Albert Barnes Commentary Galatians 1:18

Albert Barnes Commentary

Galatians 1:18

1798–1870
Presbyterian
Albert Barnes
Albert Barnes

Albert Barnes Commentary

Galatians 1:18

1798–1870
Presbyterian
SCRIPTURE

"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days." — Galatians 1:18 (ASV)

Then after three years. This probably means three years after his departure from Jerusalem to Damascus, not after his return from Arabia. Most commentators have understood it this way.

Went up to Jerusalem. More correctly, as noted in the margin, returned.

To see Peter. Peter was the oldest and most distinguished of the apostles. In Galatians 2:9, he, along with James and John, is called a pillar. However, why Paul went particularly to see him is not known.

It was probably, however, due to the celebrity and distinction he knew Peter had among the apostles that he wished to become particularly acquainted with him.

The word rendered here as to see, istorhsai, is by no means the one commonly used for that idea. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means to ascertain by personal inquiry and examination, and then to narrate, as an historian was accustomed to do, from which our word history comes.

The notion of personally seeing and examining is essential to the word. The idea here, then, is of seeing or visiting Peter to form a personal acquaintance.

And stayed with him fifteen days. This period probably included three Lord's days, according to Bloomfield. Why Paul departed then is unknown.

Beza supposes it was because of the plots of the Grecians against him and their intention to destroy him (Acts 9:29), but Paul himself does not state this as the reason.

It is probable that the purpose of his visit to Peter would have been accomplished in that time, and he would not have spent more time than was necessary with him.

It is clear that in the short space of two weeks, he could not have been taught very extensively by Peter about the nature of the Christian religion. This time frame is probably mentioned here to show that he had not been under the teaching of the apostles.