Galatians 2

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

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

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].