Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
1. Translate, "After
fourteen years"; namely, from Paul's conversion inclusive
[ALFORD]. In the
fourteenth year from his conversion [BIRKS].
The same visit to Jerusalem as in (A.D. 50), when
the council of the apostles and Church decided that Gentile
Christians need not be circumcised. His omitting allusion to that
decree is; (1) Because his design here is to show the
Galatians his own independent apostolic authority, whence he was not
likely to support himself by their decision. Thus we see that general
councils are not above apostles. (2) Because he argues the point upon
principle, not authoritative decisions. (3) The decree did not go the
length of the position maintained here: the council did not impose
Mosaic ordinances; the apostle maintains that the Mosaic institution
itself is at an end. (4) The Galatians were Judaizing, not because
the Jewish law was imposed by authority of the Church as necessary
to Christianity, but because they thought it necessary to be
observed by those who aspired to higher perfection (Galatians 3:3;
Galatians 4:21). The decree would not
at all disprove their view, and therefore would have been useless to
quote. Paul meets them by a far more direct confutation, "Christ
is of no effect unto you whosoever are justified by the law"
(Galatians 5:4), [PALEY].
Titus . . . also—specified
on account of what follows as to him, in Galatians 5:4. Paul and Barnabas, and others, were deputed by the
Church of Antioch (Acts 15:2) to
consult the apostles and elders at Jerusalem on the question of
circumcision of Gentile Christians.
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.
2. by revelation—not from
being absolutely dependent on the apostles at Jerusalem, but by
independent divine "revelation." Quite consistent with his
at the same time, being a deputy from the Church of Antioch, as states. He by this revelation was led to suggest the
sending of the deputation. Compare the case of Peter being led by
vision, and at the same time by Cornelius' messengers, to go to
Cæsarea, Acts 10:1-22.
I . . . communicated unto
them—namely, "to the apostles and elders" (Acts 10:1-44): to the apostles in particular (Acts 10:1-44).
privately—that he and
the apostles at Jerusalem might decide previously on the principles
to be adopted and set forward before the public council (Acts 10:1-44). It was necessary that the Jerusalem apostles should
know beforehand that the Gospel Paul preached to the Gentiles was the
same as theirs, and had received divine confirmation in the results
it wrought on the Gentile converts. He and Barnabas related to the
multitude, not the nature of the doctrine they preached (as
Paul did privately to the apostles), but only the miracles vouchsafed
in proof of God's sanctioning their preaching to the Gentiles
(Acts 15:12).
to them . . . of
reputation—James, Cephas, and John, and probably some of the
"elders"; Galatians 2:6,
"those who seemed to be somewhat."
lest, c.—"lest I
should be running, or have run, in vain" that is, that they
might see that I am not running, and have not run, in vain. Paul does
not himself fear lest he be running, or had run, in vain; but
lest he should, if he gave them no explanation, seem so to
them. His race was the swift-running proclamation of the Gospel
to the Gentiles (compare "run," Margin, for "Word
. . . have free course," Galatians 2:6). His running would have been in vain, had circumcision been
necessary, since he did not require it of his converts.
But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
3. But—So far were they from
regarding me as running in vain, that "not even Titus who
was with me, who was a Greek (and therefore uncircumcised),
was compelled to be circumcised." So the Greek should be
translated. The "false brethren," ("certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed,"
Acts 15:5), demanded his
circumcision. The apostles, however, constrained by the firmness of
Paul and Barnabas (Galatians 2:5), did
not compel or insist on his being circumcised. Thus they virtually
sanctioned Paul's course among the Gentiles and admitted his
independence as an apostle: the point he desires to set forth to the
Galatians. Timothy, on the other hand, as being a proselyte of the
gate, and son of a Jewess (Galatians 2:5), he circumcised (Galatians 2:5). Christianity did not interfere with Jewish usages,
regarded merely as social ordinances, though no longer having their
religious significance, in the case of Jews and proselytes, while the
Jewish polity and temple still stood; after the overthrow of the
latter, those usages naturally ceased. To have insisted on Jewish
usages for Gentile converts, would have been to make them
essential parts of Christianity. To have rudely violated them at
first in the case of Jews, would have been inconsistent with
that charity which (in matters indifferent) is made all things to all
men, that by all means it may win some (Galatians 2:5; compare Romans 14:1-7;
Romans 14:13-23). Paul brought
Titus about with him as a living example of the power of the Gospel
upon the uncircumcised heathen.
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:
4. And that—that is, What I
did concerning Titus (namely, by not permitting him to be
circumcised) was not from contempt of circumcision, but "on
account of the false brethren" (Acts 15:1;
Acts 15:24) who, had I yielded to
the demand for his being circumcised, would have perverted the case
into a proof that I deemed circumcision necessary.
unawares—"in an
underhand manner brought in."
privily—stealthily.
to spy out—as foes in
the guise of friends, wishing to destroy and rob us of
our liberty—from the
yoke of the ceremonial law. If they had found that we circumcised
Titus through fear of the apostles, they would have made that a
ground for insisting on imposing the legal yoke on the Gentiles.
bring us into bondage—The
Greek future implies the certainty and continuance
of the bondage as the result.
To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
5. Greek, "To whom
not even for an hour did we yield by subjection." ALFORD
renders the Greek article, "with THE
subjection required of us." The sense rather is, We would
willingly have yielded for love [BENGEL]
(if no principle was at issue), but not in the way of subjection,
where "the truth of the Gospel" (Galatians 2:14;
Colossians 1:5) was at stake (namely,
the fundamental truth of justification by faith only, without the
works of the law, contrasted with another Gospel, Colossians 1:5). Truth precise, unaccommodating, abandons nothing that
belongs to itself, admits nothing that is inconsistent with it
[BENGEL].
might continue with
you—Gentiles. We defended for your sakes your true faith and
liberties, which you are now renouncing.
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:
6. Greek, "From
those who," c. He meant to complete the sentence with "I
derived no special advantage" but he alters it into "they .
. . added nothing to me."
accepteth—so as to show
any partiality; "respecteth no man's person" ().
seemed to be
somewhat —that is, not that they seemed to be
what they were not, but "were reputed as persons of
some consequence"; not insinuating a doubt but that they
were justly so reputed.
in conference added—or
"imparted"; the same Greek as in , "I conferred not with flesh and blood." As I did
not by conference impart to them aught at my conversion, so they now
did not impart aught additional to me, above what I already knew.
This proves to the Galatians his independence as an apostle.
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
7. contrariwise—on the
contrary. So far from adding any new light to ME,
THEY gave in THEIR
adhesion to the new path on which Barnabas and I, by independent
revelation, had entered. So far from censuring, they gave a hearty
approval to my independent course, namely, the innovation of
preaching the Gospel without circumcision to the Gentiles.
when they saw—from the
effects which I showed them, were "wrought" (Galatians 2:8;
Acts 15:12).
was committed unto me—Greek,
"I was entrusted with."
gospel of the
uncircumcision—that is, of the Gentiles, who were to be
converted without circumcision being required.
circumcision . . . unto
Peter—Peter had originally opened the door to the Gentiles
(Acts 10:1-48; Acts 15:7).
But in the ultimate apportionment of the spheres of labor, the Jews
were assigned to him (compare Acts 15:7). So Paul on the other hand wrote to the Hebrews (compare
also Colossians 4:11), though his main
work was among the Gentiles. The non-mention of Peter in the list of
names, presciently through the Spirit, given in the sixteenth chapter
of Romans, shows that Peter's residence at Rome, much more primacy,
was then unknown. The same is palpable from the sphere here
assigned to him.
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
8. he—God ().
wrought effectually—that
is, made the preached word efficacious to conversion, not only by
sensible miracles, but by the secret mighty power of the Holy Ghost.
in Peter—ELLICOTT
and others, translate, "For Peter." GROTIUS
translates as English Version.
to—with a view to.
was mighty—Translate as
before, the Greek being the same, "wrought effectually."
in me—"for (or
'in') me also."
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.
9. James—placed first in the
oldest manuscripts, even before Peter, as being bishop of Jerusalem,
and so presiding at the council (). He was called "the Just," from his strict
adherence to the law, and so was especially popular among the Jewish
party though he did not fall into their extremes; whereas Peter was
somewhat estranged from them through his intercourse with the Gentile
Christians. To each apostle was assigned the sphere best suited to
his temperament: to James, who was tenacious of the law, the
Jerusalem Jews; to Peter, who had opened the door to the Gentiles but
who was Judaically disposed, the Jews of the dispersion; to Paul,
who, by the miraculous and overwhelming suddenness of his conversion,
had the whole current of his early Jewish prejudices turned into an
utterly opposite direction, the Gentiles. Not separately and
individually, but collectively the apostles together represented
Christ, the One Head, in the apostleship. The twelve
foundation-stones of various colors are joined together to the one
great foundation-stone on which they rest (1 Corinthians 3:11;
Revelation 21:14; Revelation 21:19;
Revelation 21:20). John had got an
intimation in Jesus' lifetime of the admission of the Gentiles (Revelation 21:20).
seemed—that is, were
reputed to be (see on Galatians 2:2
and Galatians 2:6) pillars, that is,
weighty supporters of the Church (compare Proverbs 9:1;
Revelation 3:12).
perceived the grace . . .
given unto me— (2 Peter 3:15).
gave to me and Barnabas the
right hands of fellowship—recognizing me as a colleague
in the apostleship, and that the Gospel I preached by special
revelation to the Gentiles was the same as theirs. Compare the
phrase, Lamentations 5:6; Ezekiel 17:18.
heathen—the Gentiles.
Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
10. remember the poor—of the
Jewish Christians in Judea, then distressed. Paul and Barnabas
had already done so ().
the same—the very
thing.
I . . . was forward—or
"zealous" (Acts 24:17;
Romans 15:25; 1 Corinthians 16:1;
2 Corinthians 8:1-9). Paul was zealous
for good works, while denying justification by them.
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
11. Peter—"Cephas"
in the oldest manuscripts Paul's withstanding Peter is the strongest
proof that the former gives of the independence of his apostleship in
relation to the other apostles, and upsets the Romish doctrine of
Peter's supremacy. The apostles were not always inspired; but were so
always in writing the Scriptures. If then the inspired men who
wrote them were not invariably at other times infallible, much
less were the uninspired men who kept them. The Christian fathers may
be trusted generally as witnesses to facts, but not implicitly
followed in matters of opinion.
come to Antioch—then
the citadel of the Gentile Church: where first the Gospel was
preached to idolatrous Gentiles, and where the name
"Christians" was first given (Acts 11:20;
Acts 11:26), and where Peter is
said to have been subsequently bishop. The question at Antioch was
not whether the Gentiles were admissible to the Christian covenant
without becoming circumcised—that was the question settled at the
Jerusalem council just before—but whether the Gentile Christians
were to be admitted to social intercourse with the Jewish
Christians without conforming to the Jewish institution. The
Judaizers, soon after the council had passed the resolutions
recognizing the equal rights of the Gentile Christians, repaired to
Antioch, the scene of the gathering in of the Gentiles (Acts 11:26), to witness, what to Jews would look so extraordinary,
the receiving of men to communion of the Church without circumcision.
Regarding the proceeding with prejudice, they explained away the
force of the Jerusalem decision; and probably also desired to watch
whether the Jewish Christians among the Gentiles violated the
law, which that decision did not verbally sanction them in
doing, though giving the Gentiles latitude (Acts 11:26).
to be blamed—rather,
"(self)-condemned"; his act at one time condemning his
contrary acting at another time.
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.
12. certain—men: perhaps
James' view (in which he was not infallible, any more than Peter) was
that the Jewish converts were still to observe Jewish ordinances,
from which he had decided with the council the Gentiles should
be free (Acts 15:19). NEANDER,
however, may be right in thinking these self-styled delegates from
James were not really from him. Acts 15:19 favors this. "Certain from James," may mean
merely that they came from the Church at Jerusalem under James'
bishopric. Still James' leanings were to legalism, and this gave him
his influence with the Jewish party (Acts 15:19).
eat with . . . Gentiles—as
in Acts 10:10-20; Acts 10:48,
according to the command of the vision (Acts 10:48). Yet after all, this same Peter, through fear of man (Acts 10:48), was faithless to his own so distinctly avowed principles
(Acts 15:7-11). We
recognize the same old nature in him as led him, after faithfully
witnessing for Christ, yet for a brief space, to deny Him. "Ever
the first to recognize, and the first to draw back from great truths"
[ALFORD]. An undesigned
coincidence between the Gospels and the Epistle in the consistency of
character as portrayed in both. It is beautiful to see how earthly
misunderstandings of Christians are lost in Christ. For in Acts 15:7-44, Peter praises the very Epistles of Paul which he knew
contained his own condemnation. Though apart from one another and
differing in characteristics, the two apostles were one in Christ.
withdrew—Greek,
"began to withdraw," c. This implies a gradual
drawing back "separated," entire severance.
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
13. the other—Greek,
"the rest."
Jews—Jewish Christians.
dissembled likewise—Greek,
"joined in hypocrisy," namely, in living as though the law
were necessary to justification, through fear of man, though they
knew from God their Christian liberty of eating with Gentiles, and
had availed themselves of it already (). The case was distinct from that in 1 Corinthians 8:1-10;
Romans 14:1-23. It was not a
question of liberty, and of bearing with others' infirmities, but one
affecting the essence of the Gospel, whether the Gentiles are to be
virtually "compelled to live as do the Jews," in order to
be justified (Galatians 2:14).
Barnabas also—"Even
Barnabas": one least likely to be led into such an error, being
with Paul in first preaching to the idolatrous Gentiles: showing the
power of bad example and numbers. In Antioch, the capital of Gentile
Christianity and the central point of Christian missions, the
controversy first arose, and in the same spot it now broke out
afresh; and here Paul had first to encounter the party that
afterwards persecuted him in every scene of his labors (Galatians 2:14).
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?
14. walked not uprightly—literally,
"straight": "were not walking with straightforward
steps." Compare Galatians 6:16.
truth of the gospel—which
teaches that justification by legal works and observances is
inconsistent with redemption by Christ. Paul alone here maintained
the truth against Judaism, as afterwards against heathenism (2 Timothy 4:16;
2 Timothy 4:17).
Peter—"Cephas"
in the oldest manuscripts
before . . . all— (2 Timothy 4:17).
If thou, c.—"If
thou, although being a Jew (and therefore one who might seem to be
more bound to the law than the Gentiles), livest (habitually, without
scruple and from conviction, Acts 15:10
Acts 15:11) as a Gentile (freely
eating of every food, and living in other respects also as if legal
ordinances in no way justify, Acts 15:11), and not as a Jew, how (so the oldest manuscripts
read, for 'why') is it that thou art compelling (virtually, by thine
example) the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (literally, to
Judaize, that is, to keep the ceremonial customs of the Jews:
What had been formerly obedience to the law, is now mere Judaism).
The high authority of Peter would constrain the Gentile Christians to
regard Judaizing as necessary to all, since Jewish Christians could
not consort with Gentile converts in communion without it.
We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
15, 16. Connect these verses
together, and read with most of the oldest manuscripts "But"
in the beginning of Galatians 2:16:
"We (I and thou, Peter) by nature (not by proselytism), Jews,
and not sinners as (Jewish language termed the Gentiles) from among
the Gentiles, YET
(literally, 'BUT') knowing
that . . . even we (resuming the 'we' of Galatians 2:16, 'we also,' as well as the Gentile sinners; casting away
trust in the law), have believed," &c.
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.
16. not justified by the works of
the law—as the GROUND
of justification. "The works of the law" are those which
have the law for their object—which are wrought to fulfil the law
[ALFORD].
but by—Translate, "But
only (in no other way save) through faith in Jesus
Christ," as the MEAN
and instrument of justification.
Jesus Christ—In the
second case, read with the oldest manuscripts, "Christ Jesus,"
the Messiahship coming into prominence in the case of Jewish
believers, as "Jesus" does in the first case, referring to
the general proposition.
justified by the faith of
Christ—that is, by Christ, the object of faith, as the ground
of our justification.
for by the works of the law
shall no flesh be justified—He rests his argument on this as an
axiom in theology, referring to , "Moses and Jesus Christ; The law and the promise;
Doing and believing; Works and faith; Wages and the gift; The curse
and the blessing—are represented as diametrically opposed"
[BENGEL]. The moral law
is, in respect to justification, more legal than the
ceremonial, which was an elementary and preliminary Gospel: So
"Sinai" (Galatians 4:24),
which is more famed for the Decalogue than for the ceremonial law, is
made pre-eminently the type of legal bondage. Thus, justification by
the law, whether the moral or ceremonial, is excluded (Galatians 4:24).
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.
17. Greek, "But if,
seeking to be justified IN
(that is, in believing union with) Christ (who has in the
Gospel theory fulfilled the law for us), we (you and I) ourselves
also were found (in your and my former communion
with Gentiles) sinners (such as from the Jewish standpoint that now
we resume, we should be regarded, since we have cast aside the law,
thus having put ourselves in the same category as the Gentiles, who,
being without the law, are, in the Jewish view, "sinners,"
Galatians 2:15), is therefore Christ,
the minister of sin?" (Are we to admit the conclusion, in this
case inevitable, that Christ having failed to justify us by faith, so
has become to us the minister of sin, by putting us in the position
of "sinners," as the Judaic theory, if correct, would make
us, along with all others who are "without the law,"
Romans 2:14; 1 Corinthians 9:21;
and with whom, by eating with them, we have identified ourselves?)
The Christian mind revolts from so shocking a conclusion, and so,
from the theory which would result in it. The whole sin lies, not
with Christ, but with him who would necessitate such a blasphemous
inference. But his false theory, though "seeking"
from Christ, we have not "found" salvation (in
contradiction to Christ's own words, 1 Corinthians 9:21), but "have been ourselves also (like the Gentiles)
found" to be "sinners," by having entered into
communion with Gentiles (Galatians 2:12).
For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
18. Greek, "For if
the things which I overthrew (by the faith of Christ), those very
things I build up again (namely, legal righteousness, by subjecting
myself to the law), I prove myself (literally, 'I commend myself') a
transgressor." Instead of commending yourself as you sought to
do (Galatians 2:12, end), you merely
commend yourself as a transgressor. The "I" is intended by
Paul for Peter to take to himself, as it is his case,
not Paul's own, that is described. A "transgressor" is
another word for "sinner" (in Galatians 2:12), for "sin is the transgression of the law."
You, Peter, by now asserting the law to be obligatory, are proving
yourself a "sinner," or "transgressor," in your
having set it aside by living as the Gentiles, and with them. Thus
you are debarred by transgression from justification by the law, and
you debar yourself from justification by Christ, since in your theory
He becomes a minister of sin.
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
19. Here Paul seems to pass from
his exact words to Peter, to the general purport of his
argument on the question. However, his direct address to the
Galatians seems not to be resumed till , "O foolish Galatians," c.
For—But I am not a
"transgressor" by forsaking the law. "For," &c.
Proving his indignant denial of the consequence that "Christ is
the minister of sin" (), and of the premises from which it would follow. Christ, so
far from being the minister of sin and death, is the establisher of
righteousness and life. I am entirely in Him [BENGEL].
I—here emphatical. Paul
himself, not Peter, as in the "I" ().
through the law—which
was my "schoolmaster to bring me to Christ" () both by its terrors (Galatians 3:13;
Romans 3:20) driving me to Christ,
as the refuge from God's wrath against sin, and, when spiritually
understood, teaching that itself is not permanent, but must give
place to Christ, whom it prefigures as its scope and end (Romans 3:20); and drawing me to Him by its promises (in the prophecies
which form part of the Old Testament law) of a better righteousness,
and of God's law written in the heart (Deuteronomy 18:15-19;
Jeremiah 31:33; Acts 10:43).
am dead to the law—literally,
"I died to the law," and so am dead to it, that is,
am passed from under its power, in respect to non-justification or
condemnation (Colossians 2:20; Romans 6:14;
Romans 7:4; Romans 7:6);
just as a woman, once married and bound to a husband, ceases to be so
bound to him when death interposes, and may be lawfully married to
another husband. So by believing union to Christ in His death, we,
being considered dead with Him, are severed from the law's past power
over us (compare Galatians 6:14;
1 Corinthians 7:39; Romans 6:6-11;
1 Peter 2:24).
live unto God— (Romans 6:11;
2 Corinthians 5:15; 1 Peter 4:1;
1 Peter 4:2).
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless 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.
20. I am crucified—literally,
"I have been crucified with Christ." This more
particularizes the foregoing. "I am dead" (Galatians 2:19;
Philippians 3:10).
nevertheless I live; yet not
I—Greek, "nevertheless I live, no longer (indeed)
I." Though crucified I live; (and this) no longer that old man
such as I once was (compare Philippians 3:10). No longer Saul the Jew (Galatians 5:24;
Colossians 3:11, but "another man";
compare 1 Samuel 10:6). ELLICOTT
and others translate, "And it is no longer I that live,
but Christ that liveth in me." But the plain antithesis between
"crucified" and "live," requires the translation,
"nevertheless."
the life which I now live—as
contrasted with my life before conversion.
in the flesh—My life
seems to be a mere animal life "in the flesh," but this is
not my true life; "it is but the mask of life under which lives
another, namely, Christ, who is my true life" [LUTHER].
I live by the faith,
&c.—Greek, "IN
faith (namely), that of (that is, which rests on) the Son of God."
"In faith," answers by contrast to "in the flesh."
Faith, not the flesh, is the real element in which I
live. The phrase, "the Son of God," reminds us that His
Divine Sonship is the source of His life-giving power.
loved me—His eternal
gratuitous love is the link that unites me to the Son of God, and His
"giving Himself for me," is the strongest proof of that
love.
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
21. I do not frustrate the grace of
God—I do not make it void, as thou, Peter, art doing by
Judaizing.
for—justifying the
strong expression "frustrate," or "make void."
is dead in vain—Greek,
"Christ died needlessly," or "without just cause."
Christ's having died, shows that the law has no power to justify us;
for if the law can justify or make us righteous, the death of Christ
is superfluous [CHRYSOSTOM].