26 DEBBIE HUNN apostleship 4. However, in 2,6 Paul says that it makes no difference to him who Peter, James, and John were because God accepts no one’s person. It would stand to reason that if Paul sought their endorsement or if he even made the point that he received it, it might matter to him who they were 5. Furthermore, Paul was not one to miss the obvious implication of his own words: what difference did it make that Paul received commendation from Jerusalem? God accepts no one’s person. Finally, although one might consider Paul’s reproof of Peter in 2,11-14 to establish Paul’s authority as an apostle 6, Acts 11,2-3 records Jewish Christians chiding Peter without claiming apostolic rank, and Peter himself rebuked Jesus without messianic aspirations (Matt 16,21-23). So the fact of the rebuke contributes little to a case for equality in Paul’s time. In fact, if Paul accuses the premier apostle of walking away from the truth of the gospel, he cannot convincingly argue that the Galatians should accept his gospel on the basis that he is an apostle. Some of Paul’s statements do support his apostolate — for example, that God called him to preach in 1,15-16 — but confirming his position is not his purpose. Instead, Paul explicitly severs the rank of any individual from the truth of the gospel. H.A. BREHM, “Paul’s Relationship with the Jerusalem Apostles in 4 Galatians 1 and 2”, SJT 37 (1994) 11. See also B.H. MCLEAN, “Galatians 2:7-9 and the Recognition of Paul’s Apostolic Status at the Jerusalem Conference: A Critique of G. Luedemann’s Solution”, NTS 37 (1991) 68; T. WIARDA, “Plot and Character in Galatians 1–2 ”, TynB 55 (2004) 243. F.E. UDOH, “Paul’s Views on the Law: Questions about Origin (Gal 1:6-2 :21; Phil 3:2-11)”, NT 42 (2000) 229, adds that the reason Paul went to the Council was to receive an endorsement of his apostolic authority and practice from Jerusalem. H.D. BETZ, Galatians. A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, PA 1979) 104, sees recognition of Paul’s gospel and mission in the passage. J.D.G. DUNN, “The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem according 5 to Galatians 1 and 2”, NTS 28 (1982) 461, 473, would have it both ways, i.e. that Paul wanted both his independence and an acknowledgement by Jerusalem. He sees a change in Paul’s attitude from one of acknowledging Jerusalem’s authority in 2,1-10 to one of backing away from it in 2,11-14. To change one’s mind is certainly within the realm of plausibility, but for Paul to appeal both to the apostles’ authority and their lack of it in the same argument and with respect to the same issue is not. The Galatians would not be persuaded. E.g., G. LUEDEMANN, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles. Studies in 6 Chronology (Philadelphia, PA 1984) 75-77.