδέν (cf. 1:12) or some equivalent expression. The sentence seems not adversative, but continuative; to the statement that when the pillar apostles took up, in a sense, the cause of the false brethren, he did not for a moment yield to the latter, he adds as further evidence of his entire independence of the apostles that (in this discussion) they taught him nothing new.

—ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει— “what they once were matters not to me.” ὁποῖοι, a qualitative word, meaning “of what kind” (cf. 1Th 1:9, 1Co 3:13, Jas 1:24), here evidently refers not to personal character but to rank or standing, and doubtless specifically to that standing which the three here referred to had by reason of their personal relation to Jesus while he was in the flesh, in the case of James as his brother, in the case of Peter and John as his personal followers. This fact of their past history was undoubtedly appealed to by the opponents of Paul as giving them standing and authority wholly superior to any that he could claim. Cf. 2Co 5:16, 2Co 10:7. Paul answers here substantially as afterwards to the Corinthians in reply to much the same argument, that facts of this sort do not concern him, have no significance. Apostleship rests on a present relation to the heavenly Christ, a spiritual experience, open to him equally with them. The whole parenthetical sentence, though introduced without a conjunction, serves as a justification of the depreciation of the apostles which he had begun to express in the preceding clause—or perhaps more exactly as an answer in advance to the thought which the apostle foresaw would be raised by that statement when completed, viz.: But if you received nothing from them, that is certainly to your disadvantage; were they not personal companions of Jesus, the original and authoritative bearers of the gospel? What valid commission or message can you have except as you derived it from them?

With a verb of past time ποτέ (enclitic) may mean (a) “ever,” “at any time”; (b) “at some time,” “once,” “formerly”; (c) “ever,” with intensive force, like the Latin cunque, and the English “ever” in “whoever,” “whatever.” The last meaning is that which is preferred in RV.—“whatsoever they were.” But this use is unusual in classical Greek, and has no example in N. T. The second meaning, on the other hand, is frequent in N. T., especially in Paul (chap. 1:13, 23, Rom 7:9, etc.), and is appropriate in this connection, directing the thought to a particular (undefined but easily understood) period of past time referred to by ἦσαν. There can therefore be no doubt that it is the meaning here intended. The first meaning is not impossible, but less appropriate because suggesting various possible past periods or points of time, instead of the one, Jesus’ lifetime, which gives point to the sentence.

The above interpretation of ποτε and substantially of the sentence is adopted by Wies. Hilg. Ltft. and many others from the Latin Vg. down. Win. and Lip., though taking ποτε in the sense of cunque, by referring ἦσαν to the time of Jesus’ life on earth reach substantially the same interpretation of the clause. Ell. Sief., et al., take ποτε in the sense of cunque, and understand the clause to refer to the esteem in which these men were held at the time of the events spoken of; whatsoever they were, i. e., whatever prestige, standing, they had in Jerusalem at this time. Sief. supplies as subject for διαφέρει the thought “to obtain authorisation from them”; making the sentence mean: “whatever their standing in Jerusalem, it is of no consequence to me to secure their authorisation or commission.” But the clause ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν (cf. 1Co 3:13) itself is a suitable subject, and the supplying of a subject unnecessary.

—πρόσωπον θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει—“God accepts not the person of man.” To accept the person—literally face—of one is to base one’s judgment and action on external and irrelevant considerations. Cf. Mat 22:16, Mar 12:14, Luk 20:21. Such, in the judgment of Paul, were mere natural kinship with Jesus, such as James had, or personal companionship with him during his earthly life, such as the Twelve had. Cf. 2Co 5:12, where Paul uses ἐν προσώπῳ with reference to the realm of external things. This second parenthesis in its turn gives a reason justifying the statement of the first. The former advantages of these men signify nothing to me, for God takes no account of such external considerations. Concerning the emphasis on θεός see the textual note.

As between θεός and ὁ θεός external evidence alone is indecisive. אA P 33, 88, 103, 122,* 442, 463, 1912, Chrys. al. insert the article. BCDFGKL al. pler. Eus. Thdrt. Dam. omit it. Sheer accident would be as likely to operate on one side as on the other. At first sight intrinsic probability seems to make for the genuineness of the article, since the N. T. writers, and Paul in particular, rarely use θεός as subject without the article. Yet the use of θεός without the article, because employed with qualitative force with emphasis upon the divine attributes, especially in contrast with man, is an established usage of which there are numerous examples in Paul (see 1Th 1:9, 1Th 1:2:4, 1Co 2:5, 1Co 2:3:9, 1Co 2:16) and a few in the nominative (1Th 2:5, Gal 6:7, 2Co 5:19). Inasmuch, therefore, as there is in this passage just such a contrast, it would be in accordance with Pauline usage to omit the article, and the balance of intrinsic probability is apparently on this side. Transcriptional probability is also in its favour, since the scribe would be more likely to convert the unusual θεός into ὁ θεός than the reverse.

ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο, “for to me the men of eminence taught nothing new.” In these words the apostle evidently says what he began to say in ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων, giving it now the specific form that the Jerusalem apostles imposed on him no burden (of doctrine or practice), or imparted nothing to him in addition to what he already knew. See discussion of προσανέθεντο below. γάρ may be justificatory, introducing a statement which justifies the seemingly harsh language of the two preceding statements, or explicative, the thought overleaping the parenthetical statements just preceding, and the new clause introduced by γάρ putting in a different form the thought already partly expressed in ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων. The latter is simpler and for that reason more probable.

The uses of the verb προσανατίθεμαι (Mid.) clearly attested outside of the present passage are three: (1) “To offer or dedicate beside”: Boeckh, C. I. G. 2782. (2) “To confer with”: Gal 1:16 (q. v.); Diod. Sic. 17. 116:4; Luc. Jup. Trag. 1. (3) “To lay upon one’s self in addition, to undertake besides”: Xen. Mem. 2.1:8. Beside these there have been proposed for the present passage: (4) “To lay upon in addition” i. e. (3) taken actively instead of with a middle sense. Cf. Pollux, I 9:99. (5) (equiv. to προστίθημι) “To add,” “to bestow something not possessed before”: Chrys., et al.; (6) (adding to the sense of ἀνατίθεμαι in 2:2 and Act 25:14, that of πρός in composition, “besides,” “in addition”), “To set forth in addition,” i. e., in this connection, “to teach in addition to what I had already learned.” The word “impart” in RV. might perhaps represent either (4), (5), (6), possibly even (2). The first meaning is evidently impossible here. The second can be applied only by taking οὐδέν as an accusative of respect, “in respect to nothing did they confer with me,” and then there still remains the fact that in the other instances of the verb used in this sense the conference is chiefly for the sake of learning, but here the reference must be to conferring for the purpose of teaching. This renders it very difficult, taking the word in the sense illustrated in 1:16, to find in οὐδὲν προσανατίθεσθαι, as Ltft. does, the sense “to impart no fresh knowledge,” or as Ell. does, taking πρός as directive only, the meaning “to communicate nothing,” “to address no communications.” Zahn, indeed, takes the verb as in 1:16, and interprets the sentence as meaning, “for they laid nothing before me for decision, they did not make me their judge.” This Zahn interprets as an explanation and justification of οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει, in that it gives a reason why he did not regard their high standing as he might have been tempted to do if he had been acting as judge of their affairs. Vv. 7ff. then state that, on the contrary, they acted as his judges and pronounced favourable judgment on him. The interpretation is lexicographically possible, but logically difficult to the point of impossibility. It compels the supposition either that in ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ, etc. Paul said the opposite of what he set out to say in ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων, or else that, having begun in the latter phrase to say that from the men of esteem he received a favourable judgment, he interrupted himself to belittle the value of their judgment. It makes the apostle, moreover, admit a dependence upon the pillar apostles which it is the whole purpose of 1:11-2:21 to disprove. The third sense is rendered impossible for the present passage by the presence of ἐμοί. “To lay no additional burden on themselves for me” is without meaning in this connection. The fourth meaning does not occur elsewhere, the voucher being only for the reflexive sense (3), “to lay a burden upon one’s self.” Sief. infers from the fact that ἀνατίθεμαι is found in the active sense (Xen. Cyr 8:5:4), as well as in the reflexive that the compound προσανατίθεμαι may also occur in the active sense. The fifth sense, though adopted by many interpreters, ancient and modern, seems least defensible, being neither attested by any clear instance (unless Chrysostom’s adoption of it constitutes such an instance) nor based on attested use of ἀνατίθημι. The sixth meaning is easily derived from ἀνατίθημι; the absence of any actual occurrence of it elsewhere renders it, like the fourth, conjectural, but not impossible, in view of the difficulty of all the well-attested senses. Our choice of interpretations must lie between the fourth, advocated by Sief. (who also cites for it Bretschn. Rück. Lechl. Pfleid. Zeller, Lip.), and the sixth. Both satisfy the requirements of the context—for the apostle is evidently here, as throughout the paragraph, presenting the evidence of his independence of the Jerusalem apostles. But the sixth is, on the whole, slightly to be preferred: it is more consonant with the thought of ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων, in which the apostle apparently began to say what he here expresses in a different syntactical form, and with the words πρόσωπον … λαμβάνει, which seem to have been written, as pointed out above, in anticipation of these words.

6. These latter at first, for the sake of certain extreme legalists who had recently come into the church, desired that Titus should be circumcised, but finally, convinced by Paul’s presentation of his gospel, yielded and gave their cordial assent to the prosecution of the Gentile mission according to the convictions of Paul, reserving to themselves the work among the Jews. Cf. on vv. 4, 7, 9.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Render the passage as follows : "But to be something from (at the hands of) those who were of repute, whatever they were, matters nothing to me (God accepteth not man's person), for those who were of repute imparted nothing to me."

To be something [ειναι τι] . Comp. chapter Gal 11:3; Act 5:36; 2Co 12:11. To be in good standing as an evangelist or apostle, approved and commissioned by high authorities.

From those who were of repute [απο των δοκουντων] . From, at the hands of; as receiving my indorsement or commission from them. Comp. chapter Gal 1:1. Of repute, see on verse 2.

Whatsoever they were [οποιοι ποτε ησαν] . Pote in N. T. is invariably temporal, and points here to the preeminence which these apostles had formerly, up to the time of Paul 's visit, enjoyed, because of their personal connection with Jesus. 46 Maketh no matter to me [ουδεν μοι διαφερει] . Paul does not say, as A. V. and Rev., that the standing and repute of the apostles were matters of indifference to him, but that he was indifferent about receiving his commission from them as recognized dignitaries of the church. The construction is : "To be something [ειναι τι] at the hands of [απο] those who were of repute matters nothing to me."

God accepteth no man's person. Or more strictly, accepteth not the person of man. Parenthitical. Lambanein proswpon to receive or accept the face is a Hebraism. See on Jas 2:1. In O. T. both in a good and a bad sense; to be gracious, and to show favor from personal or partisan motives. In N. T. only here and Luk 20:21, both in a bad sense. Similar Hebraistic expressions are blepein eijv proswpon to look at the face, Mt 22:16 : qaumazein proswpa to admire the countenances, Jude 1:16 kaucasqai ejn proswpw to glory in the face, 2Co 5:12. For - to me. Explaining the previous statement. To be of consequence because commissioned by those in repute matters nothing to me (God accepteth not man's person), for although they might have asserted their high repute and authority to others, to me they did not, as shown by their imposing on me no new requirements.

In conference added nothing [ουδεν προσανεθεντο] . In conference is an attempt to conform the sense to chapter Gal 1:16. The verb without the accusative, as there, means to confer with. Here, with the accusative, the meaning is laid upon or imposed on. Rend. therefore, imposed nothing on me. They imposed on me no new [προς αδδιτιοναλ] requirements; no conditions or limitations of my missionary work. 47

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.