TEXT [Commentary]

black diamond   B.   Paul’s First Visit as a Christian to Jerusalem and Beyond (1:18-24)

18 Then three years later I went to Jerusalem to get to know Peter,[*] and I stayed with him for fifteen days. 19 The only other apostle I met at that time was James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I declare before God that what I am writing to you is not a lie.

21 After that visit I went north into the provinces of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And still the churches in Christ that are in Judea didn’t know me personally. 23 All they knew was that people were saying, “The one who used to persecute us is now preaching the very faith he tried to destroy!” 24 And they praised God because of me.

NOTES

1:18 Then three years later. “Then” (epeita [TG1899, ZG2083]) is Paul’s signal to his readers that these events followed in successive order, with no breaks in the historical account. For a discussion of the sequence of events recorded both in Acts and Galatians in Paul’s life, see “Date, Occasion of Writing, and Audience ” in the Introduction.

to get to know. This word, rendered “to get to know” (historēsai [TG2477, ZG2707]), can be translated in various ways, but there is good support for translating it as “to meet,” “for an initial visit,” or “to become acquainted” (Cole 1989:55; BAGD 383). The visit after three years is best identified as the visit mentioned in Acts 9:26.

Peter. Lit., “Cephas,” Peter’s surname. In the context, it is interesting to note the use of Peter’s Semitic name, Cephas, at 1:18; 2:9, 11, rather than his Gr. name, Peter, as at 2:7. Could Paul have been suggesting that he had differences with Peter in the three uses of Cephas, whereas in the one clear statement where he mentioned a cooperative mission pattern with the other apostle, he referred to him by his Hellenistic name, Peter (cf. “Cephas” in 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5)? While this idea may seem conjectural, there is a similar pattern on Luke’s part in Acts when dealing with John Mark. He is introduced in Acts 12:25 and 15:37 with both his Semitic and Hellenistic names. When he deserts the mission to the Gentiles, however, he is called by his Hebrew name, John (Acts 13:13; see also 13:5, which is probably a foreshadowing of his abandoning the mission), but when he rejoins Barnabas in a mission to the Gentiles in Cyprus, he is called “Mark” (Acts 15:39, NASB).

1:19 James, the Lord’s brother. This James should not be confused with the other two men named James who are listed among the Lord’s apostles in the synoptic Gospels (cf. Mark 3:17, 18). This James was Jesus’ brother. The argument that this James could not be a brother of Jesus through Mary cannot be substantiated by Scripture and likely arose to defend the Roman Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

1:20 I declare before God that what I am writing to you is not a lie. In this oath, Paul calls upon God to witness to the truthfulness of his statement. The use of oaths, as Sampley (1977:477-482) has incisively argued, was a common practice in Roman law and implied that the oath-maker was willing to argue the case to the full extent of the law. Paul’s oath is reinforced by his forceful claim that he was not lying, a claim that was tantamount to opening himself up to the severe judgment of God if the claim proved to be false (cf. TDNT 9.599-601). Concerning Jesus’ warning against oaths in Matt 5:34, we must remember that the Jews had developed a complex hierarchy of oaths, some of which were stated in such a way that they could be later withdrawn without consequence. The intent of Jesus was to insist on truthfulness and to eschew word games. For a discussion of Jesus and oaths, see Guelich 1982:211-219.

1:22 didn’t know me personally. This Gr. imperfect periphrastic construction (lit., “I was continuing to be unknown by face”) indicates that the Judean Christians knew about Paul (as indicated in 1:23) but did not know him personally.

1:23 the very faith. Use of the term “faith” to designate a belief pattern is a little unusual in Paul’s main epistles (cf. Rom 1:5; Titus 1:13; see BAGD 664). Its use here may support the view that Paul was providing an authentic reminiscence of what others had said.

COMMENTARY [Text]

Paul asserted that the first time he visited Jerusalem as a follower of Jesus was three years after his Damascus road experience. The purpose of that trip was primarily to get acquainted with Peter and James, among the apostles. In their discussions, Paul probably asked Peter about the historical life of Jesus (Kilpatrick 1959:144-149).

This initial visit reflects the visit reported in Acts 9:26-28. The fifteen days mentioned in 1:18 are certainly not a problem in correlating the two accounts. The report in Acts 9:27-28 indicates that Paul met a number of Christians in Jerusalem and that Barnabas introduced him to “the apostles.” Paul said that he met only two apostles, Peter and James. For some readers, it may seem unusual that this James would be designated as an apostle, since he, Jesus’ brother, was not listed among the twelve apostles Jesus chose during his earthly ministry. Furthermore, Luke suggests that the substitute chosen to replace the apostate Judas would not only need to have been called by Jesus from the beginning but also have been a witness to the Resurrection (see Acts 1:21-22). In Paul’s mind, James (having seen the risen Christ; 1 Cor 15:7) met the requirements for being an apostolic leader.

Paul left Jerusalem and went north into the provinces of Syria and Cilicia. This journey corresponds with Acts 9:30, which states that Paul went north to Caesarea and then to his home of Tarsus in the Roman province of Cilicia (the eastern part of modern Turkey). Thereafter, Luke reports that Barnabas went to Tarsus and brought Paul to Antioch in the province of Syria, located on the southern side of the mountain pass known in the ancient world as the Syrian Gates, since it connected Cilicia with Syria (Acts 11:25-26).

Paul further emphasized his limited contact with the Jerusalem church by pointing out that even after his visit with Peter, when some Christians in Jerusalem got to know him personally (see Acts 9:28-30), the churches throughout Judea only knew of him by report—they had only heard that he was a chief persecutor of Christians who had made an about-face (1:22-24). These churches were now precious to Paul; they were no longer the object of his persecutions. He called them “the churches in Christ,” one of his favorite phrases. For him, being in Christ was the epitome of authentic Christianity, as an eschatological goal and as a present reality. This phrase clearly defined the context of his life commitment and expressed his experience. It summarizes the nature of Pauline mysticism, which is not only personal, but, as Sydney Cave (1929:50) has argued, is also corporate. Thus, to speak of churches as being “in Christ” is a genuine Pauline perspective and one of the foundations for all Christian life and thought.

Paul concludes this section by noting the amazement of the churches at his conversion. He even includes a direct quote from the Judean churches (as marked by the use of hoti [TG3754, ZG4022]): “The one who used to persecute us is now preaching the very faith he tried to destroy!” This verse may be one of the earliest surviving recorded statements directly from the Judean churches (cf. Bammel 1968:108-112). What a transformation! The persecutor of Christians had become a preacher of Christ.

What more could Paul do than give glory to God? The only true response to the work of God in the world was praise to the Lord. Paul set the response of the Judean Christians in direct contrast to those of the Galatians, who now sought to undermine his teaching on Christian liberty instead of praising God for his transformation. This statement sets in bold relief two reactions that are often present when God is at work—praise and criticism (or opposition).