1Cor 9:5, 15:5, Gal 1:18, 2:7-9, 14 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 5. Have we not power ? Have we not a right? The objection here seems to have been, that Paul and Barnabas were unmarried, or at least that they travelled without wives. The objectors urged that others had wives, and that they took them with them, and expected provision to be made for them as well as for themselves. They therefore showed that they felt that they had a claim to support for their families, and that they were conscious that they were sent of God. But Paul and Barnabas had no families. And the objectors inferred that they were conscious that they had no claim to the apostleship, and no right to support. To this Paul replies as before, that they had a right to do as others did, but they chose not to do it for other reasons than that they were conscious that they had no such right. To lead about . To have in attendance with us; to conduct from place to place; and to have them maintained at the expense of the churches amongst which we labour. A sister, a wife . Margin, " or woman ." This phrase has much perplexed commentators. But the simple meaning seems to be, "A wife who should be a Christian and regarded as sustaining the relation of a Christian sister." Probably Paul meant to advert to the fact that the wives of the apostles were and should be Christians; and that it was a matter of course, that if an apostle led about a wife she would be a Christian; or that he would marry no other. Comp. . As well as other apostles . It is evident from this that the apostles generally were married. The phrase used here is οιλοιποιαποστολοι, ( the remaining apostles , or the other apostles.) And if they were married, it is right and proper for ministers to marry now, whatever the papist may say to the contrary. It is safer to follow the example of the apostles than the opinions of the papal church. The reasons why the apostles had wives with them on their journeys may have been various, They may have been either to give instruction and counsel to those of their own sex to whom the apostles could not have access, or to minister to the wants of their husbands as they travelled. It is to be remembered that they travelled among heathens; they had no acquaintance and no friends there; they therefore took with them their female friends and wives to minister to them, and sustain them in sickness, trial, etc. Paul says that he and Barnabas had a right to do this; but they had not used this right because they chose rather to make the gospel without charge, ( ,) and that thus they judged they could do more good. It follows from this, (1.) that it is right for ministers to marry, and that the papal doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy is contrary to apostolic example. (2.) It is right for missionaries to marry, and to take their wives with them to heathen lands. The apostles were missionaries, and spent their lives in heathen nations, as missionaries do now, and there may be as good reasons for missionaries, marrying now as there were then. (3.) Yet there are men, like Paul, who can do more good without being married. There are circumstances, like his, where it is not advisable that they should marry, and there can be no doubt that Paul regarded the unmarried state for a missionary as preferable and advisable. Probably the same is to be said of most missionaries at the present day, that they could do more good if unmarried, than they can if burdened with the cares of families. And as the brethren of the Lord . The brothers of the Lord Jesus--James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas, . It seems from this, that although at first they did not believe in him, ( ,) and had regarded him as disgraced, ( ,) yet that they had subsequently become converted, and were employed as ministers and evangelists. It is evident also from this statement, that they were married, and were attended with their wives in their travels. And Cephas . Peter. . This proves, (1.) as well as the declaration in , that Peter had been married. (2.) That he had a wife after he became an apostle, and while engaged in the work of the ministry. (3.) That his wife accompanied him in his travels. (4.) That it is right and proper for ministers and missionaries to be married now. Is it not strange that the pretended successor of Peter, the pope of Rome, should forbid marriage, when Peter himself was married? Is it not a proof how little the papacy regards the Bible, and the example and authority of those from whom it pretends to derive its power? And is it not strange that this doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy, which has been the source of abomination, impurity, and licentiousness everywhere, should have been sustained and countenanced at all by the Christian world? And is it not strange that this, with all the other corrupt doctrines of the papacy, should be attempted to be imposed on the enlightened people of the United States, [or of Great Britain,] as a part of the religion of Christ? (*) "wife" "woman"

1 Corinthians 9:5

Verse 5. Have we not power? Have we not a right? The objection here seems to have been, that Paul and Barnabas were unmarried, or at least that they travelled without wives. The objectors urged that others had wives, and that they took them with them, and expected provision to be made for them as well as for themselves. They therefore showed that they felt that they had a claim to support for their families, and that they were conscious that they were sent of God. But Paul and Barnabas had no families. And the objectors inferred that they were conscious that they had no claim to the apostleship, and no right to support. To this Paul replies as before, that they had a right to do as others did, but they chose not to do it for other reasons than that they were conscious that they had no such right.

To lead about. To have in attendance with us; to conduct from place to place; and to have them maintained at the expense of the churches amongst which we labour.

A sister, a wife. Margin, "or woman." This phrase has much perplexed commentators. But the simple meaning seems to be, "A wife who should be a Christian and regarded as sustaining the relation of a Christian sister." Probably Paul meant to advert to the fact that the wives of the apostles were and should be Christians; and that it was a matter of course, that if an apostle led about a wife she would be a Christian; or that he would marry no other. Comp. 1Cor 7:11.

As well as other apostles. It is evident from this that the apostles generally were married. The phrase used here is οιλοιποιαποστολοι, (the remaining apostles, or the other apostles.) And if they were married, it is right and proper for ministers to marry now, whatever the papist may say to the contrary. It is safer to follow the example of the apostles than the opinions of the papal church. The reasons why the apostles had wives with them on their journeys may have been various, They may have been either to give instruction and counsel to those of their own sex to whom the apostles could not have access, or to minister to the wants of their husbands as they travelled. It is to be remembered that they travelled among heathens; they had no acquaintance and no friends there; they therefore took with them their female friends and wives to minister to them, and sustain them in sickness, trial, etc. Paul says that he and Barnabas had a right to do this; but they had not used this right because they chose rather to make the gospel without charge, (1Cor 9:18,) and that thus they judged they could do more good. It follows from this,

(1.) that it is right for ministers to marry, and that the papal doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy is contrary to apostolic example.

(2.) It is right for missionaries to marry, and to take their wives with them to heathen lands. The apostles were missionaries, and spent their lives in heathen nations, as missionaries do now, and there may be as good reasons for missionaries, marrying now as there were then.

(3.) Yet there are men, like Paul, who can do more good without being married. There are circumstances, like his, where it is not advisable that they should marry, and there can be no doubt that Paul regarded the unmarried state for a missionary as preferable and advisable. Probably the same is to be said of most missionaries at the present day, that they could do more good if unmarried, than they can if burdened with the cares of families.

And as the brethren of the Lord. The brothers of the Lord Jesus--James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas, Mt 13:55. It seems from this, that although at first they did not believe in him, (Jn 7:5,) and had regarded him as disgraced, (Mk 3:21,) yet that they had subsequently become converted, and were employed as ministers and evangelists. It is evident also from this statement, that they were married, and were attended with their wives in their travels.

And Cephas. Peter. Jn 1:42. This proves,

(1.) as well as the declaration in Mt 8:14, that Peter had been married.

(2.) That he had a wife after he became an apostle, and while engaged in the work of the ministry.

(3.) That his wife accompanied him in his travels.

(4.) That it is right and proper for ministers and missionaries to be married now. Is it not strange that the pretended successor of Peter, the pope of Rome, should forbid marriage, when Peter himself was married? Is it not a proof how little the papacy regards the Bible, and the example and authority of those from whom it pretends to derive its power? And is it not strange that this doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy, which has been the source of abomination, impurity, and licentiousness everywhere, should have been sustained and countenanced at all by the Christian world? And is it not strange that this, with all the other corrupt doctrines of the papacy, should be attempted to be imposed on the enlightened people of the United States, [or of Great Britain,] as a part of the religion of Christ?

(*) "wife" "woman"

1 Corinthians 15:5

Verse 5. And that he was seen of Cephas. Peter. Jn 1:42. The resurrection of Christ was a fact to be proved, like all other facts, by competent and credible witnesses. Paul, therefore, appeals to the witnesses who had attested, or who yet lived to attest, the truth of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; and shows that it was not possible that so many witnesses should have been deceived. As this was not the first time in which the evidence had been stated to them, and as his purpose was merely to remind them of what they had heard and believed, he does not adduce all the witnesses to the event, but refers only to the more important ones. He does not, therefore, mention the woman to whom the Saviour first appeared, nor does he refer to all the times when the Lord Jesus manifested himself to his disciples. But he does not refer to them in general merely, but mentions names, and refers to persons who were then alive, who could attest the truth of the resurrection. It may be observed, also, that Paul observes probably the exact order in which the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples, though he does not mention all the instances. For an account of the persons to whom the Lord Jesus appeared after his resurrection, and the order in which it was done, see the Harmony at the end of Notes on Matthew.

Then of the twelve. The apostles, still called "the twelve," though Judas was not one of them. It was common to call the apostles "the twelve." Jesus appeared to the apostles at one time in the absence of Thomas, (Jn 20:19,24;) and also to them when Thomas was present, Jn 20:24-29. Probably Paul here refers to the latter occasion, when all the surviving apostles were present.

(h) "Cephas" Lk 24:34

Galatians 1:18

Verse 18. Then after three years. Probably three years after his departure from Jerusalem to Damascus, not after his return to Arabia. So most commentators have understood it.

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

To see Peter. Peter was the oldest and most distinguished of the apostles. In Gal 2:9, he, with James and John, is called a pillar. But why Paul went particularly to see him is not known. It was probably, however, from the celebrity and distinction which he knew Peter had among the apostles that he wished to become particularly acquainted with him. The word which is here rendered to see, ιστορησαι is by no means that which is commonly employed to denote that idea. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament; and properly means, to ascertain by personal inquiry and examination, and then to narrate, as an historian was accustomed to do, whence our word history. The notion of personally seeing and examining is one that belongs essentially to the word, and the idea here is that of seeing or visiting Peter in order to a personal acquaintance.

And abode with him fifteen days. Probably, says Bloomfield, including three Lord's days. Why he departed then is unknown. Beza supposes that it was on account of the plots of the Grecians against him, and their intention to destroy him, Acts 9:29; but this is not assigned by Paul himself as a reason. It is probable that the purpose of his visit to Peter would be accomplished in that time, and he would not spend more time than was necessary with him. It is clear that in the short space of two weeks he could not have been very extensively taught by Peter the nature of the Christian religion, and probably the time is mentioned here to show that he had not been under the teaching of the apostles.

(a) "Then after three years" Acts 9:26 (1) "I went" "returned"

Galatians 2:7-9

Verse 7. The gospel of the uncircumcision. The duty of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised part of the world; that is, to the Gentiles. Paul had received this as his peculiar office when he was converted and called to the ministry, see Acts 9:15, 22:21; and they now perceived that he had been specially intrusted with this office, from the remarkable success which had attended his labours. It is evidently not meant here that Paul was to preach only to the Gentiles and Peter only to the Jews, for Paul often preached in the synagogues of the Jews, and Peter was the first who preached to a Gentile, Acts 10; but it is meant that it was the main business of Paul to preach to the Gentiles, or that this was especially intrusted to him.

As the gospel of the circumcision. As the office of preaching the gospel to the Jews.

Was unto Peter. Peter was to preach principally to the circumcised Jews. It is evident that until this time Peter had. been principally employed in preaching to the Jews. Paul selects Peter here particularly, doubtless because he was the oldest of the apostles, and in order to show that he was himself regarded as on a level, in regard to the apostleship, with the most aged and venerable of those who had been called to the apostolic office by the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus.

(++) "contrariwise" "On the contrary" (&) "committed" "intrusted" (c) "unto me, as the gospel" 1Thes 2:4, 1Timm 2:7 Verse 8. For he that wrought effectually in Peter, etc. Or by the means or agency of Peter. The argument here is, that the same effects had been produced under the ministry of Paul among the Gentiles, which had been under the preaching of Peter among the Jews. It is inferred, therefore, that God had called both to the apostolic office. See this argument illustrated Acts 11:17.

The same was mighty in me, etc. In enabling me to work miracles, and in the success which attended the ministry.

(|) "effectually in Peter" "By" (**) "mighty in me" "Wrought powerfully by me" (++) "toward the Gentiles" "in the conversion of the Gentiles" Verse 9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars. That is, pillars or supports in the church. The word rendered pillars στυλοι means, properly, firm support; then persons of influence and authority, as in a church, or that support a church--as a pillar or column does an edifice. In regard to James, Gal 1:19. Comp. Acts 15:13. Cephas or Peter was the most aged of the apostles, and regarded as at the head of the apostolical college. John was the beloved disciple, and his influence in the church must of necessity have been great. Paul felt that if he had the countenance of these men, it would be an important proof to the churches of Galatia that he had a right to regard himself as an apostle. Their countenance was expressed in the most full and decisive manner.

Perceived the grace that was given unto me. That is, the favour that had been shown to me by the great Head of the church, in so abundantly blessing my lab ours among the Gentiles.

They gave unto me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. The right hand, in token of fellowship or favour. They thus publicly acknowledged us as fellow-labourers, and expressed the utmost confidence in us. To give the right hand with us is a token of friendly salutation, and it seems that it was a mode of salutation not unknown in the times of the apostles. They were thus recognised as associated with the apostles in the great work of spreading the gospel around the world. Whether this was done in a public manner is not certainly known; but it was probably in the presence of the church, or possibly at the close of the council referred to in Acts 15.

That we should go unto the heathen. To preach the gospel, and to establish churches. In this way the whole matter was settled, and settled as Paul desired it to be. A delightful harmony was produced between Paul and the apostles at Jerusalem; and the result showed the wisdom of the course which he had adopted. There had been no harsh contention or strife. No jealousies had been suffered to arise. Paul had sought an opportunity of a full statement of his views to them in private, Gal 2:2, and they had been entirely satisfied that God had called him and Barnabas to the work of making known the gospel among the heathen. Instead of being jealous at their success, they had rejoiced in it; and instead of throwing any obstacle in their way, they cordially gave them the right hand. How easy would it be always to prevent jealousies and strifes in the same way! If there was, on the one hand, the same readiness for a full and frank explanation, and if, on the other, the same freedom from envy at remarkable success, how many strifes that have disgraced the church might have been avoided! The true way to avoid strife is just that which is here proposed. Let there be on both sides perfect frankness; let there be a willingness to explain and state things just as they are; and let there be a disposition to rejoice in the talents, and zeal, and success of others, even though it should far outstrip our own, and contention in the church would cease, and every devoted and successful minister of the gospel would receive the right hand of fellowship from all--however venerable by age or authority--who love the cause of true religion.

(a) "be pillars" Mt 16:18, Eph 2:20 (b) "the grace" Rom 1:5, 12:3,6

Galatians 2:14

Verse 14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly. To walk, in the Scriptures, is usually expressive of conduct or deportment; and the idea here is, that their conduct in this case was not honest.

According to the truth of the gospel. According to the true spirit and design of the gospel. That requires perfect honesty and integrity; and as that was the rule by which Paul regulated his life, and by which he felt that all ought to regulate their conduct, he felt himself called on openly to reprove the principal person who had been in fault. The spirit of the world is crafty, cunning, and crooked. The gospel would correct all that wily policy, and would lead man in a path of entire honesty and truth.

I said unto Peter before them all. That is, probably, before all the church, or certainly before all. who had offended with him in the case. Had this been a private affair, Paul would doubtless have sought a private interview with Peter, and would have remonstrated with him in private on the subject. But it was public. It was a case where many were involved, and where the interests of the church were at stake. It was a case where it was very important to establish some fixed and just principles, and he therefore took occasion to remonstrate with him in public on the subject. This might have been at the close of public worship; or it may have been that the subject came up for debate in some of their public meetings, whether the rites of the Jews were to be imposed on the Gentile converts. This was a question which agitated all the churches where the Jewish and Gentile converts were intermingled; and it would not be strange that it should be the subject of public debate at Antioch. The fact that Paul reproved Peter before "them all," proves,

(1.) that he regarded himself, and was so regarded by the church, as on an equality with Peter, and as having equal authority with him.

(2.) That public reproof is right when an offence has been public, and when the church at large is interested, or is in danger of being led into error. Comp. 1Timm 5:20, "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."

(3.) That it is a duty to reprove those who err. It is a painful duty, and one much neglected; still it is a duty often enjoined in the Scriptures, and one that is of the deepest importance to the church. He does a favour to another man who, in a kind spirit, admonishes him of his error, and reclaims him from a course of sin. He does another the deepest injury, who suffers sin unrebuked to lie upon him, and who sees him injuring himself and others, and who is at no pains to admonish him for his faults.

(4.) If it is the duty of one Christian to admonish another who is an offender, and to do it in a kind spirit, it is the duty of him who has offended to receive the admonition in a kind spirit and with thankfulness. Excitable as Peter was by. nature, yet there is no evidence that he became angry here, or that he did not receive the admonition of his brother Paul with perfect good temper, and with an acknowledgment that Paul was right and that he was wrong. Indeed, the case was so plain--as it usually is, if men would be honest--that he seems to have felt that it was right, and to have received the rebuke as became a Christian. Peter, unhappily, was accustomed to rebukes; and he was at heart too good a man to be offended when he was admonished that he had done wrong. A good man is willing to be reproved when he has erred, and it is usually proof that there is much that is wrong when we become excited and irritable if another admonishes us of our faults. It may be added here, that nothing should be inferred from this in regard to the inspiration or apostolic authority of Peter. The fault was not that he taught error of doctrine, but that he sinned in conduct. Inspiration, though it kept the apostles from teaching error, did not keep them necessarily from sin. A man may always teach the truth, and yet be far from perfection in practice. The case here proves that Peter was not perfect, a fact proved by his whole life; it proves that he was sometimes timid, and even, for a period, time-serving; but it does not prove that what he wrote for our guidance was false and erroneous.

If thou, being a Jew. A Jew by birth.

Livest after the manner of the Gentiles. In eating, etc., as he had done before Judaizing teachers came from Jerusalem, Gal 2:12.

And not as do the Jews. Observing their peculiar customs, and their distinctions of meats and drinks.

Why compellest thou the Gentiles, etc. As he would do, if he insisted that they should be circumcised, and observe the peculiar Jewish rites. The charge against him was gross inconsistency in doing this. "Is it not at least as lawful for them to neglect the Jewish observances, as it was for thee to do it but a few days ago?"--Doddridge. The word here rendered "compellest," means here moral compulsion or persuasion. The idea is, that the conduct of Peter was such as to lead the Gentiles to the belief that it was necessary for them to be circumcised in order to be saved. For a similar use of the word, see Mt 14:22, Lk 14:23; Acts 28:19.

(b) "truth of gospel" Gal 2:5 (c) "Peter before them" 1Timm 5:20 (+) "compellest" "urgest"