@Ga 2:1-21. HIS CO-ORDINATE AUTHORITY AS APOSTLE OF THE CIRCUMCISION RECOGNIZED BY THE APOSTLES. PROVED BY HIS REBUKING PETER FOR TEMPORIZING AT ANTIOCH: HIS REASONING AS TO THE INCONSISTENCY OF JUDAIZING WITH JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.
1. Translate, "After fourteen years"; namely, from Paul's conversion
inclusive [ALFORD]. In the fourteenth year from his conversion
[BIRKS].
The same visit to Jerusalem as in @Ac 15:1-4
(A.D. 50), when the
council of the apostles and Church decided that Gentile Christians need
not be circumcised. His omitting allusion to that decree is; (1)
Because his design here is to show the Galatians his own independent
apostolic authority, whence he was not likely to support himself by
their decision. Thus we see that general councils are not above
apostles. (2) Because he argues the point upon principle, not
authoritative decisions. (3) The decree did not go the length of the
position maintained here: the council did not impose Mosaic ordinances;
the apostle maintains that the Mosaic institution itself is at an end.
(4) The Galatians were Judaizing, not because the Jewish law was imposed
by authority of the Church as necessary to Christianity, but because
they thought it necessary to be observed by those who aspired to
higher perfection (@Ga 3:3 4:21). The decree would not at all
disprove their view, and therefore would have been useless to quote.
Paul meets them by a far more direct confutation, "Christ is of
no effect unto you whosoever are justified by the law" (@Ga 5:4),
[PALEY].
Titus . . . also--specified on account of what follows as to him, in
@Ga 2:3. Paul and Barnabas, and others, were deputed by the
Church of Antioch (@Ac 15:2) to consult the apostles and elders at
Jerusalem on the question of circumcision of Gentile Christians.
2. by revelation--not from being absolutely dependent on the apostles
at Jerusalem, but by independent divine "revelation." Quite consistent
with his at the same time, being a deputy from the Church of Antioch, as
@Ac 15:2 states. He by this revelation was led to suggest the
sending of the deputation. Compare the case of Peter being led by
vision, and at the same time by Cornelius' messengers, to go to
Cæsarea, @Ac 10:1-22.
I . . . communicated unto them--namely, "to the apostles and elders"
(@Ac 15:2): to the apostles in particular (@Ga 2:9).
privately--that he and the apostles at Jerusalem might decide
previously on the principles to be adopted and set forward before the
public council (@Ac 15:1-29). It was necessary that the Jerusalem
apostles should know beforehand that the Gospel Paul preached to the
Gentiles was the same as theirs, and had received divine confirmation in
the results it wrought on the Gentile converts. He and Barnabas related
to the multitude, not the nature of the doctrine they preached (as
Paul did privately to the apostles), but only the miracles vouchsafed in
proof of God's sanctioning their preaching to the Gentiles
(@Ac 15:12).
to them . . . of reputation--James, Cephas, and John, and probably some
of the "elders"; @Ga 2:6, "those who seemed to be somewhat."
lest, &c.--"lest I should be running, or have run, in vain"; that is,
that they might see that I am not running, and have not run, in vain.
Paul does not himself fear lest he be running, or had run, in vain;
but lest he should, if he gave them no explanation, seem so
to them. His race was the swift-running proclamation of the Gospel
to the Gentiles (compare "run," Margin, for "Word . . .
have free course," @2Th 3:1). His running would have been in
vain, had circumcision been necessary, since he did not require it of
his converts.
3. But--So far were they from regarding me as running in vain, that "not even Titus who was with me, who was a Greek (and therefore uncircumcised), was compelled to be circumcised." So the Greek should be translated. The "false brethren," @Ga 2:4 ("certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed," @Ac 15:5), demanded his circumcision. The apostles, however, constrained by the firmness of Paul and Barnabas (@Ga 2:5), did not compel or insist on his being circumcised. Thus they virtually sanctioned Paul's course among the Gentiles and admitted his independence as an apostle: the point he desires to set forth to the Galatians. Timothy, on the other hand, as being a proselyte of the gate, and son of a Jewess (@Ac 16:1), he circumcised (@Ac 16:3). Christianity did not interfere with Jewish usages, regarded merely as social ordinances, though no longer having their religious significance, in the case of Jews and proselytes, while the Jewish polity and temple still stood; after the overthrow of the latter, those usages naturally ceased. To have insisted on Jewish usages for Gentile converts, would have been to make them essential parts of Christianity. To have rudely violated them at first in the case of Jews, would have been inconsistent with that charity which (in matters indifferent) is made all things to all men, that by all means it may win some (@1Co 9:22; compare @Ro 14:1-7,13-23). Paul brought Titus about with him as a living example of the power of the Gospel upon the uncircumcised heathen.
4. And that--that is, What I did concerning Titus (namely, by not
permitting him to be circumcised) was not from contempt of circumcision,
but "on account of the false brethren" (@Ac 15:1,24) who, had I
yielded to the demand for his being circumcised, would have perverted
the case into a proof that I deemed circumcision necessary.
unawares--"in an underhand manner brought in."
privily--stealthily.
to spy out--as foes in the guise of friends, wishing to destroy and
rob us of
our liberty--from the yoke of the ceremonial law. If they had found
that we circumcised Titus through fear of the apostles, they would have
made that a ground for insisting on imposing the legal yoke on the
Gentiles.
bring us into bondage--The Greek future implies the
certainty and continuance of the bondage as the
result.
5. Greek, "To whom not even for an hour did we yield by
subjection." ALFORD renders the Greek article,
"with THE
subjection required of us." The sense rather is, We would willingly have
yielded for love [BENGEL] (if no principle was at issue), but not in
the way of subjection, where "the truth of the Gospel"
(@Ga 2:14 Col 1:5) was at stake
(namely, the fundamental truth of
justification by faith only, without the works of the law, contrasted
with another Gospel, @Ga 1:6). Truth precise, unaccommodating,
abandons nothing that belongs to itself, admits nothing that is
inconsistent with it [BENGEL].
might continue with you--Gentiles. We defended for your sakes your
true faith and liberties, which you are now renouncing.
6. Greek, "From those who," &c. He meant to complete the sentence
with "I derived no special advantage"; but he alters it into "they . . .
added nothing to me."
accepteth--so as to show any partiality; "respecteth no man's person"
(@Eph 6:9).
seemed to be somewhat--that is, not that they seemed to be what
they were not, but "were reputed as persons of some consequence";
not insinuating a doubt but that they were justly so reputed.
in conference added--or "imparted"; the same Greek as in
@Ga 1:16, "I conferred not with flesh and blood." As I did not by
conference impart to them aught at my conversion, so they now did not
impart aught additional to me, above what I already knew. This proves to
the Galatians his independence as an apostle.
7. contrariwise--on the contrary. So far from adding any new light
to ME, THEY gave in
THEIR adhesion to the new path on which Barnabas and
I, by independent revelation, had entered. So far from censuring, they
gave a hearty approval to my independent course, namely, the innovation
of preaching the Gospel without circumcision to the Gentiles.
when they saw--from the effects which I showed them, were "wrought"
(@Ga 2:8 Ac 15:12).
was committed unto me--Greek, "I was entrusted with."
gospel of the uncircumcision--that is, of the Gentiles, who were to
be converted without circumcision being required.
circumcision . . . unto Peter--Peter had originally opened the door
to the Gentiles (@Ac 10:1-48 15:7). But in the ultimate apportionment
of the spheres of labor, the Jews were assigned to him
(compare @1Pe 1:1). So Paul on the other hand wrote to the
Hebrews (compare also @Col 4:11),
though his main work was among the Gentiles. The
non-mention of Peter in the list of names, presciently through the
Spirit, given in the sixteenth chapter of Romans, shows that Peter's
residence at Rome, much more primacy, was then unknown. The same is
palpable from the sphere here assigned to him.
8. he--God (@1Co 12:6).
wrought effectually--that is, made the preached word efficacious to
conversion, not only by sensible miracles, but by the secret mighty
power of the Holy Ghost.
in Peter--ELLICOTT and others, translate, "For Peter."
GROTIUS translates as English Version.
to--with a view to.
was mighty--Translate as before, the Greek being the same,
"wrought effectually."
in me--"for (or 'in') me also."
9. James--placed first in the oldest manuscripts, even before Peter,
as being bishop of Jerusalem, and so presiding at the council
(@Ac 15:1-29). He was called "the Just," from his strict adherence
to the law, and so was especially popular among the Jewish party though
he did not fall into their extremes; whereas Peter was somewhat
estranged from them through his intercourse with the Gentile Christians.
To each apostle was assigned the sphere best suited to his temperament:
to James, who was tenacious of the law, the Jerusalem Jews; to Peter,
who had opened the door to the Gentiles but who was Judaically disposed,
the Jews of the dispersion; to Paul, who, by the miraculous and
overwhelming suddenness of his conversion, had the whole current of his
early Jewish prejudices turned into an utterly opposite direction, the
Gentiles. Not separately and individually, but collectively the apostles
together represented Christ, the One Head, in the apostleship. The
twelve foundation-stones of various colors are joined together to the
one great foundation-stone on which they rest
(@1Co 3:11 Re 21:14,19,20). John had got an intimation in Jesus'
lifetime of the admission of the Gentiles (@Joh 12:20-24).
seemed--that is, were reputed to be
(see on Ga 2:2 and
Ga 2:6) pillars, that is, weighty supporters of the
Church (compare @Pr 9:1 Re 3:12).
perceived the grace . . . given unto me--(@2Pe 3:15).
gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship--recognizing
me as a colleague in the apostleship, and that the Gospel I preached
by special revelation to the Gentiles was the same as theirs. Compare
the phrase, @La 5:6 Eze 17:18.
heathen--the Gentiles.
10. remember the poor--of the Jewish Christians in Judea, then
distressed. Paul and Barnabas had already done so (@Ac 11:23-30).
the same--the very thing.
I . . . was forward--or "zealous"
(@Ac 24:17 Ro 15:25 1Co 16:1 2Co 8:1-9:15). Paul was zealous for good
works, while denying justification by them.
11. Peter--"Cephas" in the oldest manuscripts Paul's withstanding
Peter is the strongest proof that the former gives of the independence
of his apostleship in relation to the other apostles, and upsets the
Romish doctrine of Peter's supremacy. The apostles were not always
inspired; but were so always in writing the Scriptures. If then the
inspired men who wrote them were not invariably at other times
infallible, much less were the uninspired men who kept them. The
Christian fathers may be trusted generally as witnesses to facts, but
not implicitly followed in matters of opinion.
come to Antioch--then the citadel of the Gentile Church: where first
the Gospel was preached to idolatrous Gentiles, and where the name
"Christians" was first given (@Ac 11:20,26), and where Peter is said
to have been subsequently bishop. The question at Antioch was not
whether the Gentiles were admissible to the Christian covenant without
becoming circumcised--that was the question settled at the Jerusalem
council just before--but whether the Gentile Christians were to be
admitted to social intercourse with the Jewish Christians without
conforming to the Jewish institution. The Judaizers, soon after the
council had passed the resolutions recognizing the equal rights of the
Gentile Christians, repaired to Antioch, the scene of the gathering in
of the Gentiles (@Ac 11:20-26), to witness, what to Jews would look
so extraordinary, the receiving of men to communion of the Church
without circumcision. Regarding the proceeding with prejudice, they
explained away the force of the Jerusalem decision; and probably also
desired to watch whether the Jewish Christians among the Gentiles
violated the law, which that decision did not verbally sanction them in doing, though giving the Gentiles latitude (@Ac 15:19).
to be blamed--rather, "(self)-condemned"; his act at one time
condemning his contrary acting at another time.
12. certain--men: perhaps James' view (in which he was not infallible,
any more than Peter) was that the Jewish converts were still to observe
Jewish ordinances, from which he had decided with the council the
Gentiles should be free (@Ac 15:19).
NEANDER, however, may be
right in thinking these self-styled delegates from James were not really
from him. @Ac 15:24 favors this. "Certain from James," may mean merely
that they came from the Church at Jerusalem under James' bishopric.
Still James' leanings were to legalism, and this gave him his influence
with the Jewish party (@Ac 21:18-26).
eat with . . . Gentiles--as in @Ac 10:10-20,48, according to the
command of the vision (@Ac 11:3-17). Yet after all, this same Peter,
through fear of man (@Pr 29:25), was faithless to his own so
distinctly avowed principles (@Ac 15:7-11). We recognize the same
old nature in him as led him, after faithfully witnessing for Christ,
yet for a brief space, to deny Him. "Ever the first to recognize, and
the first to draw back from great truths" [ALFORD]. An undesigned
coincidence between the Gospels and the Epistle in the consistency of
character as portrayed in both. It is beautiful to see how earthly
misunderstandings of Christians are lost in Christ. For in @2Pe 3:15,
Peter praises the very Epistles of Paul which he knew contained his own
condemnation. Though apart from one another and differing in
characteristics, the two apostles were one in Christ.
withdrew--Greek, "began to withdraw," &c. This implies a
gradual drawing back; "separated," entire severance.
13. the other--Greek, "the rest."
Jews--Jewish Christians.
dissembled likewise--Greek, "joined in hypocrisy," namely, in
living as though the law were necessary to justification, through fear
of man, though they knew from God their Christian liberty of eating with
Gentiles, and had availed themselves of it already (@Ac 11:2-17).
The case was distinct from that in @1Co 8:1-10:33 Ro 14:1-23. It
was not a question of liberty, and of bearing with others' infirmities,
but one affecting the essence of the Gospel, whether the Gentiles are to
be virtually "compelled to live as do the Jews," in order to be
justified (@Ga 2:14).
Barnabas also--"Even Barnabas": one least likely to be led into such
an error, being with Paul in first preaching to the idolatrous Gentiles:
showing the power of bad example and numbers. In Antioch, the capital of
Gentile Christianity and the central point of Christian missions, the
controversy first arose, and in the same spot it now broke out afresh;
and here Paul had first to encounter the party that afterwards
persecuted him in every scene of his labors (@Ac 15:30-35).
14. walked not uprightly--literally, "straight": "were not walking
with straightforward steps." Compare @Ga 6:16.
truth of the gospel--which teaches that justification by legal works
and observances is inconsistent with redemption by Christ. Paul alone
here maintained the truth against Judaism, as afterwards against
heathenism (@2Ti 4:16,17).
Peter--"Cephas" in the oldest manuscripts
before . . . all--(@1Ti 5:20).
If thou, &c.--"If thou, although being a Jew (and therefore one who
might seem to be more bound to the law than the Gentiles), livest
(habitually, without scruple and from conviction, @Ac 15:10,11) as a
Gentile (freely eating of every food, and living in other respects also
as if legal ordinances in no way justify, @Ga 2:12), and not as a
Jew, how (so the oldest manuscripts read, for 'why') is it that thou
art compelling (virtually, by thine example) the Gentiles to live as do
the Jews?" (literally, to Judaize, that is, to keep the ceremonial
customs of the Jews: What had been formerly obedience to the law, is now
mere Judaism). The high authority of Peter would constrain the
Gentile Christians to regard Judaizing as necessary to all, since Jewish
Christians could not consort with Gentile converts in communion without
it.
15, 16. Connect these verses together, and read with most of the oldest manuscripts "But" in the beginning of @Ga 2:16: "We (I and thou, Peter) by nature (not by proselytism), Jews, and not sinners as (Jewish language termed the Gentiles) from among the Gentiles, YET (literally, 'BUT') knowing that . . . even we (resuming the 'we' of @Ga 2:15, 'we also,' as well as the Gentile sinners; casting away trust in the law), have believed," &c.
16. not justified by the works of the law--as the GROUND of
justification. "The works of the law" are those which have the law for
their object--which are wrought to fulfil the law [ALFORD].
but by--Translate, "But only (in no other way save) through faith in Jesus Christ,"
as the MEAN and instrument of justification.
Jesus Christ--In the second case, read with the oldest manuscripts,
"Christ Jesus," the Messiahship coming into prominence in the case
of Jewish believers, as "Jesus" does in the first case, referring to
the general proposition.
justified by the faith of Christ--that is, by Christ, the object of
faith, as the ground of our justification.
for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified--He rests
his argument on this as an axiom in theology, referring to @Ps 143:2,
"Moses and Jesus Christ; The law and the promise; Doing and believing;
Works and faith; Wages and the gift; The curse and the blessing--are
represented as diametrically opposed" [BENGEL]. The moral law is, in
respect to justification, more legal than the ceremonial, which was
an elementary and preliminary Gospel: So "Sinai" (@Ga 4:24), which
is more famed for the Decalogue than for the ceremonial law, is made
pre-eminently the type of legal bondage. Thus, justification by the law,
whether the moral or ceremonial, is excluded (@Ro 3:20).
17. Greek, "But if, seeking to be justified IN (that is, in believing union with) Christ (who has in the Gospel theory fulfilled the law for us), we (you and I) ourselves also were found (in your and my former communion with Gentiles) sinners (such as from the Jewish standpoint that now we resume, we should be regarded, since we have cast aside the law, thus having put ourselves in the same category as the Gentiles, who, being without the law, are, in the Jewish view, "sinners," @Ga 2:15), is therefore Christ, the minister of sin?" (Are we to admit the conclusion, in this case inevitable, that Christ having failed to justify us by faith, so has become to us the minister of sin, by putting us in the position of "sinners," as the Judaic theory, if correct, would make us, along with all others who are "without the law," @Ro 2:14 1Co 9:21; and with whom, by eating with them, we have identified ourselves?) The Christian mind revolts from so shocking a conclusion, and so, from the theory which would result in it. The whole sin lies, not with Christ, but with him who would necessitate such a blasphemous inference. But his false theory, though "seeking" from Christ, we have not "found" salvation (in contradiction to Christ's own words, @Mt 7:7), but "have been ourselves also (like the Gentiles) found" to be "sinners," by having entered into communion with Gentiles (@Ga 2:12).
18. Greek, "For if the things which I overthrew (by the faith of Christ), those very things I build up again (namely, legal righteousness, by subjecting myself to the law), I prove myself (literally, 'I commend myself') a transgressor." Instead of commending yourself as you sought to do (@Ga 2:12, end), you merely commend yourself as a transgressor. The "I" is intended by Paul for Peter to take to himself, as it is his case, not Paul's own, that is described. A "transgressor" is another word for "sinner" (in @Ga 2:17), for "sin is the transgression of the law." You, Peter, by now asserting the law to be obligatory, are proving yourself a "sinner," or "transgressor," in your having set it aside by living as the Gentiles, and with them. Thus you are debarred by transgression from justification by the law, and you debar yourself from justification by Christ, since in your theory He becomes a minister of sin.
19. Here Paul seems to pass from his exact words to Peter, to the
general purport of his argument on the question. However, his direct
address to the Galatians seems not to be resumed till @Ga 3:1, "O
foolish Galatians," &c.
For--But I am not a "transgressor" by forsaking the law. "For," &c.
Proving his indignant denial of the consequence that "Christ is the
minister of sin" (@Ga 2:17), and of the premises from which it would
follow. Christ, so far from being the minister of sin and death, is the
establisher of righteousness and life. I am entirely in Him
[BENGEL].
I--here emphatical. Paul himself, not Peter, as in the "I"
(@Ga 2:18).
through the law--which was my "schoolmaster to bring me to Christ"
(@Ga 3:24); both by its terrors (@Ga 3:13 Ro 3:20) driving me to
Christ, as the refuge from God's wrath against sin, and, when
spiritually understood, teaching that itself is not permanent, but must
give place to Christ, whom it prefigures as its scope and end
(@Ro 10:4); and drawing me to Him by its promises
(in the prophecies which form part of the Old Testament law)
of a better righteousness, and of God's law written in the heart
(@De 18:15-19 Jer 31:33 Ac 10:43).
am dead to the law--literally, "I died to the law," and so am dead
to it, that is, am passed from under its power, in respect to
non-justification or condemnation (@Col 2:20 Ro 6:14 7:4,6); just as
a woman, once married and bound to a husband, ceases to be so bound to
him when death interposes, and may be lawfully married to another
husband. So by believing union to Christ in His death, we, being
considered dead with Him, are severed from the law's past power over us
(compare @Ga 6:14 1Co 7:39 Ro 6:6-11 1Pe 2:24).
live unto God--(@Ro 6:11 2Co 5:15 1Pe 4:1,2).
20. I am crucified--literally, "I have been crucified with Christ."
This more particularizes the foregoing. "I am dead"
(@Ga 2:19 Php 3:10).
nevertheless I live; yet not I--Greek, "nevertheless I live, no
longer (indeed) I." Though crucified I live; (and this) no longer that
old man such as I once was (compare @Ro 7:17). No longer Saul the
Jew (@Ga 5:24 Col 3:11, but "another man"; compare @1Sa 10:6).
ELLICOTT and others translate, "And it is no longer I that live, but
Christ that liveth in me." But the plain antithesis between "crucified"
and "live," requires the translation, "nevertheless."
the life which I now live--as contrasted with my life before
conversion.
in the flesh--My life seems to be a mere animal life "in the flesh,"
but this is not my true life; "it is but the mask of life under which
lives another, namely, Christ, who is my true life" [LUTHER].
I live by the faith, &c.--Greek, "IN faith (namely), that of
(that is, which rests on) the Son of God." "In faith," answers by
contrast to "in the flesh." Faith, not the flesh, is the real
element in which I live. The phrase, "the Son of God," reminds us that
His Divine Sonship is the source of His life-giving power.
loved me--His eternal gratuitous love is the link that unites me to
the Son of God, and His "giving Himself for me," is the strongest proof
of that love.
21. I do not frustrate the grace of God--I do not make it void, as thou, Peter, art doing by Judaizing.
for--justifying the strong expression "frustrate," or "make void."
is dead in vain--Greek, "Christ died needlessly," or "without just
cause." Christ's having died, shows that the law has no power to justify
us; for if the law can justify or make us righteous, the death of Christ
is superfluous [CHRYSOSTOM].