Galatians 1:18

Now, with the view of branding the apostles with some mark of ignorance, they put forth the case of Peter and them that were with him having been rebuked by Paul. “Something therefore,” they say, “was wanting in them.” (This they allege) in order that they may from this construct that other position of theirs, that a fuller knowledge may possibly have afterwards come over (the apostles) such as fell to the share of Paul when he rebuked those who preceded him. I may here say to those who reject The Acts of the Apostles : “It is first necessary that you show us who this Paul was, both what he was before he was an apostle, and how he became an apostle,”, so very great is the use which they make of him in respect of other questions also. …

The epistle which we also allow to be the most decisive against Judaism, is that wherein the apostle instructs the Galatians. For the abolition of the ancient law we fully admit, and hold that it actually proceeds from the dispensation of the Creator, a point which we have already often treated in the course of our discussion, when we showed that the innovation was foretold by the prophets of our God. Now, if the Creator indeed promised that “the ancient things should pass away,” to be superseded by a new course of things which should arise, whilst Christ marks the period of the separation when He says, “The law and the prophets were until John”, thus making the Baptist the limit between the two dispensations of the old things then terminating, and the new things then beginning, the apostle cannot of course do otherwise, (coming as he does) in Christ, who was revealed after John, than in …

8. These quotations should not be tedious to the reader, but useful both to him and to me, as proving that, even before the Apostle Paul, Peter had come to know that the law was not to be in force after the gospel was given; nay more, that Peter was the prime mover in issuing the decree by which this was affirmed. Moreover, Peter was of so great authority, that Paul has recorded in his epistle: “Then, after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.” In the following context, again, he adds: “Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles;” proving that he had not had confidence in his preaching of the gospel if he had not been confirmed by the consent of Peter and those who were with him. …

6. Ye have heard an instance of a literal expression, as “that we shall rise again;” of a literal action, as that, according as it is said, “Paul went up to Jerusalem to see Peter.” “The stone which the builders refused,” is a figurative expression; “the anointed stone” which was at Jacob’s head, is a figurative action. There is now due to your expectation an example made out of both together, something which is at once a literal fact, and which also signifies something else figured by it. “We know that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free-woman;” this was literally a fact, not only a story, but a fact; are ye looking for that which was figured in it? “These are the two Testaments.” That then which is spoken figuratively, is a sort of fiction. …

Who is there then to pray over us, since Paul hath departed? These who are the imitators of Paul. Only let us yield ourselves worthy of such intercession ( συνηγορίας ), that it may not be that we hear Paul’s voice here only, but that hereafter, when we are departed, we may be counted worthy to see the wrestler of Christ. Or rather, if we hear him here, we shall certainly see him hereafter, if not as standing near him, yet see him we certainly shall, glistening near the Throne of the king. Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. …

Ver. 18 . “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas.”

Ver. 18 . “And tarried with him fifteen days.” To take a journey on account of him was a mark of respect; but to remain so many days, of friendship and the most earnest affection.

Consider what great dangers, shipwrecks, afflictions one upon another, and other such things, he calls “light”; and emulate this inflexible one, who wore this body simply and heedlessly. Thou art in poverty? But not in such as Paul, who was tried by hunger, and thirst, and nakedness. For he suffered this not for one day, but endured it continually. Whence does this appear? Hear himself saying, “Even unto this present hour we both hunger and thirst and are naked.” ( 1 Cor. iv. 11 .) Oh! How great glory did he already have in preaching, when he was undergoing so great [afflictions]! Having now [reached] the twentieth year [thereof], at the time when he wrote this. For he says, “I knew a man fourteen years ago, whether in the body, or out of the body, I know not.” ( 2 Cor. xii. 2 .) And again, “After three years” (he says) “I went up to Jerusalem.” ( Gal. i. …

2. But why should I confine my allusions to the men of this world, when the Apostle Paul, the chosen vessel the doctor of the Gentiles, who could boldly say: “Do ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me?” knowing that he really had within him that greatest of guests, when even he after visiting Damascus and Arabia “went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and abode with him fifteen days.” For he who was to be a preacher to the Gentiles had to be instructed in the mystical numbers seven and eight. And again fourteen years after he took Barnabas and Titus and communicated his gospel to the apostles lest by any means he should have run or had run in vain. Spoken words possess an indefinable hidden power, and teaching that passed directly from the mouth of the speaker into the ears of the disciples is more impressive than any other. …

15. What darkness, what raging madness rushing to its own destruction! You say that the mother of the Lord was present at the cross, you say that she was entrusted to the disciple John on account of her widowhood and solitary condition: as if upon your own showing, she had not four sons, and numerous daughters, with whose solace she might comfort herself? You also apply to her the name of widow which is not found in Scripture. And although you quote all instances in the Gospels, the words of John alone displease you. You say in passing that she was present at the cross, that you may not appear to have omitted it on purpose, and yet not a word about the women who were with her. I could pardon you if you were ignorant, but I see you have a reason for your silence. …