Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.

“But that Paul acceded to [the request of] those who summoned him to the apostles, on account of the question [which had been raised], and went up to them, with Barnabas, to Jerusalem, not without reason, but that the liberty of the Gentiles might be confirmed by them, he does himself say, in the Epistle to the Galatians: "Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking also Titus. But I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles." And again he says, "For an hour we did give place to subjection, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." If, then, any one shall, from the Acts of the Apostles, carefully scrutinize the time concerning which it is written that he went up to Jerusalem on account of the forementioned question, he will find those years mentioned by Paul coinciding with it. Thus the statement of Paul harmonizes with, and is, as it were, identical with, the testimony of Luke regarding the apostles.”

“But with regard to the countenance of Peter and the rest of the apostles, he tells us that "fourteen years after he went up to Jerusalem," in order to confer with them about the rule which he followed in his gospel, lest perchance he should all those years have been running, and be running still, in vain, (which would be the case, ) of course, if his preaching of the gospel fell short of their method.”

“His first journey was owing to his desire to visit Peter, his second, he says, arose from a revelation of the Spirit. "And I laid before them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running or had run in vain." What is this, O Paul! thou who neither at the beginning nor after three years wouldest confer with the Apostles, dost thou now confer with them, after fourteen years are past, lest thou shouldest be running in vain? Better would it have been to have done so at first, than after so many years; and why didst thou run at all, if not satisfied that thou wert not running in vain? Who would be so senseless as to preach for so many years, without being sure that his preaching was true? And what enhances the difficulty is, that he says he went up by revelation; this difficulty, however, will afford a solution of the former one. Had he gone up of his own accord, it would have been most unreasonable, nor is it possible that this blessed soul should have fallen into such folly; for it is himself who says, "I therefore so run, as not uncertainly; so fight I, as not beating the air." (1 Cor. ix: 26.) If therefore he runs, "not uncertainly," how can he say, "lest I should be running, or had run, in vain?" It is evident from this, that if he had gone up without a revelation, he would have committed an act of folly. But the actual case involved no such absurdity; who shall dare to still harbor this suspicion, when it was the grace of the Spirit which drew him? On this account he added the words "by revelation," lest, before the question was solved, he should be condemned of folly; well knowing that it was no human occurrence, but a deep Divine Providence concerning the present and future. What then is the reason of this journey of his? As when he went up before from Antioch to Jerusalem, it was not for his own sake, (for he saw clearly that his duty was simply to obey the doctrines of Christ,) but from a desire to reconcile the contentious; so now his object was the complete satisfaction of his accusers, not any wish of his own to learn that he had not run in vain. They conceived that Peter and John, of whom they thought more highly than of Paul, differed from him in that he omitted circumcision in his preaching, while the former allowed it, and they believed that in this he acted unlawfully, and was running in vain. I went up, says he, and communicated unto them my Gospel, not that I might learn aught myself, (as appears more clearly further on,) but that I might convince these suspicious persons that I do not run in vain. The Spirit foreseeing this contention had provided that he should go up and make this communication. Wherefore he says that he went up by revelation, and, taking Barnabas and Titus as witnesses of his preaching, communicated to them the Gospel which he preached to the Gentiles, that is, with the omission of circumcision. "But privately before them who were of repute." What means "privately?" Rather, he who wishes to reform doctrines held in common, proposes them, not privately, but before all in common; but Paul did this privately, for his object was, not to learn or reform any thing, but to cut off the grounds of those who would fain deceive. All at Jerusalem were offended, if the law was transgressed, or the use of circumcision forbidden; as James says, "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them which have believed; and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest to forsake the law." (Acts xxi: 20, et seq.) Since then they were offended he did not condescend to come forward publicly and declare what his preaching was, but he conferred privately with those who were of reputation before Barnabas and Titus, that they might credibly testify to his accusers, that the Apostles found no discrepancy in his preaching, but confirmed it. The expression, "those that were of repute," does not impugn the reality of their greatness; for he says of himself, "And I also seem to have the Spirit of God," thereby not denying the fact, but stating it modestly. And here the phrase implies his own assent to the common opinion.”

“After the Apostle, in the preceding chapter, commended the authority of the evangelical teaching in itself, now in this chapter he commends it on the part of the other apostles and of himself at the same time. And concerning this he does two things. First he commends the authority of his teaching from the approval of the other apostles; second, from the example of himself and the other apostles, at the place "We by nature Jews, not of the Gentiles," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that the other apostles approved his teaching; second he shows that he freely reprehended the other apostles in those things which they said contrary to his teaching, at the place "When Peter had come," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he treats of the conference which he had with the apostles; second he intimates what followed from it, at the place "but neither was Titus," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down the circumstances of the conference itself; second he sets down the conference itself, at the place "and I conferred with them," etc. As to the first he touches on four circumstances, namely the time, the place, the witnesses, and its motive. Now he describes the time when he says, "then after fourteen years." But against this: the Apostle was converted in the first year after the Passion of Christ, and after three years he went to Jerusalem, and thus there are four; and here he says "after fourteen years" he went again to Jerusalem, and thus there come to be eighteen; and then he found Peter in Jerusalem. And this cannot be, because Peter sat at Antioch for seven years, but at Rome for twenty-five years. And so there would be eighteen (two short of twenty) and seven — which are twenty-five years — before he went to Rome, and at Rome he stayed twenty-five years; therefore Peter would have lived after the Passion of Christ fifty years, which is false: because in the fortieth year from the Passion of Christ, Peter suffered at Rome, as is held in history, which was in the time of Nero. I respond. It must be said that when it is said "then," etc., it is not to be understood that after the three years fourteen more years elapsed before he went to Jerusalem, but that in the fourteenth year of his conversion he went up again. Nor are the seven years, during which Peter ruled the Antiochene Church, to be added on top of these fourteen, because he began to rule before these years. And since Antioch is near Jerusalem, it could be that at some point Peter had gone to Jerusalem, and then Paul found him there. And thus it is gathered from history that after fourteen years Peter came to Rome in the time of the emperor Claudius, and being there for twenty-five years, he completed the number of thirty-nine years, and died in the fortieth year after the Passion of the Lord. Now he says "fourteen" pointedly, to show that he had no need of the instruction of the apostles, if he was without them for fourteen years. But he describes the place when he says "Jerusalem." And he says "I went up," because it is situated on high. Now he went up to Jerusalem, in order to show himself in agreement with the prophecy which says, Isaiah 2:3: "Out of Sion shall go forth the law," etc. He describes the witnesses when he says, "with Barnabas, taking also Titus." Barnabas was a Jew, but Titus a Gentile. With them, therefore, he went up, so that he might have witnesses to his teaching, and so that he might show himself inclining to neither side, neither of the Jews nor of the Gentiles. Deuteronomy 17: "In the mouth of two or three every word stands." But he describes the motive when he says "according to a revelation of God," that is, God revealing it and commanding him that he should go up to Jerusalem. From this it can be gathered that all the acts and movements of the apostles were according to the instinct of the Holy Spirit. Job 37:11: "The clouds scatter their light," etc. Consequently, when he says "and I conferred," etc., he treats of the conference itself, where he does three things. First he sets forth the matter concerning which he conferred; second, the persons with whom he conferred; and third, the cause for which he conferred. The matter concerning which he conferred was the Gospel. And therefore he says, "I conferred with them the Gospel of God," etc. The persons with whom he conferred are the greater and more excellent among the apostles: "but apart with those," etc. But the useful and necessary cause: namely "lest perhaps in vain," etc. As to the first he says, "I went up to Jerusalem," where "I conferred with them," as with friends and equals, the Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles — not that I might learn it, since I was already taught by Christ; not that I might be certified of it, since I am so certain that even if an angel should say the contrary, I would not believe it, as is clear above in chapter 1. But I conferred for two reasons: namely, to intimate the unity of my teaching with the teaching of the other apostles. 1 Corinthians 1:10: "That you all say the same thing," etc. He therefore conferred with them, having as it were the same word as they, yet not holding them as equals. Likewise, to avoid the calumny of others. For the Apostle, because he had not lived with Christ, nor been taught by the apostles, but immediately after his conversion began to preach things that were hateful to the Jews — and especially concerning the calling of the Gentiles, and that the legal observances ought not to be kept — thus, then, he conferred the Gospel. But with whom he did this, he shows by adding, "but apart with those," etc., as if to say: not with all, but with those who were among the others of some authority and weight, namely with Peter, James and John, and the other great ones. Ecclesiasticus 9:21: "Deal with the wise and the prudent," etc. But "apart," etc. — not that he dealt or conferred with them concerning shameful or false things, as heretics do, but because he knew that there were Jews there who calumniated, on account of the fact that he had taught concerning the legal observances. And therefore, lest the truth lie open to calumny, he conferred apart with those who would not calumniate. Proverbs 25:9: "Treat thy cause with thy friend, and discover not the secret to a stranger," etc. Ecclesiasticus 8:21: "Before a stranger do not take counsel," etc. Thus, then, both the matter of the conference and the persons are clear. There follows the cause, which was, namely, "lest I should run, or had run, in vain" — that is, lest I be reckoned to have preached uselessly. Now he calls his preaching a "running," on account of the swiftness of his teaching, because in a short time he preached the Gospel from Jerusalem all the way to Illyricum, and even to Spain. Whence that saying could be said of him, Psalm 147:15: "His word runneth swiftly," etc.; 2 Thessalonians 3:1: "Brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may run," etc. But did he doubt that he was running in vain? It must be said that he did not doubt for himself, but concerning those to whom he had preached — because unless his teaching were firmly held by them, as far as they were concerned he would have run in vain; and therefore he wished to confer with them, so that, when the hearers knew that his teaching agreed with the teaching of the other apostles, and was approved by them, they would hold his teaching more firmly, and thus, as far as they were concerned, he would not run in vain. 1 Corinthians 9:26: "I so run, not as at an uncertain thing." Consequently, when he says "but neither was Titus," etc., he shows what followed from the conference held with the apostles. And he sets down three things that followed from it: namely, that he did not depart from his own position; and that nothing was added over and above to his teaching, at the place "but from those who seemed," etc. Third, that his teaching was approved, at the place "but on the contrary, when they had seen," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that he did not depart from his position in a certain particular matter; second he shows that he did not depart from it in any other matter either, at the place "but because of false brethren brought in unawares," etc. He says, then: I say that I conferred with them concerning the teaching of the Gospel in such a way that from this it followed that my teaching and position remained firm — namely, that the legal observances were not to be kept, so that the Gentiles were not compelled to keep the legal observances — to such an extent that not even Titus, who was with me, although he was also a Gentile, was compelled, by their arguments, to be circumcised, but was received by the apostles into fellowship uncircumcised. Whence then a decision was given by the apostles concerning the legal observances not being kept, as is found in Acts 15:28. Now the reason why, after the Passion of Christ, the legal observances ought not to be kept is assigned by Chrysostom as follows: for it is manifest that an instrument which is made concerning some promise or covenant holds only until the covenant and promise be fulfilled; once these are fulfilled, the aforesaid instrument no longer holds in this regard. Now circumcision is a certain instrument of the promise and covenant between God and faithful men; whence also Abraham received circumcision as a sign of the promise, as is said in Genesis 17. And because, the Passion of Christ having been accomplished, the promise was discharged and the covenant fulfilled, therefore after the Passion circumcision no longer holds, nor is it of any effect. Thus, then, it is clear that he did not depart from his position in that he did not permit Titus to be circumcised. Consequently he shows that he did not depart from it in any other matter either, when he says "but because of false brethren brought in unawares," etc. But this text is different in different copies and obscure, and is read thus: you say that you did not permit Titus to be circumcised, but why did you not permit it? Did you not elsewhere permit Timothy to be circumcised, as is read in Acts 16:3? To this the Apostle can respond thus: because at that time, when Timothy was circumcised, circumcision was a matter of indifference, namely whether it was kept or not; but now, when the matter concerned Titus, there was a special question about circumcision, which I was saying ought not to be kept. Whence if I had permitted him to be circumcised, since I myself had settled the question, it would have been done contrary to my own decision, nor was it lawful to raise the question further about this, or to make a difficulty of it, as being already determined. And therefore he says: I say that I not only did not permit him to be circumcised by them, to whom we yielded not even for an hour by way of subjection — namely, that the Gentiles should be made subject to the law. And this on account of those brought in unawares — by the Devil or by the Pharisees — false brethren, who feign themselves to be friends. 2 Corinthians 12: "peril from false brethren." Who — namely, the false brethren — came in unawares into the place where the apostles were, "to spy," that is, to spy out our liberty from sin and the law. 2 Corinthians 3:17: "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Romans 8:15: "For you have not received the spirit of bondage," etc. Below, chapter 4:5: "that he might redeem them who were under the law." Which — namely, liberty — we have in Christ Jesus, that is, through faith in Christ. Below, chapter 4, verse 31: "You are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free." And for this they came in unawares: that they might bring us back into servitude — of the law and of carnal observances — as before the Passion of Christ, which is not to be done, because "no man can lay another foundation," etc., 1 Corinthians 3:11. And this "that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you" — as if to say: in nothing did we yield to them for this reason, namely lest we give occasion to those who said that without circumcision you could not be saved, which is contrary to the truth of the Gospel that I preached to you. But Ambrose reads it otherwise. For according to what has been said above, it is held that he did not yield for an hour on account of those brought in unawares. From which it follows that, had the false brethren not been brought in unawares, he would have yielded to them concerning the observance of the legal precepts. And therefore it was not on account of this, because he would not have yielded to them on account of this, but on account of the truth itself. Therefore Ambrose says that the text is corrupt, and that the word "neither" there is superfluous. Whence he wishes that "neither" not be there. And then the sense is: I did not permit Titus to be circumcised, but I permitted Timothy to be circumcised on account of the false brethren brought in unawares, in the place where I was with Timothy and the others, who came in unawares, etc. And since they had been unable to do this, they were striving to incite the people to sedition against us. To whom — namely, to the false brethren — for this reason we yielded for an hour to subjection, in the act of circumcision, by circumcising Timothy, there where it is said "that the truth of the Gospel might remain," etc., which holds that neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith. Now there was a special reason why Timothy was circumcised and not Titus: because Timothy was of a Gentile father and a Jewish mother, whereas Titus was of Gentile parents on both sides. And it was the Apostle's position that those who had been born of some Jewish parent should be circumcised, but those who had been born entirely of Gentile parents should by no means be circumcised.”

“Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem. Are these years to be reckoned from the date of Paul’s conversion, or from the end of the three years spent in Arabia and Damascus ? S. Jerome takes the latter, and so gets a date of seventeen years after the conversion, or ad. 54, the twelfth of the Emperor Claudius, for this journey of S. Paul But since Claudius ceased to reign in the next year, and was succeeded by Nero, in whose second year Paul was sent bound to Rome (Acts xxvii.), it would follow that all the history of Paul that is contained in Acts xv.-xxvii — I shall show S. PAUL'S JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM 237 directly that the journey alluded to here and that described in Acts xv. are the same — must be compressed into two years, which, considering the number and importance of the events recorded, seems very improbable. Moreover, it is clear, from Acts xviii. 1 1, that Paul, after what took place at Jerusalem, spent a year and a half at Corinth and then three years at Ephesus (Acts xx. 31). Accordingly, the opinion of Baronius and others seems better founded, by which these fourteen years are reckoned from S. Paul's conversion. He treats that as an illustrious event from which to reckon, just as we treat a call to the Papacy, to the Episcopate, or to religion as the beginning of a new era. That this journey of Paul to Jerusalem is the same as that described in Acts xv., when he went up to the council, is evident from the identity of cause, place, and persons in both. This is the opinion of the Fathers in general, except Chrysostom, who argues as follows : In Acts xv. Paul appears as sent to Jerusalem by his fellowChristians ; but here (ver. 2) he says that he went up to Jerusalem by revelation, hence the two journeys are distinct. My answer is : I deny the consequence. For both may be true, viz., that he went up by revelation, and that he was sent by the Christians of Antioch ; because, as Bede remarks, he was warned by a voice from heaven to undertake the embassy entrusted to him by the people of Antioch, and went up, both for the sake of obtaining a decision of the common question about the observance of the law, and also for his own private purpose, viz., that he might compare his own teaching with that of the chief of the Apostles (ver. 2). From what has been said it follows, as Baronius holds, that the Council of Jerusalem was held fourteen years after Paul's conversion, in the sixteenth year after the Crucifixion of Christ, in the ninth year of Claudius, a.d. 51”

“It should seem, by the account Paul gives of himself in this chapter, that, from the very first preaching and planting of Christianity, there was a difference of apprehension between those Christians who had first been Jews and those who had first been Gentiles. Many of those who had first been Jews retained a regard to the ceremonial law, and strove to keep up the reputation of that; but those who had first been Gentiles had no regard to the law of Moses, but took pure Christianity as perfective of natural religion, and resolved to adhere to that. Peter was the apostle to them; and the ceremonial law, though dead with Christ, yet not being as yet buried, he connived at the respect kept up for it. But Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles; and, though he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, yet he adhered to pure Christianity. Now in this chapter he tells us what passed between him and the other apostles, and particularly between him and Peter hereupon. In these verses he informs us of another journey which he took to Jerusalem, and of what passed between him and the other apostles there, Gal 2:1-10. Here he acquaints us, I. With some circumstances relating to this his journey thither. As particularly, 1. With the time of it: that it was not till fourteen years after the former (mentioned Gal 1:18), or, as others choose to understand it, from his conversion, or from the death of Christ. It was an instance of the great goodness of God that so useful a person was for so many years preserved in his work. And it was some evidence that he had no dependence upon the other apostles, but had an equal authority with them, that he had been so long absent from them, and was all the while employed in preaching and propagating pure Christianity, without being called into question by them for it, which it may be thought he would have been, had he been inferior to them, and his doctrine disapproved by them. 2. With his companions in it: he went up with Barnabas, and took with him Titus also. If the journey here spoken of was the same with that recorded Acts 15 (as many think), then we have a plain reason why Barnabas went along with him; for he was chosen by the Christians at Antioch to be his companion and associate in the affair he went about. But, as it does not appear that Titus was put into the same commission with him, so the chief reason of his taking him along with him seems to have been to let those at Jerusalem see that he was neither ashamed nor afraid to own the doctrine which he had constantly preached; for though Titus had now become not only a convert to the Christian faith, but a preacher of it too, yet he was by birth a Gentile and uncircumcised, and therefore, by making him his companion, it appeared that their doctrine and practice were of a piece, and that as he had preached the non-necessity of circumcision, and observing the law of Moses, so he was ready to own and converse with those who were uncircumcised. 3. With the reason of it, which was a divine revelation he had concerning it: he went up be revelation; not of his own head, much less as being summoned to appear there, but by special order and direction from Heaven. It was a privilege with which this apostle was often favoured to be under a special divine direction in his motions and undertakings; and, though this is what we have no reason to expect, yet it should teach us, in every thing of moment we go about, to endeavour, as far as we are capable, to see our way made plain before us, and to commit ourselves to the guidance of Providence. II. He gives us an account of his behaviour while he was at Jerusalem, which was such as made it appear that he was not in the least inferior to the other apostles, but that both his authority and qualifications were every way equal to theirs. He particularly acquaints us, 1. That he there communicated the gospel to them, which he preached among the Gentiles, but privately, etc. Here we may observe both the faithfulness and prudence of our great apostle. (1.) His faithfulness in giving them a free and fair account of the doctrine which he had all along preached among the Gentiles, and was still resolved to preach - that of pure Christianity, free from all mixtures of Judaism. This he knew was a doctrine that would be ungrateful to many there, and yet he was not afraid to own it, but in a free and friendly manner lays it open before them and leaves them to judge whether or no it was not the true gospel of Christ. And yet, (2.) He uses prudence and caution herein, for fear of giving offence. He chooses rather to do it in a more private than in a public way, and to those that were of reputation, that is, to the apostles themselves, or to the chief among the Jewish Christians, rather than more openly and promiscuously to all, because, when he came to Jerusalem, there were multitudes that believed, and yet continued zealous for the law, Act 21:20. And the reason of this his caution was lest he should run, or had run, in vain, lest he should stir up opposition against himself and thereby either the success of his past labours should be lessened, or his future usefulness be obstructed; for nothing more hinders the progress of the gospel than differences of opinion about the doctrines of it, especially when they occasion quarrels and contentions among the professors of it, as they too usually do. It was enough to his purpose to have his doctrine owned by those who were of greatest authority, whether it was approved by others or not. And therefore, to avoid offence, he judges it safest to communicate it privately to them, and not in public to the whole church. This conduct of the apostle may teach all, and especially ministers, how much need they have of prudence, and how careful they should be to use it upon all occasions, as far as is consistent with their faithfulness. 2. That in his practice he firmly adhered to the doctrine which he had preached. Paul was a man of resolution, and would adhere to his principles; and therefore, though he had Titus with him, who was a Greek, yet he would not suffer him to be circumcised, because he would not betray the doctrine of Christ, as he had preached it to the Gentiles. It does not appear that the apostles at all insisted upon this; for, though they connived at the use of circumcision among the Jewish converts, yet they were not for imposing it upon the Gentiles. But there were others who did, whom the apostle here calls false brethren, and concerning whom he informs us that they were unawares brought in, that is, into the church, or into their company, and that they came only to spy out their liberty which they had in Christ Jesus, or to see whether Paul would stand up in defence of that freedom from the ceremonial law which he had taught as the doctrine of the gospel, and represented as the privilege of those who embraced the Christian religion. Their design herein was to bring them into bondage, which they would have effected could they have gained the point they aimed at; for, had they prevailed with Paul and the other apostles to have circumcised Titus, they would easily have imposed circumcision upon other Gentiles, and so have brought them under the bondage of the law of Moses. But Paul, seeing their design, would by no means yield to them; he would not give place by subjection, no, not for an hour, not in this one single instance; and the reason of it was that the truth of the gospel might continue with them - that the Gentile Christians, and particularly the Galatians, might have it preserved to them pure and entire, and not corrupted with the mixtures of Judaism, as it would have been had he yielded in this matter. Circumcision was at that time a thing indifferent, and what in some cases might be complied with without sin; and accordingly we find even Paul himself sometimes giving way to it, as in the case of Timothy, Act 16:3. But when it is insisted on as necessary, and his consenting to it, though only in a single instance, is likely to be improved as giving countenance to such an imposition, he has too great a concern for the purity and liberty of the gospel, to submit to it; he would not yield to those who were for the Mosaic rites and ceremonies, but would stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, which conduct of his may give us occasion to observe that what under some circumstances may lawfully be complied with, yet, when that cannot be done without betraying the truth, or giving up the liberty, of the gospel, it ought to be refused. 3. That, though he conversed with the other apostles, yet he did not receive any addition to his knowledge or authority from them, Gal 2:6. By those who seemed to be somewhat he means the other apostles, particularly James, Peter, and John, whom he afterwards mentions by name, Gal 2:9. And concerning these he grants that they were deservedly had in reputation by all, that they were looked upon (and justly too) as pillars of the church, who were set not only for its ornament, but for its support, and that on some accounts they might seem to have the advantage of him, in that they had seen Christ in the flesh, which he had not, and were apostles before him, yea, even while he continued a persecutor. But yet, whatever they were, it was no matter to him. This was no prejudice to his being equally an apostle with them; for God does not accept the persons of men on the account of any such outward advantages. As he had called them to this office, so he was at liberty to qualify others for it, and to employ them in it. And it was evident in this case that he had done so; for in conference they added nothing to him, they told him nothing but what he before knew by revelation, nor could they except against the doctrine which he communicated to them, whence it appeared that he was not at all inferior to them, but was as much called and qualified to be an apostle as they themselves were. 4. That the issue of this conversation was that the other apostles were fully convinced of his divine mission and authority, and accordingly acknowledged him as their fellow-apostle, Gal 2:7-10. They were not only satisfied with his doctrine, but they saw a divine power attending him, both in preaching it and in working miracles for the confirmation of it: that he who wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in him towards the Gentiles. And hence they justly concluded that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to Paul, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter. And therefore, perceiving the grace that was given to him (that he was designed to the honour and office of an apostle as well as themselves) they gave unto him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, a symbol whereby they acknowledged their equality with them, and agreed that these should go to the heathen, while they continued to preach to the circumcision, as judging it most agreeable to the mind of Christ, and most conducive to the interest of Christianity, so to divide their work. And thus this meeting ended in an entire harmony and agreement; they approved both Paul's doctrine and conduct, they were fully satisfied in him, heartily embraced him as an apostle of Christ, and had nothing further to add, only that they would remember the poor, which of his own accord he was very forward to do. The Christians of Judea were at that time labouring under great wants and difficulties; and the apostles, out of their compassion to them and concern for them, recommend their case to Paul, that he should use his interest with the Gentile churches to procure a supply for them. This was a reasonable request; for, if the Gentiles were made partakers of their spiritual things, it was their duty to minister to them in carnal things, as Rom 15:27. And he very readily falls in with it, whereby he showed his charitable and catholic disposition, how ready he was to own the Jewish converts as brethren, though many of them could scarcely allow the like favour to the converted Gentiles, and that mere difference of opinion was no reason with him why he should not endeavour to relieve and help them. Herein he has given us an excellent pattern of Christian charity, and has taught us that we should by no means confine it to those who are just of the same sentiments with us, but be ready to extend it to all whom we have reason to look upon as the disciples of Christ.”

“Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem,.... That is, either after it pleased God to call him by his grace, and reveal his Son in him; or rather after he had been at Jerusalem to see Peter, with whom he stayed fifteen days, and then went into Syria and Cilicia; so that it was seventeen years after his conversion that he took this journey to Jerusalem he here speaks of; and he seems to refer to the time when he and Barnabas went from the church at Antioch to the apostles and elders about the question, whether circumcision was necessary to salvation, Act 15:1 which entirely agrees with the account the apostle here gives of this journey, and which he went not alone, but with Barnabas: and took Titus with me also; Barnabas is mentioned in Luke's account as going with him at this time, but Titus is not; who, though he was not sent by the church, yet the apostle might judge it proper and prudent to take him with him, who was converted by him, was a minister of the Gospel, and continued uncircumcised; and the rather he might choose to have him along with him, partly that he might be confirmed in the faith the apostle had taught him; and partly that he might be a living testimony of the agreement between the apostle's principles and practice; and that having him and Barnabas, he might have a competent number of witnesses to testify to the doctrines he preached, the miracles he wrought, and the success that attended him among the Gentiles; and to relate, upon their return, what passed between him and the elders at Jerusalem; for by the mouth of two or three witnesses everything is established.”

“Then fourteen years after - There is a considerable difference among critics concerning the time specified in this verse; the apostle is however generally supposed to refer to the journey he took to Jerusalem, about the question of circumcision, mentioned in Act 15:4-5, etc. These years, says Dr. Whitby, must be reckoned from the time of his conversion, mentioned here Gal 1:18, which took place a.d. 35 (33); his journey to Peter was a.d. 38 (36), and then between that and the council of Jerusalem, assembled a.d. 49 (52), will be fourteen intervening years. The dates in brackets are according to the chronology which I follow in the Acts of the Apostles. Dr. Whitby has some objections against this chronology, which may be seen in his notes. Others contend that the journey of which the apostle speaks is that mentioned Act 11:27, etc., when Barnabas and Saul were sent by the Church of Antioch with relief to the poor Christians in Judea; there being at that time a great dearth in that land. St. Luke's not mentioning Titus in that journey is no valid objection against it: for he does not mention him in any part of his history, this being the first place in which his name occurs. And it does seem as if St. Paul did intend purposely to supply that defect, by his saying, I went up with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. The former St. Luke relates, Act 11:30; the latter St. Paul supplies.”

“Then fourteen years after. That is, after my former going to Jerusalem, which was seventeen years after my conversion, an. 51[the year A.D. 51]. See Tillemont. (Witham) The cause of St. Paul’s second journey to Jerusalem was as follows. Some brethren coming from Judea to Antioch, there maintained the necessity of circumcision and the other Mosaic rites, asserting that without them salvation could not be obtained. St. Paul, upon his return to Antioch, strongly defended, in conjunction with Barnabas, the liberty of the gospel. As the contest grew warm, it was resolved to depute Paul and Barnabas to consult the other apostles and ancients of Jerusalem. By the approbation of the living and speaking tribunal, which all are commanded to hear, the Scriptures are not made true, altered or amended; they merely are declared to be the infallible word of God, a point only to be learned by authority; hence that memorable saying of St. Augustine: “I would not believe the gospel unless the authority of the Church moved me.” (Conta ep. fund. chap. v.)”