Text -- Galatians 2:10-21 (NET)

2:10 They requested only that we remember the poor, the very thing I also was eager to do.

Paul Rebukes Peter

2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. 2:12 Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision. 2:13 And the rest of the Jews also joined with him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with them by their hypocrisy. 2:14 But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Jews and Gentiles are Justified by Faith

2:15 We are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, 2:16 yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. 2:17 But if while seeking to be justified in Christ we ourselves have also been found to be sinners, is Christ then one who encourages sin? Absolutely not! 2:18 But if I build up again those things I once destroyed, I demonstrate that I am one who breaks God’s law. 2:19 For through the law I died to the law so that I may live to God. 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 2:21 I do not set aside God’s grace, because if righteousness could come through the law, then Christ died for nothing!

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Gal 2:10

Only ( monon ).

One item was emphasized.

Robertson: Gal 2:10

We should remember ( mnēmoneuōmen ).

Present active subjunctive, "that we should keep on remembering."

Robertson: Gal 2:10

Which very thing ( hȯ̇auto touto ).

Repetition of relative and demonstrative, tautology, "which this very thing."In fact Barnabas and Saul had done it before (Act 11:30). It was complete victory for Paul and Barnabas. Paul passes by the second public meeting and the letters to Antioch (Acts 15:6-29) and passes on to Peter’ s conduct in Antioch.

Robertson: Gal 2:11

I resisted him to the face ( kata prosōpon autōi antestēn ).

Second aorist active indicative (intransitive) of anthistēmi . "I stood against him face to face."In Jerusalem Paul faced Peter as his equal in rank and sphere of work. In Antioch he looked him in the eye as his superior in character and courage.

Robertson: Gal 2:11

Because he stood condemned ( hoti kategnōsmenos ēn ).

Periphrastic past perfect passive of kataginoskō , old verb to know against, to find fault with. In N.T. only here and 1Jo 3:20.

Robertson: Gal 2:12

For before that certain came from James ( pro tou gar elthein tinas apo Iakōbou ).

The reason (gar ) for Paul’ s condemnation of Peter. Articular infinitive in the genitive after pro with the accusative of general reference (tinas ), "for before the coming as to some from James."Does Paul mean to say that these "certain"ones had been sent by James to Antioch to inspect the conduct of Peter and the other Jewish brethren? Some scholars think so. No doubt these brethren let the idea get out that they were emissaries "from James."But that idea is inconsistent with the position of James as president of the conference and the author of the resolution securing liberty to the Gentile Christians. No doubt these brethren threatened Peter to tell James and the church about his conduct and they reminded Peter of his previous arraignment before the Jerusalem Church on this very charge (Acts 11:1-18). As a matter of fact the Jerusalem Conference did not discuss the matter of social relations between Jews and Gentiles though that was the charge made against Peter (Act 11:1.).

Robertson: Gal 2:12

He did eat with the Gentiles ( meta tōn ethnōn sunēsthien ).

It was his habit (imperfect tense).

Robertson: Gal 2:12

He drew back ( hupestellen ).

Imperfect tense, inchoative action, "he began to draw himself (heauton ) back."Old word hupostellō . See middle voice to dissemble (Act 20:20, Act 20:27), to shrink (Heb 10:38).

Robertson: Gal 2:12

Separated himself ( aphōrizen heauton ).

Inchoative imperfect again, "began to separate himself"just like a Pharisee (see note on Gal 1:15) and as if afraid of the Judaizers in the Jerusalem Church, perhaps half afraid that James might not endorse what he had been doing.

Robertson: Gal 2:12

Fearing them that were of the circumcision ( phoboumenos tous ek peritomēs ).

This was the real reason for Peter’ s cowardice. See Act 11:2 for "hoi ek peritomēs "(they of the circumcision), the very phrase here. It was not that Peter had changed his views from the Jerusalem resolutions. It was pure fear of trouble to himself as in the denials at the trial of Christ.

Robertson: Gal 2:13

Dissembled likewise with him ( sunupekrithēsan autōi kai ).

First aorist passive indicative of the double compound verb sunupokrinomai , a late word often in Polybius, only here in N.T. One example in Polybius means to pretend to act a part with. That idea here would help the case of the rest of the Jews, but does not accord with Paul’ s presentation.

Robertson: Gal 2:13

Insomuch that even Barnabas ( hōste kai Barnabas ).

Actual result expressed by hōste and the indicative and kai clearly means "even."

Robertson: Gal 2:13

Was carried away with their dissimulation ( sunapēchthē autōn tēi hupokrisei ).

First aorist passive indicative of sunapagō , old verb, in N.T. only here and 2Pe 3:17. Hupokrisei is in the instrumental case and can only mean hypocrisy in the bad sense (Mat 23:28), not merely acting a part. It was a solemn moment when Paul saw the Jerusalem victory vanish and even Barnabas desert him as they followed the timid cowardice of Peter. It was Paulus contra mundum in the cause of spiritual freedom in Christ.

Robertson: Gal 2:14

But when I saw ( All' hote eidon ).

Paul did see and saw it in time to speak.

Robertson: Gal 2:14

That they walked not uprightly ( hoti orthopodousin ).

Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse, "they are not walking straight."Orthopodeō (orthos , straight, pous , foot). Found only here and in later ecclesiastical writers, though orthopodes bainontes does occur.

Robertson: Gal 2:14

According to the truth of the gospel ( pros tēn alētheian tou euaggeliou ).

Just as in Gal 2:5. Paul brought them to face (pros ) that.

Robertson: Gal 2:14

I said unto Cephas before them all ( eipon tōi Kēphāi emprosthen pantōn ).

Robertson: Gal 2:14

Being a Jew ( Ioudaios huparchōn , though being a Jew).

Condition of first class, assumed as true. It was not a private quarrel, but a matter of public policy. One is a bit curious to know what those who consider Peter the first pope will do with this open rebuke by Paul, who was in no sense afraid of Peter or of all the rest.

Robertson: Gal 2:14

As do the Gentiles ( ethnikōs ).

Late adverb, here only in N.T. Like Gentiles.

Robertson: Gal 2:14

As do the Jews ( Ioudaikōs ).

Only here in N.T., but in Josephus.

Robertson: Gal 2:14

To live as do the Jews ( Iouda‹zein ).

Late verb, only here in the N.T. From Ioudaios , Jew. Really Paul charges Peter with trying to compel (conative present, anagkazeis ) the Gentiles to live all like Jews, to Judaize the Gentile Christians, the very point at issue in the Jerusalem Conference when Peter so loyally supported Paul. It was a bold thrust that allowed no reply. But Paul won Peter back and Barnabas also. If II Peter is genuine, as is still possible, he shows it in 2Pe 3:15. Paul and Barnabas remained friends (Act 15:39.; 1Co 9:6), though they soon separated over John Mark.

Robertson: Gal 2:15

Not sinners of the Gentiles ( ouk ex ethnōn hamartōloi ).

The Jews regarded all Gentiles as "sinners"in contrast with themselves (cf. Mat 26:45 "sinners"and Luk 18:32 "Gentiles"). It is not clear whether Gal 2:15-21 were spoken by Paul to Peter or whether Paul is now simply addressing the Galatians in the light of the controversy with Peter. Burton thinks that he is "mentally addressing Peter, if not quoting from what he said to him."

Robertson: Gal 2:16

Is not justified ( ou dikaioutai ).

Present passive indicative of dikaioō , an old causative verb from dikaios , righteous (from dike , right), to make righteous, to declare righteous. It is made like axioō , to deem worthy, and Koinéoō , to consider common. It is one of the great Pauline words along with dikaiosunē , righteousness. The two ways of getting right with God are here set forth: by faith in Christ Jesus (objective genitive), by the works of the law (by keeping all the law in the most minute fashion, the way of the Pharisees). Paul knew them both (see Romans 7). In his first recorded sermon the same contrast is made that we have here (Act 13:39) with the same word dikaioō , employed. It is the heart of his message in all his Epistles. The terms faith (pistis ), righteousness (dikaiosunē ), law (nomos ), works (erga ) occur more frequently in Galatians and Romans because Paul is dealing directly with the problem in opposition to the Judaizers who contended that Gentiles had to become Jews to be saved. The whole issue is here in an acute form.

Robertson: Gal 2:16

Save ( ean mē ).

Except.

Robertson: Gal 2:16

Even we ( kai hēmeis ).

We Jews believed, had to believe, were not saved or justified till we did believe. This very point Peter had made at the Jerusalem Conference (Act 15:10.). He quotes Psa 143:2. Paul uses dikaiosunē in two senses (1) Justification, on the basis of what Christ has done and obtained by faith. Thus we are set right with God. Romans 1-5. (2) Sanctification. Actual goodness as the result of living with and for Christ. Romans 6-8. The same plan exists for Jew and Gentile.

Robertson: Gal 2:17

We ourselves were found sinners ( heurethēmen kai autoi hamartōloi ).

Like the Gentiles, Jews who thought they were not sinners, when brought close to Christ, found that they were. Paul felt like the chief of sinners.

Robertson: Gal 2:17

A minister of sin ( hamartias diakonos ).

Objective genitive, a minister to sin. An illogical inference. We were sinners already in spite of being Jews. Christ simply revealed to us our sin.

Robertson: Gal 2:17

God forbid ( mē genoito ).

Literally, "May it not happen."Wish about the future (mē and the optative).

Robertson: Gal 2:18

A transgressor ( parabatēn ).

Peter, by his shifts had contradicted himself helplessly as Paul shows by this condition. When he lived like a Gentile, he tore down the ceremonial law. When he lived like a Jew, he tore down salvation by grace.

Robertson: Gal 2:19

I through the law died to the law ( egō dia nomou nomōi apethanon ).

Paradoxical, but true. See note on Rom 7:4, note on Rom 7:6 for picture of how the law waked Paul up to his real death to the law through Christ.

Robertson: Gal 2:20

I have been crucified with Christ ( Christōi sunestaurōmai ).

One of Paul’ s greatest mystical sayings. Perfect passive indicative of sustauroō with the associative instrumental case (Christōi ). Paul uses the same word in Rom 6:6 for the same idea. In the Gospels it occurs of literal crucifixion about the robbers and Christ (Mat 27:44; Mar 15:32; Joh 19:32). Paul died to the law and was crucified with Christ. He uses often the idea of dying with Christ (Gal 5:24; Gal 6:14; Rom 6:8; Col 2:20) and burial with Christ also (Rom 6:4; Col 2:12).

Robertson: Gal 2:20

No longer I ( ouketi egō ).

So complete has become Paul’ s identification with Christ that his separate personality is merged into that of Christ. This language helps one to understand the victorious cry in Rom 7:25. It is the union of the vine and the branch (Joh 15:1-6).

Robertson: Gal 2:20

Which is in the Son of God ( tēi tou huiou tou theou ).

The objective genitive, not the faith of the Son of God.

Robertson: Gal 2:20

For me ( huper emou ).

Paul has the closest personal feeling toward Christ. "He appropriates to himself, as Chrysostom observes, the love which belongs equally to the whole world. For Christ is indeed the personal friend of each man individually"(Lightfoot).

Robertson: Gal 2:21

I do not make void the grace of God ( ouk athetō tēn charin tou theou ).

Common word in lxx and Polybius and on, to make ineffective (a privative and tithēmi , to place or put). Some critic would charge him with that after his claim to such a close mystic union with Christ.

Robertson: Gal 2:21

Then Christ died for nought ( ara Christos dōrean apethanen ).

Condition of first class, assumed as true. If one man apart from grace can win his own righteousness, any man can and should. Hence (ara , accordingly) Christ died gratuitously (dōrean ), unnecessarily. Adverbial accusative of dōrea , a gift. This verse is a complete answer to those who say that the heathen (or any mere moralist) are saved by doing the best that they know and can. No one, apart from Jesus, ever did the best that he knew or could. To be saved by law (dia nomou ) one has to keep all the law that he knows. That no one ever did.

Vincent: Gal 2:10

Only

With only this stipulation.

Vincent: Gal 2:10

We should remember ( μνημονεύωμεν )

The only instance in N.T. of this verb in the sense of beneficent care. No instance in lxx. In Psa 9:12, there is the thought but not the word.

Vincent: Gal 2:10

The poor ( τῶν πτωχῶν )

The poor Christians of Palestine. Comp. Act 24:17; Rom 15:26, Rom 15:27; 1Co 16:3; 2Co 9:1. For the word, see on Mat 5:3. In lxx ordinarily of those who are oppressors, or of those who are quiet in contrast with the lawless.

Vincent: Gal 2:10

The same which ( ὃ - αὐτὸ τοῦτο )

Lit. which , this very thing . The expression is peculiarly emphatic, and brings out the contrast between Judaising hostility and Paul's spirit of loving zeal. Rev. which very thing .

Vincent: Gal 2:11

To the face ( κατὰ πρόσωπον )

As Act 3:13. The meaning is expressed in the familiar phrase faced him down . It is, however, rarely as strong as this in N.T. Rather before the face , or in the face of, meaning simply in the sight or presence of (Luk 2:31), or according to appearance (2Co 1:7). The explanation that Paul withstood Peter only in appearance or semblance (so Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and other Fathers) is one of the curiosities of exegesis, and was probably adopted out of misplaced consideration for the prestige of Peter.

Vincent: Gal 2:11

He was to be blamed ( κατεγνωσμένος ἦν )

A.V. is wrong. Rev. correctly, he stood condemned . Not by the body of Christians at Antioch; rather his act was its own condemnation.

Vincent: Gal 2:12

Did eat with ( συνήσθιεν )

A.V. misses the force of the imperfect, marking Peter's custom. Not only at church feasts, but at ordinary meals, in defiance of the Pharisaic that this prohibition was not binding (Act 10:28; Act 11:8, Act 11:9), and had defended that position in the apostolic conference (Act 15:7 ff.).

Vincent: Gal 2:12

Withdrew and separated himself ( ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν )

Or, began to withdraw, etc. Ὑποστέλλειν only here in Paul. It means, originally, to draw in or contract . Thus of furling sails, closing the fingers. Middle voice, to draw or shrink back from through fear . Hence, to dissemble or prevaricate . There seems to be no special reason for making it either a military metaphor, as Lightfoot, or a nautical metaphor, as Farrar. See on Act 20:20.

Vincent: Gal 2:13

Dissembled with him ( συνυπεκρίθησαν )

N.T.o . Peter's course influenced the other Jewish Christians as Antioch, who had previously followed his example in eating with Gentiles.

Vincent: Gal 2:13

Was carried away ( συναπήχθη )

Lit. was carried away with them (συν ). In Paul only here and Rom 12:16, on which see note. In lxx once, Exo 14:6.

Vincent: Gal 2:13

With their dissimulation ( αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει )

Not to or over to their dissimulation. Paul uses a strong word, which is employed only in 1Ti 4:2. The kindred verb ὑποκρίνεσθαι to play a part , and the noun ὑποκριτής hypocrisy do not occur in his letters. Their act was hypocrisy , because it was a concealment of their own more liberal conviction, and an open profession of still adhering to the narrow Pharisaic view. It was " a practical denial of their better spiritual insight" (Wieseler).

Vincent: Gal 2:14

See additional note at the end of this chapter.

Walked not uprightly ( ὀρθοποδοῦσιν )

Lit. are not walking . N.T.o . o lxx. o Class. Lit. to be straight-footed .

Vincent: Gal 2:14

Being a Jew ( ὑπάρχων )

The verb means originally to begin ; thence to come forth , be at hand , be in existence . It is sometimes claimed that ὑπάρχειν as distinguished from εἶναι implies an antecedent condition - being originally . That is true in some cases. But, on the other hand, it sometimes denotes a present as related to a future condition. The most that can be said is that it often is found simply in the sense of to be .

Vincent: Gal 2:14

Livest after the manner of Gentiles ( ἐθνικῶς ζῇς )

Ἑθνικῶς , N.T.o . The force of the present livest must not be pressed. The reference is not strictly temporal, either as referring to Peter's former intercourse with the Gentile Christians, or as indicating that he was now associating with them at table. It is rather the statement of a general principle. If you, at whatever time, act on the principle of living according to Gentile usage. At the time of Paul's address to Peter, Peter was living after the manner of Jews (Ἱουδαΐκῶς ).

Vincent: Gal 2:14

Compellest ( ἀναγκάζεις )

Indirect compulsion exerted by Peter's example. Not that he directly imposed Jewish separatism on the Gentile converts.

Vincent: Gal 2:14

To live as do the Jews ( Ἱουδαΐ̀ζειν )

N.T.o . Once in lxx, Est 8:17. Also in Joseph. B . J . 2:18, 2, and Plut. Cic . 7. It is used by Ignatius, Magn . x. Χριστιανίζειν to practice Christianity occurs in Origen.

Vincent: Gal 2:15

We, etc.

Continuation of Paul's address; not the beginning of an address to the Galatians. Under we Paul includes himself, Peter, and the Jewish Christians of Antioch, in contrast with the Gentile Christians. The Galatians were mostly Gentiles.

Vincent: Gal 2:15

Who are Jews, etc.

The who is wrong. Render we are Jews . The expression is concessive. We are, I grant, Jews. There is an implied emphasis on the special prerogatives and privileges of the Jews as such. See Rom 3:1 f.; Rom 9:1 ff.

Vincent: Gal 2:15

Sinners of the Gentiles ( ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί )

Lit. sinners taken from the Gentiles, or sprung from . Sinners , in the conventional Jewish sense; born heathen, and as such sinners; not implying that Jews are not sinners. The Jew regarded the Gentile as impure, and styled him a dog (Mat 15:27). See Rom 2:12; 1Co 6:1; 1Co 9:21; Eph 2:12; Luk 18:32; Luk 24:7. Possibly Paul here cites the very words by which Peter sought to justify his separation from the Gentile Christians, and takes up these words in order to draw from them an opposite conclusion. This is quite according to Paul's habit.

Vincent: Gal 2:16

Justified ( δικαιοῦται )

See on Rom 3:20, Rom 3:26. The meaning to declare or pronounce righteous cannot be consistently carried through Paul's writings in the interest of a theological fiction of imputed righteousness. See, for example, Rom 4:25; 1Co 6:11; and all passages where the word is used to describe justification by works of the law, as here, Gal 3:11; Gal 5:4. If one is a real righteousness, founded upon his conformity to the law. Why is the righteousness of faith any less a real righteousness?

Vincent: Gal 2:16

By the works of the law ( ἐξ ἔργων νόμου )

Lit. out of the works, etc. Comp. Rom 3:20. Works are characteristic of a legal dispensation. Paul often puts " works" alone as representing legal righteousness. See Rom 4:2, Rom 4:6; Rom 9:11, Rom 9:32; Rom 11:6; Eph 2:9.

Vincent: Gal 2:16

But by faith ( ἐὰν μὴ )

As the Greek stands, it would read, " Is not justified by the works of the law save through faith ." So, unfortunately, Rev. This would mean, as the Romish interpreters, not through works of the law except they be done through faith in Christ , and would ascribe justification to works which grow out of faith. Paul means that justification is by faith alone . The use of ἐὰν μὴ is to be thus explained: A man is not justified by the works of the law: (he is not justified) except by faith in Jesus Christ. Ἑὰν μὴ retains its exceptive force, but the exception refers only to the verb. Comp. εἰ μὴ in Mat 12:4; Luk 4:26, Luk 4:27; Gal 1:19; Rev 21:27.

Vincent: Gal 2:16

Flesh ( σάρξ )

See on Rom 7:5. For no flesh see on Rom 3:20.

Vincent: Gal 2:17

Are found ( εὑρέθημεν )

More correctly, were found: were discovered and shown to be. See Rom 6:10; 1Co 15:15; 2Co 5:3; Phi 2:8; Phi 3:9.

Vincent: Gal 2:17

Sinners ( ἁμαρτωλοί )

Like the Gentiles, Gal 2:15. Paul assumes that this was actually the case: that, seeking to be justified in Christ, they were found to be sinners. To seek to be justified by Christ is an admission that there is no justification by works; that the seeker is unjustified, and therefore a sinner. The effort to attain justification by faith in Christ develops the consciousness of sin. It compels the seeker, whether Jew or Gentile, to put himself upon the common plane of sinners. The Jew who calls the Gentile a sinner, in seeking to be justified by faith, finds himself a sinner also. The law has failed him as a justifying agency. But Paul is careful to repudiate the false inference from this fact, stated in what immediately follows, namely, that Christ is a minister of sin.

Vincent: Gal 2:17

Minister of sin

A promoter of sin by causing us to abandon the law.

Vincent: Gal 2:17

God forbid ( μὴ γένοιτο )

See on Rom 3:4. Not a reply merely to the question " is Christ a minister of sin?" but to the whole supposition from " if while we seek." The question is not whether Christ is in general a minister of sin, but whether he is such in the case supposed. Paul does not assume that this false inference has been drawn by Peter or the other Jewish Christians.

Vincent: Gal 2:18

I build again the things which I destroyed ( ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ )

Peter, by his Christian profession, had asserted that justification was by faith alone; and by his eating with Gentiles had declared that the Mosaic law was no longer binding upon him. He had thus, figuratively, destroyed or pulled down the Jewish law as a standard of Christian faith and conduct. By his subsequent refusal to eat with Gentiles he had retracted this declaration, had asserted that the Jewish law was still binding upon Christians, and had thus built again what he had pulled down. Building and pulling down are favorite figures with Paul. See Rom 14:20; Rom 15:20; 1Co 8:1, 1Co 8:10; 1Co 10:23; 1Co 14:17; Eph 2:20 f. For καταλύειν destroy , see on Rom 14:20; see on 2Co 5:1.

Vincent: Gal 2:18

I make myself ( ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω )

Better, prove myself . The verb originally means to put together : thence to put one person in contact with another by way of introducing him and bespeaking for him confidence and approval. To commend , as Rom 16:1; comp. Rom 5:8; 2Co 3:1; 2Co 4:2; 2Co 5:12. As proof, or exhibition of the true state of a case is furnished by putting things together, the word comes to mean demonstrate , exhibit the fact , as here, Rom 3:5; 2Co 6:11.

Vincent: Gal 2:18

A transgressor ( παραβάτην )

See on Jam 2:11, and see on παράβασις transgression , Rom 2:23. In reasserting the validity of the law for justification, which he had denied by seeking justification by faith in Christ, he proves himself a transgressor in that denial, that pulling down.

Vincent: Gal 2:19

For ( γὰρ )

Justifying the previous thought that the reerection of the law as a standard of Christian life and a means of justification is a condemnation of the faith which relies on Christ alone for righteousness.

Vincent: Gal 2:19

I, through the law, am dead to the law ( ἐγὼ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον )

For am dead , render died . Faith in Christ created a complete and irreparable break with the law which is described as death to the law. Comp. Rom 7:4, Rom 7:6. The law itself was the instrument of this break, see next verse Ἑγὼ is emphatic. Paul appeals to his personal experience, his decided break with the law in contrast with Peter's vacillation.

Vincent: Gal 2:19

Might live unto God ( θεῷ ζήσω )

With death to the law a new principle of life entered. For the phrase, see Rom 6:10, Rom 6:11.

Vincent: Gal 2:20

I am crucified with Christ ( Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι )

This compound verb is used by Paul only here and Rom 6:6. In the gospels, Mat 27:44; Mar 15:32; Joh 19:32. The statement explains how a believer dies to the law by means of the law itself. In the crucifixion of Christ as one accursed, the demand of the law was met (see Gal 3:13). Ethically, a believer is crucified with Christ (Rom 6:3-11; Phi 3:10; 1Co 15:31; 2Co 4:10), and thus the demand of the law is fulfilled in him likewise. Paul means that, " owing to his connection with the crucified, he was like him, legally impure, and was thus an outcast from the Jewish church." He became dead to the law by the law's own act. Of course a Jew would have answered that Christ was justly crucified. He would have said: " If you broke with the law because of your fellowship with Christ, it proved that both he and you were transgressors." But Paul is addressing Peter, who, in common with himself, believed on Christ (Gal 2:16).

Vincent: Gal 2:20

I live; yet not I ( ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ )

The semicolon after live in A.V. and Rev. should be removed. Rend: and it is no longer I that live , but Christ , etc . The new life of Christ followed his crucifixion, Rom 6:9-11. He who is crucified with Christ repeats this experience. He rises with Christ and shares his resurrection-life. The old man is crucified with Christ, and Christ is in him as the principle of his new life, Romans 4-11.

Vincent: Gal 2:20

I now live

Emphasis on νῦν now , since the beginning of my Christian life, with an implied contrast with the life in the flesh before he was crucified with Christ. Then , the I was the center and impulse of life. Now , it is no longer I, but Christ in me.

Vincent: Gal 2:20

By the faith of the Son of God ( ἐν πίστει τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ )

Better, as Rev., in faith , the faith which is in the Son of God . Thus the defining and explicative force of the article τῆ after πίστει is brought out. In faith is better than by faith, although ἐν is sometimes used instrumentally. In corresponds better with ἐν σαρκὶ in the flesh . It exhibits faith as the element in which the new life is lived.

Vincent: Gal 2:20

And gave himself ( καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν )

Καὶ and has an explanatory force: loved me, and , as a proof of his love , gave himself. For παραδόντος gave , see on was delivered , Rom 4:25.

" For God more bounteous was himself to give

To make man able to uplift himself,

Than if he only of himself had pardoned."

Dante, Paradiso , vii . 115-117

Vincent: Gal 2:20

For me ( ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ )

See on for the ungodly , Rom 5:6.

Vincent: Gal 2:21

Frustrate ( ἀθετῶ )

Annul or invalidate. Comp. Mar 7:9; 1Co 1:19; Gal 3:15.

Vincent: Gal 2:21

The grace of God ( τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ )

Χάρις is, primarily, that which gives joy (χαρά ). Its higher, Christian meaning is based on the emphasis of freeness in a gift or favor. It is the free, spontaneous, absolute loving kindness of God toward men. Hence often in contrast with the ideas of debt , law , works , sin . Sometimes for the gift of grace, the benefaction , as 1Co 16:3; 2Co 8:6, 2Co 8:19; 1Pe 1:10, 1Pe 1:13. So here: the gracious gift of God in the offering of Christ.

Vincent: Gal 2:21

Is dead ( ἀπέθανεν )

More correctly, died ; pointing to the historical incident.

Vincent: Gal 2:21

In vain ( δωρεὰν )

Groundlessly, without cause. See on 2Th 3:8. The sense here is not common. It is not found in Class., and in N.T. only Joh 15:25. In lxx, see Psalm 34:7, 19; 108:3; 118:161; 1 Samuel 19:5; Sir. 20:23; 29:6. Comp. Ignatius, Trall . v. Paul says: " I do not invalidate the grace of God in the offering of Christ, as one does who seeks to reestablish the law as a means of justification; for if righteousness comes through the law, there was no occasion for Christ to die."

Additional Note on Gal 2:14-21.

The course of thought in Paul's address to Peter is difficult to follow. It will help to simplify it if the reader will keep it before him that the whole passage is to be interpreted in the light of Peter's false attitude - as a remonstrance against a particular state of things.

The line of remonstrance is as follows. If you, Peter, being a Jew, do not live as a Jew, but as a Gentile, as you did when you ate with Gentiles, why do you, by your example in withdrawing from Gentile tables, constrain Gentile Christians to live as Jews, observing the separative ordinances of the Jewish law? This course is plainly inconsistent.

Even you and I, born Jews, and not Gentiles - sinners - denied the obligation of these ordinances by the act of believing on Jesus Christ. In professing this faith we committed ourselves to the principle that no one can be justified by the works of the law.

But it may be said that we were in no better case by thus abandoning the law and legal righteousness, since, in the very effort to be justified through Christ, we were shown to be sinners, and therefore in the same category with the Gentiles. Does it not then follow that Christ is proved to be a minister of sin in requiring us to abandon the law as a means of justification?

No. God forbid. It is true that, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we stood revealed as sinners, for it was Christ who showed us that we could not be justified by the works of the law; that all our legal strictness only left us sinners. But the inference is false that Christ is thereby shown to be a minister of sin.

For to say that Christ is a minister of sin, is to say that I, at his bidding, became a transgressor by abandoning the law, that the law is the only true standard and medium of righteousness. If I reassert the obligation of the law after denying that obligation, I thereby assert that I transgressed in abandoning it, and that Christ, who prompted and demanded this transgression, is a minister of sin.

But this I deny. The law is not the true standard and medium of righteousness. I did not transgress in abandoning it. Christ is not a minister of sin. For it was the law itself which compelled me to abandon the law. The law crucified Christ and thereby declared him accursed. In virtue of my moral fellowship with Christ, I was (ethically) crucified with him. The act of the law forced me to break with the law. Through the law I died to the law. Thus I came under a new principle of life. I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. If I should declare that righteousness is through the law, by reasserting the obligation of the law as you, Peter, have done, I should annul the grace of God as exhibited in the death of Christ: for in that case, Christ's death would be superfluous and useless. But I do not annul the grace of God.

Wesley: Gal 2:10

The poor Christians in Judea, who had lost all they had for Christ's sake.

Wesley: Gal 2:11

The argument here comes to the height. Paul reproves Peter himself. So far was he from receiving his doctrine from man, or from being inferior to the chief of the apostles.

Wesley: Gal 2:11

Afterwards, Came to Antioch - Then the chief of all the Gentile churches. I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed - For fear of man, Gal 2:12; for dissimulation, Gal 2:13; and for not walking uprightly. Gal 2:14.

Wesley: Gal 2:13

Who were at Antioch. Dissembled with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation - Was borne away, as with a torrent, into the same ill practice.

Wesley: Gal 2:14

See Paul single against Peter and all the Jews! If thou being a Jew, yet livest, in thy ordinary conversation, after the manner of the gentiles - Not observing the ceremonial law, which thou knowest to be now abolished.

Wesley: Gal 2:14

By withdrawing thyself and all the ministers from them; either to judaize, to keep the ceremonial law, or to be excluded from church communion ?

Wesley: Gal 2:15

St. Paul, to spare St. Peter, drops the first person singular, and speaks in the plural number. Gal 2:18, he speaks in the first person singular again by a figure; and without a figure, Gal 2:19, &c.

Wesley: Gal 2:15

By birth, not proselytes only.

Wesley: Gal 2:15

That is, not sinful Gentiles; not such gross, enormous, abandoned sinners, as the heathens generally were.

Wesley: Gal 2:16

Not even of the moral, much less the ceremonial, law.

Wesley: Gal 2:16

That is, by faith in him. The name Jesus was first known by the gentiles; the name Christ by the Jews. And they are not always placed promiscuously; but generally in a more solemn way of speaking, the Apostle says, Christ Jesus; in a more familiar, Jesus Christ.

Wesley: Gal 2:16

And how much more must the Gentiles, who have still less pretence to depend on their own works! Have believed - Knowing there is no other way.

Wesley: Gal 2:16

Considering the demands of the law, and the fate of human nature, it is evident, that by the works of the law - By such an obedience as it requires.

Wesley: Gal 2:16

No human creature, Jew or Gentile, be justified. Hitherto St. Paul had been considering that single question, "Are Christians obliged to observe the ceremonial law? But he here insensibly goes farther, and, by citing this scripture, shows that what he spoke directly of the ceremonial, included also the moral, law. For David undoubtedly did so, when he said, Psa 143:2, the place here referred to, "In thy sight shall no man living be justified;" which the Apostle likewise explains, Rom 3:19-20, in such a manner as can agree to none but the moral law.

Wesley: Gal 2:17

If we continue in sin, will it therefore follow, that Christ is the minister or countenancer of sin?

Wesley: Gal 2:18

By no means.

Wesley: Gal 2:18

By my sinful practice.

Wesley: Gal 2:18

By my preaching, I only make myself - Or show myself, not Christ, to be a transgressor; the whole blame lies on me, not him or his gospel. As if he had said, The objection were just, if the gospel promised justification to men continuing in sin. But it does not. Therefore if any who profess the gospel do not live according to it, they are sinners, it is certain, but not justified, and so the gospel is clear.

Wesley: Gal 2:19

Applied by the Spirit to my heart, and deeply convincing me of my utter sinfulness and helplessness.

Wesley: Gal 2:19

To all hope of justification from it.

Wesley: Gal 2:19

Not continue in sin. For this very end am I, in this sense, freed from the law, that I may be freed from sin.

Wesley: Gal 2:20

The Apostle goes on to describe how he is freed from sin; how far he is from continuing therein.

Wesley: Gal 2:20

Made conformable to his death; "the body of sin is destroyed." Rom 6:6.

Wesley: Gal 2:20

As to my corrupt nature.

Wesley: Gal 2:20

Being dead to sin.

Wesley: Gal 2:20

Is a fountain of life in my inmost soul, from which all my tempers, words, and actions flow.

Wesley: Gal 2:20

Even in this mortal body, I live by faith in the Son of God - I derive every moment from that supernatural principle; from a divine evidence and conviction, that "he loved me, and delivered up himself for me."

Wesley: Gal 2:21

In seeking to be justified by my own works.

Wesley: Gal 2:21

The free love of God in Christ Jesus. But they do, who seek justification by the law.

Wesley: Gal 2:21

If men might be justified by their obedience to the law, moral or ceremonial.

Wesley: Gal 2:21

Without any necessity for it, since men might have been saved without his death; might by their own obedience have been both discharged from condemnation, and entitled to eternal life.

JFB: Gal 2:10

Of the Jewish Christians in Judea, then distressed. Paul and Barnabas had already done so (Act 11:23-30).

JFB: Gal 2:10

The very thing.

JFB: Gal 2:10

Or "zealous" (Act 24:17; Rom 15:25; 1Co 16:1; 2Co. 8:1-9:15). Paul was zealous for good works, while denying justification by them.

JFB: Gal 2:11

"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.

JFB: Gal 2:11

Then the citadel of the Gentile Church: where first the Gospel was preached to idolatrous Gentiles, and where the name "Christians" was first given (Act 11:20, Act 11:26), 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 (Act 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 (Act 15:19).

JFB: Gal 2:11

Rather, "(self)-condemned"; his act at one time condemning his contrary acting at another time.

JFB: Gal 2:12

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 (Act 15:19). NEANDER, however, may be right in thinking these self-styled delegates from James were not really from him. Act 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 (Act 21:18-26).

JFB: Gal 2:12

As in Act 10:10-20, Act 10:48, according to the command of the vision (Act 11:3-17). Yet after all, this same Peter, through fear of man (Pro 29:25), was faithless to his own so distinctly avowed principles (Act 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.

JFB: Gal 2:12

Greek, "began to withdraw," &c. This implies a gradual drawing back; "separated," entire severance.

JFB: Gal 2:13

Greek, "the rest."

JFB: Gal 2:13

Jewish Christians.

JFB: Gal 2:13

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 (Acts 11:2-17). The case was distinct from that in 1Co. 8:1-10:33; Rom. 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 (Gal 2:14).

JFB: Gal 2:13

"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 (Act 15:30-35).

JFB: Gal 2:14

Literally, "straight": "were not walking with straightforward steps." Compare Gal 6:16.

JFB: Gal 2:14

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).

JFB: Gal 2:14

"Cephas" in the oldest manuscripts

JFB: Gal 2:14

(1Ti 5:20).

JFB: Gal 2:14

"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, Act 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, Gal 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.

JFB: Gal 2:15-16

Connect these verses together, and read with most of the oldest manuscripts "But" in the beginning of Gal 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 Gal 2:15, 'we also,' as well as the Gentile sinners; casting away trust in the law), have believed," &c.

JFB: Gal 2:16

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].

JFB: Gal 2:16

Translate, "But only (in no other way save) through faith in Jesus Christ," as the MEAN and instrument of justification.

JFB: Gal 2:16

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.

JFB: Gal 2:16

That is, by Christ, the object of faith, as the ground of our justification.

JFB: Gal 2:16

He rests his argument on this as an axiom in theology, referring to Psa 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" (Gal 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 (Rom 3:20).

JFB: Gal 2:17

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," Gal 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," Rom 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, Mat 7:7), but "have been ourselves also (like the Gentiles) found" to be "sinners," by having entered into communion with Gentiles (Gal 2:12).

JFB: Gal 2:18

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 (Gal 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 Gal 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.

JFB: Gal 2:19

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 Gal 3:1, "O foolish Galatians," &c.

JFB: Gal 2:19

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" (Gal 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].

JFB: Gal 2:19

Here emphatical. Paul himself, not Peter, as in the "I" (Gal 2:18).

JFB: Gal 2:19

Which was my "schoolmaster to bring me to Christ" (Gal 3:24); both by its terrors (Gal 3:13; Rom 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 (Rom 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 (Deu 18:15-19; Jer 31:33; Act 10:43).

JFB: Gal 2:19

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; Rom 6:14; Rom 7:4, Rom 7:6); 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 Gal 6:14; 1Co 7:39; Rom 6:6-11; 1Pe 2:24).

JFB: Gal 2:19

(Rom 6:11; 2Co 5:15; 1Pe 4:1-2).

JFB: Gal 2:20

Literally, "I have been crucified with Christ." This more particularizes the foregoing. "I am dead" (Gal 2:19; Phi 3:10).

JFB: Gal 2:20

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 Rom 7:17). No longer Saul the Jew (Gal 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."

JFB: Gal 2:20

As contrasted with my life before conversion.

JFB: Gal 2:20

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].

JFB: Gal 2:20

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.

JFB: Gal 2:20

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.

JFB: Gal 2:21

I do not make it void, as thou, Peter, art doing by Judaizing.

JFB: Gal 2:21

Justifying the strong expression "frustrate," or "make void."

JFB: Gal 2:21

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].

Clarke: Gal 2:10

Only they would that we should remember the poor - They saw plainly that God had as expressly called Barnabas and me to go to the Gentiles as he had called them to preach to the Jews; and they did not attempt to give us any new injunctions, only wished us to remember the poor in Judea; but this was a thing to which we were previously disposed.

Clarke: Gal 2:11

When Peter was come to Antioch - There has been a controversy whether Πετρος, Peter, here should not be read Κηφας, Kephas; and whether this Kephas was not a different person from Peter the apostle. This controversy has lasted more than 1500 years, and is not yet settled. Instead of Πετρος, Peter, ABCH, several others of good note, with the Syriac, Erpenian, Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Armenian, later Syriac in the margin, Vulgate, and several of the Greek fathers, read Κηφας . But whichsoever of these readings we adopt, the controversy is the same; for the great question is, whether this Peter or Kephas, no matter which name we adopt, be the same with Peter the apostle

I shall not introduce the arguments pro and con, which may be all seen in Calmet’ s dissertation on the subject, but just mention the side where the strength of the evidence appears to lie

That Peter the apostle is meant, the most sober and correct writers of antiquity maintain; and though some of the Catholic writers have fixed the whole that is here reprehensible on one Kephas, one of the seventy disciples, yet the most learned of their writers and of their popes, believe that St. Peter is meant. Some apparently plausible arguments support the contrary opinion, but they are of no weight when compared with those on the opposite side.

Clarke: Gal 2:12

Before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles - Here was Peter’ s fault. He was convinced that God had pulled down the middle wall of partition that had so long separated the Jews and Gentiles, and he acted on this conviction, associating with the latter and eating with them; but when certain Jews came from James, who it appears considered the law still to be in force, lest he should place a stumbling-block before them he withdrew from all commerce with the converted Gentiles, and acted as if he himself believed the law to be still in force, and that the distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles should still be kept up.

Clarke: Gal 2:13

And the other Jews dissembled likewise - That is: Those who were converted to Christianity from among the Jews, and who had also been convinced that the obligation of the Jewish ritual had ceased, seeing Peter act this part, and also fearing them that were of the circumcision, they separated themselves from the converted Gentiles, and acted so as to convince the Jews that they still believed the law to be of moral obligation; and so powerful was the torrent of such an example, that the gentle, loving-hearted Barnabas was carried away by their dissimulation, αυτων τῃ ὑποκρισει, with their hypocrisy - feigning to be what they really were not.

Clarke: Gal 2:14

That they walked not uprightly - Ουκ ορθοποδουσι· They did not walk with a straight step - they did not maintain a firm footing

Clarke: Gal 2:14

According to the truth of the Gospel - According to that true doctrine, which states that Christ is the end of the law for justification to every one that believes; and that such are under no obligation to observe circumcision and the other peculiar rites and ceremonies of the law

Clarke: Gal 2:14

If thou, being a Jew, livest - This was a cutting reproof. He was a Jew, and had been circumstantially scrupulous in every thing relative to the law, and it required a miracle to convince him that the Gentiles were admitted, on their believing in Christ, to become members of the same Church, and fellow heirs of the hope of eternal life; and in consequence of this, he went in with the Gentiles and ate with them; i.e. associated with them as he would with Jews. But now, fearing them of the circumcision, he withdrew from this fellowship

Clarke: Gal 2:14

Why compellest thou the Gentiles - Thou didst once consider that they were not under such an obligation, and now thou actest as if thou didst consider the law in full force; but thou art convinced that the contrary is the case, yet actest differently! This is hypocrisy.

Clarke: Gal 2:15

We who are Jews by nature - We who belong to the Jewish nation - who have been born, bred, and educated Jews

Clarke: Gal 2:15

And not sinners of the Gentiles - Ἁμαρτωλοι· Not without the knowledge of God, as they have been. Ἁμαρτωλος often signifies a heathen, merely one who had no knowledge of the true God. But among the nations or Gentiles many Jews sojourned; who in Scripture are known by the name of Hellenists, and these were distinguished from those who were termed εξ εθνων ἁμαρτωλοι, sinners of the Gentiles - heathens, in our common sense of the word; while the others, though living among them, were worshippers of the true God, and addicted to no species of idolatry. Some have translated this passage thus: We Jews, and not Gentiles, by nature sinners; for it is supposed that φυσει here refers to that natural corruption which every man brings into the world. Now, though the doctrine be true, (and the state of man, and universal experience confirm it), yet it can neither be supported from this place, nor even from Eph 2:3. See the note on Rom 2:16. It appears, from the use of this word by some of the best Greek authors, that φυσει did not signify by nature, as we use the word, but expressed the natural birth, family, or nation of a man; to distinguish him from any other family or nation. I can give a few instances of this, which are brought to my hand in a small elegant pamphlet, written by Dr. Münter, the present bishop of Zealand, entitled Observationum ex marmoribus Graecis Sacrarum Specimen, and which has been lent to me by the right honorable Lord Teignmouth, to whose condescension, kindness, and learning, many of my studies have been laid under particular obligation

The word in question is the xxviiith example in the above pamphlet, the substance of which is as follows: In an inscription on a Greek marble, given by Dr. Chandler, page 27, we find these words Ὁ γαμβρος μου Λεων Αρτεμεισιου, ὁ επικαλουμενος Ιασων, οικονει μεν Μειλησιος, φυσει δε Ιασευς· "My son-in-law, Leo, the son of Artemisius, who is called a Jasian, is of the house of Milesius, though by nature he is from Jaso."That is: Jaso being a town of Caria, this Leo is said to be φυσει Ιασευς, by nature a Jasian, although he sprang from the Milesian family. The following examples will place this in a clearer light. Josephus, Ant. Jud., lib. xi. cap. vi. sec. 5, speaking of Amanes, the Amalekite, says: Και γαρ φυσει τοις Ιουδαιοις απηχθανετο, ὁτι και το γενος των Αμαλεκιτων, εξ ὡν ην αυτος, ὑπ ’ αυτων διεφθαρτο· "For he was by nature incensed against the Jews, because the nation of the Amalekites, from whom he sprang, had been destroyed by them;"that is, he had a national prejudice or hatred to the Jewish people on the above account. The following example from Dio Chrysostom, Orat. xxxi., is also to the point: Οἱγε ( Αθηναιοι ) τον δεινα μεν Ολυμπιον κεκληκασι, ουδε φυσει πολιτην ἑαυτων· "For they (the Athenians) called this person an Olympian, though by nature he was not their citizen;"that is, he was called an Olympian, though he was not naturally of that city, or, in other words, he was not born there. From these examples, and the scope of the place, we may argue that the words, we who are Jews by nature, mean, we who were born in the land of Judea, and of Jewish parents. And hence the passage in Eph 2:3, which speaks most evidently of the heathens, "and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others,"may be thus understood: Being Gentiles, and brought up in gross darkness, without any knowledge of God, abandoned to all sensual living, we were, from our very condition, and practical state, exposed to punishment. This sense is at least equally good with that given of the words in Rom 2:16, where it is proved that φυσει, in several connections, means truly, certainly, incontestably; "we were, beyond all controversy, exposed to punishment, because we had been born among idolaters, and have lived as they did. Here both senses of the word apply.

Clarke: Gal 2:16

Knowing that a man is not justified - See the notes on Rom 1:17; Rom 3:24 (note), Rom 3:27 (note); Rom 8:3 (note). And see on Act 13:38 (note) and Act 13:39 (note), in which places the subject of this verse is largely discussed. Neither the works of the Jewish law, nor of any other law, could justify any man; and if justification or pardon could not have been attained in some other way, the world must have perished. Justification by faith, in the boundless mercy of God, is as reasonable as it is Scriptural and necessary.

Clarke: Gal 2:17

But if while we seek to be justified - If, while we acknowledge that we must be justified by faith in Christ, we ourselves are found sinners, enjoining the necessity of observing the rites and ceremonies of the law, which never could and never can justify, and yet, by submitting to circumcision, we lay ourselves under the necessity of fulfilling the law, which is impossible, we thus constitute ourselves sinners; is, therefore, Christ the minister of sin? Christ, who has taught us to renounce the law, and expect justification through his death? God forbid! that we should either act so, or think so.

Clarke: Gal 2:18

For if I build again the things which I destroyed - If I act like a Jew, and enjoin the observance of the law on the Gentiles, which I have repeatedly asserted and proved to be abolished by the death of Christ, then I build up what I destroyed, and thus make myself a transgressor, by not observing the law in that way in which I appear to enjoin the observance of it upon others.

Clarke: Gal 2:19

For I through the law am dead to the law - In consequence of properly considering the nature and requisitions of the law, I am dead to all hope and expectation of help or salvation from the law, and have been obliged to take refuge in the Gospel of Christ. Or, probably the word νομος, Law, is here put for a system of doctrine; as if he had said, I through the Gospel am dead to the law. The law itself is consigned to death, and another, the Gospel of Christ, is substituted in its stead. The law condemns to death, and I have embraced the Gospel that I might be saved from death, and live unto God.

Clarke: Gal 2:20

I am crucified with Christ - The death of Christ on the cross has showed me that there is no hope of salvation by the law; I am therefore as truly dead to all expectation of justification by the law, as Christ was dead when he gave up the ghost upon the cross. Through him alone I live - enjoy a present life, and have a prospect of future glory

Clarke: Gal 2:20

Yet not I - It is not of my natural life I speak, nor of any spiritual things which I myself have procured; but Christ liveth in me. God made man to be a habitation of his own Spirit: the law cannot live in me so as to give me a Divine life; it does not animate, but kill; but Christ lives in me; he is the soul of my soul; so that I now live to God. But this life I have by the faith of the Son of God - by believing on Christ as a sacrifice for sin; for he loved me, and because he did so he gave himself for me - made himself a sacrifice unto death, that I might be saved from the bitter pains of death eternal.

Clarke: Gal 2:21

I do not frustrate - Ουκ αθετω· I do not contemn, despise, or render useless, the grace of God - the doctrine of Christ crucified; which I must do if I preach the necessity of observing the law

Clarke: Gal 2:21

For if righteousness - If justification and salvation come by an observance of the law, then Christ is dead in vain; his death is useless if an observance of the law can save us; but no observance of the law can save us, and therefore there was an absolute necessity for the death of Christ

1.    The account of the prevarication of Peter in the preceding chapter teaches us a most useful lesson. Let him who assuredly standeth take heed lest he fall. No person in a state of probation is infallible; a man may fall into sin every moment; and he will, if he do not walk with God. Worldly prudence and fleshly wisdom would have concealed this account of the prevarication of Peter; but God tells truth. This the fountain of it; and from him we are to expect not only nothing but the truth, but also the whole truth. If the Gospel were not of God we had never heard of the denial and prevarication of Peter, nor of the contention between Paul and Barnabas. And these accounts are recorded, not that men may justify or excuse their own delinquencies by them, but that they may avoid them; for he must be inexcusable who, with these histories before his eyes, ever denies his Master, or acts the part of a hypocrite. Had the apostles acted in concert to impose a forgery on the world as a Divine revelation, the imposture would have now come out. The falling out of the parties would have led to a discovery of the cheat. This relation, therefore, is an additional evidence of the truth of the Gospel

2.    On, I through the law am dead to the law, etc., pious Quesnel makes the following useful reflections

"The ceremonial law, which is no more than a type and shadow of him, destroys itself by showing us Jesus Christ, who is the truth and the substance. The moral law, by leaving us under our own inability under sin and the curse, makes us perceive the necessity of the law of the heart, and of a Savior to give it. The law is for the old man, as to its terrible and servile part; and it was crucified and died with Christ upon the cross as well as the old man. The new man, and the new law, require a new sacrifice. What need has he of other sacrifices who has Jesus Christ? They in whom this sacrifice lives, do themselves live to God alone; but none can live to him except by faith; and this life of faith consists in dying with Christ to the things of the present world, and in expecting, as co-heirs with him, the blessings of the eternal world. And who can work all this in us but only he who lives in us? That man has arrived to a high degree of mortification, who can say Christ liveth in me, and I am crucified to the world. Such a one must have renounced not only earthly things, but his own self also.

3.    Is there, or can there be, any well grounded hope of eternal life but what comes through the Gospel? In vain has the ingenuity of man tortured itself for more than 5000 years, to find out some method of mending the human heart: none has been discovered that even promised any thing likely to be effectual. The Gospel of Christ not only mends but completely cures and new makes infected nature. Who is duly apprised of the infinite excellency and importance of the Gospel? What was the world before its appearance? What would it be were this light extinguished? Blessed Lord! let neither infidelity nor false doctrine rise up to obscure this heavenly splendor!

Calvin: Gal 2:10

10.That we should remember the poor It is evident that the brethren who were in Judea labored under extreme poverty: otherwise they would not have burdened other churches. That might arise both from the various calamities which befell the whole nation, and from the cruel rage of their own countrymen, by which they were every day stript of their possessions. It was proper that they should receive assistance from the Gentiles, who owed to them the inestimable benefit of the gospel. Paul says, that he was forward to do, that he faithfully performed, what the apostles had requested from him, and thus he takes away from his adversaries a pretext which they were desirous to seize.

Calvin: Gal 2:11

11.When Peter was come. Whoever will carefully examine all the circumstances, will, I trust, agree with me in thinking, that this happened before the apostles had decided that the Gentiles should receive no annoyance about ceremonial observances. (Act 15:28.) For Peter would have entertained no dread of offending James, or those sent by him, after that decision had been passed: but such was the dissimulation of Peter, that, in opposing it, Paul was driven to assert “the truth of the gospel.” At first he said, that the certainty of his gospel does not in any degree depend on Peter and the apostles, so as to stand or fall by their judgment. Secondly, he said, that it had been approved by all without any exception or contradiction, and particularly by those who were universally admitted to hold the highest place. Now, as I have said, he goes further, and asserts that he had blamed Peter for leaning to the other side; and he proceeds to explain the cause of the dispute. It was no ordinary proof of the strength of his doctrine, that he not only obtained their cordial approbation, but firmly maintained it in a debate with Peter, and came off victorious. What reason could there now be for hesitating to receive it as certain and undoubted truth?

At the same time, this is a reply to another calumny, that Paul was but an ordinary disciple, far below the rank of an apostle: for the reproof which he administered was an evidence that the parties were on an equal footing. The highest, I acknowledge, are sometimes properly reproved by the lowest, for this liberty on the part of inferiors towards their superiors is permitted by God; and so it does not follow, that he who reproves another must be his equal. But the nature of the reproof deserves notice. Paul did not simply reprove Peter, as a Christian might reprove a Christian, but he did it officially, as the phrase is; that is, in the exercise of the apostolic character which he sustained.

This is another thunderbolt which strikes the Papacy of Rome. It exposes the impudent pretensions of the Roman Antichrist, who boasts that he is not bound to assign a reason, and sets at defiance the judgment of the whole Church. Without rashness, without undue boldness, but in the exercise of the power granted him by God, this single individual chastises Peter, in the presence of the whole Church; and Peter submissively bows to the chastisement. Nay, the whole debate on those two points was nothing less than a manifest overthrow of that tyrannical primacy, which the Romanists foolishly enough allege to be founded on divine right. If they wish to have God appearing on their side, a new Bible must be manufactured; if they do not wish to have him for an open enemy, those two chapters of the Holy Scriptures must be expunged.

Because he was worthy of blame The Greek participle, κατεγνωσμένος, signifies Blamed, so that the words run, “because he was blamed;” but I have no doubt whatever, that the word was intended to express, “one who deserves just blame.” Chrysostom makes the meaning to be, that others had previously indulged in complaint and accusation; but this is really trifling. It was customary with the Greeks to give to their participles the signification of nouns, which, every person must see, is applicable to this passage. This will enable us to perceive the absurdity of the interpretation given by Jerome and Chrysostom, who represent the whole transaction as a feigned debate, which the apostles had previously arranged to take place in presence of the people. They are not even supported by the phrase, “I withstood him to the face , κατὰ πρόσωπον, which means that “to the face,” or “being present,” Peter was chastised and struck dumb. The observation of Chrysostom, that, for the sake of avoiding scandal, they would have talked in private if they had any difference, is frivolous. The less important must be disregarded in comparison of the most dangerous of all scandals, that the Church would be rent, that Christian liberty was in danger, that the doctrine of the grace of Christ was overthrown; and therefore this public offense must be publicly corrected.

The chief argument on which Jerome rests is excessively trifling. “Why should Paul,” says he, “condemn in another what he takes praise for in himself? for he boasts that ‘to the Jews he became as a Jew.’” (1Co 9:20.) I reply, that what Peter did is totally different. Paul accommodated himself to the Jews no farther than was consistent with the doctrine of liberty; and therefore he refused to circumcise Titus, that the truth of the gospel might remain unimpaired. But Peter Judaized in such a manner as to “compel the Gentiles” to suffer bondage, and at the same time to create a prejudice against Paul’s doctrine. He did not, therefore, observe the proper limit; for he was more desirous to please than to edify, and more solicitous to inquire what would gratify the Jews than what would be expedient for the whole body. Augustine is therefore right in asserting, that this was no previously arranged plan, but that Paul, out of Christian zeal, opposed the sinful and unseasonable dissimulation of Peter, because he saw that it would be injurious to the Church.

Calvin: Gal 2:12

12.For before that certain persons came The state of the case is here laid down. For the sake of the Jews, Peter had withdrawn himself from the Gentiles, in order to drive them from the communion of the Church, unless they would relinquish the liberty of the Gospel, and submit to the yoke of the Law. If Paul had been silent here, his whole doctrine fell; all the edification obtained by his ministry was ruined. It was therefore necessary that he should rise manfully, and fight with courage. This shews us how cautiously we ought to guard against giving way to the opinions of men, lest an immoderate desire to please, or an undue dread of giving offense, should turn us aside from the right path. If this might happen to Peter, how much more easily may it happen to us, if we are not duly careful!

Calvin: Gal 2:14

14.But when I saw that they walked not uprightly. Some apply these words to the Gentiles, who, perplexed by Peter’s example, were beginning to give way; but it is more natural to understand them as referring to Peter and Barnabas, and their followers. The proper road to the truth of the gospel was, to unite the Gentiles with the Jews in such a manner that the true doctrine should not be injured. But to bind the consciences of godly men by an obligation to keep the law, and to bury in silence the doctrine of liberty, was to purchase unity at an exorbitant price.

The truth of the gospel is here used, by Paul, in the same sense as before, and is contrasted with those disguises by which Peter and others concealed its beauty. In such a case, the struggle which Paul had to maintain must unquestionably have been serious. They were perfectly agreed about doctrine; ⁴⁶ but since, laying doctrine out of view, Peter yielded too submissively to the Jews, he is accused of halting. There are some who apologize for Peter on another ground, because, being the apostle of the circumcision, he was bound to take a particular concern in the salvation of the Jews; while they at the same time admit that Paul did right in pleading the cause of the Gentiles. But it is foolish to defend what the Holy Spirit by the mouth of Paul has condemned. This was no affair of men, but involved the purity of the gospel, which was in danger of being contaminated by Jewish leaven.

Before them all. This example instructs us, that those who have sinned publicly must be publicly chastised, so far as concerns the Church. The intention is, that their sin may not, by remaining unpunished, form a dangerous example; and Paul elsewhere (1Ti 5:20) lays down this rule expressly, to be observed in the case of elders,

“Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear;”

because the station which they hold renders their example more pernicious. It was particularly advantageous, that the good cause, in which all had an interest, should be openly defended in presence of the people, that Paul might have a better opportunity of shewing that he did not shrink from the broad light of day.

If thou, being a Jew. Paul’s address to Peter consists of two parts. In the first, he expostulates with him for his injustice toward the Gentiles, in compelling them to keep the law, from the obligations of which he wished himself to be exempted. For, not to mention that every man is bound to keep the law which he lays down for others, his conduct was greatly aggravated by compelling the Gentiles to observe Jewish ceremonies, while he, being a Jew, left himself at liberty. The law was given to Jews, not to Gentiles; so that he argues from the less to the greater.

Next, it is argued, that, in a harsh and violent manner, he compelled the Gentiles, by withdrawing from their communion, unless they chose to submit to the yoke of the law; and thus imposed on them an unjust condition. And, indeed, the whole force of the reproof lies in this word, which neither Chrysostom nor Jerome has remarked. The use of ceremonies was free for the purposes of edification, provided that believers were not deprived of their liberty, or laid under any restraint from which the gospel sets them free.

Calvin: Gal 2:15

15.We who are Jews by nature. Some, I am aware, think that this is stated in the form of an objection, (ἀνθυποφορὰ,) anticipating what might be urged on the other side, that the Jews possessed higher privileges; not that they would boast of exemption from the law, (for it would have been highly absurd, that they to whom the Law was given should make this their boast,) but that there was a propriety in retaining some points of distinction between them and the Gentiles. I do not entirely reject, and yet, as will afterwards appear, I do not altogether adopt this view. Some, again, consider that it is Paul himself who uses this argument, “If you were to lay upon the Jews the burden of the law, it would be more reasonable, because it is theirs by inheritance.” But neither do I approve of this view.

He is now proceeding to the second part of his speech, which commences with an anticipation. The Gentiles differed from them in this respect, that they were “unholy and profane,” (1Ti 1:9;) while the Jews, being holy, so far as God had chosen them for his people, might contend for this superiority. Skilfully anticipating the objection, Paul turns it to the opposite conclusion. Since the Jews themselves, with all their advantages, were forced to betake themselves to the faith of Christ, how much more necessary was it that the Gentiles should look for salvation through faith? Paul’s meaning therefore is: “We, who appear to excel others, — we, who, by means of the covenant, have always enjoyed the privilege of being nigh to God, (Deu 4:7,) have found no method of obtaining salvation, but by believing in Christ: why, then, should we prescribe another method to the Gentiles? For, if the law were necessary or advantageous for salvation to those who observed its enactments, it must have been most of all advantageous to us to whom it was given; but if we relinquished it, and betook ourselves to Christ, much less ought compliance with it to be urged upon the Gentiles.”

The word sinner, signifies here, as in many other places, a “profane person,” (Heb 12:16,) or one who is lost and alienated from God. Such were the Gentiles, who had no intercourse with God; while the Jews were, by adoption, the children of God, and therefore set apart to holiness. By nature, does not mean that they were naturally free from the corruption of the human race; for David, who was a descendant of Abraham, acknowledges,

“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me,” (Psa 51:5,)

but the corruption of nature, to which they were liable, had been met by the remedy of sanctifying grace. Now, as the promise made the blessing hereditary, so this benefit is called natural; just as, in the Epistle to the Romans, he says, that they were sprung from a “holy root.” (Rom 11:16.)

When he says, we are Jews by nature, his meaning is, “We are born holy: not certainly by our own merit, but because God hath chosen us to be his people.” Well, then, we who were by nature Jews, what have we done? “We have believed in Jesus Christ.” What was the design of our believing? “That we might be justified by the faith of Christ.” For what reason? Because we “know that a man is not justified by the works of the law.” From the nature and effect of faith, he reasons that the Jews are in no degree justified by the law. For, as they who

“go about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God,” (Rom 10:3,)

so, on the contrary, they who believe in Christ, confess that they are sinners, and renounce justification by works. This involves the main question, or rather, in this single proposition nearly the whole controversy is embodied. It is the more necessary to bestow some care on the examination of this passage.

The first thing to be noticed is, that we must seek justification by the faith of Christ, because we cannot be justified by works. Now, the question is, what is meant by the works of the law ? The Papists, misled by Origen and Jerome, are of opinion, and lay it down as certain, that the dispute relates to shadows; and accordingly assert, that by “the works of the law” are meant ceremonies. As if Paul were not reasoning about the free justification which is bestowed on us by Christ. For they see no absurdity in maintaining that “no man is justified by the works of the law,” and yet that, by the merit of works, we are accounted righteous in the sight of God. In short, they hold that no mention is here made of the works of the moral law. But the context clearly proves that the moral law is also comprehended in these words; for almost everything which Paul afterwards advances belongs more properly to the moral than to the ceremonial law; and he is continually employed in contrasting the righteousness of the law with the free acceptance which God is pleased to bestow.

It is objected by our opponents, that the term “works” must have been employed without any addition, if Paul had not intended to limit it to a particular class. But I reply, there is the best of all reasons for this mode of expression; for, though a man were to excel all the angels in holiness, no reward is due to works, but on the footing of a Divine promise. Perfect obedience to the law is righteousness, and has a promise of eternal life annexed to it; but it derives this character from God, who declares that “they who have fulfilled them shall live.” (Lev 18:5.) On this point we shall afterwards treat more fully in its own place. ⁴⁷ Besides, the controversy with the Jews was about the law. Paul, therefore, chose rather to bring the matter to an issue, by meeting them at once on their own ground, than to adopt a more circuitous route, which might wear the aspect of evading the subject, or distrusting his cause. Accordingly he resolves to have a close debate about the law.

Their second objection is, that the whole question raised was about ceremonies, which we readily allow. Why then, say they, would the apostle pass suddenly from a particular department to the whole subject? This was the sole cause of the mistake into which Origen and Jerome were betrayed; for they did not think it natural that, while the false apostles were contending about ceremonies alone, Paul should take in a larger field. But they did not consider that the very reason for disputing so keenly was, that the doctrine led to more serious consequences than at first view appeared. It would not have given so much uneasiness to Paul that ceremonies should be observed, as that the confident hope and the glory of salvation should be made to rest on works; just as, in the dispute about forbidding flesh on certain days, we do not look so much to the importance of the prohibition itself, as to the snare which is laid for the consciences of men. Paul, therefore, does not wander from the subject, when he enters into a controversy about the whole law, although the arguments of the false apostles were confined wholly to ceremonies. Their object in pressing ceremonies was, that men might seek salvation by obedience to the law, which, they falsely maintained, was meritorious; and accordingly, Paul meets them, not with the moral law, but with the grace of Christ alone. And yet this extended discussion does not occupy the whole of the Epistle; he comes at length to the specific question of ceremonies: but as the most serious difficulty was, whether justification is to be obtained by works or by faith, it was proper that this should be first settled. As the Papists of the present day are uneasy when we extort from them the acknowledgment that men are justified by faith alone, they reluctantly admit that “the works of the law” include those of a moral nature. Many of them, however, by quoting Jerome’s gloss, imagine that they have made a good defense; but the context will show that the words relate also to the moral law. ⁴⁸

Calvin: Gal 2:16

16.But by the faith of Jesus Christ. He does not merely state that ceremonies, or works of any kind, are insufficient without the assistance of faith, but meets their denial by a statement admitting of no exception, as if he had said, “Not by works, but by the Gift of Christ alone.” In any other point of view, the sentiment would have been trivial and foreign to the purpose; for the false apostles did not reject Christ nor faith, but demanded that ceremonies should be joined with them. If Paul had admitted this claim, they would have been perfectly at one, and he would have been under no necessity to agitate the church by this unpleasant debate. Let it therefore remain settled, that the proposition is so framed as to admit of no exception, “that we are justified in no other way than by faith,” or, “that we are not justified but by faith,” or, which amounts to the same thing, “that we are justified by faith alone.”

Hence it appears with what silly trifling the Papists of our day dispute with us about the word, as if it had been a word of our contrivance. But Paul was unacquainted with the theology of the Papists, who declare that a man is justified by faith, and yet make a part of justification to consist in works. Of such half-justification Paul knew nothing. For, when he instructs us that we are justified by faith, because we cannot be justified by works, he takes for granted what is true, that we cannot be justified through the righteousness of Christ, unless we are poor and destitute of a righteousness of our own. ⁴⁹ Consequently, either nothing or all must be ascribed to faith or to works. As to the word justification, and the manner in which faith is the cause of it, we shall afterwards see.

By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. He had already appealed to the consciences of Peter and others, and now confirms it more fully by affirming that such is the actual truth, that by the works of the law no mortal will obtain justification. This is the foundation of a freely bestowed righteousness, when we are stripped of a righteousness of our own. Besides, when he asserts that no mortal is justified by the righteousness of the law, the assertion amounts to this, that from such a mode of justification all mortals are excluded, and that none can possibly reach it.

Calvin: Gal 2:17

17.If, while we seek to be justified. He now returns to the Galatians. We must take care not to connect this verse with the preceding one, as if it were a part of the speech addressed to Peter: for what had Peter to do with this argument? It certainly has very little, if anything, to do with the speech; but let every one form his own opinion.

Chrysostom, and some other commentators, make the whole passage to be an affirmation, and interpret it thus: “If, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we are not yet perfectly righteous, but still unholy, and if, consequently, Christ is not sufficient for our righteousness, it follows that Christ is the minister of the doctrine which leaves men in sin:” supposing that, by this absurd proposition, Paul insinuates a charge of blasphemy against those who attribute a part of justification to the law. But as the expression of indignant abhorrence immediately follows, which Paul is never accustomed to employ but in answer to questions, I am rather inclined to think that the statement is made for the purpose of setting aside an absurd conclusion which his doctrine appeared to warrant. He puts a question, in his usual manner, into the mouth of his antagonists. “If, in consequence of the righteousness of faith, we, who are Jews and were ‘sanctified from the womb,’ (Jer 1:5 Gal 1:15,) are reckoned guilty and polluted, shall we say that Christ makes sin to be powerful in his own people, and that he is therefore the author of sin?”

This suspicion arose from his having said that Jews, by believing in Christ, renounce the righteousness of the law; for, while they are still at a distance from Christ, Jews, separated from the ordinary pollution of the Gentiles, appear to be in some respects exempted from the appellation of sinners. The grace of Christ places them on a level with the Gentiles; and the remedy, which is common to both, shews that both had labored under the same disease. This is the force of the particle also, — we ourselves also, — meaning not any description of men, but the Jews, who stood highest.

Far from it He properly rejects that inference. Christ, who discovers the sin which lay concealed, is not therefore the minister of sin; as if, by depriving us of righteousness, he opened the gate to sin, or strengthened its dominion. ⁵⁰ The Jews were mistaken in claiming any holiness for themselves apart from Christ, while they had none. Hence arose the complaint: “Did Christ come to take from us the righteousness of the law, to change saints into polluted men, to subject us to sin and guilt?” Paul denies it, and repels the blasphemy with abhorrence. Christ did not bring sin, but unveiled it; he did not take away righteousness, but stripped the Jews of a false disguise.

Calvin: Gal 2:18

18.For if I build again. The reply consists of two parts. This is the first part, and informs us that the supposition now made is at variance with his whole doctrine, since he had preached the faith of Christ in such a manner as to connect with it the ruin and destruction of sin. For, as we are taught by John, that Christ came not to build up the kingdom of sin, but “that he might destroy the works of the devil,” (1Jo 3:8,) so Paul declares, that, in preaching the gospel, he had restoreth true righteousness, in order that sin might be destroyed. It was, therefore, in the highest degree improbable, that the same person who destroyed sin should renew its power; and, by stating the absurdity, he repels the calumny.

Calvin: Gal 2:19

19.For I through the law. Now follows the direct reply, that we must not ascribe to Christ that work which properly belongs to the law. It was not necessary that Christ should destroy the righteousness of the law, for the law itself slays its disciples. As if he had said, “You deceive wretched men by the false notion, that they must live by the law; and, under that pretext, you keep them in the law. And yet you bring it as a charge against the Gospel, that it annihilates the righteousness which we have by the law. But it is the law which forces us to die to itself; for it threatens our destruction, leaves us nothing but despair, and thus drives us away from trusting to the law.”

This passage will be better understood by comparing it with Rom 7:0. There Paul describes beautifully, that no man lives to the law, but he to whom the law is dead, that is, has lost all power and efficacy; for, as soon as the law begins to live in us, it inflicts a fatal wound by which we die, and at the same time breathes life into the man who is already dead to sin. Those who live to the law, therefore, have never felt the power of the law, or properly understood what the law means; for the law, when truly perceived, makes us die to itself, and it is from this source, and not from Christ, that sin proceeds.

To die to the law, may either mean that we renounce it, and are delivered from its dominion, so that we have no confidence in it, and, on the other hand, that it does not hold us captives under the yoke of slavery; or it may mean, that, as it allures us all to destruction, we find in it no life. The latter view appears to be preferable. It is not to Christ, he tells us, that it is owing that the law is more hurtful than beneficial; but the law carries within itself the curse which slays us. Hence it follows, that the death which is brought on by the law is truly deadly. With this is contrasted another kind of death, in the life-giving fellowship of the cross of Christ. He says, that he is crucified together with Christ, that he might live unto God. The ordinary punctuation of this passage obscures the true meaning. It is this: “I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live to God.” But the context will read more smoothly thus: “I through the law am dead to the law;” then, in a separate sentence, “That I might live to God, I am crucified with Christ.”

That I might live to God. He shews that the kind of death, on which the false apostles seized as a ground of quarrel, is a proper object of desire; for he declares that we are dead to the law, not by any means that we may live to sin, but that we may live to God. To live to God, sometimes means to regulate our life according to his will, so as to study nothing else in our whole life but to gain his approbation; but here it means to live, if we may be allowed the expression, the life of God. In this way the various points of the contrast are preserved; for in whatever sense we are said to die to sin, in the same sense do we live to God. In short, Paul informs us that this death is not mortal, but is the cause of a better life; because God snatches us from the shipwreck of the law, and by his grace raises us up to another life. I say nothing of other interpretations; but this appears to be the apostle’s real meaning.

Calvin: Gal 2:20

20.I am crucified with Christ. This explains the manner in which we, who are dead to the law, live to God. Ingrafted into the death of Christ, we derive from it a secret energy, as the twig does from the root. Again, the handwriting of the law,

“which was contrary to us, Christ has nailed to his cross.” (Col 2:14.)

Being then crucified with him, we are freed from all the curse and guilt of the law. He who endeavors to set aside that deliverance makes void the cross of Christ. But let us remember, that we are delivered from the yoke of the law, only by becoming one with Christ, as the twig draws its sap from the root, only by growing into one nature.

Nevertheless I live. To the feelings of man, the word Death is always unpleasant. Having said that we are “crucified with Christ,” he therefore adds, “that this makes us alive.”

Yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. This explains what he meant by “living to God.” He does not live by his own life, but is animated by the secret power of Christ; so that Christ may be said to live and grow in him; for, as the soul enlivens the body, so Christ imparts life to his members. It is a remarkable sentiment, that believers live out of themselves, that is, they live in Christ; which can only be accomplished by holding real and actual communication with him. Christ lives in us in two ways. The one life consists in governing us by his Spirit, and directing all our actions; the other, in making us partakers of his righteousness; so that, while we can do nothing of ourselves, we are accepted in the sight of God. The first relates to regeneration, the second to justification by free grace. This passage may be understood in the latter sense; but if it is thought better to apply it to both, I will cheerfully adopt that view.

And the life which I now live in the flesh. There is hardly a sentence here which has not been torn by a variety of interpretations. Some understand by the word flesh, the depravity of sinful nature; but Paul means by it simply the bodily life, and it is to this that the objection applies. “You live a bodily life; but while this corruptible body performs its functions, — while it is supported by eating and drinking, this is not the heavenly life of Christ. It is therefore an unreasonable paradox to assert, that, while you are openly living after the ordinary manner of men, your life is not your own.”

Paul replies, that it consists in faith; which intimates that it is a secret hidden from the senses of man. The life, therefore, which we attain by faith is not visible to the bodily eye, but is inwardly perceived in the conscience by the power of the Spirit; so that the bodily life does not prevent us from enjoying, by faith, a heavenly life.

“He hath made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” (Eph 2:6.)

Again,

“You are fellow-citizens with the saints and of the
household of God.” (Eph 2:19.)

And again,

“Our conversation is in heaven.” (Phi 3:20.)

Paul’s writings are full of similar assertions, that, while we live in the world, we at the same time live in heaven; not only because our Head is there, but because, in virtue of union, we enjoy a life in common with him. (Joh 14:23.)

Who loved me. This is added to express the power of faith; for it would immediately occur to any one, — whence does faith derive such power as to convey into our souls the life of Christ? He accordingly informs us, that the love of Christ, and his death, are the objects on which faith rests; for it is in this manner that the effect of faith must be judged. How comes it that we live by the faith of Christ? Because “he loved us, and gave himself for us.” The love of Christ led him to unite himself to us, and he completed the union by his death. By giving himself for us, he suffered in our own person; as, on the other hand, faith makes us partakers of every thing which it finds in Christ. The mention of love is in accordance with the saying of the apostle John,

“Not that we loved God, but he anticipated us by his love.”
(1Jo 4:10)

For if any merit of ours had moved him to redeem us, this reason would have been stated; but now Paul ascribes the whole to love: it is therefore of free grace. Let us observe the order: “He loved us, and gave himself for us.” As if he had said, “He had no other reason for dying, but because he loved us,” and that “when we were enemies,” (Rom 5:10,) as he argues in another Epistle.

He gave himself No words can properly express what this means; for who can find language to declare the excellency of the Son of God? Yet he it is who gave himself as a price for our redemption. Atonement, cleansing, satisfaction, and all the benefits which we derive from the death of Christ, are here represented. ⁵¹ The words for me, are very emphatic. It will not be enough for any man to contemplate Christ as having died for the salvation of the world, unless he has experienced the consequences of this death, and is enabled to claim it as his own. ⁵²

Calvin: Gal 2:21

21.I do not reject There is great emphasis in this expression; for how dreadful is the ingratitude manifested in despising the grace of God, so invaluable in itself, and obtained at such a price! Yet this heinous offense is charged against the false apostles, who were not satisfied with having Christ alone, but introduced some other aids towards obtaining salvation. For, if we do not renounce all other hopes, and embrace Christ alone, we reject the grace of God. And what resource is left to the man, who “puts from him” the grace of God, “and judges himself unworthy of everlasting life?” (Act 13:46.)

Christ is dead in vain ⁵³ There would then have been no value in the death of Christ; or, Christ would have died without any reward; for the reward of his death is, that he has reconciled us to the Father by making an atonement for our sins. Hence it follows, that we are justified by his grace, and, therefore, not by works. The Papists explain this in reference to the ceremonial law; but who does not see that it applies to the whole law? If we could produce a righteousness of our own, then Christ has suffered in vain; for the intention of his sufferings was to procure it for us, and what need was there that a work which we could accomplish for ourselves should be obtained from another? If the death of Christ be our redemption, then we were captives; if it be satisfaction, we were debtors; if it be atonement, we were guilty; if it be cleansing, we were unclean. On the contrary, he who ascribes to works his sanctification, pardon, atonement, righteousness, or deliverance, makes void the death of Christ.

This argument, we shall perhaps be told, is of no weight against those who propose to unite the grace of Christ with works; which, it is universally admitted, was done by the false apostles. The two doctrines, it is alleged, stand together, that righteousness is by the law, and that we are redeemed by the death of Christ. True; supposing it were granted that a part of our righteousness is obtained by works, and a part comes from grace. But such theology, it may easily be proved, was unknown to Paul. His argument with his opponents is either conclusive or inconclusive. If any blasphemer shall dare to accuse him of bad reasoning, a powerful defense is at hand; for that justification in the sight of God of which he treats, is not what men may imagine to be sufficient, but what is absolutely perfect.

But we are not now called to plead in behalf of Paul against blasphemers, who venture to speak in reproachful language of the Holy Spirit himself. Our present business is with the Papists. They ridicule us, when we argue with Paul that, if righteousness come by works, Christ is dead in vain. They imagine it to be a beautiful reply, with which their sophists furnish them, that Christ merited for us the first grace, that is, the opportunity of meriting; and that the merit of his death concurs with the satisfactions of works for the daily pardon of sins. Let them ridicule Paul, whose language we quote. They must refute him before they can refute us. We know that he had to deal with men, who did not entirely reject the grace of Christ, but ascribed the half of salvation to works. In opposition to them he argues, that “if righteousness is by the law, then Christ is dead in vain;” and by so doing, he certainly does not allow to works one drop of righteousness. Between those men and the Papists there is no difference; and therefore, in refuting them, we are at liberty to employ Paul’s argument.

Defender: Gal 2:11

This incident is not mentioned in Acts or anywhere else. Gal 2:11-13 indicates that not only Peter but also Barnabas, and possibly James, had been so intimidated by the Judaizers who had come down from Jerusalem to Antioch (Paul called them "false brethren" in Gal 2:4), that they tried to compromise with them, "fearing them who were of the circumcision" (Gal 2:12). These apostles all knew better (Acts 10, 11, 15) but, like many Christians, were temporarily tempted to compromise the true gospel for the sake of expediency and outward harmony. Paul, therefore, had to rebuke even these leaders; they evidently accepted his rebuke and abandoned their compromising behavior (in particular, that of refusing to eat with the Gentile Christians). Parenthetically, this clearly indicates that Peter was not infallible. He could hardly have been a "pope," in the later sense of that title, as some came to believe. Paul clearly exhibited here a superior understanding of God's will and method."

Defender: Gal 2:15

Even though Paul had to withstand Peter, he nevertheless acknowledged that he and Peter were both Jews, and that they both agreed on the great doctrine of justification by grace through faith and not by the works of the law. Peter's temporary compromise in conduct was not because of doctrinal differences with Paul."

Defender: Gal 2:16

Some have argued that James contradicts Paul at this point, saying that Abraham and Rahab, for example, were "justified by works" (Jam 2:21, Jam 2:25). However, they were not justified by the "works of the law." Abraham lived before God gave the Mosaic law, and Rahab lived in a culture that had not heard of it. As a matter of fact, they were justified by faith in the eyes of God (Jam 2:23; Heb 11:31) and justified by works in the eyes of men (Jam 2:18). There is no contradiction, for genuine saving faith is inevitably demonstrated before men by "works of righteousness" (Tit 3:5; Eph 2:8-10). In any case, Paul makes it clear to the Galatians, and to us, that no one can ever be justified by keeping the law; James himself makes it plain that no one can keep the law fully (Jam 2:10).

Defender: Gal 2:16

The word "justified" means "made righteous" or "recognized as righteous." The righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer by faith (Rom 4:5; Jam 2:23)."

Defender: Gal 2:20

Here is the great secret of a Christ-honoring Christian life. As Paul wrote to the Romans, "Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ, our Lord" (Rom 6:11).

Defender: Gal 2:20

Christ lives in us by His Spirit (Joh 14:16, Joh 14:17, Joh 14:23). Since He is continually present in and with the believer, He knows all we say and do, hears our prayers and guides our steps as we follow His will.

Defender: Gal 2:20

Not the faith which we exercise in Christ, but His faith, which He lives out through us as we appropriate His life in us (compare Eph 2:9)."

TSK: Gal 2:10

that : Act 11:29, Act 11:30, Act 24:17; Rom 15:25-27; 1Co 16:1, 1Co 16:2; 2Cor. 8:1-9:15; Heb 13:16; Jam 2:15, Jam 2:16; 1Jo 3:17

TSK: Gal 2:11

to Antioch : Act 15:30-35

I withstood : Gal 2:5; 2Co 5:16, 2Co 11:5, 2Co 11:21-28, 2Co 12:11; 1Ti 5:20; Jud 1:3

because : Exo 32:21, Exo 32:22; Num 20:12; Jer 1:17; Jon 1:3, Jon 4:3, Jon 4:4, Jon 4:9; Mat 16:17, Mat 16:18, Mat 16:23; Act 15:37-39, Act 23:1-5; Jam 3:2; 1Jo 1:8-10

TSK: Gal 2:12

certain : Gal 2:9; Act 21:18-25

he did : Act 10:28, Act 11:3; Eph 2:15, Eph 2:19-22, Eph 3:6

he withdrew : Isa 65:5; Luk 15:2; 1Th 5:22

fearing : Pro 29:25; Isa 57:11; Mat 26:69-75

TSK: Gal 2:13

the other : Gen 12:11-13, Gen 26:6, Gen 26:7, Gen 27:24; Ecc 7:20, Ecc 10:1; 1Co 5:6, 1Co 8:9, 1Co 15:33

carried : Job 15:12; 1Co 12:2; Eph 4:14; Heb 13:9

TSK: Gal 2:14

walked : Psa 15:2, Psa 58:1, Psa 84:11; Pro 2:7, Pro 10:9

the truth : Gal 2:5; Rom 14:14; 1Ti 4:3-5; Heb 9:10

I said : Gal 2:11; Lev 19:17; Psa 141:5; Pro 27:5, Pro 27:6; 1Ti 5:20

If thou : Gal 2:12, Gal 2:13; Act 10:28, 11:3-18

why : Gal 2:3, Gal 6:12; Act 15:10,Act 15:11, Act 15:19-21, Act 15:24, Act 15:28, Act 15:29

TSK: Gal 2:15

Jews : Mat 3:7-9; Joh 8:39-41; Rom 4:16; Eph 2:3

sinners : Mat 9:11; Mar 7:26-28; Act 22:21; Rom 3:9; Eph 2:11, Eph 2:12; Tit 3:3

TSK: Gal 2:16

that : Gal 2:19, Gal 3:10-12, Gal 5:4; Job 9:2, Job 9:3, Job 9:29, Job 25:4; Psa 130:3, Psa 130:4; Luk 10:25-29; Act 13:38, Act 13:39; Rom 3:19, Rom 3:20,Rom 3:27, Rom 3:28, Rom 4:2, Rom 4:13-15; Phi 3:9

but : Gal 3:13, Gal 3:14, Gal 3:22-24, Gal 4:5; Rom 1:17, Rom 3:21-26, Rom 3:28, Rom 3:30, Rom 4:5, Rom 4:6, Rom 4:24, Rom 4:25, Rom 5:1, Rom 5:2, Rom 5:8, Rom 5:9; Rom 8:3, Rom 8:30-34; 1Co 6:11; 2Co 5:19-21; Phi 3:9; Heb 7:18, Heb 7:19

we have : Gal 2:20; Joh 6:68, Joh 6:69, Joh 20:31; Act 4:12; 1Pe 1:2, 1Pe 1:8, 1Pe 1:9, 1Pe 1:18-21, 1Pe 2:24, 1Pe 3:18; 2Pe 1:1; 1Jo 1:7, 1Jo 2:1, 1Jo 2:2; Rev 7:9, Rev 7:14

for : Gal 3:11; Psa 143:2

TSK: Gal 2:17

while : Rom 9:30-33, Rom 11:7

are found : Gal 2:11; Rom 6:1, Rom 6:2; 1Jo 3:8-10

is : Mat 1:21; Rom 15:8; 2Co 3:7-9; Heb 7:24-28, Heb 8:2; 1Jo 3:5

God : Rom 3:4, Rom 3:6

TSK: Gal 2:18

Gal 2:4, Gal 2:5, Gal 2:12-16, Gal 2:21, Gal 4:9-12, Gal 5:11; Rom 14:15; 1Co 8:11, 1Co 8:12

TSK: Gal 2:19

through : Gal 3:10,Gal 3:24; Rom 3:19, Rom 3:20, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:20, Rom 7:7-11, Rom 7:14, Rom 7:22, Rom 7:23, Rom 8:2, Rom 10:4, Rom 10:5

dead : Rom 6:2, Rom 6:11, Rom 6:14, Rom 7:4, Rom 7:6, Rom 7:9; Col 2:20, Col 3:3; 1Pe 2:24

that : Gal 2:20; Rom 14:7, Rom 14:8; 1Co 10:31; 2Co 5:15; 1Th 5:10; Tit 2:14; Heb 9:14; 1Pe 4:1, 1Pe 4:2, 1Pe 4:6

TSK: Gal 2:20

crucified : Gal 5:24, Gal 6:14; Rom 6:4-6, Rom 8:3, Rom 8:4; Col 2:11-14

nevertheless : Rom 6:8, Rom 6:13, Rom 8:2; Eph 2:4, Eph 2:5; Col 2:13, Col 3:3, Col 3:4

but : Joh 14:19, Joh 14:20, Joh 17:21; 2Co 4:10,2Co 4:11, 2Co 13:3, 2Co 13:5; Eph 3:17; Col 1:27; 1Th 5:10; 1Pe 4:2; Rev 3:20

the life : 2Co 4:11, 2Co 10:3; 1Pe 4:1, 1Pe 4:2

I now : Gal 2:16, Gal 3:11; Joh 6:57; Rom 1:17, Rom 5:2; 2Co 1:24, 2Co 5:7, 2Co 5:15; Phi 4:13; 1Th 5:10; 1Pe 1:8, 1Pe 4:2

the Son : Joh 1:49, Joh 3:16, Joh 3:35, Joh 6:69, Joh 9:35-38; Act 8:37, Act 9:20; 1Th 1:10; 1Jo 1:7; 1Jo 4:9, 1Jo 4:10,1Jo 4:14, 1Jo 5:10-13, 1Jo 5:20

who : Gal 1:4; Mat 20:28; Joh 10:11, Joh 15:13; Rom 8:37; Eph 5:2, Eph 5:25; Tit 2:14; Rev 1:5

TSK: Gal 2:21

do not : Gal 2:18; Psa 33:10; Mar 7:9 *marg. Rom 8:31

righteousness : Gal 2:16, Gal 3:21, Gal 5:2-4; Rom 10:3, Rom 11:6; Heb 7:11

Christ : Isa 49:4; Jer 8:8; 1Co 15:2, 1Co 15:14, 1Co 15:17

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Gal 2:10

Only they would that we should remember the poor - That is, as I suppose, the poor Christians in Judea. It can hardly be supposed that it would be necessary to make this an express stipulation in regard to the converts from among the Gentiles, and it would not have been very pertinent to the case before them to have done so. The object was, to bind together the Christians from among the pagan and from among the Jews, and to prevent alienation and unkind feeling. It might have been alleged that Paul was disposed to forget his own countrymen altogether; that he regarded himself as so entirely the apostle of the Gentiles that he would become wholly alienated from those who were his "kinsmen according to the flesh,"and thus it might be apprehended that unpleasant feelings would be engendered among those who had been converted from among the Jews. Now nothing could be better adapted to allay this than for him to pledge himself to feel a deep interest in the poor saints among the Jewish converts; to remember them in his prayers; and to endeavor to secure contributions for their needs.

Thus he would show that he was not alienated from his countrymen; and thus the whole church would be united in the closest bonds. It is probable that the Christians in Judea were at that time suffering the ills of poverty arising either from some public persecution, or from the fact that they were subject to the displeasure of their countrymen. All who know the special feelings of the Jews at that time in regard to Christians, must see at once that many of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth would be subjected to great inconveniences on account of their attachment to him. Many a wife might be disowned by her husband; many a child disinherited by a parent; many a man might be thrown out of employment by the fact that others would not countenance him; and hence, many of the Christians would be poor. It became, therefore, an object of special importance to provide for them; and hence, this is so often referred to in the New Testament. In addition to this, the church in Judea was afflicted with famine; compare Act 11:30; Rom 15:25-27; 1Co 16:1-2; 2Co 8:1-7.

The same which I also was forward to do - See the passages just referred to. Paul interested himself much in the collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem, and in this way he furnished the fullest evidence that he was not alienated from them, but that he felt the deepest interest in those who were his kindred. One of the proper ways of securing union in the church is to have the poor with them and depending on them for support; and hence, every church has some poor persons as one of the bonds of union. The best way to unite all Christians, and to prevent alienation, and jealousy, and strife, is to have a great common object of charity, in which all are interested and to which all may contribute. Such a common object for all Christians is a sinful world. All who bear the Christian name may unite in promoting its salvation, and nothing would promote union in the now divided and distracted church of Christ like a deep and common interest in the salvation of all mankind.

Barnes: Gal 2:11

But when Peter was come to Antioch - On the situation of Antioch, see the note at Act 11:19. The design for which Paul introduces this statement here is evident. It is to show that he regarded himself as on a level with the chief apostles, and that he did not acknowledge his inferiority to any of them. Peter was the oldest, and probably the most honored of the apostles. Yet Paul says that he did not hesitate to resist him in a case where Peter was manifestly wrong, and thus showed that he was an apostle of the same standing as the others. Besides, what he said to Peter on that occasion was exactly pertinent to the strain of the argument which he was pursuing with the Galatians, and he therefore introduces it Gal 2:14-21 to show that he had held the same doctrine all along, and that he had defended it in the presence of Peter, and in a case where Peter did not reply to it. The time of this journey of Peter to Antioch cannot be ascertained; nor the occasion on which it occurred. I think it is evident that it was after this visit of Paul to Jerusalem, and the occasion may have been to inspect the state of the church at Antioch, and to compose any differences of opinion which may have existed there. But everything in regard to this is mere conjecture; and it is of little importance to know when it occurred.

I withstood him to the face - I openly opposed him, and reproved him. Paul thus showed that he was equal with Peter in his apostolical authority and dignity. The instance before us is one of faithful public reproof; and every circumstance in it is worthy of special attention, as it furnishes a most important illustration of the manner in which such reproof should be conducted. The first thing to be noted is, that it was done openly, and with candor. It was reproof addressed to the offender himself. Paul did not go to others and whisper his suspicions; he did not seek to undermine the influence and authority of another by slander; he did not calumniate him and then justify himself on the ground that what he had said was no more than true: he went to him at once, and he frankly stated his views and reproved him in a case where he was manifestly wrong. This too was a case so public and well known that Paul made his remarks before the church Gal 2:14 because the church was interested in it, and because the conduct of Peter led the church into error.

Because he was to be blamed - The word used here may either mean because he had incurred blame, or because he deserved blame. The essential idea is, that he had done wrong, and that he was by his conduct doing injury to the cause of religion.

Barnes: Gal 2:12

For before that certain came - Some of the Jews who had been converted to Christianity. They evidently observed in the strictest manner the rites of the Jewish religion.

Came from James - See the note at Gal 1:19. Whether they were sent by James, or whether they came of their own accord, is unknown. It is evident only that they had been intimate with James at Jerusalem, and they doubtless pleaded his authority. James had nothing to do with the course which they pursued; but the sense of the whole passage is, that James was a leading man at Jerusalem, and that the rites of Moses were observed there. When they came down to Antioch, they of course observed those rites, and insisted that others should do it also. It is very evident that at Jerusalem the special rites of the Jews were observed for a long time by those who became Christian converts. They would not at once cease to observe them, and thus needlessly shock the prejudices of their countrymen; see the notes at Act 21:21-25.

He did eat with the Gentiles - Peter had been taught that in the remarkable vision which he saw as recorded in Acts 10. He had learned that God designed to break down the wall of partition between the Jews and the Gentiles, and he familiarly associated with them, and partook with them of their food. He evidently disregarded the special laws of the Jews about meats and drinks, and partook of the common food which was in use among the Gentiles. Thus he showed his belief that all the race was henceforward to be regarded as on a level, and that the special institutions of the Jews were not to be considered as binding, or to be imposed on others.

But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself - He withdrew from the Gentiles, and probably from the Gentile converts to Christianity. The reason why he did this is stated. He feared those who were of the circumcision, or who had been Jews. Whether they demanded this of him; whether they encountered him in debate; or whether he silently separated himself from the Gentiles without their having said anything to him, is unknown. But he feared the effect of their opposition; he feared their reproaches; he feared the report which would be made to those at Jerusalem; and perhaps he apprehended that a tumult would be excited and a persecution commenced at Antioch by the Jews who resided there. This is a melancholy illustration of Peter’ s characteristic trait of mind. We see in this act the same Peter who trembled when he began to sink in the waves; the same Peter who denied his Lord. Bold, ardent, zealous, and forward; he was at the same time timid and often irresolute; and he often had occasion for the deepest humility, and the most poignant regrets at the errors of his course. No one can read his history without loving his ardent and sincere attachment to his Master; and yet no one can read it without a tear of regret that he was left thus to do injury to his cause. No man loved the Saviour more sincerely than he did, yet his constitutional timidity and irresolutehess of character often led him to courses of life suited deeply to wound his cause.

Barnes: Gal 2:13

And the other Jews - That is, those who had been converted to Christianity. It is probable that they were induced to do it by the example of Peter, as they would naturally regard him as a leader.

Dissembled likewise with him - Dissembled or concealed their true sentiments. That is, they attempted to conceal from those who had come down from James the fact that they had been in the habit of associating with the Gentiles, and of eating with them. From this it would appear that they intended to conceal this wholly from them, and that they withdrew from the Gentiles before anything had been said to them by those who came down from James.

Insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away ... - Concerning Barnabas, see the note at Act 4:36. Barnabas was the intimate friend of Paul. He had been associated with him in very important labors; and the fact, therefore, that the conduct of Peter was exciting so unhappy an influence as even to lead so worthy and good a man as he was into hypocrisy and error, made it the more proper that Paul should publicly notice and reprove the conduct of Peter. It could not but be a painful duty, but the welfare of the church and the cause of religion demanded it, and Paul did not shrink from what was so obvious a duty.

Barnes: Gal 2:14

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.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 hat 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; compare 1Ti 5:20, "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."

\caps1 (3) t\caps0 hat 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 favor 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.

\caps1 (4) i\caps0 f 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, timeserving, 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 the Judaizing teachers came from Jerusalem, Gal 2:12.

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

Why compellest thou the Gentiles ... - As he would do, if he insisted that they should be circumcised, and observe the special 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 similar use of the word, see Mat 14:22; Luk 14:23; Act 28:19.

Barnes: Gal 2:15

We who are Jews by nature - It has long been a question whether this and the following verses are to be regarded as a part of the address of Paul to Peter, or the words of Paul as a part of the Epistle to the Galatians. A great variety of opinion has prevailed in regard to this. Grotius says, "Here the narrative of Paul being closed, he pursues his argument to the Galatians."In this opinion Bloomfield and many others concur. Rosenmuller and many others suppose that the address to Peter is continued to Gal 2:21. Such seems to be the most obvious interpretation, as there is no break or change in the style, nor any vestige of a transfer of the argument to the Galatians. But, on the other hand, it may be urged:

(1) That Paul in his writings often changes his mode of address without indicating it - Bloomfield.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 hat it is rather improbable that he should have gone into so long a discourse with Peter on the subject of justification. His purpose was answered by the reproof of Peter for his dissimulation; and there is something incongruous, it is said, in his instructing Peter at such length on the subject of man’ s justification. Still it appears to me probable that this is to be regarded as a part of the discourse of Paul to Peter, to the close of Gal 2:21.

The following reasons seem to me to require this interpretation:

(1) It is the most natural and obvious - usually a safe rule of interpretation. The discourse proceeds as if it were an address to Peter.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 here is a change at the beginning of the next chapter, where Paul expressly addresses himself to the Galatians.

\caps1 (3) a\caps0 s to the impropriety of Paul’ s addressing Peter at length on the subject of justification, we are to bear in mind that he did not address him alone.

The reproof was addressed to Peter particularly, but it was "before them all"Gal 2:14; that is, before the assembled church, or before the persons who had been led astray by the conduct of Peter, and who were in danger of error on the subject of justification. Nothing, therefore, was more proper than for Paul to continue his discourse for their benefit, and to state to them fully the doctrine of justification. And nothing was more pertinent or proper for him now titan to report this to the Galatians as a part of his argument to them, showing that he had always, since his conversion, held and defended the same doctrine on the subject of the way in which people are to be justified in the sight of God. It is, therefore, I apprehend, to be regarded as an address to Peter and the other Jews who were present. "We who were born Jews."

By nature - By birth; or, we were born Jews. We were not born in the condition of the Gentiles.

And not sinners of the Gentiles - This cannot mean that Paul did not regard the Jews as sinners, for his views on that subject he has fully expressed in Rom. 2; 3. But it must mean that the Jews were not born under the disadvantages of the Gentiles in regard to the true knowledge of the way of salvation. They were not left wholly in ignorance about the way of justification, as the Gentiles were. They knew, or they might know, that men could not be saved by their own works. It was also true that they were under more restraint than the Gentiles were, and though they were sinners, yet they were not abandoned to so gross and open sensuality as was the pagan world. They were not idolaters, and wholly ignorant of the Law of God.

Barnes: Gal 2:16

Knowing - We who are Jews by nature, or by birth. This cannot mean that all the Jews knew this, or that he who was a Jew knew it as a matter of course, for many Jews were ignorant of it, and many opposed it. But it means that the persons here referred to, those who had been born Jews, and who had been converted to Christianity, had had an opportunity to learn and understand this, which the Gentiles had not. This gospel had been preached to them, and they had professedly embraced it. They were not left to the gross darkness and ignorance on this subject which pervaded the pagan world, and they had had a better opportunity to learn it than the converts from the Gentiles. They ought, therefore, to act in a manner becoming their superior light, and to show in all their conduct that they fully believed that a man could not be justified by obedience to the Law of Moses. This rendered the conduct of Peter and the other Jews who "dissembled"with him so entirely inexcusable. They could not plead ignorance on this vital subject, and yet they were pursuing a course, the tendency of which was to lead the Gentile converts to believe that it was indispensable to observe the laws of Moses, in order to be justified and saved.

That a man is not justified by the works of the law - See the notes at Rom 1:17; Rom 3:20, Rom 3:26; Rom 4:5.

But by the faith of Jesus Christ - By believing on Jesus Christ; see the Mar 16:16 note; Rom 3:22 note.

Even we have believed in Jesus Christ - We are therefore justified. The object of Paul here seems to be to show, that as they had believed in the Lord Jesus, and thus had been justified, there was no necessity of obeying the Law of Moses with any view to justification. The thing had been fully done without the deeds of the Law, and it was now unreasonable and unnecessary to insist on the observance of the Mosaic rites.

For by the works of the law ... - See the notes at Rom 3:20, Rom 3:27. In this verse, the apostle has stated in few words the important doctrine of justification by faith - the doctrine which Luther so justly called, Articulus stantis, vel cadentis ecclesioe . In the notes referred to above, particularly in the notes at the Epistle to the Romans, I have stated in various places what I conceive to be the true doctrine on this important subject. It may be useful, however, to throw together in one connected view, as briefly as possible, the leading ideas on the subject of justification, as it is revealed in the gospel.

I. Justification is properly a word applicable to courts of justice, but is used in a similar sense in common conversation among people. An illustration will show its nature. A man is charged, e. g., with an act of trespass on his neighbor’ s property. Now there are two ways which he may take to justify himself, or to meet the charge, so as to be regarded and treated as innocent. He may:

(a)    Either deny that he performed the act charged on him, or he may,

(b)    Admit that the deed was done, and set up as a defense that he had a right to do it.

In either case, if the point is made out, he will be just or innocent in the sight of the Law. The Law will have nothing against him, and he will be regarded and treated in the premises as an innocent man; or he has justified himself in regard to the charge brought against him.

II. Charges of a very serious nature are brought against man by his Maker. He is charged with violating the Law of God; with a want of love to his Maker; with a corrupt, proud, sensual heart; with being entirely alienated from God by wicked works; in one word, with being entirely depraved. This charge extends to all people; and to the entire life of every unrenewed person. It is not a charge merely affecting the external conduct, nor merely affecting the heart; it is a charge of entire alienation from God; a charge, in short, of total depravity; see, especially, Rom. 1; 2; 3. That this charge is a very serious one, no one can doubt. That it deeply affects the human character and standing, is as clear. It is a charge brought in the Bible; and God appeals in proof of it to the history of the world, to every man’ s conscience, and to the life of every one who has lived; and on these facts, and on his own power in searching the hearts, and in knowing what is in man, he rests the proofs of the charge.

III. It is impossible for man to vindicate himself from this charge. He can neither show that the things charged have not been committed, nor that, having been committed, he had a right to do them. He cannot prove that God is not right in all the charges which he has made against him in his word; and he cannot prove that it was right for him to do as he has done. The charges against him are facts which are undeniable, and the facts are such as cannot be vindicated. But if he can do neither of these things, then he cannot be justified by the Law. The Law will not acquit him. It holds him guilty. It condemns him. No argument which he can use will show that he is right, and that God is wrong. No works that he can perform will be any compensation for what he has already done. No denial of the existence of the facts charged will alter the ease; and he must stand condemned by the Law of God. In the legal sense he cannot be justified; and justification, if it ever exist at all, must be in a mode that is a departure from the regular operation of law, and in a mode which the Law did not contemplate, for no law makes any provision for the pardon of those who violate it. It must be by some system which is distinct from the Law, and in which man may be justified on different principles than those which the Law contemplates.

IV. This other system of justification is that which is revealed in the gospel by the faith of the Lord Jesus. It does not consist in either of the following things:

(1) It is not a system or plan where the Lord Jesus takes the part of the sinner against the Law or against God. He did not come to show that the sinner was right, and that God was wrong. He admitted most fully, and endeavored constantly to show, that God was right, and that the sinner was wrong; nor can an instance be referred to where the Saviour took the part of the sinner against God in any such sense that he endeavored to show that the sinner had not done the things charged on him, or that he had a right to do them.

\caps1 (2) i\caps0 t is not that we are either innocent, or are declared to be innocent. God justifies the "ungodly,"Rom 4:5. We are not innocent; we never have been; we never shall be; and it is not the design of the scheme to declare any such untruth as that we are not personally undeserving. It will be always true that the justified sinner has no claims to the mercy and favor of God.

\caps1 (3) i\caps0 t is not that we cease to be undeserving personally. He that is justified by faith, and that goes to heaven, will go there admitting that he deserves eternal death, and that he is saved wholly by favor and not by desert.

\caps1 (4) i\caps0 t is not a declaration on the part of God that we have worked out salvation, or that we have any claim for what the Lord Jesus has done. Such a declaration would not be true, and would not be made.

\caps1 (5) i\caps0 t is not that the righteousness of the Lord Jesus is transferred to his people.

Moral character cannot be transferred. It adheres to the moral agent as much as color does to the rays of light which cause it. It is not true that we died for sin, and it cannot be so reckoned or imputed. It is not true that we have any merit, or any claim, and it cannot be so reckoned or imputed. All the imputations of God are according to truth; and he will always reckon us to be personally undeserving and sinful. But if justification is none of these things, it may be asked, what is it? I answer - It is the declared purpose of God to regard and treat those sinners who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as if they had not sinned, on the ground of the merits of the Saviour. It is not mere pardon. The main difference between pardon and justification respects the sinner contemplated in regard to his past conduct, and to God’ s future dealings with him. Pardon is a free forgiveness of past offences.

It has reference to those sins as forgiven and blotted out. It is an act of remission on the part of God. Justification has respect to the Law, and to God’ s future dealings with the sinner. It is an act by which God determines to treat him hereafter as a righteous man, or as if he had not sinned. The ground or reason of this is, the merit of the Lord Jesus Christ; merit such that we can plead it as if it were our own. The rationale of it is that the Lord Jesus has accomplished by his death the same happy effects in regard to the Law and the government of God, which would have been accomplished by the death of the sinner himself. In other words, nothing would be gained to the universe by the everlasing punishment of the offender himself, which will not be secured by his salvation on the ground of the death of the Lord Jesus. He has taken our place, and died in our stead; and he has met the descending stroke of justice, which would have fallen on our own head if he had not interposed (see my notes at Isa. 53) and now the great interests of justice will be as firmly secured if we are saved, as they would be if we were lost.

The Law has been fully obeyed by one who came to save us, and as much honor has been done to it by his obedience as could have been by our own; that is, it as much shows that the Law is worthy of obedience to have it perfectly obeyed by the Lord Jesus, as it would if it were obeyed by us. It as much shows that the Law of a sovereign is worthy of obedience to have it obeyed by an only son and an heir to the crown, as it does to have it obeyed by his subjects. And it has as much shown the evil of the violation of the Law to have the Lord Jesus suffer death on the cross, as it would if the guilty had died themselves. If transgression whelm the innocent in calamity; if it extends to those who are perfectly guiltless, and inflicts pain and woe on them, it is as certainly an expression of the evil of transgression as if the guilty themselves suffer. And an impression as deep has been made of the evil of sin by the sufferings of the Lord Jesus in our stead, as if we had suffered ourselves.

He endured on the cross as intense agony as we can conceive it possible for a sinner ever to endure; and the dignity of the person who suffered, the incarnate God, is more than an equivalent for the more lengthened sorrows which the penalty of the Law exacts in hell. Besides, from the very dignity of the sufferer in our place, an impression has gone abroad on the universe more deep and important than would have been by the sufferings of the individual himself in the world of woe. The sinner who is lost will be unknown to other worlds. His name may be unheard beyond the gates of the prison of despair. The impression which will be made on distant worlds by his individual sufferings will be as a part of the aggregate of woe, and his individual sorrows may make no impression on distant worlds. But not so with him who took our place. He stood in the center of the universe. The sun grew dark, and the dead arose, and angels gazed upon the scene, and from his cross an impression went abroad to the farthest part of the universe, showing the tremendous effects of the violation of law, when not one soul could be saved from its penalty without such sorrows of the Son of God. In virtue of all this, the offender, by believing on him, may be treated as if he had not sinned; and this constitutes justification. God admits him to favor as if he had himself obeyed the Law, or borne its penalty, since as many good results will now follow from His salvation as could be derived from his punishment; and since all the additional happy results will follow which can be derived from the exercise of pardoning mercy. The character of God is thus revealed. His mercy is shown. His determination to maintain his law is evinced. The truth is maintained; and yet he shows the fulness of his mercy and the richness of his benevolence.

(The reader will find the above objections to the doctrine of imputation fully considered in the supplementary notes on Rom 4:5; see especially the note at Rom 4:3, in which it is observed, that almost every objection against the imputation of righteousness may be traced to two sources. The first of these is the idea that Christ’ s righteousness becomes ours, in the same sense that it is his, namely, of personal achievement; an idea continually rejected by the friends, and as often proceeded on by the enemies, of imputation. The second source is the idea that imputation involves a transference of moral character, whereas the imputing and the infusing of righteousness are allowed to be two very different things. Now, in this place, the commentator manifestly proceeds on these mistaken views. What does he mean by "transference of the righteousness of Christ"when he says, "justification is not that the righteousness of the Lord Jesus is transferred to his people?"What follows, at once explains. "Moral character,"he continues, "cannot be transferred. It adheres to the moral agent, as much as color does to the rays of light which cause it."But this is quite aside from the subject, and proves what never had been denied. The same remarks apply with equal force to what is said about our being "always personally undeserving,"and never regarded as having ourselves actually "wrought out salvation."These objections belong to the first source of misconception noticed above.

It has been asked a thousand times, and the question is most pertinent, How can God treat believers as innocent, if there be not some sense in which they are so? "The imputations of God are according to truth,"so is his treatment. The author tells us, that the ground of justification is the "merits of the Saviour,"which phrase he prefers throughout, to the more scriptural and more appropriate one of the righteousness of Christ; more appropriate, because the subject if forensic, belonging to judicature and dealing in matters of law; see Hervey’ s reply to Wesley, vol. iv. p. 33. Yet if these merits, or this righteousness, be not imputed to us - held as ours - how can we be justified on any such ground? "I would further observe,"says Mr. Hervey, replying to Wesley in the publication just quoted, "that you have dropped the word ‘ imputed,’ "which inclines me to suspect you would cashier the thing. But let me ask, Sir, how can we be justified by the merits of Christ, unless they are imputed to us? Would the payment made by a surety procure a discharge for the debtor, unless it were placed to his account? It is certain the sacrifices of old could not make an atonement, unless they were imputed to each offerer respectively. This was an ordinance settled by Yahweh himself, Lev 7:18. And were not the sacrifices, was not their imputation, typical of Christ and things pertaining to Christ, the former prefiguring his all-sufficient expiation; the latter shadowing forth the way whereby we are partakers of its efficacy?

The language of President Edwards, the prince of American clergymen, indeed of theologians universally, is decisive enough, and one would think that the opinion of this master in reasoning should have its weight on the other side of the Atlantic. "It is absolutely necessary,"says he, "that in order to a sinner’ s being justified, the righteousness of some other should be reckoned to his account; for it is declared, that the person justified is looked on as, in himself, ungodly: but God neither will nor can justify a person without a righteousness; for justification is manifestly a forensic term, as the word is used in scripture, and a judicial thing or the act of a judge; so that if a person should be justified without a righteousness, the judgment would not be according to truth. The sentence of justification would be a false sentence, unless there be a righteousness performed, that is, by the Judge properly looked upon as his."

Nor are we sure, if our author’ s distinction between pardon and justification be altogether accurate. By those who deny imputed righteousness, justification is frequently said to consist in the mere remission of sin. In a recent American publication, the views of the "new school party"are thus given: "Though they retain the word justification, they make it consist in mere pardon. In the eye of the Law, the believer, according to their views, is not justified at all, and never will be throughout eternity. Though on the ground of what Christ has done, God is pleased to forgive the sinner upon his believing, Christ’ s righteousness is not reckoned in any sense as his, or set down to his account. He believes, and his faith or act of believing is accounted to him for righteousness; that is, faith is so reckoned to His account that God treats him as if he were righteous"- Old and New Theology, by James Wood. Now Mr. Barnes does not exactly say that justification and pardon are the same, for he makes a distinction. "The main difference between the two respects the sinner contemplated in regard to his past conduct, and to God’ s future dealings with him.""Pardon is a free forgiveness of least offences. Justification has respect to the Law and to God’ s future dealings."

But this difference is not respecting the nature of the things. It is simply a matter of time, of past and future; and justification, after all, is neither more nor less than pardon of sins past and to come. A criminal is often pardoned while his guilt is still allowed. To exalt pardon to justification there most be supposed a righteousness on the ground of which not only is sin forgiven, but the person accepted and declared legally righteous. And in this lies the main difference between the two. In the case of the believer however these are never found apart. Whoever is pardoned is at the same time justified. Earthly princes sometimes remit the punishment of crime, but seldom or never dream of honoring the criminal; but wherever God pardons, he dignifies and ennobles.

Barnes: Gal 2:17

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ - The connection here is not very clear, and the sense of the verse is somewhat obscure. Rosenmuller supposes that this is an objection of a Jew, supposing that where the Law of Moses is not observed there is no rule of life, and that therefore there must be sin; and that since the doctrine of justification by faith taught that there was no necessity of obeying the ceremonial law of Moses, therefore Christ, who had introduced that system, must be regarded as the author and encourager of sin. To me it seems probable that Paul here has reference to an objection which has in all ages been brought against the doctrine of justification by faith, and which seems to have existed in his time, that the doctrine leads to licentiousness. The objections are that it does not teach the necessity of the observance of the Law in order to acceptance with God. That it pronounces a man justified and accepted who is a violator of the Law. That his acceptance does not depend on moral character.

That it releases him from the obligation of law, and that it teaches that a man may be saved though he does not conform to law. These objections existed early, and have been found everywhere where the doctrine of justification by faith has been preached. I regard this verse, therefore, as referring to these objections, and not as being especially the objection of a Jew. The idea is, "You seek to be justified by faith without obeying the Law. You professedly reject that, and do not hold that it is necessary to yield obedience to it. If now it shall turn out that you are sinners; that your lives are not holy; that you are free from the wholesome restraint of the Law, and are given up to lives of sin, will it not follow that Christ is the cause of it; that he taught it; and that the system which he introduced is responsible for it? And is not the gospel therefore responsible for introducing a system that frees from the restraint of the Law, and introduces universal licentiousness?"To this Paul replies by stating distinctly that the gospel has no such tendency, and particularly by referring in the following verses to his own case, and to the effect of the doctrine of justification on his own heart and life.

We ourselves are found sinners - If it turns out that we are sinners, or if others discover by undoubted demonstration that we lead lives of sin; if they see us given up to a lawless life, and find us practicing all kinds of evil; if it shall be seen not only that we are not pardoned and made better by the gospel, but are actually made worse, and are freed from all moral restraint.

Is therefore Christ the minister of sin? - Is it to be traced to him? Is it a fair and legitimate conclusion that this is the tendency of the gospel? Is it to be charged on him, and on the plan of justification through him, that a lax morality prevails, and that people are freed from the wholesome restraints of law?

God forbid - It is not so. This is not the proper effect of the gospel of Christ, and of the doctrine of justification by faith. The system is not suited to produce such a freedom from restraint, and if such a freedom exists, it is to be traced to something else than the gospel.

Barnes: Gal 2:18

For if I build again the things which I destroyed - Paul here uses the first person; but he evidently intends it as a general proposition, and means that if anyone does it he becomes a transgressor. The sense is, that if a man, having removed or destroyed that which was evil, again introduces it or establishes it, he does wrong, and is a transgressor of the Law of God. The particular application here, as it seems to me, is to the subject of circumcision and the other rites of the Mosaic law. They had been virtually abolished by the coming of the Redeemer, and by the doctrine of justification by faith. It had been seen that there was no necessity for their observance, and of that Peter and the others had been fully aware. Yet they were lending their influence again to establish them or to build them up again. They complied with them, and they insisted on the necessity of their observance. Their conduct, therefore, was that of building up again that which had once been destroyed, destroyed by the ministry, and toils, and death of the Lord Jesus, and by the fair influence of his gospel. To rebuild that again; to re-establish those customs, was wrong, and now involved the guilt of a transgression of the Law of God. Doddridge supposes that this is an address to the Galatians, and that the address to Peter closed at the previous verse. But it is impossible to determine this; and it seems to me more probable that this is all a part of the address to Peter; or rather perhaps to the assembly when Peter was present; see the note at Gal 2:15.

Barnes: Gal 2:19

For I through the law - On this passage the commentators are by no means agreed. It is agreed that in the phrase "am dead to the law,"the Law of Moses is referred to, and that the meaning is, that Paul had become dead to that as a ground or means of justification. He acted as though it were not; or it ceased to have influence over him. A dead man is insensible to all around him. He hears nothing; sees nothing; and nothing affects him. So when we are said to be dead to anything, the meaning is, that it does not have an influence over us. In this sense Paul was dead to the Law of Moses. He ceased to observe it as a ground of justification. It ceased to be the grand aim and purpose of his life, as it had been formerly, to obey it. He had higher purposes than that, and truly lived to God; see the note at Rom 6:2. But on the meaning of the phrase "through the law"( διὰ νόμου dia nomou ) there has been a great variety of opinion.

Bloomfield, Rosenmuller, and some others suppose that he means the Christian religion, and that the meaning is, "by one law, or doctrine, I am dead to another;"that is, the Christian doctrine has caused me to cast aside the Mosaic religion. Doddridge, Clarke, Chandler, and most others, however, suppose that he here refers to the Law of Moses, and that the meaning is, that by contemplating the true character of the Law of Moses itself; by considering its nature and design; by understanding the extent of its requisitions, he had become dead to it; that is, he had laid aside all expectations of being justified by it. This seems to me to be the correct interpretation. Paul had formerly expected to be justified by the Law. He had endeavored to obey it. It had been the object of his life to comply with all its requisitions in order to be saved by it; Phi 3:4-6. But all this while he had not fully understood its nature; and when he was made fully to feel and comprehend its spiritual requirements, then all his hopes of justification by it died, and he became dead to it; see this sentiment more fully explained in the note at Rom 7:9.

That I might live unto God - That I might be truly alive, and might be found engaged in his service. He was dead to the Law, but not to every thing. He had not become literally inactive and insensible to all things, like a dead man, but he had become truly sensible to the commands and appeals of God, and had consecrated himself to his service; see the note at Rom 6:11.

Barnes: Gal 2:20

I am crucified with Christ - In the previous verse, Paul had said that he was dead. In this verse he states what he meant by it, and shows that he did not wish to be understood as saying that he was inactive, or that he was literally insensible to the appeals made to him by other beings and objects. In respect to one thing he was dead; to all that was truly great and noble he was alive. To understand the remarkable phrase, "I am crucified with Christ,"we may remark:

(1) That this was the way in which Christ was put to death. He suffered on a cross, and thus became literally dead.

\caps1 (2) i\caps0 n a sense similar to this, Paul became dead to the Law, to the world, and to sin. The Redeemer by the death of the cross became insensible to all surrounding objects, as the dead always are. He ceased to see, and hear, and was as though they were not. He was laid in the cold grave, and they did not affect or influence him. So Paul says that he became insensible to the Law as a means of justification; to the world; to ambition and the love of money; to the pride and pomp of life, and to the dominion of evil and hateful passions. They lost their power over him; they ceased to influence him.

\caps1 (3) t\caps0 his was with Christ, or by Christ. It cannot mean literally that he was put to death with him, for that is not true. But it means that the effect of the death of Christ on the cross was to make him dead to these things, in like manner as he, when he died, became insensible to the things of this busy world. This may include the following things:

(a)    There was an intimate union between Christ and his people, so that what affected him, affected them; see Joh 15:5-6.

(b)    The death of the Redeemer on the cross involved as a consequence the death of his people to the world and to sin; see Gal 5:24; Gal 6:14. It was like a blow at the root of a vine or a tree, which would affect every branch and tendril or like a blow at the head which affects every member of the body.

©    Paul felt identified with the Lord Jesus; and he was willing to share in all the ignominy and contempt which was connected with the idea of the crucifixion. He was willing to regard himself as one with the Redeemer. If there was disgrace attached to the manner in which he died, he was willing to share it with him. He regarded it as a matter to be greatly desired to be made just like Christ in all things, and even in the manner of his death. This idea he has more fully expressed in Phi 3:10, "That I may know him, (that is, I desire earnestly to know him,) and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;"see also Col 1:24; compare 1Pe 4:13.

Nevertheless I live - This expression is added, as in Gal 2:19, to prevent the possibility of mistake. Paul, though he was crucified with Christ, did not wish to be understood that he felt himself to be dead. He was not inactive; not insensible, as the dead are, to the appeals which are made from God, or to the great objects which ought to interest an immortal mind. He was still actively employed, and the more so from the fact that he was crucified with Christ. The object of all such expressions as this is, to show that it was no design of the gospel to make people inactive, or to annihilate their energies. It was not to cause people to do nothing. It was not to paralyze their powers, or stifle their own efforts. Paul, therefore, says, "I am not dead. I am truly alive; and I live a better life than I did before."Paul was as active after conversion as he was before. Before, he was engaged in persecution; now, he devoted his great talents with as much energy, and with as untiring zeal, to the cause of the great Redeemer. Indeed, the whole narrative would lead us to suppose that he was more active and zealous after his conversion than he was before. The effect of religion is not to make one dead in regard to the putting forth of the energies of the soul. True religion never made one lazy man; it has converted many a man of indolence, and effeminacy and self-indulgence to a man actively engaged in doing good. If a professor of religion is less active in the service at God than he was in the service of the world; less laborious, and zealous. and ardent than he was before his supposed conversion, he ought to set it down as full proof that he is an utter stranger to true religion.

Yet not I - This is also designed to prevent misapprehension. In the previous clause he had said that he lived, or was actively engaged. But lest this should he misunderstood, and it should be inferred that he meant to say it was by his own energy or powers, he guards it, and says it was not at all from himself. It was by no native tendency; no power of his own; nothing that could be traced to himself. He assumed no credit for any zeal which he had shown in the true life. He was disposed to trace it all to another. He had ample proof in his past experience that there was no tendency in himself to a life of true religion, and he therefore traced it all to another.

Christ liveth in me - Christ was the source of all the life that he had. Of course this cannot be taken literally that Christ had a residence in the apostle, but it must mean that his grace resided in him; that his principles actuated him: and that he derived all his energy, and zeal, and life from his grace. The union between the Lord Jesus and the disciple was so close that it might be said the one lived in the other. So the juices of the vine are in each branch, and leaf, and tendril, and live in them and animate them; the vital energy of the brain is in each delicate nerve - no matter how small - that is found in any part of the human frame. Christ was in him as it were the vital principle. All his life and energy were derived from him.

And the life which I now live in the flesh - As I now live on the earth surrounded by the cares and anxieties of this life. I carry the life-giving principles of my religion to all my duties and all my trials.

I live by the faith of the Son of God - By confidence in the Son of God, looking to him for strength, and trusting in his promises, and in his grace. Who loved me, etc. He felt under the highest obligation to him from the fact that he had loved him, and given himself to the death of the cross in his behalf. The conviction of obligation on this account Paul often expresses; see the Rom 6:8-11; 8:35-39 notes; 2Co 5:15 note. There is no higher sense of obligation than that which is felt toward the Saviour; and Paul felt himself bound, as we should, to live entirely to him who had redeemed him by his blood.

Barnes: Gal 2:21

I do not frustrate the grace of God - The word rendered "frustrate"( ἀθετῶ athetō ) means properly to displace, abrogate, abolish; then to make void, to render null; Mar 7:9; Luk 7:30; 1Co 1:19. The phrase "the grace of God,"here refers to the favor of God manifested in the plan of salvation by the gospel, and is another name for the gospel. The sense is, that Paul would not take any measures or pursue any course that would render that vain or inefficacious. Neither by his own life, by a course of conduct which would show that it had no influence over the heart and conduct, nor by the observance of Jewish rites and customs, would he do anything to render that inefficacious. The design is to show that he regarded it as a great principle that the gospel was efficacious in renewing and saving man, and he would do nothing that would tend to prevent that impression on mankind. A life of sin, of open depravity and licentiousness, would do that. And in like manner a conformity to the rites of Moses as a ground of justification would tend to frustrate the grace of God, or to render the method of salvation solely by the Redeemer nugatory. This is to be regarded, therefore as at the same time a reproof of Peter for complying with customs which tended to frustrate the plan of the gospel, and a declaration that he intended that his own course of life should be such as to confirm the plan, and show its efficacy in pardoning the sinner and rendering him alive in the service of God.

For if righteousness come by the law - If justification can be secured by the observance of any law - ceremonial or moral - then there was no need of the death of Christ as an atonement. This is plain. If man by conformity to any law could be justified before God, what need was there of an atonement? The work would then have been wholly in his own power, and the merit would have been his. It follows from this, that man cannot be justified by his own morality, or his alms-deeds, or his forms of religion, or his honesty and integrity. If he can, he needs no Saviour; he can save himself. It follows also that when people depend on their own amiableness, and morality, and good works, they would feel no need of a Saviour; and this is the true reason why the mass of people reject the Lord Jesus. They suppose they do not deserve to be sent to hell. They have no deep sense of guilt. They confide in their own integrity, and feel that God ought to save them. Hence, they feel no need of a Saviour; for why should a person in health employ a physician? And confiding in their own righteousness, they reject the grace of God, and despise the plan of justification through the Redeemer. To feel the need of a Saviour it is necessary to feel that we are lost and ruined sinners; that we have no merit upon which we can rely; and that we are entirely dependent on the mercy of God for salvation. Thus feeling, we shall receive the salvation of the gospel with thankfulness and joy, and show that in regard to us Christ is not "dead in vain."

Poole: Gal 2:10

These pillars and apostles, which have among you the greatest reputation, added no new doctrine to us, gave us nothing new in charge; they only desired us that we would be careful, wheresoever we went, to make collection for the poor Christians in Judea, who either by selling all they had to maintain the gospel in its first plantation, or by the sharp persecution which had wasted them, or by reason of the famine, were very low; nor was this any new thing, I had before done it, and was very forward to do it again, had they said nothing to us about it.

Poole: Gal 2:11

Of this motion of Peter’ s to Antioch the Scripture saying nothing, hath left interpreters at liberty to guess variously as to the time; solne judging it was before, some after, the council held at Jerusalem, of which we read, Act 15:1-41 . Those seem to judge best, who think it was after; for it was at Antioch, while Barnabas was with Paul; now Paul and Barnabas came from Jernsalem to Antioch, to bring thither the decrees of that council; and at Antioch Barnabas parted from Paul; after which we never read of them as being together. While Paul and Barnabas were together at Antioch, Peter came thither; where, Paul saith, he was so far from taking instructions from him, that he

withstood him to the face Not by any acts of violence, (though the word often expresseth such acts), but by words reproving and blaming him; for, (saith he) he deserved it,

he was to be blamed Though the word signifies, he was condemned, which makes some to interpret it, as if Peter had met with some reprehension for his fact before Paul blamed him, yet there is no ground for it; for though the Greek participle be in the preterperfect tense, yet it is a Hebraism, and put for a noun verbal, which in Latin is sometimes expressed by the future, according to which we translate it; see 1Co 1:18 2Co 2:15 2Pe 2:4 so our interpreters have truly translated it according to the sense of the text.

Poole: Gal 2:12

It should seem that Peter had been at Antioch some time; while he was there, there came down certain Jews from James, who was at Jerusalem: before they came Peter had communion with those Christians at Antioch, which were by birth Gentiles, and at meals eat as they eat, making no difference of meats, as the Jews did in obedience to the ceremonial law; but as soon as these zealots for the Jewish rites (though Christians) were come, Peter withdrew from the communion of the Gentile Christians, and was the head of a separate party; and all through fear of the Jews, lest they should, at their return to Jerusalem, make some report of him to his disadvantage, and expose him to the anger of the Jews.

Poole: Gal 2:13

The fact was the worse, because those Christians which were of the church of Antioch, having been native Jews, followed his example, and made a separate party with him. Nay,

Barnabas my fellow labourer, who was joined with me in bringing the decrees of the council in the case,

was carried away with their dissimulation So dangerous and exemplary are the warpings and miscarriages of those that are eminent teachers.

Poole: Gal 2:14

Uprightly here, is opposed to halting. Peter halted between two opinions, (as Elijah sometime told the Israelites), when he was with the Gentiles alone, he did as they did, using the liberty of the gospel; but when the Jews came from Jerusalem, he left the Gentile church, and joined with the Jews; this was not according to that plainness and sincerity which the gospel required; he did not (according to the precept he held, Heb 12:13 ) make straight paths to his feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way. Paul not hearing this from the report of others, but being an eye-witness to it, doth not defer the reproof, lest the scandal should grow: nor doth he reprove him privately, because the offence was public, and such a plaster would not have fitted the sore; but he speaketh

unto Peter before them all rebuking him openly, because he sinned openly; and by this action had not offended a private person, but the church in the place where he was, who were all eyewitnesses of his halting and prevarication, 1Ti 5:20 .

If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews if thou, who art a Jew, not by religion only, but by birth and education, hast formerly lived, eat, and drank, and had communion with the Gentiles, in the omission of the observance of circumcision, and other Jewish rites, generally observed by those of their synagogues; (as Peter had done before the Jews came from from Jerusalem to Antioch);

why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Why dost thou, by thy example, compel the members of a Gentile church to observe the Jewish rites? For compelling here doth not signify any act of violence, (Peter used none such), but the example of leaders in the church, who are persons of reputation and authority, is a kind of compulsion to those that are inferiors, and who have a great veneration for such leaders. So the word here used, anagkazeiv , is used in 2Co 12:2 , as also to express the force of exhortations and arguments. Of such a compulsion the word is used, Luk 14:23 . Peter, by his example, and possibly by some words and arguments he used, potently moved those proselyted Jews, who were in communion with the churches of Galatia, to observe the Jewish rites: so that by this fact he did not only contradict himself, who by his former walking with the Gentile church had practically asserted the gospel liberty; but he also scandalized those Christians in these churches who stood fast in the liberty which Christ had purchased for them, and Paul had taught them; and also drew others away from the truth they had owned and practised. This was the cause of Paul’ s so open and public reproof of him.

Poole: Gal 2:15

Jews by nature born Jews, not only proselyted to the Jewish religion, (and so under an obligation to the observation of the Jewish law), but of the seed of Abraham, and so under the covenant made with him and his seed, as he was the father of the Jewish nation.

Not sinners of the Gentiles: the Gentiles were ordinarily called by the Jews sinners; though it appeareth that there were divers of them worshippers of the true God, and came up to Jerusalem to worship; for whose sake there was a peculiar court allotted in the temple, called: The court of the Gentiles. Yet not being under the obligation of the Jewish law, they went under the denomination of sinners by the Jews; and the most of the Gentiles were really sinners, and that eminently, (for such the word here used ordinarily signifieth), as the apostle describeth their manners, Rom 1:29-31 .

Poole: Gal 2:16

Knowing that a man is not justified we knowing that a man is not absolved from the guilt of sin, and declared righteous in the sight of God;

by the works of the law by any kind of works done in obedience to the law of Moses, whether ceremonial or moral. For it is manifest that although this question about justification by works began about circumcision and works done in obedience to the ceremonial law, yet the determination of it extended further. For the apostle, by

the law understands that law by which

is the knowledge of sin Rom 3:20 . Now the knowledge of sin, is neither only nor chiefly by the ceremonial law; nor did ever any of those, against whom the apostle argueth, think, that men could be justified by obedience only to the law contained in ordinances; nor could boasting be excluded, (which the apostle showeth, Rom 3:27 , was God’ s design in fixing the way of a sinher’ s justification), if men might be justified by works done in obedience to the moral law; nor was it the ceremonial law only, the violation of which worketh wrath, Rom 4:15 , or disobedience to which brought men under the curse, Gal 3:10 .

But by the faith of Jesus Christ but we are justified by believing in Christ: not by faith as it is a work of ours, for that was denied before; nor by faith as a principal efficient cause, for in that sense it is God that justifieth; nor as a meritorious cause, for so we are justified by the blood of Christ; but by faith as an instrument apprehending and applying Christ and his righteousness.

Even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law we (saith the apostle) that are Jews, knowing this, have not only assented to the truth of the gospel proposition, but accepted of this way of salvation, and received the Lord Jesus; that we so doing, not trusting to the law, or any obedience of ours to it, might be absolved from the guilt of sin, and declared righteous before God.

For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified for no mortal man shall ever be absolved or declared righteous upon his own personal obedience to the law of God; being in the best imperfect, and much short of what the law requireth.

Poole: Gal 2:17

Some interpreters think, that the apostle here begins his discourse to the Galatians upon the main argument of his Epistle, viz. justification by faith in Christ; though others think it began, Gal 2:15 .

If, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners if (saith the apostle) you make us grievous offenders in our expectation of being justified by Christ, and not by the works of the law, you make

Christ the minister of sin who hath taught us this. But others think that the apostle here obviateth a common objection which was then made, (as it is also in our age), against the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ; viz. That it opens a door of liberty to the flesh, and so makes Christ a minister of sin, as if he relaxed men’ s obligation to the law of God; which is the same objection which the apostle answered in his Epistle to the Romans, Rom 6:1-23 . If while, we plead for justification by Christ, we live in a course of notorious disobedience to the law of God, then Christ must be to us a minister of sin, and come into the world to purchase for us a possibility of salvation, though we live in never so much notorious disobedience to the law of God. As if there were no obligation upon men to keep the law, unless by their obedience to it they might obtain pardon of sin and justification. This calumny the apostle disavows, first, by a general aversation:

God forbid!

Poole: Gal 2:18

By the things which he destroyed some understand the state of sin; and from hence conclude the mutability of a state of justification: but there is no need of that, it may as well be understood of a constant course and voluntary acts of sin. If I teach a doctrine that shall encourage a sinful life, or if I should live in a course of sin, these are the things which I, as a minister of Christ, have in my preaching and doctrine destroyed, teaching you, that not only the guilt of your sins was removed upon your justification by Christ, but the dominion of sin also destroyed: and they are things which justification destroyeth; God never saying to any soul: Thy sins are forgiven thee, without adding, sin no more. So as, if a justified state would admit of a going on in a settled course of sin, it would build what it destroyed.

I make myself a transgressor now should I, or any one, do any such thing, we should thereby make ourselves great transgressors. So as the apostle’ s argument here seemeth to be the same with that, Rom 6:2 : How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? He strives at the same thing here, viz. to prove that the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, could not give a liberty to any to sin, because it shows persons made partakers of that grace, that they are freed, not only from the guilt, but also from the power and dominion of sin, so as that none can from it receive any comfort as to the former, nor find the latter wrought in them.

Poole: Gal 2:19

Through the law of Christ, as some say; or rather, through the law of Moses, of which he had been before speaking: that is, say some, through the death of the law; the law itself being dead, as a covenant of works, Rom 7:6 . Or rather, by means of the law, giving me a knowledge of sin, and condemning me for sin.

Am dead to the law as to any expectation of being justified by obedience to it.

That I might live unto God not that I might live in disobedience to it, as it is a rule of life, but that I might live more holily unto God: so as my being dead to the law, as a covenant of works, or as to any expectation of being justified from my obedience to it, gives me no liberty to sin at all; for this is the end why God hath freed me from the bondage and rigour of the law, that I might live unto him, and serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness.

Poole: Gal 2:20

This Epistle is much of the same nature with that to the Romans, and the substance of what the apostle saith in the latter part of this chapter, agreeth much with Rom 6:1-23 ; where we find an expression much like to this, Gal 2:6 : Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

I am (saith the apostle) crucified with Christ not only by justification made partaker of the benefits coming by a Christ crucified, but also as having communion with the death of Christ, in the mortification of my lusts. A figure of which (as he informs us, Rom 6:4 ) we have in baptism, buried with him by baptism into death

Nevertheless I live yet (saith he) I live a holy, spiritual life; though dead to the law, and though crucified with Christ.

Yet not I, but Christ liveth in me but I cannot say so properly that it is I, for my motions are not according to my natural propensions and inclinations; but Christ by his Spirit, liveth in me having renewed and changed me, made me a new creature, and begot new motions and inclinations in me. And though I live in the flesh yet I live by the faith of the Son of God all my natural, moral, and civil actions, being principled in faith, and done according to the guidance of the rule of faith in Jesus Christ.

Who loved me, and gave himself for me of whom I am persuaded that he loved me, and from that love gave himself to die upon the cross for me.

Poole: Gal 2:21

I do not frustrate the grace of God I do not despise, reject, make void, (for by all these words the word here used is translated, Mar 7:9 Joh 12:48 Joh 3:15 Heb 10:28 ), the free love of God, in giving his Son to die for our sins: from whence is easily gathered, that those who live a loose life, and take a liberty to sin, from their justification, or from the free grace of God in Christ, they do contemn and despise the grace of God: or rather, (if we refer it to the following words), those who assert justification by the works of the law, they do reject and despise the free grace of God in the gospel, and (as much as in them lies) make it vain and frustrate.

For if righteousness come by the law for if it be possible, that a man by works done in obedience to the law should arrive at a righteousness, in which he may stand before God,

then is Christ dead in vain then Christ died to no purpose, or without any just cause: the reason of this must be, because it was the main and principal end of Christ’ s death, to procure or purchase a righteousness wherein sinners might stand before God, to bring in an everlasting righteousness, Dan 9:24 . If the most proper effect of the death of Christ be taken away, then his death is made causeless, and to no purpose. Thus the apostle concludeth his thesis, laid down Gal 2:16 : That none shall be justified by the works of the law, from two absurdities that would follow upon the contrary, viz. justification by the works of the law, the rejecting of the grace of God, and the frustration, or making void, of the death of Christ.

Haydock: Gal 2:11

But when Cephas, &c.[1] In most Greek copies, we read Petrus, both here and ver. 13. Nor are there any sufficient, nor even probable grounds to judge, that Cephas here mentioned was different from Peter, the prince of the apostles, as one or two later authors would make us believe. Among those who fancied Cephas different from Peter, not one can be named in the first ages [centuries], except Clemens of Alexandria, whose works were rejected as apochryphal by Pope Gelasius. The next author is Dorotheus of Tyre, in his Catalogue of the seventy-two disciples, in the fourth or fifth age [century], and after him the like, or same catalogue, in the seventh age [century], in the Chronicle, called of Alexandria, neither of which are of any authority with the learned, so many evident faults and falsehoods being found in both. St. Jerome indeed on this place says, there were some (though he does not think fit to name them) who were of that opinion; but at the same time St. Jerome ridicules and rejects it as groundless. Now as to authors that make Cephas the same with St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, we have what may be called the unexceptionable and unanimous consent of the ancient fathers and doctors of the Catholic Church, as of Tertullian, who calls this management of St. Peter, a fault of conversation, not of preaching or doctrine. Of St. Cyprian, of Origen, of Alexander, of Theodoret, Pope Gelasius, Pelagius the second, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas. In later ages, of Bellarmine, Baronius, Binius, Spondan, of Salmeron, Estius, Gagneius, Tirinus, Menochius, Alex natalis, and a great many more: so that Cornelius a Lapide on this place says, that the Church neither knows, nor celebrates any other Cephas but St. Peter. Tertullian and most interpreters take notice, that St. Peter's fault was only a lesser or venial sin in his conduct and conversation. Did not St. Paul on several occasions do the like, as what is here laid to St. Peter's charge? that is, practise the Jewish ceremonies: did not he circumcise Timothy after this, an. 52 [in the year A.D. 52]? did he not shave his head in Cenchrea, an. 54? did he not by the advice of St. James (an. 58.) purify himself with the Jews in the temple, not to offend them? St. Jerome, and also St. John Chrysostom,[2] give another exposition of this passage. They looked upon all this to have been done by a contrivance and a collusion betwixt these two apostles, who had agreed beforehand that St. Peter should let himself be reprehended by St. Paul, (for this they take to be signified by the Greek text) and not that St. Peter was reprehensible; [3] so that the Jews seeing St. Peter publicly blamed, and not justifying himself, might for the future eat with the Gentiles. But St. Augustine vigorously opposed this exposition of St. Jerome, as less consistent with a Christian and apostolical sincerity, and with the text in this chapter, where it is called a dissimulation, and that Cephas or Peter walked not uprightly to the truth of the gospel. After a long dispute betwixt these two doctors, St. Jerome seems to have retracted his opinion, and the opinion of St. Augustine is commonly followed, that St. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence. In the mean time, no Catholic denies but that the head of the Church may be guilty even of great sins. What we have to admire, is the humility of St. Peter on this occasion, as St. Cyprian observes,[4] who took the reprehension so mildly, without alleging the primacy, which our Lord had given him. Baronius held that St. Peter did not sin at all, which may be true, if we look upon his intention only, which was to give no offence to the Jewish converts; but if we examine the fact, he can scarce be excused from a venial indiscretion. (Witham) ---

I withstood, &c. The fault that is here noted in the conduct of St. Peter, was only a certain imprudence, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts: but this in such circumstances, when his so doing might be of ill consequence to the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. Neither was St. Paul's reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for is such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior. (Challoner)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

That Peter and Cephas were the same, see Tertullian, lib. de prזscrip. chap. 23, p. 210. Ed. Rig.; Origen in Joan. Ed. Grזce et Latine, p. 381.; St. Cyprian, Epist. 71. ad Quintum, p. 120.; St. Jerome on this Ep. to the Galatians, as also St. John Chrysostom; St. Augustine. See his epistles on this passage to St. Jerome.; St. Gregory, lib. 2. in Ezech. tom. 1, p. 1368.; Gelasius apud Labb. T. 4. Conc. p. 1217.; Pelagius, the 2d apud Labb. t. 5. p. 622.; St. Cyril of Alexandria, hom. ix. cont. Julianum, t. 6, p. 325.; Theodoret in 2. ad Gal. iv. 3. p. 268.; St. Anselm in 2 ad Gal. p. 236.; St. Thomas Aquinas, lib. 2. q. 103. a. 4. ad 2dum. ---

St. Jerome's words: Sunt qui Cepham non putent Apostolum Petrum, sed alium de 70 Discipulis....quibus primum respondendum, alterius nescio cujus Cephז nescire nos nomen, nisi ejus, qui et in Evangelio, et in aliis Pauli Epistolis, et in hac quoque ipsa, modo Cephas, modo Petrus scribitur....deinde totum argumentum Epistolז....huic intelligentiז repugnare, &c.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

St. John Chrysostom by a contrivance, Greek: eikonomon. p. 730, &c.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Greek: Kategnosmenos may signfiy reprehensus, as well as reprehensibilis; and he says it is to be referred to others, and not to St. Paul: Greek: all upo ton allon.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

St. Cyprian, Ep. ad Quintum, p. 120. Petrus....non arroganter assumpsit, ut diceret se primatum tenere, &c.

====================

Haydock: Gal 2:16

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law. St. Paul, to the end of the chapter, seems to continue his discourse to St. Peter, but chiefly to the Jewish Galatians, to shew that both the Gentiles, whom the Jews called and looked upon as sinners, and also the Jews, when converted, could only hope to be justified and saved by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. ---

But if while we seek to be justified in Christ, by faith in him, and by his grace, we ourselves also are found sinners, as the false doctors teach you, and not to be justified but by the ceremonies and works of the law of Moses, this blasphemous consequence must follow, that Christ is the minister and author of sin, by making us believe that by faith in him, and complying with his doctrine, we may be justified and saved. For thus we must be considered transgressors, unless we renew and build again what Christ and we have destroyed. ---

For by the law I am dead to the law. That is, says St. Jerome, by the evangelical law of Christ I am dead to the ancient law and its ceremonies. Others expound it, that by the law and its types and figures, and by the predictions contained in the law, I know the Mosaical law hath now ceased, in which sense he might say, by the law I am dead to the law. ---

If justice. That is, if justification and salvation be to be had, or could have been had by the works of the law; therefore Christ died in vain, and it was not necessary that he should become our Redeemer. (Witham)

Haydock: Gal 2:19

He here expresses the change which had been wrought in him. The law to which he had been attached, had passed away from him. Now he was so united to Christ and his cross, that he says: Not I, but Christ liveth in me. The strong expressions made use of by St. Paul with regard to the Jewish law in this chapter, may appear strange, and very capable of a wrong interpretation. But we must ever bear in mind that St. Paul speaks exclusively of the ceremonial part of the law, and not of the moral, contained in the decalogue: of this later he says in his epistle to the Romans, (ii. 13.) the doers of the law shall be justified. But to effect this, was and is necessary the grace which Jesus Christ has merited and obtained for all, grace which God has shed on all, more or less, from the commencement of the world.

Gill: Gal 2:10

Only they would that we should remember the poor,.... Not in a spiritual sense, as some have thought, though these the apostle was greatly mindful of; but properly and literally the poor as to the things of this world; and may design the poor in general, everywhere, in the several churches where they should be called to minister, and particularly the poor saints at Jerusalem; who were become such, either through the frequent calamities of the nation, and a dearth or scarcity of provisions among them, and which affected the whole country; or rather through the persecutions of their countrymen, who plundered them of their goods for professing the name of Christ; or it may be through their having given up all their substance into one common stock and fund, as they did at first, and which was now exhausted, and that in a great measure by assisting out of it the preachers who first spread the Gospel among the Gentiles; so that it was but just that they should make some return unto them, and especially for the spiritual favours they received from them, as the Gospel, and the ministers of it, which first went out of Jerusalem: the "remembering" of them not only intends giving them actual assistance according to their abilities, which was very small, but mentioning their case to the several Gentile churches, and stirring them up to a liberal contribution:

the same which I also was forward to do; as abundantly appears from his epistles to the churches, and especially from his two epistles to the Corinthians. Now since the apostles at Jerusalem desired nothing else but this, and said not a word concerning the observance of the rites and ceremonies of the law, and neither found fault with, nor added to the Gospel the apostle communicated to them, it was a clear case that there was an entire agreement between them, in principle and practice, and that he did not receive his Gospel from them.

Gill: Gal 2:11

But when Peter was come to Antioch,.... The Alexandrian copy, and others, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions, instead of "Peter", read "Cephas", who, by some ancient writers, is said to be not Peter the Apostle, named Cephas by Christ, but one of the seventy disciples. So Clemens ^h says, that Cephas, of whom Paul speaks, that when he came to Antioch he withstood him to his face, was one of the seventy disciples who had the same name with Peter the Apostle: and Jerom says ⁱ that there were some who were of opinion, that Cephas, of whom Paul writes that he withstood him to his face, was not the Apostle Peter, but one of the seventy disciples called by that name: but without any manner of foundation; for the series of the discourse, and the connection of the words, most clearly show, that that same Cephas, or Peter, one of the twelve disciples mentioned, Gal 2:9, with James and John, as pillars, is here meant. Our apostle first takes notice of a visit he made him, three years after his conversion, Gal 1:18, when his stay with him was but fifteen days, and, for what appears, there was then an entire harmony between them; fourteen years after he went up to Jerusalem again, and communicated his Gospel to Peter, and the rest, when they also were perfectly agreed; but now at Antioch there was a dissension between them, which is here related. However, the Papists greedily catch at this, to secure the infallibility of the bishops of Rome, who pretend to be the successors of Peter, lest, should the apostle appear blameworthy, and to be reproved and opposed, they could not, with any grace, assume a superior character to his: but that Peter the Apostle is here designed is so manifest, that some of their best writers are obliged to own it, and give up the other as a mere conceit. When Peter came to Antioch is not certain; some have thought it was before the council at Jerusalem concerning the necessity of circumcision to salvation, because it is thought that after the decree of that council Peter would never have behaved in such a manner as there related; though it should be observed, that that decree did not concern the Jews, and their freedom from the observance of the law, only the Gentiles; so that Peter and other Jews might, as it is certain they did, notwithstanding that, retain the rites and ceremonies of the law of Moses; and according to the series of things, and the order of the account, it seems to be after that council, when Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, and with others continued there for some time, during which time Peter came thither; see Act 15:30 and the following contention happened,

I withstood him to the face: not in show, and outward appearance only, as some of the ancients have thought, as if this was an artifice of the apostle's, that the Jews, having an opportunity of hearing what might be said in favour of eating with the Gentiles, might be convinced of the propriety of it, and not be offended with it: but this is to make the apostle guilty of the evil he charges Peter with, namely, dissimulation; no, the opposition was real, and in all faithfulness and integrity; he did not go about as a tale bearer, whisperer, and backbiter, but reproved him to his face, freely spoke his mind to him, boldly resisted him, honestly endeavoured to convince him of his mistake, and to put a stop to his conduct; though he did not withstand him as an enemy, or use him with rudeness and ill manners; or as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, and false teachers resist the truth; but as a friend and an apostle, and in an amicable manner, and yet with all uprightness: his reason for it was,

because he was to be blamed; some read it, "was blamed", or "condemned", either by others, by the Jews, for his going into Cornelius's house formerly; but what has this to do with the present case? or by those who lately came from James to Antioch, for his eating with the Gentiles there; yet this could be no reason for the apostle's withstanding him, but rather a reason why he should stand by him; or he was condemned by himself, self-condemned, acting contrary to the sentiments of his mind, and what he had declared in the council at Jerusalem; though it is best to render the word, to be blamed, which shows that the apostle did not oppose him for opposition sake, rashly, and without any foundation; there was a just reason for it, he had done that which was culpable, and for which he was blameworthy; and what that was is mentioned in the next verse.

Gill: Gal 2:12

For before that certain came from James,.... The Lord's brother, mentioned before with Cephas and John, who resided at Jerusalem, from whence these persons came; and who are said to come from James, because they came from the place and church where he was, though, it may be, not sent by him, nor with his knowledge. They were such as professed faith in Christ; they were "judaizing" Christians believing in Christ, but were zealous of the law. Now before the coming of these persons to Antioch,

he, Peter,

did eat with the Gentiles; which is to be understood, not of eating at the Lord's table with them, but at their own tables: he knew that the distinction of meats was now laid aside, and that nothing was common and unclean of itself, and that every creature of God was good, and not to be refused if received with thankfulness; wherefore he made use of his Christian liberty, and ate such food dressed in such manner as the Gentiles did, without any regard to the laws and ceremonies of the Jews; and in this he did well, for hereby he declared his sense of things, that the ceremonial law was abolished, that not only the Gentiles are not obliged to it, but even the Jews were freed from it, and that the observance of it was far from being necessary to salvation: all which agreed with the preaching and practice of the Apostle Paul, and served greatly to confirm the same, and for this he was to be commended: nor is this mentioned by way of blame, but for the sake of what follows, which was blameworthy:

but when they were come he withdrew and separated himself; not from the church, and the communion of it, for then he had been guilty of schism, but from private conversation with the Gentiles: he did not visit them in their own houses, and sit down at table and eat with them, as he was wont to do; which argued great inconstancy and instability, very unbecoming one that seemed to be, and was a pillar in the church of God, as well as much dissimulation, for he knew better than he acted; his conduct did not agree with the true sentiments of his mind, which he covered and dissembled; and which must be very staggering to the believing Gentiles, to see so great a man behave in such a manner towards them, as if they were persons not fit to converse with, and as if the observance of Jewish rites and ceremonies was necessary to salvation. What induced him to take such a step was, his

fearing them which were of the circumcision: that is, the circumcised Jews, who professed faith in Christ, and were just now come from Jerusalem; not that he feared any danger from them; that they would abuse his person, or take away his life; but he might either fear he should come under their censure and reproofs, as he formerly had for going to Cornelius, and eating with him and his; or lest that they should be offended with him, and carry back an ill report of him, as not acting up to his character as an apostle of the circumcision. This led him into such a conduct; so true is that of the wise man, that "the fear of man bringeth a snare", Pro 29:25.

Gill: Gal 2:13

And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him,.... Not the men that came from James, for they never acted otherwise, and therefore could not be said to dissemble; but the Jews that were members of this church at Antioch from the beginning; or who came along with Paul and Barnabas, and stayed with them there; see Act 15:35 and who before had ate with the Gentiles, as Peter; but being under the same fear he was, and influenced by his example, concealed their true sentiments, and acted the very reverse of them, and of their former conduct:

insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation; so good a man as he was, full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost; who had been a companion of the Apostle Paul's in his travels among the Gentiles, had greatly assisted him in preaching the Gospel to them, was a messenger with him at the council in Jerusalem, heard the debates of that assembly, and the issue of them, returned with him to Antioch, and was one with him both in principle and practice; and yet so forcible was the example of Peter, and the other Jews, that, as with a mighty torrent, he was carried away with it, and not able to withstand it; such is the force of example in men who are had in great veneration and esteem: wherefore it becomes all persons, particularly magistrates, masters of families, and ministers of the Gospel, to be careful what examples they set, since men both of grace and sense are much influenced by them.

Gill: Gal 2:14

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly,.... Or "did not foot it aright"; or "walked not with a right foot": they halted, as the Jews of old did, between two opinions, being partly for God, and partly for Baal; so these seemed, according to their conduct, to be partly for grace, and partly for the works of the law; they seemed to be for joining Christ and Moses, and the grace of the Gospel, and the ceremonies of the law together; they did not walk evenly, were in and out, did not make straight paths for their feet, but crooked ones, whereby the lame were turned out of the way; they did not walk in that sincerity, with that uprightness and integrity of soul, they ought to have done:

nor according to the truth of the Gospel; though their moral conversations were as became the Gospel of Christ, yet their Christian conduct was not according to the true, genuine, unmixed Gospel of Christ; which as it excludes all the works of the law, moral or ceremonial, from the business of justification and salvation, so it declares an entire freedom from the yoke of it, both to Jews and Gentiles. Now when, and as soon as this was observed, the apostle, without any delay, lest some bad consequences should follow, thought fit to make head against it, and directly oppose it:

I said unto Peter before them all. The Alexandrian copy, and others, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions, read "Cephas", as before. The reproof was given personally and principally to Peter, though Barnabas and others were concerned with him, because he was the first in it, the chief aggressor, who by his example led on the rest; and this was given publicly before Barnabas, and the other Jews that dissembled with him, and for their sakes as well as his; before the Jews that came from James for their instruction and conviction, and before all the members of the church at Antioch, for the confirmation of such who might be staggered at such conduct; nor was this any breach of the rule of Christ, Mat 28:15 for this was a public offence done before all, and in which all were concerned, and therefore to be rebuked in a public manner: and which was done in this expostulatory way,

if thou being a Jew; as Peter was, born of Jewish parents, brought up in the Jews' religion, and was obliged to observe the laws that were given to that people:

livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews; that is, he had done so, he had ate with the Gentiles, and as the Gentiles did, without regarding the laws and ceremonies of the Jews relating to meats and drinks; being better informed by the Spirit of God, that these things were not now obligatory upon him, even though he was a Jew, to whom these laws were formerly made:

why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? he asks him, with what conscience, honour, and integrity, with what consistency with his own principles and former practice, he could compel, not by force, nor, it may be, even by persuasions and exhortations, but by his example, which was very strong and powerful, the Gentiles, to whom these laws were never given, and to observe which they never were obliged; how he could, I say, make use of any means whatever to engage these to comply with Jewish rites and ceremonies. The argument is very strong and nervous; for if he, who was a Jew, thought himself free from this yoke, and had acted accordingly, then a Gentile, upon whom it was never posed, ought not to be entangled with it: and in what he had done, either he had acted right or wrong; if he had acted wrong in eating with the Gentiles, he ought to acknowledge his fault, and return to Judaism; but if right, he ought to proceed, and not by such uneven conduct ensnare the minds of weak believers.

Gill: Gal 2:15

We who are Jews by nature,.... I Paul, and you Peter and Barnabas, and the rest of the Jews at Antioch. Some are Jews by grace, in a spiritual sense, as all are that are Christ's, that are true believers in him, that are born again, and have internal principles of grace formed in their souls, of whatsoever nation they be; see Rom 2:28. Others become Jews by being proselytes to the Jewish religion: such were the Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven, that were dwelling at Jerusalem, when the Spirit was poured down on the apostles on the day of Pentecost, Act 2:5, but these here spoken of were such as were Jews by birth; they were born so, were descended of Jewish parents, and from their infancy were brought up in the Jewish religion, and under the law of Moses, and in the observance of it:

and not sinners of the Gentiles: רשעי אומות היעלם, "the wicked of the nations of the world", as the ^l Jews call them. Not but that the Jews also were sinners both by nature and practice, were involved in the guilt of sin, under the power of it, and defiled with it, as the apostle elsewhere most fully proves: nor is this said with regard to the vain opinion the Jews had of themselves, as very holy and righteous persons, who in their own apprehension needed neither repentance nor remission; and who looked upon the Gentiles as very unholy and unfit for conversation with them: but this more particularly respects that part of the character of the Heathens, that they were without the law, and were under no restraints, but lived in all manner of wickedness, without hope and God in the world, and so were notorious sinners, filled with all unrighteousness, profligate and abandoned to every evil work, and are therefore called emphatically "sinful men", Luk 24:7. And indeed the word εθνος, Gentiles, among themselves is sometimes used for μερος τι ποςηροτατον, "a certain most wicked part" of Gentiles in a city ^m, and so may here design such who lived the most dissolute lives and conversations, to which the Jews are opposed, who had a written law, and were under a better regulation and discipline. The reason of this description, both in the positive and negative branch of it, is to observe, that since they, the apostles, and others, who were born Jews, and so under the law of Moses, and, until Christ came, were under obligation to observe it, but had now relinquished it, and wholly and alone believed in Christ for righteousness and life; then it was the most unreasonable thing in the world, by any means whatever, to lead the Gentiles, who never were under the law, to an observance of it.

Gill: Gal 2:16

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law,.... That is, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and other believing Jews knew this, and that from the law itself, which requires perfect and sinless obedience, and accuses, holds guilty, and adjudges to condemnation and death for the least failure, both as to matter or manner of duty; and from the prophets, which declare that by the deeds of the law no flesh can be justified in the sight of God, and who bear witness to the doctrines of remission of sin, and justification by the righteousness of Christ; and from the Gospel, in which this truth is most clearly revealed; and from the illumination of the blessed Spirit, who led them into all truth; and from the revelation of Jesus Christ they were favoured with; and from their own experience, being fully convinced of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, the insufficiency of their own righteousness, and of the necessity, suitableness, and fulness of the righteousness of Christ. By "the works of the law" are meant, not only obedience to the ceremonial law, though this is included, but also to the moral law; for it can hardly be thought, that the men the apostle opposes could ever dream of justification by their compliance with the rituals of the ceremonial law if they believed there could be no justification by their obedience to the moral law; for if there is no justification by the latter, there can be none by the former: the words are therefore to be taken in the largest sense, as rejecting all works of the law, of whatsoever kind, from justification in the sight of God; and such works are designed, as are performed by sinful men in and of themselves, otherwise men are justified by the works of the law as performed by Christ in their room and stead, but not by any as performed by themselves, for at best they are very imperfect, and so cannot justify; they are opposed to the grace of God, to which the justification of a sinner is always ascribed, and therefore cannot be by works; such a scheme would disannul the death of Christ, and promote boasting in men, and indeed is impracticable and impossible:

but by the faith of Jesus Christ; not by that faith, which Christ, as man, had in God, who promised him help, succour, and assistance, and for which he, as man, trusted in him, and exercised faith upon him; but that faith of which he is the object, author, and finisher; and not by that as a cause, for faith has no causal influence on the justification of a sinner; it is not the efficient cause, for it is God that justifies; nor the moving cause, or which induces God to justify any, for that is his own free grace and good will; nor the meritorious or procuring cause, for that is the obedience and bloodshed of Christ; nor is faith the matter of justification; it is not a justifying righteousness; it is a part of sanctification; it is imperfect; as an act it is a man's own, and will not continue for ever in its present form, nature, and use; and is always distinguished from the righteousness of God, by which we are justified, which is perfect, is another's, and will last for ever. Men are not justified by faith, either as an habit, or an act; not by it as an habit or principle, this would be to confound justification and sanctification; nor as an act, for as such it is a man's own, and then justification would be by a man's works, contrary to the Scripture: but faith is to be taken either objectively, as it relates to Christ, the object of it, and his justifying righteousness; or as it is a means of receiving and apprehending Christ's righteousness; the discovery of it is made to faith; that grace discerns the excellency and suitableness of it, approves of it, rejects a man's own, lays hold on this, and rejoices in it:

even we have believed in Jesus Christ; we who are Jews by nature, being fully apprized that there is no justification by the works of the law, but by the righteousness of Christ, received by faith, have quited all confidence in our own works, and are come to Christ, and believe in him, not only as the Messiah, but as the Lord our righteousness:

that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; not that faith, as before observed, has any causal influence on justification. These Jews did not believe in Christ, in order by their believing to procure their justification before God, and acceptance with him, but that they might receive, by faith, this blessing from the Lord in their own conscience, and enjoy the comfort of it, and all that spiritual peace which results from it, and which they could not find in the works of the law:

for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified; reference seems to be had to Psa 143:2 and contains a reason why these believing Jews relinquished Moses in his law, in whom they formerly trusted, and looked to, and depended on for their justification, because that by obedience to the law of works no sinful mortal man can be justified in the sight of God,

Gill: Gal 2:17

But if while we seek to be justified by Christ,.... As they did, and not only sought for, but obtained what they sought for, because they sought for it at the hands of Christ, and not as it were by works, but by faith, even a justifying righteousness in him.

We ourselves also are found sinners; that is, either we should be so, were we not to rest here, but seek to join our own works with Christ's righteousness for our justification, and so make Christ the minister of sin, of an imperfect righteousness, which cannot justify, which God forbid should ever be done by us; or we are reckoned sinners by you, judaizing Christians, for leaving the law, and going to Christ for righteousness; and if so, Christ must be the minister of sin, for he has directed and taught us so to do; but God forbid that any such thing should be said of him: or if we are still sinners, and unjustified persons, notwithstanding we seek to Christ to be justified by him, but need the law, and the works of it to justify us, then Christ, instead of being a minister of righteousness, is a minister of the law, the strength of sin, which accuses for it, and is the ministration of condemnation and death on account of it, which God forbid should ever be: or this is an objection of the adversary to the doctrine of free justification by the righteousness of Christ, as if it made void the law, discouraged the performance of good works, opened a door to licentiousness that men might continue sinners, and live as they wish, being under no restraints of the law, or under obligation to obedience it, and by such doctrine make

Christ the minister of sin; who hereby teaches men to live in sin, and in the neglect of duty; to which the apostle answers,

God forbid; as holding such consequences in the utmost abhorrence and detestation; see Rom 6:1.

Gill: Gal 2:18

For if I build again the things which I destroyed,.... Which must be understood not of good things, for formerly he destroyed the faith of the Gospel, at least as much as in him lay, and now he built it up, established, and defended it; in doing which he did no evil, or made himself a transgressor, but the reverse; he showed himself a faithful minister of Christ: but of things not lawful, such as the rites and ceremonies of the law of Moses, which were now abrogated, and he had declared to be so all over the Gentile world; and therefore should he go about to establish these things as necessary to salvation, or teach men to join the observance of them with Christ's righteousness for justification, then, says he,

I make myself a transgressor: for he could not be otherwise, be the case how it would with respect to the abrogation, or non-abrogation of the law; for if the law was not abolished, then he made himself a transgressor of it; by neglecting it himself, and teaching others to do so; and if it was abolished, then it must be criminal in him to enforce the observance of it as necessary to a sinner's justification before God. Now though the apostle transfers this to himself, and spoke in his own person to decline all invidious reflections and characters; yet he tacitly regards Peter, and his conduct, who had been taught by the vision the abrogation of the ceremonial law, and acted accordingly by conversing and eating with the Gentiles, and had declared that law to be an insupportable yoke of bondage, which the Gentiles were not obliged to come under; and yet now, by his practice and example, built up and established those very things he had before destroyed, and therefore could not exculpate himself, from being a transgressor: or these things may regard sins and immoralities in life and conversation; and the apostle's sense be, that should he, or any other, take encouragement to sin from the doctrine of free justification by the righteousness of Christ, as if he was the author and minister of sin, and allowed persons in it; this would be to establish sin, which the righteousness of Christ justifies from, and engage in a living in sin, to which, by Christ's righteousness, they are dead unto; than which, nothing can be, a greater contradiction, and which must unavoidably make them not only transgressors of the law, by sinning against it, but apostates, as the word παραβατης here used signifies, from the Gospel; such must act quite contrary to the nature, use, and design of the Gospel in general, and this doctrine in particular, which teaches men to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and that being dead to sin, they should live unto righteousness.

Gill: Gal 2:19

For I through the law am dead to the law,.... The apostle further replies to the objection against the doctrine of justification, being a licentious one, from the end of his, and other believers, being dead to the law: he owns he was dead unto it, not in such sense as not to regard it as a rule of walk and conversation, but so as not to seek for life and righteousness by it, nor to fear its accusations, charges, menaces, curses, and condemnation: he was dead to the moral law as in the hands of Moses, but not as in the hands of Christ; and he was dead to it as a covenant of works, though not as a rule of action, and to the ceremonial law, even as to the observance of it, and much more as necessary to justification and salvation: and so he became "through the law"; that is, either through the law or doctrine of Christ; for the Hebrew word תורה, to which νομος answers, signifies properly doctrine, and sometimes evangelical doctrine, the Gospel of Christ; see Isa 2:3 and then the sense is, that the apostle by the doctrine of grace was taught not to seek for pardon, righteousness, acceptance, life, and salvation, by the works of the law, but in Christ; by the doctrine of the Gospel, which says, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved; he became dead to the law, which says, do this and live: or through the books of the law, and the prophets, the writings of the Old Testament, which are sometimes called the law, he learnt that righteousness and forgiveness of sins were only to be expected from Christ, and not the works of the law; things, though manifested without the law, yet are witnessed to by the law and prophets: or through the law of his mind, the principle of grace formed in his soul, he became dead to the power and influence of the law of works, he being no longer under the bondage of that, but under grace, as a governing principle in his soul: or the word law, here twice used, may signify one and the same law of works; and the meaning be, either that through Christ's fulfilling the law in his room and stead, assuming an holy human nature the law required, and yielding perfect obedience to it, and submitting to the penalty of it, he became dead to it; that is, through the body of Christ, see Rom 7:4 and through what he did and suffered in his body to fulfil it; or through the use, experience, and knowledge of the law, when being convinced of sin by it, and seeing the spirituality of it, all his hopes of life were struck dead, and he entirely despaired of ever being justified by it. Now the end of his being dead unto it, delivered from it, and being directed to Christ for righteousness, was, says he,

that I might live unto God; not in sin, in the violation of the law, in neglect and defiance of it, or to himself, or to the lusts of men, but to the will of God revealed in his word, and to his honour and glory; whence it most clearly follows, that though believers are dead to the law, and seek to be justified by Christ alone, yet they do not continue, nor do they desire to continue in sin, or indulge themselves in a vicious course of living, but look upon themselves as under the greater obligation to live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.

Gill: Gal 2:20

I am crucified with Christ,.... Not literally, for so only the two thieves were crucified with him, but mystically; Christ was crucified for him in his room and stead, and so he was crucified with him, and in him, as his head and representative. Christ sustained the persons of all his people, and what he did and suffered was in their name, and on their account, and so they were crucified and suffered with him, as they are said to be buried with him, and to be risen with him, and to sit together in heavenly places in him. Moreover, their old man was crucified with him; when he was crucified, all their sins, the whole body of them, were laid upon him, and he bore them, and bore them away, destroyed and made an end of them; they received their mortal wound by his crucifixion and death, so as never to be able to have any damning power over them; and in consequence of this the affections and lusts are crucified, and the deeds of the body of sin mortified by the Spirit and grace of God, in regeneration and sanctification, so as not to have the dominion over them; the world is crucified to them, and they to the world; and this is another reason proving that justification by Christ is no licentious doctrine. This clause is, in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, put at the end of the preceding verse.

Nevertheless I live; which is to be understood, not of his natural, but of his spiritual life; the life of justification he lived, by faith, on the righteousness of Christ; and the life of sanctification which he had from Christ, by the quickening influences of his Spirit, by virtue of which he walked in newness of life. The believer is a mere paradox, he is dead to the law, and "yet lives" to God; he is crucified with Christ, and yet lives by him; yea, a crucified Christ lives in him.

Yet not I; not the same I as before, but quite another man, a new creature: he did not now live as in his state of unregeneracy, and whilst in Judaism; he was not now Saul the blasphemer, the persecutor, and injurious person; nor did he now live Saul the Pharisee: or the life he had was not of his own obtaining and procuring; his life of righteousness was not of himself, but Christ; his being quickened, or having principles of life and holiness implanted in him, was not by himself, but by the Spirit; and the holy life and conversation he lived was not owing to himself, to his power and strength, but to the grace of God; or it was not properly himself, or so much he that lived,

but Christ liveth in me: who was not only the author and maintainer of his spiritual life, but the life itself; he was formed in his soul, dwelt in his heart, was united to him, was one with him, whence all vital principles and vital actions sprung, and all the communion and comforts of a spiritual life flowed.

And the life which I now live in the flesh; in the body, whilst in this mortal state, whereby he distinguishes that spiritual life he had from Christ, and through Christ's living in him, both from the natural life of his body, and from that eternal life he expected to live in another world; and which, he says,

I live by the faith of the Son of God; meaning, not that faith which Christ, as man, had, but that of which he is the author and object, by which the just man lives; not upon it, for the believer does not live upon any of his graces, no, not upon faith, but by faith on Christ, the object; looking to him for pardon, righteousness, peace, joy, comfort, every supply of grace, and eternal salvation: which object is described as "the Son of God"; who is truly God, equal with his Father; so that he did not live upon a creature, or forsake the fountain of living waters, but upon the only begotten Son of God, who is full of grace and truth: of whom he further says,

who loved me; before the foundation of the world, from everlasting, prior to his love to him; and freely, without any regard to worth or merit, and though he was a blasphemer and a persecutor; and him personally, and particularly, in a distinguishing manner, of which he had a special knowledge and application by the Spirit of God; and was a reason and argument constraining him, and prevailing on him to live to him who loved him, and died for him, or, as he adds,

and gave himself for me; his whole self, his soul and body, as in union with his divine person, into the hands of justice, and unto death, in his room and stead, as an offering and sacrifice for sin, and which he did freely and voluntarily; and is a strong and full proof of his love to him. Now though Christ gave his life a ransom for many, and himself for his whole church, and all the members of his mystical body, yet the apostle speaks of this matter as singularly respecting himself, as if almost he was the only person Christ loved and died for; which shows that faith deals with Christ not in a general way, as the Saviour of the world, but with a special regard to a man's self: this is the life of faith; and these considerations of the person, love, and grace of Christ, animate and encourage faith in its exercises on him.

Gill: Gal 2:21

I do not frustrate the grace of God,.... Or "cast it away", as the Vulgate Latin version reads it; or "deny it", as the Syriac and Arabic; or "despise, reject, and make it void", as other versions; meaning either the grace of the Son of God in giving himself for him, just mentioned by him; or the particular doctrine of grace, justification, he is speaking of, as proceeding from the grace of God, upon the foot of the righteousness of Christ; or the whole Gospel, all and each of which would be denied, despised, rejected, made null and void, be in vain, fallen and departed from, should justification be sought for by the works of the law: but this the apostle did not do, and therefore did not frustrate the grace of God: which to do would be to act the most ungenerous and ungrateful part to God, and Christ, and to that love and grace which are so largely displayed in the free justification of a sinner.

For if righteousness come by the law; if a justifying righteousness is to be attained unto by the works of the law, or men can be justified by their obedience to it,

then Christ is dead in vain; there was no necessity for his dying: he died without any true reason, or just cause; he died to bring in a righteousness which might have been brought in without his death, and so his blood and life might have been spared, his sufferings and death being entirely unnecessary; which to say is to cast contempt upon the wisdom, love, and grace of God in this matter, and to offer the greatest indignity to the person, character, sufferings, and death of Christ. Wherefore it may be strongly concluded, that there is no righteousness by the law of works, nor to be attained that way, otherwise Christ had never died; and that justification is solely and alone by his righteousness.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Gal 2:10

¹ tn Grk “only that we remember the poor”; the words “They requested” have been supplied from the context to make a complete English sentence.

NET Notes: Gal 2:11

¹ sn Cephas. This individual is generally identified with the Apostle Peter (L&N 93.211).

² map For location see JP1 F2; JP2 F2; JP3 F2; JP4 F2.

³ tn Grk “because he stood condemned.”

NET Notes: Gal 2:12

¹ tn The conjunction γάρ has not been translated here.

² tn Grk “he drew back.” If ἑαυτόν (Jeauton) goes with both ὑπέστελλεν (Jupestellen) and ἀφώριζεν (afwrizen) rather than only the latter, the meaning would be “he drew himself back” (see BDAG 1041 s.v. ὑποστέλλω 1.a).

³ tn Or “and held himself aloof.”

⁴ tn Grk “the [ones] of the circumcision,” that is, the group of Jewish Christians who insisted on circumcision of Gentiles before they could become Christians.

NET Notes: Gal 2:13

¹ tn The words “with them” are a reflection of the σύν- (sun-) prefix on the verb συναπήχθη (sunaphcqh; see L&N 31.76).

NET Notes: Gal 2:14

¹ sn Cephas. This individual is generally identified with the Apostle Peter (L&N 93.211).

² tn Here ἀναγκάζεις (anankazei") has been translated as a conative present (see ExSyn 534).

NET Notes: Gal 2:15

¹ tn Grk “by nature.”

² tn Grk “and not sinners from among the Gentiles.”

NET Notes: Gal 2:16

¹ tn Grk “yet knowing”; the participle εἰδότες (eidotes) has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style.

² tn Grk “no man,” but ἄνθρωπος (anqrwpo") is used here in a generic sense, referring to both men and women.

³ sn The law is a reference to the law of Moses.

⁴ tn Or “faith in Jesus Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pisti" Cristou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 20; Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730-44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.

sn On the phrase translated the faithfulness of Christ, ExSyn 116, which notes that the grammar is not decisive, nevertheless suggests that “the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for the idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb πιστεύω rather than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful.” Though Paul elsewhere teaches justification by faith, this presupposes that the object of our faith is reliable and worthy of such faith.

⁵ tn In Greek this is a continuation of the preceding sentence, but the construction is too long and complex for contemporary English style, so a new sentence was started here in the translation.

⁶ tn Or “by faith in Christ.” See comment above on “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.”

⁷ tn Or “no human being”; Grk “flesh.”

NET Notes: Gal 2:17

¹ tn Or “does Christ serve the interests of sin?”; or “is Christ an agent for sin?” See BDAG 230-31 s.v. διάκονος 2.

NET Notes: Gal 2:18

¹ tn Or “once tore down.”

² tn Traditionally, “that I am a transgressor.”

NET Notes: Gal 2:20

¹ tn Both the NA²⁷/UBS⁴ Greek text and the NRSV place the phrase “I have been crucified with Christ” at the end of v. 19, but most English translations place these words at the beginning of v. 20.

² tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “So” to bring out the connection of the following clauses with the preceding ones. What Paul says here amounts to a result or inference drawn from his co-crucifixion with Christ and the fact that Christ now lives in him. In Greek this is a continuation of the preceding sentence, but the construction is too long and complex for contemporary English style, so a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³ tn Grk “flesh.”

⁴ tc A number of important witnesses (Ì⁴⁶ B D* F G) have θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ (qeou kai Cristou, “of God and Christ”) instead of υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ (Juiou tou qeou, “the Son of God”), found in the majority of mss, including several important ones (א A C D¹ Ψ 0278 33 1739 1881 Ï lat sy co). The construction “of God and Christ” appears to be motivated as a more explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ (following as it apparently does the Granville Sharp rule). Although Paul certainly has an elevated Christology, explicit “God-talk” with reference to Jesus does not normally appear until the later books (cf., e.g., Titus 2:13, Phil 2:10-11, and probably Rom 9:5). For different arguments but the same textual conclusions, see TCGNT 524.

tn Or “I live by faith in the Son of God.” See note on “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” in v. 16 for the rationale behind the translation “the faithfulness of the Son of God.”

sn On the phrase because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, ExSyn 116, which notes that the grammar is not decisive, nevertheless suggests that “the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for the idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb πιστεύω rather than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful.” Though Paul elsewhere teaches justification by faith, this presupposes that the object of our faith is reliable and worthy of such faith.

NET Notes: Gal 2:21

¹ tn Or “I do not declare invalid,” “I do not nullify.”

² tn Or “justification.”

³ tn Or “without cause,” “for no purpose.”

Geneva Bible: Gal 2:11

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the ^{( i )} face, because he was to be blamed.

^{( i )} Before all men.

Geneva Bible: Gal 2:12

^{( 2 )} For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

^{( 2 )} Another most vehement proof of his apostleship, and also of that doctrine which he had delivered concerning free justification by faith alone. And it was for this doctrine alone that he reprehended Peter at Antioch, who offended in this, in that for the sake of a few Jews who came from Jerusalem, he played the Jew, and offended the Gentiles who had believed.

Geneva Bible: Gal 2:13

And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was ^{( k )} carried away with their dissimulation.

^{( k )} By example rather than by judgment.

Geneva Bible: Gal 2:14

But when I saw that they walked not ^{( l )} uprightly according to the ^{( m )} truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why ^{( n )} compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

^{( l )} Literally, "with a right foot", which he sets against halting and hypocrisy, which is a backwards state.

^{( m )} He calls the truth of the Gospel, both the doctrine itself, and also the use of doctrine, which we call the practice.

^{( n )} He says they were forced who lived as Jews by Peter's example.

Geneva Bible: Gal 2:15

^{( 3 )} We [who are] Jews ^{( o )} by nature, and not ^{( p )} sinners of the Gentiles,

^{( 3 )} The second part of this epistle, the state of which is this: we are justified by faith in Christ Jesus without the works of the Law. Which thing he propounds in such a way, that first of all he meets with an objection (for I also, he says, am a Jew, that no man may say against me that I am an enemy to the Law), and afterward, he confirms it by the express witness of David.

^{( o )} Even though we are Jews, yet we preach justification by faith, because we know without any doubt that no man can be justified by the Law.

^{( p )} So the Jews called the Gentiles, because they were strangers to God's covenant.

Geneva Bible: Gal 2:16

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith ^{( q )} of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall ^{( r )} no flesh be justified.

^{( q )} In Jesus Christ.

^{( r )} No man, and in this word "flesh" there is a great force, by which is meant that the nature of man is utterly corrupt.

Geneva Bible: Gal 2:17

^{( 4 )} But if, while ^{( s )} we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

^{( 4 )} Before he goes any further, he meets with the objection which abhorred this doctrine of free justification by faith, because, they say, men are by this means withdrawn from the performing of good works. And in this sort is the objection: if sinners should be justified through Christ by faith without the Law, Christ would approve sinners, and should as it were exhort them to sin by his ministry. Paul answers that this conclusion is false, because Christ destroys sin in the believers: for so, he says, do men flee to Christ through the terror and fear of the Law, that being acquitted from the curse of the Law and justified they may be saved by him. And in addition he together begins in them by little and little that strength and power of his which destroys sin: to the end that this old man being abolished by the power of Christ crucified, Christ may live in them, and they may consecrate themselves to God. Therefore if any man give himself to sin after he has received the Gospel, let him not accuse Christ nor the Gospel, but himself, for he destroys the work of God in himself.

^{( s )} He goes from justification to sanctification, which is another benefit we receive from Christ, if we lay hold of him by faith.

Geneva Bible: Gal 2:19

For I through the law am dead to the ^{( t )} law, that I might live unto God.

^{( t )} The Law that terrifies the conscience brings us to Christ, and he alone causes us to indeed die to the Law, because by making us righteous, he takes away from us the terror of conscience. And by sanctifying us, he causes the mortifying of lust in us, so that it cannot take such occasion to sin by the restraint which the Law makes, as it did before; (Rom 7:10-11).

Geneva Bible: Gal 2:20

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not ^{( u )} I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the ^{( x )} flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

^{( u )} The same that I was before.

^{( x )} In this mortal body.

Geneva Bible: Gal 2:21

^{( 5 )} I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead ^{( e )} in vain.

^{( 5 )} The second argument taken from an absurdity: if men may be justified by the Law, then it was not necessary for Christ to die.

^{( e )} For there was no reason why he should do so.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Gal 2:1-21

1 He shows when he went up again to Jerusalem, and for what purpose;

3 and that Titus was not circumcised;

11 and that he resisted Peter, and told him the reason;

14 why he and others, being Jews, do believe in Christ to be justified by faith, and not by works;

20 and that they live not in sin, who are so justified.

Combined Bible: Gal 2:10

color="#000000"> 10. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.  

  

Next to the preaching of the Gospel, a true and faithful pastor will take care of the poor. Where the Church is, there must be the poor, for the world and the devil persecute the Church and impoverish many faithful Christians.  

  

Speaking of money, nobody wants to contribute nowadays to the maintenance of the ministry, and the erection of schools. When it comes to establishing false worship and idolatry, no cost is spared. True religion is ever in need of money, while false religions are backed by wealth.  

  

Combined Bible: Gal 2:11

color="#000000"> 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.  

  

Paul goes on in his refutation of the false apostles by saying that in Antioch he withstood Peter in the presence of the whole congregation. As he stated before, Paul had no small matter in hand, but the chief article of the Christian religion. When this article is endangered, we must not hesitate to resist Peter, or an angel from heaven. Paul paid no regard to the dignity and position of Peter, when he saw this article in danger. It is written: "He that loveth father or mother or his own life, more than me, is not worthy of me." ( Mat 10:37 .)  

  

For defending the truth in our day, we are called proud and obstinate hypocrites. We are not ashamed of these titles. The cause we are called to defend, is not Peter's cause, or the cause of our parents, or that of the government, or that of the world, but the cause of God. In defense of that cause we must be firm and unyielding.  

  

When he says, "to his face," Paul accuses the false apostles of slandering him behind his back. In his presence they dared not to open their mouths. He tells them, "I did not speak evil of Peter behind his back, but I withstood him frankly and openly."  

  

Others may debate here whether an apostle might sin. I claim that we ought not to make Peter out as faultless. Prophets have erred. Nathan told David that he should go ahead and build the Temple of the Lord. But his prophecy was afterwards corrected by the Lord. The apostles erred in thinking of the Kingdom of Christ as a worldly state. Peter had heard the command of Christ, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." But if it had not been for the heavenly vision and the special command of Christ, Peter would never have gone to the home of Cornelius. Peter also erred in this matter of circumcision. If Paul had not publicly censured him, all the believing Gentiles would have been compelled to receive circumcision and accept the Jewish law. We are not to attribute perfection to any man.  

  

Luke reports "that the contention between Paul and Barnabas was so sharp that they departed asunder one from the other." The cause of their disagreement could hardly have been small since it separated these two, who had been joined together for years in a holy partnership. Such incidents are recorded for our consolation. After all, it is a comfort to know that even saints might and do sin.  

  

Samson, David, and many other excellent men, fell into grievous sins. Job and Jeremiah cursed the day of their birth. Elijah and Jonah became weary of life and prayed for death. Such offenses on the part of the saints, the Scriptures record for the comfort of those who are near despair. No person has ever sunk so low that he cannot rise again. On the other hand, no man's standing is so secure that he may not fall. If Peter fell, I may fall. If he rose again, I may rise again. We have the same gifts that they had, the same Christ, the same baptism and the same Gospel, the same forgiveness of sins. They needed these saving ordinances just as much as we do.  

  

Combined Bible: Gal 2:12

color="#000000"> 12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles.  

  

The Gentiles who had been converted to faith in Christ, ate meats forbidden by the Law. Peter, visiting some of these Gentiles, ate meat and drank wine with them, although he knew that these things were forbidden in the Law. Paul declared that he did likewise, that he became as a Jew to the Jews, and to them that were without law, as without law. He ate and drank with the Gentiles unconcerned about the Jewish Law. When he was with the Jews, however, he abstained from all things forbidden in the Law, for he labored to serve all men, that he "might by all means save some." Paul does not reprove Peter for transgressing the Law, but for disguising his attitude to the Law.  

  

VERSE 12. But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.  

  

Paul does not accuse Peter of malice or ignorance, but of lack of principle, in that he abstained from meats, because he feared the Jews that came from James. Peter's weak attitude endangered the principle of Christian liberty. It is the deduction rather than the fact which Paul reproves. To eat and to drink, or not to eat and drink, is immaterial. But to make the deduction "If you eat, you sin; if you abstain you are righteous"--this is wrong.  

  

Meats may be refused for two reasons. First, they may be refused for the sake of Christian love. There is no danger connected with a refusal of meats for the sake of charity. To bear with the infirmity of a brother is a good thing. Paul himself taught and exemplified such thoughtfulness. Secondly, meats may be refused in the mistaken hope of thereby obtaining righteousness. When this is the purpose of abstaining from meats, we say, let charity go. To refrain from meats for this latter reason amounts to a denial of Christ. If we must lose one or the other, let us lose a friend and brother, rather than God, our Father.  

  

Jerome, who understood not this passage, nor the whole epistle for that matter, excuses Peter's action on the ground "that it was done in ignorance." But Peter offended by giving the impression that he was indorsing the Law. By his example he encouraged Gentiles and Jews to forsake the truth of the Gospel. If Paul had not reproved him, there would have been a sliding back of Christians into the Jewish religion, and a return to the burdens of the Law.  

  

It is surprising that Peter, excellent apostle that he was, should have been guilty of such vacillation. In a former council at Jerusalem he practically stood alone in defense of the truth that salvation is by faith, without the Law. Peter at that time valiantly defended the liberty of the Gospel. But now by abstaining from meats forbidden in the Law, he went against his better judgment. You have no idea what danger there is in customs and ceremonies. They so easily tend to error in works.  

  

Combined Bible: Gal 2:13

color="#000000"> 13. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.  

  

It is marvelous how God preserved the Church by one single person. Paul alone stood up for the truth, for Barnabas, his companion, was lost to him, and Peter was against him. Sometimes one lone person can do more in a conference than the whole assembly.  

  

I mention this to urge all to learn how properly to differentiate between the Law and the Gospel, in order to avoid dissembling. When it come to the article of justification we must not yield, if we want to retain the truth of the Gospel.  

  

When the conscience is disturbed, do not seek advice from reason or from the Law, but rest your conscience in the grace of God and in His Word, and proceed as if you had never heard of the Law. The Law has its place and its own good time. While Moses was in the mountain where he talked with God face to face, he had no law, he made no law, he administered no law. But when he came down from the mountain, he was a lawgiver. The conscience must be kept above the Law, the body under the Law.  

  

Paul reproved Peter for no trifle, but for the chief article of Christian doctrine, which Peter's hypocrisy had endangered. For Barnabas and other Jews followed Peter's example. It is surprising that such good men as Peter, Barnabas, and others should fall into unexpected error, especially in a matter which they knew so well. To trust in our own strength, our own goodness, our own wisdom, is a perilous thing. Let us search the Scriptures with humility, praying that we may never lose the light of the Gospel. "Lord, increase our faith."  

  

Combined Bible: Gal 2:14

color="#000000"> 14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.  

  

No one except Paul had his eyes open. Consequently it was his duty to reprove Peter and his followers for swerving from the truth of the Gospel. It was no easy task for Paul to reprimand Peter. To the honor of Peter it must be said that he took the correction. No doubt, he freely acknowledged his fault.  

  

The person who can rightly divide Law and Gospel has reason to thank God. He is a true theologian. I must confess that in times of temptation I do not always know how to do it. To divide Law and Gospel means to place the Gospel in heaven, and to keep the Law on earth; to call the righteousness of the Gospel heavenly, and the righteousness of the Law earthly; to put as much difference between the righteousness of the Gospel and that of the Law, as there is difference between day and night. If it is a question of faith or conscience, ignore the Law entirely. If it is a question of works, then lift high the lantern of works and the righteousness of the Law. If your conscience is oppressed with a sense of sin, talk to your conscience. Say: "You are now groveling in the dirt. You are now a laboring ass. Go ahead, and carry your burden. But why don't you mount up to heaven? There the Law cannot follow you!" Leave the ass burdened with laws behind in the valley. But your conscience, let it ascend with Isaac into the mountain.  

  

In civil life obedience to the law is severely required. In civil life Gospel, conscience, grace, remission of sins, Christ Himself, do not count, but only Moses with the lawbooks. If we bear in mind this distinction, neither Gospel nor Law shall trespass upon each other. The moment Law and sin cross into heaven, i.e., your conscience, kick them out. On the other hand, when grace wanders unto the earth, i.e., into the body, tell grace: "You have no business to be around the dreg and dung of this bodily life. You belong in heaven."  

  

By his compromising attitude Peter confused the separation of Law and Gospel. Paul had to do something about it. He reproved Peter, not to embarrass him, but to conserve the difference between the Gospel which justifies in heaven, and the Law which justifies on earth.  

  

The right separation between Law and Gospel is very important to know. Christian doctrine is impossible without it. Let all who love and fear God, diligently learn the difference, not only in theory but also in practice.  

  

When your conscience gets into trouble, say to yourself: "There is a time to die, and a time to live; a time to learn the Law, and a time to unlearn the Law; a time to hear the Gospel, and a time to ignore the Gospel. Let the Law now depart, and let the Gospel enter, for now is the right time to hear the Gospel, and not the Law." However, when the conflict of conscience is over and external duties must be performed, close your ears to the Gospel, and open them wide to the Law.  

  

VERSE 14. I said unto Peter before them all, If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews.  

  

To live as a Jew is nothing bad. To eat or not to eat pork, what difference does it make? But to play the Jew, and for conscience' sake to abstain from certain meats, is a denial of Christ. When Paul saw that Peter's attitude tended to this, he withstood Peter and said to him: "You know that the observance of the law is not needed unto righteousness. You know that we are justified by faith in Christ. You know that we may eat all kinds of meats. Yet by your example you obligate the Gentiles to forsake Christ, and to return to the Law. You give them reason to think that faith is not sufficient unto salvation."  

  

Peter did not say so, but his example said quite plainly that the observance of the Law must be added to faith in Christ, if men are to be saved. From Peter's example the Gentiles could not help but draw the conclusion that the Law was necessary unto salvation. If this error had been permitted to pass unchallenged, Christ would have lost out altogether.  

  

The controversy involved the preservation of pure doctrine. In such a controversy Paul did not mind if anybody took offense.  

  

Combined Bible: Gal 2:15

color="#000000"> 15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.  

  

"When we Jews compare ourselves with the Gentiles, we look pretty good. We have the Law, we have good works. Our rectitude dates from our birth, because the Jewish religion is natural to us. But all this does not make us righteous before God."  

  

Peter and the others lived up to the requirements of the Law. They had circumcision, the covenant, the promises, the apostleship. But because of these advantages they were not to think themselves righteous before God. None of these prerogatives spell faith in Christ, which alone can justify a person. We do not mean to imply that the Law is bad. We do not condemn the Law, circumcision, etc., for their failure to justify us. Paul spoke disparagingly of these ordinances, because the false apostles asserted that mankind is saved by them without faith. Paul could not let this assertion stand, for without faith all things are deadly.  

  

Combined Bible: Gal 2:16

color="#000000"> 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.  

  

For the sake of argument let us suppose that you could fulfill the Law in the spirit of the first commandment of God: "Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart." It would do you no good. A person simply is not justified by the works of the Law.  

  

The works of the Law, according to Paul, include the whole Law, judicial, ceremonial, moral. Now, if the performance of the moral law cannot justify, how can circumcision justify, when circumcision is part of the ceremonial law?  

  

The demands of the Law may be fulfilled before and after justification. There were many excellent men among the pagans of old, men who never heard of justification. They lived moral lives. But that fact did not justify them. Peter, Paul, all Christians, live up to the Law. But that fact does not justify them. "For I know nothing by myself," says Paul, "yet am I not hereby justified." ( 1Co 4:4 .)  

  

The nefarious opinion of the papists, which attributes the merit of grace and the remission of sins to works, must here be emphatically rejected. The papists say that a good work performed before grace has been obtained, is able to secure grace for a person, because it is no more than right that God should reward a good deed. When grace has already been obtained, any good work deserves everlasting life as a due payment and reward for merit. For the first, God is no debtor, they say; but because God is good and just, it is no more than right (they say) that He should reward a good work by granting grace for the service. But when grace has already been obtained, they continue, God is in the position of a debtor, and is in duty bound to reward a good work with the gift of eternal life. This is the wicked teaching of the papacy.  

  

Now, if I could perform any work acceptable to God and deserving of grace, and once having obtained grace my good works would continue to earn for me the right and reward of eternal life, why should I stand in need of the grace of God and the suffering and death of Christ? Christ would be of no benefit to me. Christ's mercy would be of no use to me.  

  

This shows how little insight the pope and the whole of his religious coterie have into spiritual matters, and how little they concern themselves with the spiritual health of their forlorn flocks. They cannot believe that the flesh is unable to think, speak, or do anything except against God. If they could see evil rooted in the nature of man, they would never entertain such silly dreams about man's merit or worthiness.  

  

With Paul we absolutely deny the possibility of self merit. God never yet gave to any person grace and everlasting life as a reward for merit. The opinions of the papists are the intellectual pipe-dreams of idle pates, that serve no other purpose but to draw men away from the true worship of God. The papacy is founded upon hallucinations.  

  

The true way of salvation is this. First, a person must realize that he is a sinner, the kind of a sinner who is congenitally unable to do any good thing. "Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin." Those who seek to earn the grace of God by their own efforts are trying to please God with sins. They mock God, and provoke His anger. The first step on the way to salvation is to repent.  

  

The second part is this. God sent His only-begotten Son into the world that we may live through His merit. He was crucified and killed for us. By sacrificing His Son for us God revealed Himself to us as a merciful Father who donates remission of sins, righteousness, and life everlasting for Christ's sake. God hands out His gifts freely unto all men. That is the praise and glory of His mercy.  

  

The scholastics explain the way of salvation in this manner. When a person happens to perform a good deed, God accepts it and as a reward for the good deed God pours charity into that person. They call it "charity infused." This charity is supposed to remain in the heart. They get wild when they are told that this quality of the heart cannot justify a person.  

  

They also claim that we are able to love God by our own natural strength, to love God above all things, at least to the extent that we deserve grace. And, say the scholastics, because God is not satisfied with a literal performance of the Law, but expects us to fulfill the Law according to the mind of the Lawgiver, therefore we must obtain from above a quality above nature, a quality which they call "formal righteousness."  

  

We say, faith apprehends Jesus Christ. Christian faith is not an inactive quality in the heart. If it is true faith it will surely take Christ for its object. Christ, apprehended by faith and dwelling in the heart, constitutes Christian righteousness, for which God gives eternal life.  

  

In contrast to the doting dreams of the scholastics, we teach this: First a person must learn to know himself from the Law. With the prophet he will then confess: "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." And, "there is none that doeth good, no, not one." And, "against thee, thee only, have I sinned."  

  

Having been humbled by the Law, and having been brought to a right estimate of himself, a man will repent. He finds out that he is so depraved, that no strength, no works, no merits of his own will ever deliver him from his guilt. He will then understand the meaning of Paul's words: "I am sold under sin"; and "they are all under sin."  

  

At this state a person begins to lament: "Who is going to help me?" In due time comes the Word of the Gospel, and says: "Son, thy sins are forgiven thee. Believe in Jesus Christ who was crucified for your sins. Remember, your sins have been imposed upon Christ."  

  

In this way are we delivered from sin. In this way are we justified and made heirs of everlasting life.  

  

In order to have faith you must paint a true portrait of Christ. The scholastics caricature Christ into a judge and tormentor. But Christ is no law giver. He is the Lifegiver. He is the Forgiver of sins. You must believe that Christ might have atoned for the sins of the world with one single drop of His blood. Instead, He shed His blood abundantly in order that He might give abundant satisfaction for our sins.  

  

Here let me say, that these three things, faith, Christ, and imputation of righteousness, are to be joined together. Faith takes hold of Christ. God accounts this faith for righteousness.  

  

This imputation of righteousness we need very much, because we are far from perfect. As long as we have this body, sin will dwell in our flesh. Then, too, we sometimes drive away the Holy Spirit; we fall into sin, like Peter, David, and other holy men. Nevertheless we may always take recourse to this fact, "that our sins are covered," and that "God will not lay them to our charge." Sin is not held against us for Christ's sake. Where Christ and faith are lacking, there is no remission or covering of sins, but only condemnation.  

  

After we have taught faith in Christ, we teach good works. "Since you have found Christ by faith," we say, "begin now to work and do well. Love God and your neighbor. Call upon God, give thanks unto Him, praise Him, confess Him. These are good works. Let them flow from a cheerful heart, because you have remission of sin in Christ."  

  

When crosses and afflictions come our way, we bear them patiently. "For Christ's yoke is easy, and His burden is light." When sin has been pardoned, and the conscience has been eased of its dreadful load, a Christian can endure all things in Christ.  

  

To give a short definition of a Christian: A Christian is not somebody chalks sin, because of his faith in Christ. This doctrine brings comfort to consciences in serious trouble. When a person is a Christian he is above law and sin. When the Law accuses him, and sin wants to drive the wits out of him, a Christian looks to Christ. A Christian is free. He has no master except Christ. A Christian is greater than the whole world.  

  

VERSE 16. Even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified.  

  

The true way of becoming a Christian is to be justified by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by the works of the Law.  

  

We know that we must also teach good works, but they must be taught in their proper turn, when the discussion is concerning works and not the article of justification.  

  

Here the question arises by what means are we justified? We answer with Paul, "By faith only in Christ are we pronounced righteous, and not by works." Not that we reject good works. Far from it. But we will not allow ourselves to be removed from the anchorage of our salvation.  

  

The Law is a good thing. But when the discussion is about justification, then is no time to drag in the Law. When we discuss justification we ought to speak of Christ and the benefits He has brought us.  

  

Christ is no sheriff. He is "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." ( Joh 1:29 .)  

  

VERSE 16. That we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law.  

  

We do not mean to say that the Law is bad. Only it is not able to justify us. To be at peace with God, we have need of a far better mediator than Moses or the Law. We must know that we are nothing. We must understand that we are merely beneficiaries and recipients of the treasures of Christ.  

  

So far, the words of Paul were addressed to Peter. Now Paul turns to the Galatians and makes this summary statement:  

  

VERSE 16. For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.  

  

By the term "flesh" Paul does not understand manifest vices. Such sins he usually calls by their proper names, as adultery, fornication, etc. By "flesh" Paul understands what Jesus meant in the third chapter of John, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh". ( Joh 3:6 .) "Flesh" here means the whole nature of man, inclusive of reason and instincts. "This flesh," says Paul, "is not justified by the works of the law."  

  

The papists do not believe this. They say, "A person who performs this good deed or that, deserves the forgiveness of his sins. A person who joins this or that holy order, has the promise of everlasting life."  

  

To me it is a miracle that the Church, so long surrounded by vicious sects, has been able to survive at all. God must have been able to call a few who in their failure to discover any good in themselves to cite against the wrath and judgment of God, simply took to the suffering and death of Christ, and were saved by this simple faith.  

  

Nevertheless God has punished the contempt of the Gospel and of Christ on the part of the papists, by turning them over to a reprobate state of mind in which they reject the Gospel, and receive with gusto the abominable rules, ordinances, and traditions of men in preference to the Word of God, until they went so far as to forbid marriage. God punished them justly, because they blasphemed the only Son of God.  

  

This is, then, our general conclusion: "By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."  

  

Combined Bible: Gal 2:17

color="#000000"> 17. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.  

  

Either we are not justified by Christ, or we are not justified by the Law. The fact is, we are justified by Christ. Hence, we are not justified by the Law. If we observe the Law in order to be justified, or after having been justified by Christ, we think we must further be justified by the Law, we convert Christ into a legislator and a minister of sin.  

  

"What are these false apostles doing?" Paul cries. "They are turning Law into grace, and grace into Law. They are changing Moses into Christ, and Christ into Moses. By teaching that besides Christ and His righteousness the performance of the Law is necessary unto salvation, they put the Law in the place of Christ, they attribute to the Law the power to save, a power that belongs to Christ only."  

  

The papists quote the words of Christ: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." ( Mat 19:17 .) With His own words they deny Christ and abolish faith in Him. Christ is made to lose His good name, His office, and His glory, and is demoted to the status of a law enforcer, reproving, terrifying, and chasing poor sinners around.  

  

The proper office of Christ is to raise the sinner, and extricate him from his sins.  

  

Papists and Anabaptists deride us because we so earnestly require faith. "Faith," they say, "makes men reckless." What do these law-workers know about faith, when they are so busy calling people back from baptism, from faith, from the promises of Christ to the Law?  

  

With their doctrine these lying sects of perdition deface the benefits of Christ to this day. They rob Christ of His glory as the Justifier of mankind and cast Him into the role of a minister of sin. They are like the false apostles. There is not a single one among them who knows the difference between law and grace.  

  

We can tell the difference. We do not here and now argue whether we ought to do good works, or whether the Law is any good, or whether the Law ought to be kept at all. We will discuss these questions some other time. We are now concerned with justification. Our opponents refuse to make this distinction. All they can do is to bellow that good works ought to be done. We know that. We know that good works ought to be done, but we will talk about that when the proper time comes. Now we are dealing with justification, and here good works should not be so much as mentioned.  

  

Paul's argument has often comforted me. He argues: "If we who have been justified by Christ are counted unrighteous, why seek justification in Christ at all? If we are justified by the Law, tell me, what has Christ achieved by His death, by His preaching, by His victory over sin and death? Either we are justified by Christ, or we are made worse sinners by Him."  

  

The Sacred Scriptures, particularly those of the New Testament, make frequent mention of faith in Christ. "Whosoever believeth in him is saved, shall not perish, shall have everlasting life, is not judged," etc. In open contradiction to the Scriptures, our opponents misquote, "He that believeth in Christ is condemned, because he has faith without works." Our opponents turn everything topsy-turvy. They make Christ over into a murderer, and Moses into a savior. Is not this horrible blasphemy?  

  

VERSE 17. Is therefore Christ the minister of sin?  

  

This is Hebrew phraseology, also used by Paul in 2 Corinthians, chapter 3. There Paul speaks of two ministers: The minister of the letter, and the minister of the spirit; the minister of the Law, and the minister of grace; the minister of death, and the minister of life. "Moses," says Paul, "is the minister of the Law, of sin, wrath, death, and condemnation."  

  

Whoever teaches that good works are indispensable unto salvation, that to gain heaven a person must suffer afflictions and follow the example of Christ and of the saints, is a minister of the Law, of sin, wrath, and of death, for the conscience knows how impossible it is for a person to fulfill the Law. Why, the Law makes trouble even for those who have the Holy Spirit. What will not the Law do in the case of the wicked who do not even have the Holy Spirit?  

  

The Law requires perfect obedience. It condemns all do not accomplish the will of God. But show me a person who is able to render perfect obedience. The Law cannot justify. It can only condemn according to the passage: "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."  

  

Paul has good reason for calling the minister of the Law the minister of sin, for the Law reveals our sinfulness. The realization of sin in turn frightens the heart and drives it to despair. Therefore all exponents of the Law and of works deserve to be called tyrants and oppressors.  

  

The purpose of the Law is to reveal sin. That this is the purpose of the Law can be seen from the account of the giving of the Law as reported in the nineteenth and twentieth chapters of Exodus. Moses brought the people out of their tents to have God speak to them personally from a cloud. But the people trembled with fear, fled, and standing aloof they begged Moses: "Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die." The proper office of the Law is to lead us out of our tents, in other words, out of the security of our self-trust, into the presence of God, that we may perceive His anger at our sinfulness.  

  

All who say that faith alone in Christ does not justify a person, convert Christ into a minister of sin, a teacher of the Law, and a cruel tyrant who requires the impossible. All merit-seekers take Christ for a new lawgiver.  

  

In conclusion, if the Law is the minister of sin, it is at the same time the minister of wrath and death. As the Law reveals sin it fills a person with the fear of death and condemnation. Eventually the conscience wakes up to the fact that God is angry. If God is angry with you, He will destroy and condemn you forever. Unable to stand the thought of the wrath and judgment of God, many a person commits suicide.  

  

VERSE 17. God forbid.  

  

Christ is not the minister of sin, but the Dispenser of righteousness and the Giver of life. Christ is Lord over law, sin and death. All who believe in Him are delivered from law, sin and death.  

  

The Law drives us away from God, but Christ reconciles God unto us, for "He is the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world." Now if the sin of the world is taken away, it is taken away from me. If sin is taken away, the wrath of God and His condemnation are also taken away. Let us practice this blessed conviction.  

  

Combined Bible: Gal 2:18

color="#000000"> 18. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.  

  

"I have not preached to the end that I build again the things which I destroyed. If I should do so, I would not only be laboring in vain, but I would make myself guilty of a great wrong. By the ministry of the Gospel I have destroyed sin, heaviness of heart, wrath, and death. I have abolished the Law, so that it should not bother your conscience any more. Should I now once again establish the Law, and set up the rule of Moses? This is exactly what I should be doing, if I would urge circumcision and the performance of the Law as necessary unto salvation. Instead of righteousness and life, I would restore sin and death."  

  

By the grace of God we know that we are justified through faith in Christ alone. We do not mingle law and grace, faith and works. We keep them far apart. Let every true Christian mark the distinction between law and grace, and mark it well.  

  

We must not drag good works into the article of justification as the monks do who maintain that not only good works, but also the punishment which evildoers suffer for their wicked deeds, deserve everlasting life. When a criminal is brought to the place of execution, the monks try to comfort him in this manner: "You want to die willingly and patiently, and then you will merit remission of your sins and eternal life." What cruelty is this, that a wretched thief, murderer, robber should be so miserably misguided in his extreme distress, that at the very point of death he should be denied the sweet promises of Christ, and directed to hope for pardon of his sins in the willingness and patience with which he is about to suffer death for his crimes? The monks are showing him the paved way to hell.  

  

These hypocrites do not know the first thing about grace, the Gospel, or Christ. They retain the appearance and the name of the Gospel and of Christ for a decoy only. In their confessional writings faith or the merit of Christ are never mentioned. In their writings they play up the merits of man, as can readily be seen from the following form of absolution used among the monks.  

  

"God forgive thee, brother. The merit of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the blessed Saint Mary, always a virgin, and of all the saints; the merit of thy order, the strictness of thy religion, the humility of thy profession, the contrition of thy heart, the good works thou hast done and shalt do for the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, be available unto thee for the remission of thy sins, the increase of thy worth and grace, and the reward of everlasting life. Amen."  

  

True, the merit of Christ is mentioned in this formula of absolution. But if you look closer you will notice that Christ's merit is belittled, while monkish merits are aggrandized. They confess Christ with their lips, and at the same time deny His power to save. I myself was at one time entangled in this error. I thought Christ was a judge and had to be pacified by a strict adherence to the rules of my order. But now I give thanks unto God, the Father of all mercies, who has called me out of darkness into the light of His glorious Gospel, and has granted unto me the saving knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord.  

  

We conclude with Paul, that we are justified by faith in Christ, without the Law. Once a person has been justified by Christ, he will not be unproductive of good, but as a good tree he will bring forth good fruit. A believer has the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit will not permit a person to remain idle, but will put him to work and stir him up to the love of God, to patient suffering in affliction, to prayer, thanksgiving, to the habit of charity towards all men.  

  

Combined Bible: Gal 2:19

color="#000000"> 19. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.  

  

This cheering form of speech is frequently met with in the Scriptures, particularly in the writings of St. Paul, when the Law is set against the Law, and sin is made to oppose sin, and death is arrayed against death, and hell is turned loose against hell, as in the following quotations: "Thou hast led captivity captive," Psa 68:18 . "O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction," Hos 13:14 . "And for sin, condemned sin in the flesh," Rom 8:3 .  

  

Here Paul plays the Law against the Law, as if to say: "The Law of Moses condemns me; but I have another law, the law of grace and liberty which condemns the accusing Law of Moses."  

  

On first sight Paul seems to be advancing a strange and ugly heresy. He says, "I am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." The false apostles said the very opposite. They said, "If you do not live to the law, you are dead unto God."  

  

The doctrine of our opponents is similar to that of the false apostles in Paul's day. Our opponents teach, "If you want to live unto God, you must live after the Law, for it is written, Do this and thou shalt live." Paul, on the other hand, teaches, "We cannot live unto God unless we are dead unto the Law." If we are dead unto the Law, the Law can have no power over us.  

  

Paul does not only refer to the Ceremonial Law, but to the whole Law. We are not to think that the Law is wiped out. It stays. It continues to operate in the wicked. But a Christian is dead to the Law. For example, Christ by His resurrection became free from the grave, and yet the grave remains. Peter was delivered from prison, yet the prison remains. The Law is abolished as far as I am concerned, when it has driven me into the arms of Christ. Yet the Law continues to exist and to function. But it no longer exists for me.  

  

"I have nothing to do with the Law," cries Paul. He could not have uttered anything more devastating to the prestige of the Law. He declares that he does not care for the Law, that he does not intend ever to be justified by the Law.  

  

To be dead to the Law means to be free of the Law. What right, then, has the Law to accuse me, or to hold anything against me? When you see a person squirming in the clutches of the Law, say to him: "Brother, get things straight. You let the Law talk to your conscience. Make it talk to your flesh. Wake up, and believe in Jesus Christ, the Conqueror of Law and sin. Faith in Christ will lift you high above the Law into the heaven of grace. Though Law and sin remain, they no longer concern you, because you are dead to the Law and dead to sin."  

  

Blessed is the person who knows how to use this truth in times of distress. He can talk. He can say: "Mr. Law, go ahead and accuse me as much as you like. I know I have committed many sins, and I continue to sin daily. But that does not bother me. You have got to shout louder, Mr. Law. I am deaf, you know. Talk as much as you like, I am dead to you. If you want to talk to me about my sins, go and talk to my flesh. Belabor that, but don't talk to my conscience. My conscience is a lady and a queen, and has nothing to do with the likes of you, because my conscience lives to Christ under another law, a new and better law, the law of grace."  

  

We have two propositions: To live unto the Law, is to die unto God. To die unto the Law, is to live unto God. These two propositions go against reason. No law-worker can ever understand them. But see to it that you understand them. The Law can never justify and save a sinner. The Law can only accuse, terrify, and kill him. Therefore to live unto the Law is to die unto God. Vice versa, to die unto the Law is to live unto God. If you want to live unto God, bury the Law, and find life through faith in Christ Jesus.  

  

We have enough arguments right here to conclude that justification is by faith alone. How can the Law effect our justification, when Paul so plainly states that we must be dead to the Law if we want to live unto God? If we are dead to the Law and the Law is dead to us, how can it possibly contribute anything to our justification? There is nothing left for us but to be justified by faith alone.  

  

This nineteenth verse is loaded with consolation. It fortifies a person against every danger. It allows you to argue like this:  

  

"I confess I have sinned."  

"Then God will punish you."  

"No, He will not do that."  

"Why not? Does not the Law say so?"  

"I have nothing to do with the Law."  

"How so?"  

"I have another law, the law of liberty."  

"What do you mean--'liberty'?"  

"The liberty of Christ, for Christ has made me free from the Law that held me down. That Law is now in prison itself, held captive by grace and liberty."  

  

By faith in Christ a person may gain such sure and sound comfort, that he need not fear the devil, sin, death, or any evil. "Sir Devil," he may say, "I am not afraid of you. I have a Friend whose name is Jesus Christ, in whom I believe. He has abolished the Law, condemned sin, vanquished death, and destroyed hell for me. He is bigger than you, Satan. He has licked you, and holds you down. You cannot hurt me." This is the faith that overcomes the devil.  

  

Paul manhandles the Law. He treats the Law as if it were a thief and a robber He treats the Law as contemptible to the conscience, in order that those who believe in Christ may take courage to defy the Law, and say: "Mr. Law, I am a sinner. What are you going to do about it?"  

  

Or take death. Christ is risen from death. Why should we now fear the grave? Against my death I set another death, or rather life, my life in Christ.  

  

Oh, the sweet names of Jesus! He is called my law against the Law, my sin against sin, my death against death. Translated, it means that He is my righteousness, my life, my everlasting salvation. For this reason was He made the law of the Law, the sin of sin, the death of death, that He might redeem me from the curse of the Law. He permitted the Law to accuse Him, sin to condemn Him, and death to take Him, to abolish the Law, to condemn sin, and to destroy death for me.  

  

This peculiar form of speech sounds much sweeter than if Paul had said: "I through liberty am dead to the law." By putting it in this way, "I through the law am dead to the law," he opposes one law with another law, and has them fight it out.  

  

In this masterly fashion Paul draws our attention away from the Law, sin, death, and every evil, and centers it upon Christ.  

  

Combined Bible: Gal 2:20

color="#000000"> 20. I am crucified with Christ.  

  

Christ is Lord over the Law, because He was crucified unto the Law. I also am lord over the Law, because by faith I am crucified with Christ.  

  

Paul does not here speak of crucifying the flesh, but he speaks of that higher crucifying wherein sin, devil, and death are crucified in Christ and in me. By my faith in Christ I am crucified with Christ. Hence these evils are crucified and dead unto me.  

  

VERSE 20. Nevertheless I live.  

  

"I do not mean to create the impression as though I did not live before this. But in reality I first live now, now that I have been delivered from the Law, from sin, and death. Being crucified with Christ and dead unto the Law, I may now rise unto a new and better life."  

  

We must pay close attention to Paul's way of speaking. He says that we are crucified and dead unto the Law. The fact is, the Law is crucified and dead unto us. Paul purposely speaks that way in order to increase the portion of our comfort.  

  

VERSE 20. Yet not I.  

  

Paul explains what constitutes true Christian righteousness. True Christian righteousness is the righteousness of Christ who lives in us. We must look away from our own person. Christ and my conscience must become one, so that I can see nothing else but Christ crucified and raised from the dead for me. If I keep on looking at myself, I am gone.  

  

If we lose sight of Christ and begin to consider our past, we simply go to pieces. We must turn our eyes to the brazen serpent, Christ crucified, and believe with all our heart that He is our righteousness and our life. For Christ, on whom our eyes are fixed, in whom we live, who lives in us, is Lord over Law, sin, death, and all evil.  

  

VERSE 20. But Christ liveth in me.  

  

"Thus I live," the Apostle starts out. But presently he corrects himself, saying, "Yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." He is the form of my perfection. He embellishes my faith.  

  

Since Christ is now living in me, He abolishes the Law, condemns sin, and destroys death in me. These foes vanish in His presence. Christ abiding in me drives out every evil. This union with Christ delivers me from the demands of the Law, and separates me from my sinful self. As long as I abide in Christ, nothing can hurt me.  

  

Christ domiciling in me, the old Adam has to stay outside and remain subject to the Law. Think what grace, righteousness, life, peace, and salvation there is in me, thanks to that inseparable conjunction between Christ and me through faith!  

  

Paul has a peculiar style, a celestial way of speaking. "I live," he says, "I live not; I am dead, I am not dead; I am a sinner, I am not a sinner; I have the Law, I have no Law." When we look at ourselves we find plenty of sin. But when we look at Christ, we have no sin. Whenever we separate the person of Christ from our own person, we live under the Law and not in Christ; we are condemned by the Law, dead before God.  

  

Faith connects you so intimately with Christ, that He and you become as it were one person. As such you may boldly say: "I am now one with Christ. Therefore Christ's righteousness, victory, and life are mine." On the other hand, Christ may say: "I am that big sinner. His sins and his death are mine, because he is joined to me, and I to him."  

  

Whenever remission of sins is freely proclaimed, people misinterpret it according to Rom 3:8 , "Let us do evil, that good may come." As soon as people hear that we are not justified by the Law, they reason maliciously: "Why, then let us reject the Law. If grace abounds, where sin abounds, let us abound in sin, that grace may all the more abound." People who reason thus are reckless. They make sport of the Scriptures and slander the sayings of the Holy Ghost.  

  

However, there are others who are not malicious, only weak, who may take offense when told that Law and good works are unnecessary for salvation. These must be instructed as to why good works do not justify, and from what motives good works must be done. Good works are not the cause, but the fruit of righteousness. When we have become righteous, then first are we able and willing to do good. The tree makes the apple; the apple does not make the tree.  

  

VERSE 20. And the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God.  

  

Paul does not deny the fact that he is living in the flesh. He performs the natural functions of the flesh. But he says that this is not his real life. His life in the flesh is not a life after the flesh.  

  

"I live by the faith of the Son of God," he says. "My speech is no longer directed by the flesh, but by the Holy Ghost. My sight is no longer governed by the flesh, but by the Holy Ghost. My hearing is no longer determined by the flesh, but by the Holy Ghost. I cannot teach, write, pray, or give thanks without the instrumentality of the flesh; yet these activities do not proceed from the flesh, but from God."  

  

A Christian uses earthly means like any unbeliever. Outwardly they look alike. Nevertheless there is a great difference between them. I may live in the flesh, but I do not live after the flesh. I do my living now "by the faith of the Son of God." Paul had the same voice, the same tongue, before and after his conversion. Before his conversion his tongue uttered blasphemies. But after his conversion his tongue spoke a spiritual, heavenly language.  

  

We may now understand how spiritual life originates. It enters the heart by faith. Christ reigns in the heart with His Holy Spirit, who sees, hears, speaks, works, suffers, and does all things in and through us over the protest and the resistance of the flesh.  

  

VERSE 20. Who loved me, and gave himself for me.  

  

The sophistical papists assert that a person is able by natural strength to love God long before grace has entered his heart, and to perform works of real merit. They believe they are able to fulfill the commandments of God. They believe they are able to do more than God expects of them, so that they are in a position to sell their superfluous merits to laymen, thereby saving themselves and others. They are saving nobody. On the contrary, they abolish the Gospel, they deride, deny, and blaspheme Christ, and call upon themselves the wrath of God. This is what they get for living in their own righteousness, and not in the faith of the Son of God.  

  

The papists will tell you to do the best you can, and God will give you His grace. They have a rhyme for it:  

  

"God will no more require of man, Than of himself perform he can."  

  

This may hold true in ordinary civic life. But the papists apply it to the spiritual realm where a person can perform nothing but sin, because he is sold under sin.  

  

Our opponents go even further than that. They say, nature is depraved, but the qualities of nature are untainted. Again we say: This may hold true in everyday life, but not in the spiritual life. In spiritual matters a person is by nature full of darkness, error, ignorance, malice, and perverseness in will and in mind.  

  

In view of this, Paul declares that Christ began and not we. "He loved me, and gave Himself for me. He found in me no right mind and no good will. But the good Lord had mercy upon me. Out of pure kindness He loved me, loved me so that He gave Himself for me, that I should be free from the Law, from sin, devil, and death."  

  

The words, "The Son of God who loved me, and gave Himself for me," are so many thunderclaps and lightning bolts of protest from heaven against the righteousness of the Law. The wickedness, error, darkness, ignorance in my mind and my will were so great, that it was quite impossible for me to be saved by any other means than by the inestimable price of Christ's death.  

  

Let us count the price. When you hear that such an enormous price was paid for you, will you still come along with your cowl, your shaven pate, your chastity, your obedience, your poverty, your works, your merits? What do you want with all these trappings? What good are the works of all men, and all the pains of the martyrs, in comparison with the pains of the Son of God dying on the Cross, so that there was not a drop of His precious blood, but it was all shed for your sins. If you could properly evaluate this incomparable price, you would throw all your ceremonies, vows, works, and merits into the ash can. What awful presumption to imagine that there is any work good enough to pacify God, when to pacify God required the invaluable price of the death and blood of His own and only Son?  

  

VERSE 20. For me.  

  

Who is this "me"? I, wretched and damnable sinner, dearly beloved of the Son of God. If I could by work or merit love the Son of God and come to Him, why should He have sacrificed Himself for me ? This shows how the papists ignore the Scriptures, particularly the doctrine of faith. If they had paid any attention at all to these words, that it was absolutely necessary for the Son of God to be given into death for me, they would never have invented so many hideous heresies.  

  

I always say, there is no remedy against the sects, no power to resist them, except this article of Christian righteousness. If we lose this article we shall never be able to combat errors or sects. What business have they to make such a fuss about works or merits? If I, a condemned sinner, could have been purchased and redeemed by any other price, why should the Son of God have given Himself for me? Just because there was no other price in heaven and on earth big and good enough, was it necessary for the Son of God to be delivered for me. This He did out of His great love for me, for the Apostle says, "Who loved me."  

  

Did the Law ever love me? Did the Law ever sacrifice itself for me? Did the Law ever die for me? On the contrary, it accuses me, it frightens me, it drives me crazy. Somebody else saved me from the Law, from sin and death unto eternal life. That Somebody is the Son of God, to whom be praise and glory forever.  

  

Hence, Christ is no Moses, no tyrant, no lawgiver, but the Giver of grace, the Savior, full of mercy. In short, He is no less than infinite mercy and ineffable goodness, bountifully giving Himself for us. Visualize Christ in these His true colors. I do not say that it is easy. Even in the present diffusion of the Gospel light, I have much trouble to see Christ as Paul portrays Him. So deeply has the diseased opinion that Christ is a lawgiver sunk into my bones. You younger men are a good deal better off than we who are old. You have never become infected with the nefarious errors on which I suckled all my youth, until at the mention of the name of Christ I shivered with fear. You, I say, who are young may learn to know Christ in all His sweetness.  

  

For Christ is Joy and Sweetness to a broken heart. Christ is a Lover of poor sinners, and such a Lover that He gave Himself for us. Now if this is true, and it is true, then are we never justified by our own righteousness.  

  

Read the words "me" and "for me" with great emphasis. Print this "me" with capital letters in your heart, and do not ever doubt that you belong to the number of those who are meant by this "me." Christ did not only love Peter and Paul. The same love He felt for them He feels for us. If we cannot deny that we are sinners, we cannot deny that Christ died for our sins.  

  

Combined Bible: Gal 2:21

color="#000000"> 21. I do not frustrate the grace of God.  

  

Paul is now getting ready for the second argument of his Epistle, to the effect that to seek justification by works of the Law, is to reject the grace of God. I ask you, what sin can be more horrible than to reject the grace of God, and to refuse the righteousness of Christ? It is bad enough that we are wicked sinners and transgressors of all the commandments of God; on top of that to refuse the grace of God and the remission of sins offered unto us by Christ, is the worst sin of all, the sin of sins. That is the limit. There is no sin which Paul and the other apostles detested more than when a person despises the grace of God in Christ Jesus. Still there is no sin more common. That is why Paul can get so angry at the Antichrist, because he snubs Christ, rebuffs the grace of God, and refuses the merit of Christ. What else would you call it but spitting in Christ's face, pushing Christ to the side, usurping Christ's throne, and to say: "I am going to justify you people; I am going to save you." By what means? By masses, pilgrimages, pardons, merits, etc. For this is Antichrist's doctrine: Faith is no good, unless it is reinforced by works. By this abominable doctrine Antichrist has spoiled, darkened, and buried the benefit of Christ, and in place of the grace of Christ and His Kingdom, he has established the doctrine of works and the kingdom of ceremonies.  

  

We despise the grace of God when we observe the Law for the purpose of being justified. The Law is good, holy, and profitable, but it does not justify. To keep the Law in order to be justified means to reject grace, to deny Christ, to despise His sacrifice, and to be lost.  

  

VERSE 21. For if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.  

  

Did Christ die, or did He not die? Was His death worth while, or was it not? If His death was worth while, it follows that righteousness does not come by the Law. Why was Christ born anyway? Why was He crucified? Why did He suffer? Why did He love me and give Himself for me? It was all done to no purpose if righteousness is to be had by the Law.  

  

Or do you think that God spared not His Son, but delivered Him for us all, for the fun of it? Before I would admit anything like that, I would consign the holiness of the saints and of the angels to hell.  

  

To reject the grace of God is a common sin, of which everybody is guilty who sees any righteousness in himself or in his deeds. And the Pope is the sole author of this iniquity. Not content to spoil the Gospel of Christ, he has filled the world with his cursed traditions, e.g., his bulls and indulgences.  

  

We will always affirm with Paul that either Christ died in vain, or else the Law cannot justify us. But Christ did not suffer and die in vain. Hence, the Law does not justify.  

  

If my salvation was so difficult to accomplish that it necessitated the death of Christ, then all my works, all the righteousness of the Law, are good for nothing. How can I buy for a penny what cost a million dollars? The Law is a penny's worth when you compare it with Christ. Should I be so stupid as to reject the righteousness of Christ which cost me nothing, and slave like a fool to achieve the righteousness of the Law which God disdains?  

  

Man's own righteousness is in the last analysis a despising and rejecting of the grace of God. No combination of words can do justice to such an outrage. It is an insult to say that any man died in vain. But to say that Christ died in vain is a deadly insult. To say that Christ died in vain is to make His resurrection, His victory, His glory, His kingdom, heaven, earth, God Himself, of no purpose and benefit whatever.  

  

That is enough to set any person against the righteousness of the Law and all the trimmings of men's own righteousness, the orders of monks and friars, and their superstitions.  

  

Who would not detest his own vows, his cowls, his shaven crown, his bearded traditions, yes, the very Law of Moses, when he hears that for such things he rejected the grace of God and the death of Christ. It seems that such a horrible wickedness could not enter a man's heart, that he should reject the grace of God, and despise the death of Christ. And yet this atrocity is all too common. Let us be warned. Everyone who seeks righteousness without Christ, either by works, merits, satisfactions, actions, or by the Law, rejects the grace of God, and despises the death of Christ.

  

Maclaren: Gal 2:20

From Centre To Circumference

The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.'--Gal. 2:20.

WE have a bundle of paradoxes in this verse. First, I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live.' The Christian life is a dying life. If we are in any real sense joined to Christ, the power of His death makes us dead to self and sin and the world. In that region, as in the physical, death is the gate of life; and, inasmuch as what we die to in Christ is itself only a living death, we live because we die, and in proportion as we die.

The next paradox is, Yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.' The Christian life is a life in which an indwelling Christ casts out, and therefore quickens, self. We gain ourselves when we lose ourselves. His abiding in us does not destroy but heightens our individuality. We then most truly live when we can say, Not I, but Christ liveth in me ; the soul of my soul and the self of myself.

And the last paradox is that of my text, The life which I live in the flesh, I live in' (not by') the faith of the Son of God.' The true Christian life moves in two spheres at once. Externally and superficially it is in the flesh,' really it is' in faith.' It belongs not to the material nor is dependent upon the physical body in which we are housed. We are strangers here, and the true region and atmosphere of the Christian life is that invisible sphere of faith.

So, then, we have in these words of my text a Christian man's frank avowal of the secret of his own life. It is like a geological cutting, it goes down from the surface, where the grass and the flowers are, through the various strata, but it goes deeper than these, to the fiery heart, the flaming nucleus and centre of all things. Therefore it may do us all good to make a section of our hearts and see whether the strata there are conformable to those that are here.

I. Let Us Begin With The Centre, And Work To The Surface.

We have, first, the great central fact named last, but round which all the Christian life is gathered.

The Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.' These two words, the loving' and the giving,' both point backwards to some one definite historical fact, and the only fact which they can have in view is the great one of the death of Jesus Christ. That is His giving up of Himself. That is the signal and highest manifestation and proof of His love.

Notice (though I can but touch in the briefest possible manner upon the great thoughts that gather round these words) the three aspects of that transcendent fact, the centre and nucleus of the whole Christian life, which come into prominence in these words before us. Christ's death is a great act of self-surrender, of which the one motive is His own pure and perfect love. No doubt in other places of Scripture we have set forth the death of Christ as being the result of the Father's purpose, and we read that in that wondrous surrender there were two givings up. The Father freely gave Him up to the death for us all.' That divine surrender, the Apostle ventures, in another passage, to find dimly suggested from afar, in the silent but submissive and unreluctant surrender with which Abraham yielded his only begotten son on the mountain top. But besides that ineffable giving up by the Father of the Son, Jesus Christ Himself, moved only by His love, willingly yields Himself. The whole doctrine of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ has been marred by one-sided insisting on the truth that God sent the Son, to the forgetting of the fact that the Son came'; and that He was bound to the Cross neither by cords of man's weaving nor by the will of the Father, but that He Himself bound Himself to that Cross with the cords of love and the bands of a man,' and died from no natural necessity nor from any imposition of the divine will upon Him unwilling, but because He would, and that He would because He loved. He loved me, and gave Himself for me.'

Then note, further, that here, most distinctly, that great act of self-surrendering love which culminates on the Cross is regarded as being for man in a special and peculiar sense. I know, of course, that from the mere wording of my text we cannot argue the atoning and substitutionary character of the death of Christ, for the preposition here does not necessarily mean instead of,' but for the behoof of.' But admitting that, I have another question. If Christ's death is for the behoof of' men, in what conceivable sense does it benefit them, unless it is in the place of men? The death for me' is only for me when I understand that it is instead of' me. And practically you will find that wherever the full-orbed faith in Christ Jesus as the death for all the sins of the whole world, bearing the penalty and bearing it away, has begun to falter and grow pale, men do not know what to do with Christ's death at all, and stop talking about it to a very large extent.

Unless He died as a sacrifice, I, for one, fail to see in what other than a mere sentimental sense the death of Christ is a death for men.

And lastly, about this matter, observe how here we have brought into vivid prominence the great thought that Jesus Christ in His death has regard to single souls. We preach that He died for all. If we believe in that august title which is laid here as the vindication of our faith on the one hand, and as the ground of the possibility of the benefits of His death being world-wide on the other--viz, the Son of God--then we shall not stumble at the thought that He died for all, because He died for each. I know that if you only regard Jesus Christ as human I am talking utter nonsense; but I know, too, that if we believe in the divinity of our Lord, there need be nothing to stumble us, but the contrary, in the thought that it was not an abstraction that He died for, that it was not a vague mass of unknown beings, clustered together, but so far away that He could not see any of their faces, for whom He gave His life on the Cross. That is the way in which, and in which alone, we can embrace the whole mass of humanity--by losing sight of the individuals. We generalise, precisely because we do not see the individual units; but that is not God's way, and that is not Christ's way, who is divine. For Him the all is broken up into its parts, and when we say that the divine love loves all, we mean that the divine love loves each. I believe (and I commend the thought to you) that we do not fathom the depth of Christ's sufferings unless we recognise that the sins of each man were consciously adding pressure to the load beneath which He sank; nor picture the wonders of His love until we believe that on the Cross it distinguished and embraced each, and, therefore, comprehended all. Every man may say,' He loved me, and gave Himself for me.'

II. So Much, Then, For The First Central Fact That Is Here.

Now let me say a word, in the second place, about the faith which makes that fact the foundation of my own personal life.

I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.' I am not going to plunge into any unnecessary dissertations about the nature of faith; but may I say that, like all other familiar conceptions, it has got worn so smooth that it glides over our mental palate without roughening any of the papilla or giving any sense or savour at all? And I do believe that dozens of people like you, who have come to church and chapel all your lives, and fancy yourselves to be fully au fait at all the Christian truth that you will ever hear from my lips, do not grasp with any clearness of apprehension the meaning of that fundamental word faith.'

It is a thousand pities that it is confined by the accidents of language to our attitude in reference to Jesus Christ. So some of you think that it is some kind of theological juggle which has nothing to do with, and never can be seen in operation in, common life. Suppose, instead of the threadbare, technical faith' we took to a new translation for a minute, and said trust,' do you think that would freshen up the thought to you at all? It is the very same thing which makes the sweetness of your relations to wife and husband and friend and parent, which, transferred to Jesus Christ and glorified in the process, becomes the seed of immortal life and the opener of the gate of Heaven. Trust Jesus Christ. That is the living centre of the Christian life; that is the process by which we draw the general blessing of the Gospel into our own hearts, and make the world-wide truth, our truth.

I need not insist either, I suppose, on the necessity, if our Christian life is to be modelled upon the Apostolic lines, of our faith embracing the Christ in all these aspects in which I have been speaking about His work. God forbid that I should seem to despise rudimentary and incomplete feelings after Him in any heart which may be unable to say Amen' to Paul's statement here. I want to insist very earnestly, and with special reference to the young, that the true Christian faith is not merely the grasp of the person, but it is the grasp of the Person who is declared to be the Son of God,' and whose death is the voluntary self-surrender motived by His love, for the carrying away of the sins of every single soul in the whole universe. That is the Christ, the full Christ, cleaving to whom our faith finds somewhat to grasp worthy of grasping. And I beseech you, be not contented with a partial grasp of a partial Saviour; neither shut your eyes to the divinity of His nature, nor to the efficacy of His death, but remember that the true Gospel preaches Christ and Him crucified; and that for us, saving faith is the faith that grasps the Son of God Who loved me and gave Himself for me.'

Note, further, that true faith is personal faith, which appropriates, and, as it were, fences in as my very own, the purpose and benefit of Christ's giving of Himself. It is always difficult for lazy people (and most of us are lazy) to transfer into their own personal lives, and to bring into actual contact with themselves and their own experience, wide, general truths. To assent to them, when we keep them in their generality, is very easy and very profitless. It does no man any good to say' All men are mortal ; but how different it is when the blunt end of that generalisation is shaped into a point, and I say I have to die!' It penetrates then, and it sticks. It is easy to say All men are sinners.' That never yet forced anybody down on his knees. But when we shut out on either side the lateral view and look straight on, on the narrow line of our own lives, up to the Throne where the Lawgiver sits, and feel' I am a sinful man,' that sends us to our prayers for pardon and purity. And in like manner nobody was ever wholesomely terrified by the thought of a general judgment. But when you translate it into I must stand there,' the terror of the Lord persuades men.

In like manner that great truth which we all of us say we believe, that Christ has died for the world, is utterly useless and profitless to us until we have translated it into Paul's world, loved me and gave Himself for me.' I do not say that the essence of faith is the conversion of the general statement into the particular application, but I do say that there is no faith which does not realise one's personal possession of the benefits of the death of Christ, and that until you turn the wide word into a message for yourself alone, you have not yet got within sight of the blessedness of the Christian life. The whole river may flow past me, but only so much of it as I can bring into my own garden by my own sluices, and lift in my own bucket, and put to my own lips, is of any use to me. The death of Christ for the world is a commonplace of superficial Christianity, which is no Christianity; the death of Christ for myself, as if He and I were the only beings in the universe, that is the death on which faith fastens and feeds.

And, dear brother, you have the right to exercise it. The Christ loves each, and therefore He loves all; that is the process in the divine mind. The converse is the process in the revelation of that mind; the Bible says to us, Christ loves all, and therefore we have the right to draw the inference that He loves each. You have as much right to take every whosoever' of the New Testament as your very own, as if on the page of your Bible that whosoever' was struck out, and your name, John, Thomas, Mary, Elizabeth, or whatever it is, were put in there. He loved me.' Can you say that? Have you ever passed from the region of universality, which is vague and profitless, into the region of personal appropriation of the person of Jesus Christ and His death?

III. And Now, Lastly, Notice The Life Which Is Built Upon This Faith.

The true Christian life is dual. It is a life in the flesh, and it is also a life in faith. These two, as I have said, are like two spheres, in either of which a man's course is passed, or, rather, the one is surface and the other is central. Here is a great trailing spray of seaweed floating golden on the unquiet water, and rising and falling on each wave or ripple. Aye! but its root is away deep, deep, deep below the storms, below where there is motion, anchored upon a hidden rock that can never move. And so my life, if it be a Christian life at all, has its surface amidst the shifting mutabilities of earth, but its root in the silent eternities of the centre of all things, which is Christ in God. I live in the flesh on the outside, but if I am a Christian at all, I live in the faith in regard of my true and proper being.

This faith, which grasps the Divine Christ as the person whose love-moved death is my life, and who by my faith becomes Himself the indwelling Guest in my heart; this faith, if it be worth anything, will mould and influence my whole being. It will give me motive, pattern, power for all noble service and all holy living. The one thing that stirs men to true obedience is that their hearts be touched with the firm assurance that Christ loved them and died for them.

We sometimes used to see men starting an engine by manual force; and what toil it was to get the great cranks to turn, and the pistons to rise! So we set ourselves to try and move our lives into holiness and beauty and nobleness, and it is dispiriting work. There is a far better, surer way than that: let the steam in, and that will do it. That is to say--let the Christ in His dying power and the living energy of His indwelling Spirit occupy the heart, and activity becomes blessedness, and work is rest, and service is freedom and dominion.

The life that I live in the flesh is poor, limited, tortured with anxiety, weighed upon by sore distress, becomes dark and gray and dreary often as we travel nearer the end, and is always full of miseries and of pains. But if within that life in the flesh there be a life in faith, which is the life of Christ Himself brought to us through our faith, that life will be triumphant, quiet, patient, aspiring, noble, hopeful, gentle, strong, Godlike, being the life of Christ Himself within us.

So, dear friends, test your faith by these two tests, what it grasps and what it does. If it grasps a whole Christ, in all the glory of His nature and the blessedness of His work, it is genuine; and it proves its genuineness if, and only if, it works in you by love; animating all your action, bringing you ever into the conscious presence of that dear Lord, and making Him pattern, law, motive, goal, companion and reward. To me to live is Christ.'

If so, then we live indeed; but to live in the flesh is to die; and the death that we die when we live in Christ is the gate and the beginning of the only real life of the soul.

MHCC: Gal 2:1-10

Observe the apostle's faithfulness in giving a full account of the doctrine he had preached among the Gentiles, and was still resolved to preach, that of Christianity, free from all mixture of Judaism. This doctrine would be ungrateful to many, yet he was not afraid to own it. His care was, lest the success of his past labours should be lessened, or his future usefulness be hindered. While we simply depend upon God for success to our labours, we should use every proper caution to remove mistakes, and against opposers. There are things which may lawfully be complied with, yet, when they cannot be done without betraying the truth, they ought to be refused. We must not give place to any conduct, whereby the truth of the gospel would be reflected upon. Though Paul conversed with the other apostles, yet he did not receive any addition to his knowledge, or authority, from them. Perceiving the grace given to him, they gave unto him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, whereby they acknowledged that he was designed to the honour and office of an apostle as well as themselves. They agreed that these two should go to the heathen, while they continued to preach to the Jews; judging it agreeable to the mind of Christ, so to divide their work. Here we learn that the gospel is not ours, but God's; and that men are but the keepers of it; for this we are to praise God. The apostle showed his charitable disposition, and how ready he was to own the Jewish converts as brethren, though many would scarcely allow the like favour to the converted Gentiles; but mere difference of opinion was no reason to him why he should not help them. Herein is a pattern of Christian charity, which we should extend to all the disciples of Christ.

MHCC: Gal 2:11-14

Notwithstanding Peter's character, yet, when Paul saw him acting so as to hurt the truth of the gospel and the peace of the church, he was not afraid to reprove him. When he saw that Peter and the others did not live up to that principle which the gospel taught, and which they professed, namely, That by the death of Christ the partition wall between Jew and Gentile was taken down, and the observance of the law of Moses was no longer in force; as Peter's offence was public, he publicly reproved him. There is a very great difference between the prudence of St. Paul, who bore with, and used for a time, the ceremonies of the law as not sinful, and the timid conduct of St. Peter, who, by withdrawing from the Gentiles, led others to think that these ceremonies were necessary.

MHCC: Gal 2:15-19

Paul, having thus shown he was not inferior to any apostle, not to Peter himself, speaks of the great foundation doctrine of the gospel. For what did we believe in Christ? Was it not that we might be justified by the faith of Christ? If so, is it not foolish to go back to the law, and to expect to be justified by the merit of moral works, or sacrifices, or ceremonies? The occasion of this declaration doubtless arose from the ceremonial law; but the argument is quite as strong against all dependence upon the works of the moral law, as respects justification. To give the greater weight to this, it is added, But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ the minister of sin? This would be very dishonourable to Christ, and also very hurtful to them. By considering the law itself, he saw that justification was not to be expected by the works of it, and that there was now no further need of the sacrifices and cleansings of it, since they were done away in Christ, by his offering up himself a sacrifice for us. He did not hope or fear any thing from it; any more than a dead man from enemies. But the effect was not a careless, lawless life. It was necessary, that he might live to God, and be devoted to him through the motives and grace of the gospel. It is no new prejudice, though a most unjust one, that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, tends to encourage people in sin. Not so, for to take occasion from free grace, or the doctrine of it, to live in sin, is to try to make Christ the minister of sin, at any thought of which all Christian hearts would shudder.

MHCC: Gal 2:20-21

Here, in his own person, the apostle describes the spiritual or hidden life of a believer. The old man is crucified, Rom 6:6, but the new man is living; sin is mortified, and grace is quickened. He has the comforts and the triumphs of grace; yet that grace is not from himself, but from another. Believers see themselves living in a state of dependence on Christ. Hence it is, that though he lives in the flesh, yet he does not live after the flesh. Those who have true faith, live by that faith; and faith fastens upon Christ's giving himself for us. He loved me, and gave himself for me. As if the apostle said, The Lord saw me fleeing from him more and more. Such wickedness, error, and ignorance were in my will and understanding, that it was not possible for me to be ransomed by any other means than by such a price. Consider well this price. Here notice the false faith of many. And their profession is accordingly; they have the form of godliness without the power of it. They think they believe the articles of faith aright, but they are deceived. For to believe in Christ crucified, is not only to believe that he was crucified, but also to believe that I am crucified with him. And this is to know Christ crucified. Hence we learn what is the nature of grace. God's grace cannot stand with man's merit. Grace is no grace unless it is freely given every way. The more simply the believer relies on Christ for every thing, the more devotedly does he walk before Him in all his ordinances and commandments. Christ lives and reigns in him, and he lives here on earth by faith in the Son of God, which works by love, causes obedience, and changes into his holy image. Thus he neither abuses the grace of God, nor makes it in vain.

Matthew Henry: Gal 2:1-10

It should seem, by the account Paul gives of himself in this chapter, that, from the very first preaching and planting of Christianity, there was a difference of apprehension between those Christians who had first been Jews and those who had first been Gentiles. Many of those who had first been Jews retained a regard to the ceremonial law, and strove to keep up the reputation of that; but those who had first been Gentiles had no regard to the law of Moses, but took pure Christianity as perfective of natural religion, and resolved to adhere to that. Peter was the apostle to them; and the ceremonial law, though dead with Christ, yet not being as yet buried, he connived at the respect kept up for it. But Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles; and, though he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, yet he adhered to pure Christianity. Now in this chapter he tells us what passed between him and the other apostles, and particularly between him and Peter hereupon.

In these verses he informs us of another journey which he took to Jerusalem, and of what passed between him and the other apostles there, Gal 2:1-10. Here he acquaints us,

I. With some circumstances relating to this his journey thither. As particularly, 1. With the time of it: that it was not till fourteen years after the former (mentioned Gal 1:18), or, as others choose to understand it, from his conversion, or from the death of Christ. It was an instance of the great goodness of God that so useful a person was for so many years preserved in his work. And it was some evidence that he had no dependence upon the other apostles, but had an equal authority with them, that he had been so long absent from them, and was all the while employed in preaching and propagating pure Christianity, without being called into question by them for it, which it may be thought he would have been, had he been inferior to them, and his doctrine disapproved by them. 2. With his companions in it: he went up with Barnabas, and took with him Titus also. If the journey here spoken of was the same with that recorded Acts 15 (as many think), then we have a plain reason why Barnabas went along with him; for he was chosen by the Christians at Antioch to be his companion and associate in the affair he went about. But, as it does not appear that Titus was put into the same commission with him, so the chief reason of his taking him along with him seems to have been to let those at Jerusalem see that he was neither ashamed nor afraid to own the doctrine which he had constantly preached; for though Titus had now become not only a convert to the Christian faith, but a preacher of it too, yet he was by birth a Gentile and uncircumcised, and therefore, by making him his companion, it appeared that their doctrine and practice were of a piece, and that as he had preached the non-necessity of circumcision, and observing the law of Moses, so he was ready to own and converse with those who were uncircumcised. 3. With the reason of it, which was a divine revelation he had concerning it: he went up be revelation; not of his own head, much less as being summoned to appear there, but by special order and direction from Heaven. It was a privilege with which this apostle was often favoured to be under a special divine direction in his motions and undertakings; and, though this is what we have no reason to expect, yet it should teach us, in every thing of moment we go about, to endeavour, as far as we are capable, to see our way made plain before us, and to commit ourselves to the guidance of Providence.

II. He gives us an account of his behaviour while he was at Jerusalem, which was such as made it appear that he was not in the least inferior to the other apostles, but that both his authority and qualifications were every way equal to theirs. He particularly acquaints us,

1. That he there communicated the gospel to them, which he preached among the Gentiles, but privately, etc. Here we may observe both the faithfulness and prudence of our great apostle. (1.) His faithfulness in giving them a free and fair account of the doctrine which he had all along preached among the Gentiles, and was still resolved to preach - that of pure Christianity, free from all mixtures of Judaism. This he knew was a doctrine that would be ungrateful to many there, and yet he was not afraid to own it, but in a free and friendly manner lays it open before them and leaves them to judge whether or no it was not the true gospel of Christ. And yet, (2.) He uses prudence and caution herein, for fear of giving offence. He chooses rather to do it in a more private than in a public way, and to those that were of reputation, that is, to the apostles themselves, or to the chief among the Jewish Christians, rather than more openly and promiscuously to all, because, when he came to Jerusalem, there were multitudes that believed, and yet continued zealous for the law, Act 21:20. And the reason of this his caution was lest he should run, or had run, in vain, lest he should stir up opposition against himself and thereby either the success of his past labours should be lessened, or his future usefulness be obstructed; for nothing more hinders the progress of the gospel than differences of opinion about the doctrines of it, especially when they occasion quarrels and contentions among the professors of it, as they too usually do. It was enough to his purpose to have his doctrine owned by those who were of greatest authority, whether it was approved by others or not. And therefore, to avoid offence, he judges it safest to communicate it privately to them, and not in public to the whole church. This conduct of the apostle may teach all, and especially ministers, how much need they have of prudence, and how careful they should be to use it upon all occasions, as far as is consistent with their faithfulness.

2. That in his practice he firmly adhered to the doctrine which he had preached. Paul was a man of resolution, and would adhere to his principles; and therefore, though he had Titus with him, who was a Greek, yet he would not suffer him to be circumcised, because he would not betray the doctrine of Christ, as he had preached it to the Gentiles. It does not appear that the apostles at all insisted upon this; for, though they connived at the use of circumcision among the Jewish converts, yet they were not for imposing it upon the Gentiles. But there were others who did, whom the apostle here calls false brethren, and concerning whom he informs us that they were unawares brought in, that is, into the church, or into their company, and that they came only to spy out their liberty which they had in Christ Jesus, or to see whether Paul would stand up in defence of that freedom from the ceremonial law which he had taught as the doctrine of the gospel, and represented as the privilege of those who embraced the Christian religion. Their design herein was to bring them into bondage, which they would have effected could they have gained the point they aimed at; for, had they prevailed with Paul and the other apostles to have circumcised Titus, they would easily have imposed circumcision upon other Gentiles, and so have brought them under the bondage of the law of Moses. But Paul, seeing their design, would by no means yield to them; he would not give place by subjection, no, not for an hour, not in this one single instance; and the reason of it was that the truth of the gospel might continue with them - that the Gentile Christians, and particularly the Galatians, might have it preserved to them pure and entire, and not corrupted with the mixtures of Judaism, as it would have been had he yielded in this matter. Circumcision was at that time a thing indifferent, and what in some cases might be complied with without sin; and accordingly we find even Paul himself sometimes giving way to it, as in the case of Timothy, Act 16:3. But when it is insisted on as necessary, and his consenting to it, though only in a single instance, is likely to be improved as giving countenance to such an imposition, he has too great a concern for the purity and liberty of the gospel, to submit to it; he would not yield to those who were for the Mosaic rites and ceremonies, but would stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, which conduct of his may give us occasion to observe that what under some circumstances may lawfully be complied with, yet, when that cannot be done without betraying the truth, or giving up the liberty, of the gospel, it ought to be refused.

3. That, though he conversed with the other apostles, yet he did not receive any addition to his knowledge or authority from them, Gal 2:6. By those who seemed to be somewhat he means the other apostles, particularly James, Peter, and John, whom he afterwards mentions by name, Gal 2:9. And concerning these he grants that they were deservedly had in reputation by all, that they were looked upon (and justly too) as pillars of the church, who were set not only for its ornament, but for its support, and that on some accounts they might seem to have the advantage of him, in that they had seen Christ in the flesh, which he had not, and were apostles before him, yea, even while he continued a persecutor. But yet, whatever they were, it was no matter to him. This was no prejudice to his being equally an apostle with them; for God does not accept the persons of men on the account of any such outward advantages. As he had called them to this office, so he was at liberty to qualify others for it, and to employ them in it. And it was evident in this case that he had done so; for in conference they added nothing to him, they told him nothing but what he before knew by revelation, nor could they except against the doctrine which he communicated to them, whence it appeared that he was not at all inferior to them, but was as much called and qualified to be an apostle as they themselves were.

4. That the issue of this conversation was that the other apostles were fully convinced of his divine mission and authority, and accordingly acknowledged him as their fellow-apostle, Gal 2:7-10. They were not only satisfied with his doctrine, but they saw a divine power attending him, both in preaching it and in working miracles for the confirmation of it: that he who wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in him towards the Gentiles. And hence they justly concluded that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to Paul, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter. And therefore, perceiving the grace that was given to him (that he was designed to the honour and office of an apostle as well as themselves) they gave unto him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, a symbol whereby they acknowledged their equality with them, and agreed that these should go to the heathen, while they continued to preach to the circumcision, as judging it most agreeable to the mind of Christ, and most conducive to the interest of Christianity, so to divide their work. And thus this meeting ended in an entire harmony and agreement; they approved both Paul's doctrine and conduct, they were fully satisfied in him, heartily embraced him as an apostle of Christ, and had nothing further to add, only that they would remember the poor, which of his own accord he was very forward to do. The Christians of Judea were at that time labouring under great wants and difficulties; and the apostles, out of their compassion to them and concern for them, recommend their case to Paul, that he should use his interest with the Gentile churches to procure a supply for them. This was a reasonable request; for, if the Gentiles were made partakers of their spiritual things, it was their duty to minister to them in carnal things, as Rom 15:27. And he very readily falls in with it, whereby he showed his charitable and catholic disposition, how ready he was to own the Jewish converts as brethren, though many of them could scarcely allow the like favour to the converted Gentiles, and that mere difference of opinion was no reason with him why he should not endeavour to relieve and help them. Herein he has given us an excellent pattern of Christian charity, and has taught us that we should by no means confine it to those who are just of the same sentiments with us, but be ready to extend it to all whom we have reason to look upon as the disciples of Christ.

Matthew Henry: Gal 2:11-21

I. From the account which Paul gives of what passed between him and the other apostles at Jerusalem, the Galatians might easily discern both the falseness of what his enemies had insinuated against him and their own folly and weakness in departing from that gospel which he had preached to them. But to give the greater weight to what he had already said, and more fully to fortify them against the insinuations of the judaizing teachers, he acquaints them with another interview which he had with the apostle Peter at Antioch, and what passed between them there, _Gal 2:11-14. Antioch was one of the chief churches of the Gentile Christians, as Jerusalem was of those Christians who turned from Judaism to the faith of Christ. There is no colour of reason for the supposition that Peter was bishop of Antioch. If he had, surely Paul would not have withstood him in his own church, as we here find he did; but, on the contrary, it is here spoken of as an occasional visit which he made thither. In their other meeting, there had been good harmony and agreement. Peter and the other apostles had both acknowledged Paul's commission and approved his doctrine, and they parted very good friends. But in this Paul finds himself obliged to appose Peter, for he was to be blamed, a plain evidence that he was not inferior to him, and consequently of the weakness of the pope's pretence to supremacy and infallibility, as the successor of Peter. Here we may observe,

1. Peter's fault. When he came among the Gentile churches, he complied with them, and did eat with them, though they were not circumcised, agreeably to the instructions which were given in particular to him (Acts 10), when he was warned by the heavenly vision to call nothing common or unclean. But, when there came some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, he grew more shy of the Gentiles, only to humour those of the circumcision and for fear of giving them offence, which doubtless was to the great grief and discouragement of the Gentile churches. Then he withdrew, and separated himself. His fault herein had a bad influence upon others, for the other Jews also dissembled with him; though before they might be better disposed, yet now, from his example, they took on them to scruple eating with the Gentiles, and pretended they could not in conscience do it, because they were not circumcised. And (would you think it?) Barnabas himself, one of the apostles of the Gentiles, and one who had been instrumental in planting and watering the churches of the Gentiles, was carried away with their dissimulation. Here note, (1.) The weakness and inconstancy of the best of men, when left to themselves, and how apt they are to falter in their duty to God, out of an undue regard to the pleasing of men. And, (2.) The great force of bad examples, especially the examples of great men and good men, such as are in reputation for wisdom and honour.

2. The rebuke which Paul gave him for his fault. Notwithstanding Peter's character, yet, when he observes him thus behaving himself to the great prejudice both of the truth of the gospel and the peace of the church, he is not afraid to reprove him for it. Paul adhered resolutely to his principles, when others faltered in theirs; he was as good a Jew as any of them (for he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews), but he would magnify his office as the apostle of the Gentiles, and therefore would not see them discouraged and trampled upon. When he saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel - that they did not live up to that principle which the gospel taught, and which they had professed to own and embrace, namely, that by the death of Christ the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile was taken down, and the observance of the law of Moses was no longer in force - when he observed this, as Peter's offence was public, so he publicly reproved him for it: He said unto him before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Herein one part of his conduct was a contradiction to the other; for if he, who was a Jew, could himself sometimes dispense with the use of the ceremonial law, and live after the manner of the Gentiles, this showed that he did not look upon the observance of it as still necessary, even for the Jews themselves; and therefore that he could not, consistently with his own practice, impose it upon the Gentile Christians. And yet Paul charges him with this, yea, represents him as compelling the Gentiles to live as did the Jews - not by open force and violence, but this was the tendency of what he did; for it was in effect to signify this, that the Gentiles must comply with the Jews, or else not be admitted into Christian communion.

II. Paul having thus established his character and office, and sufficiently shown that he was not inferior to any of the apostles, no, not to Peter himself, from the account of the reproof he gave him he takes occasion to speak of that great fundamental doctrine of the gospel - That justification is only by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law (though some think that all he says to the end of the chapter is what he said to Peter at Antioch), which doctrine condemned Peter for his symbolizing with the Jews. For, if it was the principle of his religion that the gospel is the instrument of our justification and not the law, then he did very ill in countenancing those who kept up the law, and were for mixing it with faith in the business of our justification. This was the doctrine which Paul had preached among the Galatians, to which he still adhered, and which it is his great business in this epistle to mention and confirm. Now concerning this Paul acquaints us,

1. With the practice of the Jewish Christians themselves: " We, "says he, " who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles (even we who have been born and bred in the Jewish religion, and not among the impure Gentiles), knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we ourselves have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. And, if we have thought it necessary to seek justification by the faith of Christ, why then should we hamper ourselves with the law? What did we believe in Christ for? Was it not that we might be justified by the faith of Christ? And, if so, is it not folly to go back to the law, and to expect to be justified either by the merit of moral works or the influence of any ceremonial sacrifices or purifications? And if it would be wrong in us who are Jews by nature to return to the law, and expect justification by it, would it not be much more so to require this of the Gentiles, who were never subject to it, since by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified? "To give the greater weight to this he adds (Gal 2:17), " But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ the minister of sin? If, while we seek justification by Christ alone, and teach others to do so, we ourselves are found giving countenance or indulgence to sin, or rather are accounted sinners of the Gentiles, and such as it is not fit to have communion with, unless we also observe the law of Moses, is Christ the minister of sin? Will it not follow that he is so, if he engage us to receive a doctrine that gives liberty to sin, or by which we are so far from being justified that we remain impure sinners, and unfit to be conversed with?"This, he intimates, would be the consequence, but he rejects it with abhorrence: " God forbid, "says he, "that we should entertain such a thought of Christ, or of his doctrine, that thereby he should direct us into a way of justification that is defective and ineffectual, and leave those who embrace it still unjustified, or that would give the least encouragement to sin and sinners."This would be very dishonourable to Christ, and it would be very injurious to them also. " For, "says he (Gal 2:18), " if I build again the things which I destroyed - if I (or any other), who have taught that the observance of the Mosaic law is not necessary to justification, should now, by word or practice, teach or intimate that it is necessary - I make myself a transgressor; I own myself to be still an impure sinner, and to remain under the guilt of sin, notwithstanding my faith in Christ; or I shall be liable to be charged with deceit and prevarication, and acting inconsistently with myself."Thus does the apostle argue for the great doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law from the principles and practice of the Jewish Christians themselves, and from the consequences that would attend their departure from it, whence it appeared that Peter and the other Jews were much in the wrong in refusing to communicate with the Gentile Christians, and endeavouring to bring them under the bondage of the law.

2. He acquaints us what his own judgment and practice were. (1.) That he was dead to the law. Whatever account others might make of it, yet, for his part, he was dead to it. He knew that the moral law denounced a curse against all that continue not in all things written therein, to do them; and therefore he was dead to it, as to all hope of justification and salvation that way. And as for the ceremonial law, he also knew that it was now antiquated and superseded by the coming of Christ, and therefore, the substance having come, he had no longer any regard to the shadow. He was thus dead to the law, through the law itself; it discovered itself to be at an end. By considering the law itself, he saw that justification was not to be expected by the works of it (since none could perform a perfect obedience to it) and that there was now no further need of the sacrifices and purifications of it, since they were done away in Christ, and a period was put to them by his offering up himself a sacrifice for us; and therefore, the more he looked into it the more he saw that there was no occasion for keeping up that regard to it which the Jews pleaded for. But, though he was thus dead to the law, yet he did not look upon himself as with law. He had renounced all hopes of justification by the works of it, and was unwilling any longer to continue under the bondage of it; but he was far from thinking himself discharged from his duty to God; on the contrary, he was dead to the law, that he might live unto God. The doctrine of the gospel, which he had embraced, instead of weakening the bond of duty upon him, did but the more strengthen and confirm it; and therefore, though he was dead to the law, yet it was only in order to his living a new and better life to God (as Rom 7:4, Rom 7:6), such a life as would be more agreeable and acceptable to God than his observance of the Mosaic law could now be, that is, a life of faith in Christ, and, under the influence thereof, of holiness and righteousness towards God. Agreeably hereunto he acquaints us, (2.) That, as he was dead to the law, so he was alive unto God through Jesus Christ (Gal 2:20): I am crucified with Christ, etc. And here in his own person he gives us an excellent description of the mysterious life of a believer. [1.] He is crucified, and yet he lives; the old man is crucified (Rom 6:6), but the new man is living; he is dead to the world, and dead to the law, and yet alive to God and Christ; sin is mortified, and grace quickened. [2.] He lives, and yet not he. This is strange: I live, and yet not I; he lives in the exercise of grace; he has the comforts and the triumphs of grace; and yet that grace is not from himself, but from another. Believers see themselves living in a state of dependence. [3.] He is crucified with Christ, and yet Christ lives in him; this results from his mystical union with Christ, by means of which he is interested in the death of Christ, so as by virtue of that to die unto sin; and yet interested in the life of Christ, so as by virtue of that to live unto God. [4.] He lives in the flesh, and yet lives by faith; to outward appearance he lives as other people do, his natural life is supported as others are; yet he has a higher and nobler principle that supports and actuates him, that of faith in Christ, and especially as eyeing the wonders of his love in giving himself for him. Hence it is that, though he lives in the flesh, yet he does not live after the flesh. Note, Those who have true faith live by that faith; and the great thing which faith fastens upon is Christ's loving us and giving himself for us. The great evidence of Christ's loving us is his giving himself for us; and this is that which we are chiefly concerned to mix faith with, in order to our living to him.

Lastly, The apostle concludes this discourse with acquainting us that by the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, without the works of the law (which he asserted, and others opposed), he avoided two great difficulties, which the contrary opinion was loaded with: - 1. That he did not frustrate the grace of God, which the doctrine of the justification by the works of the law did; for, as he argues (Rom 11:6), If it be of works, it is no more of grace. 2. That he did not frustrate the death of Christ; whereas, if righteousness come by the law, then it must follow that Christ has died in vain; for, if we look for salvation by the law of Moses, then we render the death of Christ needless: for to what purpose should he be appointed to die, if we might have been saved without it?

Barclay: Gal 2:1-10

In the preceding passage Paul has proved the independence of his gospel; here he is concerned to prove that this independence is not anarchy and that his gospel is not something schismatic and sectarian, but no other than the faith delivered to the Church.

After fourteen years' work he went up to Jerusalem, taking with him Titus, a young friend and henchman, who was a Greek. That visit was by no means easy. Even as he wrote there was agitation in Paul's mind. There is a disorder in the Greek which it is not possible fully to reproduce in English translation. Paul's problem was that he could not say too little or he might seem to be abandoning his principles; and he could not say too much, or it might seem that he was at open variance with the leaders of the Church. The result was that his sentences are broken and disjointed, reflecting his anxiety.

From the beginning the real leaders of the Church accepted his position; but there were others who were out to tame this fiery spirit. There were those, who, as we have seen, accepted Christianity but believed that God never gave any privilege to a man who was not a Jew; and that, therefore, before a man could become a Christian, he must be circumcised and take the whole law upon him. These Judaizers. as they are called, seized on Titus as a test case. There is a battle behind this passage; and it seems likely that the leaders of the Church urged Paul, for the sake of peace, to give in, in the case of Titus. But he stood like a rock. He knew that to yield would be to accept the slavery of the law and to turn his back on the freedom which is in Christ. In the end Paul's determination won the day. In principle it was accepted that his work lay in the non-Jewish world, and the work of Peter and James among the Jews. It is to be carefully noted that it is not a question of two different gospels being preached; it is a question of the same gospel being brought to two different spheres by different people specially qualified to do so.

From this picture certain characteristics of Paul emerge clearly.

(i) He was a man who gave authority its due respect. He did not go his own way. lie went and talked with the leaders of the Church however much he might differ from them. It is a great and neglected law of life that however right we happen to be there is nothing to be gained by rudeness. There is never any reason why courtesy and determination should not go hand in hand.

(ii) He was a man who refused to be overawed. Repeatedly he mentions the reputation which the leaders and pillars of the Church enjoyed. He respected them and treated them with courtesy; but he remained inflexible. There is such a thing as respect; and there is such a thing as the grovelling, prudential bowing to those whom the world or the Church labels great. Paul was always certain that he was seeking the approval not of men but of God.

(iii) He was a man conscious of a special task. He was convinced that God had given him a task to do and he would let neither opposition from without nor discouragement from within stop him doing it. The man who knows he has a God-given task will always find that he has a God-given strength to carry it out.

Barclay: Gal 2:11-13

The trouble was by no means at an end. Part of the life of the early Church was a common meal which they called the Agape (26) or Love Feast. At this feast the whole congregation came together to enjoy a common meal provided by a pooling of whatever resources they had. For many of the slaves it must have been the only decent meal they had all week; and in a very special way it marked the togetherness of the Christians.

That seems, on the face of it, a lovely thing. But we must remember the rigid exclusiveness of the narrower Jew. He regarded his race as the Chosen People in such a way as involved the rejection of all others. "The Lord is merciful and gracious" (Psa 2:5). "But he is only gracious to Israelites; other nations he will terrify." "The nations are as stubble or straw which shall be burned, or as chaff scattered to the wind." "If a man repents God accepts him, but that applies only to Israel and no other nation." "Love all but hate the heretics." This exclusiveness entered into daily life. A strict Jew was forbidden even to do business with a Gentile; he must not go on a journey with a Gentile; he must neither give hospitality to, nor accept hospitality from, a Gentile.

Here in Antioch arose the tremendous problem, in face of all this could the Jews and the Gentiles sit down together at a common meal? If the old law was to be observed it was obviously impossible. Peter came to Antioch and, at first, disregarding the old taboos in the glory of the new faith, he shared the common meal with Jew and Gentile. Then came certain of the Jewish party from Jerusalem. They used James' name although quite certainly they were not representing his views, and they worked on Peter so much that he withdrew from the common meal. The other Jews withdrew with him and finally even Barnabas was involved in this secession. It was then that Paul spoke with all the intensity of which his passionate nature was capable, for he saw certain things quite clearly.

(i) A church ceases to be Christian if it contains class distinctions. In the presence of God a man is neither Jew nor Gentile, noble nor base, rich nor poor; he is a sinner for whom Christ died. If men share in a common sonship they must be brothers.

(ii) Paul saw that strenuous action was necessary to counteract a drift which had occurred. He did not wait; he struck. It made no difference to him that this drift was connected with the name and conduct of Peter. It was wrong and that was all that mattered to him. A famous name can never justify an infamous action. Paul's action gives us a vivid example of how one strong man by his steadfastness can check a drift away from the right course before it becomes a tidal wave.

Barclay: Gal 2:14-17

Here at last the real root of the matter is being reached. A decision is being forced which could not in any event be long delayed. The fact of the matter was that the Jerusalem decision was a compromise, and, like all compromises, it had in it the seeds of trouble. In effect the decision was that the Jews would go on living like Jews, observing circumcision and the law, but that the Gentiles were free from these observances. Clearly, things could not go on like that, because the inevitable result was to produce two grades of Christians and two quite distinct classes in the Church. Paul's argument ran like this. He. said to Peter, "You shared table with the Gentiles; you ate as they ate; therefore you approved in principle that there is one way for Jew and Gentile alike. How can you now reverse your decision and want the Gentiles to be circumcised and take the law upon them?" The thing did not make sense to Paul.

Now we must make sure of the meaning of a word. When the Jew used the word sinners of Gentiles he was not thinking of moral qualities; he was thinking of the observance of the law. To take an example--Lev 11 lays down which animals may and may not be used for food. A man who ate a hare or pork broke these laws and became as inner in this sense of the term. So Peter would answer Paul, "But, if I eat with the Gentiles and eat the things they eat, I become a sinner."

Paul's answer was twofold. First, he said, "We agreed long ago that no amount of observance of the law can make a man right with God. That is a matter of grace. A man cannot earn, but must accept the generous offer of the love of God in Jesus. Therefore the whole business of law is irrelevant." Next he said, "You hold that to forget all this business about rules and regulations will make you a sinner. But that is precisely what Jesus Christ told you to do. He did not tell you to try to earn salvation by eating this animal and not eating that one. He told you to fling yourself without reserve on the grace of God. Are you going to argue, then, that he taught you to become a sinner?" Obviously there could be only one proper conclusion, namely that the old laws were wiped out.

This is the point that had to come. It could not be right for Gentiles to come to God by grace and Jews to come to him by law. For Paul there was only one reality, grace, and it was by way of surrender to that grace that all men must come.

There are two great temptations in the Christian life, and, in a certain sense, the better a man is the more liable he is to them. First, there is the temptation to try to earn God's favour, and second, the temptation to use some little achievement to compare oneself with our fellow men to our advantage and their disadvantage. But the Christianity which has enough of self left in it to think that by its own efforts it can please God and that by its own achievements it can show itself superior to other men is not true Christianity at all.

Barclay: Gal 2:18-21

Paul speaks out of the depths of personal experience. For him to re-erect the whole fabric of the law would have been spiritual suicide. He says that through the law he died to the law that he might live to God. What he means is this--he had tried the way of law, he had tried with all the terrible intensity of his hot heart to put himself right with God by a life that sought to obey every single item of that law. He had found that such an attempt produced nothing but a deeper and deeper sense that all he could do could never put him right with God. All the law had done was to show him his own helplessness. Whereupon he had quite suddenly abandoned that way and had cast himself, sinner as he was, on the mercy of God. It was the law which had driven him to God. To go back to the law would simply have entangled him all over again in the sense of estrangement from God. So great was the change that the only way he could describe it was to say that he had been crucified with Christ so that the man he used to be was dead and the living power within him now was Christ himself.

"If I can put myself to rights with God by meticulously obeying the law then what is the need of grace? If I can win my own salvation then why had Christ to die?" Paul was quite sure of one thing--that Jesus Christ had done for him what he could never have done for himself. The one man who re-enacted the experience of Paul was Martin Luther. Luther was a showpiece of discipline and penance, self-denial and self-torture. "If ever," he said, "a man could be saved by monkery that man was I." He had gone to Rome; it was considered to be an act of great merit to climb the Scala Sancta, the great sacred stairway, on hands and knees. He toiled upwards seeking that merit and suddenly there came to him the voice from heaven, "The just shall live by faith." The life at peace with God was not to be attained by this futile, never-ending, ever-defeated effort; it could be had only by casting himself on the love and mercy of God as Jesus Christ revealed them to men.

"Pining souls' come nearer Jesus.

And O come, not doubting thus,

But with faith that trusts more bravely

His huge tenderness for us.

If our love were but more simple,

We should take him at his word;

Arid our lives would be all sunshine,

In the sweetness of our Lord."

When Paul took God at his word, the midnight of law's frustration became the sunshine of grace.

Constable: Gal 1:11--3:1

II. PERSONAL DEFENSE OF PAUL'S GOSPEL 1:11--2:21

The first of the three major sections of the epistle begins here. We could classify them as history (1:11-2:21), theology (chs. 3-4), and ethics (5:1-6:10).

". . . Paul was . . . following the logic of the Christian life: Because of who God is and what he has done (history) we must believe what he has said (theology) in order to live as he commands (ethics)."²⁷

Constable: Gal 2:1-10

B. Interdependence with other apostles 2:1-10

Paul related other events of his previous ministry, specifically his meeting with the Jerusalem church leaders. He did so to establish for his readers that although he was not dependent on anyone but God for his message and ministry, he preached the same gospel the other apostles did.

"While chapter 2 continues Paul's defense of his apostolic authority and the gospel he preached, he focused not on the source of his message but on its content."⁴⁴

2:1 From Acts 11:25-26 we learn that Barnabas brought Paul back from Cilicia to assist in the ministry in Antioch. Paul was living there when he visited Jerusalem with Barnabas.

". . . this is the third in a series of then' clauses Paul stitched together to form an airtight argument for his apostolic independence from the Jerusalem church (cf. 1:18, 21)."⁴⁵

Probably Paul calculated his 14 years from his conversion rather than from his first visit to Jerusalem (cf. 1:18). Paul visited Jerusalem at least five times, and the visit described here seems to have been his second (Acts 11:27-30). It was not his third visit to participate in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-29). This seems clear from Paul's statement that it was a private meeting (v. 2).⁴⁶

Paul's visits to Jerusalem

1. The visit after he left Damascus (Acts 9:26-30; Gal. 1:18-20)

2. The famine visit (Acts 11:27-30; Gal. 2:1-10)

3. The visit to attend the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-29)

4. The visit at the end of the second missionary journey (Acts 18:22)

5. The final visit that resulted in Paul's Caesarean imprisonment (Acts 21:15-23:35)

The references to Barnabas (vv. 1, 9, 13) suggest that the readers knew him. If Paul wrote this epistle to Christians living in South Galatia, they probably knew Barnabas as Paul's fellow missionary to them on Paul's first missionary journey.⁴⁷

Titus was a Gentile believer (v. 3) and one of Paul's faithful disciples in ministry. When Paul wrote this epistle Titus was apparently living in Antioch. Later Titus represented Paul to the Corinthian church (2 Cor. 2:12-13; 7:5-16), to the Jerusalem church (2 Cor. 8:6-24; 9:3-5; 12:18), and to the Cretan church (Titus 1:5).

Titus "possessed considerable people skills . . . and was a man of unquestioned integrity, especially with regard to financial resources."⁴⁸

2:2 The first reason Paul went to Jerusalem evidently stemmed from one of two events. Agabus' vision of an impending famine and the Antioch Christians' consequent desire to send a gift to their hungry Jerusalem brethren may have prompted his visit (Acts 11:27-30). On the other hand Paul may have received a vision himself. In either case a divine revelation was one factor that moved Paul to visit Jerusalem then.

Paul's fear that he "should run . . . in vain" (lit.) may seem to refer to concern that the Jerusalem apostles upon hearing what he had been preaching would disapprove of it. However this cannot have been his fear. He previously said he was absolutely certain that his gospel, which came to him by special revelation, was the true gospel (1:11-12). He also said he did not need to get it approved by the other apostles (1:16-17). It seems rather that Paul feared that if he did not contact the Jerusalem apostles (Peter, James, and John) his critics might undermine his evangelistic work. They might point to the fact that Paul had had no fellowship with the Jerusalem apostles. They might go on to suggest that there was no fellowship because there was a difference of opinion between Paul and the other apostles over the gospel message. To avoid this possibility Paul met with Peter, James, and John privately. They may have met in private because Paul was a wanted man in Jerusalem at this time, and a public meeting could have resulted in more harm than good.

There may have been at least two other reasons for this meeting.

". . . positively expressed, his concern was to assure that they would recognize his converts as genuine Christians and members of the Church. He was concerned, in other words, with officially securing the freedom of the Gentiles from the requirements of the law and their equality of status with Jewish Christians.

"Implicit in this concern for Gentile freedom was concern for the unity of the Church: Paul's anxiety was not lest refusal of recognition on the part of the Jerusalem authorities should thereby render his own work invalid and his Gentile Christians non-Christian, but lest such refusal should bring about a rupture of the one Church into two separate branches of Jewish and Gentile Christianity"⁴⁹

2:3 Paul's fear was not that he had been preaching an erroneous gospel. It was that the false teachers who were saying Gentile converts had to become Jews before they could experience justification might undercut his work (cf. Acts 15:1). James, Peter, and John agreed with Paul, the proof of which was their willingness to let Titus remain uncircumcised. Circumcision was a rite by which Gentile males became Jewish proselytes.

"Within the crosscurrents of political messianism and apocalyptic speculation, the idea grew that the Messiah would only come when the Holy Land had been purified of all uncircumcised Gentiles."⁵⁰

2:4-5 Verse 4 introduces another reason Paul went up to Jerusalem (v. 1). Evidently representatives of the false teachers (counterfeit Christians) had entered Paul's arena of ministry and had opposed what he had taught. Their intent was to bring Paul and all other preachers and hearers of the true gospel into bondage by imposing circumcision as a condition for salvation. They were not successful. The truth of the gospel means "the gospel in its integrity . . . the doctrine of grace."⁵¹ The liberty to which Paul referred is not freedom in the abstract, but a liberty that believers have in Christ Jesus.⁵²

"It thus emerges that the interlopers were sham-Christians precisely because they had not really grasped the fundamental principle of the gospel--justification by faith apart from works of the law."⁵³

2:6 Paul's reference to James, Peter, and John may sound a bit insolent, but his point was that they were not superior as apostles to him as an apostle. They contributed nothing to his authority or message.

"The repetition of the expression men of high reputation' from v. 2 (where NEB has men of repute' for the same Greek expression [hoi dokountes]) seems to indicate that it is a title given by the Jerusalem church to its leaders, which Paul uses, possibly with a tinge of irony, in depreciation of the arrogant and extravagant claims which the Judaizers were making for the Jerusalem leaders."⁵⁴

The expression "allows Paul both to acknowledge the fact that these men possess authority and power and to remain at a distance with regard to his own subservience to such authority."⁵⁵

2:7-9 James, Peter, and John did not seek to change Paul's message. They agreed with it. They shook hands in agreement over the gospel even though the focuses of their ministries were different. The Greek word stylos, translated "pillar," can also mean "tent-pole."

"Peter was the great missionary. Hence, when Paul is speaking of the ministry to the Jews, Peter is prominent and James is not mentioned (vv7, 8). In dealing with a particular and official act of the Jerusalem church, however, James (who apparently presided at the council) is mentioned in the first position with the names of Peter and John following."⁵⁶

The "grace" given to Paul (v. 9) refers to his apostleship to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; cf. Gal. 1:16; Rom. 1:5; 12:3; 15; 15; 1 Cor. 3:10; Eph. 3:8; Phil. 1:7).

"In Paul's eyes the compelling logic of the Christ-event pointed to the supersession of the age of law by the age of the Spirit (3:13f.); it was because there was now [still] but one way of justification for Jews and Gentiles alike--justification by faith (cf. Rom. 3:29f.)--that in Christ Jesus' there was neither Jew now Greek' (Gal. 3:28)."⁵⁷

"While every Christian has an important role to play in missions and evangelism, we must never forget that Jesus himself is the great Missionary, the Son who has been sent from the Father; and the Holy Spirit is the true Evangelist, the divine One who convicts and converts."⁵⁸

2:10 The only point James, Peter, and John made was that Paul should not neglect the poor in his ministry. Paul had already made a commitment to do this. This could be a shorthand reference to the poor saints in Jerusalem⁵⁹ or simply a reference to the poor in general.

"Thus the events of Paul's second post-conversion visit to Jerusalem, like the events of his life both before and after his call by God, substantiate his claim that he received both his gospel and his apostleship directly from the risen Lord. If the earlier set of events supports this by showing that there was never a time when he was in a position to have derived his gospel and apostolic commission from the Jerusalem leaders, the events of the second visit support it by showing the full recognition given by those leaders to the gospel and apostolic office which already were his prior to the meeting of the two parties. A third major support will be furnished by the Antioch incident (2:11-21).⁶⁰

This section helpfully illustrates the diversity within the unity of Christ's body. Different Christians can minister to different segments of humanity. Nevertheless there must be unity in the message we proclaim. Paul expounded other types of differences that exist within the body elsewhere in the New Testament (1 Cor. 12:28-31, et al.).

Constable: Gal 2:11-21

C. Correction of another apostle 2:11-21

Paul mentioned the incident in which he reproved Peter, the Judaizers' favorite apostle, to further establish his own apostolic authority and to emphasize the truth of his gospel.

2:11 Peter had shaken hands with Paul in Jerusalem (v. 9). However when Peter came to Antioch (of Syria) Paul opposed him. Luke did not record this later event in Acts, and we cannot date it exactly. It may have happened shortly after Paul and Barnabas returned from Jerusalem to Antioch or, less likely, after the Jerusalem Council (cf. Acts 15:30).⁶¹

2:12-13 Peter ate with the Christians at Antioch, who were both Jews and Gentiles, until some Jewish visitors came from Jerusalem (cf. Acts 10:28; 11:3). They were from the group that believed Gentiles needed to undergo circumcision before they could become Christians. They were not "from James" in the sense that James endorsed their views; he did not (v. 9). Perhaps they came from the same church as James. When these men--Paul did not call them brethren--came, they intimidated Peter. He gradually separated from the Gentile Christians, evidently to avoid conflict. The other Jews living in Antioch followed Peter's example, as did Barnabas. They were being hypocritical, saying one thing and doing another. Peter had a tendency to compromise his convictions when he was under pressure (cf. Matt. 16:16-23; 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:15-18, 25-27).

"It is perhaps curious that nobody seems to have recalled that Jesus ate with publicans and sinners', which can scarcely mean that he conformed to strict Jewish practice [cf. Mark 7:19]."⁶²

2:14 Why did Paul not follow the procedure for dealing with an erring brother that Jesus had specified (Matt. 18:15)? He obviously knew about it (cf. 6:1). He may have done so before rebuking Peter publicly, but since the offense was public the rebuke also needed to be public. In ministry it is frequently difficult to know whether to follow Matthew 18:15 or 1 Timothy 5:20 in dealing with people who need correction. Normally we should start with a private rebuke (Matt. 18:15) and then, if unsuccessful, we should proceed to public confrontation (Matt. 18:16-17).

Paul probably rebuked Peter publicly because Peter's behavior had influenced many other people. He criticized Peter for inconsistency. Peter had also cast doubt on the truth that God accepts Jews and Gentiles equally thus playing into the hands of the Judaizers. In addition, he was insulting his Gentile brethren and acting contrary to his own convictions.

The weaker brethren in Jerusalem may have concerned Peter. The Gentile brethren in Antioch whom Peter made to look and feel like second-class Christians by his behavior concerned Paul. Peter and Barnabas may have felt they needed to become all things to all men to win some (1 Cor. 9:22). Paul saw that their behavior was implying a difference between Jewish and Gentile Christianity. This was as much a threat to Gentile liberty as the intrusion of the false brethren (v. 4).

Peter and Paul both acknowledged the equality of Jews and Gentiles in the church (cf. Acts 11:17). However it evidently took Peter longer to see the practical implications of this truth and to apply them to his conduct.

2:15-16 Some interpreters believe Paul's words to Peter continue through the end of chapter 2 (e.g., NIV, NKJV, New Scofield Reference Bible note). Others believe they end with verse 14 (e.g., NASB, RSV, NRSV, NET). It seems more likely to me that they end with verse 14.

"This verse [15] and the next form a single, overloaded sentence in the Greek; they have been aptly described as Paul's doctrine of justification in a nutshell' . . ."⁶³

Unsaved Jews regarded Gentiles as "sinners." Paul ironically referred to them as that since Peter was discriminating against them by behaving as he had.

"This characterization at once focuses attention on the sharp distinction between Jew and Gentile, for what made the Gentiles sinners in the estimation of the Jews was not only that they did not observe the law but also that they did not even possess it and consequently lacked the possibility of obtaining righteousness through it."⁶⁴

Paul went on to remind Peter that both of them knew that God does not justify people (declare them righteous) because they keep the Mosaic Law, part of which involved dietary regulations.

". . . Paul's recital of his address to Peter in Antioch is progressively colored by polemic against his Galatian detractors and, as it were, gradually shades into a theological discussion with his readers."⁶⁵

". . . Paul intends by the phrase works of the law' the Jewish way of life, described in 2:14 by the word iodaikos [like a Jew], characterized by exclusiveness and epitomized by the murder of Christ and the persecution of his followers, and argues that to return to that way of life would be to make Christ a servant of sin."⁶⁶

Justification comes by believing in Christ, period. Paul, Peter, and the other believers assembled had simply believed in Christ (cf. Job 9:1-2). Paul stated as a maxim that obedience to the Law never justified anybody (Rom. 3:20).⁶⁷

"This [v. 16] is one of the most important verses in the Epistle. . . .

"The threefold repetition of the doctrine of justification by faith in this one verse is important, because it shows the importance the apostle gives to the doctrine. Besides, the three phrases increase in emphasis."⁶⁸

"Justification should not be confused with forgiveness, which is the fruit of justification, nor with atonement, which is the basis of justification. Rather it is the favorable verdict of God, the righteous Judge, that one who formerly stood condemned has now been granted a new status at the bar of divine justice."⁶⁹

"To be justified means to be declared righteous before God, that is, to enjoy a status or standing of being in a right relationship with God, of being accepted by him."⁷⁰

In verses 15-21 Paul was evidently answering charges that his critics had leveled against him. It would be easier for us to interpret these verses if we knew what those charges were. As it is we can only infer what they were from Paul's answers.

2:17-18 Paul refuted the charge of the Judaizers that justification by faith led to lawless behavior. He said this made Christ, in effect, a promoter of sin. This could never be. If a Christian puts himself or herself back under the Law, the Law will show him or her to be a sinner since no one can keep the Law perfectly. These verses are a strong testimony that Christians are free from the requirements of the Mosaic Law.

What did Paul mean when he said that "while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners" (v. 17)?

"Here he [Paul] may simply mean that when law-abiding Jews like Peter and himself cease to look to the law as the basis of their justification before God and find that justification in Christ instead, they put themselves effectively on a level with sinners of the gentiles': they have, in that sense, been found sinners'--they themselves (kai autoi) as much as lesser breeds without the law. But this applies to all Jewish Christians, even to those who have not appreciated the law-free character of the gospel: by yielding faith to Christ they have in logic, if not in consciousness, abandoned faith in the law, and have had to take their place as sinners, utterly in need of God's justifying grace."⁷¹

". . . Paul is arguing that although it is true that in order to be justified in Christ it is necessary to abandon faith in the law as a means of salvation (premise 1) and hence to become sinners in the sense of being reduced to the level of the Gentiles and sinners' of v. 15 (premise 2), the conclusion does not follow that Christ thereby becomes an agent of sin (in the sense of a promoter of actual wrongdoing), support for this statement being given in vv. 18-20."⁷²

The "For" at the beginning of verse 18 is probably coordinate with the "For" at the beginning of verse 19. Both verses give reasons why "it must never be" (v. 17). Verse 18 gives the hypothetical negative proof: actual transgression inevitably follows when the law becomes the authority in the believer's life. Verse 19 gives the actual positive proof.

2:19 This verse means that the Law condemns or kills everyone. If someone is dead, he has no more responsibility to what killed him. He is in that sense free. He can from then on devote his energy as a resurrected person not to pleasing the Law but to pleasing God.

"By virtue of his incorporation into Christ (cf. v. 17) and participation in Christ's death Paul has undergone a death whereby his relation to the law has been decisively severed and the law has ceased to have any claim on him (cf. Rom. 7:4, 6). But since the vicarious death of Christ for sinners was exacted by the law (cf. Gal. 3:13) and was first an affirmation of [the law's] verdict,' Paul's death to the law through participation in Christ's death can be said to be through [Gr. instrumental dia] the law." This death through the law . . . to the law' means not only that the law as a false way of righteousness has been set aside but also that the believer is set free from the dominion of the law (under which there is transgression, Rom. 4:15) for a life of consecration to God (cf. Rom. 7:6)."⁷³

2:20 "As a result of his participation in Christ's death on the cross, Paul now explains . . ., the life he now lives is not lived by him--by the I' of v. 19, the self-righteous Pharisee who based his hope for righteousness and salvation on strict observance of the law--but by Christ, the risen and exalted One, who dwells in him."⁷⁴

When a person trusts Christ, God identifies him or her with Christ not only in the present and future but also in the past. The believer did what Christ did. When Christ died, I died. When Christ arose from the grave, I arose to newness of life. My old self-centered life died when I died with Christ. His Spirit-directed life began in me when I arose with Christ. Therefore in this sense the Christian's life is really the life of Christ.⁷⁵

We can also live by faith daily just as we became Christians by faith (v. 16). Faith in both cases means trust in Christ. We can trust Him because He loved us and gave Himself up as a sacrifice for us.

In this verse Paul's use of "crucified" instead of "put to death" or "died" stresses our sinfulness. Only the worst criminals suffered crucifixion in Paul's day. His reference to "the flesh" here is literal. It means our physical bodies. We can see Paul's great appreciation of God's love for him. He said Christ loved "me" and gave Himself for "me."

"The whole of Christian life is a response to the love exhibited in the death of the Son of God for men."⁷⁶

May we ever grow in our appreciation of the fact that He loved "me!"

"The man on the cross is facing in only one direction. He is not going back, and he has no further plans of his own."⁷⁷

2:21 Paul concluded by affirming that he did not set aside the grace of God, as Peter had done by his behavior. Peter had nullified God's grace by implying that it was not enough. He did this by putting himself back under the Law, saying in effect that obedience must accompany grace to make it sufficient. If that is true, Paul ended, Christ died needlessly. It is then really obedience that saves, not Christ.⁷⁸

The final verses of this section (vv. 18-21) form a bridge from Paul's personal experience to his doctrinal explanation. In chapters 3 and 4 he continued his defense of faith alone as the only method of salvation.

College: Gal 2:1-21

GALATIANS 2

E. SHOWDOWN: CONFERENCE IN JERUSALEM (2:1-5)

¹ Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. ² I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. ³ Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. ⁴ [This matter arose] because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. ⁵ We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.

2:1 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem,

The NIV omits the word "Next," which introduces this statement in the Greek text. The natural implication is that there was no other visit to Jerusalem between that of 1:18 and the one mentioned in this verse. Fitting this with the chronology of Acts, however, creates an apparent problem. If Gal 1:18 is the same as Acts 9:23-25, and Gal 2:1 is the same as Acts 15 (the Jerusalem Conference), what about the visit in Acts 11:29-30?

F. F. Bruce believes that the word "Next" requires that there was no other visit to Jerusalem between that of 1:18 and that of the present verse. Similarly, Burton reasons that "had there been other visits to Jerusalem in this period, Paul must have mentioned them." Such reasoning would identify the meeting of leaders described in Gal 2:1-10 with the famine relief trip of Acts 11.

However, it may well have been that Paul's visit in Acts 11:27-30 was not mentioned because it simply was not relevant. The visit in Acts 11 was very brief and had a purpose-famine relief-entirely unrelated to learning the gospel. As will be shown, it makes much better sense to connect Gal 2:1-10 with the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15.

this time with Barnabas.

Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus who had become a member of the original church in Jerusalem (Acts 4:36). Barnabas figured in three of Paul's trips to Jerusalem: first, when he was not afraid to stand up for Paul (Acts 9:27); second, when he helped deliver the money for famine relief (Acts 11:29-30); and third, when he accompanied Paul to the Jerusalem Conference to discuss the Gentile question (Acts 15:2). The mention of Barnabas, then, does not help to identify which trip this is.

It was appropriate for Barnabas to participate in the Jerusalem Conference because Barnabas had been involved in evangelizing the Gentiles from almost the beginning. At the Antioch church, and then on the first missionary journey with Paul, Barnabas could testify firsthand what God was doing among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). When the Jerusalem Conference was concluded, two local men were chosen to accompany Barnabas and Paul to carry a letter of acceptance back to the Gentile churches.

I took Titus along also.

While the visit Paul is describing has little in common with visit #2, the famine relief visit, consider the impressive list of similarities with visit #3, the Jerusalem Conference. Paul was accompanied by Barnabas, discussed with the leaders the Gentile question, and reached the conclusion that Gentiles such as Titus did not need to be circumcised, despite opposition from false brothers.

While Bruce admits this is "the majority view," he prefers to identify this visit with Acts 11:27-30, visit #2. Bruce also makes this further admission: "The absence of Titus' name from Acts is a prob-

lem with no certain solution." Making Galatians 2:1-11 describe the famine visit, however, takes some mental gymnastics. First, we assume Titus had come along, even though he is not mentioned. Then, we assume that Paul only later looked back on this trip and realized the importance of the fact that none of the apostles had said anything about Titus needing to be circumcised. In this way of thinking, verses 3-5 in Galatians 2 pop up as a sudden idea for Paul, and he reads their significance back into the visit of Acts 11.

Famine Relief Jerusalem Conference Acts 11:27-30 Galatians 2:1-11 Acts 15:1-35 Paul Paul Paul Barnabas Barnabas Barnabas Titus Cephas James James John Circumcision issue Circumcision issue False brothers Opposing believers No circumcision No circumcision 2:2 I went in response to a revelation

In Acts 15 Paul was said to be sent by the church of Antioch, while this verse says he went by revelation. This presents no real difficulty, however, since the revelation could just as easily have been received by the church as by Paul himself. What is important is that it was God's choice - not man's necessity - that sent Paul to Jerusalem. Paul himself felt no compelling need to obtain the approval of the Jerusalem apostles; the Gentile churches had no need to be confirmed by the Jewish believers. What was needed was for the people of God to stand united as one church.

and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.

Paul approached the Jerusalem leaders with the attitude of a man who has little to fear from a close inspection and thorough testing. While it has been suggested that the verb for "set before" implies the idea of consultation, Paul gives no indication that he expected to learn anything new to add to his gospel, nor that he would be told to discard part of it.

But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders,

Simple courtesy and common decency demanded that Paul first meet privately with the other leaders and present the issue to them. Little would be gained by waiting for a public confrontation and then dropping the matter on them like a bombshell. Paul was not overawed by their rank or importance (see also v. 6), but he did want to give them an opportunity to perceive the truth of the matter so they could all stand together.

The expression "seemed to be leaders" carries no insinuation of sarcasm or irony, as though they only seemed to be leaders but were not really so. Josephus uses the word of people who are rightly esteemed to excel in a community ( Wars 3.453; 4.141, 159).

for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.

We must not think that Paul was fearing for the validity of his gospel or the salvation of his converts. He did not need the apostles to confirm what Jesus had already told him! Rather, his fear was for the dividing of the church. (We should remember that Paul's commission, as he himself explained in Ephesians 3:2-6, was to bring Gentiles into the church with the Jews as one body. Should the Jews have pulled away, this purpose would have been thwarted. We must not underestimate the horror with which Paul looked at a divided church.)

2:3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.

Titus was not merely a Greek-speaking Jew (ÔEllhnisthv" , hellçnistçs ); he was a Greek of Gentile origin ("Ellhn , hellçn ). Thus, he became the perfect test case. Here was an uncircumcised Greek who had put his faith in Christ - was he saved or not? Was he a member of God's family or an outcast?

The strong force of the word "compelled" may reveal the kind of opposition Paul had to face from some in Jerusalem. Lightfoot envisions a difficult debate in which the final victory "was not attained without a struggle, in which St. Paul maintained at one time almost single-handed the cause of Gentile freedom."

2:4 [This matter arose] because some false brothers

The mention of "false brothers" also connects this visit with the Jerusalem Conference, rather than the famine relief visit. In Acts these men are called "believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees."

Bruce raises the interesting possibility that the infiltration by these false brethren had actually begun earlier, probably at Antioch (cf. Acts 15:1).

had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.

Paul's choice of terms in this verse vividly exposes the evil intent of the Jerusalem legalists. The word for "infiltrated" is also found in 2 Peter 2:1 where it describes false teachers who "secretly introduce" their destructive heresies. The term "spy on" is a word with hostile intent, found in 2 Samuel 10:3, where some of David's men were accused of intending to "spy out the city and overthrow it." The objective of Paul's opponents was not to honor Christ, but to "reduce to slavery" their brothers. They insisted on the right to judge the actions and consciences of those they could dominate.

2:5 We did not give in to them for a moment,

Paul, who became all things to all people (1 Cor 9:22), would not budge an inch on this issue. While he would gladly compromise on cultural matters, and would give up his rights to protect a weaker brother (1 Cor 8:13), Paul refused to yield in any way to the principle of legalism. Like an infectious disease, once legalism gains admittance it can grow and spread until it takes over completely.

Paul's expression "for a moment" is literally "for an hour," the smallest measurement of time with which people commonly dealt.

But why did Paul earlier have Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:1-3), when he did not allow Titus to be? The answer lies in expediency. Timothy, being half Jewish anyway, would have been more readily acceptable to Jewish audiences after he had been circumcised. (Remember that in every city Paul first tried to preach the gospel to the local Jews.) Titus, on the other hand, was a Greek and had no reason to be circumcised. Neither of the men needed circumcision to be acceptable to God.

so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.

It is important to remember that Paul was not fighting for some personal freedom-he was defending the truth of the gospel for all Gentiles. Moreover, it was not mere rights and privileges at stake-it was the principle of freedom in Christ. This also helps to explain how Paul could be willing to give up meat, wine, or other personal freedoms, but was emphatically unwilling that others should be forced to give them up.

It was acceptable for Paul to give up his personal freedoms to protect the conscience of a weaker brother (Rom 14:20-22), but it was entirely different to yield to the domination of the legalists. Whether Paul gave in or stood his ground seemed to depend on whether he was dealing with a weaker brother in danger of losing his faith, or a would-be dictator in danger of losing only his temper.

F. APOSTOLIC AGREEMENT (2:6-10)

⁶ As for those who seemed to be important - whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance - those men added nothing to my message. ⁷ On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, ^a just as Peter had been to the Jews. ^{b 8} For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. ⁹ James, Peter ^c and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. ¹⁰ All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

^a 7 Greek uncircumcised ^b 7 Greek circumcised ; also in verses 8 and 9 ^c 9 Greek Cephas ; also in verses 11 and 14

2:6 As for those who seemed to be important-whatever they were makes no difference to me;

Paul neither idolizes nor disdains the other apostles. Whatever they are - great or small - simply has no bearing on the truth of his gospel. He is not expressing disrespect toward the Jerusalem leaders; he is merely rejecting human appraisals of importance. (See note on "seemed to be" in v. 2.)

God does not judge by external appearance

Literally, God does not "take a man's face." This is to be explained "in terms of the respectful oriental greeting in which one humbly turns one's face to the ground or sinks to the earth. If the person greeted thus raises the face of the man, this is a sign of recognition and esteem."

The judges of ancient Israel were forbidden to show favoritism (Deut 1:17 LXX "Do not recognize the face in judgment") since

God does not do it (Deut 10:17). Likewise, Jesus does not do it (Luke 20:21).

- those men added nothing to my message.

The question: what else do the Gentiles need to do to be acceptable to God?

The answer: nothing!

Even as Paul writes years later about the Jerusalem Conference, he may be feeling again the emotions of that hour. Barclay notes the "broken and disjointed" sentences, reflecting the "anxiety and worry of his mind." Bruce suggests the breakdown of sentence structure is "evidence of the emotional stress under which Paul laboured as he rebutted attacks on his apostolic liberty."

2:7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,

The only ones who changed their position were "those who seemed to be leaders" (v. 2). Paul left the conference preaching the same gospel with which he came. It was the opponents who gained new insight into God's plan.

The NIV phrase "to the Gentiles" is literally "to the uncircumcision." The Greek word used by Paul and the LXX for uncircumcision was ajkrobustiva ( akrobystia ), literally "foreskin." The word was made up of ajkro- ( akro ), the Greek prefix for "top" or "tip," and tvb (bôsheth ), the Hebrew word for "shame." For the Jews the foreskin was a disgusting thing which needed to be removed; for the Greeks it carried no such shame.

just as Peter had been to the Jews.

Thus Paul was not inferior to the other apostles, nor under their jurisdiction. He was fully equal to them, with a ministry parallel to theirs. We should not think, however, that Peter went exclusively to the Jews (remember the household of Cornelius), nor that Paul went exclusively to the Gentiles. Whenever he could, Paul opened his mission work in a new town by preaching in the local synagogue.

While Paul refers to his fellow apostle as Peter here in vv. 7-8, in all other places he refers to him as Cephas. Perhaps the switch to the name Peter in this context is a reflection of the wording of the official decision reached by the leaders in Jerusalem.

2:8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews,

God was "energizing" (ejnergevw , energeô ) Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised. Not even the apostles themselves had to be identical in their ministries.

was also at work in my ministry as apostle to the Gentiles.

God was similarly "energizing" Paul in his ministry, not just as a preacher, but as an apostle. Thus Paul stood on equal footing with Peter and God empowered them both.

2:9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars,

This is the first time "those who seemed to be pillars" are named. It is probably significant that James is named first. The first time Paul went up to Jerusalem it was to see Peter, with James thrown in as an afterthought. This time James heads the list.

The use of the word "pillars" to describe church leaders is later reflected in Rev 3:12, "Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God." This presupposes the idea of the church as God's temple.

gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship

This fellowship was not just the partnership of one believer with another in Christ; it was the partnership of one apostle with another in the mission of Christ. Furthermore, the "pillars" were not hereby admitting Paul and Barnabas into apostleship; they were recognizing that they already had it.

when they recognized the grace given to me.

They agreed that Paul and Barnabas should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. But we must not think they had somehow agreed to "stay out of each other's territory" from now on. Paul's ministry in Acts 16-22 was far from exclusively directed at Gentiles. In every possible situation Paul launched his preaching in each new city among the Jews.

2:10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

What restrictions were added to Paul and Barnabas as they preached? What additions were now required? Answer: only that they keep on remembering the poor - which, of course, they were already doing. (Cf. Paul's collections for the poor of Jerusalem in Acts 11:29-30; Rom 15:25-28; 1 Cor 16:1-4; 2 Cor 8:1-9:15.)

G. SHOWDOWN: CONFLICT IN ANTIOCH (2:11-14)

¹¹ When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. ¹² Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. ¹³ The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. ¹⁴ When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

2:11 When Peter came to Antioch,

A second episode with Peter will confirm that Paul was in no way inferior to the other apostles. If anything, this event almost shows Peter as inferior to Paul!

When did this event occur? Various commentators from the time of Augustine down to the present have placed this event before the Jerusalem Conference of the preceding verses. They reason that Peter could not have participated in that decision and then later act as if the Gentile believers were unclean.

In answer to this two things must be noted. First, it is entirely within Peter's makeup to experience sudden fear in the face of standing up for what is right (in this case, associating with Gentiles). Second, and more importantly, while the Jerusalem Conference decided that Gentile believers did not have to obey laws dictating what is clean and unclean, the conference did not decide what Jewish believers must do. It is more probable, then, that this event occurred sometime after the Jerusalem Conference, just as Paul presents it here.

I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

While Paul is respectful to proper authority, he is also a bulldog in defending the truth. As noted in v. 14, Peter's glaring failure in this situation required public reproof. Paul's expression "clearly in the wrong" (kategnwsmevno" , kategnôsmenos ) is found in Josephus in the sense of "condemned already," not by some outside authority, but by the inconsistency of one's own conduct.

2:12 Before certain men came from James,

These men may have been sent by James, or they may have been merely associates of James in the work at Jerusalem. The text does not say that they came on official business, nor that such business was to insist that Peter keep away from the Gentiles.

he used to eat with the Gentiles.

Peter had learned as early as the rooftop vision which led him to preach to Cornelius (Acts 10:28) that he was free to eat whatever God has called clean. It is not surprising that after some initial reluctance a person should begin to enjoy exercising freedom in Christ. Nor is it surprising that the same person should suddenly feel "caught in the act" when former associates show up who do not approve of such freedom.

But when they arrived, he began to draw back

The "old-line" Christians from Jerusalem arrived, and Peter apparently felt he was caught in the act. In military terms he "beat a hasty retreat"; in naval terms he "headed for shelter"; in animal terms he slunk back "like a dog with its tail between its legs." Peter shrank back as from something repulsive, suddenly treating the Gentiles as if they were lepers.

and separate himself from the Gentiles

There is an irony in the fact that Peter would "separate himself" (ajfwvrizen , aphôrizen ) from the Gentiles. Using this same word, Jesus had warned his followers that they should expect to be "excluded" by their enemies (Luke 6:22). Little did the Antioch Gentiles know, however, they would on this occasion be "cut off" by their leaders!

In separating from the Gentile believers, Peter was guilty of straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel (Matt 23:24). To avoid a possible ceremonial contamination with what was "unclean," he committed a very grievous sin before God. He set aside brothers for whom Christ died.

because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

The old Peter, who had once denied his Lord to a young girl in the high priest's courtyard, was coming to the surface. Although he had previously decided that eating with Gentiles was right in the sight of God, he was now fearful how it might look in the sight of men.

The text does not require the idea that the men from James, "the ones of the circumcision," had come to oppose the Gentiles. It is entirely possible they were nothing more than Christians who were not accustomed to fellowshipping Gentiles. Bruce likes the idea that they were not just Jewish believers, either in Antioch or Jerusalem, but rather a group of radical militant "Jewish freedom fighters" who were attacking other Jews who fraternized with Gentiles and adopted Gentile ways. In the mid-forties there had been a resurgence of fighting between these nationalists and the Roman authorities. Bruce supposes that the men from James may have even been sent to warn Peter about the danger of "the ones of the circumcision."

2:13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy,

The example of Peter soon led the other Jewish believers of Antioch to withdraw from fellowshipping with Gentiles. They were not doing so because they actually thought it was wrong to eat with Gentile brethren, but because they were afraid what others - the Jewish believers from Jerusalem - might think. Anytime someone does not act on the basis of convictions, but on the basis of what people might think, it is hypocrisy. (Hypocrisy is literally the word for "play-acting," taken from the theatre of classical Athens, where actors wore masks to help them pretend to play a given role.)

so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

It was bad enough that Peter should turn against his new-found brothers in Antioch, but it was crushing that Barnabas should also turn against them. Barnabas had been active in the work of Gentile evangelism from the beginning, and had known the Antioch Christians for years. Of all people on earth, Barnabas should have stood by those he knew to be his brothers.

We should not lose sight of one other point here. Not only were Peter and Barnabas guilty of knowing better than to act as they did; the Galatian believers were guilty of the same thing. They had been led to God's grace by Paul himself and now they were turning away from both Paul and God's grace. They knew better than that!

2:14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel,

"Not acting in line with" is literally "not walking right or straight" (ojrqopodou'sin , orthopodousin ). This could be walking with a limp, not walking straight toward the goal, or most likely, not walking on the right road. Peter and the others were out of line with the direction of the Jerusalem Conference, and more than that, out of line with the decree of God.

I said to Peter in front of them all,

In all fairness to Paul, it must be noted that we do not know but that he did first confront Peter privately. At any rate, Peter's sin was not a private one. It was a public sin which had drawn half the church into sharing the same sin. It called for a public rebuke.

Augustine said he had difficulty at times in deciding whether to follow Matt 18:15 ("go to your brother in private") or 1 Tim 5:20 ("those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.")

"You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew.

Peter had begun to realize that Christ had set him free from Jewish customs, rituals, and ceremonies. He was cautiously leaving them behind, even beginning to relax in his new freedom with Gentile believers. Now, in a sudden turnabout, he insisted that the Gentiles be more Jewish than he himself, or he could not fellowship with them.

How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

The expression "force to follow Jewish customs" is "judaize" in the Greek, and the origin of our word "Judaizers." Just how much of the Mosaic law and customs the Jewish Christians were still keeping is hard to determine. As late as Acts 21:20-26 they were still making vows in the temple and were zealous for the law. With the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, God's verdict on Jewish practices was made clear.

H. APOSTOLIC CONCLUSION (2:15-21)

¹⁵"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' ¹⁶ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. ¹⁷ If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! ¹⁸ If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. ¹⁹ For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. ²⁰ I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹ I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" ^a

^a 21 Some interpreters end the quotation after verse 14.

2:15 "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners'

Paul is still addressing Peter, but at this point Paul's message begins to take on more of the tone of a public sermon. We should remember that Paul is rebuking Peter in public, and these words are especially appropriate for the Jewish believers who have been acting like hypocrites.

The phrase "Gentile sinners" is a reminder that it had always been an automatic assumption by Jews that all people outside God's covenant were sinners. But with the establishment of God's new covenant, Gentiles were freely admitted.

2:16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.

To be "justified" is to be pronounced legally innocent and "in the clear" by God. The question is, how does a person get to be "justified"? One approach is to keep God's law so carefully and completely that we earn God's approval (and admiration!). Three times in this verse, however, Paul denies that this is the way it happens. Paul's own experience had shown him that law-keeping was not the way (Phil 3:4-9) and he will quote Psalm 143:2 to back up his discovery. Observing the law so flawlessly as to earn salvation has never been accomplished by anyone but Jesus. Moreover, it was not just that Paul had chosen the wrong law to keep. In the Greek original of this verse there is no definite article before the word "law" (cf. also Gal 3:23 and Rom 3:21). Paul's shade of emphasis, then, is that man is not justified by observing "law" - any law.

The other approach to seeking to be right with God is "by faith in Jesus Christ." A person stops relying on his own ability to keep the rules, and throws himself at the foot of the cross. He relies on the merit of Jesus instead of his own. This trusting and relying on Jesus is what Scripture calls "faith." Biblical faith is something much different from a mere intellectual opinion about who Jesus is, or was. Biblical faith is trusting Jesus so much that we throw ourselves into his arms, confident that his blood can cleanse us and give us right standing with God.

As a side note, we should acknowledge that it has been proposed by some that "faith in Jesus Christ" should be translated as "(God's) faithfulness (shown) in Jesus Christ," or as "the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (himself)." While these are grammatically possible, they do not fit the context here at all. The emphasis of the following statement ("we too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus") and of the whole series of arguments which follow in chapter three, is our faith-not Christ's faithfulness. Virtually all translations agree with the NIV and the approach we are taking.

So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we might be justified by faith in Christ

Peter cannot help but agree with Paul in this statement, for he knows Paul is right. Peter himself had said the truth in Acts 15:9, 11, "He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. . . . We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

and not by observing the law,

Again, there is no "the" in the original. The emphasis is not on a particular law which cannot save, but on law itself. If salvation could be obtained by keeping law (whatever law that might be), then it would be a man's own accomplishment and not the work of God.

because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Rabbinic interpretation of this quotation from Ps 143:2 was that misuse of the law of Moses would fail to save. Paul's teaching, however, is much broader. It is not just misuse - it is any use - of the law that will fail to save. And it is not just the law of Moses that is ineffective - it is any law. Only faith in Jesus Christ can save!

2:17 If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners,

It is probably at this verse that Paul is no longer addressing Peter, or perhaps even the original audience in Antioch. The next four verses sound more like they are being addressed to the Galatian readers, answering various objections that have been, or could be, raised against Paul and his doctrine. Since these charges are not specified, we must infer them from Paul's answers. One additional clue is in the word "if" (eij , ei ) which begins v. 17 and 18. One common use of this word for "if" is in answer to a false allegation. (Example: "If I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? Matt 12:28.) Therefore the objection Paul is refuting is in some way stated in the "if" clause.

Summary: v. 17 "If . . . we are found to be sinners"

v. 18 "If I am rebuilding what I destroyed"

does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not!

Apparently, then, Paul is first answering the objection that in leaving behind the law, a man will become lawless and wicked. Such freedom in Christ would be inciting sinful behavior in the lives of new believers. Isn't it necessary, they might argue, to keep people under the law to keep them under control? Paul's answer is emphatic: absolutely not! (The KJV "God forbid!" is an unwise translation; the Greek means "may it never be!" or "let it not come to pass!" or "perish the thought!") If the person who comes to Christ is later found to be involved in some sin, it certainly was not Christ from whom he learned it.

Bruce and others have argued that "Christ promotes sin" should be understood in the sense that Christ would be increasing the number of sinners by including all the Jews along with the Gentiles. However, Paul does not say this first charge would have Christ promoting "sinners" or their ranks, but promoting "sin."

2:18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker.

The second objection Paul answers is the possibility that someone might try, or that Paul or Peter had tried, to rebuild the old fences and keep the old regulations. When Paul acted like a Jew among the Jews, or when Peter avoided eating with Gentiles, did that not confirm that the old ways were right? In brief, Paul replies that the best that could come from going back to keep the laws would be to prove once more that he is a lawbreaker.

2:19 For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.

Rebuilding the law (v. 18) is something Paul must not do, for the law has already done its work. This is the sense of the introductory "For" in v. 19. The purpose of the law was to condemn men to death (see notes on 3:19-22), and it had done its work in Paul. The holy demands of the law had exposed Paul's sinfulness. He deserved to die - and in Christ he did! Then having been crushed under the demands of the law and convinced of his inability to save himself, Paul found life in Christ. Christ met the demands of the law, and paid the penalty incurred by Paul. Now Paul is free to live for God.

2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.

Using the same word which described the criminals "crucified with" Jesus (Matt 27:44), Paul says we are also put to death. When Jesus died, we died. The law carried out on Jesus its just demands against us, and having killed him could do nothing more to him or to us!

Paul "no longer lives" in the sense that he controls his life. He has taken up his cross; he has denied himself; and he now lives only by the permission of his King, Jesus Christ. His new Lord not only permits him to live, but has taken up residence in him to help direct his life firsthand.

The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God,

Having died, Paul does yet live. As he will later say to the Philippians, "To live is Christ" (1:21). It is to live by means of Christ, with Christ, and for Christ. The dynamic which makes life in the believer is Christ who "dwells in our hearts by faith" (Eph 3:17).

who loved me and gave himself for me.

The sacrifice of Christ is the foundation of the gospel and of Christian faith. It is pivotal in Paul's letter to the Galatian churches, for it is that atoning sacrifice they are losing sight of. Either they must honor that sacrifice and trust it for their salvation, or they must abandon it and try to earn their own way through legalism.

2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God,

How would one "set aside" the grace of God? One might reject it as worthless and untrue, or more dangerously, one might accept it and then go on to live as if it made no difference. The Galatians were in grave danger of nullifying grace by returning to law.

We can learn from the Galatians that to nullify the grace of God does not require a formal statement that it is worthless - just an underlying fear that it is not quite enough.

for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

This "if" should be understood as a condition contrary to fact: If A were true, then B would be true; but in fact A is not true and neither is B. Christ certainly did not die for nothing, and a man simply cannot gain right standing with God through keeping the law.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Gal 2:10

only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do . [These men, as I say, in no way reproved or corrected me, but, on the contrary, when they saw, by the testimony of the Spirit, that I was sent to the Gentiles as Peter was sent to the Jews (for the Spirit, who gave Peter wisdom and knowledge and power when he worked among the Jews, gave me these same gifts for my work among the Gentiles), and when they also saw the manner in which the Spirit had fitted me for my work, they recognized that God had appointed to each of us a separate sphere of operations; so they agreed, these pillars, that I should preach to the Gentiles, and they should preach to the Jews, and our agreement was not a loose and tacit affair, but one to which we formally pledged ourselves by the giving of hands. The only requirement they made of me was that I should remember the poor in Judæa whenever persecution, etc., brought them into distress, and this I would have done without their request. James is mentioned before Peter because he was elder at Jerusalem, and because he appears to have acted as president of the council. (See Acts 15.) The Scripture knows nothing of the supremacy of Peter, as contended for by the Roman Catholics. As to this agreement formed between the apostles, we should note that it was not rigid. Paul, in his missionary journeys, invariably preached first to the Jews, and Peter did work at Antioch and elsewhere among the Gentiles, and was, according to the appointment of Christ, the first to open the door of the kingdom for the Gentiles (Mat 16:19 ; Acts 10; Act 15:7). Moreover, we should note that while the greatest goodwill and cordiality and most perfect understanding existed between the leaders of these two great wings of the church, this concord did not extend to the wings themselves, for it was a part of Peter's grand division of the church which was causing Paul trouble in Galatia. As to collections for the poor, Paul had taken one such offering to Jerusalem even before the meeting of this council (Act 11:28-30), and was even now taking another such collection on a large scale (Rom 15:26-27 ; Act 24:16), of which facts the Galatians were not ignorant.]

McGarvey: Gal 2:11

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. [There is no means of determining when this scene took place, but it was probably very soon after the council at Jerusalem. It forms the climax in Paul's argument, showing that he was not only the equal of Peter, but, at times, even his superior. It upsets the Romish doctrine of Peter's supremacy, and also shows that in his conduct he was not infallible; for in this instance he was not so much condemned by his fellow-apostle as he was, to use Paul's phrase, self-condemned -- his conduct at one time reproving and convicting him for his conduct at another. Luther regards Paul as here drawing a contrast between his own conduct in withstanding Peter to his face, and these gospel perverters who were slandering him behind his back.]

McGarvey: Gal 2:12

For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. [The Jews regarded it as unlawful to have social intercourse with, or to eat with, Gentiles; but Peter's great vision, teaching the fact that God was no respecter of races or persons, bore especially on the social difference (Act 10:11-16). Peter, therefore, instructed by the vision, ate with the Gentiles, and defended his conduct in so doing (Act 11:3-4 ; Act 11:12). He therefore knew perfectly what was right and lawful in the matter, but, fearing those who came from James, he played the coward, being, as Alford says, "ever the first to recognize, and the first to draw back from great truths." Peter, therefore, to avoid the censure of these Jerusalem critics, began to withdraw from the Gentiles, and finally to separate himself altogether. Such a withdrawal would mean that Peter could not take the communion with the Gentiles. The "certain" is contemptuous, and corresponds to the "some" of Gal 1:7 . It is not likely that James gave these men any authority for what they did. See his words at Act 15:19 ; and those of the decree, Act 15:24 . But James stood in high favor with the Jewish party, and hence, in his absence, would readily be quoted as sanctioning the teachings of that party.]

McGarvey: Gal 2:13

And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. [These Jews from Jerusalem appear to have swept in like an invading army, and were joined by Peter, and then by the rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch, and lastly by even Barnabas, who had hitherto been Paul's colleague in defending the gospel liberties. Truly the situation was critical. Either the surrender of the Gentiles, or a division of the church, was sure to follow if these conditions continued. Paul calls the conduct of these men "dissimulation." They were pretending that they believed one principle, when, in reality, they believed the very opposite. Bishop Lightfoot suggests that the action of Barnabas at this time may have paved the way for the quarrel which soon after separated him from Paul.]

McGarvey: Gal 2:14

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before them all [Antioch was the center and citadel of Gentile Christianity with all its privileges and liberties, and Antioch was being captured. It was time to act, and the whole fate of the church, humanly speaking, rested on one man, but that man was equal to the occasion. When leaders failed to walk according to the truth of the gospel, Paul was always heard from. He spoke here, and the church was saved. The open boldness of his unsparing rebuke, delivered before some great congregation, was a warning to these gospel-perverters of what he would do should he come to Galatia. Doubt exists as to where Paul's words to Peter end, but they seem to embrace the entire chapter], If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

McGarvey: Gal 2:15

We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles

McGarvey: Gal 2:16

yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. [If thou, being a Jew to begin with, livest, as is shown by your past custom, like a Gentile, and not like the Jews, by what right do you demand, by your changed custom, that the Gentiles should live like Jews? For even you and I, both being born Jews, and both taking the best view of ourselves possible, and regarding ourselves after the most untempered and unwarranted pride and prejudice of our race as infinitely superior to the degraded heathen (as we were wont to call them), both in righteousness and acceptability to God, even we, I say, despite all this, were forced to see and acknowledge that a man is not justified by those works of the law in which we trusted, but through faith in Jesus Christ, so that we believed on Christ Jesus that we might obtain the justification that comes through him, rather than the vain and insufficient justification of the law, for the Scripture itself (Psa 143:2) says," By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."]

McGarvey: Gal 2:17

But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? God forbid . [But if we were forced by Christ's light to confess that we were sinners under the law, so that we turned our backs upon the law as a means of justification; and if we were now so disappointed and dissatisfied with the justification which we have obtained from Christ, that we in turn abandon him and seek to return to the law, what will be said of Christ? Will not all be compelled to say that, so far as we are concerned, he has proved himself not a minister to our justification, but rather a minister to our sense of sin? And is he indeed such a minister? God forbid the thought! We may regard Paul's reproof as closing here and look upon the rest of the chapter as an elaboration of the thought addressed to the Galatians. But his address to them begins properly at Gal 3:1 ; so we prefer to take it as a continuation of the reproof, wherein Paul drops the plural for the singular that he may declare to Peter his own intentions in the matter.]

McGarvey: Gal 2:18

For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor

McGarvey: Gal 2:19

For I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God

McGarvey: Gal 2:20

I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. [If, as I say, I follow your course, Peter, and abandon and seek to destroy the law because it does not justify me, and, failing to be justified anywhere else, I return to and again build up the law, I prove myself to be a hopeless, unjustified sinner. But I am no such self-convicted transgressor; for I, following my own course, was, by the agency of the law acting as my schoolmaster (Gal 3:24), led to die to the law, thus utterly abandoning it, that I might live unto God (Rom 7:1-6). And seeking refuge from the law, I have identified myself with Christ, and in him I have died to the law, for I have been crucified with Christ; and thus it is no longer I, Paul, the law-condemned Jew, that lives, but Christ, the righteous, the justified, liveth in me. And that life I now live in the flesh is thus merged in and identified with Christ by faith -- faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me, dying to fulfill the sentence of the law in my stead.]

McGarvey: Gal 2:21

I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought. [I do not, Peter, in following my course, make void the grace of God which gave us Christ. But your course does this very thing, for if a man can be righteous and obtain justification under the law, then the death of Christ is superfluous. Paul's rebuke to Peter is not only a complete climactic justification of his claims as an apostle, but forms also a most fitting introduction, both in matter and spirit, to his immediately following rebuke of the Galatians, who were, like Peter, returning to the law.]

Lapide: Gal 2:1-21

CHAPTER 2

SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTER

i. Paul declares that he had compared his Gospel with Peter, James, and John, and that it had been approved of them so completely that there was nothing to be added to it or subtracted from it.

ii. He declares (ver. 7) that it had been mutually agreed between them that they should preach to the Jews and he to the Gentiles.

iii. He describes (ver. 11) how he had rebuked Peter openly for heedlessly assuming the appearance of a Judaiser, and so tempting the Gentiles into a similar error.

iv. He proves (ver. 16) that we are justified not by the works of the law but by the faith of Christ, and that for three reasons: ( a ) because (ver. 17) otherwise in abolishing the law Christ would be the minister of sin; because ( b ) the law itself proclaims its own abrogation in Christ, because (Ver. 21) otherwise Christ would have died in vain.

Ver. 1. — Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem. Are these years to be reckoned from the date of Paul's conversion, or from the end of the three years spent in Arabia and Damascus?  S. Jerome takes the latter, and so gets a date of seventeen years after the conversion, or A.D. 54, the twelfth of the Emperor Claudius, for this journey of S. Paul. But since Claudius ceased to reign in the next year, and was succeeded by Nero, in whose second year Paul was sent bound to Rome (Acts xxvii.), it would follow that all the history of Paul that is contained in Acts 15.-27—I shall show directly that the journey alluded to here and that described in Acts 15 are the same—must be compressed into two years, which, considering the number and importance of the events recorded, seems very improbable. Moreover, it is clear, from Act 18:11, that Paul, after what took place at Jerusalem, spent a year and a half at Corinth and then three years at Ephesus (Act 20:31). Accordingly, the opinion of Baronius and others seems better founded, by which these fourteen years are reckoned from S. Paul's conversion. He treats that as an illustrious event from which to reckon, just as we treat a call to the Papacy, to the Episcopate, or to religion as the beginning of a new era.

That this journey of Paul to Jerusalem is the same as that described in Acts xv., when he went up to the council, is evident from the identity of cause, place, and persons in both. This is the opinion of the Fathers in general, except Chrysostom, who argues as follows: In Acts xv. Paul appears as sent to Jerusalem by his fellow-Christians; but here (ver. 2) he says that he went up to Jerusalem by revelation, hence the two journeys are distinct. My answer is: I deny the consequence. For both may be true, viz., that he went up by revelation, and that he was sent by the Christians of Antioch; because, as Bede remarks, he was warned by a voice from heaven to undertake the embassy entrusted to him by the people of Antioch, and went up, both for the sake of obtaining a decision of the common question about the observance of the law, and also for his own private purpose, viz., that he might compare his own teaching with that of the chief of the Apostles (ver. 2). From what has been said it follows, as Baronius holds, that the Council of Jerusalem was held fourteen years after Paul's conversion, in the sixteenth year after the Crucifixion of Christ, in the ninth year of Claudius, A.D. 51 .

Ver. 2.— I communicated unto them that the Gospel which I preached. I put it before Peter and the Apostles, making them as it were judges of my Gospel, that they might approve, disapprove, add, or take away as they saw fit in common council, and that I might receive it then at their hands to be believed and taught. See Gal 1:16, and comments.

Observe that the Apostle did not compare his Gospel with that of the other Apostles because he had any doubt of its truth or completeness, or of its agreement with that preached by Peter and the rest; for he knew most certainly, by the revelation of God, that together with them he had received the same full and perfect Gospel, as is evident from Gal i. 11, 12. It was not for his own sake that he made the comparison, but for the sake of those converted to the faith, amongst whom Paul was traduced by the Judaising pseudo-Apostles, as one who, among the Gentiles, slighted the law of Moses, contrary to the practice of Peter, James, and John, nay, of Paul himself when among Jews. To show the falsity of the accusation, to show the agreement of his teaching with that of the other Apostles, and also to guard his own authority, Paul compares his Gospel with theirs, lest, he says, by any means I should run, or had run in vain.

To Them. That is to the first Christians, those made at Jerusalem, for the adjective "Christian" is latent in the substantive "Jerusalem."

Which were of reputation. Who seemed to be pillars (ver. 9.) of the Church and leading Apostles.

Lest I should run in vain. Lest, through the report spread abroad by the pseudo-Apostles, that my teaching was condemned by the Apostles, the faithful should believe neither me nor any teaching, and so all my labour should he rendered ineffectual Cf. S. Jerome ( Ep. xi . ad August.), Tertullian ( contra Marcion. lib. iv.), and S. Augustine ( contra Faustum ), who anticipates Luther's opinions, and against them shows that the word of God, even when most pure, and all its preachers, stand in need of the testimony and authority of men. This is what he says: " Who is so foolish as to believe nowadays that the epistle produced by Manichæus was really written by Christ, and not to believe that what Matthew wrote contained the doings and sayings of Christ? Even if he has doubts about Matthew being the author, at all events he prefers to believe about Matthew himself what he finds the Church believes, and what has been continuously believed and handed down from his times to the present, rather than what some fugitive or other from Persia, coming 200 or more years after Christ, tells us about Christ's words and works. For would the Church wholly believe the Apostle Paul himself, who was called from heaven after the Lord's ascension, if he had not found Apostles in the flesh, to whom he might make it clear by communicating his Gospel that he was of the same fellowship as they?" (lib xxviii. c. 4).

Our Protestant friends should note this, and apply it to themselves, who prefer to believe Calvin, coming 1500 years after Christ, and teaching new doctrines, rather than the Church and the unanimous tradition of so many centuries.

Observe that this testimony is not for the laity to give, even if they be magistrates, but for Peter and the Apostles, i.e., for the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops, who have succeeded the Apostles, whether individually, or assembled in council. For Paul sought this testimony to his teaching and Apostleship from the Council of Jerusalem, in which the judges were the Apostles, and where Peter, as the president, spoke first and pronounced sentence. So from the time of the Apostles up to the present time, the whole Christian world, when doubts as to the faith, or new opinions, or heresies spring up, has sought from the Roman Pontiff, and from the Councils over which he presides, either in person or by his legates, a decision and testimony as to the truth. Whatever dogmas or doctors are condemned by them the whole Christian world regards as heretical. Heretics alone, because they are heretics, have refused to recognise this condemnation, this judgment, this testimony, and have in every age avoided it. So it is not surprising if our Protestants do the same; nay, their doing so is a sure proof of novelty, of wrong faith, and of heresy.

Ver. 3.— Neither Titus, who was a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised. Observe the word compelled. Though the false brethren, the Jews, urged and tried to force it, yet I would not consent to Titus being circumcised, since he was a Gentile. Had I consented, I should have been thought to allow the necessity of circumcision and the law of Moses for Gentiles. But when I circumcised Timothy afterwards (Acts xvi. 3), I did so not under compulsion, but of my own initiative, that I might not irritate the Jews. For Timothy was not wholly a Gentile, being on his mother's side a Jew, and on his father's a Gentile, and so half-Jew, half-Gentile

Gentile. Literally "Greek" [as in A.V.] At the time of Alexander the Greeks were those of the Gentiles who were best known to the Jews.

Ver. 4. — And that. I.e., not even though the false brethren of the Jews urged it was Titus circumcised (Chrysostom, Œcumenius). S. Jerome takes away the adversative but, and makes the verse follow immediately on the construction of the preceding. But it is better to take the Greek διὰ δὲ, which our version renders sed propter, in the sense of δὴ or δη̃τα, i.e., "nempe," in spite of it all, he was not circumcised.

The interpretation of Primasius and some others, who take the δὲ, sed, in its strictly adversative sense, as meaning that Titus was not indeed compelled by the Apostles to be circumcised, but yet was circumcised because of the importunity of the false brethren, is clearly inconsistent with the following words, To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, and also with a sound faith. For circumcision having been already done away, and having given place to baptism under the Gospel, it was forbidden to Gentiles to be circumcised. But Titus was a Gentile by both parents. Cf. S. Augustine ( Ep. xix . ad. Hieron., and de Mendacio, c. 5).

Unawares brought in, who came in privily. Like spies preparing for traps to be laid for us, they crept in by stealth. Cf. Rom 5:20 and comments.

To spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus. Our liberty from the yoke and burden of the numerous legal ceremonies from which Christ has set us free by His faith and His Church.

Ver. 6. — But by those who seemed to be somewhat (supply nothing ) was adding to my teaching. The Apostle, as is his wont, breaks off and interpolates a clause ( whatsoever they were it maketh nothing to me ), and then returns to his subject with a change of case. Peter, James, and John, the chief Apostles, added nothing to me (Anselm).

They who seemed to be somewhat. (1.) These leading Apostles who seemed to be somewhat were illiterate and uncultivated fishermen, whilst I, a Roman citizen, excelled them in zeal and knowledge of the law (Ambrose and Anselm). Since Paul was pressed by the authority of the other Apostles, who were claimed as Judaisers, he exalts his own authority and his own teaching, though with all modesty. This is why he adds, God accepteth no man's person, as appears from this choice of fishermen to be Apostles. (2.) Augustine turns the όποι̃οι ( quales ) as implying sinners. No one need trouble to cast in my teeth the sins of my persecuting days, or remind Peter that he denied Christ. (3.) Chrysostom and Jerome, however, read it: Whatever they were in doctrine and observance of circumcision and the law is nothing to me; to God they will give account, for God accepteth no man's person. The first of these three explanations is nearest the intention of the Apostle.

God accepteth no man's person. I.e., the conditions attaching to a person, which have nothing to do with the free calling of God. To pay attention to these in conferring benefices and offices is in men a vice contrary to distributive justice, which is called in Greek προσωποληψία. In God it would be no vice, but it would be inconsistent with His liberality and greatness. See Rom 2:11 and comments.

Added nothing to me. This is Valla's translation [and that of A.V.], but the Greek is προσανέθεντο, they communicated nothing— being content with my statement as sufficient. See Gal 1:16 and comments.

Ver. 7. — The gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter. I.e., of the circumcised Jews. See my canon 21.

You will urge: Then Peter was not head of the Church, but Apostle and Pope of the Jews only. Some reply that this is said of the care and division of protection—that Peter was appointed to protect the Jews, Paul the Gentiles; and this especially, because he adds, He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles ; which signifies: I was given the duty, the necessary graces, and apostolic gifts for my apostleship to the Gentiles.

Jerome's answer is much better. He points out that at that time, at the very beginning of the Church, when there was still, as verse 12 shows, a wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles, Peter and Paul divided between them not power but works, so that Paul, hateful as he was to the Jews, might primarily and chiefly preach to the Gentiles, and Peter to the Jews. On occasion Paul preached to the Jews, as Acts ix. shows, and Peter to the Gentiles (Acts x.). Moreover, Peter transferred his see to Gentile Rome, as all historians, all the Fathers, the chronicles and monuments testify in common. See Bellarmine for these in detail. If any one after reading them still is in doubt, he must be too prejudiced or too impudent to form a sane judgment.

Ver. 8. — He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision— to make him the Apostle of the circumcised Jews by filling Peter with strength and effectual energy, did exactly the same for me among the Gentiles. As Ephrem puts it, he was alike effectual in us, both by working signs and wonders, by efficacy of speech, by the conversion of some—many—to Christ.

Ver. 9. — Cephas. Clement of Alexandria (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 12) and Dorotheus ( in Synopsi ) thought that that Cephas was not the Apostle Peter, but one of the seventy disciples. But the Church neither knows nor commemorates any other Cephas save S. Peter. The words, who seemed to be pillars, show that an Apostle is meant, and, therefore, Peter. Accordingly, in verse 14,  S. Paul opposes himself to Peter, as being a sort of primate over James and John. In Syriac, spoken at Antioch of Syria, the same person would be called Cephas who by the Greeks was called Peter. So the man styled Cephas here is in verse 7 Peter.

That we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. So Christ is called, in Rom. xv. 8, a minister of the circumcision, inasmuch as He was promised and given to the Jews as the first-fruits of the world. Accordingly, the Apostles at first confined their labours to these circumcised Jews.

Ver. 10 . — The poor. The Jews, who, for Christ's sake, had been spoiled of their goods by their fellows (Heb. x. 34 and Chrysostom). Jerome, however, understands the poor who became so voluntarily to be meant, those who had sold their possessions and had given the price to the Apostles, to be distributed among the faithful—especially the poor among them, of whom there was a great number (Acts ii. 45).

Ver. 11.— I withstood him to the face. Erasmus and others interpret this to mean in appearance, outwardly, feignedly, and by previous arrangement. The literal meaning is better: I openly resisted Peter, in order that the public scandal caused by him might he removed by a public rebuke (Augustine, Ambrose, Bede, Anselm, and nearly all other authorities).

Because he was to be blamed. (1.) Because he had been blamed (κατεγνωσμένος ) by other brethren, whom Peter had offended by this proceeding, in their ignorance of his true intention and motive, as Chrysostom and Jerome say, or, as Ephrem turns it, "because they were offended in him." (2.) Theophylact and Œcumenius understand it: Peter had been blamed by the other Apostles because he had eaten with the Gentile Cornelius at Cæsarea. Fearing lest he should be blamed again by them or by other Jews, he withdrew himself from all intercourse with the Gentiles. (3.) The opinion of Ambrose is better. He had fallen under the condemnation of the truth and of Gospel liberty, which sets the Gentiles free from the darkness and slavery of Judaism. (4.) The Vulgate reprehesiblis (in place of reprehensus, as with the authors cited above) is better, and agrees with the context. It gives the reason for resisting Peter, because he was to be blamed for simulating Judaism.

It may be asked whether Peter was really blameworthy and was actually blamed by Paul. For many years there was a sharp dispute on this point between S. Jerome and S. Augustine, as may be seen in their epistles. Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Baronius answer in the negative, and hold that the rebuke was only theatrical. They argue that Peter, who had lawfully followed the Jewish customs at Jerusalem among Jews, lived as a Gentile among Gentiles at Antioch; when, however, the Jews arrived who had been sent to Antioch from Jerusalem by James, he withdrew from the Gentiles in favour of the Jews, lest he should offend those who had been the earliest to receive the faith (see ver. 9), and also that he might at the same time give Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, an opportunity of rebuking him, that by yielding he might teach the Jews that the time for Judaising was past. On the other side S. Augustine maintains that Peter was really blameworthy, and was blamed by Paul, as the record distinctly declares.

Out of this arose a dispute between S. Augustine and S. Jerome about simulation and lying. Jerome argued from this action of Peter's that any similar simulation is lawful. Augustine denied that he did simulate, and laid down the unlawfulness of all lying or simulation, especially in matters of religion. In this second question, however, neither seems to have understood the other's position. Jerome did not maintain that Peter told a lie, or put on a profession of Judaism while secretly detesting it, as Augustine, by the strength of his language, seems to think that Jerome held. The latter did not say that Peter was right in professing Judaism; if he did, then it would be right for any one of the faithful to make a profession of any false faith or any heresy. But Jerome only held what S. Chrysostom did, viz., that the rebuke administered to Peter by Paul was not really intended, but was merely theatrical, it being arranged between them beforehand that Paul should rebuke Peter, not for simulation, but for thoughtless dissimulation, and that Peter should accept the rebuke thus arranged for, that so the Judaisers might be really rebuked in the specious rebuke given to Peter, and with him might clearly understand that Judaising was forbidden. The lawfulness of such an action is not denied by Augustine, all he denies is that the proceeding was of this nature.

From this it appears how little ground Cassian ( Collat. xvii. 17- 25), Origen, Clement, Erasmus, and others (see the passages in Sixtus of Sens, lib. v. annot. 105) had for founding the lawfulness of lying on this passage, or for endorsing the saying of Plato, that, although a lie is an evil thing, yet it is occasionally necessary, just as we use hellebore or some other drug, for this is now an established error condemned by Innocent III. ( Tit. de Usuris, cap. super eo.), and by Ecclesiasticus vii. 14. Against it too S. Augustine writes two treatises, one entitled de Mendacio and the other contra Mendacium. Nor is there any exception to be taken here against Jerome and Chrysostom. They only understand and excuse a secret arrangement, whereby no lie was acted, but a rebuke was simulated, and this is a legitimate action, as is evident in military stratagems, when for instance, the enemy feigns to flee, and so draws its foes into an ambush.

A third question was also disputed between Jerome and Augustine as to the date when the Old Law came to an end, but this is outside the present subject, and it is sufficient therefore to say very briefly that the Old Law, so far as obligation goes, came to an end at Pentecost, when the New Law was promulgated, but that its observance did not wholly cease, it being lawful to observe it for a while, till the Jews had been gradually weaned from it, that so in due time it might receive an honourable burial. In this dispute Augustine seems to have held the stronger position.

It may be urged that in this act of Peter's there was at least something sinful, if not actually erroneous in faith, as some have rashly asserted. By his action it may be thought that he thoughtlessly made a profession of Judaism, and so put a stumbling-block in the way of the Gentiles, and tempted them to Judaise with him. He had previously lived with the Gentiles, but he afterwards withdrew from them suddenly, went over to the Jews, and lived with them. From this the Gentiles might properly infer that judaism was necessary to salvation, both for him and themselves, and was binding on Christians; for though the Old Law, with its ceremonies, was not yet the cause of death, and might be preserved so as to secure for itself an honourable burial, and also to draw the Jews to the faith of Christ, yet it was dead, and in one sense death-giving, viz., to any one who should keep it on the supposition that it was binding on Christians. Although Peter, however, did not so regard it, yet his action was so imprudent as to give the Gentiles good reason for thinking that he did.

The justness of this remark is evident from the two remarks made by Paul: I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed ; and: When I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, Why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?—viz., by your simulation, or what the Greeks call hypocrisy. All this shows that either Peter sinned or that Paul told a lie, which God forbid. See S. Augustine ( Ep. 8, 9, and 19 to Jerome ), Cyprian ( Ep. ad Quintum ), Gregory ( Hom. 18 in Ezech.), Ambrose, &c.

To what has been said I add this: This sin of Peter's was venial, or material only, arising from want of thought, or from want of light and prudence. He seems to have thought that, being the Apostle of the Jews especially, that he ought rather to avoid scandalising them than the Gentiles, and that the Gentiles would readily recognise the rightfulness of this line of action. In so doing he erred, for " although," as S. Thomas says, " the Holy Spirit who descended an the Apostles at Pentecost established them thereafter in such prudence and grace as to keep them from mortal sins, yet he did not also save them from venial sins."

Observe that a lie may consist in deeds as well as in words. For example, if a man lead another to suppose by his conduct that he is a good man or his friend, when he is neither of these, then he is guilty of a lie. This lie by deed is what is properly called hypocrisy. Similarly, if any Christian at Rome wears a yellow cap he acts a lie, by thus giving himself out as a Jew.

Notice, however, with Cajetan that falsity in deeds is more easily excused than falsity in words. The reason is that words are express signs of mental concepts, but deeds are not, and so admit a wider interpretation. Hence if soldiers feign flight to draw the enemy into an ambush, they are not guilty of hypocrisy, as they would be if they were to say in words: "We flee, 0 enemy, because we are afraid of you."

Again, observe the following rule: When there is a just cause of concealing the truth, no falsehood is involved. Peter, in the act under discussion, had partly a just cause, viz., the fear of offending the Jews. His withdrawal from the Gentiles was not a formal declaration that he was a Judaiser, but only tantamount to saying that he preferred to serve the Jews rather than the Gentiles, the just cause of this preference being that he was more an Apostle of the former than of the latter. I say partly, for he was not wholly justified in so acting, inasmuch as he was bound, as universal pastor, to care for the Jews without neglecting the Gentiles. Hence it follows also that in one respect he sinned through want of due consideration. The infirmity of man's mind, however, is such that he cannot always hit the exact mean, and under complex circumstances benefit one without harming another.

Some one will object then: Since Paul corrected Peter, he was of equal, if not superior authority; in other words Paul, and not Peter, was the head of the Apostles.

I deny the consequence. For superiors may, in the interests of truth, be corrected by their inferiors. Augustine ( Ep. xix.), Cyprian, Gregory, and S. Thomas lay down this proposition in maintaining also that Peter, as the superior, was corrected by his inferior. The inference from what they say is that Paul was equal to the other Apostles, inferior to Peter, and hence they all were Peter's inferiors; they were the heads of the whole Church, and Peter was their chief. Gregory ( Hom. 18 in Ezech.) says: " Peter kept silence, that the first in dignity might be first in humility ;" and Augustine says the same ( Ep. xix . ad Hieron.): " Peter gave to those who should follow him a rare and holy example of humility under correction by inferiors, as Paul did of bold resistance in defence of truth to subordinates against their superiors, charity being always preserved."

He did eat with the Gentiles. He ate, according to Anselm, of pork and other forbidden meats, without any scruple, to show that the Ceremonial Law was abrogated.

Ver. 13. — And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him. What was the nature of this dissimulation? Jerome, Chrysostom, and Œcumenius say it was "economical," to prevent the Jews being scandalised; but Augustine, Anselm, and the Latins in general give a more satisfactory explanation in maintaining that it was an act of hypocrisy. The latter, too, have the Greek on their side, the literal meaning of which is, they acted hypocritically with him. They pretended to keep the law, which they knew to be abrogated. Barnabas followed them in pretending that there was a difference in meats, and that the Jews were to be preferred to the Gentiles, and so, though they did not consciously intend it, yet they made the Greeks to believe that the Old Law was necessary to salvation.

Ver. 14. — But when I saw that they walked not uprightly. The Greek word used here denotes literally to walk straight, without turning to the right hand or to the left.

If thou being a Jew lives after the manner of the Gentiles. To live as a Gentile is to partake indifferently of the same food, and thereby to show that the ceremonies of the law are dead, if not deadly, now that the Gospel is being preached. Having done this, why do you now avoid the Gentiles, and so compel them to Judaise?

Ver. 15 . — Sinners of the Gentiles. So, according to Augustine and Anselm, the Jews contemptuously called the Gentiles, as being idolaters.

Ver. 16.— A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. The English but here exactly interprets the work that the Latin translates by nisi. There is an antithesis between the works of the law and the faith of Jesus Christ, and accordingly the Protestants are wrong in neglecting the force of the antithesis, and translating the phrase as if it meant a man is justified only by the faith of Christ. Moreover, even if the Apostle had said the latter, yet he would lend no support to the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith only, for S. Thomas admits faith as the sole justifying cause. The word only excludes the works of the law, not the works of hope, fear, charity, and penance, which spring from faith as daughters from a mother.

Ver. 17.— But if while we seek to be justified by Christ we ourselves also are found sinners, is, therefore, Christ the minister of sin? 1. If we are still in sin, and are looking to faith in Christ for forgiveness, while as a matter of fact it is not to be found there, but in the law, then does Christ support sin, inasmuch as He has taken away the law, which, according to the Judaisers, alone destroys sin. If the law alone justifies, then the law of grace, which abolishes the law, is the minister of sin. This is the interpretation of Jerome, Chrysostom, Primasius, Anselm, and Theophylact.

2. Vatablus says that "to be found a sinner" means to teach that the Mosaic law is necessary to salvation along with the Evangelical law. If, says S. Paul, we have taught this, as our traducers say we have, is then Christ or the Gospel involved in this heresy?

3. Others again interpret the verse thus: If we also, who boast of our being justified in Christ, are found sinners; if we give way to our lusts equally with the Jews or the Gentiles, who are aliens to Christ, does it necessarily follow that our teaching about justification through Christ is erroneous? Does Christ make us sinners unless He be joined to the Law? If Christ's followers give way to sin it is their own fault, not His.

The first of these three interpretations is the best, as being the least forced. The others have to supply a clause; the second supplies "are called sinners," the third, "because they give way to their lusts." The first two agree better with the context. The Apostle is trying to prove that faith and not the law justifies. If, then, they who trust to faith in Christ are none the less found sinners, then Christ is found a deceiver in promising righteousness by faith, and in not keeping His promise. Hence He becomes the servant of sin, not its conqueror, especially since He has abrogated the law, which, they say, was our justifier against sin.

The Apostle uses a common Hebraism. His question implies a negative reply, and refutes the Judaising error by a reductio ad absurdum. Cf. Rom 3:5;  S. Joh 8:53; Jer 18:20.

Ver. 18. — For if I build again— if I attribute justifying faith to the law—the things which I destroyed—i.e., the law, as justifying—I make myself a Transgressor. Like a Proteus, I change my faith at every wind. This is a fresh argument. If I do what the Jews falsely allege against me, I shall be a hypocrite, a destroyer in public of what I build again in private. But a hypocrite no one has charged me with being.

Ver. 19. — For I through the law am dead to the law. The law was the forerunner of Christ, and died when He appeared. The Ceremonial died absolutely, the Moral only so far as it was a tutor, and a judge of sin. By the law itself I died to law, because itself bade me die to it and live unto Christ. This is a second reason, following on that given in ver. 17, why we are justified by Christ and not by the law. Since the law itself sent me to Christ, why do you, 0 Jews, go against its own declarations, and seek to galvanise it into fresh life? It does not, however, follow from this that the binding force of the Decalogue ceased when Christ came, for the law in this respect was not Mosaic, but natural and immutable. Cf. notes on Rom 7:1.

Accordingly, Luther's remarks here and again on chapter iv. of this Epistle are impious. " To die to the law," he says, " is nothing but to be free from obeying it, whether it be ceremonial or moral, for it is obvious that the law was given to the Jews, and not to us." He says the same in his treatise de Libertate Christiantâ : " The Christian needs neither law nor works, for by faith he is free from all law." Again, in the Wittenberg Edition of his works (pp. 189, 190), he says: " The human heart must hate above all things the law of God, and so far God Himself. " Listen to these words, all ye who have been miserably deceived by him and his colleagues, and shudder at the words not of a man but of Satan. For what more blasphemous and abominable words could Satan, the sworn foe of God and man, utter against God, or what words more dangerous to man?

The sentiments of Calvin ( Instit. lib. 3, cap. 19, § 2, 4, 7): " When conscience says, 'Thou hast sinned,' reply, ' Yes, I have sinned.'—'God will, therefore, condemn and Punish you.'—'No, for it is the law that threatens that; but I have nothing to do with the law.'—'Why?'—'Because I am free.' " Is this the pure Gospel? Did Paul teach this? " Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid. Yea, we establish the law. " (Rom 3:31.) " Who," says S. Augustine ( contra Ep. Pelag. lib. iii. c. 4), " is so impious as to say that he does not keep the commandments, because a Christian is not under the law but under grace?" Who can believe that Luther and Calvin were sent by God to be reformers of the Church, when they abrogate all law, human and Divine?

Ver. 20.— I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. By baptism I am crucified with Christ, and dead to sin and the law; I am cut off from the old tree, and grafted as a new branch into the new tree of the Cross of Christ, from which I draw a new life, so that it is not so much I that live but Christ who lives in me. It is not the law, not nature, not concupiscence, not my own will that now drives me into action; but Christ's grace is now, as it were, my soul, and the cause of all virtuous living, and the wellspring of humility, fortitude, wisdom, joy, peace, and all virtues. So Jerome, Chrysostom, Anselm.  Gregory ( Hom. 32 in Evan.) says. " We leave ourselves, we deny ourselves when we change what we were in the old man, and strive for what we are called in the new. Think how Paul denied himself when he said, 'It is not I that live.' The cruel persecutor was dead, the pious preacher had begun to live; for if he were himself, he would not be pious. But if he asserts that it is not he that lives, let him tell us whence it is that he preaches holiness in his teaching of the truth. He adds 'Yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.' It is as if he said plainly: 'As far as I am concerned, I am dead, for I do not live after the flesh; but yet I am not really dead, for I live spiritually in Christ.' " So too Chrysostom writes: " See and admire an exact explanation of life. Since he had given himself wholly to Christ and His Cross, and did everything at His command, he did not say, 'I live to Christ,' but, what is much more, 'Christ liveth in me.' " So too S. Jerome. " He who once lived as a persecutor and under the law, lives no longer. But Christ liveth in him as wisdom, fortitude, peace, joy, and all virtues. He who has not these cannot say, 'Christ liveth in me.' "

S. Bernard ( Serm. 7 in Quad.) says: These words of Paul are as if he should say: 'To all other things I am dead; I do not feel them, I pay them no attention, I care not for them. Whatever, however, is Christ's finds me alive and ready. For if I can do nothing else, at all events I can feel. Whatever makes for his honour pleases me, what against it displeases. Yea, it is not I that live, it is Christ that lives in me.' "

It is Christ then, that teaches, preaches, prays, works, suffers in me, says S. Paul, so much so that I seem to be changed into Christ and Christ into me. " Each one," says S. Augustine ( in Ep. Joan. tract. 2), " is what he loves. If thou lovest earth, thou will be earthly; if thou lovest God, thou wilt be God." Or, as S. Dionysius puts it, "Love changes the lover into what he loves." Cf. Hos 9:10: "Their abominations were according as they loved."

The metaphor of the old tree and the new, the old life and the new, used here by S. Paul, is paralleled by that used in Rom. vi., where he speaks of our being planted, buried, crucified, dead, and risen, together with Christ. So S. Ignatius wrote to the Romans, "My love was crucified" —my love, my life, my soul, my whole being was crucified when Christ suffered.

Notice here four properties of love. (1.) According to Dionysius ( de Divin. Nomin. c. 4), "love is a unifying force." This the Apostle touches in the words: "I am crucified with Christ;" I am united to, and am as it were one with Christ crucified. (2.) The second property of love is mutual inherence, which links God and man in the bonds of mutual love, and causes each to will what the other wills, and to say with the Bride in Song vi. 3: "I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine." This too S. Paul alludes to when he says that "he is in Christ, and Christ in him." (3.) The third property is to turn the thoughts always in the same direction. For love, as a bond between minds, necessarily governs the thoughts of the mind. This S. Paul touches in the words, "I live," and "Christ liveth," i.e., the same life of memory, understanding, and will. (4.) The fourth is ecstasy. " Divine love," says Dionysius ( ubi supra ), " causes ecstasy; it takes lovers out of themselves, so that they are no longer their own masters, but pass under the yoke of what they love. Hence the exclamation of Paul, when on fire with love and dominated by it: 'I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.' Like a true lover, he was beside himself. We may even venture to say that a lover passes all bounds of self, and can do everything for the greatness of his love, because it makes him reach out in every direction and lay hold of everything." Nay, ecstatic love laid hold on God Himself, and made Him communicate Himself to His creatures, and still more strongly, when it led Him to ally the Person of the Word to human nature in the Incarnation (Phil. ii. 7). It was ecstasy, therefore, which made the Word flesh, crucified It, and gave It the likeness of sin, because we were sinners and condemned to death; for it was out of His great, nay, His ecstatic love that Christ took all that we are, sin only excepted.

This ecstasy of love may almost be said to have changed the heart of Paul into the heart of Christ, just as we read about S. Catherine of Sienna, that her ardent love for Christ made her ask Him to remove her own heart and give her His; whereupon He granted her petition, and in place of her own gave her a new Christ-like heart. So too S. Chrysostom ( Hom. 23 in Ep. ad Rom.), after quoting, these words of Paul's, went on to say: " And so the heart of Paul was the heart of Christ, the tablets of the Holy Spirit, a roll written on by charity." A little before he had called the heart of Paul, " the heart of the world," and given this explanation of the term: " His heart was so enlarged that in it was room for whole cities and peoples and tribes. For 'my heart,' he says, 'is enlarged.' Nevertheless, however large it was, the love which enlarged it often brought it anguish. 'Out of much tribulation and sorrow,' he says, 'have I written unto you;' and I would fain see that heart melted, burning with love of them that they are perishing, bringing forth children. A heart that sees God is higher than the heavens, wider than the world, brighter than the rays of the sun, hotter than fire, harder than adamant, that sends forth streams of living water, a springing well, that waters not the face of the earth but the souls of men."

This ecstasy has often been experienced by saints who have been overcome by the love of Christ.  S. Dominic, when elevating the Body of Christ in the Mass, was carried aloft, and his body, catching the fire with which his soul was consumed, was kindled as it were into a flame, whilst he ascended to be united to Christ, his love.  S. Francis too conceived in his mind such ardour, as S. Bonaventura says, from the seraph who appeared to him at night, that his body was wonderfully changed from that of an earthly man to a heavenly spirit, and into an image of the Crucified: bearing the five wounds of the Saviour, and the five marks burnt into him by the fire of the love of Christ, he became a marvel to the world.

Well too says S. Gregory of Nyssa ( Hom. 15 in Cant.): " 'To me to live is Christ.' By these words the Apostle not only exclaims that in him live no human affections, such as pride, fear, lust, grief, anger, timidity, audacity, recollection of injuries, envies, desire of revenge, of money, of honour, or of glory, but that all these being killed, He only remains who is none of these, who is sanctification, purity, immortality, and light and truth, who feeds among the lilies in the glories of His saints."

So did Andrew the Apostle joyfully embrace the Cross. When he was condemned by Ægeas, Proconsul of Achaia, to be crucified for preaching the Cross, he exclaimed, as he approached the cross prepared for him: " 0 noble cross, long desired, ardently loved, ever sought, already foreseen, gaily and gladly do I come to thee; may my Master, who hung on thee, welcome me, His disciple, that through thee I may come to Him who through thee redeemed me." So saluting the cross, and making his prayer, he stripped off his garments and surrendered himself to his executioners, who thereupon tied him with ropes to the cross and raised him aloft. There he hung for two days and taught the people, till, finally, after having asked the Lord that he might not be taken down from the cross, he was surrounded with a glorious light from heaven, and when the light departed he gave up the ghost. All this is related in his Acts, which are thoroughly trustworthy.

So too S. Peter, when condemned by Nero to the cross, asked and obtained that he might be crucified, not like his Master, but with his head downwards.

S. Philip the Apostle preached the faith to the Scythians at Hierapolis, a city of Asia, during the reign of the Emperor Claudius; and having baptized many of them, he was at length crucified by the heathens and stoned, and so died a blessed martyr, as Eusebius relates, and, following him, Baronius.

When S. Bartholomew the Apostle had spread the Gospel through Lycaonia, in Greater Armenia, when Astyax was king, and had converted a temple of Ashtaroth in Lower India into a temple of the true God, and had baptized King Polemius and all his subjects, he was seized shortly afterwards, and after being beaten with sticks was crucified, and then flayed alive. On the twenty-fourth day afterwards he was beheaded, and so died.

At Rome, when Decius and Valerian were emperors, Pope Xystus was thrown into the Tullian prison and afterwards crucified. Prudentius ( Hymn. 2 de S. Laurentio ) thus alludes to this: " When Xystus was already fastened to the cross he said prophetically to Laurence, when he saw him standing weeping at the foot of his cross: 'Cease to weep for me; I go before thee, my brother. In three days thou shalt follow me.' "

S. Dionysius the Areopagite was scourged at Paris in the time of the Emperor Hadrian, then tortured by fire and thrown to the wild beasts, without suffering any harm. He was then raised on a cross, from which he was taken down and again scourged, after which his head was cut off, and he carried it in his own hands for two miles. Baronius ( in Martyrol. Od. 9).

When S. Calliopus, a devout youth, was invited to a banquet spread in honour of the gods, he replied: " I am a Christian; I worship Christ with fastings, and it is not lawful for a Christian mouth to receive what has been offered to infamous and unclean idols." The governor, on hearing this, ordered him to be cruelly scourged, and then bade him give up his foolish craze, obey the decrees of the emperors, sacrifice to the gods, and so save his life, otherwise he should be crucified like his Master. Calliopus replied: " I wonder at your impudence; you have been repeatedly told that I am a Christian, and that when a Christian dies he will live with Christ, yet you impudently fight against the truth. Hasten for me the same death as any Master bore." When the governor saw that he was not to be shaken from his purpose, he gave sentence that he should be crucified on the Friday in Holy Week. When his mother heard of this, she bribed the soldiers to crucify her son with his head downwards, which was done. When he died a voice was heard from heaven: " Come, thou citizen of Christ's kingdom and fellow-heir of the holy angels." All this is related in his Life by Surius (April 7).

Wonderful, too, was the love of the Cross shown by a mere boy, S. Wernher, and wonderful was his martyrdom by crucifixion. Having confessed and made his Communion, he was secretly taken by the Jews, and on Good Friday, in imitation of Christ, and out of hatred to Him, tied to a wooden pillar. There he was cruelly scourged, cut about with a knife in every part of his body, tortured with pincers, so that he seemed to be dead. The holy boy, however, lingered three days, hanging from the pillar, till the blood ceased to flow, when, after bearing his sufferings with the utmost patience, he gave up his spirit to Christ, crucified to the glory of God. See the account of him in Surius (April 2). For similar cruelties on the part of the Jews, see Socrates ( Hist. lib. vii. c. 16).

Ado ( Martyrol. May 22), and, following him, Baronius (A.D. 440), relates a similar story of a holy maiden named Julia, who was brought before Felix, and urged by every blandishment to sacrifice to idols. On her refusal she was beaten by the hands of the servants, tortured by means of her hair, scourged, and crucified. When she gave up the ghost a dove left her mouth and flew to heaven. Who shall find a brave woman? Her price is far off, yea, from the ends of the earth.

Lately in Japan six Franciscans, three of our Order, and seventeen Japanese laymen, among them a lad, Aloysius, of twelve years, and another, Antonius, of thirteen, were, by order of King Taicosama, crucified, and pierced with a sword in the right side. They thus joyfully suffered the agonies of martyrdom.

Who loved me and gave Himself for me. Note the use of the singular. It is not us nor for us, but me and for me. Paul speaks thus: (1.) because of the greatness and the sweetness of his love; (2.) because he felt himself the first of sinners; (3.) because each one owes thanks to Christ for His death, just as though Christ had died for him only. " Happy, thrice happy he," says S. Jerome, " who can say, because Christ lives in him, in every thought and work, 'I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.' "

Ver. 21. — I do not frustrate the grace of God. I do not reject or spurn, or, as S. Ambrose renders it, " I am not ungrateful to the grace of God." S. Augustine takes it as in the text. They frustrate the grace of God, says S. Jerome, who seek for justification through the law, and those who after baptism are polluted by sin. But this is a moral interpretation; that first given is the literal meaning.

For if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Since Christ gave His life as the price of our justification, He would have given it in vain if we could gain that justification through the law. This is a third argument, ex impossibili. No one is so mad as to say that Christ suffered in vain; but He did suffer for our justification; therefore we are justified by Christ, not by Moses—by faith, not by the law.

Commentary -- Other

Evidence: Gal 2:10

Good works are a legitimate form of evangelism . When the Salvation Army first began, their message was " soap, soup, and salvation." See Tit 3:8 .

Evidence: Gal 2:16

For those trusting in good works, see Gal 3:11 . " Neither the Jewish Law of ten commands nor its law of ceremonies was ever intended to save anybody. By a set of pictures it set forth the way of salvation, but it was not itself the way. It was a map, not a country; a model of the road, not the road itself." Charles Spurgeon

Evidence: Gal 2:19

THE FUNCTION OF THE LAW

The Law’s function is to bring death to the sinner in the same way civil law brings capital punishment to a guilty murderer. However, our offense was paid for by the Savior, leaving us free to receive the pardon of the gospel. The Law has no demand on the Christian.

Evidence: Gal 2:20

Dying to self . " The path toward humility is death to self. When self is dead, humility has been perfected. Jesus humbled Himself unto death, and by His example the way is opened for us to follow. A dead man or woman does not react to an offense. The truth is, if we become offended by the words of others, then death to self has not been finished. When we humble ourselves despite injustice and there is perfect peace of heart, then death to self is complete. Death is the seed, while humility is the ripened fruit." Alice Smith, Beyond the Veil: God’s Call to Intimate Intercession (See also Gal 5:24 )

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Galatians (Book Introduction)

The Epistle To The Galatians

Probable Date a.d. 56 Or 57

By Way of Introduction

It is a pity that we are not able to visualize more clearly the time and place of writing this powerful polemic against the Judaizers who were trying to draw away from the evangelical gospel the churches of Galatia. The data are not clear as in the Thessalonian and Corinthian Epistles. There are many things that can be said, but few are decisive. One is that the Epistle was written about seventeen years after Paul’s conversion, adding the three years of Gal_1:18 and the fourteen of Gal_2:1, though not insisting on the full number in either case. Unfortunately we do not know the precise year of his conversion. It was somewhere between a.d. 31 and 36. Another thing that is clear is that the Epistle was written after the Conference in Jerusalem over the Judaizing controversy to which Paul refers in Gal_2:1-10 and after the subsequent visit of Peter to Antioch (Gal_2:11-14). The natural interpretation of Acts 15:1-33 is to understand it as the historical narrative of the public meetings of which Paul gives an inside view in Gal_2:1-10. Not all scholars agree to this view, but the weight of the argument is for it. If so, that rules out the contention of Ramsay and others that Galatians is the earliest of Paul’s Epistles. It was written then after that Conference which took place about a.d. 49. It seems clear also that it was written after the Epistles to the Thessalonians (a.d. 50-51) which were sent from Corinth.

Did Paul mean by Galatia the Roman province as he usually does or does he make an ethnographic use of the term and mean the real Celts of North Galatia? Luke uses geographical terms in either sense. Certainly Paul preached in South Galatia in his first mission tour. See note on Act_16:6 for the discussion about the language there as bearing on his going into North Galatia. By " the churches of Galatia" Paul can mean the whole of Galatia or either South or North Galatia. The various items mentioned, like the illness that led to his preaching (Gal_4:13), " the first time" or " formerly" (Gal_4:13), " so quickly" (Gal_1:6), are not conclusive as to time or place. If Paul means only the South Galatian Churches (Pisidia, Lycaonia, Phrygia), then the Epistle, even if two visits had been made, could come some time after the second tour of Act_16:1. The place could be Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch. Even so room must be made for the seventeen years after his conversion plus the interval thereafter (some twenty years in all). If Paul includes North Galatia, the time would be more easily handled (the twenty years required from a.d. 31 to 36 to a.d. 51 to 57) and the place could be Ephesus, Philippi, or Corinth. Special treatises on the date of Galatians have been written by Askwith (1899), Round (1906), Steinmann (1908), Weber (1900)

Lightfoot held that the similarity of Galatians to Romans (written from Corinth spring of a.d. 56 or 57) naturally argues for the same general period and place. It is a possible hypothesis that, when Paul reached Corinth late autumn or early winter of A.D. 55 or 56 (Act_20:1.), he received alarming reports of the damage wrought by the Judaizers in Galatia. He had won his fight against them in Corinth (I and II Corinthians). So now he hurls this thunderbolt at them from Corinth and later, in a calmer mood, sends the fuller discussion to the church in Rome. This hypothesis is adopted here, but with full recognition of the fact that it is only hypothesis. The language and the topics and the treatment are the same that we find in Romans. Galatians thus fits in precisely between II Corinthians and Romans. It is a flaming torch in the Judaizing controversy. This Epistle was the battle cry of Martin Luther in the Reformation. Today it has served as a bulwark against the wild criticism that has sought to remove the Pauline Epistles from the realm of historical study. Paul is all ablaze in this Epistle with indignation as he faces the men who are undermining his work in Galatia.

JFB: Galatians (Book Introduction)

THE internal and external evidence for Paul's authorship is conclusive. The style is characteristically Pauline. The superscription, and allusions to the apostle of the Gentiles in the first person, throughout the Epistle, establish the same truth (Gal 1:1, Gal 1:13-24; Gal 2:1-14). His authorship is also upheld by the unanimous testimony of the ancient Church: compare IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3,7,2] (Gal 3:19); POLYCARP [Epistle to the Philippians, 3] quotes Gal 4:26; Gal 6:7; JUSTIN MARTYR, or whoever wrote the Discourse to the Greeks, alludes to Gal 4:12; Gal 5:20.

The Epistle was written "TO THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA" (Gal 1:2), a district of Asia Minor, bordering on Phrygia, Pontus, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Paphlagonia. The inhabitants (Gallo-græci, contracted into Galati, another form of the name Celts) were Gauls in origin, the latter having overrun Asia Minor after they had pillaged Delphi, about 280 B.C. and at last permanently settled in the central parts, thence called Gallo-græcia or Galatia. Their character, as shown in this Epistle, is in entire consonance with that ascribed to the Gallic race by all writers. Cæsar [Commentaries on the Gallic War, 4,5], "The infirmity of the Gauls is that they are fickle in their resolves and fond of change, and not to be trusted." So Thierry (quoted by ALFORD), "Frank, impetuous, impressible, eminently intelligent, but at the same time extremely changeable, inconstant, fond of show, perpetually quarrelling, the fruit of excessive vanity." They received Paul at first with all joy and kindness; but soon wavered in their allegiance to the Gospel and to him, and hearkened as eagerly now to Judaizing teachers as they had before to him (Gal 4:14-16). The apostle himself had been the first preacher among them (Act 16:6; Gal 1:8; Gal 4:13; see on Gal 4:13; "on account of infirmity of flesh I preached unto you at the first": implying that sickness detained him among them); and had then probably founded churches, which at his subsequent visit he "strengthened" in the faith (Act 18:23). His first visit was about A.D. 51, during his second missionary journey. JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 16.62] testifies that many Jews resided in Ancyra in Galatia. Among these and their brethren, doubtless, as elsewhere, he began his preaching. And though subsequently the majority in the Galatian churches were Gentiles (Gal 4:8-9), yet these were soon infected by Judaizing teachers, and almost suffered themselves to be persuaded to undergo circumcision (Gal 1:6; Gal 3:1, Gal 3:3; Gal 5:2-3; Gal 6:12-13). Accustomed as the Galatians had been, when heathen, to the mystic worship of Cybele (prevalent in the neighboring region of Phrygia), and the theosophistic doctrines connected with that worship, they were the more readily led to believe that the full privileges of Christianity could only be attained through an elaborate system of ceremonial symbolism (Gal 4:9-11; Gal 5:7-12). They even gave ear to the insinuation that Paul himself observed the law among the Jews, though he persuaded the Gentiles to renounce it, and that his motive was to keep his converts in a subordinate state, excluded from the full privileges of Christianity, which were enjoyed by the circumcised alone (Gal 5:11, Gal 4:16, compare with Gal 2:17); and that in "becoming all things to all men," he was an interested flatterer (Gal 1:10), aiming at forming a party for himself: moreover, that he falsely represented himself as an apostle divinely commissioned by Christ, whereas he was but a messenger sent by the Twelve and the Church at Jerusalem, and that his teaching was now at variance with that of Peter and James, "pillars" of the Church, and therefore ought not to be accepted.

His PURPOSE, then, in writing this Epistle was: (1) to defend his apostolic authority (Gal 1:11-19; Gal 2:1-14); (2) to counteract the evil influence of the Judaizers in Galatia (Gal. 3:1-4:31), and to show that their doctrine destroyed the very essence of Christianity, by lowering its spirituality to an outward ceremonial system; (3) to give exhortation for the strengthening of Galatian believers in faith towards Christ, and in the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:1-6:18). He had already, face to face, testified against the Judaizing teachers (Gal 1:9; Gal 4:16; Act 18:23); and now that he has heard of the continued and increasing prevalence of the evil, he writes with his own hand (Gal 6:11 : a labor which he usually delegated to an amanuensis) this Epistle to oppose it. The sketch he gives in it of his apostolic career confirms and expands the account in Acts and shows his independence of human authority, however exalted. His protest against Peter in Gal 2:14-21, disproves the figment, not merely of papal, but even of that apostle's supremacy; and shows that Peter, save when specially inspired, was fallible like other men.

There is much in common between this Epistle and that to the Romans on the subject of justification by faith only, and not by the law. But the Epistle to the Romans handles the subject in a didactic and logical mode, without any special reference; this Epistle, in a controversial manner, and with special reference to the Judaizers in Galatia.

The STYLE combines the two extremes, sternness. (Gal. 1:1-24; Gal 3:1-5) and tenderness (Gal 4:19-20), the characteristics of a man of strong emotions, and both alike well suited for acting on an impressible people such as the Galatians were. The beginning is abrupt, as was suited to the urgency of the question and the greatness of the danger. A tone of sadness, too, is apparent, such as might be expected in the letter of a warm-hearted teacher who had just learned that those whom he loved were forsaking his teachings for those of perverters of the truth, as well as giving ear to calumnies against himself.

The TIME OF WRITING was after the visit to Jerusalem recorded in Act 15:1, &c.; that is, A.D. 50, if that visit be, as seems probable, identical with that in Gal 2:1. Further, as Gal 1:9 ("as we said before"), and Gal 4:16 ("Have [ALFORD] I become your enemy?" namely, at my second visit, whereas I was welcomed by you at my first visit), refer to his second visit (Act 18:23), this Epistle must have been written after the date of that visit (the autumn of A.D. 54). Gal 4:13, "Ye know how . . . I preached . . . at the first" (Greek, "at the former time"), implies that Paul, at the time of writing, had been twice in Galatia; and Gal 1:6, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed," implies that he wrote not long after having left Galatia for the second time; probably in the early part of his residence at Ephesus (Act 18:23; Act 19:1, &c., from A.D. 54, the autumn, to A.D. 57, Pentecost) [ALFORD]. CONYBEARE and HOWSON, from the similarity between this Epistle and that to the Romans, the same line of argument in both occupying the writer's mind, think it was not written till his stay at Corinth (Act 20:2-3), during the winter of 57-58, whence he wrote his Epistle to the Romans; and certainly, in the theory of the earlier writing of it from Ephesus, it does seem unlikely that the two Epistles to the Corinthians, so dissimilar, should intervene between those so similar as the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans; or that the Epistle to the Galatians should intervene between the second to the Thessalonians and the first to the Corinthians. The decision between the two theories rests on the words, "so soon." If these be not considered inconsistent with little more than three years having elapsed since his second visit to Galatia, the argument, from the similarity to the Epistle to the Romans, seems to me conclusive. This to the Galatians seems written on the urgency of the occasion, tidings having reached him at Corinth from Ephesus of the Judaizing of many of his Galatian converts, in an admonitory and controversial tone, to maintain the great principles of Christian liberty and justification by faith only; that to the Romans is a more deliberate and systematic exposition of the same central truths of theology, subsequently drawn up in writing to a Church with which he was personally unacquainted. See on Gal 1:6, for BIRKS'S view. PALEY [Horæ Paulinæ] well remarks how perfectly adapted the conduct of the argument is to the historical circumstances under which the Epistle was written! Thus, that to the Galatians, a Church which Paul had founded, he puts mainly upon authority; that to the Romans, to whom he was not personally known, entirely upon argument.

JFB: Galatians (Outline)

• SUPERSCRIPTION. GREETINGS. THE CAUSE OF HIS WRITING IS THEIR SPEEDY FALLING AWAY FROM THE GOSPEL HE TAUGHT. DEFENSE OF HIS TEACHING: HIS APOSTOLIC CALL INDEPENDENT OF MAN. (Gal. 1:1-24)
• 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. (Gal. 2:1-21) 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 Act 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 (Gal 3:3; Gal 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" (Gal 5:4), [PALEY].
• REPROOF OF THE GALATIANS FOR ABANDONING FAITH FOR LEGALISM. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH VINDICATED: THE LAW SHOWN TO BE SUBSEQUENT TO THE PROMISE: BELIEVERS ARE THE SPIRITUAL SEED OF ABRAHAM, WHO WAS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH. THE LAW WAS OUR SCHOOLMASTER TO BRING US TO CHRIST, THAT WE MIGHT BECOME CHILDREN OF GOD BY FAITH. (Gal. 3:1-29)
• THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED: ILLUSTRATION OF OUR SUBJECTION TO THE LAW ONLY TILL CHRIST CAME, FROM THE SUBJECTION OF AN HEIR TO HIS GUARDIAN TILL HE IS OF AGE. PETER'S GOOD WILL TO THE GALATIANS SHOULD LEAD THEM TO THE SAME GOOD WILL TO HIM AS THEY HAD AT FIRST SHOWN. THEIR DESIRE TO BE UNDER THE LAW SHOWN BY THE ALLEGORY OF ISAAC AND ISHMAEL TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR GOSPEL LIBERTY. (Gal. 4:1-31) The fact of God's sending His Son to redeem us who were under the law (Gal 4:4), and sending the Spirit of His Son into our hearts (Gal 4:6), confirms the conclusion (Gal 3:29) that we are "heirs according to the promise."
• PERORATION. EXHORTATION TO STAND FAST IN THE GOSPEL LIBERTY, JUST SET FORTH, AND NOT TO BE LED BY JUDAIZERS INTO CIRCUMCISION, OR LAW JUSTIFICATION: YET THOUGH FREE, TO SERVE ONE ANOTHER BY LOVE: TO WALK IN THE SPIRIT, BEARING THE FRUIT THEREOF, NOT IN THE WORKS OF THE FLESH. (Gal. 5:1-26) The oldest manuscripts read, "in liberty (so ALFORD, MOBERLEY, HUMPHRY, and ELLICOTT. But as there is no Greek for 'in,' as there is in translating in 1Co 16:13; Phi 1:27; Phi 4:1, I prefer 'It is FOR freedom that') Christ hath made us free (not in, or for, a state of bondage). Stand fast, therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage" (namely, the law, Gal 4:24; Act 15:10). On "again," see on Gal 4:9.
• EXHORTATIONS CONTINUED; TO FORBEARANCE AND HUMILITY; LIBERALITY TO TEACHERS AND IN GENERAL. POSTSCRIPT AND BENEDICTION. (Gal. 6:1-18)

TSK: Galatians (Book Introduction)

The Galatians, or Gallograecians, were the descendants of Gauls, who migrated from their own country, and after a series of disasters, got possession of a large district in Asia Minor, from them called Galatia (Pausanias, Attic. c. iv). They are mentioned by historians as a tall and valiant people, who went nearly naked, and used for arms only a buckler and sword; and the impetuosity of their attack is said to have been irresistible. Their religion, before their conversion was extremely corrupt and superstitious; they are said to have worshipped the mother of the gods, under the name of Adgistis; and to have offered human sacrifices of the prisoners they took in war. Though they spoke the Greek language in common with almost all the inhabitants of Asia Minor, yet it appears from Jerome that they retained their original Gaulish language even as late as the fifth century. Christianity appears to have been first planted in these regions by St. Paul himself (Gal 1:6; Gal 4:13); who visited the churches at least twice in that country (Act 16:6; Act 18:23). It is evident that this epistle was written soon after their reception of the gospel, as he complains of their speedy apostasy from his doctrine (Gal 1:6); and as there is no notice of his second journey into that country, it has been supposed, with much probability, that it was written soon after his first, and consequently about ad 52 or 53. It appears that soon after the Apostle had left them, some Judaizing teachers intruded themselves into the churches; drawing them off from the true gospel, to depend on ceremonial observances, and to the vain endeavour of " establishing their own righteousness." It was in order to oppose this false gospel that St. Paul addressed the Galatians, and after saluting the churches of Galatia, and establishing his apostolic commission against the attacks of the false teachers, he reproves them for departing from that gospel which he had preached to them, and confirmed by the gift of the Holy Ghost - proves that justification is by faith alone, and not by the deeds of the law, from the example of Abraham, the testimony of Scripture, the curse of the law, the redemption of Christ, and the Abrahamic covenant, which the law could not disannul - shows the use of the law in connection with the covenant of grace; concludes that all believers are delivered from the law, and made the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith in Christ; illustrates his inference by God’s treatment of the Jewish church, which he put under the law, as a father puts a minor under a guardian; shows the weakness and folly of the Galatians in subjecting themselves to the law, and that by submitting themselves to circumcision they become subject to the whole law, and would forfeit the benefits of the covenant of grace; gives them various instructions and exhortations for their Christian conduct, and particularly concerning the right use of their Christian freedom; and concludes with a brief summary of the topics discussed, and by commending them to the grace of Christ.

TSK: Galatians 2 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Gal 2:1, He shows when he went up again to Jerusalem, and for what purpose; Gal 2:3, and that Titus was not circumcised; Gal 2:11, and that he resisted Peter, and told him the reason; Gal 2:14, why he and others, being Jews, do believe in Christ to be justified by faith, and not by works; Gal 2:20, and that they live not in sin, who are so justified.

Poole: Galatians 2 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 2

MHCC: Galatians (Book Introduction)

The churches in Galatia were formed partly of converted Jews, and partly of Gentile converts, as was generally the case. St. Paul asserts his apostolic character and the doctrines he taught, that he might confirm the Galatian churches in the faith of Christ, especially with respect to the important point of justification by faith alone. Thus the subject is mainly the same as that which is discussed in the epistle to the Romans, that is, justification by faith alone. In this epistle, however, attention is particularly directed to the point, that men are justified by faith without the works of the law of Moses. Of the importance of the doctrines prominently set forth in this epistle, Luther thus speaks: " We have to fear as the greatest and nearest danger, lest Satan take from us this doctrine of faith, and bring into the church again the doctrine of works and of men's traditions. Wherefore it is very necessary that this doctrine be kept in continual practice and public exercise, both of reading and hearing. If this doctrine be lost, then is also the doctrine of truth, life and salvation, lost and gone."

MHCC: Galatians 2 (Chapter Introduction)

(Gal 2:1-10) The apostle declares his being owned as an apostle of the Gentiles.

(Gal 2:11-14) He had publicly opposed Peter for judaizing.

(Gal 2:15-21) And from thence he enters upon the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, without the works of the law.

Matthew Henry: Galatians (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians

This epistle of Paul is directed not to the church or churches of a single city, as some others are, but of a country or province, for so Galatia was. It is very probable that these Galatians were first converted to the Christian faith by his ministry; or, if he was not the instrument of planting, yet at least he had been employed in watering these churches, as is evident from this epistle itself, and also from Act 18:23, where we find him going over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples. While he was with them, they had expressed the greatest esteem and affection both for his person and ministry; but he had not been long absent from them before some judaizing teachers got in among them, by whose arts and insinuations they were soon drawn into a meaner opinion both of the one and of the other. That which these false teachers chiefly aimed at was to draw them off from the truth as it is in Jesus, particularly in the great doctrine of justification, which they grossly perverted, by asserting the necessity of joining the observance of the law of Moses with faith in Christ in order to it: and, the better to accomplish this their design, they did all they could to lessen the character and reputation of the apostle, and to raise up their own on the ruins of his, representing him as one who, if he was to be owned as an apostle, yet was much inferior to others, and particularly who deserved not such a regard as Peter, James, and John, whose followers, it is likely, they pretended to be: and in both these attempts they had but too great success. This was the occasion of his writing this epistle, wherein he expresses his great concern that they had suffered themselves to be so soon turned aside from the faith of the gospel, vindicates his own character and authority as an apostle against the aspersions of his enemies, showing that his mission and doctrine were both divine, and that he was not, upon any account, behind the very chief of the apostles, 2Co 11:5. He then sets himself to assert and maintain the great gospel doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law, and to obviate some difficulties that might be apt to arise in their minds concerning it: and, having established this important doctrine, he exhorts them to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free, cautions them against the abuse of this liberty, gives them several very needful counsels and directions and then concludes the epistle by giving them a just description of those false teachers by whom they had been ensnared, and, on the contrary, of his own temper and behaviour. In all this his great scope and design were to recover those who had been perverted, to settle those who might be wavering, and to confirm such among them as had kept their integrity.

Matthew Henry: Galatians 2 (Chapter Introduction)

The apostle, in this chapter, continues the relation of his past life and conduct, which he had begun in the former; and, by some further instances of what had passed between him and the other apostles, makes it appear that he was not beholden to them either for his knowledge of the gospel or his authority as an apostle, as his adversaries would insinuate; but, on the contrary, that he was owned and approved even by them, as having an equal commission with them to this office. I. He particularly informs them of another journey which he took to Jerusalem many years after the former, and how he behaved himself at that time (Gal 2:1-10). And, II. Gives them an account of another interview he had with the apostle Peter at Antioch, and how he was obliged to behave himself towards him there. From the subject-matter of that conversation, he proceeds to discourse on the great doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, without the works of the law, which it was the main design of this epistle to establish, and which he enlarges more upon in the two following chapters.

Barclay: Galatians (Book Introduction)

A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL

The Letters Of Paul

There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writercharacter, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227.) It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.

The Difficulty Of Letters

At the same time there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.

The Ancient Letters

It is a great pity that Paulletters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last forever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paulletters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.

"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.

I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are

going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother.

I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe when I was

in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got my journey

money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things are going fine

with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line, first to let

me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly, that

I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and because

of that I hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give Capito my

heartiest greetings, and my brothers and Serenilla and my friends.

I sent you a little picture of myself painted by Euctemon. My

military name is Antonius Maximus. I pray for your good health.

Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos Daimonboy, and Turbo,

Galloniuson." (G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri,

36.)

Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who will Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paulletters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.

(i) The Greeting: Rom_1:1 ; 1Co_1:1 ; 2Co_1:1 ; Gal_1:1 ; Eph_1:1 ; Phi_1:1 ; Col 2 ; 1Th_1:1 ; 2Th_1:1 .

(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: Rom_1:7 ; 1Co_1:3 ; 2Co_1:2 ; Gal_1:3 ; Eph_1:2 ; Phi_1:3 ; Col_1:2 ; 1Th_1:1 ; 2Th_1:2 .

(iii) The Thanksgiving: Rom_1:8 ; 1Co_1:4 ; 2Co_1:3 ; Eph_1:3 ; Phi_1:3 ; 1Th_1:3 ; 2Th_1:3 .

(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.

(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: Rom 16 ; 1Co_16:19 ; 2Co_13:13 ; Phi_4:21-22 ; Col_4:12-15 ; 1Th_5:26 .

When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paulletters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.

The Immediate Situation

With a very few exceptions, all Paulletters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation.... He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paulletters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.

The Spoken Word

One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added his own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In Rom_16:22 Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end.) In 1Co_16:21 Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me" (compare Col_4:18 ; 2Th_3:17 ).

This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When Paul composed his letters, he had in his mindeye a vision of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE GALATIANS

Paul Under Attack

Someone has likened the letter to the Galatians to a sword flashing in a great swordsmanhand. Both Paul and his gospel were under attack. If that attack had succeeded, Christianity might have become just another Jewish sect, might have become a thing dependent upon circumcision and on keeping the law, instead of being a thing of grace. It is strange to think that, if Paulopponents had had their way, the gospel might have been kept for Jews and we might never have had the chance to know the love of Christ.

PaulApostleship Attacked

It is impossible for a man to possess a vivid personality and a strong character like Paul and not encounter opposition; and equally impossible for a man to lead such a revolution in religious thought as he did and not be attacked. The first attack was on his apostleship. There were many to say that he was no apostle at all.

From their own point of view they were right. In Act_1:21-22 we have the basic definition of an apostle. Judas the traitor had committed suicide; it was necessary to fill the blank made in the apostolic band. They define the man to be chosen as one who must be "one of these men who were with us during all the time our Lord went in and out amongst us, beginning from the baptism of John, until the day he was taken from us" and "a witness of the Resurrection." To be an apostle a man must have companied with Jesus during his earthly life and have witnessed his Resurrection. That qualification Paul obviously did not fulfil. Further, not so very long ago he had been the arch-persecutor of the Christian Church.

In Gal_1:1 Paul answers that. Proudly he insists that his apostleship is from no human source and that no human hand ordained him to that office, but that he received his call direct from God. Others might have the qualifications demanded when the first blank in the apostolic band was filled; but he had a unique qualification--he had met Christ face to face on the Damascus Road.

Independence And Agreement

Further, Paul insists that for his message he was dependent on no man. That is why in Gal 1-2 he carefully details his visits to Jerusalem. He is insisting that he is not preaching some second-hand message which he received from a man; he is preaching a message which he received direct from Christ. But Paul was no anarchist. He insisted that, although his message was received in entire independence, it yet had received the full approval of those who were the acknowledged leaders of the Christian Church (Gal_2:6-10 ). The gospel he preached came direct from God to him; but it was a gospel in full agreement with the faith delivered to the Church.

The Judaizers

But that gospel was under attack as well. It was a struggle which had to come and a battle which had to be fought. There were Jews who had accepted Christianity; but they believed that all Godpromises and gifts were for Jews alone and that no Gentile could be admitted to these precious privileges. They therefore believed that Christianity was for Jews and Jews alone. If Christianity was Godgreatest gift to men, that was all the more reason that none but Jews should be allowed to enjoy it. In a way that was inevitable. There was a type of Jew who arrogantly believed in the idea of the chosen people. He could say the most terrible things--"God loves only Israel of all the nations he has made." "God will judge Israel with one measure and the Gentiles with another." "The best of the snakes crush; the best of the Gentiles kill." "God created the Gentiles to be fuel for the fires of Hell." This was the spirit which made the law lay it down that it was illegal to help a Gentile mother in her sorest hour, for that would only be to bring another Gentile into the world. When this type of Jew saw Paul bringing the gospel to the despised Gentile, he was appalled and infuriated.

The Law

There was a way out of this. If a Gentile wished to become a Christian, let him become a Jew first. What did that mean? It meant that he must be circumcised and take the whole burden of the law upon him. That, for Paul, was the opposite of all that Christianity meant. It meant that a mansalvation was dependent on his ability to keep the law and could be won by his own unaided efforts; whereas, to Paul salvation was entirely a thing of grace. He believed that no man could ever earn the favour of God. All he could do was accept the love God offered him by making an act of faith and flinging himself on his mercy. The Jew would go to God saying, "Look! Here is my circumcision. Here are my works. Give me the salvation I have earned." Paul would say:

"Not the labours of my hands

Can fulfil thy lawdemands;

Could my zeal no respite know,

Could my tears for ever flow,

All for sin could not atone:

Thou must save, and thou alone.

Nothing in my hand I bring,

Simply to thy Cross I cling;

Naked, come to thee for dress;

Helpless, look to thee for grace;

Foul, I to the fountain fly;

Wash me, Saviour, or I die."

For him the essential thing was, not what a man could do for God, but what God had done for him.

"But," the Jews argued, "the greatest thing in our national life is the law. God gave that law to Moses and on it our very lives depend." Paul replied, "Wait one moment. Who is the founder of our nation? To whom were the greatest of Godpromises given?" Of course, the answer is Abraham. "Now," went on Paul, "how was it that Abraham gained the favour of God? He could not have gained it by keeping the law because he lived four hundred and thirty years before the law was given to Moses. He gained it by an act of faith. When God told him to leave his people and go out, Abraham made a sublime act of faith and went, trusting everything to him. It was faith that saved Abraham, not law; and," Paul continues, "it is faith that must save every man, not deeds of the law. The real son of Abraham is not a man racially descended from him but one who, no matter his race, makes the same surrender of faith to God."

The Law And Grace

If all this be true, one very serious question arises--what then is the place of the law? It cannot be denied that it was given by God; does this emphasis on grace simply wipe it out?

The law has its own place in the scheme of things. First, it tells men what sin is. If there is no law, a man cannot break it and there can be no such thing as sin. Second, and most important, the law really drives a man to the grace of God. The trouble about the law is that because we are sinful men we can never keep it perfectly. Its effect, therefore, is to show a man his weakness and to drive him to a despair in which he sees that there is nothing left but to throw himself on the mercy and the love of God. The law convinces us of our own insufficiency and in the end compels us to admit that the only thing which can save us is the grace of God. In other words the law is an essential stage on the way to that grace.

In this epistle Paulgreat theme is the glory of the grace of God and the necessity of realizing that we can never save ourselves.

FURTHER READING

Galatians

E. D. Burton, Galatians (ICC; G)

G. S. Duncan, The Epistle to the Galatians (MC; E)

D. Guthrie, Galatians (NCB; E)

J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle to the Galatians (MmC; G)

Abbreviations

ICC : International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

NCB: New Century Bible

E: English Text G: Greek Text

Barclay: Galatians 2 (Chapter Introduction)

The Man Who Refused To Be Overawed (Gal_2:1-10)

The Essential Unity (Gal_2:11-13)

The End Of The Law (Gal_2:14-17)

The Life That Is Crucified And Risen (Gal_2:18-21)

Constable: Galatians (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical Background

"The most uncontroverted matter in the study of Galatians is that the letter was written by Paul, the Christian apostle whose ministry is portrayed in the Acts of the Apostles."¹

The Apostle Paul directed this epistle to the churches of Galatia (1:2), and he called its recipients Galatians (3:1). However who these people were and where they lived are problems that have proved difficult to pinpoint.

The traditional opinion held that the recipients lived in the geographical district known as Galatia located in the northern part of the Roman province called Galatia in Asia Minor.² This view holds that Paul founded these churches on his second missionary journey after the Spirit forbade him to preach in the province of Asia (Acts 16:6). Paul could have written this epistle then during his third journey either from Ephesus about 54 A.D. or from Corinth about 57 A.D. The main arguments for this "North Galatian theory" are as follows. The popular use of the term "Galatians" usually signified people in this area. Second, Luke normally referred to geographical districts rather than Roman provinces in Acts. Third, there is some similarity between the Galatians as Paul referred to them in this epistle and the Gallic inhabitants of northern Galatia. Fourth, Paul travelled through this region during his second journey (Acts 16:6-8).

The more popular view today maintains that Paul wrote to the churches located in the Roman province of Galatia that he founded on his first missionary journey (cf. Acts 13:38-39, 46, 48; 14:3, 8-10).³ The arguments for this "South Galatian theory" are as follows. Acts 16:6 and 18:23 offer no support to the theory that Paul made a trip to the northern part of provincial Galatia. Second, there is no specific information about the northern Galatian churches in Acts. Third, the geographic isolation of the North Galatia district makes a visit by Paul improbable. Fourth, Paul usually referred to provincial titles in his writings. Fifth, the name "Galatians" was appropriate for the southern area. Sixth, the mention of Barnabas in Galatians 2 suggests that the Galatians had met him. Seventh, the absence of a North Galatian representative in the collection delegation referred to in 1 Corinthians 16:1 implies that it was not an evangelized area. Eighth, the influence of the Judaizers was extensive in South Galatia.

If Paul wrote this epistle to the churches of South Galatia, he probably did so at one of two times. If Paul's visit referred to in Galatians 4:13 is the same one described in Acts 16:6, he must have written this epistle after the Jerusalem Council (i.e., in or after 49 A.D.). Nevertheless it seems more likely that Galatians 4:13 refers to the visit described in Acts 14:21, so Paul must have written before the Jerusalem Council (i.e., before or in 49 A.D.). Assuming the earlier date Paul probably wrote Galatians from Antioch of Syria shortly after his first missionary journey and before the Jerusalem Council.⁴ Another less likely possibility is that he wrote it from Ephesus during his third missionary journey.⁵

The dating of the epistle affects the occasion for writing. Assuming the South Galatian theory and an early date of writing, Paul wrote mainly to stem the tide of Judaizing heresy to which he referred throughout the letter. He mentioned people who opposed him in every chapter (1:6-7; 2:4-5; 3:1; 4:17; 5:7-12; 6:12-13).

The identity of the Judaizers is also important. Their method included discrediting Paul. The first two chapters of Galatians especially deal with criticisms leveled against him personally. His critics appear to have been Jews who claimed to be Christians and who wanted Christians to submit to the authority of the Mosaic Law and its institutions. They probably came from Jerusalem and evidently had a wide influence (cf. Acts 15). One man seems to have been their spokesman (3:1; 5:7, 10) though there were several Judaizers in Galatia as the many references to "them" and "they" scattered throughout the epistle suggest.⁶

Message⁷

Probably the most distinctive impression one receives from this epistle is its severity. Paul wrote it with strong emotion, but he never let his emotions fog his argument. His dominant concern was for truth and its bearing on life.

Compared with the Corinthian correspondence Galatians is also corrective. However the tone is very different. There is no mention here of the readers' standing in Christ or any commendation of them.

The introduction is rather cold and prosaic with no mention of thankfulness. Paul begins at once to marvel at the Galatians' apostasy (1:6-9; cf. 3:1-5; 4:8-11). Even tender sentiments seem to rise from a very troubled heart (4:19-20). Obviously that of which Paul wrote in this letter was of utmost importance to him.

He was not dealing with behavior, as in Corinthians, so much as belief, which is foundational to behavior.

Galatians has been called the Manifesto of Christian Liberty. It explains that liberty: its nature, its laws, and its enemies. This little letter has at various times through history called God's people out of the bondage of legalism back into the liberty of freedom. Luther loved it so much he called it his wife.

The greatest value of this letter is not found in its denunciations but in its enunciations. We must not be so impressed with the fiery rhetoric and dramatic actions of Paul that we fail to understand the reasons underlying what he said and did.

Galatians' central teaching is a proclamation concerning liberty. It is a germinal form of the Epistle to the Romans, which Paul wrote 8 years later in 57 A.D.

Three sentences will state its major revelations.

First, the root of every Christian's Christianity is God's supply of His Holy Spirit to that person (3:5, 14). One receives new life by receiving the Holy Spirit by faith at conversion. Nothing other than faith is necessary for salvation. To affirm that one must be circumcised or baptized to receive life is to proclaim the worst of heresies. New life comes by faith alone. What makes Christians different is God indwelling us.

Second, the culture (medium) in which every Christian's Christianity grows is the desires of God's Spirit who indwells us (5:17). When a Christian has life by faith he or she is free from all other bondage: that of the flesh, and that of rites and ceremonies. (By "flesh" I mean our sinful human nature.) He has power to master the flesh, and he has found life apart from rites and ceremonies, so he is free from these. However, his liberty is not license to sin. God's Spirit enables the Christian to obey. Circumcision or baptism does not make anyone able to obey God. We can only obey God in the power of God's Spirit. In short, we are free to obey God, not to disobey Him, when the Spirit dwells within us. God's life in us bears fruit if we cooperate with Him. But if we conflict with Him it does not.

Third, the fruit that every Christian produces is the evidence of God's Spirit triumphing over his flesh (5:22). The essence of this fruit is love. The works of the flesh are the fruit of a religion that does not have the life-giving Spirit indwelling its members (i.e., ritualism). Fruit issues from life; works issue from ritualism.

The Galatians upset Paul exceedingly because whenever we add anything to faith for salvation inevitably we neglect faith. If we make something beside faith supreme, we establish a rite (e.g., baptism). When we establish a rite, practice of the rite becomes the message of religion and we divorce morality from religion. There is no motivation for righteous living. This is one difference between Christianity and all other religions. All other religions have rites, ceremonies, and creeds, but no life. Consequently there is no vital connection in these religions between belief and morality. We see that all kinds of sin result from the tragedy of adding something to the one responsibility of faith (e.g., Roman Catholicism).

Galatians is not only a proclamation, it is also a protest.

It protests against preachers of another gospel (1:8-9). These words of Paul are not only a curse, they are a statement of fact. One who preaches another gospel substitutes falsehood (which issues finally in the works of the flesh) for the truth (which issues finally in the fruit of the Spirit). Get the gospel straight before you finish your study of Galatians.

Galatians also protests against the receivers of another gospel (5:4). To add to faith is to trust ceremony, which is to deny Christ, which is to be cut off from Christ, which is to fall from grace. Ceremonies such as baptism and the Lord's Supper have a proper place in Christianity, but to make them necessary for justification is to deny Christ. A person is justified only when he or she says sincerely, "Nothing in my hands I bring, Simply to Thy cross I cling."

Galatians also protests against those who practice the deeds of the flesh, which result from a false gospel (5:21). They will not inherit God's kingdom. Their reward will be less than it would be if they did not practice the deeds of the flesh.

This letter warns us against adding any rite or ceremony or observance to faith to obtain God's acceptance. Such a practice cuts off those who rely on the ritual from Christ. Dr. William Culbertson used to say, "It is very hard to tell when the accretions to faith make faith invalid." We all struggle with this difficulty in our evangelism.

It also warns us against changing horses in midstream. That is, it warns us against trusting in faith for justification, but then concluding that the only way to be sanctified is to observe rites, ceremonies, or other observances. Having begun salvation by the Spirit we will not attain God's goal for us by the flesh. The life of the Spirit must remain the law of the Christian.

We may compare the Christian life to a three-stage Saturn rocket.

Here is another way to think of salvation. We can chart it showing the relationships of justification, sanctification, and glorification. Justification is solely an act of God that takes a moment. Sanctification is a joint enterprise between God and the Christian that takes a lifetime. Glorification is another act of God alone that takes only a moment.

I would summarize the message of the book as follows. Salvation is by God's grace through faith plus nothing. We will deal with these issues more in detail in our study of the book.

Outline⁸

I. Introduction 1:1-10

A. Salutation 1:1-5

B. Denunciation 1:6-10

II. Personal defense of Paul's gospel 1:11-2:21

A. Independence from other apostles 1:11-24

1. The source of Paul's gospel 1:11-17

2. The events of Paul's early ministry 1:18-24

B. Interdependence with other apostles 2:1-10

C. Correction of another apostle 2:11-21

III. Theological affirmation of salvation by faith 3:1-4:31

A. Vindication of the doctrine ch. 3

1. The experiential argument 3:1-5

2. The Scriptural argument 3:6-14

3. The logical argument 3:15-29

B. Clarification of the doctrine ch. 4

1. The domestic illustration 4:1-11

2. The historical illustration 4:12-20

3. The biblical illustration 4:21-31

IV. Practical application to Christian living 5:1-6:10

A. Balance in the Christian life ch. 5

1. Living without the Law 5:1-12

2. Living without license 5:13-15

3. Living by the Holy Spirit 5:16-26

B. Responsibilities of the Christian life 6:1-10

1. Toward sinning Christians 6:1

2. Toward burdened Christians 6:2-5

3. Toward teachers 6:6-9

4. Toward all people 6:10

V. Conclusion 6:11-18

Constable: Galatians

Galatians

Bibliography

Allen, Kenneth W. "Justification by Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):109-16.

Andrews, Mary E. "Paul and Repentance." Journal of Biblical Literature 54:2 (June 1935):125.

Barclay, William. The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians. Daily Study Bible series, 2nd ed. and reprint ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1962.

Barrett, C. K. Freedom and Obligation. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985.

Bauckham, Richard. "Barnabas in Galatians." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2 (January 1979):61-70.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Betz, H. D. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Blass, F., and Debrunner, A. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and edited by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Blauvelt, Livingston, Jr. "Does the Bible Teach Lordship Salvation?" Bibliotheca Sacra 143:569 (January--March 1986):37-45.

Boice, James Montgomery. "Galatians." In Romans-Galatians. Vol. 10 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Bornkamm, Gunther. Paul. New York: Harper and Row, 1971.

Brown, J. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians. Marshallton, Del.: Sovereign Grace, 1970.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians. New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1982; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Burton, Ernest deWitt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. International Critical Commentary series. Reprint ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1964.

Caird, George Bradford. Principalities and Powers. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics series. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Reprint ed., Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Campbell, Donald K. "Galatians." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 587-612. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Grace. 1922. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academic Books, n. d.

_____. Salvation. Philadelphia: Sunday School Times, 1926.

_____. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.

Chismar, Douglas E. and Raush, David A. "Regarding Theonomy: An Essay of Concern." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:3 (September 1984):315-23.

Clapp, Rodney. "Democracy as Heresy." Christianity Today 31:3 (February 20, 1987):17-23.

Cole, R. Alan. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976.

The Confession of Faith; the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, with the Scripture Proofs at Large. Reprint ed. Inverness, Scotland: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1981.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

_____. "The Gospel Message." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 201-17. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Conybeare, W. J. and Howson, J. S. The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. New ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

Cosgrove, Charles H. "The Law Has Given Sarah No Children." Novum Testamentum 29:3 (July 1987):219-35.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

De Haan, M. R. Galatians. Grand Rapids: Radio Bible Class, 1960.

DeMar, Gary. The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction. Fort Worth: Dominion Press, 1988.

Denney, James. The Death of Christ. 4th ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1913.

Dickason, C. Fred. From Bondage to Freedom. Moody Manna series. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1963.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S.v. "Galatians, Epistle to the," by F. S. Marsh.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. S.v. "Galatians, Epistle to the," by Marcus Dods.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Eadie, John. Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1884; reprint ed., Minneapolis: James and Klock Christian Publishing Co., 1977.

Ellicott, Charles J. A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, with a Revised Translation. Andover, Mass.: Warren F. Draper, 1896.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. "Israel and the Church." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 113-30. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Fuller, David P. "Paul and Galatians 3:28." Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 9:2 (November-December 1985):9-13.

Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Gangel, Kenneth O. "Biblical Feminism and Church Leadership." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:557 (January-March 1983):55-63.

George, Timothy. Galatians. New American Commentary series. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gunn, James D. G. "Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.10-14)." New Testament StudiesNew Testament Studies 31:4 (October 1985):523-42.

Guthrie, Donald. Galatians. New Century Bible Commentary series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott Publishers, Ltd., 1981.

_____. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. "Sacred Violence and Works of Law.' Is Christ Then an Agent of Sin?' (Galatians 2:17)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52:1 (January 1990):55-75.

Harrison, Everett F. "The Epistle to the Galatians." In Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1283-99. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Galatians and Exposition of Ephesians. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

Hennecke, E., and Schneemelcher, W., eds. New Testament Apocraypha. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964.

Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Edited by Leslie F. Church. 1 vol. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas: Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1989.

_____. The Gospel Under Siege. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. Grace in Eclipse. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1985.

Hoehner, Harold W. "The Duration of The Egyptian Bondage." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):306-16.

Hofius, O. "Gal 1:18: historesai Kephan." Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 75 (1984):73-84.

Hook, H. Phillip. "A Biblical Definition of Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:482 (April-June 1964):133-40.

House, H. Wayne. "Neither . . . Male nor Female . . . in Christ Jesus.'" Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):47-56.

Ice, Thomas D. "An Evaluation of Theonomic Neopostmillennialism." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:579 (July-September 1988):281-300.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S.v. "Galatians, Epistle to the," by George G. Findlay.

Ironside, Harry A. Expository Messages on the Epistle to the Galatians. Reprint ed. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1975.

Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; and Brown, David. Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Jewett, Paul K. Man as Male and Female. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975.

Jewett, Robert. Dating Paul's Life. London: SCM Press, 1979.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "Paul and The Israel of God:' An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 181-96. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Kelly, William. Lectures on the Epistle of Paul, the Apostle, to the Galatians, with a New Translation. London: G. Morrish, n.d.

Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul's Gospel. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1981.

Kitchens, Ted G. "Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):201-13.

Kline, Meredith G. "Comments on an Old-New Error." Westminster Theological Journal 41:1 (Fall 1978):172-89.

Knox, John. "On the Meaning of Galatians 1:15." Journal of Biblical Literature 106:2 (1987):301-4.

Laney, J. Carl. "The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):353-64.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 11: Galatians-Hebrews, by Otto Schmoller, Karl Braune, C. A. Auberlen, C. J. Riggenbach, J. J. Van Oosterzee, and Carl Bernhard Moll. Translated by C. C. Starbuck, M. B. Riddle, Horatio B. Hackett, John Lillie, E. A. Washburn, E. Harwood, George E. Day, and A. C. Kendrick.

Lea, Thomas D. and Griffin, Hayne P., Jr. 1, 2 Timothy, Titus. New American Commentary series. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians to the Ephesians and to the Philippians. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Lightfoot, J. B. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Lightner, Robert P. "Theological Perspectives on Theonomy." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:569 (January-March 1986):26-36; 570 (April-June 1986):134-45; 571 (July-September 1986):228-45.

Litfin, A. Duane. "Evangelical Feminism: Why Traditionalists Reject It." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:543 (July-September 1979):259-71.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1990.

Lowery, David K. "A Theology of Paul's Missionary Epistles." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 243-97. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Lull, David J. "The Law Was Our Pedagogue': A Study of Galatians 3:19-25." Journal of Biblical Literature 105:3 (September 1986):481-98.

Lyttelton, George. Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of Saint Paul. 1769. Reprint ed. Philadelphia: Monarch, 1895.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

Matzat, Don. Christ-Esteem. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1990.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Morgado, Joe, Jr. "Paul in Jerusalem: A Comparison of His Visits in Acts and Galatians." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:1 (March 1994):55-68.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. Galatians: Paul's Charter of Christian Freedom. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Munck, J. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1959.

O'Brien, Peter Thomas. Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul. Supplements to Novum Testamentum series. Vol. 49. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977.

Ogg, George. The Chronology of the Life of Paul. London: Epworth Press, 1968.

Oldham, Roger Singleton. "Positional and Functional Equality: An Appraisal of the Major Arguments for the Ordination of Women." Mid-America Theological Journal 9:2 (Fall 1985):1-29.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Pattern for Maturity. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.

_____. "The Purpose of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra. 128:511 (July-September 1971):227-33.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Pyne, Robert A. "Dependence and Duty: The Spiritual Life in Galatians 5 and Romans 6." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 144-56. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. "The Seed,' the Spirit, and the Blessing of Abraham." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):211-22.

Rackham, Richard Belward. The Acts of the Apostles. Westminster Commentaries series. 9th ed. London: Methuen Co., 1922.

Raisanen, Heikki. "Galatians 2.16 and Paul's Break with Judaism." New Testament Studies 31(October 1985):543-53.

Ramsay, William M. A Historical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899.

_____. St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960.

Richardson, Peter. Israel in the Apostolic Church. Society for New Testament Studies monograph series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia. Translated by Henry Zylstra. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Rosscup, James E. "Fruit in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):56-66.

Russell, Walter Bo, III. "Does the Christian Have Flesh' in Gal 5:13-26?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:2 (June 1993):179-87.

_____. "Rhetorical Analysis of the Book of Galatians, Part 1." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:599 (July-September 1993):341-58.

_____. "Rhetorical Analysis of the Book of Galatians, Part 2." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:600 (October-December 1993):416-39.

_____. "Who Were Paul's Opponents in Galatia?" Bibliotheca Sacra 147:587 (July-September 1990):329-50.

Ryrie, Charles C. Balancing the Christian Life. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.

_____. "Contrasting Views on Sanctification." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 189-200. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):239-47.

_____. The Grace of God. Chicago: Moody Press, 1963.

_____. So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe In Jesus Christ. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1989.

_____. "What Is Spirituality?" Bibliotheca Sacra 126:503 (July-September 1969):204-13.

Sampley, J. P. "Before God, I do not lie' (Gal. i.20): Paul's Self-Defence in the Light of Roman Legal Praxis." New Testament Studies 23 (1976-77):477-82.

Sanders, E. P. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

_____. "Sinners' Who Are Forgiven or Saints' Who Sin?" Biblitheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):400-12.

Scanzoni, Letha and Hardesty, Nancy. All We're Meant to Be. Waco: Word Books, 1974.

Schmithals, Walter. Paul and James. Translated by Dorthea M. Barton. Number 46 in the Studies in Biblical Theological series. Naperville, Il.: Alec R. Allenson Inc., 1965.

Schnackenburg, R. "Apostles before and during Paul's Time." In Apostolic History and the Gospel, pp. 287-303. Edited by W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970.

Schreiner, Thomas R. "The Church as the New Israel and the Future of Ethnic Israel." Studia Biblica et Theologica 13:1 (April 1983):17-38.

Schweizer, E. "Slaves of the Elements and Worshippers of Angels: Gal 4:3, 9 and Col 2:8, 18, 20." Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988):455-68.

Smith, Jay E. "Can Fallen Leaders Be Restored to Leadership? Bibliotheca Sacra 151:604 (October-December 1994):455-80.

Stott, John R. W. Only One Way: The Message of Galatians. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1968.

Strickland, Wayne G. "Preunderstanding and Daniel Fuller's Law-Gospel Continuum." Bibliotheca Sacra 144:574 (April-June 1987):181-93.

Swete, Henry Barclay. The Holy Spirit in the New Testament. London: Macmillan and Co., 1909.

Tenney, Merrill C. Galatians: The Charter of Christian Liberty. Revised and enlarged ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975.

Thatcher, Tom. "The Plot of Gal 3:1-18." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:3 (September 1997): 401-10.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. S.v. "abba," by G. Kittel.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Grace and Power. Reprint ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Chronological Problem of Galatians 2:1-10." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):334-40.

_____. "The Contrast between the Spiritual Conflict in Romans 7 and Galatians 5." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):310-14.

Towns, Elmer L. "Martin Luther on Sanctification." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:502 (April-June 1969):115-22.

Tozer, A. W. "Total Commitment." Decision 4:8 (August 1963):4.

Vidler, A. R. Christ's Strange Work. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1994.

Wedderburn, A. J. M. "Some Observations on Paul's Use of the Phrases In Christ' and With Christ.'" Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (October 1985):83-97.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Free. BE Books series. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1976.

Wilkin, Bob. "Galatians 5:19-21: Who Will Inherit the Kingdom?" Grace Evangelical Society Newsletter (December 1987), p. 2.

_____. "Sow for It! Reaping Abundant Eternal Life as a Reward (Galatians 6:8-9)." Grace Evangelical Society News 5:8 (August 1990):2.

Williams, Sam K. "Justification and the Spirit in Galatians." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (February 1987):91-100.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Galatians (Book Introduction)

THE

EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL, THE APOSTLE,

TO THE GALATIANS.

INTRODUCTION.

The Galatians, soon after St. Paul had preached the gospel to them, were seduced by some false teachers, who had been Jews, and who were for obliging all Christians, even those who had been Gentiles, to observe circumcision, and the other ceremonies of the Mosaical law. In this epistle he refutes the pernicious doctrine of those teachers, and also their calumny against his mission and apostleship. The subject matter of this epistle is much the same as of that to the Romans. It was written at Ephesus, about twenty-three years after our Lord's ascension. (Challoner) --- The Galatians were originally Gauls, who under their leader, Baennus, spread themselves over Greece, and at length passed over into Asia Minor, where they settled between Cappadocia and Phrygia, in the province afterwards called from them Galatia. It seems that St. Peter preached first in those parts; but it was only to the Jews, as my be gathered from the inscription of his first epistle, which he addresses to the Jews of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. But St. Paul was the first that preached to the Gentile inhabitants of this province. When he first preached to them, he was received as an angel from heaven, or rather, as Christ himself: he visited them oftener than once, and the Church he there formed was very considerable. It was the Jewish converts of Galatia (who, as we have before mentioned, were the spiritual children of St. Peter) that caused those troubles which gave rise to this epistle. They strongly advocated the legal observances; and making a handle of the high pre-eminence of St. Peter, they decried St. Paul, even calling in question his apostleship. They taught the necessity of circumcision, and other Mosaic rites, which the apostles then in part retained. Thus divisions were raised in this infant Church. On these accounts the apostle warmly asserts his apostleship, as being called by Christ himself. He shews that his doctrine was that of the other apostles, who, in the council of Jerusalem, four years before, testified their exemption from the legal observances. He teaches, that it is not by the law, but by faith, that the blessings of salvation are imparted to them. After establishing these more important parts of the epistle, he gives them instruction on various heads. The Greek subscription to this epistle informs us, that it was written from Rome. St. Jerome says, he wrote it when in chains. Theodoret says, it was the first epistle that St. Paul wrote from Rome. This opinion has probably been adopted from a mistaken interpretation of the text: I bear the marks of the wounds of Christ in my body. By these marks they understand chains, whilst the text equally applies to the mortifications and self-denials of a Christian. The contrary opinion is, that this epistle was written from Ephesus in the year of Christ 55. This is the more probable opinion, and is maintained by St. Gregory the Great, Ludovicus, Capellanus, Estius, Usher, Pearson, and many others. The authority of the Greek copies, in assigning the places whence the letters were written, has been long rejected by the learned. We find no such information in the more ancient Greek manuscripts of St. Germanus and Clermont, &c. (Calmet)

====================

Gill: Galatians (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO GALATIANS

The persons to whom this epistle is written were not such who made up a single church only, in some certain town or city, but were such of which several churches consisted, in a region or country called Galatia, as is evident from Gal 1:2 and the members of these churches seem to be chiefly, if not altogether Jews, since the apostle includes them with himself; as having been under the law, under tutors and governors, and in bondage under the elements of the world, and to whom the law had been a schoolmaster, though now they were no longer under it as such, Gal 3:23 or however, though some of them might have been originally Gentiles, yet, previous to their conversion, had become proselytes to the Jews, and now were returning to Judaism again, as appears from Gal 4:8. When and from whence this epistle was written, is not very clear and manifest: some have thought, that it was written about the time of the writing of the epistle to the Romans, and upon a like occasion; but if it was written about that time, it could not he written from Rome, as the subscription to this epistle attests, since it is certain, that when the apostle wrote his epistle to the Romans, he had never, as yet, been at Rome. Beza is of opinion, that it was written from Antioch, between the return of Paul and Barnabas thither from their first journey, and the troubles which broke out in that church, Act 14:28. But to this it is reasonably objected, that it is questionable whether there were so early any churches in Galatia at all; and if there were, it does not seem that the defection from the faith, complained of in this epistle, as yet had took place in any of the churches; for it was after this date that the troubles upon this head arose at Antioch, which seems to have been the first place, and the church there the first church the judaizing teachers practised at and upon. Some Latin exemplars testify that it was written from Ephesus; of which opinion was Erasmus; but as Dr. Lightfoot observes, the same reason is against this as the former, seeing the corruption that was got into this church was then but beginning, when the apostle was at Ephesus: it seems therefore most likely, that it was written from Rome, as the subscription in the Greek copies affirms; and which is strengthened by the Syriac and Arabic versions, seeing it seems to have been written after the apostle had made the collections, in several places, for the poor saints at Jerusalem, Gal 2:10 and when the apostasy from the faith had got to a great pitch; nor is it any objection that there is no express mention made of his bonds in it, as there is in those epistles of his, which were written from Rome; since, when he wrote this, he might have been delivered from them, as some have thought he was after his first defence; and besides, he does take notice of the marks of the Lord Jesus he bore in his body, Gal 6:17. Dr. Lightfoot places the writing of this epistle in the year and in the "fifth" of Nero; some place it in 55, and others in 58. That there were churches in Galatia very early, is certain from Act 18:23 but by whom they were planted is not so evident; very likely by the apostle, since, it is certain, both from this epistle, that he was personally in this country, and preached the Gospel here, Gal 4:13 and from Act 16:6 and if he was not the instrument of the conversion of the first of them, which laid the foundation of a Gospel church state, yet it is certain, that he was useful in strengthening the disciples and brethren throughout this country, Act 18:23. But after his departure from them, the false teachers got among them, and insinuated, that he was no apostle, at least that he was inferior to Peter, James, and John, the ministers of the circumcision; and these seduced many of the members of the churches in this place, drawing them off from the evangelical doctrine of justification by the righteousness of Christ, persuading them that the observation of the ceremonial law, particularly circumcision, was necessary to their acceptance with God, and justification in his sight: wherefore the occasion and design of this epistle were to vindicate the character of the apostle as such; to establish the true doctrine of justification by faith, in opposition to the works of the law; to recover those who were carried away with the other doctrines; to exhort the saints to stand fast in the liberty of Christ, and to various other duties of religion; and to give a true description of the false teachers, and their views, that so they might beware of them, and of their principles.

Gill: Galatians 2 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO GALATIANS 2

In this chapter the apostle proceeds with the narrative of himself, and gives an account of another journey of his to Jerusalem, where he had a conversation with the chief of the apostles; in which they approved of his ministry, allowed of his commission, and took him into fellowship with them, but gave him no new instructions, nor added to his spiritual light and knowledge; from whence it appeared that the Gospel he preached was not after men, or received from men, as he had asserted in the preceding chapter; and he also gives an account of his meeting with Peter at Antioch, and how he reproved him for some judaizing practices; which leads him to assert the doctrine of justification by faith, in opposition to the works of the law; which is the grand point he had in view to establish in this epistle, and which he vindicates from the charge of licentiousness. He begins with an account of another journey of his to Jerusalem, the circumstances of which he relates, as the time when, fourteen years ago; the persons he took with him as his companions, Barnabas and Titus, Gal 2:1 what moved him to it, a revelation from God; and the business he did when come thither, he communicated the Gospel, and that not to any but to such that were of reputation, and not publicly but privately; his end was, that it might appear how successful he had been in his ministry, and had not laboured in vain, Gal 2:2 then follows a narrative of a particular event relating to Titus, who is described as one of his companions, and by his nation, a Greek; and who though an uncircumcised person, yet the apostles and elders at Jerusalem did not oblige him to be circumcised, which showed that they were of the same mind with the apostle in this point, Gal 2:3 and the reason of it was because of the false teachers, that they might not give them any handle; who are described by their character, false brethren, by their private manner of getting in among the saints, and by their ends and views, which were to spy out their Christian liberty and bring them into bondage, Gal 2:4 to whom the apostle opposed himself, and would not give way for the least space of time; for this end, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with the Gentiles, Gal 2:5 and as for the apostles, though they were men of great character and reputation, nor would the apostle detract from it; yet they added nothing to him, he received nothing from them, Gal 2:6 but, on the other hand, partly because they saw that as the Gospel to be preached to the Jews was committed to Peter, so the same Gospel to be preached to the Gentiles was committed to Paul; and partly because of the same efficacy and success in the ministry of the one as in the ministry of the other; as also because they perceived what gifts of grace were bestowed on the apostle; they gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, as a token of their mutual agreement, and as being of the same society, Gal 2:7 nor did they give him and Barnabas anything in charge, but only to remember the poor, to which he was forward enough of himself, Gal 2:10 after which follows an account of an opposition made by the apostle to Peter, which was done at Antioch, and to his face, and not without reason, Gal 2:11 for whereas some time before he ate with the Gentiles, which was commendable in him, he afterwards declined conversation with them, moved to it by fear of the converted Jews, Gal 2:12 and such was the force of his example, that other Jews, who before did not scruple eating with the Gentiles, separated likewise, and even Barnabas himself, Paul's companion, Gal 2:13 wherefore seeing this was not walking according to the Gospel of Christ, and with that integrity and uprightness which became such persons, the apostle publicly reproved Peter, and expostulated with him; partly on account of his former conversation with the Gentiles, though he himself was a Jew, and therefore it was absurd and contradictory in him to oblige the Gentiles to live as the Jews did, Gal 2:14 and partly on account of the ledge which he and Peter and others who were Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles, had of the doctrine of justification; that it was not by the works of the law, but by faith in Christ; for to this end they had believed in Christ that they might be justified, not by the one, but by the other; which doctrine is confirmed by a passage referred to in Psa 149:2 and whereas it might be objected that this doctrine of free justification opened a door to licentiousness, the apostle answers to it by an abhorrence of it, Gal 2:17 and by observing that this would build up what he had destroyed, Gal 2:18 besides, he argues the contrary from his being dead to the law, that he might live unto God, Gal 2:19 and from his crucifixion with Christ, and of the old man with his deeds; and from Christ's living in him, and his living by faith upon him, Gal 2:20 and for the further confirmation of the doctrine of justification being by faith, and not by works, he suggests, were it otherwise, both the grace of God would be frustrated and made void, and the death of Christ be in vain, Gal 2:21.

College: Galatians (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

Since the earliest days of the concept of a commentary series jointly authored by church of Christ and Christian church scholars, I have eagerly anticipated the College Press NIV Bible Commentary. The dream of Don DeWelt was to bring brothers back together in a project honoring our common devotion to Scripture. Exegesis of the text should know no party line, but should interpret fairly and honestly what God said. Participating as a writer in this series is an honor and a challenge.

Having taught Galatians and Ephesians for twenty years in the Bible college classroom, I know that many good commentaries already exist. All the books that have been written provide a wonderful platform on which to build. No quantity of footnotes could adequately reflect my gratitude for the research of great scholars of the past.

I especially want to express my thanks to my family and my co-workers in Christ for the support and inspiration they have given me. Experience is teaching me that no member of the Lord's body functions well alone. In addition, I feel gratitude to a host of zealous students who have brought their enthusiasm and fresh insights to the halls of Ozark Christian College. Learning from students is one of the best ways to learn!

Out of my study of Galatians and Ephesians, I have learned to love the Lord and his people. Viewing God's children as my dear brothers and sisters is a rich blessing. Especially dear to me are the precious saints of God whose love has reached beyond the sectarian lines. Yearning to taste the freedom for which Christ has set us free, they have dared to love with God's own love. Out of their sincere faith and unfeigned love, it is possible to catch a glimpse of heaven. Until the family is reunited around the throne, may God bless you.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free (Gal 5:1). This freedom rings out in every page of Galatians, Paul's great "Magna Charta of the Christian faith." This epistle is our charter of Christian freedom, our declaration of independence from slavery

to the law.

Throughout the history of the church the message of Galatians has been needed to free men from chains of false doctrine. When the early Judaizers tried to bind men to the old commandments from Sinai, Galatians set them free. When the apostate church of the Dark Ages tried to bind men to a papal system of salvation by penance and works, Galatians set them free. When modern legalists try to bind us to a joyless religion of superior "rightness," Galatians sets us free.

Martin Luther was moved by Galatians to sound the reveille of the Reformation. He said, "The Epistle to the Galatians is my epistle; I have betrothed myself to it: it is my wife." His commentary on Galatians cost him more labor, and was more highly esteemed by him, than any of his other works. For Luther, as for every age, the simple gospel of the message of Galatians was a mighty weapon in the arsenal of freedom.

THE WRITER

No epistle can lay more claim to being a genuine product of the hand of Paul than can Galatians. As Kümmel says, "That Galatians is a genuine, authentic Epistle is indisputable." Paul claims to be the author (1:1 and 5:2), and the early church accepted this claim without reservation. The style and message are clearly Pauline. "His mind, character, and accents are to be seen in every paragraph."

THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

While the authorship is beyond dispute, there is considerable controversy regarding the recipients of this letter. They are called "the churches in Galatia," but just what is meant by this?

During the third century B.C. some barbarian people of Celtic origin migrated to the inner plateau of Asia Minor and established a kingdom there. Since some of the Celtic people were known in France as the Gauls, these people in Asia Minor were distinguished as the "Gallo-Graecians," from which the name "Galatians" comes.Their realm was centered around Ancyra (the modern capital of Turkey) in the northern highlands area.

After the Romans conquered this territory, it was combined in 25 B.C. into a large province containing the districts to the south, Lycaonia and Isauria, as well as parts of Pisidia and Phrygia. The newly created province was called Galatia, and included the cities known to us from Paul's missionary journeys - Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Derbe, and Lystra.

When Paul spoke of "Galatia," did he refer to ethnic Galatia (the tribal area limited to the north), or did he refer to political Galatia (the province which also included the districts to the south)? The traditional view, still shown on most Bible maps, is the "north Galatian theory." The view favored by most commentaries today is the "south Galatian theory."

The North Galatian Theory

If this view is correct, then Paul must have visited Galatia on the second missionary journey (Acts 16:6, although without preaching) and started churches there on the third missionary journey (Acts 18:23). However, Acts says nothing of the cities there, nor of Paul's preaching.

Possible arguments to support the "North Galatian theory" include the following:

1. "Galatia" meant a place inhabited specifically by the Gauls.

2. In Acts, Antioch is called "Pisidian," while Lystra and Derbe are cities of Lycaonia.

3. The Phrygians would have objected to being called Galatians, since it would remind them of their subjection to Rome.

4. Paul could not have addressed Lycaonians or Pisidians as "O foolish Galatians."

5. The fickle nature of the recipients suits the Gallic people.

6. "The region of Phrygia and Galatia" (Acts 16:6) appears to mean that Galatia was quite distinct from Phrygia.

7. There is no mention in Galatians that Paul experienced strong opposition when he preached there.

The South Galatian Theory

In the 1880s and 1890s William Ramsay did extensive archaeological work in Asia Minor. His careful research not only proved that Luke was an accurate historian; it also laid the foundation for the "south Galatian theory." This is the view favored in this commentary.

If this view is correct, then Paul visited cities of Galatia on all three of his missionary journeys. These were among the first churches he started. The cities would include Pisidian Antioch and Iconium (where Paul met resistance from the Jews), and Lystra (where Paul was first welcomed, and then stoned).

Possible arguments to support the "south Galatian theory" include the following:

1. If Galatia does not include the cities of Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, then we know absolutely nothing about the churches which were so important in Paul's life and to which such an important epistle was sent.

2. The expression "the region of Phrygia and Galatia" (Acts 16:6) is best understood as the area through which Paul would go when he left Lystra and Iconium, "the Phrygio-Galatian" territory.

3. Paul normally uses Roman imperial names for the provinces, and the Roman "Galatia" included the south.

4. "Galatians" was the only word available that would include the people of all four cities (just as "British" includes people who are Welsh, Scottish, and English).

5. "The Galatian churches" participated in the collection for the saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1), and Paul's assistants included

two South Galatians - Gaius of Derbe and Timothy of Lystra (Acts 20:4).

6. The northern area was not on the common trade routes, and it is unlikely that Paul would have made a difficult journey to reach such an out-of-the-way place "because of an illness" (Gal 4:13).

7. Judaizers are known to have followed Paul through the cities of the south.

8. Paul's words "you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God" (4:14) could be connected with his reception at Lystra, where they wanted to worship him and Barnabas.

9. The early church developed along the great trade routes, and these went through the south parts of Galatia, not the north.

10. Barnabas is mentioned three times (2:1, 9, 13), as though he is known to the readers, and he accompanied Paul only on the journey that went to the cities of the south.

THE DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING

The date and place of writing are somewhat dependent on the choice of north or south Galatia as the destination. If the "north Galatian theory" is correct, the epistle could not have been written until after Paul arrived in Ephesus on the third missionary journey (Acts 18:23-24). This would produce a date no earlier than A.D. 52-55. Lightfoot proposed that the letter was written from Corinth, perhaps A.D. 56-57.

If one is convinced that the "south Galatian theory" is correct, a much wider range of dates is possible. Galatians could have been written as early as A.D. 48, even before the Jerusalem Conference.However, as our discussion of Gal 2:1-10 will show, it is more likely that the Jerusalem Conference had already taken place when Paul wrote the letter. This would move the probable date to A.D. 50 or later. It is likely that Galatians stands among the first of Paul's epistles.

The decision about the date and place of writing does not affect the interpretation of Galatians; in fact, the reverse is true. The exegesis of the text determines the decision about date and place. One cannot say, "Paul wrote at such and such a date; therefore, the text means this." Our decision about date and place comes from indications in the text itself (Gal 1:6 "so quickly deserting"; 2:1 "fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem"; 2:11 "when Peter came to Antioch"; 4:13 "because of an illness I first preached to you"; 4:20 "I wish I could be with you now.") What we know for certain about Paul's circumstances we will learn from the text.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barclay, William. Flesh and Spirit . Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962.

. The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians . Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958.

. The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians . Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

. New Testament Words . London: SCM Press, 1964.

Bartchy, S. Scott. First Century Slavery and 1 Corinthians 7:21 . Atlanta: Scholar's Press, 1973.

Barrett, C. K. "The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians," Rechtfertigung: Festschrift fur Ernst Käsemann . Tübingen/Gottingen, 1976.

Barth, Markus. Romans . Oxford: University Press, 1980 (reprint).

Bauckham, R. J. "Barnabas in Galatians." Journal for the Study of the New Testament , Issue 2 (1979) 61-70.

Bauer, Walter; William F. Arndt; and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . 2nd ed. Rev. by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Blakely, Given. What the Bible Says About the Kingdom of God . Joplin: College Press, 1988.

Blass, F.; A. Debrunner; and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Boice, James Montgomery. Galatians . The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.

Brandenburger, Egon. "Cross," Dictionary of New Testament Theology (1975) I:391-403.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians (NIGTC). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Büchsel, Friedrich. "ajllhgorevw," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1964) I:260-263.

Bundrick, David R. "TA STOICHEIA TOU KOSMOU," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34 (Sept 1991) 353-364.

Burton, E. D. The Epistle to the Galatians (ICC). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921.

Carson, D. A.; Douglas J. Moo; and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Calvin, John. Commentary on Galatians . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961 (reprint).

Cullmann, Oskar. "Pevtro", Khfa'"," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1968) VI:100-112.

Dana, H. E. and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament . New York: Macmillan, 1955.

Deissmann, Adolph. Light from the Ancient East (Eng. Trans.). New York: Harper, 1927.

DeVries, C. E. "Paul's 'Cutting' Remarks about a Race: Galatians 5:1-12," Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Duncan, George S. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (MNTC). London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1934.

Fairweather, William. The Background of the Epistles . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1935.

Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Green, Michael. The Empty Cross of Jesus . Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984.

Guthrie, Donald. Galatians (NCBC). London: Oliphants, 1969; revised edition 1974.

Hauck, Friedrich and Siegfried Schulz. "pornhv," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1968) VI:579-595.

Holly, David. A Complete Categorized Greek-English New Testament Vocabulary . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

Howard, George. Paul: Crisis in Galatia (SNTSM 35). Cambridge: University Press, 1979.

Hurtado, L. W. "The Jerusalem Collection and the Book of Galatians," Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Issue 2 (Oct. 1979) 53.

Jewett, Robert. "Agitators and the Galatian Congregation," New Testament Studies 17 (1970-1971) 198-212.

Johnson, Robert L. The Letter of Paul to the Galatians (LWC). Austin: R. B. Sweet, 1969.

Lewis, C. S. The Four Loves . San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971 (reprint).

Liddell, Henry George; Robert Scott; and Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek English Lexicon . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.

Lightfoot, J. B. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957 (reprint).

Lohse, Eduard. "proswpolhmyiva," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1968) VI:779-780.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians (WBC). Dallas: Word, 1990.

Matera, Frank J. Galatians (Sacra Pagina). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992.

McCasland, S. Vernon. "The Greco-Roman World," The Interpreter's Bible Vol. 7, pp. 75-99. New York: Abingdon, 1951.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament . London: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Michaelis, Wilhelm. "pavqhma," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1967) V:930-935.

Moule, C. F. D. Worship in the New Testament . Richmond: John Knox Press, 1961.

Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar of New Testament Greek . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Moulton, W. F. and A. S. Geden. A Concordance to the Greek Testament . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Müller, Dietrich. "Apostle," Dictionary of New Testament Theology (1975) I:126-135.

Parker, Pierson. "Once More, Acts and Galatians." Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967) 175-180.

Pinnock, Clark H. Truth on Fire: The Message of Galatians . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972.

Oepke, A. "mesivth"," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1967) IV:598-624.

Ramsay, W. M. St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1949 (reprint).

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953.

Sampley, J. Paul. "'Before God, I do not lie' (Gal 1:20): Paul's Self-Defence in the Light of Roman Legal Praxis." New Testament Studies 23 (1977) 477-482.

Stauffer, Ethelbert. "ajgapavw," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1964) I:35-55.

Stein, Robert H. "Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times," Christianity Today (June 20, 1975) 9-11.

Stott, J. R. W. The Message of Galatians . Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1968.

Strelan, J. G. "Burden-Bearing and the Law of Christ: A Re-examination of Galatians 6:2," Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975) 266-276.

Stumpff, Albrecht. "zh'lo"," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1964) II:877-888.

Trench, R. C. Synonyms of the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953 (reprint).

Vine, W. E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words . Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1940.

Weiss, Konrad. "crhstov"," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1974) IX:483-492.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

BAGD Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Greek Lexicon (2nd. ed.)

BDF Blass-Debrunner-Funk Greek Grammar

CT Christianity Today

ExpT Expository Times

DNTT Dictionary of the New Testament, by Colin Brown

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JSNT Journal of Studies for the New Testament

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

KJV King James Version

LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon

LXX Septuagint

NEB New English Bible

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NTS New Testament Studies

RSV Revised Standard Version

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by

Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich

TEV Today's English Version

TrinJ Trinity Journal

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Galatians (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. AUTHORITY: The Apostolic Gospel - 1:1-2:21

A. Greeting - 1:1-5

B. Paul's Astonishment - 1:6-10

C. Paul's Call by God - 1:11-17

D. Paul's Brief Meeting with Leaders - 1:18-24

E. Showdown: Conference in Jerusalem - 2:1-5

F. Apostolic Agreement - 2:6-10

G. Showdown: Conflict in Antioch - 2:11-14

H. Apostolic Conclusion - 2:15-21

II. ARGUMENTS: Law Vs. Faith - 3:1-4:31

A. Argument One: Receiving the Spirit - 3:1-5

B. Argument Two: Abraham - 3:6-9

C. Argument Three: The Curse - 3:10-14

D. Argument Four: A Human Covenant - 3:15-22

E. Argument Five: The Child-Keeper - 3:23-4:7

1. The Job of the Child-Keeper - 3:23-25

2. The Benefits for the Children - 3:26-29

3. The Full Rights of the Children - 4:1-7

4. The Folly of Turning Back - 4:8-11

F. Argument Six: Paul's Personal Plea - 4:12-20

1. Paul's Former Welcome - 4:12-16

2. Paul's Present Pains - 4:17-20

G. Argument Seven: Allegory of Hagar & Sarah - 4:21-31

III. APPLICATION: Living for Freedom - 5:1-6:18

A. Freedom or a Yoke? - 5:1-6

B. The Yeast of the Agitators - 5:7-12

C. The Essence of Law and Love - 5:13-15

D. The Acts of the Sinful Nature - 5:16-21

E. The Fruit of the Spirit - 5:22-26

F. The Law of Christ - 6:1-6

G. The Harvest of the Spirit - 6:7-10

H. Paul's Own Conclusion - 6:11-18

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV