Galatians · Chapter 2
Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
John Wesley
V. 2. I went up-Not by any command from them, but by an express revelation from God.
And laid before them-The chief of the church in Jerusalem. The gospel which I preach among the Gentiles-Acts 15:4, touching justification by faith alone; not that they might confirm me therein, but that I might remove prejudice from them. Yet not publicly at first, but severally to those of eminence-Speaking to them one by one. Lest I should run, or should have run, in vain-Lest I should lose the fruit either of my present or past labours. For they might have greatly hindered this, had they not been fully satisfied both of his mission and doctrine. The word run beautifully expresses the swift progress of the gospel.
Adam Clarke
Verse 2. I went up by revelation] This either means, that he went up at that time by an express revelation from God that it was his duty to do so, made either to the Church of Antioch to send these persons to Jerusalem, or to these persons to go according to the directions of that Church; or the apostle here wishes to say, that, having received the Gospel by revelation from God, to preach Christ among the Gentiles, he went up according to that revelation, and told what God had done by him among the Gentiles: or it may refer to the revelation made to certain prophets who came to Antioch, and particularly Agabus, who signified by the Spirit that there would be a dearth; in consequence of which the disciples purposed to send relief to their poor brethren at Jerusalem. See Acts 11:27-30. But privately to them which were of reputation] toiv dokousi. To the chief men; those who were highest in reputation among the apostles. dokountev, according to Hesychius, is oi endoxoi, the honourable. With these the apostle intimates that he had some private conferences. Lest by any means] And he held these private conferences with those more eminent men, to give them information how, in consequence of his Divine call, he had preached the Gospel to the Gentiles, and the great good which God had wrought by his ministry; but they, not knowing the nature and end of his call, might be led to suppose he had acted wrong, and thus laboured in vain; and that, if he still continued to act thus, he should labour in vain. It was necessary, therefore, that he should give the apostolic council the fullest information that he had acted according to the Divine mind in every respect, and had been blessed in his deed.
Joseph Benson
Verse 2. And I went up — Not by any command from the apostles, nor to receive instructions in my work from them; but by revelation — From God, directing me to go. The apostle does not say to whom the revelation was made: it might be made to Paul himself, or to some of the prophets then residing at Antioch. But this circumstance, that he went in consequence of a revelation, shows evidently that the occasion of the journey was of great importance. It was, therefore, as has been observed above, very probably the journey which, at the desire of the church at Antioch, Paul and Barnabas undertook for the purpose of consulting the apostles and elders in Jerusalem concerning the circumcision of the converted proselytes, of which we have an account Acts 15., &c., where see the notes. Some indeed have been of opinion, that the journey to Jerusalem here spoken of, was posterior to that council. But as there is no evidence that Paul and Barnabas travelled together any more after they returned to Antioch from the council, but rather evidence to the contrary, (Acts 15:39,) that opinion cannot be admitted. And communicated unto them — To the chief of the church in Jerusalem; that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles — (See Acts 15:4,) namely, touching justification by faith alone; not that they might confirm me therein, but that I might preclude or remove prejudice from them. But privately to them which were of reputation — Or to those of eminence, as the original expression here evidently signifies. He did not declare the doctrine which he preached publicly at first, but spoke severally to the apostles one by one; lest I should run, or should have run in vain — That is, Lest, being suspected to preach differently from them, I should lose the fruit either of my present or past labours. For the other apostles might have greatly hindered the success of his labours, had they not been fully satisfied both of his mission and doctrine. In using the word run, the apostle beautifully expresses the swift progress of the gospel; and in speaking of running in vain, he alludes to a race, in which the person who loses the prize is said to run in vain.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Verse 1, 2. Then fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem, and took Titus, his fellow-labourer. Luke adds, “and others also.” Acts 15:2. We may gather from this, that Luke was of the company. I went up by revelation, says the apostle, or by a special direction from heaven. Strong remonstrances had been made by the deputation sent from Jerusalem, against the admission of the “multitude” of gentile converts into the church, without first subjecting them to the ceremonial law; and as this grand question concerned the peace of the whole christian church, the Holy Spirit directed them to settle it in full convocation at Jerusalem. Certainly, the Hebrew rites were for the Hebrews only, and for the willing converts from gentile nations. The time of this council is placed by Usher in the fifty first year of Christ.
Daniel Whedon
2. By revelation—Note on Acts 15:4. Paul was publicly appointed to go to Jerusalem to discuss the question of circumcision, and he was doubtless divinely admonished to go and settle the query of his apostleship. So the parents of Jesus were concurrently admonished by the death of Herod and by divine intimation to return from Egypt. Prof. Lightfoot has collected three other such concurrences. Acts 9:29, 30, compared with Acts 22:17, etc.; Acts 13. 2-4; and Acts 15:28. Paul mentions this revelation to show that his apostleship, and the sanction of his apostleship, came alike, not from man, but from God. Communicated—Explained, set forth. It was, no doubt, a matter of great interest to those home apostles to know the secret of this young evangelist’s power of winning Gentiles to Christ, of spreading the gospel over distant lands, and of building churches in the great metropolises. Before the assembling in full council, those of reputation—the pillars—had consultation with him privately, to form their preparatory opinion. These pillars were (verse 9) James, Cephas, and John. Lest, depends upon communicated. Run… in vain—This does not mean lest my work should appear to be in vain, but lest it should be rendered vain. He entered into full, harmonious concert with the pillars of the Palestinean Church, lest they should, by fatal opposition through misunderstanding, destroy all his work. The opposition of the pillars implied the opposition of the entire apostolic college, and the entire Palestinean Church. This would, to all human view, be a devastating division in the young religion; and, as historically cutting off Paul’s Churches from the original fountain head, would have destroyed them, as, perhaps, the Churches of Galatia were destroyed, and still more completely.
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 2. First argument in defence of Paul’s teaching.
This only: this one argument being sufficient to decide the matter. I wish to learn; suggests deliberate and careful inquiry.
From works of law: as in Galatians 2:16.
The Spirit: not His miraculous gifts merely or chiefly, of which the real worth was that they revealed His presence; but Himself dwelling in the hearts of all His people in all ages as their life and light and strength and joy, and the bearer to them and in them of all that Christ has and is. Cp. Galatians 4:6; 5:16, 22, 25. The Spirit, Paul assumes that his readers have received; and that they know it. His inward presence was in the Apostolic Church outwardly manifested by supernatural gifts, especially by that of tongues: cp. Acts 10:44ff; 11:17; 8:17f; 19:6. For it was important that both the receiver and others around should have unmistakable proof that he had received the Spirit. But the same Spirit in all His fulness dwells in us now, revealing Himself by a direct influence in our hearts moving us to call God our Father and breathing into us a strength and wisdom which we know to be not ours but God’s; and in some measure revealing Himself to others by the moral beauty of those in whom He dwells.
The word rendered hearing denotes both the faculty (as in Mark 7:35; 1 Corinthians 12:17; Hebrews 5:11) and the act (as in 2 Peter 2:8) of hearing. It therefore easily denotes the matter heard: for there can be no hearing without something heard. Same word three times in Romans 10:16f: faith comes from hearing; i.e. we first hear and then believe, and not otherwise can we believe. Similarly, the reception of the Spirit comes
from hearing: the Galatian Christians heard a word preached, and thus received the Spirit. Moreover, it was a hearing of faith, i.e. accompanied, and therefore characterised, by faith. Cp. Hebrews 3:12; 4:2. The simplicity of this exposition renders needless the suggestion that faith was the matter heard, as in Romans 2:5 it is the object to be obeyed.
This verse itself disproves the assertion of the disturbers that observance of the Mosaic Law is a condition of the blessings of the New Covenant. Already the readers had received the Holy Spirit who is Himself the great and promised (Ezekiel 36:27) gift of that Covenant. Paul asks, Whence did you obtain this gift? Was it by obeying prescriptions of conduct, or by hearing and believing a preached word? To state the only answer possible, is needless. A mere appeal to his readers’ memory of their early Christian life is conclusive argument.
But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
John Wesley
V. 3. But neither was Titus who was with me-When I conversed with them.
Compelled to be circumcised-A clear proof that none of the apostles insisted on the circumcising Gentile believers. The sense is, And it is true, some of those false brethren would fain have compelled Titus to be circumcised; but I utterly refused it.
Adam Clarke
Verse 3. But neither Titus, who was with me] The apostle proceeds to state that his account was so satisfactory to the apostles, that they not only did not require him to insist on the necessity of circumcision among the Gentiles, but did not even require him to have Titus, who was a Greek, circumcised; though that might have appeared expedient, especially at Jerusalem, to have prevented false brethren from making a handle of his uncircumcision, and turning it to the prejudice of the Gospel in Judea. To spy out our liberty] The Judaizing brethren got introduced into the assembly of the apostles, in order to find out what was implied in the liberty of the Gospel, that they might know the better how to oppose St. Paul and his fellows in their preaching Christ to the Gentiles, and admitting them into the Church without obliging them to observe circumcision and keep the law. The apostle saw that while such men were in the assembly it was better not to mention his mission among the Gentiles, lest, by means of those false brethren, occasion should be given to altercations and disputes; therefore he took the opportunity, by private conferences, to set the whole matter, relative to his work among the Gentiles, before the chief of the apostles.
Joseph Benson
Verse 3. But neither Titus, &c. — As if he had said, That the apostles, to whom I communicated the doctrine which I preach, acknowledged it to be the true gospel of Christ, is evident from this, that not even Titus, who was with, me, though a Greek, or converted Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised — In order to his being received as a true member of the Christian Church; a clear proof that none of the apostles insisted on circumcising the Gentile believers. The sense seems to be, It is true, some of those false brethren would gladly have compelled Titus to be circumcised, but I utterly refused it. And that because of false brethren — That is, I was averse to, and opposed the circumcision of Titus, because the Jews, who professed the Christian religion, yet urged the observation of the ceremonial law as necessary to salvation, (Acts 15:1,) and so were real enemies to the gospel. Or, the sense may be, that Titus was not compelled, by the apostles and elders of Jerusalem, to be circumcised, on account even of the false brethren, who, when they found that Titus was not circumcised, complained of Paul to his brethren apostles on that account. Unawares brought in — Made members of the church at Jerusalem upon their great pretences to piety, without due consideration and trial; who came in privily — To our meetings at Jerusalem; to spy, &c. — To find out and condemn our freedom from the law of Moses, which we Gentiles have obtained by Christ Jesus’s gospel. Or, as some explain the clause, these false brethren had got themselves introduced secretly, that is, by persons that did not know their real character, into the meetings which Paul had with the apostles, to observe whether he would stand to the defence of that liberty from the ceremonial law before the apostles, which he preached among the Gentiles. That they might bring us into bondage — That in case I had not maintained our liberty, they might thence take occasion to bring back the Christian Gentiles, and whole church, under the yoke of the ceremonial law. To whom we gave place, no, not for an hour — Yielded to them in allowing the ceremonies, in no degree. With such wonderful prudence did the apostle use his Christian liberty; circumcising Timothy, (Acts 16:3,) because of weak brethren, but not Titus, because of false brethren; that the truth of the gospel — The true genuine gospel, or the purity of gospel doctrine; might continue with you — And other churches of the Gentiles. So that, as if he had said, we defend for your sakes the privileges which you would give up.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 3. But neither Titus, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. The case of Titus is pertinent, indicating the liberal disposition of the church in Jerusalem towards the gentiles.
Daniel Whedon
3. Neither Titus… circumcised—Titus is here put forth as a living fact in proof of what the pillars did not require. He was placed by St. Paul among them as an uncircumcised Gentile Christian, and they yield the point of circumcision. Paul, according to his ground, could circumcise his Gentile converts, as he did Timothy, if expedient, without any surrender of the principle. But they could not accept one uncircumcised Christian without admitting that there could be Christianity without circumcision. We can, therefore, clearly see why Paul could circumcise Timothy and insist that Titus should not be circumcised. And Paul, doubtless, puts this case to the Galatians as an answer to the argument drawn from his circumcising Timothy.
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 3. Questions developing the arguments involved in Galatians 3:2. So senseless: introducing the absurdity exposed in Galatians 3:3b. Begun… brought-to-maturity, or completion, or perfection: same words in 2 Corinthians 8:6, 10f; Philippians 1:6. Being-brought-to-maturity: a process now going on. Same word in 2 Corinthians 7:1, cognate word in 1 Corinthians 2:6: see notes. That the circumcision urged upon Titus is needful for entrance into the Christian life, Galatians 3:2 has disproved. Consequently, the only supposition still open to its advocates is that by obeying the Mosaic Law the Galatian Christians were being brought to maturity.
Spirit: the Holy Spirit, but looked upon in the abstract as a life-giving principle.
Flesh; implies that the Jewish restrictions which the false teachers sought to impose on the Galatians pertained only to outward, bodily life, to something done by, or to, the body. And this we can understand. For, in its inner significance none can fulfil the Law. They who trust to it for salvation do so by limiting their thoughts to small outward details, of piety or morality, which they are able to perform; and by rigourously performing these. Just so, the Judaisers insisted on (Galatians 5:3; 6:12) circumcision and on (Galatians 2:12) Mosaic distinctions of meat, things pertaining to the body. Paul reminds his readers that their spiritual life began by reception of the Holy Spirit, an inward, pervasive, life-giving principle; and asks whether, after such a beginning they are now being raised to a further and final stage of development by something pertaining only to their outward covering of flesh and blood. Notice here the contrast of Spirit and flesh so deeply interwoven (cp. Galatians 5:16; 6:8; Romans 8:4-13) into the thought of Paul.
It may be objected that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper touch only the flesh, and that therefore the same argument would prove that they cannot be obligatory on those who have already received the Spirit. But their solemn institution by Christ at the founding of His Church breathed into the outward rite a spiritual significance which can never be separated from it. Probably (Galatians 6:13) the disturbers in Galatia cared for nothing but the outward act of circumcision. Against them, therefore, this question would have irresistible force.
And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
John Wesley
V. 4. Because of false brethren-Who seem to have urged it. Introduced unawares-Into some of those private conferences at Jerusalem.
Who had slipped in to spy out our liberty-From the ceremonial law. That they might, if possible, bring us into that bondage again.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 4, 5. False brethren — to whom we gave place, no, not for an hour. These were the angels of light in the pay of the great synagogue, men who had pursued the apostles to destroy their work, and bring the gentiles into bondage. The noble soul of Paul would not allow those seducers to have a seat in the councils or conferences of the church.
Daniel Whedon
4. And that—The refusal to circumcise him. False brethren—The different sections of the Council we have classified into four, (Acts 15:6,) and the false brethren are the fourth. We are able to put our finger upon them. They tried to make the trouble at Antioch, (Acts 15:1,) and they are succeeding in making this trouble at Galatia. Renan, in his Life of Paul, (following Baur,) identifies class four with three, and insists that this faction are the true primitive Christians. Paul, then, was really an innovator—the fabricator of a new Christianity—which was, in fact, a better than the original. All which is elaborate nonsense. Not only have we Luke’s gospel and Acts, but we have the epistles of these very pillars— Peter, James, and John—to show us that the Christianity of all three is identical with that of Paul. Unawares brought in—Luke says, that they, so far from being the real primitive disciples, were certain of the sect of the Pharisees. They belonged to the zealot class of Hebrews described in our note on Acts 6:1, who became the Ebionites of later Church history. The quarrel, in fact, began at the murmuring of the Hellenistic widows. We have noted at Acts 15:7 that these Pharisees properly formed no part of the assembly, but were unawares brought in. They were wholly overridden by the decision of the Council.
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 4. The mention of maturity suggests another element in the Christian life of the Galatians, viz. the many things they have suffered. These are most easily explained as persecutions aroused by Jews. For, the hostility to Paul (Acts 14:2, 19) in the neighbouring cities of Iconium and Lystra was caused by Jews; and unquestionably their reason was that his teaching broke down Jewish prerogatives. To similar hostility, for the same reason, the Galatian Christians must have been exposed. They knew how much direct and indirect persecution was included in so many things. But if the new teaching be true, these sufferings were in vain, i.e. (cp. Galatians 4:11; 1 Corinthians 15:2) without sufficient cause and without result. For, against this teaching their enemies would have little or nothing to say. Similar argument in Galatians 5:11. Thus Paul appeals to his readers’ outward, as in Galatians 3:2f to their inward Christian life. He asks, Are you willing to trample under foot as needless your own sufferings for the Gospel? These sufferings were provoked by the teaching you are now surrendering. This question rests on the broad principle that whatever we have suffered for is dear to us. We do not like to admit that our sufferings have been needless and without result.
At the word in vain Paul starts, and adds as if apologizing for it if at least it be in vain. [ei ge implies emphatically that the foregoing question rests entirely upon the supposition embodied in the word in vain, which kai raises into conspicuous prominence. These particles therefore suggest scrutiny whether the supposition be correct.] These added words reveal Paul’s reluctance to believe that these sufferings had been in vain; and thus suggest how serious his question is.
To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
John Wesley
V. 5. To whom we did not yield by submission-Although in love he would have yielded to any. With such wonderful prudence did the apostle use his Christian liberty! circumcising Timothy, Acts 16:3, because of weak brethren, but not Titus, because of false brethren. That the truth of the gospel-That is, the true genuine gospel. Might continue with you-With you Gentiles. So we defend, for your sakes, the privilege which you would give up.
Adam Clarke
Verse 5. To whom we gave place by subjection] So fully satisfied was he with his Divine call, and that he had in preaching among the Gentiles acted in strict conformity to it, that he did not submit in the least to the opinion of those Judaizing teachers; and therefore he continued to insist on the exemption of the Gentiles from the necessity of submitting to Jewish rites; that the truth of the Gospel-this grand doctrine, that the Gentiles are admitted by the Gospel of Christ to be fellow-heirs with the Jews, might continue; and thus the same doctrine is continued with you Gentiles.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 4, 5. False brethren — to whom we gave place, no, not for an hour. These were the angels of light in the pay of the great synagogue, men who had pursued the apostles to destroy their work, and bring the gentiles into bondage. The noble soul of Paul would not allow those seducers to have a seat in the councils or conferences of the church.
Daniel Whedon
5. We—The delegation from Antioch. To the apostles and the orthodox Church there was a deference; but these factionists demanded subjection, which was not yielded an hour. The very truth of the gospel was at stake. You—Galatians and all other Gentile Christians.
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 5. A repetition of the question in Galatians 3:2, transferred now from entrance into, to present continuance in, the Christian life; a transfer suggested by the arguments in Galatians 3:3, 4, which give great force to the question now asked. It is an appeal to present religious experience. ‘If your Christian life began by reception of the Holy Spirit, it being thus impossible for it to be brought to maturity by anything merely outward, and if for this Christian life you have already suffered so much, I ask whether God is now supplying to you the Spirit, etc.’
Supplies: see under 2 Corinthians 9:10; cp. Philippians 2:19. The Spirit: same full and general sense as in Romans 3:2. Of this inward presence of the Spirit, endowment with supernatural powers was one visible and conspicuous manifestation.
He that supplies: God, who (Galatians 4:6) sends forth the Spirit of His Son into the hearts of His adopted sons. Paul thus supplements received the Spirit in Galatians 3:2; and removes the controversy into the presence of God, the source of all good. The present tense, with the definite word you, implies that each moment the Spirit goes forth (cp. John 15:26) from God to men. Paul thus courteously acknowledges his readers’ continued spiritual life; and assumes that they are conscious of a continuous reception of the Spirit by faith. This, the servants of Christ understand by personal experience. They find in their hearts an influence which raises them above themselves and enables them to live a life which is not their own but God’s; and they find that in proportion to their faith, and from the very words believed, this life flows from Him to them. Of this divine life thus received, their obedience to God is a joyful result, but by no means an instrument or source.
Powers: either words of supernatural power, i.e. miracles, as in 1 Corinthians 12:10, 28, 29. Probably the latter, as more usual with Paul: but the practical difference is hardly perceptible.
In you, or among you: both meanings embraced in the Greek word. The miracles were wrought among (same word in 2 Corinthians 12:12) the Galatians: but capacity for miracles was by the energy of God operating in the hearts of those who did them. This latter exposition is suggested here by the inwardness of the Spirit’s operation, and is implied in my exposition of the word powers. Cp. Matthew 14:2; 1 Corinthians 12:6. This question implies that miracles were indisputably wrought in the apostolic Churches. Paul asks, what is the immediate source from which you receive day by day the Holy Spirit, and from which proceeds power to work miracles? is it works done in obedience to a rule of conduct, or attention to, and belief of, a spoken word? Answer is needless. They know that, when most firmly they believe the Gospel, then most richly does the Spirit animate and glorify their entire life, and then most mightily does the power of God endow them with supernatural capacities.
REVIEW. The suggestion that Christ died in vain, as would be the case if the teaching of the Judaizers were correct, reveals to Paul, as he turns to discuss the teaching they contradict, the mental blindness of the Galatian Christians. A single argument seems to him sufficient to settle the matter at issue. His readers’ Christian course began with reception of the Spirit to be in them the animating principle of a new life. Paul asks whether they obtained the Spirit by means of obedience to legal prescriptions or by hearing with faith a preached word. Memory replies. The only supposition open is that obedience to law might lead them to a richer and higher Christian life. But the legal prescriptions of which the Judaizers think reach only to the material clothing of human life. Can mere bodily obedience develop a life begun by receiving a life-giving Spirit? The thought is absurd. Again, for the teaching of Justification by Faith apart from works of law, the Galatian Christians have already suffered persecution. Are they now prepared to admit that these sufferings were needless and profitless? These questions enable Paul to ask again in stronger form his first question. The Spirit whom day by day God still gives to his readers, and who reveals His presence by working miracles among them, do they receive by works of law or by faith? Thus not only their past but their present experience confirms the Apostle’s teaching.
This section illustrates a principle in theology all-important yet very liable to abuse, viz. that frequently abstract teaching may be verified by reference to our own spiritual life. To make subjective feelings a standard of truth, is perilous in the last degree. But our inner life is capable of, and deserves scientific analysis. Such analysis must, if correct, agree with the teaching of Christ as expounded by His apostles. And the comparison will in some cases detect a misunderstanding of the words of Christ, and in others confirm our confidence that we have rightly interpreted His words.
But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
John Wesley
V. 6. And they who undoubtedly were something-Above all others. What they were-How eminent soever.
It is no difference to me-So that I should alter either my doctrine or my practice.
God accepteth no man's person-For any eminence in gifts or outward prerogatives. In that conference
added nothing to me-Neither as to doctrine nor mission.
Adam Clarke
Verse 6. Those who seemed to be somewhat] twn dokountwn einai ti. Those who were of acknowledged reputation; so the words should be understood, see Galatians 2:2. The verb dokein, to seem, is repeatedly used by the best Greek writers, not to call the sense in question, or to lessen it, but to deepen and extend it. See Clarke’s note on “Luke 8:18”. Perhaps this verse had best be translated thus, connecting diaferei with apo twn dokountwnÇ But there is no difference between those who were of acknowledged reputation and myself; God accepts no man’s person; but, in the conferences which I held with then, they added nothing to me-gave me no new light; did not attempt to impose on me any obligation, because they saw that God had appointed me my work, and that his counsel was with me.
Joseph Benson
Verses 6-8. But of those who seemed to be somewhat — Who were most esteemed among the apostles; whatsoever they were — How eminent soever; it maketh no matter — No difference; to me — So that I should alter either my doctrine or my practice. God accepteth no man’s person — For any eminence in gifts or outward prerogatives: he does not show favour to any man on account of his birth, office, riches, or any external circumstance, Job 34:19. The apostle’s meaning is, that God did not prefer Peter, James, and John, to him, because they were apostles before him, far less did he employ them to make him an apostle; they, who seemed to be somewhat — Or rather, who undoubtedly were in high repute, as the expression oi dokountev signifies; added nothing — Communicated neither knowledge, nor spiritual gifts, nor authority; to me — Far less did they pretend to make me an apostle. But when they saw — Namely, by the effects which I laid before them, verse 8; Acts 15:12; that the gospel of the uncircumcision — That is, the charge of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised heathen; was intrusted to me, as that of the circumcision — The charge of preaching the gospel to the Jews; was committed to Peter — “By saying that he was intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter was with that of the circumcision, Paul put himself on a level with Peter. In like manner, his withstanding Peter publicly for withdrawing himself from the converted Gentiles, is a fact utterly inconsistent with the pretended superiority of Peter above the other apostles, vainly imagined by the Roman pontiffs, for the purpose of aggrandizing themselves as his successors, above all other Christian bishops.” For he that wrought effectually in, or by, Peter — To qualify him for the apostleship of the circumcision, to support him in the discharge of that office, and to render his exercise of it successful; the same was mighty in me — Wrought also effectually in and by me, for and in the discharge of my office toward the Gentiles.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 6. But of these, who seemed to be somewhat; delicately omitting to say, James, Cephas, and John. Perhaps he puts James first, because he is thought to have been the bishop of the church. Dokountwn, who were estimated to be somewhat, or as in ver. 9, were considered as pillars of the church. In conference they added nothing to me; they used no arguments but what I already knew, and had fully considered.
Daniel Whedon
6. Seemed to be somewhat—In special contrast to those who seemed to be no-what at all—the factionists. From this point the narrative flows in a clear yet troubled current, like a pure stream rippling among pebbles. The reader’s eye may leap from this clause to verse 9, where Paul fairly begins again, all that intervenes being a tangle of parentheses. The main thought is, that the three seeming pillars accepted him as a fourth. Whatsoever… person—These clauses are a first parenthesis; for they connect subordinately with somewhat. No matter to me—Paul here retraces his impressions at the time. He brought his case before them as accidental, not essential, superiors. Their position was of no importance to him. Accepteth… person—Prof. Lightfoot notes that this phrase in the Old Testament Hebrew means to favour one, without necessarily including any invidious sense. But in the New Testament Greek the word person— originally signifying an actor’s theatrical mask—acquires the idea of something assumed upon and over the real being. To accept the person, then, is to favour him, not for or according to his real desert or quality, but according to some external advantages, as rank, dress, wealth, reputation. Paul, appearing at Jerusalem, was conscious that his call was equally divine; his qualifications, at least, as great; his labours and successes more abundant. And so he knew the divine Eye saw. These pillars are lofty metropolitans, and I am a hard looking itinerant; but God is not deceived by externals. Added nothing—In spite of their seeming. They imparted to me no new gospel. I had derived from Christ by revelation all they could tell me. Quite the reverse, as he will next show.
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 6.-10. Result of Paul’s presentation (Galatians 2:2) of his Gospel at Jerusalem to those in repute. The connection is noted by the recurrence of these last words in Galatians 2:6 twice and in Galatians 2:9. Those reputed to be something: certain men (names given in Galatians 2:9) rightly or wrongly supposed to have special worth or special authority, of whatever kind and from whatever source: a rather fuller phrase than those in repute in Galatians 2:2. What sort of men . . God does not accept: a parenthesis breaking off the construction. After speaking of what they were reputed to be, Paul interposes a few words about what they actually were. Even this is nothing to him: for it is nothing to God.
A man’s appearance, or face, God does not accept, or respect: His estimate and treatment of men is not determined by externals. Same teaching and almost same words in Romans 2:11. The order of the Greek words suggests the incongruity of appearances being taken into account by God. These last words imply that what sort of men they were refers to something merely external. The easiest explanation is that Paul thinks of their former relation to Christ on earth. For, that Peter and John were His chosen and intimate companions and that James was a member of His own family, would naturally give them great repute in the Church at Jerusalem. But this relation to Christ belonged only to externals. It therefore placed them neither higher nor lower in the sight of God; and had no bearing on the independent authority which Paul had received from the Risen Saviour. These words, unexpectedly interposed, suggest, as do Galatians 1:1, 11, that the disturbers had insinuated that Paul’s authority was inferior to that of the earlier apostles who had been personally associated with Jesus. He interrupts his argument to remind us that the difference between him and them was only external, and therefore of no weight with God.
If the above exposition be correct, the best rendering will be what they once were as in RV. margin, or more literally what sort of men they were formerly; not whatsoever they were, A.V., and RV. text. [For, the word pote, which in the N.T. nowhere else means ever but frequently (e.g. Galatians 1:13, 23 twice) formerly, would at once suggest a reference to days gone by.]
Instead of continuing and completing the sentence interrupted by the parenthesis, e.g. ‘from those reputed to be something’… I received nothing, Paul abandons it and begins a new sentence. He does so in order to weave his parenthesis into his main argument, as a general principle exemplified in his main assertion which follows it: for to me, etc. Those in repute takes up the thread broken off at those reputed to be something. Such broken construction is common in Greek: cp. Romans 5:12. Proposed nothing: literally presented nothing to me or set nothing before me: similar word in Galatians 2:2, same word in Galatians 1:16. To me: very emphatic. Paul set before the men in repute at Jerusalem the Gospel he preaches among the Gentiles: but before him they set nothing, i.e. they had no correction or addition to make. This proves that their earlier relation to Christ was nothing to Paul, and illustrates the general principle that externals avail not with God. They evidently knew no more about the Gospel than he did. And, that the earlier apostles had nothing to add to, or correct in, Paul’s exposition of his Gospel, proves both his independence of them and their complete accord with him.
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
John Wesley
V. 7. But when they saw-By the effects which I laid before them, Galatians 2:8; Acts 15:12.
That I was intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision-That is, with the charge of preaching it to the uncircumcised heathens.
Adam Clarke
Verse 7. But contrariwise] They were so far from wishing me to alter my plan, or to introduce any thing new in my doctrine to the Gentiles, that they saw plainly that my doctrine was the same as their own, coming immediately from the same source; and therefore gave to me and to Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.
The Gospel of the uncircumcision] They saw, to their utmost satisfaction, that I was as expressly sent by God to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, as Peter was to preach it to the Jews.
Joseph Benson
Verses 6-8. But of those who seemed to be somewhat — Who were most esteemed among the apostles; whatsoever they were — How eminent soever; it maketh no matter — No difference; to me — So that I should alter either my doctrine or my practice. God accepteth no man’s person — For any eminence in gifts or outward prerogatives: he does not show favour to any man on account of his birth, office, riches, or any external circumstance, Job 34:19. The apostle’s meaning is, that God did not prefer Peter, James, and John, to him, because they were apostles before him, far less did he employ them to make him an apostle; they, who seemed to be somewhat — Or rather, who undoubtedly were in high repute, as the expression oi dokountev signifies; added nothing — Communicated neither knowledge, nor spiritual gifts, nor authority; to me — Far less did they pretend to make me an apostle. But when they saw — Namely, by the effects which I laid before them, verse 8; Acts 15:12; that the gospel of the uncircumcision — That is, the charge of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised heathen; was intrusted to me, as that of the circumcision — The charge of preaching the gospel to the Jews; was committed to Peter — “By saying that he was intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter was with that of the circumcision, Paul put himself on a level with Peter. In like manner, his withstanding Peter publicly for withdrawing himself from the converted Gentiles, is a fact utterly inconsistent with the pretended superiority of Peter above the other apostles, vainly imagined by the Roman pontiffs, for the purpose of aggrandizing themselves as his successors, above all other Christian bishops.” For he that wrought effectually in, or by, Peter — To qualify him for the apostleship of the circumcision, to support him in the discharge of that office, and to render his exercise of it successful; the same was mighty in me — Wrought also effectually in and by me, for and in the discharge of my office toward the Gentiles.
Daniel Whedon
7. Contrariwise—Instead of undertaking to impart to me, they recognised my co-equal mission with the chief pillar Peter. Of the uncircumcision—Chiefly, but not exclusively. Paul could convert Jews and Peter Gentiles, but their principal fields were thus designated.
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 7. But on the contrary: conduct the opposite of proposing anything to Paul. They merely acknowledged him as a fellow-worker. Having seen that, etc.: inward motive of their action.
Having seen… and having known (Galatians 2:9) are in apposition with James and Cephas and John, which last expression is parallel to those in repute in Galatians 2:6.
Entrusted with: same word and thought in 1 Timothy 1:11; Titus 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 2:4; 1 Corinthians 9:17; Romans 3:2. [Contrast the perfect tense here, noting permanence, with the aorist in Romans 3:2.]
Uncircumcision: see under Romans 2:26.
Gospel of the uncircumcision, of the circumcision: difference of destination only. Cp. apostleship of circumcision in Galatians 2:8. Of any other difference, we have no hint: and all such is denied in Galatians 2:8. Moreover, God will treat (Romans 3:30) Jew and Gentile alike: and, since the Gospel announces His merciful treatment of men, it must in essence be the same to all. Consequently, the difference is only in the aim of the mission of Peter and of Paul.
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
John Wesley
V. 8. For he that wrought effectually in Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision-To qualify him for, and support him in, the discharge of that office to the Jews.
Wrought likewise effectually in and by me-For and in the discharge of my office toward the Gentiles.
Adam Clarke
Verse 8. For he that wrought effectually] o energhsav petro, enhrghse kai emoi. He who wrought powerfully with Peter, wrought powerfully also with me. He gave us both those talents which were suited to our work, and equal success in our different departments.
Joseph Benson
Verses 6-8. But of those who seemed to be somewhat — Who were most esteemed among the apostles; whatsoever they were — How eminent soever; it maketh no matter — No difference; to me — So that I should alter either my doctrine or my practice. God accepteth no man’s person — For any eminence in gifts or outward prerogatives: he does not show favour to any man on account of his birth, office, riches, or any external circumstance, Job 34:19. The apostle’s meaning is, that God did not prefer Peter, James, and John, to him, because they were apostles before him, far less did he employ them to make him an apostle; they, who seemed to be somewhat — Or rather, who undoubtedly were in high repute, as the expression oi dokountev signifies; added nothing — Communicated neither knowledge, nor spiritual gifts, nor authority; to me — Far less did they pretend to make me an apostle. But when they saw — Namely, by the effects which I laid before them, verse 8; Acts 15:12; that the gospel of the uncircumcision — That is, the charge of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised heathen; was intrusted to me, as that of the circumcision — The charge of preaching the gospel to the Jews; was committed to Peter — “By saying that he was intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter was with that of the circumcision, Paul put himself on a level with Peter. In like manner, his withstanding Peter publicly for withdrawing himself from the converted Gentiles, is a fact utterly inconsistent with the pretended superiority of Peter above the other apostles, vainly imagined by the Roman pontiffs, for the purpose of aggrandizing themselves as his successors, above all other Christian bishops.” For he that wrought effectually in, or by, Peter — To qualify him for the apostleship of the circumcision, to support him in the discharge of that office, and to render his exercise of it successful; the same was mighty in me — Wrought also effectually in and by me, for and in the discharge of my office toward the Gentiles.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 8. He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me towards the gentiles. In these words of confidence, we know not which to admire most, the noble and independent mind of Paul, or his generosity in the concession of more ministerial glory to Peter than to himself, it being more difficult to convert the jews to a crucified Redeemer, than to turn the gentiles from darkness to light. Paul we know, and without doubt, Peter was a great and able minister of Christ. But the spirit of the text is, to demonstrate the equal energy of the gospel to both jews and gentiles, rather than to illustrate the comparative merit of the preachers.
Daniel Whedon
8. He that wrought—The mission of each was wrought by the same God.
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 8. A parenthesis explaining the phrase Gospel of the uncircumcision. He that wrought: cp. Colossians 1:29: God the Father, the Source of whatever power for good operates in men. So 1 Corinthians 12:6; Ephesians 1:11, 20; Philippians 2:13. But God operates always through the instrumentality of ( 1 Thessalonians 2:13) His word and (Ephesians 3:20) power and through the agency ( 1 Corinthians 12:4) of the Holy Spirit.
Wrought: literally inwrought: an inward activity, and putting forth of power, of God in men. It is the Greek original of the English word energy. A close parallel in Ephesians 3:7.
For Peter: not in Peter which is already implied (cp. Colossians 1:29) in the verb. The usefulness and consequent enrichment and honour of Peter were an aim of God’s work in him. And with similar aim God wrought also for Paul.
This verse implies that only inward divine energy can fit a man to discharge a divine commission.
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
John Wesley
V. 9. And when James-Probably named first because he was bishop of the church in Jerusalem.
And Cephas-Speaking of him at Jerusalem he calls him by his Hebrew name.
And John-Hence it appears that he also was at the council, though he is not particularly named in the Acts.
Who undoubtedly were pillars-The principal supporters and defenders of the gospel.
Knew-After they had heard the account I gave them. The grace-Of apostleship.
Which was given me, they-In the name of all.
Gave to me and Barnabas-My fellow-labourer.
The right hands of fellowship-They gave us their hands in token of receiving us as their fellow-labourers, mutually agreeing that we-I and those in union with me.
Should go to the Gentiles-Chiefly.
And they-With those that were in union with them, chiefly to the circumcision-The Jews.
Adam Clarke
Verse 9. James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars] oi dokountev stuloi einai. Who were known to be very eminent, and acknowledged as chief men among the apostles. See Clarke’s note on “Luke 8:18”, for the meaning of the verb dokein, and see Clarke before on “Galatians 2:6”.
Among the Jews, persons of great eminence and importance are represented as pillars and foundations of the world. So Abraham is said to be העולם dwm[ ammud heolam, “the pillar of the universe; for by him to this day are the earth and heavens supported.” Yalcut Rubeni, fol. 29. “Rabbi Simeon said, Behold, we are the pillars of the world.” Idra Rabba, s. 23.
“When Rabbi Jochanan ben Zachai was near death, he wept with a loud voice. His disciples said unto him, O Rabbi, thou high pillar, thou light of the world, thou strong hammer, why dost thou weep?” Aboth. R. Nathan, chap. 24.
So, in Sohar Genes, fol. 5, it is said: “And he saw that Rab. Eleazar went up, and stood there, and with him ˆydwm[ rav shear ammudin, the rest of the pillars (eminent men) who sat there.”
Ibid., fol. 13: “These are the seven righteous men who cleave to the holy blessed God with a pure heart, and they are the seven pillars of the world.” Ibid., fol. 21, on the words bearing fruit, Genesis 1:11, it is said: “By this we are to understand the just one, who is the pillar of the world.” See Schoettgen, who adds: “These pillars must be distinguished from the foundation. The foundation of the Church is Jesus Christ alone; the pillars are the more eminent teachers, which, without the foundation, are of no value.”
The right hands of fellowship] Giving the right hand to another was the mark of confidence, friendship, and fellowship. See Leviticus 6:2: If a soul-lie unto his neighbor in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, dy tmwctb bithsumeth yad, “in giving the hand.”
Joseph Benson
Verses 9, 10. And when James — Probably named first because he. was bishop of the church in Jerusalem; and Cephas — Speaking of him at Jerusalem, he calls him by his Hebrew name; and John — Hence it appears that he also was at the council, though he be not particularly named in the Acts. Who seemed to be — Or, as in verse 6, who undoubtedly were; pillars — The principal supporters and defenders of the gospel; perceived — After they had heard the account I gave them; the grace of apostleship which was given to me, they in the name of all, gave me and Barnabas — My fellow-labourer; the right hands of fellowship — They gave us their hands, in token of receiving us as their fellow-labourers, mutually agreeing that I and those in union with me should go to the heathen chiefly — “Barnabas, equally with Paul, had preached salvation to the idolatrous Gentiles, without requiring them to obey the law of Moses: wherefore, by giving them the right hands of fellowship, the three apostles acknowledged them to be true ministers of the gospel, each according to the nature of his particular commission. Paul they acknowledged to be an apostle of equal authority with themselves; and Barnabas they acknowledged to be a minister sent forth by the Holy Ghost to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. This distinction it is necessary to make, because it doth not appear that Barnabas was an apostle, in the proper sense of the word. The candour which the apostles at Jerusalem showed on this occasion, in acknowledging Paul as a brother apostle, is remarkable, and deserves the imitation of all the ministers of the gospel in their behaviour toward one another.” And they — With those that were in union with them; chiefly to the circumcision — The Jews. “In pursuance of this agreement, the three apostles abode, for the most part, in Judea, till Jerusalem was destroyed. After which, Peter, as tradition informs us, went to Babylon, and other parts in the East, and John into the Lesser Asia, where he was confined some years in Patmos, for the testimony of Jesus, Revelation 1:9. But James was put to death at Jerusalem, in a popular tumult, before that city was destroyed.” — Macknight. Only desiring that we would remember the poor Christians in Judea — So as to make collections for them as we proceeded in our progress through the churches of the Gentiles; the same which I also was forward to do — Greek, o kai espoudasa auto touto poihsai, which very thing I was eager, or in haste to do. It is probable, that in so readily acceding to the proposal made by the apostles at Jerusalem, to collect money for the destitute saints in Judea, St. Paul was influenced by a more generous principle than that of merely relieving the necessities of the poor. For as the Jewish believers were extremely unwilling to associate with the converted Gentiles, Paul might hope that the kindness, which he doubted not the Gentiles would show in relieving their Jewish brethren, would have a happy influence in uniting the two into one harmonious body or church.
Daniel Whedon
9. And—This verse gathers up the loose threads of thought, and brings them to a conclusion. James—Some copies name Peter first; doubtless an emendation to save the supremacy of Peter. Lightfoot notes here, First, that James is styled the Lord’s brother, because the transaction there narrated occurred before the martyrdom by Herod of James, son of Zebedee, and so the distinctive epithet was necessary. James, son of Alpheus, though an apostle, was too little prominent to create ambiguity. Second. James is here named first as being chief in Jerusalem; Peter is elsewhere first, as being every-where else superior to James. Seemed to be—To my eye as I surveyed things in Jerusalem. Pillars—An ordinary but graceful metaphor, to designate a statesman as a pillar of State, or an eminent minister as a pillar in the Church. As the last it may be supposed derived from the columns of temples. See note on Acts 19:27. St. Ignatius says, “The pillars of the world—the apostles.” Grace—Both the apostolic office and his noble endowments therefor. Right hands—As recognition of his co-equal apostleship. And this fact was a complete refutation of the troublers among the Galatians as of the pseudo-criticisms of Renan and his German masters.
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 9. And having known, etc.; continues and completes, in strict grammatical sequence, the sentence interrupted by the parenthesis of Galatians 2:8. Thus this parenthesis differs from that in Galatians 2:6. Having seen in Galatians 2:7, denoting mental apprehension of a fact, forms with having known, comprehension of the significance of a fact, a climax.
The grace given to me: God’s undeserved favour revealed in the committal to Paul of the Gospel of the uncircumcision and in the corresponding divine energy at work in him. Same words and same thought in Ephesians 3:2, 7, 8; 4:7. That James is put before Cephas and John, who were disciples of Christ long before he was, implies that in the Church at Jerusalem he held a place in some respects higher than that of the most prominent of the twelve apostles. It was a courteous recognition of the Church at Jerusalem, of which James was the head, as the Mother-Church of Christendom. See note at end of DIV. I. Reputed to be pillars; both completes the idea partly conveyed by the word reputed in Galatians 2:2, 6, and tells us that the men just named are those referred to there.
Pillars: 1 Timothy 3:15; Revelation 3:12. So Ep. of Clement ch. v., the greatest and most righteous pillars, viz, Peter and Paul: see my Corinthians App. A. Of the Church, which is God’s temple, they were accounted to be conspicuous supports and ornaments. A metaphor common in Jewish, Greek, and Latin writers.
Gave right hands: cp. 2 Kings 10:15; Ezra 10:19; 1 Macc. vi. 58; xi. 62. So Josephus, Antiq. bk. xviii. 9. 3, about the Parthians: “He gave his right hand, which is with all the barbarians there the greatest proof of confidence in those talking together.” The word of-fellowship is delayed, that we may think first of the outward act, viz. the shaking of hands, and then of its significance, viz. recognition that all were comrades. The order of words, me and Barnabas, (a remarkable coincidence with Acts 15:2, 22, 35,) suggests Paul’s consciousness that he held the first place; and this agrees with the singular number (I, me) throughout Galatians 2:6-9a. See under Galatians 2:1.
Fellowship: literally having something in common with others. See under 1 Corinthians 10:16; Romans 15:26. ‘James and Cephas and John recognised me and Barnabas as sharers with themselves of the rank and work of apostles.’ They did so in order that, while working in harmony, each party should devote itself to its divinely (Galatians 2:8) marked out sphere of labour.
That we should be for the Gentiles: i.e. apostles to the Gentiles.
Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
John Wesley
V. 10. Of the poor-The poor Christians in Judea, who had lost all they had for Christ's sake.
Adam Clarke
Verse 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.
Joseph Benson
Verses 9, 10. And when James — Probably named first because he. was bishop of the church in Jerusalem; and Cephas — Speaking of him at Jerusalem, he calls him by his Hebrew name; and John — Hence it appears that he also was at the council, though he be not particularly named in the Acts. Who seemed to be — Or, as in verse 6, who undoubtedly were; pillars — The principal supporters and defenders of the gospel; perceived — After they had heard the account I gave them; the grace of apostleship which was given to me, they in the name of all, gave me and Barnabas — My fellow-labourer; the right hands of fellowship — They gave us their hands, in token of receiving us as their fellow-labourers, mutually agreeing that I and those in union with me should go to the heathen chiefly — “Barnabas, equally with Paul, had preached salvation to the idolatrous Gentiles, without requiring them to obey the law of Moses: wherefore, by giving them the right hands of fellowship, the three apostles acknowledged them to be true ministers of the gospel, each according to the nature of his particular commission. Paul they acknowledged to be an apostle of equal authority with themselves; and Barnabas they acknowledged to be a minister sent forth by the Holy Ghost to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. This distinction it is necessary to make, because it doth not appear that Barnabas was an apostle, in the proper sense of the word. The candour which the apostles at Jerusalem showed on this occasion, in acknowledging Paul as a brother apostle, is remarkable, and deserves the imitation of all the ministers of the gospel in their behaviour toward one another.” And they — With those that were in union with them; chiefly to the circumcision — The Jews. “In pursuance of this agreement, the three apostles abode, for the most part, in Judea, till Jerusalem was destroyed. After which, Peter, as tradition informs us, went to Babylon, and other parts in the East, and John into the Lesser Asia, where he was confined some years in Patmos, for the testimony of Jesus, Revelation 1:9. But James was put to death at Jerusalem, in a popular tumult, before that city was destroyed.” — Macknight. Only desiring that we would remember the poor Christians in Judea — So as to make collections for them as we proceeded in our progress through the churches of the Gentiles; the same which I also was forward to do — Greek, o kai espoudasa auto touto poihsai, which very thing I was eager, or in haste to do. It is probable, that in so readily acceding to the proposal made by the apostles at Jerusalem, to collect money for the destitute saints in Judea, St. Paul was influenced by a more generous principle than that of merely relieving the necessities of the poor. For as the Jewish believers were extremely unwilling to associate with the converted Gentiles, Paul might hope that the kindness, which he doubted not the Gentiles would show in relieving their Jewish brethren, would have a happy influence in uniting the two into one harmonious body or church.
Daniel Whedon
10. Remember the poor—In accordance with the custom of Jews in foreign lands who sent in contributions to the poor of Palestine. As the Hebrew Christians bore the brunt of Jewish persecution, so it was due from the Churches abroad, whose fountain head the Holy Land had been, to aid them in their distresses. Forward to do—And did on a large scale.
4. Paul’s apostolic rebuke of the apostle Peter, 11-21.
This is the closing step of Paul’s proof of the reality and independence of his apostleship. The proof rises in climax. First, he lived for years apart from the apostles; next, he met and was acknowledged by them; last, he encountered the chief apostle and successfully rebuked him—rebuked him upon the very point in debate among the Galatians—circumcision. Not only was this climax truly conclusive for the Galatians, but it is very decisive against the infallibility of Peter, as well as of the popes claiming succession from Peter. It raises, also, an important question as to the personal inspiration of the apostles. On this last question we may say that we do not consider the authority of the New Testament books, as a rule of faith, to depend solely on the exemption of the writers from error. Their authority, both for facts and doctrine, is sustained by the testimony of the Apostolic Church, which, in the age of miracle, martyrdom, and discerning of spirits, recognised these books as the highest and truest records of Christian history and doctrine, all under the guidance of the divine Head of the Church. This very rebuke of Peter by Paul, and the grounds of that rebuke, were thus sanctioned by the spontaneous spirit of the Church under guidance and inspiration of the Spirit of Christ; that same guidance by which the New Testament canon was, for the most part, silently and spontaneously formed by the mind of the Church.
With regard to the primacy of Peter, nothing but the necessity of their case could induce any parties to deny that in this whole passage, vv. 6-21, it is the feeling of Paul, and his purpose, to show that in all respects he was the official apostolic equal of Peter. Such is the feeling, as our notes show, pervading the clauses of vv. 6-9. Nor will Paul let the matter rest until he has proved his point by showing himself before the Church as a public rebuker of the senior apostle on this most momentous question of both faith and practice. Neither the supremacy nor the infallibility of the bishop of Rome can stand before these powerful paragraphs. It is no wonder that Luther held this epistle to be the great charter of the Church’s freedom from the despotism of the tiara.
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 10. The only exception to the wish of James, Peter, and John that Paul and Barnabas should devote themselves to the Gentiles. The poor: or the poor ones. It implies a poverty so notorious as to make the Jewish poor a definite object of thought. And their mention by James, apparently without any special occasion, suggests that the poverty was abiding. A remarkable coincidence with Acts 11:28f, Romans 15:26.
That we should remember: assuming that mere remembrance would evoke help. [The subjunctive present notes an abiding remembrance.] This request reveals the deplorable state of Palestine even as compared with surrounding countries.
I have also been eager to do; adds to the request Paul’s ready consent and fulfilment.
Eager: same word as earnestness (RV.) in same connection in 2 Corinthians 8:7, 8. The conspicuous change from we to I forbids us to limit this expression of eagerness to the promise then made; for in such promise Barnabas would certainly join; and if so Paul could not speak of it in the singular number. His assertion of eagerness covers his own conduct to the time of writing this Epistle: whereas Barnabas left him (Acts 15:39) soon after their return from Jerusalem to Antioch. [I have therefore correctly rendered the Greek aorist, retaining its absolute indefiniteness, I have been eager.] This request may have been recalled to Paul’s mind by the great collection for the poor at Jerusalem which he was making while writing these words, and which was a conspicuous proof of their truth. Possibly, on other occasions also he had rendered help.
REVIEW. After proving negatively the independence of the Gospel he preached by the scantiness of his intercourse with the earlier apostles, Paul gives in Galatians 2:7 further proof of it by narrating their action when he met them at an important crisis in the history of the early Church, fourteen years after the visit mentioned above. This later visit to Jerusalem was undertaken by God’s direction: and Paul felt that upon its success hung the highest welfare and indeed the permanence of the Gentile Churches. The greatness of the issue moved him to present the matters in dispute, not publicly to the whole Church, but privately to its leaders. The chief point objected to in his teaching, viz. that circumcision was not binding on Gentile converts, was conceded, in spite of opposition, in the test case of Titus, a Gentile companion who had gone up with Paul to Jerusalem. And, when Paul expounded his teaching among the Gentiles, the earlier apostles had no correction or addition to suggest, but simply and readily recognised him as a fellow-worker, to whom along with Barnabas God had allotted work different from that allotted to them. They merely begged him, in his work among the Gentiles, not to forget the poverty of his fellow countrymen at home, a request with which during many years Paul had eagerly complied.
This section has revealed a specific, and as we shall see probably the most conspicuous element of the erroneous teaching which in this letter Paul combats, viz. the universal obligation of circumcision. The tremendous spiritual consequences involved in this error, we shall learn in DIV. II. To overturn it by stating and defending the truth of the Gospel, we shall find to be the chief aim of this Epistle.
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
John Wesley
V. 11. But-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.
When Peter-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, Galatians 2:12; for dissimulation, Galatians 2:13; and for not walking uprightly. Galatians 2:14.
Adam Clarke
Verse 11. When Peter was come to Antioch] There has been a controversy whether petrov, Peter, here should not be read khfav, 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 petrov, Peter, ABCH, several others of good note, with the Syriac, Erpenian, Coptic, Sahidic, Æthiopic, Armenian, later Syriac in the margin, Vulgate, and several of the Greek fathers, read khfav. 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 pRomans 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.
Joseph Benson
Verse 11. But, &c. — 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; when Peter was come to Antioch — After Barnabas and I were returned thither; I withstood him to the face — Or opposed him personally in the presence of the church there, then the chief of all the Gentile churches; because he was to be blamed — For the fear of man, verse 12; for dissimulation, verse 13; and for not walking uprightly, verse 14. To show what kind of interpreters of Scripture some of the most learned fathers were, Dr. Macknight quotes Jerome here as translating the phrase, kata proswton, which we render to the face, secundum faciem, in appearance; supposing Paul’s meaning to be, “that he and Peter were not serious in this dispute; but, by a holy kind of dissimulation, endeavoured on the one hand, to give satisfaction to the Gentiles, and on the other not to offend the Jews. By such interpretations as these, the fathers pretended to justify the deceits which they used for persuading the heathen to embrace the gospel!” From the instance of Peter’s imprudence and sin, here recorded, the most advanced, whether in knowledge or holiness, may learn to take heed lest they fall. For before certain persons — Who were zealous for the observation of the ceremonies of the law; came from James — Who was then at Jerusalem; he did eat with the converted Gentiles — In Antioch, on all occasions, and conversed freely with them; but when they were come he withdrew — From that freedom of converse; and separated himself — From them, as if he had thought them unclean: and this he did, not from any change in his sentiments, but purely as fearing them of the circumcision — Namely, the converted Jews, whom he was unwilling to displease, because he thought their censures of much greater importance than they really were. The Jews, it must be observed, reckoned it unlawful to eat with the proselytes of the gate; that is, such proselytes to their religion as had not submitted to the rite of circumcision, nor engaged to observe the whole ceremonial law, (see Acts 10:28; 11:3,) some meats permitted to them being unclean to the Jews; and the other believing Jews — Who were at Antioch, and had before used the like freedom; dissembled with him — In thus scrupulously avoiding all free converse with their Gentile brethren; insomuch that Barnabas also — Who with me had preached salvation to the Gentiles without the works of the law, Acts 13:39; was carried away — Namely, by the force of authority and example in opposition to judgment and conviction, and even against his will, as the word sunaphcqh, here used, appears to imply; with their dissimulation — Or hypocrisy.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face. He does not blame him for living as a jew in Jerusalem, and as a greek in Antioch, for Paul invariably did the same. To the jews, he became a jew, that he might gain the jews; and among the greeks, he lived as the greeks. The point of reprehension was, the change of Peter’s mode of living on the arrival of brethren from Jerusalem, “who were all zealous of the law.” Chrysostom is of opinion, that Paul reproved Peter privately; but that is a mere conjecture. The fathers agree with Paul, that Peter in this act of ecclesiastical prudence was fallible, which destroys the infallibility of Rome as with a thunder stroke. The certainty of Paul’s gospel depended neither on Peter nor James. He had received it from the Lord. Therefore he adds,
Daniel Whedon
11. When Peter was come to Antioch—After the Jerusalem Council, and before Paul and Barnabas left on their separate journeys. Acts 15:39,
40. Antioch was, as we have amply shown, (Acts 11:19-30, where see notes,) a new Christian centre, after Jerusalem; the metropolis of Gentile Christianity, the stronghold of the anti-circumcisionists against the powerful influence of the mother city. It was all important in order to suppress the Gentile repudiation of circumcision in the Church that Antioch should succumb. The Church was built up to its present flourishing condition largely by the joint ministries of Barnabas and Paul, and it was their province to maintain the independence of Antiochian Christian Gentilism. When Peter, the senior apostle, arrived at Antioch, therefore, fresh from the Jerusalem Council, it was a great gain for Gentilism that he disregarded Jewish limitations, and did eat with the Gentiles. This separation at the table, produced by the Jewish laws of diet, was not only a symbol of division but of caste. It rendered a common love-feast and a common communion impossible. It made a horizontal separation by which the Jewish class was to be a higher grade in the Church. This, too, even where the Gentile class was permitted to remain uncircumcised. It made degradation the price of uncircumcision. To be blamed—Literally, he was condemned; that is, by his own deed.
Joseph Agar Beet
GALATIANS
SECTION 8. — PAUL’S RESISTANCE TO PETER,
AND EXPOSITION OF HIS OWN PRINCIPLES
CH. 2:11-21.
But when Cephas had come to Antioch, to the face I withstood him, because he was known to be in the wrong. For, before there came some men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they came, he began to withdraw and to separate himself fearing them of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was led away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they are not walking rightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas before all, If thou, being a Jew, eatest as do the Gentiles and not as do the Jews, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to act as do the Jews? We, by nature Jews and not sinners from the Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by works of law but only through belief of Jesus Christ, also we believed in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified by belief of Christ and not by works of law; because “By works of law will no flesh be justified.” (Psalm 143:2.) Now if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, also ourselves have been found to be sinners, are we to infer that Christ is a minister of sin? far from it. For, if what I pulled down these things again I build up, I present myself as a transgressor. For I through law died to law that I might live for God. With Christ I have been crucified, and it is no longer I that live, but in me Christ lives. And the life which I now live in flesh I live in faith, in belief of the Son of God who loved me and gave up Himself on my behalf. I do not set aside the grace of God: for if through law comes righteousness, then Christ died for nought.
After proving the independence of his authority as an apostle, from the scantiness of his intercourse with the earlier apostles during the years following his conversion and from the formal recognition accorded to him by them at Jerusalem, Paul now goes on to give a final and conclusive proof of the same from an incident at Antioch in which he actually resisted publicly the chief of the twelve apostles. His words to Peter flow into a description of his own spiritual life, a description which is a reply both to Peter and to the disturbers in Galatia.
Ver. 11. Another step (cp. Galatians 1:15) in the historical narrative. Had come: better than (R.V.) came. For evidently Peter had been some time at Antioch, and after him others had arrived, before Paul rebuked him. [For this correct use of the aorist where we use the pluperfect, cp. Acts 21:26; 1:2. The action is looked upon merely as having occurred at some indefinite past time.]
Cephas… to Antioch: a coincidence with Acts 15:35, where both Paul and Barnabas are said to have remained some time at Antioch after their return from the conference at Jerusalem. The scantiness of the narrative of the Book of Acts forbids all surprise that this incident is not recorded there.
To the face I withstood him: graphic picture.
Known to be in the wrong: same word in 1 John 3:20f. It denotes, not spoken condemnation, but mental recognition of his guilt by those around; thus differing from the word in Romans 14:23. That Peter was known to have done wrong, moved Paul to reprove him publicly. Otherwise the rebuke might have been private.
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.
Adam Clarke
Verse 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.
Daniel Whedon
12. Certain came from James—This may mean that they came from the Church of James at Jerusalem. It may be, also, that they came from James himself, but entirely misrepresented James, insisting on a rule that James did not assert. It may, finally, be that James really and truly, at this time, meant that Gentile Antioch should submit, and concede that while circumcision should no be obligatory upon Gentile Christians, yet uncircumcised Gentile Christians should be excluded from the Jewish Christian table. This would have been to establish a Hindoo caste in the Christian Church. How James really stood, however, among parties, we have noted on Acts 15:6. Fearing them—This body of deputies from James must have swept in upon Antioch with an overwhelming power thus to have overawed the senior apostle. It looked like a final defeat of Christian liberty. For, conquered here in its fortress at Antioch, where else could it raise its head?
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 12.-13. The just-mentioned misconduct of Peter, and its effect upon others.
Came… from James: probably to be taken together. For such a phrase as they from James (cp. Acts 6:9) is not found in the New Testament: and it is not likely that Paul would speak of any men as disciples of James. Cp. Mark 5:35; 1 Thessalonians 3:6; which also forbid us to infer that these men were sent by James. But, that his name is used in this semi-local sense, reveals his influence in the Church at Jerusalem, to which these men evidently belonged. And this professed relation to James suggests that he was in less marked antagonism to them than was Paul. That these were false brethren, we have no proof. For those in Galatians 2:4 were only a secret minority of the Church at Jerusalem. But evidently (cp. Acts 11:3; 15:5) these men held the restrictions of the Mosaic Law to be still binding.
He used to eat-with the Gentiles: as the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem complained that he did with Cornelius, in apposition to the practice of (Luke 15:2) the Pharisees and Scribes. The vision of Peter (Acts 10:28) implies that this refusal to eat with the Gentiles arose from fear of eating food forbidden (Leviticus 11:2ff) in the Law. If so, by eating with Cornelius and with the Gentiles at Antioch, Peter acknowledged virtually that the Law of Moses was no longer binding even upon Jews; in direct opposition to the converted Pharisees (Acts 15:5) at Jerusalem. He thus went rather further than the Decree, which (Acts 15:24) merely refused to make the Law binding on Gentiles but said nothing about Jewish Christians. But he did so in obedience to a revelation (Acts 10:15) from God.
Drew-back: same word in Acts 20:20, 27, from the lips of Paul. It suggests a quiet and timid retirement leading to separation. Them of (or from) the circumcision: Romans 4:12, (cp. Galatians 2:14,) Acts 10:45; 11:2: converts from Judaism. Yet not all the converted Jews at Antioch. For in Galatians 2:13 other Jews imitated Peter’s example; and therefore could hardly be objects of fear to him. Probably Paul refers chiefly to the new comers from Jerusalem; and perhaps to others whose zeal for the Law was rekindled by their arrival. They were men whose religious life bore conspicuously the mark of their origin.
Separated himself: from the society and from the tables of the Gentile Christians; who evidently did not observe the Mosaic distinctions of food. We have here a genuine trait of Peter’s character, viz. a proneness to yield, for good or ill, to the latest influence from without. Probably the influence of Paul’s exposition of his principles (Galatians 2:2) prompted the speech recorded in Acts 15:7ff: the influence of these new arrivals now prompts conduct quite inconsistent with that speech. See note below.
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
John Wesley
V. 13. And the other believing Jews-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.
Adam Clarke
Verse 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, autwn th upokrisei, with their hypocrisy-feigning to be what they really were not.
Daniel Whedon
13. Other Jews—All the converted Jews at Antioch. The whole Judaic Church! Barnabas also was carried away—The apostle’s fellow-leader in building up this fortress of freedom! Young Paul alone is left, of all the Jews, to champion Gentile rights. It was the very Thermopylae of the contest. Dissimulation—In acting from fear contrary to their own sense of duty; perhaps even trying to conceal their previous freedom with Gentiles.
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 13. Continues the narrative by adding the result of Peter’s conduct. Hypocrite: an English form of the Greek word for an actor in a theatre; then in the N.T. for one who pretends to be what he is not. The denunciations of Christ (Matthew 6:2, 5, 16, etc.) gave to the word a tremendous significance. Cp. 2 Macc. vi. 21, 24, 25.
Played-the-hypocrite-with him: in the unreal part Peter was acting, the rest of the Christian Jews at Antioch joined him. This implies that formerly they had eaten with the Gentiles; and that now, while acting as though the Mosaic restrictions were still obligatory, they knew that the obligation had passed away. All this agrees with Acts 15:31. Paul thus claims both Peter and the Jewish Christians at Antioch as in their hearts agreeing with that which in this Epistle he so earnestly advocates. The word Jews recalls the powerful influence of nationality; especially of visitors from the capital on fellow-countrymen living in a foreign land.
Even Barnabas: as though unlikely to be influenced by such an example: a courteous recognition of his superiority to those around him. And, that even he was led away, (same word in 2 Peter 3:17,) proves the strength of the influence which bore him along.
With their hypocrisy: the repetition lays great stress on the unreality of their action. Notice the different relation of Peter and Barnabas to this movement. Apparently without any outward pressure. Peter yielded at once to the silent influence of the arrivals from Jerusalem. His powerful example, as the foremost of the twelve apostles, carried along the whole body of the Jewish Christians at Antioch. And to this accumulated influence Barnabas yielded. He could not stand alone. But he was moved by the mass. Peter moved the mass.
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the 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 compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
John Wesley
V. 14. I said to Cephas before them all-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.
Why compellest thou the Gentiles-By withdrawing thyself and all the ministers from them; either to judaize, to keep the ceremonial law, or to be excluded from church communion ?
Adam Clarke
Verse 14. That they walked not uprightly] ouk orqopodousi. They did not walk with a straight step-they did not maintain a firm footing. 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. 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.
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.
Joseph Benson
Verse 14. When I saw that, in this matter, they walked not uprightly — Ouk orqopodousi, did not walk with a straight step, or in a plain and straight path; according to the truth of the gospel — That is, according to their own knowledge of the simplicity of the true gospel doctrine; I said to Peter, before them all — That is, in the hearing of Barnabas and all the Judaizers: see Paul single against Peter and all the Jews! If thou, being a Jew — And having been brought by circumcision under the strongest engagements to fulfil the whole law; livest after the manner of the Gentiles — Conversing and eating freely with them, as since the vision which thou sawest thou hast done; and not as do the Jews — Not observing the ceremonial law, which thou knowest to be now abolished; why compellest thou the Gentiles — By refusing to eat and converse freely with them, as if the distinction of meats was necessary to be observed in order to salvation, and by withdrawing thyself, and all the ministers, from them; to live as do the Jews — Ioudaizein, to Judaize; to keep the ceremonial law, or be excluded from church communion. What is here recorded, probably took place at the conclusion of some of their meetings for public worship; for on these occasions it was usual, after the reading of the law and the prophets, to give the assembly exhortations. Had this offence of Peter been of a private nature, undoubtedly, as duty required, Paul would have expostulated with him privately upon it, and not have brought it, at least in the first instance, before such a number of persons: but as it was a public affair, in which many persons were deeply concerned, the method Paul took was certainly most proper. And in thus openly reproving Peter, he not only acted honestly, but generously; for it would have been mean to have found fault with him behind his back, without giving him an opportunity to vindicate himself, if he could have done it. “Perhaps,” says Macknight, “Peter in this, and in a former instance, may have been suffered to fall, the more effectually to discountenance the arrogant claims of his pretended successors to supremacy and infallibility.”
Daniel Whedon
14. If thou—Peter. Livest after the manner of Gentiles—Unfolding the fact, doubtless well remembered by Gentiles present, how he lived before the men from James arrived. Compellest thou the Gentiles—By force of his example, after these men arrived.
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 14. Paul’s view of the conduct just narrated; and his rebuke of Peter. [~all~ ote introduces a contrast.] He thus expounds (Galatians 2:11) to the face I withstood him; as in Galatians 2:12, 13 he expounded he was known to be in the wrong.
Walking aright: along a straight road.
The truth of the Gospel: as in Galatians 2:5. The Gospel corresponds with, and reveals, eternal realities. And this revealed reality is a straight line along which God designs us to go.
Before all: for his bad example had been felt by all, and therefore needed public rebuke.
As do the Gentiles: literally, in-Gentile-fashion and not in-Jewish-fashion: two modes of life placed side by side in marked contrast. Paul refers evidently to the Mosaic restrictions of animal food; the most conspicuous distinction between Jews and Gentiles, and evidently designed by God to be such. Rather than break through these restrictions, many Jews had preferred to die: 1 Macc. i. 63; 2 Macc. vi. 18f; vii. 1. In complete contrast to these traditions of martyrdom for the Jewish Law, was Peter’s conduct at Antioch before the men came from James. How, or how is it that thou: Galatians 4:9; Romans 6:2; 8:32; 1 Corinthians 15:12. So remarkable, because so inconsistent, was Peter’s action that Paul asks how it comes about.
To-act-as-do-the Jews: literally to Judaize; cognate to in-Jewish fashion, and Judaism in Galatians 1:13, 14. Cp. Esther 8:17, many Gentiles were having themselves circumcised and were Judaizing because of the fear of the Jews: Plutarch, Cicero 8 7, “guilty of Judaizing.” It embraces whatever habits of life distinguished the Jews from other nations. By separating himself from the Gentile Christians. Peter virtually taught with apostolic authority that for the full enjoyment of the favour and covenant of God Jewish customs must be observed. And by so doing he was practically forcing the Gentile converts to live under Jewish restrictions.
Compel: the real, though undesigned, significance and tendency of Peter’s action; according to the usual sense of the Greek present, which does not indicate whether or not the influence so exerted was effectual. Cp. 2 Macc. vi. 18; “Eleazar was being compelled to eat pork;” although he refused to eat it: so 2 Macc. vii. 1.
Peter’s previous conduct, which agreed with his convictions, Paul assumes to be his normal conduct; and therefore speaks of it in the present tense, describing it for emphasis both positively and negatively. With this he contrasts the practical tendency of Peter’s later conduct. By his authoritative example he was compelling Gentiles to maintain Jewish distinctions which he, a born Jew, had systematically trampled under foot. The exposure of this inconsistency before the Christians at Antioch, who knew that Paul’s words were true, is his first argument against Peter, to whom it must have come with overwhelming force. And with equal force it bore upon the Churches in Galatia. For this question implies that both Peter and the Church at Antioch, in spite of their contrary action, agreed with Paul’s teaching, viz. that Mosaic restrictions are no longer binding.
We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
John Wesley
V. 15. We-St. Paul, to spare St. Peter, drops the first person singular, and speaks in the plural number. Galatians 2:18, he speaks in the first person singular again by a figure; and without a figure, Galatians 2:19, &c.
Who are Jews by nature-By birth, not proselytes only.
And not sinners of the Gentiles-That is, not sinful Gentiles; not such gross, enormous, abandoned sinners, as the heathens generally were.
Adam Clarke
Verse 15. We who are Jews by nature] We who belong to the Jewish nation-who have been born, bred, and educated Jews.
And not sinners of the Gentiles] amartwloi. Not without the knowledge of God, as they have been. aJmartwlov 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 ex eqnwn amartwloi, 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 fusei 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 Ephesians 2:3. See Clarke’s note on “Romans 2:16”. It appears, from the use of this word by some of the best Greek authors, that fusei 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. Munter, the present bishop of Zealand, entitled Observationum ex marmoribus Græcis Sacrarum Specimen, and which has been lent to me by the right honourable 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 oJ gambrov mou lewn artemeisiou, o epikaloumenov iaswn, oikonei men meilhsiov, fusei de iaseuv. “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 fusei iaseuv, 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: kai gar fusei toiv ioudaioiv aphcqaneto, oti kai to genov twn amalekitwn, ex wn hn autov, up autwn diefqarto. “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: oige $aqhnaioi% ton deina men olumpion keklhkasi, oude fusei polithn eautwn. “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 Ephesians 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 Romans 2:16, where it is proved that fusei, 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.
Joseph Benson
Verses 15, 16. We — St. Paul, to spare St. Peter, drops the first person singular, and speaks in the plural number; verse 18, he speaks in the first person singular again by a figure, and without a figure, verse 19, &c. Who are Jews by nature — By birth, and not proselytes. As in the first part of his discourse, where the apostle speaks only of himself and Peter, he meant to speak of all the teachers of the gospel; so in this second part, where he describes his own state, he in effect describes the state of believers in general. And not sinners of the Gentiles — That is, not sinful Gentiles; not such gross, enormous, abandoned sinners as the heathen generally are. It is justly observed by Dr. Whitby here, that the word sinners in Scripture signifies great and habitual sinners; and that the Jews gave the Gentiles that appellation, on account of their idolatry and other vices. Accordingly, Matthew 26:45, the clause, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners, means, is delivered into the hands of the Gentiles, as is evident from Matthew 20:18, 19. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law — Not even of the moral law, much less of the ceremonial; but by the faith of Jesus Christ — The faith which Jesus Christ hath enjoined and requires as the means of men’s justification, namely, faith in the gospel, in its important truths and precious promises: or, rather, by faith in Jesus Christ, as the true Messiah, the Son of God, in whom alone there is salvation for guilty, depraved, weak, and wretched sinners; the faith whereby we make application to him, and rely on him for salvation, present and eternal: learn of him as a Teacher, depend on him as a Mediator, become subject to him as a Governor, and prepare to meet him as a Judge. See on Romans 3:28; 4:1-25. Even we — And how much more must the Gentiles, who have still less pretence to depend on their own works? have believed in Jesus Christ — To this great purpose; that we might be justified — As has been said before; by faith in Christ — This is the method that we, who were brought up Jews, have taken, as being thoroughly sensible we could be justified and saved no other way: for by the works of the law, whether ceremonial or moral, shall no flesh living, whether Jew or Gentile, be justified — Since no human creature is capable of fully answering its demands, or can pretend to have paid a universal and unsinning obedience to it. Hitherto the apostle had been considering that single question, “Are Christians obliged to observe the ceremonial law?” But he here insensibly goes further, and by citing this passage, shows that what he spoke directly of the ceremonial, included also the moral law. For David undoubtedly did so, when he said, (Psalm 143:2, the place here referred to,) In thy sight shall no man living be justified; which the apostle likewise explains, (Romans 3:19, 20,) in such a manner as can agree only with the moral law.
Daniel Whedon
15. By nature—By birth. Sinners—Unjustified, either by law or Christ.
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 15.-16. A second appeal, based on the spiritual experience of Paul and Peter, against the teaching implied in Peter’s inconsistent conduct. It is suggested by the foregoing rebuke.
We: Paul and Peter, in contrast to the Gentiles whom Peter was compelling to live like Jews.
By-nature: by birth, and apart from their own action; in contrast to proselytes who became Jews by choice. See under Romans 2:14. By-nature Jews: parallel with, but more definite than, being a Jew in Galatians 2:14.
And not, etc.: emphatic contrast, as in Galatians 2:14. From Gentiles: i.e. converts from heathenism.
Sinners: necessary result of heathen origin, as all Jews would readily admit: for heathenism cannot save from sin. It was a common Jewish designation of Gentiles. So 1 Macc. ii. 44, “they smote sinners in their anger and lawless men in their fury;” Tobit. xiii. 6, “His greatness to a nation of sinners;” Wisdom x. 20, referring to the Egyptians in the Red Sea: cp. Luke 6:32f with Matthew 5:47; Matthew 26:45 with Luke 18:32. For the sake of the contrast which follows Paul assumes the point of view of Jewish self-righteousness, a point of view actually correct in this one particular. For, like all men, the Gentiles were sinners. But knowing, etc.: in apposition with we, and continuing by a slight contrast the description begun in by-nature Jews. Although born Jews and not inheritors of the pollution of heathendom, yet we know that a man does not receive justification from works of law.
A man is-justified: as from day to day one and another receive justification.
Law: any rule of conduct. Jews would think only of the Mosaic Law. Works of law: cp. Romans 2:15: actions prescribed in a rule of conduct. From such actions no one derives righteousness: i.e. no one is accepted by God as righteous because he had done what some law bids. See an instructive parallel in Romans 3:28. Naturally Paul thinks of actions prescribed in the Law of Moses; actions moral or ritual, both which are prescribed in the same Law and closely interwoven. But his words in their full latitude exclude justification by anything done in obedience to a rule of conduct. If there be justification, it must be apart from the works of law.
But only (literally except, or if not) by works of law; suggests at first sight that only by faith are we justified by works of law. But this inference is not supported by Greek usage. For, inasmuch as exceptions are usually preceded by a universal assertion, positive or negative, the exception is, even when preceded by a limited assertion, sometimes taken, not to the entire assertion, but to a wide term contained in it. So Luke 4:26f, many lepers in Israel… but not one of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian: i.e. no leper was cleansed except Naaman. So in Romans 14:14 an exception is taken, not to the statement nothing is common of itself, but simply to a wider assertion nothing is common. So Revelation 21:27: there shall not enter into it anything common… except they that are written, etc. And that here except through faith limits, not justified by works of law, but the wider statement is not justified, is made quite certain by the clear statements in Galatians 3:11, in law no one is justified; in Romans 3:28, a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. Paul merely says in the strongest way possible that a man is not justified except through faith.
Faith, or belief, of Jesus Christ: assurance that His words are true or will come true, as the case may be: see note under Romans 4:25. Also we; takes up the word we in Galatians 2:15 and puts it in conspicuous prominence on the pedestal erected for it by the intervening words. Then follows the chief assertion of the sentence occupying Galatians 2:15, 16. This is better (so A.V. and RV.) than to begin a new sentence here. For, the foregoing words, which have great force as a preparation for those following, have not sufficient independent weight to be a separate sentence. Also, or even we: in addition to the sinners from the Gentiles; in spite of being born Jews, and prompted by our knowledge that justification comes only through faith.
Believed in Christ: with Paul, only Romans 10:14; Philippians 1:29; Colossians 2:5; 1 Timothy 3:13; 2 Timothy 3:15: very common in the 4th Gospel. See note under Romans 4:25. It denotes a confidence in Christ which assures us that He will fulfil His promises. We believed: when we first put faith in Christ: so Romans 13:11. In order that we might be justified, etc.: definite purpose with which we believed in Christ. On this purpose rests the weight of the argument. It is made very conspicuous by the repeated contrast, before and after, between belief of Christ, whose name is mentioned three times, and works of law. Over this contrast, Paul seems to linger. He declares emphatically that both he and Peter reposed faith in Christ because of the felt impossibility of gaining justification by works of law. [For ou in a final sentence, cp. 1 Corinthians 1:17. Paul says categorically that while seeking justification he was not seeking it from works of law.]
Because from works, etc.: reason why Paul sought justification by faith and not by actions prescribed in a rule of conduct, or rather the reason already given repeated in epigrammatical form, viz because from that source justification will never come.
No flesh: see under Romans 3:20. The Hebrew colouring of this conclusion, and its word for word agreement with Romans 3:20, which is evidently a quotation from Psalm 143:2, prove that it is also a reference to the same. Paul’s words are thus supported by Old Testament authority. Indeed otherwise they would be empty repetition. Their exact agreement with Romans 3:20, even where they differ from the LXX., suggests that this quotation was frequent in the lips of Paul: and its appropriateness makes this very likely.
Galatians 2:15, 16 give the inner side of the spiritual history of Peter and Paul. And they by no means contradict what we know of its outer side. We cannot doubt that Peter, before Andrew led him to Jesus, and Paul, before he went to Damascus, had like thousands since sought the favour of God by obedience to law, i.e. by morality or by religious duties; and that the failure of their search had taught them that not thus can it be obtained. Indeed without this preparation the words of Jesus to Peter and afterwards to Paul would have been ineffective. Until we find that morality cannot save us, we cannot trust for salvation to the word of Christ. Consequently, these words are true of all who venture to repose faith in Christ. And they were a powerful appeal to Peter’s remembrance of his own inner life. For he was now practically setting up as a condition, and in this sense as a means, of salvation that which, when he first came to Christ, he had forsaken because he had found that from it salvation could not be obtained. Paul says: Take the case of you and me. Although we were born Jews and not the offspring of idolaters and sharers of the awful immorality of heathenism, yet, inasmuch as we found by experience that no justification comes from works done in obedience to law, but only through faith, even we, born Jews and as compared with others moral men, put faith in Christ in order that from faith in Him we might have a justification not to be derived from works of law. And this motive for believing Christ, viz. that from works of law no one clothed in flesh and blood will receive justification, is frequently asserted in the Old Testament. This argument would come to Peter with force the more overwhelming because it is really a reproduction of his own earlier teaching; e.g. Acts 15:10f; 10:28, 34; 11:17.
This long and emphatic quotation of Paul’s words to Peter assures us that they bear very closely upon the argument of this Epistle. We have thus another indication, in addition to that detected in Galatians 2:3, of the error then prevalent in Galatia. Evidently, the disturbers not only demanded that Gentile converts be circumcised, but did so on the ground that obedience to the Mosaic Law was an abiding and universal condition of justification. That this inference is correct, will be placed beyond doubt by the argument of Gal. 3; as our inferences in Galatians 2:3 about circumcision will be verified by plain assertions in Galatians 5:3; 6:12. Thus this verse prepares the way for the main argument of the Epistle.
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith 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 no flesh be justified.
John Wesley
V. 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law-Not even of the moral, much less the ceremonial, law. But by the faith of Jesus Christ-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. Even we-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.
Because-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. Shall no flesh living-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, (Psalm 143:2, the place here referred to.) In thy sight shall no man living be justified; which the Apostle likewise explains, Romans 3:19,20, in such a manner as can agree to none but the moral law.
Adam Clarke
Verse 16. Knowing that a man is not justified] See the notes on Romans 1:17; 3:24, 27; 8:3. And see on Acts 13:38, 39, 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.
Joseph Benson
Verses 15, 16. We — St. Paul, to spare St. Peter, drops the first person singular, and speaks in the plural number; verse 18, he speaks in the first person singular again by a figure, and without a figure, verse 19, &c. Who are Jews by nature — By birth, and not proselytes. As in the first part of his discourse, where the apostle speaks only of himself and Peter, he meant to speak of all the teachers of the gospel; so in this second part, where he describes his own state, he in effect describes the state of believers in general. And not sinners of the Gentiles — That is, not sinful Gentiles; not such gross, enormous, abandoned sinners as the heathen generally are. It is justly observed by Dr. Whitby here, that the word sinners in Scripture signifies great and habitual sinners; and that the Jews gave the Gentiles that appellation, on account of their idolatry and other vices. Accordingly, Matthew 26:45, the clause, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners, means, is delivered into the hands of the Gentiles, as is evident from Matthew 20:18, 19. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law — Not even of the moral law, much less of the ceremonial; but by the faith of Jesus Christ — The faith which Jesus Christ hath enjoined and requires as the means of men’s justification, namely, faith in the gospel, in its important truths and precious promises: or, rather, by faith in Jesus Christ, as the true Messiah, the Son of God, in whom alone there is salvation for guilty, depraved, weak, and wretched sinners; the faith whereby we make application to him, and rely on him for salvation, present and eternal: learn of him as a Teacher, depend on him as a Mediator, become subject to him as a Governor, and prepare to meet him as a Judge. See on Romans 3:28; 4:1-25. Even we — And how much more must the Gentiles, who have still less pretence to depend on their own works? have believed in Jesus Christ — To this great purpose; that we might be justified — As has been said before; by faith in Christ — This is the method that we, who were brought up Jews, have taken, as being thoroughly sensible we could be justified and saved no other way: for by the works of the law, whether ceremonial or moral, shall no flesh living, whether Jew or Gentile, be justified — Since no human creature is capable of fully answering its demands, or can pretend to have paid a universal and unsinning obedience to it. Hitherto the apostle had been considering that single question, “Are Christians obliged to observe the ceremonial law?” But he here insensibly goes further, and by citing this passage, shows that what he spoke directly of the ceremonial, included also the moral law. For David undoubtedly did so, when he said, (Psalm 143:2, the place here referred to,) In thy sight shall no man living be justified; which the apostle likewise explains, (Romans 3:19, 20,) in such a manner as can agree only with the moral law.
Daniel Whedon
16. Knowing—The principle of justification—not by law, but by Christ alone—is in this verse expressed with manifold reiteration, for sake of emphasis. This was, perhaps, occasioned in some degree by the colloquy between the two apostles. The clauses knowing… Christ, are antecedent; the clauses even… law, are consequent; the clause for… justified, expresses the great Christian axiom on which the whole is based.
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 15.-16. A second appeal, based on the spiritual experience of Paul and Peter, against the teaching implied in Peter’s inconsistent conduct. It is suggested by the foregoing rebuke.
We: Paul and Peter, in contrast to the Gentiles whom Peter was compelling to live like Jews.
By-nature: by birth, and apart from their own action; in contrast to proselytes who became Jews by choice. See under Romans 2:14. By-nature Jews: parallel with, but more definite than, being a Jew in Galatians 2:14.
And not, etc.: emphatic contrast, as in Galatians 2:14. From Gentiles: i.e. converts from heathenism.
Sinners: necessary result of heathen origin, as all Jews would readily admit: for heathenism cannot save from sin. It was a common Jewish designation of Gentiles. So 1 Macc. ii. 44, “they smote sinners in their anger and lawless men in their fury;” Tobit. xiii. 6, “His greatness to a nation of sinners;” Wisdom x. 20, referring to the Egyptians in the Red Sea: cp. Luke 6:32f with Matthew 5:47; Matthew 26:45 with Luke 18:32. For the sake of the contrast which follows Paul assumes the point of view of Jewish self-righteousness, a point of view actually correct in this one particular. For, like all men, the Gentiles were sinners. But knowing, etc.: in apposition with we, and continuing by a slight contrast the description begun in by-nature Jews. Although born Jews and not inheritors of the pollution of heathendom, yet we know that a man does not receive justification from works of law.
A man is-justified: as from day to day one and another receive justification.
Law: any rule of conduct. Jews would think only of the Mosaic Law. Works of law: cp. Romans 2:15: actions prescribed in a rule of conduct. From such actions no one derives righteousness: i.e. no one is accepted by God as righteous because he had done what some law bids. See an instructive parallel in Romans 3:28. Naturally Paul thinks of actions prescribed in the Law of Moses; actions moral or ritual, both which are prescribed in the same Law and closely interwoven. But his words in their full latitude exclude justification by anything done in obedience to a rule of conduct. If there be justification, it must be apart from the works of law.
But only (literally except, or if not) by works of law; suggests at first sight that only by faith are we justified by works of law. But this inference is not supported by Greek usage. For, inasmuch as exceptions are usually preceded by a universal assertion, positive or negative, the exception is, even when preceded by a limited assertion, sometimes taken, not to the entire assertion, but to a wide term contained in it. So Luke 4:26f, many lepers in Israel… but not one of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian: i.e. no leper was cleansed except Naaman. So in Romans 14:14 an exception is taken, not to the statement nothing is common of itself, but simply to a wider assertion nothing is common. So Revelation 21:27: there shall not enter into it anything common… except they that are written, etc. And that here except through faith limits, not justified by works of law, but the wider statement is not justified, is made quite certain by the clear statements in Galatians 3:11, in law no one is justified; in Romans 3:28, a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. Paul merely says in the strongest way possible that a man is not justified except through faith.
Faith, or belief, of Jesus Christ: assurance that His words are true or will come true, as the case may be: see note under Romans 4:25. Also we; takes up the word we in Galatians 2:15 and puts it in conspicuous prominence on the pedestal erected for it by the intervening words. Then follows the chief assertion of the sentence occupying Galatians 2:15, 16. This is better (so A.V. and RV.) than to begin a new sentence here. For, the foregoing words, which have great force as a preparation for those following, have not sufficient independent weight to be a separate sentence. Also, or even we: in addition to the sinners from the Gentiles; in spite of being born Jews, and prompted by our knowledge that justification comes only through faith.
Believed in Christ: with Paul, only Romans 10:14; Philippians 1:29; Colossians 2:5; 1 Timothy 3:13; 2 Timothy 3:15: very common in the 4th Gospel. See note under Romans 4:25. It denotes a confidence in Christ which assures us that He will fulfil His promises. We believed: when we first put faith in Christ: so Romans 13:11. In order that we might be justified, etc.: definite purpose with which we believed in Christ. On this purpose rests the weight of the argument. It is made very conspicuous by the repeated contrast, before and after, between belief of Christ, whose name is mentioned three times, and works of law. Over this contrast, Paul seems to linger. He declares emphatically that both he and Peter reposed faith in Christ because of the felt impossibility of gaining justification by works of law. [For ou in a final sentence, cp. 1 Corinthians 1:17. Paul says categorically that while seeking justification he was not seeking it from works of law.]
Because from works, etc.: reason why Paul sought justification by faith and not by actions prescribed in a rule of conduct, or rather the reason already given repeated in epigrammatical form, viz because from that source justification will never come.
No flesh: see under Romans 3:20. The Hebrew colouring of this conclusion, and its word for word agreement with Romans 3:20, which is evidently a quotation from Psalm 143:2, prove that it is also a reference to the same. Paul’s words are thus supported by Old Testament authority. Indeed otherwise they would be empty repetition. Their exact agreement with Romans 3:20, even where they differ from the LXX., suggests that this quotation was frequent in the lips of Paul: and its appropriateness makes this very likely.
Galatians 2:15, 16 give the inner side of the spiritual history of Peter and Paul. And they by no means contradict what we know of its outer side. We cannot doubt that Peter, before Andrew led him to Jesus, and Paul, before he went to Damascus, had like thousands since sought the favour of God by obedience to law, i.e. by morality or by religious duties; and that the failure of their search had taught them that not thus can it be obtained. Indeed without this preparation the words of Jesus to Peter and afterwards to Paul would have been ineffective. Until we find that morality cannot save us, we cannot trust for salvation to the word of Christ. Consequently, these words are true of all who venture to repose faith in Christ. And they were a powerful appeal to Peter’s remembrance of his own inner life. For he was now practically setting up as a condition, and in this sense as a means, of salvation that which, when he first came to Christ, he had forsaken because he had found that from it salvation could not be obtained. Paul says: Take the case of you and me. Although we were born Jews and not the offspring of idolaters and sharers of the awful immorality of heathenism, yet, inasmuch as we found by experience that no justification comes from works done in obedience to law, but only through faith, even we, born Jews and as compared with others moral men, put faith in Christ in order that from faith in Him we might have a justification not to be derived from works of law. And this motive for believing Christ, viz. that from works of law no one clothed in flesh and blood will receive justification, is frequently asserted in the Old Testament. This argument would come to Peter with force the more overwhelming because it is really a reproduction of his own earlier teaching; e.g. Acts 15:10f; 10:28, 34; 11:17.
This long and emphatic quotation of Paul’s words to Peter assures us that they bear very closely upon the argument of this Epistle. We have thus another indication, in addition to that detected in Galatians 2:3, of the error then prevalent in Galatia. Evidently, the disturbers not only demanded that Gentile converts be circumcised, but did so on the ground that obedience to the Mosaic Law was an abiding and universal condition of justification. That this inference is correct, will be placed beyond doubt by the argument of Gal. 3; as our inferences in Galatians 2:3 about circumcision will be verified by plain assertions in Galatians 5:3; 6:12. Thus this verse prepares the way for the main argument of the Epistle.
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.
John Wesley
V. 17. But if while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves are still found sinners-If we continue in sin, will it therefore follow, that Christ is the minister or countenancer of sin?
Adam Clarke
Verse 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.
Joseph Benson
Verses 17-19. But if while we seek to be justified by Christ — Through the merit of his obedience unto death, by simply believing in him, and in the truths and promises of his gospel; we ourselves are still found sinners — Continue in sin; if we are still under the guilt and power of sin, in an unpardoned, unrenewed state; is therefore Christ the minister of sin — Does he countenance sin, by giving persons reason to suppose that they are justified through believing in him as the true Messiah, while they continue to live in the commission of sin? God forbid — That any thing should ever be insinuated so much to the dishonour of God, and of our glorious Redeemer. For if I build again — By my sinful practice; the things which I destroyed — Or professed that I wished to destroy, by my preaching, or by my believing; I make myself a transgressor — I show that I act very inconsistently, building up again what I pretended I was pulling down. In other words, I show myself, not Christ, to be a transgressor; the whole blame lies on me, not on 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. For I through the law — Understood in its spirituality, extent, and obligation; applied by the Holy Spirit to my conscience, and convincing me of my utter sinfulness, guilt, and helplessness; am dead to the law — To all hope of justification by it, and therefore to all dependance upon it; see notes on Romans 7:7-14; That I may live to God — Not that I may continue in sin. For this very end, I am delivered from the condemnation in which I was involved, am justified, and brought into a state of favour and acceptance with God, that I might be animated by nobler views and hopes than the law could give, and engaged, through love to God, his people, and all mankind, to a more generous, sublime, and extensive obedience than the law was capable of producing.
Daniel Whedon
17. Are found—By our own confession, expressed in keeping the law. Sinners—Are in an unjustified state. Is therefore Christ, confessedly on our part, the minister of, the contributor to, sin, or non-justification?
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 17. An incorrect inference from Galatians 2:16 in the form of a question, suggesting an objection so serious that Paul must at once state and overturn it. It has a close parallel in Rom. 6, where a similar objection is met by a similar argument: cp. Galatians 2:19 with Romans 6:6, 11; 7:4.
Justified in Christ: in His blood, Romans 5:9; through the redemption which is in Christ, Romans 3:24; in law, Galatians 3:11; 5:4; sanctified in Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:2. Justification was wrought out for us objectively in the historic Person of Christ, and subjectively appropriated by the faith which unites men to Him. Seeking to be justified, etc.: implied in the purpose asserted in Galatians 2:16, viz. that we might be justified by belief of Christ. We were found, or have been found: [the Greek aorist includes both senses:] cp. 1 Corinthians 15:15; Romans 7:10. Also ourselves sinners: in addition to the sinners from the Gentiles in Galatians 2:15. It takes up also we in Galatians 2:16. The mere search for justification, apart from its success, was itself a discovery that the seekers, like the Gentiles whom they once despised, were also themselves sinners. For only sinners need justification. Consequently, this supposition is a correct inference from Galatians 2:16. Even Peter and Paul had by their turning to Christ been found to be previously sinners. Paul now asks whether from this we are to draw the further inference that Christ is a minister of sin. Cp. ministers of righteousness, 2 Corinthians 11:15, ministry of righteousness, 2 Corinthians 3:9; minister of circumcision, Romans 15:8. It is practically the same, but more dignified than servant of sin, Romans 6:20. Since the Law utterly condemns sin, and since by turning to Christ for justification we were found to be, in spite of our earnest efforts to keep the Law, sinners like other men, are we to infer that Christ is an officer in the service of sin, that His influence tends to extend its empire? This is, in another form, the ever recurring objection that the Gospel of Christ which reveals the guilt of even the most moral men is opposed to morality. Paul states it here in the form of a question in order that he may overturn it by a picture of his own life of faith.
The above exposition implies that the questioned inference, Christ a minister of sin, is incorrectly deduced from a correct hypothesis, also ourselves found to be sinners; the hypothesis being really a correct inference from Galatians 2:16. The early Greek commentators suppose the undoubtedly false inference Christ a minister of sin to be correctly deduced from, thus disproving by reductio ad absurdum the hypothesis ourselves found to be sinners. If so, Galatians 2:17 proves that believers are no longer under the penalty of sin, by saying that otherwise Christ in whom they trust for pardon is, by leaving them still under condemnation, doing the work of sin. Paul’s question would thus be a proof of the truth of the Gospel which proclaims the justification of all who believe. But this argument would need to be more clearly indicated; especially as Galatians 2:16 is not so much an assertion of the Gospel as a denial that men are justified by works; whereas, as expounded above, the hypothesis flows naturally from the foregoing assertion.
For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
John Wesley
V. 18. By no means. For if I build again-By my sinful practice. The things which I destroyed-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.
Adam Clarke
Verse 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.
Joseph Benson
Verses 17-19. But if while we seek to be justified by Christ — Through the merit of his obedience unto death, by simply believing in him, and in the truths and promises of his gospel; we ourselves are still found sinners — Continue in sin; if we are still under the guilt and power of sin, in an unpardoned, unrenewed state; is therefore Christ the minister of sin — Does he countenance sin, by giving persons reason to suppose that they are justified through believing in him as the true Messiah, while they continue to live in the commission of sin? God forbid — That any thing should ever be insinuated so much to the dishonour of God, and of our glorious Redeemer. For if I build again — By my sinful practice; the things which I destroyed — Or professed that I wished to destroy, by my preaching, or by my believing; I make myself a transgressor — I show that I act very inconsistently, building up again what I pretended I was pulling down. In other words, I show myself, not Christ, to be a transgressor; the whole blame lies on me, not on 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. For I through the law — Understood in its spirituality, extent, and obligation; applied by the Holy Spirit to my conscience, and convincing me of my utter sinfulness, guilt, and helplessness; am dead to the law — To all hope of justification by it, and therefore to all dependance upon it; see notes on Romans 7:7-14; That I may live to God — Not that I may continue in sin. For this very end, I am delivered from the condemnation in which I was involved, am justified, and brought into a state of favour and acceptance with God, that I might be animated by nobler views and hopes than the law could give, and engaged, through love to God, his people, and all mankind, to a more generous, sublime, and extensive obedience than the law was capable of producing.
Daniel Whedon
18. And our law-keeping does place Christ in this condition; for if I build again the law-justification, which I destroyed, by rejecting it for Christ, I make myself unjustified—a transgressor.
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 18. Proof, extending to Galatians 2:21, of Paul’s indignant denial that the discovered sin of even moral seekers for salvation in Christ proves Him to be a minister of sin.
Pulled down, build up: metaphor common with Paul, Romans 14:19f; 15:20. By eating with the Gentiles Peter was pulling down the barrier of the Mosaic restrictions: by afterwards withdrawing from them he was building it again. This express and evident reference Paul courteously veils by using the first person as though merely stating a general principle. These again: emphatic exposure of Peter’s inconsistency.
Transgressor: one who oversteps the limits marked by law; more precise than sinner, preparing the way for the word law twice in Galatians 2:19. If by formerly pulling down the restrictions of the Law, Peter had, as Galatians 2:19 will show, been really carrying out the ultimate purpose of the Law, he is now, by maintaining the same restrictions, opposing the Law and transgressing the limits it has marked out for its own operation. His own inconsistency condemns him.
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
John Wesley
V. 19. For I through the law-Applied by the Spirit to my heart, and deeply convincing me of my utter sinfulness and helplessness. Am dead to the law-To all hope of justification from it. That I may live to God-Not continue in sin. For this very end am I, in this sense, freed from the law, that I may be freed from sin.
Adam Clarke
Verse 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 nomov, 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.
Joseph Benson
Verses 17-19. But if while we seek to be justified by Christ — Through the merit of his obedience unto death, by simply believing in him, and in the truths and promises of his gospel; we ourselves are still found sinners — Continue in sin; if we are still under the guilt and power of sin, in an unpardoned, unrenewed state; is therefore Christ the minister of sin — Does he countenance sin, by giving persons reason to suppose that they are justified through believing in him as the true Messiah, while they continue to live in the commission of sin? God forbid — That any thing should ever be insinuated so much to the dishonour of God, and of our glorious Redeemer. For if I build again — By my sinful practice; the things which I destroyed — Or professed that I wished to destroy, by my preaching, or by my believing; I make myself a transgressor — I show that I act very inconsistently, building up again what I pretended I was pulling down. In other words, I show myself, not Christ, to be a transgressor; the whole blame lies on me, not on 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. For I through the law — Understood in its spirituality, extent, and obligation; applied by the Holy Spirit to my conscience, and convincing me of my utter sinfulness, guilt, and helplessness; am dead to the law — To all hope of justification by it, and therefore to all dependance upon it; see notes on Romans 7:7-14; That I may live to God — Not that I may continue in sin. For this very end, I am delivered from the condemnation in which I was involved, am justified, and brought into a state of favour and acceptance with God, that I might be animated by nobler views and hopes than the law could give, and engaged, through love to God, his people, and all mankind, to a more generous, sublime, and extensive obedience than the law was capable of producing.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 19. I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. The law came by Moses; it is a schoolmaster to prepare us for more enlarged disclosures of the divine will. The new law, the grace and truth by Jesus Christ, so absorbs my soul that I am dead to the law, being assured that righteousness never did, and never can come to sinful man by the legal code. “We,” on the contrary, “wait for the hope of righteousness by faith:” Galatians 5:5.
Daniel Whedon
19. For I… am dead to the law—As a means of justification and life; and that, too, through the law, which provides penalty, but not pardon, for the sinner; death, not life.
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 19. Shows the bearing on Galatians 2:17 of the general and rather ambiguous statement in Galatians 2:18; and thus introduces the main proof that even though the Gospel brings down all men to the common level of sinners yet Christ is not a minister of sin. As to me: the Greek emphatic pronoun, recalling us from the general statement of Galatians 2:18 to Paul’s own actual spiritual life. I died to law: expounded in Romans 7:4, put to death to the Law through the body of Christ. By His crucified body, Paul was removed completely from the jurisdiction of law, so that God no longer treats him according to his previous obedience to a rule of conduct as though such obedience were the means of obtaining His favour. This is another way of saying that by the death of Christ God has reconciled the justification of sinners with His own justice. And this escape from the claims of the Law and separation from its rule was brought about by means of law. For it was to satisfy these claims that Christ died: and the purpose of the Law was to force men to Christ, and by so doing place them beyond its own jurisdiction. Thus objectively and subjectively Paul’s deliverance from the rule of law was brought about by the operation of law.
That I may live for God: God’s purpose in liberating Paul from law. Cp. Romans 7:4, put to death to the Law… that we may bear fruit for God: Romans 6:11, living for God in Christ Jesus. This verse embodies in a few words the most distinctive teaching of Paul. It is now evident that, if by the operation of the Law and in accomplishment of its original purpose Paul has been set free from law and therefore from the Mosaic restrictions, to build up again the barrier erected by these restrictions is to run counter to the spirit and purpose of the Law itself, and is therefore a transgression of the Law. Just so, to re-erect the scaffolding of a finished building is to thwart the original purpose of that scaffolding, which is a building free from scaffolding. Consequently, by separating himself from the Gentile converts at Antioch, Peter was resisting the voice of Sinai: for he was hindering its real and final purpose. Again, since the purpose of this release from law is that we may live for God, it is evident that although the Gospel brings down all men to the common level of sinners yet Christ is not thereby promoting the rule of sin. For, to use for God all the powers which life gives, is (cp. Romans 6:11) the absolute opposite of sin. All this is made more evident by the description in Galatians 2:20 of the life which Paul is living.
I am crucified with Christ: neverthless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and 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.
John Wesley
V. 20. The Apostle goes on to describe how he is freed from sin; how far he is from continuing therein.
I am crucified with Christ-Made conformable to his death; the body of sin is destroyed. Romans 6:6.
And I-As to my corrupt nature.
Live no longer-Being dead to sin.
But Christ liveth in me-Is a fountain of life in my inmost soul, from which all my tempers, words, and actions flow.
And the life that I now live in the flesh-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.
Adam Clarke
Verse 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. 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.
Joseph Benson
Verses 20, 21. The apostle proceeds in describing how he was freed from the dominion as well as guilt of sin, and how far he was from continuing in the commission of it. I am crucified with Christ — To sin, to the world, and all selfish and corrupt desires and designs; my old man, my sinful nature, with its affections and lusts, is crucified with him; that is, through his death on the cross, and the grace procured for me, and bestowed on me thereby, that the body of sin may be destroyed, Romans 6:6. In other words, I have such a sense of his dying love in my hearty and of the excellence of that method of justification and salvation which he hath accomplished on the cross, that in consequence of it, I am dead to all the allurements of the world and sin, as well as to all views of obtaining righteousness and life by the law. Nevertheless I live — A new and spiritual life, in union with God through Christ, and in a conformity to his will; yet not I — The holy, happy life which I now live, is neither procured by my own merit, nor caused by my own power. Or, as zw de ouk eti egw is more properly rendered, I live no longer, namely, as to my former sinful self, state, and nature, being made dead to the world and sin; but Christ liveth in me — By his word and Spirit, his truth and grace; and is a fountain of life in my inmost soul, from which all my tempers, words, and actions flow. And the life that I now live in the flesh — Even in this mortal body, and while I am surrounded with the snares, and exposed to the trials and troubles of this sinful world; I live by the faith of — Or rather, as the apostle undoubtedly means, by faith in, and reliance on, the Son of God — The spiritual life which I live, I derive from him by the continual exercise of faith in his sacrifice and intercession, and through the supplies of grace communicated by him; who loved me — With a compassionate, benevolent, forgiving, and bountiful love; to such a degree that he gave himself — Delivered himself up to ignominy, torture, and death; for me — That he might procure my redemption and salvation. In the meantime I do not frustrate — Or make void, in seeking to be justified by my own works; the grace of God — His free, unmerited love in Christ Jesus, which they do who seek justification by the law; for if righteousness come by the law — If men may be justified by their obedience to the law, ceremonial or moral; then Christ is dead in vain — There was no necessity for his dying in order to their salvation, since they might have been saved without his death; might, by the merit of their own obedience, have been discharged from condemnation, and by their own efforts made holy, and consequently have been both entitled to, and fitted for, eternal life.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 20. I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live. The life of Christ infused into the soul of Paul, superseded the state of darkness, bondage, and sin, in which he had formerly lived; or the law of concupiscence which slumbers in the unregenerate heart. On the new life which Christ imparts, he uses various phrases, that a change so essential might be fully understood. He says, I live not, but Christ liveth in me. In other places he describes it as a life of devotion to the glory of God. Romans 6:10. 14:7, 8. 2 Corinthians 5:15. Augustine explains it by saying, that Christ is the life of the soul. Quickened with this life, and fed by the word of truth, we grow from babes to young men, and from young men to fathers in Christ.
Daniel Whedon
20. Taking refuge from the law with Christ, I am identified, and so crucified, with him. Christ died from sin, and I die to sin. Liveth in me— Is the life of my life. Live… in the flesh—Has a deeper life, which is Christ.
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 20. “The summit and marrow of Christianity:” Bengel. Crucified-with: same word in Matthew 27:44; Mark 15:32; John 19:32.
With Christ I have been crucified: Romans 6:6; Galatians 6:14: I have shared with Christ the results of His death on the cross. For by the agony of His crucifixion Paul escaped, as did Christ, from the penalty of sin imposed by the Law. Through the death of Christ, and therefore in some sense upon His cross, Paul’s old life came to an end.
The rest of Galatians 2:20 describes the life which Paul, though crucified, still lives. Of this life, his own personality is no longer, as it once was, the principle and source. He is deeply and gratefully conscious that his own life, both in its essence and its manifestations, is infinitely above himself who lives it; and is a direct outflow (John 14:19) of the immortal life of Christ, so that Paul’s thoughts and words and acts have their true source not in him but in Christ. Thus Paul lives on earth in human flesh a life, not earthly but heavenly, not human but divine; a life which is in some sense a continuation of Christ’s life on earth. These words are the highest development of the teaching that in us dwells the Spirit of God who is (Romans 8:9ff) the Spirit of Christ and who breathes into those in whom He dwells the lifegiving, animating, controlling presence of Christ Himself. This inward presence of the Spirit of Christ makes us ( 1 Corinthians 12:12) members of the body of Christ. And Paul could say in Philippians 1:21: to me to live is Christ. And if Christ lives in us as the animating principle of our life, we live in Christ as our surrounding element and home and refuge.
Notice that it is the crucified Saviour who lives in those who have shared His crucifixion. Only they whose former lives have come to an end upon the cross of Christ have Christ living in them. For union with Him implies (Romans 6:3) union with His death.
Now follows the subjective element and medium and condition of the life which Christ lives in Paul.
I now live; counterpart to no longer I live.
In flesh: in a body of flesh and blood, which in virtue of its material constitution influences and limits in so many ways the spirit within. And these limitations give occasion for a revelation in Paul’s bodily life of the grandeur of Christ, who in spite of them lives in him a life of constant victory over the flesh.
In flesh, in faith: conspicuous contrast of the local physiological sphere with the spiritual sphere of Paul’s life.
Faith, or belief, of the Son of God: as in Galatians 2:16 twice: assurance that the words of Jesus are true and will come true; in this case, an assurance that Christ will fulfil His promise by living in us as the animating principle of our life. This assurance is the surrounding element and atmosphere in which Paul lives and moves, and from which he draws his life and through which he sees objects around him on earth and above him in heaven.
Son of God: Christ in His unique and eternal relation to the Father. Loved me etc.: close parallel in Ephesians 5:25; cp. Romans 8:37. It refers to the historical manifestation in time of Christ’s eternal love.
Gave-up: to suffering and death, as suggested by crucified-with Christ. Cp. Galatians 1:4. It denotes frequently surrender into the power of another: cp. 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:20. Same word also in Romans 4:25; 8:32; 1 Corinthians 11:23; Ephesians 5:2, 25.
On my behalf: for my benefit, viz. salvation. In view of the self-surrender of Christ, Paul forgets all others and remembers only that for him Christ died. Cp. 2 Corinthians 8:9. The love of Christ in its historical manifestation is a sure ground of the faith in which Paul lives. Because of His love and self-surrender we are sure that Christ will fulfil His promise to live in us: the faith thus evoked becomes the element of our life: and in proportion to our faith (but not because of it) Christ lives in our life. That such a life if lived in flesh, reveals the grandeur of Him who can inspire even flesh and blood with His own spirit.
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
John Wesley
V. 21. Meantime I do not make void-In seeking to be justified by my own works.
The grace of God-The free love of God in Christ Jesus. But they do, who seek justification by the law.
For if righteousness is by the law-If men might be justified by their obedience to the law, moral or ceremonial.
Then Christ died in vain-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.
Adam Clarke
Verse 21. I do not frustrate] ouk aqetw. 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.
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, &c., 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 Saviour 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 splendour! GALATIANS
Joseph Benson
Verses 20, 21. The apostle proceeds in describing how he was freed from the dominion as well as guilt of sin, and how far he was from continuing in the commission of it. I am crucified with Christ — To sin, to the world, and all selfish and corrupt desires and designs; my old man, my sinful nature, with its affections and lusts, is crucified with him; that is, through his death on the cross, and the grace procured for me, and bestowed on me thereby, that the body of sin may be destroyed, Romans 6:6. In other words, I have such a sense of his dying love in my hearty and of the excellence of that method of justification and salvation which he hath accomplished on the cross, that in consequence of it, I am dead to all the allurements of the world and sin, as well as to all views of obtaining righteousness and life by the law. Nevertheless I live — A new and spiritual life, in union with God through Christ, and in a conformity to his will; yet not I — The holy, happy life which I now live, is neither procured by my own merit, nor caused by my own power. Or, as zw de ouk eti egw is more properly rendered, I live no longer, namely, as to my former sinful self, state, and nature, being made dead to the world and sin; but Christ liveth in me — By his word and Spirit, his truth and grace; and is a fountain of life in my inmost soul, from which all my tempers, words, and actions flow. And the life that I now live in the flesh — Even in this mortal body, and while I am surrounded with the snares, and exposed to the trials and troubles of this sinful world; I live by the faith of — Or rather, as the apostle undoubtedly means, by faith in, and reliance on, the Son of God — The spiritual life which I live, I derive from him by the continual exercise of faith in his sacrifice and intercession, and through the supplies of grace communicated by him; who loved me — With a compassionate, benevolent, forgiving, and bountiful love; to such a degree that he gave himself — Delivered himself up to ignominy, torture, and death; for me — That he might procure my redemption and salvation. In the meantime I do not frustrate — Or make void, in seeking to be justified by my own works; the grace of God — His free, unmerited love in Christ Jesus, which they do who seek justification by the law; for if righteousness come by the law — If men may be justified by their obedience to the law, ceremonial or moral; then Christ is dead in vain — There was no necessity for his dying in order to their salvation, since they might have been saved without his death; might, by the merit of their own obedience, have been discharged from condemnation, and by their own efforts made holy, and consequently have been both entitled to, and fitted for, eternal life.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 21. I do not frustrate the grace of God, in the gospel; for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. What a decisive argument. It reminds us of the remarkable saying of the patriarch, “After my words they speak not again.” Job 29:22.
Daniel Whedon
21. I do not thus, like the legalist and Judaizer, frustrate, that is, make useless, the grace of God: for if righteousness, that is, justification and pardon, are by the law, then Christ died (not in vain, but) needlessly. There was no demand for grace or atonement if law gave righteousness. The following extract from Stanley’s notice of “The Clementines” (see our note, 2 Corinthians 10:1,) illustrates the assaults against which Paul here defends himself: “In an argument between Simon [Magus] and Peter, in which the former insists on the superiority of visions as evidence to our Lord’s discourses, the latter on that of actual intercourse, Peter concludes as follows: ‘If, then, Jesus our Lord (o Ihsouv hmwn) was seen in a vision, and was known by thee, and conversed with thee, it was in anger with thee as an adversary that he spoke to thee through visions and dreams, and even through outward revelations. But can any one be made wise to teach through a vision? If thou sayest that he can, why then did our Master abide and converse with his disciples, not sleeping but awake, for a whole year? And how shall we believe the very fact that he was seen of thee? And how could he have been seen of thee, when thou teachest things contrary to his teaching? And if, by having been seen and made a disciple by him for one hour, thou becamest an apostle, then expound what he has taught, love his apostles, fight not with me who was his companion. For me, the firm rock, the foundation of the Church, even me thou did “withstand” openly (anqesthkav). If thou hadst not been an adversary, thou wouldst not have calumniated me, and reviled my preaching, to deprive me of credit when I spoke what I had heard myself in intercourse with the Lord; as if I were to be blamed, I whose character is so great. Or if thou sayest that I was condemned by my own act, (kategnwsmenon,) thou accusest God who revealed Christ to me, and attackest him who blessed me because of that revelation. But since thou wishest truly to work with the truth, now learn first from us what we learned from him; and when thou hast become a disciple of the truth, then become a fellow-worker with us.” Compare Galatians 1:1, 12, 15-20; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 2 Corinthians 10:16; 11:1-5, and especially St. Paul’s own words (Galatians 2:11) in the account of the feud at Antioch—antesthn,… kategnwsmenov.” See note, 2 Corinthians 10:1.
In this speech Paul makes Peter’s error the starting point to give, perhaps, his first fixed exposition of the contrast between law and grace. For the Jew to perform a sacrifice, or the papist to say a certain number of paternosters as an act which in itself compensated or atoned for sin, was a legal, worthless, unsaving work. The true way is, by a self-consecrating faith to surrender my all to Christ, by him to be empowered to walk in all the ways of holiness. And here he spreads for his Galatians a platform on which they should stand, but which some sorcery is deluding them to desert.
Joseph Agar Beet
Ver. 21. The grace of God: cp. 1 Corinthians 15:10. It reminds us that the life just described is a gift of the undeserved favour of God, of the favour revealed in the death of Christ.
Set-aside: strange contrast to Galatians 2:20, implying that it is possible to refuse and lose this great gift. It brings Galatians 2:20, which seemed for a moment to raise us far above all theological controversy into Heaven itself, to bear on the sad reality of the discord at Antioch.
For if etc.; explains what Paul means by rejecting the grace of God. Righteousness: practically, the judge’s approval; see under Romans 1:17.
Through law: of any kind, moral or ritual. Righteousness through law, is the judge’s approval obtained by obedience to prescriptions of conduct. God gave Christ to die in order to reconcile with justice favour shown to men who have disobeyed. Consequently, if by obedience men may obtain the favour of God, the death of Christ was needless; and the infinite favour shown therein was wasted. In this sense, to preach justification by law, is to set aside the grace of God.
The objection in Galatians 2:17 is now completely silenced; not by exact syllogism, but by a reasoned exposition of Paul’s own spiritual life. It might seem that, by proclaiming a Gospel which reveals the failure of well-meant efforts to obtain the approval of God by keeping the Law’, Christ was an enemy of righteousness and a helper of sin. But this thought is dispelled by the fact that Christ lives in Paul and Paul lives in faith and thus lives for God; such a life being, as we at once feel instinctively, the noblest life conceivable. Paul entered this life by sharing in some sense the death of Christ and thus escaping from the jurisdiction of the Law. This escape from law was itself brought about by the operation of law. Consequently, the real transgressors are, not those who break down the Mosaic restrictions which were not designed to be permanent or universal, but those who run counter to the spirit and purpose of the Law by reinforcing these restrictions after having by their conduct broken them down. Such men trample under foot the favour of God shown in the death of Christ. For, by maintaining the Law as a condition of righteousness they say practically that men are able to keep it; and if so the death of Christ, who died to deliver us from its claims, was needless.
The connecting links of this argument, which we have in some measure supplied in exposition, will be found developed in DIV. II., for which it prepares the way.
The objection in Galatians 2:17 was probably frequent in the lips of Jewish opponents of Christianity. And the reply to it here given had as much force for the disturbers in Galatia as for Peter at Antioch. So in all ages and places a rich experience of spiritual life is the strongest condemnation of salvation by morality or by religious duties. It has been questioned whether the whole of Galatians 2:14-21 was in substance actually spoken to Peter, or whether Paul glides away imperceptibly into a new argument with his Galatian readers. But, certainly, we and also we in Galatians 2:15, 16 refer, not to the Galatians who were Gentiles, but to Paul and Peter who were Jews. And it is difficult to separate also ourselves sinners in Galatians 2:17 from sinners in Galatians 2:15 and also we in Galatians 2:16. Moreover, Galatians 2:18 is most easily explained as being a reference to Peter’s inconsistent conduct at Antioch. And the appeal in Galatians 3:1 seem to mark the point at which Paul turns to his readers in Galatia. We have, therefore, no reason to doubt that the whole paragraph, to Galatians 2:21, was in substance spoken by Paul to Peter.
That Peter yielded at once, and fully, to this appeal, we infer with confidence. For, evidently, reply was impossible. His answer, which must have been humiliating, is therefore omitted. This was the more easy because, whatever Peter said, Paul’s appeal to him is an overwhelming argument against the disturbers in Galatia. For Peter, to whom they seem to have appealed as an authority superior to Paul, admitted by his conduct that the Law was not binding on Gentiles; thus contradicting them. Moreover, so far was Peter from being an absolute authority that subsequently he acted, influenced by men like-minded to them, in opposition to his previously avowed principles. And Paul’s declaration that the powerlessness of the Law to save had driven both Peter and himself to seek salvation in Christ, was equally true of the advocates of circumcision in Galatia, so far as they were honest men.
Of DIVISION I., the only explanation is that in the churches of Galatia Jewish teachers, either mistaken or feigned disciples of Christ, had said that Paul’s authority was inferior to that of the earlier apostles, because derived from them, and that he preached a false Gospel different from that committed to him by the twelve. We also infer that they demanded the circumcision of Gentile converts, as a condition of their justification. These teachers were unfortunately successful: and, led by them, while Paul wrote, many Galatian Christians were turning away from the Gospel and from God.
In view of this false teaching which bore on its face marks of human origin, Paul declares that his own teaching is not such as man would devise; and explains this by saying that he received it, not from man, but by express revelation of Christ. Indeed, the contrast between his past and present life proclaims that Christ had been revealed to him and in him. So sufficient was this revelation that Paul sought no human counsel, but went away to Arabia; and even when returning from Arabia he did not go to Jerusalem but came back to Damascus. Only after three years did he visit the Mother-Church of Christianity. Naturally he wished to meet the chief of the earlier apostles: and he saw also James, but no others. This proves that from the apostolic college as such he had received no commission. And the length of his visit, only a fortnight, was insufficient to make Paul in any sense a disciple of Peter or James. For some time after this Paul was known only by hearsay to the Christians of Judaea. But what they heard gave them the highest satisfaction.
The independence of Paul’s authority, proved by his distance from the Palestinian apostles, is confirmed by his intercourse with them fourteen years after his first meeting with Peter. The infinite importance of harmony between himself and them, even for the success of his own mission, Paul felt deeply; and, to secure it, he set before the leaders of the church at Jerusalem privately the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles. Of the sentiments of the Christians at Jerusalem, the presence of Titus was a practical test. Although occupying a conspicuous position as Paul’s companion, and in spite of some pressure, he was allowed to remain uncircumcised. His circumcision was refused because it was demanded by guileful enemies of the Gospel. In Paul’s teaching the apostles at Jerusalem found nothing to correct and nothing defective. They simply recognised his independent mission.
Subsequently, at Antioch Paul administered to Peter public rebuke for withdrawing from the Gentiles, influenced by Jews from Jerusalem, after having fraternised with them. So great was Peter’s influence that in his withdrawal he was followed by the other Jews at Antioch and even by Barnabas. Paul showed the gross inconsistency of his conduct, and reminded him that it was because the Law could not save that both Peter and himself put faith in Christ. And to the possible objection that if the Gospel brought down even moral men to the common level of sinners then was Christ a servant of sin, he replied by describing the spiritual life which had followed his death to the Law. By the metaphor of one who pulls down and then builds up, Paul exposes still further Peter’s inconsistency; and concludes by declaring, as in DIV. II. he will prove, that the practical teaching involved in this withdrawal makes needless and useless the death of Christ and the grace of God therein revealed. To the great argument which now lies before us in Gal. 3, these last words are the best possible stepping stone.
A marked feature of DIV. I. is the number of definite allusions to men conspicuous in the early Church, making it an invaluable contribution to the biography of the New Testament. The characters here depicted we will now study.
The term BROTHER OF THE LORD which in Galatians 1:19 designates James, the first of the three pillars mentioned in Galatians 2:9, demands attention. Brothers of Christ are three times (Matthew 12:47ff; Mark 3:31ff; Luke 8:19ff; Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 2:12) associated with His mother. Our first thought is that these were later sons of Joseph and Mary: and this is supported by the word firstborn in Luke 2:7. This opinion, of which however we have no certain trace earlier than Helvidius, (A.D. 380,) has been advocated lately by Meyer, Alford, Farrar, and others. The only historical objection to it, but a very serious one, is John 19:26, 27. For, if Mary had four sons of her own, who though perhaps not believers when Christ died became such (Acts 1:14: cp. 1 Corinthians 15:7) immediately afterwards, of whom one was worthy to be made (Galatians 2:9) head of the Church at Jerusalem, we cannot conceive that Christ would set aside filial obligation by committing His mother to the care of John, even though he was the beloved apostle and not improbably nephew to Mary. It is easier to believe that the word firstborn had become, in consequence (Luke 2:23) of the Levitical ritual, equivalent to which openeth the womb in Exodus 13:2, etc., Or, it might refer to a later son who died early. The perpetual virginity of Mary rests on no historical evidence; and therefore cannot be adduced as an historical argument.
That the Lord’s brothers were sons of Joseph by an earlier wife, is a conjecture without other Scripture proof, and suggested simply by John 19:25. But it would most easily account for all the known facts of the case. Mary’s step-sons would naturally be often with her. They would be called the Lord’s brothers in the sense in which even Mary in Luke 2:48 calls Joseph His father; and in recognition of their almost sacred social nearness to Christ. And, if they were not her own sons it is much more easy to conceive reasons which prompted Christ to commit her to John. This opinion was held probably by Clement of Alexandria, and certainly by Origen, Eusebius, and the early fathers generally. Another theory was in A.D. 382 advocated, and was probably invented by Jerome; and was accepted by Augustine and the Western fathers generally; viz. that the Lord’s brothers were cousins, sons of His mother’s sister, and that consequently the word brothers is used of them only in a looser sense, as in Genesis 13:8; 29:12; Leviticus 25:48. Jerome also supposes that in Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3, James (or Jacob) and Joseph (or Joses) were identical with James the little and Joseph, sons of the other Mary, in Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; that their mother was Mary of Clopas, whom he supposes to be Christ’s mother’s sister in John 19:25; and that James the little was both the Lord’s brother in Galatians 1:19 and the son of Alphaeus in Matthew 10:3. This theory rests entirely on the supposition that Mary the mother of James and Joses (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40) was sister to our Lord’s mother: and for this there is no ground except the assumption, adopted without any proof by Meyrick in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i., p. 920b, that in John 19:25 Mary of Clopas must necessarily be the same person as His mother’s sister. But surely it is as easy to understand this verse to mention four persons as three: cp. Acts 1:13. And it is in the highest degree unlikely, and so far as I know without parallel, that two sisters were commonly spoken of by the same name. Certainly, to suppose this, is much more difficult than to find four persons mentioned in John 19:25. That two pairs of brothers (Matthew 13:55; 27:56) bore the very common names James (or Jacob) and Joseph, cannot be accepted, even though the name Simon be added to each pair, as proving or hardly as suggesting that they were the same. The argument that, if James the Lord’s brother were not the son of Alphaeus, of this apostle nothing is known, loses all force amid the obscurity which surrounds the subsequent course of all the apostles except three. Thus vanishes New Testament support for Jerome’s theory. And it has no support in early tradition. This theory is, moreover, open to serious objection. The title assumed in Jude 1:1 suggests or implies that Jude’s brother was the well-known leader of the Church at Jerusalem: for any other James would need to be distinctly specified. And, if he were the son of Alphaeus, we are almost compelled to believe that the apostle Jude of James was also brother of the Lord. But if two out of the four, or indeed if James the most illustrious of the four, were already enrolled among the apostles, it could not have been said, as in John 7:5, that Christ’s brothers did not believe in Him. Nor is the looser sense given by this theory to the word brother allowable in this case. For, without any hint of any unusual sense the men in question are again and again in all four Gospels, in the Book of Acts, and twice by Paul, called the Lord’s brothers; never once His cousins or kinsmen. Yet for the relation of cousin there was a definite term both (Leviticus 25:49) in Hebrew and (Colossians 4:10) in Greek. Just so, Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius, (Church History bk. iii. 20, 32, iv. 22,) speaks of James and Jude as the Lord’s brothers, and of Simeon as His cousin, and as His uncle’s son. The occasional use, in cases open to no mistake or where the distinction was unimportant, of the word brother in the looser sense of kinsman surely does not warrant us to interpret thus this frequent and matter-of-fact designation. The effect of giving to words so indefinite a meaning is seen in Estius, who supposes that the Lord’s mother’s sister also was only her cousin. Moreover, if the Lord’s brothers were sons of Mary’s sister, it is difficult to account for their association three times with Mary without any reference (especially in John 2:12) to their own mother.
Jerome’s theory may therefore, as destitute of solid evidence in Scripture or tradition and as opposed to the plain meaning of a common word and to John 7:5, be confidently set aside. We are therefore compelled to believe that the Lord’s brothers were sons of Joseph. And we have found one strong reason, viz. the words from the cross to Mary and John, for surmising that they were his sons by an earlier wife. And this surmise we may accept, in the absence of other evidence, as the easiest explanation of the known facts of the case.
We must, accordingly, think of Jesus, not as a solitary child, but as one, probably the youngest, among four brothers and at least three sisters; and of Mary, not as devoting herself to the rapt contemplation of her one mysterious Son, but as discharging the many duties involved in the care of a large family. Into the privacy of that sacred home we are not allowed to intrude. And perhaps we need not envy its members their domestic nearness to the Saviour. It may be that even his nearness made it difficult for them to believe (John 7:5) that he whom they had known and cared for and played with in their own home as a little boy younger than themselves and needing their help was indeed the foretold deliverer and the Son of God. Perhaps it was only after He had risen and had appeared in special manner ( 1 Corinthians 15:7) to the oldest probably of the brothers that they were led (Acts 1:14) to bow to Him as their Lord. On the whole subject see a very able dissertation in Lightfoot’s Galatians. Of JAMES, THE LORD’S BROTHER, the notices in the New Testament are few, but harmonious and definite. The position of his name in Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3 suggests that he was the oldest of the four brothers. But this is no conclusive proof: for the order of Simon and Jude varies, showing that it is not according to age; and the subsequent fame of James would account for his place at the head of these lists. If he was Joseph’s son by an earlier wife, James was some years, if the oldest son, several years, older than Jesus. This suggests an explanation of the fact that (John 7:5) about six months before His death James and His brothers did not believe in Christ, and ventured to give Him advice. Possibly, to this unbelief refers Mark 6:4: a prophet is not without honour except… among his kinsmen and in his own house. As to Peter who denied Him, so to His brother James who hesitated to believe in Him, the Risen Saviour ( 1 Corinthians 15:7) specially appeared. This was probably to him, as was a similar event to Paul, the turning point in life. For, immediately after the ascension (Acts 1:14) the brothers and mother of Jesus were associated with the apostles. The special message to James in Acts 12:17 suggests that he then already occupied a prominent place in the Church at Jerusalem. Still earlier Paul, on his first visit as a Christian, met James there. That at the conference at Jerusalem the name of James stands in Galatians 2:9 before those of Peter and John, seems to imply that already James held the first place in the Mother-Church. And with this agrees the decisive part taken by James at the conference, as recorded in Acts 15:13ff. That in Galatians 2:12 some Christians are said to have come from James, implies that they sheltered themselves under his name ; and suggests that to their teaching the teaching of James was in less marked opposition than was that of Paul. And all this agrees with Acts 21:18-25, where James speaks as the recognised head and mouthpiece of the Christians at Jerusalem, all of whom are said to be zealous for the Law. From 1 Corinthians 9:5 we learn that the brothers of the Lord, and therefore presumably this most famous of them, were married. And, even by the strictest observers of the Mosaic Law, marriage was held in honour. That the Epistle of James was written by the Lord’s brother, is suggested at once by its opening words, James, servant of God. For, his unique position in the Mother-Church of Christendom would make further designation needless for him, but imperative for any other James. And modesty might easily restrain him from using a title of honour which others freely gave to him.
The Epistle is quoted as Scripture by the Greek fathers of the fourth century. Jerome (Illustrious Men ch. ii.) says: “James, who is called the brother of the Lord, by surname the Just… wrote only one Epistle, which belongs to the seven Catholic Epistles, which also itself is said to have been edited by some one else under his name, although gradually in process of time it has obtained recognition.” Eusebius (Church History bk. iii. 25) says: “Of the books contradicted, but known nevertheless to most men, the so-called Epistle of James is in circulation, and that of Jude, and the Second Epistle of Peter, and the so-called Second and Third Epistles of John.” So bk. ii. 23: “It must be known that it is accounted spurious: at any rate not many of the old writers have mentioned it… Nevertheless we know that this with the others is publicly used in most Churches.” Origen (Comm. on John vol. xix. 6) says: “If faith is mentioned, but it be without works, such faith is dead; as we have read in the current Epistle of James.” So Notes on Exodus p. 124: “For which cause also it has been said, God cannot be tempted with evil;” word for word from James 1:13. In the Latin version of Origen by Rufinus, which however is not always reliable, we read (Homilies on Exodus viii. 4, p. 158): “But also the Apostle James says;” quoting James 1:8. And so elsewhere. We have no earlier quotations. But a passage in Hermas (Commandment ix.) suggests strongly that the writer had seen the Epistle of James. It is included in the Syrian Peshito Version, made probably earlier than the fourth century; and is quoted in existing copies of versions of the works of Ephrem, a Syrian father of the same century. These are valuable testimonies to the genuineness of the Epistle. For, it was most likely, as written for Jewish Christians probably at Jerusalem, to be known in Eastern churches using the Aramaic language.
We notice at once the difference between these somewhat doubtful testimonies and the earlier and unanimous witnesses for the genuineness of the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians. And this weaker external evidence is not supported by any internal historical evidence such as that adduced for the Epistles. It is, however, supported by internal theological evidence so strong as almost to banish doubt, viz. a type of teaching differing widely from that of Paul, but in complete accord with the earlier and later surroundings, and the vocation, of the Lord’s brother. We can easily conceive that James, the son (Matthew 1:19) of a righteous man, and trained in a home adorned by the piety of Mary, would, like Timothy, ( 2 Timothy 1:5; 3:15,) receive from the Jewish Scriptures rich spiritual nourishment. The Law would be to him a guide and delight, and a promise of a better revelation to come. But his nearness to Jesus would make it difficult to accept as the promised deliverer one whom as probably a younger brother he had loved and tended. And to him the Gospel itself would be, when at last the vision of the Risen Saviour had moved him to accept it without reserve, in some sense a consummation of the Law. Just as in the Epistles of Paul the antagonism of Law and Gospel recalls the writer’s sudden transition from the one to the other, so the absence of any such antagonism in the Epistle of James is in complete accord with his gradual transition from Judaism to Christianity. Consequently, with James the word law is always a title of honour; and even the Gospel is (James 1:25; 2:12) a law of liberty. In short, the Epistle of James agrees so completely with the many casual but very definite references in the New Testament and (see below) in ancient tradition that we cannot doubt that it was written by the Lord’s brother. The apparent contradiction between James and Paul about justification is discussed in Dissertation 4.
The disposition and training of James were admirably fitted for the work he had to do. He became a medium of transition from Judaism to Christianity. Sympathising deeply with all that was good in the earlier revelation, and finding even in its ritual probably abundant edification, and therefore unwilling to break away from it, he would gain and retain the confidence of the best of the Jews. At the same time his opening words are a confession that Jesus Christ is his Lord; and he places side by side the names of God and Christ. The kernel of his religion was (James 2:1) the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. And, like Paul’s converts at Thessalonica, he was waiting (James 5:7, 8) for the coming of the Lord. The chief aim of the Epistle is to rebuke those, be they Jews or Christians, who cling to some outward form, be it ritual or creed, and yet refuse to allow their religion to control their actions. That faith in Christ leads to right action, also Paul teaches constantly: cp. Galatians 5:16ff. But by confining our attention to the practical outworking of religion as the one test of its genuineness, the Epistle of James supplements the writings of Paul, and becomes an element in the sacred volume of abiding and infinite value.
Both in its outer form and in its spiritual significance, in its silence and in its teaching, the Epistle of James agrees closely with the First Gospel, which holds a place and discharges an office among the Gospels similar to that of this Epistle among the Epistles. Compare James 1:2 with Matthew 5:10ff; James 1:4 with Matthew 5:48; James 1:20 with Matthew 5:22; James 1:26 and James 3:2 with Matthew 12:36; James 2:8 with Matthew 22:39; James 2:13 with Matthew 9:13; James 2:14ff with Matthew 7:21ff; James 3:12 with Matthew 7:16; James 4:4 with Matthew 6:24; James 4:11 with Matthew 7:1; James 4:12 with Matthew 10:28; James 5:2 with Matthew 6:19; James 5:12 with Matthew 5:33ff; etc.
By Luther, in the Preface to his German New Testament, A.D. 1522, this Epistle was rejected in strong language as unworthy of the Gospel. But the book he rejected would have saved him from many unguarded and injurious words which his enemies have used as weapons against Protestantism, and would have supplied the chief defect of his theological teaching. How serious is this defect, and how sharp are the weapons thus put into the hands of adversaries, we see in Dollinger’s Reformation, vol. iii., pp. 1-274.
Later tradition confirms, amid much which is evidently fabulous, the picture of James given above. Josephus (Antiq. xx. 9. 1) narrates that, when “James the brother of Jesus which is called Christ” was put to death by the high priest Ananus, it displeased the best men in the city and those strictest about the laws. Hegesippus, in a lost work quoted at length by Eusebius, (Church History bk. ii. 23,) says that “James the brother of the Lord … because of his surpassing righteousness was called just;” that he was a Nazarite from birth; and that he alone used to go into the temple, i.e. into the sacred house itself. Hegesippus gives also an account of his death varying from that of Josephus. This quotation, in spite of much evidently incorrect, bears reliable witness to the opinions about James current in the second century. Similar evidence of the same date is found in the Clementine writings, which, while in the interests of Judaism bitterly opposing the teaching of Paul, without mentioning his name, make friendly reference to James.
Enough has now been said to prove that the character, position and influence, and writings of James deserve the most careful study of all who wish to understand the early development of Christianity. Of PETER, the notices here accord exactly with those in the Gospels and in the Book of Acts, in reference both to his position in the Church and to his personal character.
In the Gospels, not only do we find him in the inner circle of three disciples at the raising of Jairus’ daughter, at the Transfiguration, and in the agony of Gethsemane, but in all lists of the apostles his name is placed first: so Matthew 10:2; 17:1; 26:37; Mark 3:16; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33; Luke 6:14; 8:51; 9:28; John 21:2; Acts 1:13; John 1:45 being apparently the only exception. This remarkable uniformity suggests that among the twelve he was in some sense first. And this is put beyond doubt by Matthew 16:17-19; where the words Upon this rock I will build My Church, following the emphatic words Blessed art thou Simon son of Jonah… and I say to THEE that THOU art Rock and followed by I will give to thee the keys etc. refer certainly to Peter himself, designating him for a unique position in the Church. They were evidently designed to prepare Peter for special service, and to mark him out to his fellow-apostles as their divinely appointed leader. They are confirmed by the remarkable change in Luke 22:31 from Satan has asked for YOU, to I have made petition for THEE that THY faith fail not. And do THOU, when once thou hast turned again, make THY brethren firm. But the true explanation of these words is in Acts 1-5, where we find Peter acting as the recognised leader and mouthpiece of the apostles and throwing wide open to all seekers for salvation the gates of the Kingdom of God, and where we see resting upon his immoveable courage the entire interests, and indeed the existence, of the infant Church. See The Expositor for April 1884. In close agreement with all this, the motive of Paul’s first journey to Jerusalem after his conversion is in Galatians 1:18 said to be, to see Peter. And, even when surrounded by other apostles, Peter is in Galatians 2:8 spoken of singly as entrusted with apostleship of the circumcision, in a sense similar to Paul’s unique commission for the Gentiles. This is the more remarkable because immediately afterwards (Galatians 2:9) the name of James is placed before that of Peter. The best explanation is that James was head of the Church at Jerusalem, whereas the twelve were sent to proclaim the Gospel to the world; and that among the twelve Peter held the first place.
The personal notices of Peter present a similar agreement. His concurrence, in Galatians 2:9, with the teaching of Paul is a remarkable coincidence with Acts 15:7ff, where similar teaching is attributed to Peter himself; and with Acts 11:17. And that, through fear of new comers from Jerusalem, Peter contradicted by action his own previous words, is in exact accord with his denial of Christ under the sudden influence of a servant maid. His subsequent almost reckless courage, contrasted with his timidity then, has often and justly been appealed to as the effect in him of the Spirit given at Pentecost. His weakness at Antioch is but another proof, in addition to thousands in all ages and circumstances, that the weaknesses of earlier days are an abiding source of danger even to those who have received the impulse of new spiritual life. As an embodiment of this lesson the incident referred to is of immense value.
These coincidences confirm strongly the genuineness of the Epistle to the Galatians and the correctness of the narratives in the Gospels and the Book of Acts.
Of the two Epistles attributed to Peter, the former was accepted as undoubtedly genuine by all early Christian writers, and may be received with confidence as the voice of the Apostle of the Circumcision. The genuineness of the Second Epistle is surrounded by difficulties which cannot be discussed here.
Touching Peter’s relation to the Church at Rome, Jerome (Illustrious Men ch. ii.) says: “Simon Peter… Prince of the apostles… in the second year of Claudius (i.e. A.D. 42)… went to Rome and there for twenty-five years occupied the priestly chair, until the last, i.e. the fourteenth, year (i.e. A.D. 67) of Nero. By Nero he was affixed to a cross, and thus was crowned with martyrdom, his head turned to the earth and his feet lifted high, inasmuch as he declared himself to be unworthy to be crucified like his Master.” Eusebius (in the Armenian text of his Chronicon) gives the same date for the beginning of Peter’s episcopate. But these statements are made unlikely in the last degree by (see Diss. i. 3, 7) Peter’s imprisonment at Jerusalem in A.D. 44 and his presence in A.D. 51 at the conference mentioned in Galatians 2:1-10; and by the absence of all reference to him in the Epistle to the Romans, and in that to the Philippians which was undoubtedly written from Rome.
About the death of Peter, we read in Eusebius, Church History bk. iii. I, on the authority of Origen: “At the end, having come to Rome, he was empaled head downwards, himself having demanded to suffer thus.” So bk. ii. 25; and Demonstration of the Gospel, bk. iii. 5, vol. iv. p. 116. In his Church History, bk. ii. 25, Eusebius quotes Caius of Rome (A.D. 210 about) as saying: “If thou wilt go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way thou wilt find the monuments of those (Peter and Paul) who founded this Church.” He quotes also a letter of the same date to the Roman Church from Dionysius, bishop of Corinth saying that at both Corinth and Rome both Peter and Paul preached. Tertullian (Against Marcion bk. iv. 5) says: “the Romans… to whom Peter and Paul left the Gospel sealed by their own blood.” Similarly, in his Prescriptions against Heretics ch. 36. Also Irenaeus, On Heresies bk. iii. 1: “While Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the Church.” So ch. 3. We see then that within little more than a hundred years of his death, in places so far apart as Corinth and Carthage, Rome and Gaul, and soon afterwards in Syria, it was confidently believed that Peter died at, or visited, Rome. And the literature of the early Church presents no trace of a contrary tradition. These testimonies and this silence admit of no explanation except that this belief was true. Had he died elsewhere it is most unlikely that no claim to this honour would have been put forward. Now if Peter died at Rome, it is easy to believe that to some extent he preached there. And this might easily give rise to the incorrect tradition that he and Paul founded the Church at Rome.
Many reasons unknown to us may have brought Peter to Rome. Possibly he came at Paul’s request, that the Jewish and Gentile Christians might see, in the concord of the apostles of the circumcision and the uncircumcision the oneness of the Gospel which both preached.
From the above, which is a fairly complete statement of the evidence, it is clear that we have no historical proof that the bishops of Rome are in any sense successors of Peter and inheritors of the prerogatives given to him. Consequently, the primacy of Peter among the twelve apostles in no way supports the claim, put forward by the Bishops of Rome, to the primacy of the universal Church.
Of JOHN, the solitary mention in Galatians 2:9 accords with the scanty reference to him in the Gospels and in the Book of Acts. During the life of Christ we find him frequently associated with his brother James and with Peter; with Peter only, in Luke 22:8 and (as we confidently infer) in John 18:15; 20:3. But only once (Mark 9:38; Luke 9:49) do we hear his voice; except once more (Luke 9:54) along with James, who if we may trust the constant order of names was his older brother. As in John 18:15 he had with apparently unwavering courage entered the judgment hall with Jesus, so in Acts 3:1-4:20 he bravely stands by Peter in great peril, and sanctions his bold words to the Sanhedrin: but again his voice is not heard. In remarkable agreement with all this we find him in Galatians 2:9 present among the men of repute at Paul’s private interview at Jerusalem: but we have no recorded word from his lips. Similarly, in Acts 15:6ff, assuming him to be present, he gives only silent approval to the words of Peter and James.
The long silence of John was at length broken by a voice which will never more be silent, viz. his Gospel and First Epistle. See further in Dissertation 5.
Of this intimate companion of Jesus and profound student of His teaching, whose words re-echoing and expounding the most precious words of his Master are light and life now to millions and will be so, probably in increasing measure, to the end of time, the only mention in the writings of Paul is Galatians 2:9. And possibly the only meeting of these two greatest theologians of the New Testament was at this conference at Jerusalem.
BARNABAS was (Acts 4:36f) a Levite, born at Cyprus but afterwards a member of the Church at Jerusalem and owning land there. So prominent was he as a preacher that he received from the apostles the name he afterwards always bore: Son of prophecy. Cp. Acts 13:1, where among the prophets and teachers his name stands first. He knew (Acts 9:27) the story of Paul’s conversion, recognised him at Jerusalem, and introduced him to the apostles. When the work began (Acts 11:21) at Antioch, the apostles wisely sent there Barnabas, as being from childhood associated with Gentiles. In the infant Church he used his gift of exhortation with delight and success. But, feeling the greatness of the work, and appreciating the powers of Paul, Barnabas persuaded him to come to Antioch: and for a whole year the two preachers laboured together. He went with Paul to Jerusalem taking alms for the poor; and then on his first missionary journey. That Barnabas was at that time looked upon as holding a place in the first rank in the Church, is implied in the title apostle given to him, jointly with Paul, in Acts 14:4, 14. With Paul, Barnabas went to the conference at Jerusalem, and returned with him to Antioch. But after this he betrayed a momentary weakness by following the example of the Jewish Christians at Antioch who imitate Peter in withdrawing from the Gentiles. Paul’s words in Galatians 2:13, even Barnabas, seem to betray surprise at the defection of his old comrade. Possibly this made Paul less reluctant to separate from Barnabas when the latter wished (Acts 15:37) to take on their contemplated missionary journey John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, who had deserted them on a former journey. After the dispute, Barnabas went with Mark to Cyprus, his native island, doubtless to labour there in the Gospel. He now vanishes from view, except that in 1 Corinthians 9:6 he is spoken of by Paul as a fellow-worker and as, like Paul, refusing to be maintained by those to whom he preached. These courteous words suggest that the parted comrades were afterwards reconciled.
Barnabas is spoken of with confidence by Tertullian (On Modesty ch. 20) as author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. And at the end of the Sinai MS. of the New Testament and in some other Greek and Latin MSS. is an epistle commonly called by his name, and attributed to him frequently and confidently (e.g. Stromata bk. ii. 6, p. 161: 20, p. 177) by Clement of Alexandria and (Against Celsus bk. 1. 63) by Origen. But it is reckoned apocryphal by Eusebius (Church History bk. iii. 25) and by (Illustrious Men ch. 6) Jerome. Neither of these works can make good a claim to be from his pen.
Such are our scanty notices of one who occupied a front place in the founding of Gentile Christianity; and whose character is summed up (Acts 11:24) in words which are a pattern of Christian eulogy, he was a good man and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. The past tense suggests perhaps that when those words were written he had passed away. We may therefore call them written on the imperishable page of Holy Scripture, the Epitaph of Barnabas.
On TITUS see note under 2 Corinthians 9:3.
John Wesley
V. 1. Then fourteen years after-My first journey thither. I went up again to Jerusalem-This seems to be the journey mentioned Acts 15:2; several passages here referring to that great council, wherein all the apostles showed that they were of the same judgment with him.
Adam Clarke
Verse 1. Then fourteen years after] There is a considerable difference among critics concerning the time specified in this verse; the apostle is however generally supposed to refer to the journey he took to Jerusalem, about the question of circumcision, mentioned in Acts 15:4-5, &c. These years, says Dr. Whitby, must be reckoned from the time of his conversion, mentioned here Galatians 1:18, which took place A.D. 35 (33;) his journey to Peter was A.D. 38 (36,) and then between that and the council of Jerusalem, assembled A.D. 49 (52,) will be fourteen intervening years. The dates in brackets are according to the chronology which I follow in the Acts of the Apostles. Dr. Whitby has some objections against this chronology, which may be seen in his notes.
Others contend that the journey of which the apostle speaks is that mentioned Acts 11:27, &c., when Barnabas and Saul were sent by the Church of Antioch with relief to the poor Christians in Judea; there being at that time a great dearth in that land. St. Luke’s not mentioning Titus in that journey is no valid objection against it: for he does not mention him in any part of his history, this being the first place in which his name occurs. And it does seem as if St. Paul did intend purposely to supply that defect, by his saying, I went up with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. The former St. Luke relates, Acts 11:30; the latter St. Paul supplies.
Joseph Benson
Verse 1. Then fourteen years after my conversion: I went up again to Jerusalem — This seems to be the journey mentioned Acts 15., several passages here referring to that great council, wherein all the apostles showed that they were of the same judgment with him. From the history which the apostle gives of himself to the Galatians in the preceding chapter, it appears that from the time of his conversion, to his coming with Barnabas from Tarsus to Antioch, he had no opportunity of conversing with the apostles in a body, consequently in that period he was not made an apostle by them. And by relating in a similar way, in this chapter, what happened when he went up from Antioch to Jerusalem, fourteen years after his conversion, in company with Barnabas, he proves to them that he was an apostle before he had that meeting with the apostles in a body; for at that time, instead of receiving the gospel from the apostles, he communicated to them the gospel, or doctrine, which he preached among the idolatrous Gentiles: not because he acknowledged them his superiors, or was in any doubt about the truth of his doctrine, but lest it might have been suspected that his doctrine was disclaimed by the apostles, which would have marred his success among the Gentiles. And took Titus with me also — Though he was uncircumcised, that I might therein show my Christian liberty, and assert that of my Gentile brethren, against those who are so zealous in their attempts to invade it. “This is the earliest mention that we meet with of Titus, for he is no where mentioned by St. Luke in the Acts; and what we read of him in the second epistle to the Corinthians, (2 Corinthians 2:13; 7:6, 14; 8:6,) as well as in that to Timothy, (2 Timothy 4:10,) was later by some years. He is here said to have been a Greek, (verse 3,) and being born of Gentile parents, was not circumcised; but where or when he was converted is uncertain; only we may conclude he was converted by Paul, from the title he gives him of his own son after the common faith, Titus 1:4; and as he now took Titus with him from Antioch to Jerusalem, so he employed him afterward on several occasions, and appears to have regarded him with great affection and endearment.” — Doddridge.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Verse 1, 2. Then fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem, and took Titus, his fellow-labourer. Luke adds, “and others also.” Acts 15:2. We may gather from this, that Luke was of the company. I went up by revelation, says the apostle, or by a special direction from heaven. Strong remonstrances had been made by the deputation sent from Jerusalem, against the admission of the “multitude” of gentile converts into the church, without first subjecting them to the ceremonial law; and as this grand question concerned the peace of the whole christian church, the Holy Spirit directed them to settle it in full convocation at Jerusalem. Certainly, the Hebrew rites were for the Hebrews only, and for the willing converts from gentile nations. The time of this council is placed by Usher in the fifty first year of Christ.
Daniel Whedon
1. Fourteen years after—That this visit cannot be identified with Paul’s brief mission to Jerusalem mentioned Acts 11:30 we have shown in our note on that verse. Paul does not say that the visit here narrated was his first after that of Galatians 1:18. Hence this going up to Jerusalem was, beyond question, the attendance from Antioch to the Council. The time, persons, and business is the same in both narratives. Titus is doubtless included in the certain other of them of Acts 15:2, and was taken by Paul, as a young Gentile Christian, to test the question whether he should be required to be circumcised. Verse 3. Probably Titus was with Paul at Corinth when writing this epistle.
Joseph Agar Beet
GALATIANS
DIVISION II
JUSTIFICATION IS BY FAITH, APART FROM LAW AND
THEREFORE FROM CIRCUMCISION.
CH. 3:1-5:13a.
SECTION 9. — BY FAITH THE GALATIAN
CHRISTIANS RECEIVED THE SPIRIT. CH. 3:1-5.
O senseless Galatians, who was bewitching you before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly written as Crucified. This only I wish to learn from you, From works of law did ye receive the Spirit, or from a hearing of faith? So senseless are ye? Having begun by the Spirit, are ye now by flesh being brought to maturity? So many things have ye suffered in vain? If at least it be indeed in vain. He then who supplies to you the Spirit and works powers in (or among) you, is it by works of law or by a hearing of faith?
We have assumed as the only explanation of this Epistle that in Galatia were men who bitterly opposed Paul’s teaching that the good things of the New Covenant are received by faith and in proportion to our faith, apart from obedience to the Mosaic Law or to any law; and that these teachers insinuated that Paul’s authority was inferior to that of the earlier apostles, because derived from them, and intimated that he had been unfaithful to the teaching they had committed to him. That his authority as a teacher, and his teaching, were not derived from them, Paul has proved by the facts of DIV. I.; and in so doing has prepared a way for a defence and exposition of his teaching, which is the second, and chief, matter of this Epistle. It occupies DIV. II.
Paul’s words to Peter have brought him to the cross of Christ and to the self-sacrificing love there manifested. From these, as the best possible starting point, he now passes to a series of arguments with his readers in Galatia. And, while turning to them, in the light which shines from the Cross, his first thought is wonder at their strange defection.
Ver. 1. Senseless: lacking power to grasp underlying realities, to read the meaning of that which was written in letters so public and plain. Same word in Luke 24:25; Romans 1:14: cognate word in Romans 1:20, R.V. perceived; Ephesians 3:4; Hebrews 11:3. Bewitch: deceive with magical art: same, or cognate, word in Sirach xiv. 6; xviii. 18; Wisdom iv. 12.
Was-bewitching: while the process of fascination was going on. So strange is their spiritual blindness that Paul assumes that someone has thrown a spell over them; and asks who the magician is.
Who?… you: the deceiver confronting his victims.
Before whose eyes, etc.: a fact proving the Galatians to be senseless and suggesting that they had been bewitched.
Openly-written: publicly placarded, as in 1 Macc. x. 36, and probably Jude 1:4; or written-beforehand, as in Romans 15:4; Ephesians 3:3. Probably the former: for beforehand, which could only mean, before the wizard came, would, as already implied in the context, add no sense to the word written; whereas openly is a new and Important idea, and one suggested by
before whose eyes. The name of Jesus Christ was written in plain letters before the eyes of Paul’s readers where they and all men could read it: and it had been written as the name of one
Crucified. Cp. 1 Corinthians 1:23; 2:2. This recalls crucified with Christ in Galatians 2:20 and Christ died in vain in Galatians 2:21. All this proves their spiritual blindness, and suggests that they had been bewitched. For the teaching which had beguiled them set aside (Galatians 2:21) practically the death of Christ. The words bewitch and eyes recall a widespread superstition that from the eye of the enchanter to that of his victim passed a fascinating glance. So Plutarch, Symposium v. 7, p. 680 c: “about those said to bewitch and to have a bewitching eye.” And Alexander of Aphrodisias, Physical Problems bk. ii. 53: “they send forth a ray as if poisonous and destroying from the pupil of their eye: and this entering in through the eyes of the envied one will change the soul and the nature.” From the fascinating and deadly glance of the deceiver, the vision of Jesus crucified should have saved the Galatians.