GALATIANS CHAPTER 2
THE second chapter is closely connected in sense with the first, and
is indeed a part of the same argument. Injury has been done by the
division which is made. The proper division would have been at the close
of the 10th verse of this chapter. The general scope of the chapter, like
the first, is to show that he did not receive the gospel from man; that
he had not derived it from the apostles; that he did not acknowledge his
indebtedness to them for his views of the Christian religion; that they
had not even set up authority over him; but that they had welcomed
him as a fellow-labourer, and acknowledged him as a coadjutor in the work
of the apostleship. In confirmation of this he states Galatians 2:1 that he
had indeed gone to Jerusalem, but that he had done it by express
revelation, Galatians 2:2; that he was cordially received by the apostles
there--especially by those who were pillars in the church; and that so
far from regarding himself as inferior to the other apostles, he had
resisted Peter to his face at Antioch on a most important and vital
doctrine.
The chapter, therefore, may be regarded as divided into two portions,
viz.:
I. The account of his visit to Jerusalem, and of what occurred there,
Galatians 2:1-10.
(a) He had gone up fourteen years after his conversion, after having
laboured long among the Gentiles in his own way, and without having felt
his dependence on the apostles at Jerusalem, Galatians 2:1,2.
(b) When he was there, there was no attempt made to compel him to submit
to the Jewish rites and customs; and what was conclusive in the case was,
that they had not even required Titus to be circumcised, thus proving
that they did not assert jurisdiction over Paul, and that they did not
intend to impose the Mosaic rites on the converts from among the
Gentiles, Galatians 2:3-5.
(c) The most distinguished persons among the apostles at Jerusalem, he
says, received him kindly, and admitted him to their confidence and
favour without hesitation. They added no heavy burdens to him,
Galatians 2:6; they saw evidence that he had been appointed to bear the
gospel to the Gentiles, Galatians 2:7,8; they gave to him and Barnabas the
right hand of fellowship, Galatians 2:9; and they asked only that they
should remember and show kindness to the poor saints in Judea, and thus
manifest an interest in those who had been converted from Judaism, or
contribute their proper proportion to the maintenance of all, and show
that they were not disposed to abandon their own countrymen,
Galatians 2:10. In this way they gave the fullest proof that they approved
the course of Paul, and admitted him into entire fellowship with them as
an apostle.
II. The scene at Antioch, where Paul rebuked Peter for his
dissimulation, Galatians 2:11-21. The main object of mentioning this
seems to be to show, first, that he did not regard himself as inferior to
the other apostles, or that he had not derived his views of the gospel
from them; and, secondly, to state that the observance of the Jewish
rites was not necessary to salvation, and that he had maintained that
from the beginning, he had strongly urged it in a controversy with
Peter, and in a case where Peter was manifestly wrong; and it was
no new doctrine on the subject of justification which he had preached
to the Galatians. He states, therefore,
(a) That he had opposed Peter at Antioch, because he had dissembled
there, and that even Barnabas had been carried away with the course which
Peter had practised, Galatians 2:11-14.
(b) That the Jews must be justified by faith, and not by dependence on
their own law, Galatians 2:15,16.
(c) That they who are justified by faith should act consistently,
and not attempt to build again the things which they had destroyed,
Galatians 2:17,18.
(d) That the effect of justification by faith was to make one dead
to the law that he might live unto God; that the effect of it was to
make one truly alive and devoted to the cause of true religion; and
to show this, he appeals to the effect on his own heart and life,
Galatians 2:19,20.
(e) And that if justification could be obtained by the law, then
Christ had died in vain, Galatians 2:21. he thus shows that the effect of
teaching the necessity of the observance of the Jewish rites was to
destroy the gospel, and to render it vain and useless.
Verse 1. Then, fourteen years after. That is, fourteen years after
his first visit there subsequent to his conversion. Some commentators,
however, suppose that the date of the fourteen years is to be reckoned
from his conversion. But the more obvious construction is to refer it to
the time of his visit there, as recorded in the previous chapter,
Galatians 2:18. This time was spent in Asia Minor, chiefly in preaching the
gospel.
I went up again to Jerusalem. It is commonly supposed that Paul here
refers to the visit which he made as recorded in Acts 20. The
circumstances mentioned are substantially the same; and the object which
he had at that time in going up was one whose mention was entirely
pertinent to the argument here. He went up with Barnabas to submit a
question to the assembled apostles and elders at Jerusalem in regard to
the necessity of the observance of the laws of Moses. Some persons who
had come among the Gentile converts from Judea had insisted on the
necessity of being circumcised in order to be saved. Paul and Barnabas
had opposed them; and the dispute had become so warm that it was agreed
to submit the subject to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. For that
purpose Paul and Barnabas had been sent, with certain others, to lay the
case before all the apostles. As the question which Paul was discussing
in this epistle was about the necessity of the observance of the laws of
Moses in order to justification, it was exactly in point to refer to a
journey when this very question had been submitted to the apostles. Paul
indeed had made another journey to Jerusalem before this, with the
collection for the poor saints in Judea, Acts 11:29,30; 12:25; but he
does not mention that here, probably because he did not then see the
other apostles, or more probably because that journey furnished no
illustration of the point now under debate. On the occasion here referred
to, Acts 15 the very point under discussion here constituted the main
subject of inquiry, and was definitely settled.
And took Titus with me also. Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles,
Acts 15:2, says that there were others with Paul and Barnabas on that
journey to Jerusalem. But who they were he does not mention. It is by no
means certain that Titus was appointed by the church to go to
Jerusalem; but the contrary is more probable. Paul seems to have taken
him with him as a private affair; but the reason is not mentioned. It may
have been to show his Christian liberty, and his sense of what he had a
right to do; or it may have been to furnish a case on the subject of
inquiry, and submit the matter to them whether Titus was to be
circumcised. Hie was a Greek; but he had been converted to Christianity.
Paul had not circumcised him; but had admitted him to the full
privileges of the Christian church. Here, then, was a case in point;
and it may have been important to have had such a case before them that
they might fully understand it. This, as Doddridge properly remarks, is
the first mention which occurs of Titus. He is not mentioned by Luke in
the Acts of the Apostles; and though his name occurs several times in the
second epistle to the Corinthians, 2 Corinthians 2:13; 7:6; 8:6,16,23; 12:18, yet
it is to be remembered that that epistle was written a considerable time
after this to the Galatians. Titus was a Greek, and was doubtless
converted by the labours of Paul, for he calls him his own son,
Titus 1:4. He attended Paul frequently in his travels; was employed by
him in important services, (see 2Co. in the places referred to above;)
was left by him in Crete to set in order the things that were wanting,
and to ordain elders there, Titus 1:5; subsequently he went into
Dalmatia, 2 Timothy 4:10, and is supposed to have returned again to Crete,
whence it is said he propagated the gospel in the neighbouring islands,
and died at the age of ninety-four.--Calmet.
{a} "fourteen years after, I went" Acts 15:2
Verse 2. And I went up by revelation. Not for the purpose of
receiving instruction from the apostles there in regard to the nature of
the Christian religion. It is to be remembered that the design for which
Paul states this is to show that he had not received the gospel from
men. He is careful, therefore, to state that he went up by the express
command of God. He did not go up to receive instructions from the
apostles there in regard to his own work, or to be confirmed
by them in his apostolic office; but he went to submit an important
question pertaining to the church at large. In Acts 15:2, it is said
that Paul and Barnabas went up by the appointment of the church
at Antioch. But there is no discrepancy between that account and
this; for though he was designated by the church there, there is no
improbability in supposing that he was directed by a special revelation
to comply with their request. The reason why he says that he went up by
direct revelation seems to be, to show that he did not seek instruction
from the apostles; he did not go of his own accord to consult with them,
as if he were dependent on them; but even in a case when he went to
advise with them he was under the influence of express and direct
revelation, proving that he was as much commissioned by God as they were.
And communicated unto them that gospel, etc. Made them acquainted
with the doctrines which he preached among the heathen. He stated fully
the principles on which he acted; the nature of the gospel which he
taught; and his doctrine about the exemption of the Gentiles from the
obligations of the law of Moses. He thus satisfied them in regard to his
views of the gospel; and showed them that he understood the system of
Christianity which had been revealed. The result was, that they had
entire confidence in him, and admitted him to entire fellowship
with them, Galatians 2:9.
But privately. Marg., severally. Gr., \~kat idian\~ . The phrase
means, that he did it not in a public manner; not before a promiscuous
assembly; not even before all the apostles collected together, but in a
private manner to a few of the leaders and chief persons, he made a
private explanation of his motives and views, that they might understand
it before it became a matter of public discussion. The point on which
Paul made this private explanation was not whether the gospel was to be
preached to the Gentiles, for on that they had no doubt after the
revelation to Peter, Acts 10; but whether the rites of the Jews were
to be imposed on the Gentile converts. Paul explained his views and his
practice on that point, which were, that he did not impose those
rites on the Gentiles; that he taught that men might be justified without
their observance; and that they were not necessary in order to salvation.
The reasons why he sought this private interview with the leading
men in Jerusalem he has not stated; but we may suppose that they were
something like the following:
(1.) The Jews in general had very strong attachment to their own customs,
and this attachment was found in a high degree among those who were
converted from among them to the Christian faith. They would be strongly
excited, therefore, by the doctrine that those customs were not
necessary to be observed.
(2.) If the matter were submitted to a promiscuous assembly of converts
from Judaism, it could not fail to produce great excitement. They could
not be made readily to understand the reasons why Paul acted in this
manner; there would be no possibility in an excited assemblage to offer
the explanations which might be desirable; and after every explanation
which could be given in this manner, they might have been unable to
understand all the circumstances of the case.
(3.) If a few of the principal men were made to understand it, Paul felt
assured that their influence would be such as to prevent any great
difficulty, he therefore sought an early opportunity to lay the case
before them in private, and to secure their favour; and this course
contributed to the happy issue of the whole affair. See Acts 15. There
was indeed much disputation when the question came to be submitted to
"the apostles and elders," Acts 15:7; many of the sect of the
Pharisees in that assembly maintained that it was needful to teach the
Gentiles that the law of Moses was to be kept, Acts 15:5; and no one
can tell what would have been the issue of that discussion among the
excitable minds of the converts from Judaism, had not Paul taken the
precaution, as he here says, to have submitted the case in private to
those who were of "reputation," and if Peter and James had not in
this manner been satisfied, and had not submitted the views which
they did, as recorded in Acts 15:7-21, and which terminated the
whole controversy. We may just remark here, that this fact furnishes an
Horae Paulinae--though he has hot referred to this--of what he calls
undesigned coincidences. The affair in Acts 15, and the course of
the debate, looks very much as if Peter and James had had some conference
with Paul in private, and had had an opportunity of understanding fully
his views on the subject before the matter came before the "apostles and
elders" in public, though no such private conference is there referred to
by Luke. But on turning to the epistle to the Galatians, we find in fact
that he had on one occasion before seen the same Peter and James,
Galatians 1:18,19; and that he had had a private interview with those "of
reputation" on these very points, and particularly that James, Peter, and
John had approved his course, and given to him and Barnabas the right
hand of fellowship, Galatians 2:9. Thus understood, the case here referred
to was one of the most consummate instances of prudence that occurred in
the life of Paul; and from this case we may learn,
(1.) that when a difficulty is to be settled involving great principles,
and embracing a great many points, it is better to seek-an opportunity
of private explanation than to submit it to a promiscuous multitude
or to public debate. It is not well to attempt to settle important
points when the passions of a promiscuous assembly may be excited,
and where prejudices are strong. It is better to do it by private
explanations, when there is an opportunity coolly to ask questions
and to state the facts just as they are.
(2.) The importance of securing the countenance of influential men in a
popular assembly; of having men in the assembly who would understand the
whole case. It was morally certain that if such men as Peter and James
were made to understand the case, there would be little difficulty in
arriving at an amicable adjustment of the difficulty.
(3.) Though this passage does not refer to preaching the gospel in
general, since the gospel here submitted to the men of reputation was the
question referred to above, yet we may remark, that great prudence should
be used in preaching; in stating truths that may excite prejudices,
or when we have reason to apprehend prejudices; and that it is
often best to preach the gospel to men of reputation \~kat idian\~
separately, or privately. In this way the truth can be made to
bear on the conscience; it may be better adapted to the character of the
individual; he may put himself less in a state of defence, and guard
himself less against the proper influences of truth. And especially
is this true in conversing with persons on the subject of religion.
It should be if possible alone, or privately. Almost any man may
be approached on the subject of religion if it be done when he is alone,
when he is at leisure, and if it be done in a kind spirit. Almost any
man will become irritated if you address him personally in a promiscuous
assembly, or even with his family around him. I have never in more than
one or two instances been unkindly treated when I have addressed an
individual on the subject of religion, if he was alone; and though a
minister should never shrink from stating the truth, and should never be
afraid of man, however exalted his rank, or great his talents, or vast
his wealth, yet he will probably meet with most success when he
discourses privately to "them which are of reputation."
To them which were of reputation. Meaning here the leading men among
the apostles. Tindal renders this, "which are counted chief." Doddridge,
"those of greatest note in the church.". The Greek is, literally, "those
who seem;" more fully in Galatians 2:6, "who seem to be something," i.e.,
who are persons of note, or who are distinguished,
Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. Lest the effects
of my labours and journeys should be lost. Paul feared that if he did not
take this method of laying the case before them privately, they would not
understand it. Others might misrepresent him, or their prejudices might
be excited; and when the ease came before the assembled apostles and
elders, a decision might be adopted which would go to prove that he had
been entirely wrong in his views, or which would lead those whom he had
taught to believe that he was, and which would greatly hinder and
embarrass him in his future movements. In order to prevent this,
therefore, and to secure a just decision, and one which would not hinder
his future usefulness, he had sought this private interview, and thus his
object was gained.
{1} "privately" "severally"
{b} "by any means" Philippians 2:16
Verse 3. But neither Titus, who was with me. Paul introduces this
case of Titus undoubtedly to show that circumcision was not necessary
to salvation. It was a case just in point, lie had gone up to Jerusalem with
express reference to this question, here was a man
whom he had admitted to the Christian church without circumcising
him. He claimed that he had a right to do so; and that circumcision was
not necessary in order to salvation. If it were necessary, it would have
been proper that Titus should have been compelled to submit to it. But
Paul says this was not demanded; or if demanded by any, the point was
yielded, and he was not compelled to be circumcised. It is to be
remembered that this was at Jerusalem; that it was a case submitted to
the apostles there; and that consequently the determination of this case
settled the whole controversy about the obligation of the Mosaic laws on
the Gentile converts. It is quite evident from the whole statement here,
that Paul did not intend that Titus should be circumcised; that he
maintained that it was not necessary; and that he resisted it when it was
demanded, Galatians 2:4,5. Yet on another occasion he himself performed the
act of circumcision on Timothy, Acts 16:3. But there is no
inconsistency in his conduct. In the case of Titus it was demanded as
a matter of right and as obligatory on him, and he resisted the principle
as dangerous. In the case of Timothy, it was a voluntary compliance on
his part with the usual customs of the Jews, where it was not pressed
as a matter of obligation, and where it would not be understood as
indispensable to salvation. No danger would follow from compliance
with the custom, and it might do much to conciliate the favour of
the Jews, and he therefore submitted to it. Paul would not have
hesitated to have circumcised Titus in the same circumstances in
which it was done to Timothy; but the circumstances were different; and
when it was insisted on as a matter of principle and of obligation, it
became a matter of principle and of obligation with him to oppose it.
Being a Greek. Born of Gentile parents, of course he had not been
circumcised. Probably both his parents were Greeks. The case with Timothy
was somewhat different. His mother was a Jewess, but his father was a
Greek, Acts 16:3.
Was compelled to be circumcised. I think it is implied here that
this was demanded and insisted on by some that he should be
circumcised. It is also implied that Paul resisted it, and the point was
yielded, thus settling the great and important principle that it was
not necessary in order to salvation. Galatians 2:5.
{*} "neither Titus" "Not even"
Verse 4. And that because of false brethren. Who these false brethren
were is not certainly known; nor is it known whether he refers to those
who were at Jerusalem, or to those who were at Antioch. It is probable
that he refers to Judaizing Christians, or persons who claimed to be
Christians and to have been converted from Judaism. Whether they were
dissemblers and hypocrites, or whether they wore so imperfectly
acquainted with Christianity, and so obstinate, opinionated, and
perverse, though really in some respects good men, that they were
conscientious in this, it is not easy to determine. It is clear, however,
that they opposed the apostle Paul; that they regarded him as teaching
dangerous doctrines; that they perverted and misstated his views; and
that they claimed to have clearer views of the nature of the true
religion than he had. Such adversaries he met everywhere, 2 Corinthians 11:26;
and it required all his tact and skill to meet their plausible
representations. It is evident here that Paul is assigning a reason
for something which he had done, and that reason was to counteract the
influence of the "false brethren" in the case. But what is the thing
concerning which he assigns a reason? It is commonly supposed to have
been on account of the fact that he did not submit to the circumcision of
Titus, and that he means to say that he resisted that in order to
counteract their influence, and defeat their designs. But I would submit
whether Galatians 2:3 is not to be regarded as a parenthesis, and whether
the fact for which he assigns a reason is not that he sought a
private interview with the leading men among the apostles? Galatians 2:2.
The reason of his doing that would be obvious. In this way he could
more easily counteract the influence of the false brethren, he could make
a full statement of his doctrines, he could meet their inquiries,
and anticipate the objections of his enemies, he could thus secure
the influence of the leading apostles in his favour, and effectually
prevent all the efforts of the false brethren to impose the Jewish rites
on Gentile converts.
Unawares brought in. The word rendered "unawares" \~pareisaktouv\~ is
derived from a verb meaning to lead in by the side of others, to
introduce along with others; and then to lead or bring in by stealth, to
smuggle in.--Robinson, Lex. The verb occurs nowhere in the New
Testament but in 2 Peter 2:1, where it is applied to heresies, and is
rendered, "who privily shall bring in." Here it refers probably to men
who had been artfully introduced into the ministry, who made pretensions
to piety, but who were either strangers to it, or who were greatly
ignorant of the true nature of the Christian system; and who were
disposed to take every advantage, and to impose on others the observance
of the peculiar rites of the Mosaic economy. Into what they were
brought, the apostle does not say. It may have been that they had been
introduced into the ministry in this manner, (Doddridge;) or it may
be that they were introduced into the "assembly" where the apostles
were collected to deliberate on the subject.--Chandler. I think it
probable that Paul refers to the occurrences in Jerusalem, and that
these false brethren had been introduced from Antioch or some other
place where Paul had been preaching, or that they were persons whom his
adversaries had introduced to demand that Titus should be circumcised,
under the plausible pretence that the laws of Moses required it, but
really in order that there might be such proof as they desired that this
rite was to be imposed on the Gentile converts. If Paul was compelled to
submit to this, if they could carry this point, it would be just such an
instance as they needed, and would settle the whole inquiry, and prove
that the Mosaic laws were to be imposed on the Gentile converts. This was
the reason why Paul so strenuously opposed it.
To spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus. In the practice
of the Christian religion. The liberty referred to was, doubtless, the
liberty from the painful, expensive, and onerous rites of the Jewish
religion. See Galatians 5:1. Their object in spying out the liberty which
Paul and others had, was, undoubtedly, to be witnesses of the fact that
they did not observe the peculiar rites of the Mosaic system; to make
report of it; to insist on their complying with those customs, and thus
to secure the imposition of those rites On the Gentile converts. Their
first object was to satisfy themselves of the fact that Paul did not
insist on the observance of their customs; and then to secure, by the
authority of the apostles, an injunction or order that Titus should be
circumcised, and that Paul and the converts made under his ministry
should be required to comply with those laws.
That they might bring us into bondage. Into bondage to the laws of
Moses. See Barnes "Acts 15:10".
{a} "false brethren" Acts 15:1,24
{+} "brought in" "artfully introduced"
{b} "liberty" Galatians 5:1.13
{c} "bondage" 2 Corinthians 11:29; Galatians 4:3,9
Verse 5. To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour. We
did not submit to this at all. We did not yield even for the shortest
tune. We did not waver in our opposition to their demands, or in the
slightest degree become subject to their wishes. We steadily opposed
their claims, in order that the great principle might be for ever settled
that the laws of Moses were not to be imposed as obligatory on the
Gentile converts. This I take to be the clear and obvious sense of this
passage, though there has been a great variety of opinions on it. A
considerable number of Mss. omit the words \~oiv oude\~, "to whom neither,"
(see Mill, Koppe, and Griesbach,) and then the sense would be reversed,
that Paul did yield to them for or after a short time, in order that
he might in this way better consult the permanent interests of the
gospel. This opinion has been gaining ground for the last century, that
the passage here has been corrupted; but it is by no means confirmed. The
ancient versions, the Syriac, the Vulgate, and the Arabic, accord with
the usual reading of the text. So also do by far the largest portion of
Mss.; and such, it seems to me, is the sense demanded by the connexion.
Paul means, in the whole passage, to say, that a great principle was
settled. That the question came up fairly whether the Mosaic rites were
to be imposed on Gentile converts. That false brethren were introduced
who demanded it; and that he steadily maintained his ground. He did not
yield a moment. He felt that a great principle was involved; and though
on all proper occasions he was willing to yield and to become all things
to all men, yet here he did not court them, or temporize with them in the
least. The phrase "by subjection" here means, that he did not suffer
himself to be compelled to yield. The phrase "for an hour" is
equivalent to the shortest period of time. He did not waver or yield at
all.
That the truth of the gospel might continue with you. That the great
principle of the Christian religion which had been taught you might
continue, and that you might enjoy the full benefit of the pure gospel,
without its being intermingled with any false views. Paul had defended
these same Jews among the Galatians, and he now sought that the same
views might be confirmed by the clear decision of the college of apostles
at Jerusalem.
Verse 6. But of those who seemed to be somewhat. Galatians 2:2. This
undoubtedly refers to those who were the most eminent among the
apostles at Jerusalem. There is an apparent harshness in our
common translation, which is unnecessary. The word here used
\~dokountwn\~ denotes those who were thought to be, or who were, of
reputation; that is, men who were of note and influence among the
apostles. The object of referring to them here, is to show that he
had the concurrence and approbation of the most eminent of the
apostles to the course which he had pursued.
Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me. Tindal renders this,
"What they were in time passed, it maketh no matter to me." The idea
seems to be this: Paul means to say, that whatever was their real rank
and standing, it did not in the least affect his authority as an apostle,
or his argument. While he rejoiced in their concurrence, and while
he sought their approbation, yet he did not admit for a moment that
he was inferior to them as an apostle, or dependent on them for the
justness of his views. What they were, or what they might be thought to
be, was immaterial to his claims as an apostle, and immaterial to the
authority of his own views as an apostle. He had derived his gospel from
the Lord Jesus; and he had the fullest assurance that his views were
just. Paul makes this remark evidently in keeping with all that he
had said, that he did not regard himself as in any manner dependent on
them for his authority. He did not treat them with disrespect; but he did
not regard them as having a right to claim an authority over him.
God accepteth no man's person. See Barnes " :";
See Barnes "Romans 2:11". This is a general truth, that God is not
influenced in his judgment by a regard to the rank, or wealth, or
external condition of any one. Its particular meaning here is, that
the authority of the apostles was not to be measured, by their external
rank, or by the measure of reputation which they had among men. If,
therefore, it were to be admitted that he himself was not in
circumstances of so much external honour as the other apostles, or that
they were esteemed to be of more elevated rank than he was, still he did
not admit that this gave them a claim to any higher authority. God was
not influenced in his judgment by any such consideration; and Paul
therefore claimed that all the apostles were in fact on a level in regard
to their authority.
In conference. When I conferred with them, Galatians 2:2. They did not
then impose on me any new obligations; they did not communicate anything
to me of which I was before ignorant.
{a} "seemed" Galatians 6:3
{*} "somewhat" Of most reputation"
{b} "God accepteth" Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11
{+} "to be somewhat" "of reputation"
Verse 7. The gospel of the uncircumcision. The duty of preaching the
gospel to the uncircumcised part of the world; that is, to the Gentiles.
Paul had received this as his peculiar office when he was converted and
called to the ministry, see Acts 9:15; 22:21; and they now perceived
that he had been specially intrusted with this office, from the
remarkable success which had attended his labours. It is evidently not
meant here that Paul was to preach only to the Gentiles and Peter
only to the Jews, for Paul often preached in the synagogues of the Jews,
and Peter was the first who preached to a Gentile, Acts 10; but it is
meant that it was the main business of Paul to preach to the Gentiles, or
that this was especially intrusted to him.
As the gospel of the circumcision. As the office of preaching the
gospel to the Jews.
Was unto Peter. Peter was to preach principally to the circumcised
Jews. It is evident that until this time Peter had. been principally
employed in preaching to the Jews. Paul selects Peter here particularly,
doubtless because he was the oldest of the apostles, and in order to
show that he was himself regarded as on a level, in regard to the
apostleship, with the most aged and venerable of those who had been
called to the apostolic office by the personal ministry of the Lord
Jesus.
{++} "contrariwise" "On the contrary"
{&} "committed" "intrusted"
{c} "unto me, as the gospel" 1 Thessalonians 2:4; 1 Timothy 2:7
Verse 8. For he that wrought effectually in Peter, etc. Or by the
means or agency of Peter. The argument here is, that the same effects had
been produced under the ministry of Paul among the Gentiles, which
had been under the preaching of Peter among the Jews. It is inferred,
therefore, that God had called both to the apostolic office. See this
argument illustrated See Barnes "Acts 11:17".
The same was mighty in me, etc. In enabling me to work miracles, and
in the success which attended the ministry.
{|} "effectually in Peter" "By"
{**} "mighty in me" "Wrought powerfully by me"
{++} "toward the Gentiles" "in the conversion of the Gentiles"
Verse 9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars.
That is, pillars or supports in the church. The word rendered
pillars \~stuloi\~ means, properly, firm support; then persons of
influence and authority, as in a church, or that support a church--as a
pillar or column does an edifice. In regard to James,
See Barnes "Galatians 1:19". Comp. Acts 15:13. Cephas or Peter was the
most aged of the apostles, and regarded as at the head of the apostolical
college. John was the beloved disciple, and his influence in the
church must of necessity have been great. Paul felt that if he had
the countenance of these men, it would be an important proof to the
churches of Galatia that he had a right to regard himself as an
apostle. Their countenance was expressed in the most full and
decisive manner.
Perceived the grace that was given unto me. That is, the favour that
had been shown to me by the great Head of the church, in so abundantly
blessing my lab ours among the Gentiles.
They gave unto me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. The
right hand, in token of fellowship or favour. They thus publicly
acknowledged us as fellow-labourers, and expressed the utmost confidence
in us. To give the right hand with us is a token of friendly salutation,
and it seems that it was a mode of salutation not unknown in the times of
the apostles. They were thus recognised as associated with the apostles
in the great work of spreading the gospel around the world. Whether this
was done in a public manner is not certainly known; but it was probably
in the presence of the church, or possibly at the close of the council
referred to in Acts 15.
That we should go unto the heathen. To preach the gospel, and to
establish churches. In this way the whole matter was settled, and
settled as Paul desired it to be. A delightful harmony was produced
between Paul and the apostles at Jerusalem; and the result showed the
wisdom of the course which he had adopted. There had been no harsh
contention or strife. No jealousies had been suffered to arise. Paul had
sought an opportunity of a full statement of his views to them in
private, Galatians 2:2, and they had been entirely satisfied that God had
called him and Barnabas to the work of making known the gospel among the
heathen. Instead of being jealous at their success, they had rejoiced in
it; and instead of throwing any obstacle in their way, they cordially
gave them the right hand. How easy would it be always to prevent
jealousies and strifes in the same way! If there was, on the one hand,
the same readiness for a full and frank explanation, and if, on the
other, the same freedom from envy at remarkable success, how many strifes
that have disgraced the church might have been avoided! The true way to
avoid strife is just that which is here proposed. Let there be on both
sides perfect frankness; let there be a willingness to explain and state
things just as they are; and let there be a disposition to rejoice in the
talents, and zeal, and success of others, even though it should far
outstrip our own, and contention in the church would cease, and every
devoted and successful minister of the gospel would receive the right
hand of fellowship from all--however venerable by age or authority--who
love the cause of true religion.
{a} "be pillars" Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 2:20
{b} "the grace" Romans 1:5; 12:3,6
Verse 10. Only they would that we should remember the poor. That is,
as I suppose, the poor Christians in Judea. It can hardly be supposed
that it would be necessary to make this an express stipulation in
regard to the converts from among the Gentiles, and it would not
have been very pertinent to the case before them to have done so.
The object was, to bind together the Christians from among the
heathen, and from among the Jews, and to prevent alienation and
unkind feeling. It might have been alleged that Paul was disposed
to forget his own countrymen altogether; that he regarded himself
as so entirely the apostle of the Gentiles that he would become
wholly alienated frown those who were his "kinsmen according to
the flesh," and thus it might be apprehended that unpleasant feelings
would be engendered among those who had been converted from among the
Jews. Now nothing could be better adapted to allay this than for him to
pledge himself to feel a deep interest in the poor saints among the
Jewish converts; to remember them in his prayers; and to endeavour to
secure contributions for their wants. Thus he would show that he was not
alienated from his countrymen; and thus the whole church would be united
in the closest bonds. It is probable that the Christians in Judea were at
that time suffering the ills of poverty, arising either from some
public persecution, or from the fact that they were subject to the
displeasure of their countrymen. All who know the peculiar feelings
of the Jews at that time in regard to Christians, must see at once
that many of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth would be subjected
to great inconveniences on account of their attachment to him.
Many a wife might be disowned by her husband; many a child
disinherited by a parent; many a man might be thrown out of
employment by the fact that others would not countenance him;
and hence many of the Christians would be poor. It became, therefore, an
object of special importance to provide for them; and hence
this is so often referred to in the New Testament. In addition to
this, the church in Judea was afflicted with famine. Comp.
Acts 11:30; Romans 15:25-27; 1 Corinthians 16:1,2; 2 Corinthians 8:1-7.
The same which I also was forward to do. See the passages just
referred to. Paul interested himself much in the collection for the poor
saints at Jerusalem, and in this way he furnished the fullest evidence
that he was not alienated from them, but that he felt the deepest
interest in those who were his kindred. One of the proper ways of
securing union in the church is to have the poor with them, and depending
on them for support; and hence every church has some poor persons as one
of the bonds of union. The best way to unite all Christians, and to
prevent alienation, and jealousy, and strife, is to have
a great common object of charity, in which all are interested, and to
which all may contribute. Such a common object for all Christians is a
sinful world. All who bear the Christian name may unite in promoting its
salvation, and nothing would promote union in the now divided and
distracted church of Christ like a deep and common interest in the
salvation of all mankind.
Verse 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch. On the situation of
Antioch, See Barnes "Acts 11:19". The design for which Paul
introduces this statement here is evident. It is to show that he regarded
himself as on a level with the chief apostles, and that he did not
acknowledge his inferiority to any of them. Peter was the eldest,
and probably the most honoured of the apostles. Yet Paul says that he did
not hesitate to resist him in a case where Peter was manifestly wrong,
and thus showed that he was an apostle of the same standing as the
others. Besides, what he said to Peter on that occasion was exactly
pertinent to the strain of the argument which he was pursuing with the
Galatians, and he therefore introduces it Galatians 2:14-21 to show that
he had held the same doctrine all along, and that he had defended it in
the presence of Peter, and in a case where Peter did not reply to it. The
time of this journey of Peter to Antioch cannot be ascertained; nor
the occasion on which it occurred. I think it is evident that it was
after this visit of Paul to Jerusalem, and the occasion may have been
to inspect the state of the church at Antioch, and to compose any
differences of opinion which may have existed there. But everything in
regard to this is mere conjecture; and it is of little importance to know
when it occurred.
I withstood him to the face. I openly opposed him, and reproved him.
Paul thus showed that he was equal with Peter in his apostolical
authority and dignity. The instance before us is one of faithful public
reproof; and every circumstance in it is worthy of special attention, as
it furnishes a most important illustration of the manner in which such
reproof should be conducted. The first thing to be noted is, that it
was done openly, and with candour. It was reproof addressed to the
offender himself. Paul did not go to others and whisper his suspicions;
he did not seek to undermine the influence and authority of another by
slander; he did not calumniate him, and then justify himself on the ground
that what he had said was no more than true: he went to him at once, and
he frankly stated his views, and reproved him in a case where he was
manifestly wrong. This too was a case so public and well known,
that Paul made his remarks before the church, Galatians 2:14, because the
church was interested in it, and because the conduct of Peter led the
church into error.
Because he was to be blamed. The word used here may either mean
because he had incurred blame, or because he deserved blame. The
essential idea is, that he had done wrong, and that he was by his conduct
doing injury to the cause of religion.
{d} "Antioch" Acts 15:35
Verse 12. For before that certain came. Some of the Jews who had been
converted to Christianity. They evidently observed in the strictest
manner the rites of the Jewish religion.
From James. See Barnes "Galatians 1:19". Whether they were sent by
James, or whether they came of their own accord, is unknown. It is
evident only that they had been intimate with James at Jerusalem, and
they doubtless pleaded his authority. James had nothing to do with the
course which they pursued; but the sense of the whole passage is,
that James was a leading man at Jerusalem, and that the rites of Moses
were observed there. When they came down to Antioch, they of course
observed those rites, and insisted that others should do it also. It is
very evident that at Jerusalem the peculiar rites of the Jews were
observed for a long time by those who became Christian converts. They
would not at once cease to observe them, and thus needlessly shock the
prejudices of their countrymen. See Barnes "Acts 21:21" also
Acts 21:22-25.
He did eat with the Gentiles. Peter had been taught that in the
remarkable vision which he saw, as recorded in Acts 10. He had learned
that God designed to break down the wall of partition between the Jews
and the Gentiles, and he familiarly associated with them, and partook
with them of their food. He evidently disregarded the peculiar laws of
the Jews about meats and drinks, and partook of the common food which was
in use among the Gentiles. Thus he showed his belief that all the
race was henceforward to be regarded as on a level, and that the
peculiar institutions of the Jews were not to be considered as binding,
or to be imposed on others.
But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself. He
withdrew from the Gentiles, and probably from the Gentile converts to
Christianity. The reason why he did this is stated. He feared those who
were of the circumcision, or who had been Jews. Whether they demanded
this of him; whether they encountered him in debate; or whether he
silently separated himself from the Gentiles without their having said
anything to him, is unknown. But he feared the effect of their
opposition; he feared their reproaches; he feared the report which would
be made to those at Jerusalem; and perhaps he apprehended that a tumult
would be excited, and a persecution commenced at Antioch by the Jews who
resided there. This is a melancholy illustration of Peter's
characteristic trait of mind. We see in this act the same Peter who
trembled when he began to sink in the waves; the same Peter who denied
his Lord. Bold, ardent, zealous, and forward, he was at the same
time timid and often irresolute; and he often had occasion for the
deepest humility, and the most poignant regrets at the errors of his
course. No one can read his history without loving his ardent and
sincere attachment to his Master; and yet no one can read it without a
tear of regret that he was left thus to do injury to his cause. No man
loved the Saviour more sincerely than he did, yet his constitutional
timidity and irresoluteness of character often led him to courses of life
fitted deeply to wound his cause.
{a} "eat with Gentiles" Acts 11:3
Verse 13. And the other Jews. That is, those who had been converted
to Christianity. It is probable that they were induced to do it by
the example of Peter, as they would naturally regard him as a
leader.
Dissembled likewise with him. Dissembled or concealed their true
sentiments. That is, they attempted to conceal from those who had come
down from James the fact, that they had been in the habit of associating
with the Gentiles, and of eating with them. From this it would appear
that they intended to conceal this wholly from them, and that they
withdrew from the Gentiles before anything had been said to them by those
who came down from James.
Insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away, etc. Concerning
Barnabas, See Barnes "Acts 4:36". Barnabas was the intimate friend of
Paul. He had been associated with him in very important labours; and the
fact, therefore, that the conduct of Peter was exciting so unhappy an
influence as even to lead so worthy and good a man as he was into
hypocrisy and error, made it the more proper that Paul should publicly
notice and reprove the conduct of Peter. It could not but be a painful
duty, but the welfare of the church and the cause of religion demanded
it, and Paul did not shrink from what was so obvious a duty.
{*} "insomuch that" "So that"
Verse 14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly. To walk,
in the Scriptures, is usually expressive of conduct or deportment; and
the idea here is, that their conduct in this case was not honest.
According to the truth of the gospel. According to the true spirit
and design of the gospel. That requires perfect honesty and integrity;
and as that was the rule by which Paul regulated his life, and by which
he felt that all ought to regulate their conduct, he felt himself called
on openly to reprove the principal person who had been in fault. The
spirit of the world is crafty, cunning, and crooked. The gospel would
correct all that wily policy, and would lead man in a path of entire
honesty and truth.
I said unto Peter before them all. That is, probably, before all the
church, or certainly before all. who had offended with him in the case.
Had this been a private affair, Paul would doubtless have sought a
private interview with Peter, and would have remonstrated with him in
private on the subject. But it was public. It was a case where many were
involved, and where the interests of the church were at stake. It was a
case where it was very important to establish some fixed and just
principles, and he therefore took occasion to remonstrate with him in
public on the subject. This might have been at the close of public
worship; or it may have been that the subject came up for debate in some
of their public meetings, whether the rites of the Jews were to be
imposed on the Gentile converts. This was a question which agitated all
the churches where the Jewish and Gentile converts were intermingled; and
it would not be strange that it should be the subject of public debate at
Antioch. The fact that Paul reproved Peter before "them all," proves,
(1.) that he regarded himself, and was so regarded by the church, as on
an equality with Peter, and as having equal authority with him.
(2.) That public reproof is right when an offence has been public, and
when the church at large is interested, or is in danger of being led
into error. Comp. 1 Timothy 5:20, "Them that sin rebuke before all,
that others also may fear."
(3.) That it is a duty to reprove those who err. It is a painful duty,
and one much neglected; still it is a duty often enjoined in the
Scriptures, and one that is of the deepest importance to the church. He
does a favour to another man who, in a kind spirit, admonishes him of his
error, and reclaims him from a course of sin. He does another the deepest
injury, who suffers sin unrebuked to lie upon him, and who sees him
injuring himself and others, and who is at no pains to admonish him for
his faults.
(4.) If it is the duty of one Christian to admonish another who is an
offender, and to do it in a kind spirit, it is the duty of him who has
offended to receive the admonition in a kind spirit and with
thankfulness. Excitable as Peter was by. nature, yet there is no evidence
that he became angry here, or that he did not receive the admonition of
his brother Paul with perfect good temper, and with an acknowledgment
that Paul was right and that he was wrong. Indeed, the case was so
plain--as it usually is, if men would be honest--that he seems to have
felt that it was right, and to have received the rebuke as became a
Christian. Peter, unhappily, was accustomed to rebukes; and he was at
heart too good a man to be offended when he was admonished that he had
done wrong. A good man is willing to be reproved when he has erred, and
it is usually proof that there is much that is wrong when we become
excited and irritable if another admonishes us of our faults. It may be
added here, that nothing should be inferred from this in regard to the
inspiration or apostolic authority of Peter. The fault was not that
he taught error of doctrine, but that he sinned in conduct.
Inspiration, though it kept the apostles from teaching error, did not
keep them necessarily from sin. A man may always teach the truth, and
yet be far from perfection in practice. The case here proves that Peter
was not perfect, a fact proved by his whole life; it proves that he was
sometimes timid, and even, for a period, time-serving; but it does not
prove that what he wrote for our guidance was false and erroneous.
If thou, being a Jew. A Jew by birth.
Livest after the manner of the Gentiles. In eating, etc., as he had
done before Judaizing teachers came from Jerusalem, Galatians 2:12.
And not as do the Jews. Observing their peculiar customs, and their
distinctions of meats and drinks.
Why compellest thou the Gentiles, etc. As he would do, if he insisted
that they should be circumcised, and observe the peculiar Jewish rites.
The charge against him was gross inconsistency in doing this. "Is it not
at least as lawful for them to neglect the Jewish observances, as it was
for thee to do it but a few days ago?"--Doddridge. The word here
rendered "compellest," means here moral compulsion or persuasion.
The idea is, that the conduct of Peter was such as to lead the Gentiles
to the belief that it was necessary for them to be circumcised in order
to be saved. For a similar use of the word, see Matthew 14:22; Luke 14:23;
Acts 28:19.
{b} "truth of gospel" Galatians 2:5
{c} "Peter before them" 1 Timothy 5:20
{+} "compellest" "urgest"
Verse 15. We who are Jews by nature. It has long been a question
whether this and the following verses are to be regarded as a part of
the address of Paul to Peter, or the words of Paul as a part of the
epistle to the Galatians. A great variety of opinion has prevailed
in regard to this. Grotius says, "Here the narrative of Paul being
closed, he pursues his argument to the Galatians." In this opinion
Bloomfield and many others concur. Rosenmuller, and many others,
suppose that the address to Peter is continued to Galatians 2:21. Such
seems to be the most obvious interpretation, as there is no break or
change in the style, nor any vestige of a transfer of the argument to
the Galatians. But on the other hand it may be urged,
(1.) that Paul in his writings often changes his mode of address without
indicating it.--Bloomfield.
(2.) That it is rather improbable that he should have gone into so long a
discourse with Peter on the subject of justification; His purpose was
answered by the reproof of Peter for his dissimulation; and there is
something incongruous, it is said, in his instructing Peter at such
length, on the subject of man's justification. Still it appears to me
probable that this is to be regarded as a part of the discourse of Paul
to Peter, to the close of Galatians 2:21. The following reasons seem to me
to require this interpretation:
(1.) It is the most natural and obvious--usually a safe rule of
interpretation. The discourse proceeds as if it were an address to
Peter.
(2.) There is a change at the beginning of the next chapter where
Paul expressly addresses himself to the Galatians.
(3.) As to the impropriety of Paul's addressing Peter at length on the
subject of justification, we are to bear in mind that he did not address
him alone. The reproof was addressed to Peter particularly, but it
was "before them all," Galatians 2:14; that is, before the assembled
church, or before the persons who had been led astray by the conduct of
Peter, and who were in danger of error on the subject of justification.
Nothing, therefore, was more proper than for Paul to continue his
discourse for their benefit, and to state to them fully the doctrine of
justification. And nothing was more pertinent or proper for him
now than to report this to the Galatians as a part of his argument to
them, showing that he had always, since his conversion, held and
defended the same doctrine on the subject of the way in which men
are to be justified in the sight of God. It is therefore, I apprehend,
to be regarded as an address to Peter and the other Jews who were
present. "We who were born Jews."
By nature. By birth; or, we were born Jews. We were not born in the
condition of the Gentiles.
And not sinners of the Gentiles. This cannot mean that Paul did not
regard the Jews as sinners, for his views on that subject he has fully
expressed in Romans 2, Romans 3. But it must mean that the Jews were
not born under the disadvantages of the Gentiles in regard to the true
knowledge of the way of salvation, They were not left wholly in ignorance
about the way of justification, as the Gentiles were. They knew, or they
might know, that men could not be saved by their own works. It was also
true that they were under more restraint than the Gentiles were; and
though they were sinners, yet they were not abandoned to so gross and
open sensuality as was the heathen world. They were not idolaters, and
wholly ignorant of the law of God.
{d} "sinners" Ephesians 2:3,12
Verse 16. Knowing. We who are Jews by nature, or by birth. This
cannot mean that all the Jews knew this, or that he who was a Jew
knew it as a matter of course, for many Jews were ignorant of it,
and many opposed it. But it means that the persons here referred
to, those who had been born Jews, and who had been converted to
Christianity, had had an opportunity to learn and understand this,
which the Gentiles had not. This gospel had been preached to them,
and they had professedly embraced it. They were not left to the
gross darkness and ignorance on this subject which pervaded the
heathen world, and they had had a better opportunity to learn it
than the converts from the Gentiles. They ought, therefore, to act
in a manner becoming their superior light, and to show in all their
conduct that they fully believed that a man could not be justified by
obedience to the law of Moses. This rendered the conduct of Peter,
and the other Jews who "dissembled" with him, so entirely inexcusable.
They could not plead ignorance on this vital subject, and yet they were
pursuing a course the tendency of which was to lead the Gentile converts
to believe that it was indispensable to observe the laws of Moses, in
order to be justified and saved.
That a man is not justified by the works of the law.
See Barnes "Romans 1:17 3:20,26 4:5".
But by the faith of Jesus Christ. By believing on Jesus Christ.
See Barnes "Mark 16:16 Ro 3:22".
Even we have believed in Jesus Christ. We are therefore justified.
The object of Paul here seems to be to show, that as they had believed in
the Lord Jesus, and thus had been justified, there was no necessity of
obeying the law of Moses with any view to justification. The thing
had been fully done without the deeds of the law, and it was now
unreasonable and unnecessary to insist on the observance of the
Mosaic rites.
For by the works of the law, etc. See Barnes "Romans 3:20",
See Barnes "Romans 3:27". In this verse, the apostle has stated in few
words the important doctrine of justification by faith--the doctrine
which Luther so justly called, Articulus stantis, vel cadentis
ecclesia. In the notes referred to above, particularly in the notes
on the epistle to the Romans, I have stated in various places what I
conceive to be the true doctrine on this important subject. It may be
useful, however, to throw together in one connected view, as briefly as
possible, the leading ideas on the subject of justification, as it is
revealed in the gospel.
I. Justification is properly a word applicable to courts of justice, but
is used in a similar sense in common conversation among men. An
illustration will show its nature. A man is charged, e.g., with an act of
trespass on his neighbour's property. Now there are two ways which he may
take to justify himself, or to meet the charge, so as to be regarded
and treated as innocent. He may
(a) either deny that he performed the act charged on him, or he may
(b) admit that the deed was done, and set up as a defence that he
had a right to do it. In either case, if the point be made out, he
will be just or innocent in the sight of the law. The law will have
nothing against him, and he will be regarded and treated in the premises
as an innocent man; or he has justified himself in regard to the charge
brought against him.
II. Charges of a very serious nature are brought against man by his
Maker. He is charged with violating the law of God; with a want of love
to his Maker; with a corrupt, proud, sensual heart; with being entirely
alienated from God by wicked works; in one word, with being entirely
depraved. This charge extends to all men; and to the entire life of every
unrenewed man. It is not a charge merely affecting the external conduct,
not merely affecting the heart; it is a charge of entire alienation from
God--a charge, in short, of total depravity. See, especially,
Rom 1, 2, 3. That this charge is a very serious one, no one can doubt.
That it deeply affects the human character and standing, is as clear. It
is a charge brought in the Bible; and God appeals in proof of it to the
history of the world, to every man's conscience, and to the life of
every one who has lived; and on these facts, and on his own power
in searching the hearts, and in knowing what is in man, he rests the
proofs of the charge.
III. It is impossible for man to vindicate himself from this charge.
He can neither show that the things charged have not been committed,
nor that, having been committed, he had a right to do them. He cannot
prove that God is not right in all the charges which he has made
against him in his word; and he cannot prove that it was right for him to
do as he has done. The charges against him are facts which are
undeniable, and the facts are such as cannot be vindicated. But if he can
do neither of these things, then he cannot be justified by the law. The
law will not acquit him. It holds him guilty. It condemns him. No
argument which he can use will show that he is right, and that God is
wrong. No works that he can perform will be any compensation for what
he has already done. No denial of the existence of the facts charged
will alter the case; and he must stand condemned by the law of God. In
the legal sense he cannot be justified; and justification, if it ever
exist at all, must be in a mode that is a departure from the regular
operation of law, and in a mode which the law did not contemplate, for
no law makes any provision for the pardon of those who violate
it. It must be by some system which is distinct from the law, and in
which man may be justified on different principles than those which
the law contemplates.
IV. This other system of justification is that which is revealed in the
gospel by the faith of the Lord Jesus. It does NOT consist in either of
the following things:
(1.) It is not a system or plan where the Lord Jesus takes the part
of the sinner against the law or against God. He did not come to
show that the sinner was right, and that God was wrong. He admitted most
fully, and endeavoured constantly to show, that God was right, and that
the sinner was wrong; nor can an instance be referred to where the
Saviour took the part of the sinner against God, in any such sense
that he endeavoured to show that the sinner had not done the things
charged on him, or that he had a right to do them.
(2.) It is not that we are either innocent, or are declared to be
innocent. God justifies the "ungodly," Romans 4:5. We are not innocent;
we never have been; we never shall be; and it is not the design of the
scheme to declare any such untruth as that we are not personally
undeserving. It will be always true that the justified sinner has no
claims to the mercy and favour of God.
(3.) It is not that we cease to be undeserving personally. He that is
justified by faith, and that goes to heaven, will go there admitting that
he deserves eternal death, and that he is saved wholly by favour and
not by desert.
(4.) It is not a declaration on the part of God that we have
wrought out salvation, or that we have any claim for what the Lord
Jesus has done. Such a declaration would not be true, and would not be
made.
(5.) It is not that the righteousness of the Lord Jesus is
transferred to his people. Moral character cannot be transferred. It
adheres to the moral agent as much as colour does to the rays of light
which cause it. It is not true that we died for sin, and it cannot be so
reckoned or imputed. It is not true that we have any merit, or any
claim, and it cannot be so reckoned or imputed. All the imputations of
God are according to truth; and he will always reckon us to be personally
undeserving and sinful. But if justification be none of these things, it
may be asked, what is it? I answer, It is the declared purpose of God
to regard and treat those sinners who believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ as if they had not sinned, on the ground of the merits of the
Saviour. It is not mere pardon. The main difference between pardon
and justification respects the sinner contemplated in regard to his past
conduct, and to God's future dealings with him. Pardon is a free
forgiveness of past offences. It has reference to those sins as forgiven
and blotted out. It is an act of remission on the part of God.
Justification has respect to the law, and to God's future dealings
with the sinner. It is an act by which God determines to treat him
hereafter as a righteous man, or as if he had not sinned. The ground
or reason of this is the merit of the Lord Jesus Christ; merit such that
we can plead it as if it were our own. The rationale of it is, that
the Lord Jesus has accomplished by his death the same happy effects in
regard to the law and the government of God, which would be accomplished
by the death of the sinner himself. In other words, nothing would be
gained to the universe by the everlasting punishment of the offender
himself, which will not be secured by his salvation on the ground of the
death of the Lord Jesus. He has taken our place, and died in our stead;
and he has met the descending stroke of justice, which would have fallen
on our own head if he had not interposed, See Barnes "Isaiah 53:1" and
following, and now the great interests of justice will be as firmly
secured if we are saved, as they would be if we were lost. The law has
been fully obeyed by one who came to save us, and as much honour has
been done to it by his obedience as could have been by our own; that is,
it as much shows that the law is worthy of obedience, to have it
perfectly obeyed by the Lord Jesus, as it would if it were obeyed by
us. It as much shows that the law of a sovereign is worthy of
obedience, to have it obeyed by an only son, and an heir to the crown, as
it does to have it obeyed by his subjects. And it has as much shown
the evil of the violation of the law to have the Lord Jesus suffer
death on the cross, as it would if the guilty had died themselves.
If transgression whelm the innocent in calamity; if it extends to
those who are perfectly guiltless, and inflicts pain and woe on them,
it is as certainly an expression of the evil of transgression as if
the guilty themselves suffer. And an impression as deep has been made
of the evil of sin by the sufferings of the Lord Jesus in our stead,
as if we had suffered ourselves. He endured on the cross as intense
agony as we can conceive it possible for a sinner ever to endure; and
the dignity of the Person who suffered--THE INCARNATE GOD--is
more than an equivalent for the more lengthened sorrows which the
penalty of the law exacts in hell. Besides, from the very dignity of
the Sufferer in our place, an impression has gone abroad on the universe
more deep and important than would have been by the sufferings of the
individual himself in the world of woe. The sinner who is lost will be
unknown to other worlds. His name may be unheard beyond the gates of
the prison of despair. The impression which will be made on distant
worlds by his individual sufferings will be as a part of the
aggregate of woe, and his individual sorrows may make no impression
on distant worlds. But not so with Him who took our place, He stood in
the centre of the universe. The sun grew dark, and the dead arose, and
angels gazed upon the scene; and from his cross an impression went
abroad to the farthest part of the universe, showing the tremendous
effects of the violation of law, when not one soul could be saved from
its penalty without such sorrows of the Son of God. In virtue of all
this, the offender, by believing on him, may be treated as if he had
not sinned; and this constitutes justification. God admits him to favour
as if he had himself obeyed the law, or borne its penalty, since as
many good results will now follow from his salvation as could be derived
from his punishment; and since all the additional happy results will
follow which can be derived from the exercise of pardoning mercy.
The character of God is thus revealed. His mercy is shown. His
determination to maintain his law is evinced. The truth is maintained;
and yet he shows the fulness of his mercy, and the richness of his
benevolence.
{a} "a man" Acts 13:38,39; Romans 3:20
{b} "faith" Romans 5:1; Galatians 3:11,24
{c} "for by works of the law" Psalms 143:2; Hebrews 7:18,19
Verse 17. But if, while, we seek to be justified by Christ. The
connexion here is not very clear, and the sense of the verse is somewhat
obscure. Rosenmuller supposes that this is an objection of a Jew,
supposing that where the law of Moses is not observed there is no
rule of life, and that therefore there must be sin; and that since the
doctrine of justification by faith taught that there was no necessity
of obeying the ceremonial law of Moses, therefore Christ, who had
introduced that system, must be regarded as the author and encourager of
sin. To me it seems probable that Paul here has reference to an objection
which has in all ages been brought against the doctrine of justification
by faith, and which seems to have existed in his time, that the doctrine
leads to licentiousness. The objections are, that it does not teach the
necessity of the observance of the law in order to acceptance with God;
that it pronounces a man justified and accepted who is a violator of the
law; that his acceptance does not depend on moral character; that it
releases him from the obligation of law; and that it teaches that a man
may be saved though he does not conform to law. These objections existed
early, and have been found everywhere where the doctrine of justification
by faith has been preached. I regard this verse, therefore, as referring
to these objections, and not as being peculiarly the objection of a
Jew. The idea is, "You seek to be justified by faith without obeying the
law, You professedly reject that, and do not hold that it is necessary to
yield obedience to it. If now it shall turn out that you are sinners;
that your lives are not holy; that you are free from the wholesome
restraint of the law, and are given up to lives of sin, will it not
follow that Christ is the cause of it, that he taught it, and that the
system which he introduced is responsible for it? And is not the gospel
therefore responsible for introducing a system that frees from the
restraint of the law, and introduces universal licentiousness?" To this
Paul replies by stating distinctly that the gospel has no such tendency,
and particularly by referring in the following verses to his own case,
and to the effect of the doctrine of justification on his own heart and
life.
We ourselves also are found sinners. If it turns out that we are
sinners, or if others discover by undoubted demonstration that we lead
lives of sin; if they see us given up to a lawless life, and find us
practicing all kinds of evil; if it shall be seen not only that we are
not pardoned and made better by the gospel, but are actually made worse,
and are freed from all moral restraint.
Is therefore Christ the minister of sin? Is it to be traced to him?
Is it a fair and legitimate conclusion that this is the tendency of the
gospel? Is it to be charged on him, and on the plan of justification
through him, that a lax morality prevails, and that men are freed from
the wholesome restraints of law?
God forbid. It is not so. This is not the proper effect of the gospel
of Christ, and of the doctrine of justification by faith. The system is
not fitted to produce such a freedom from restraint; and if such a
freedom exists, it is to be traced to something else than the gospel.
{a} "ourselves also" 1 John 3:9,10
Verse 18. For if I build again the things which I destroyed. Paul
here uses the first person; but he evidently intends it as a general
proposition, and means that if any one does it he becomes a transgressor.
The sense is, that if a man, having removed or destroyed that which
was evil, again introduces it or establishes it, he does wrong, and is
a transgressor of the law of God. The particular application here,
as it seems to me, is to the subject of circumcision, and the other
rites of the Mosaic law. They had been virtually abolished by the
coming of the Redeemer, and by the doctrine of justification by faith.
It had been seen that there was no necessity for their observance,
and of that Peter and the others had been fully aware. Yet they
were lending their influence again to establish them, or to "build"
them up again. They complied with them, and they insisted on
the necessity of their observance. Their conduct, therefore, was
that of building up again that which had once been destroyed--destroyed
by the ministry, and toils, and death of the Lord Jesus, and by the fair
influence of his gospel. To rebuild that again, to re-establish those
customs, was wrong, and now involved the guilt of a transgression of the
law of God. Doddridge supposes that this is an address to the Galatians,
and that the address to Peter closed at the previous verse. But it is
impossible to determine this; and it seems to me more probable that this
is all a part of the address to Peter, or rather, perhaps,
to the assembly when Peter was present.
See Barnes "Galatians 2:15".
Verse 19. For I through the law. On this passage the commentators are
by no means agreed. It is agreed that in the phrase "am dead to the law,"
the law of Moses is referred to, and that the meaning is,
that Paul had become dead to that as a ground or means of justification,
lie acted as though it were not; or it ceased to have influence over him.
A dead man is insensible to all around him. He hears nothing; sees
nothing; and nothing affects him. So when we are said to be dead to
anything, the meaning is, that it does not have an influence over us. In
this sense Paul was dead to the law of Moses. He ceased to observe it as
a ground of justification. It ceased, to be the grand aim and purpose of
his life, as it had been formerly, to obey it. He had higher purposes
than that, and truly lived to God. See Barnes "Romans 6:2". But on the
meaning of the phrase "through the law," \~dia nomou\~ there has been a great
variety of opinion. Bloomfield, Rosenmuller, and some others, suppose
that he means the Christian religion; and that the meaning is, "By one
law, or doctrine, I am dead to another;" that is, the Christian doctrine
has caused me to cast aside the Mosaic religion. Doddridge, Clarke,
Chandler, and most others, however, suppose that he here refers to the
law of Moses, and that the meaning is, that by contemplating the true
character of the law of Moses itself; by considering its nature and
design; by understanding the extent of its requisitions, he had become
dead to it; that is, he had laid aside all expectations of being
justified by it. This seems to me to be the correct interpretation. Paul
had formerly expected to be justified by the law. He had endeavoured to
obey it. It had been the object of his life to comply with all its
requisitions, in order to be saved by it, Philippians 3:4-6. But all this
while he had not fully understood its nature; and when he was made fully
to feel and comprehend its spiritual requirements, then all his hopes of
justification by it died, and he became dead to it. See this sentiment
more fully explained See Barnes "Romans 7:9".
That I might live unto God. That I might be truly alive, and might be
found engaged in his service. He was dead to the law, but not to
everything. He had not become literally inactive and insensible to all
things, like a dead man, but he had become truly sensible to the commands
and appeals of God, and had consecrated himself to his service.
See Barnes "Romans 6:11".
{b} "For I through" Romans 7:4,10; 8:2
{c} "live unto God" Romans 6:11,14; 2 Corinthians 5:15
Verse 20. I am crucified with Christ. In the previous verse, Paul had
said that he was dead. In this verse he states what he meant by it,
and shows that he did not wish to be understood as saying that he
was inactive, or that he was literally insensible to the appeals made
to him by other beings and objects. In respect to one thing he was
dead; to all that was truly great and noble he was alive. To understand
the remarkable phrase, "I am crucified with Christ," we may remark,
(1.) that this was the way in which Christ was put to death. He suffered
on a cross, and thus became literally dead.
(2.) In a sense similar to this, Paul became dead to the law, to the
world, and to sin. The Redeemer, by the death of the cross, became
insensible to all surrounding objects, as the dead always are. He ceased
to see and hear, and was as though they were not. Hie was laid in
the cold grave, and they did not affect or influence him. So Paul
says that he became insensible to the law as a means of justification;
to the world; to ambition and the love of money; to the pride and
pomp of life; and to the dominion of evil and hateful passions. They
lost their power over him; they ceased to influence him.
(3.) This was with Christ, or by Christ. It cannot mean literally
that he was put to death with him, for that is not true; but it means
that the effect of the death of Christ on the cross was to make him dead
to these things, in like manner as he, when he died, became insensible
to the things of this busy world. This may include the following
things:
(a) There was an intimate union between Christ and his people; so
that what affected him, affected them. See John 15:5,6.
(b) The death of the Redeemer on the cross involved as a consequence the
death of his people to the world and to sin. See Galatians 5:24; 6:14.
It was like a blow at the root of a vine or a tree, which would affect
every branch and tendril; or like a blow at the head, which affects every
member of the body.
(c) Paul felt identified with the Lord Jesus; and he was willing to
share in all the ignominy and contempt which was connected with the idea
of the crucifixion. He was willing to regard himself as one with the
Redeemer. If there was disgrace attached to the manner in which he
died, he was willing to share it with him. He regarded it as a matter
to be greatly desired to be made just like Christ in all things, and
even in the manner of his death. This idea he has more fully expressed in
Philippians 3:10, "That I may know him, [that is, I desire earnestly to know
him,] and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his
sufferings, being made conformable unto his death." See also
Colossians 1:24; 1 Peter 4:13.
Nevertheless I live. This expression is added, as in Galatians 2:19, to
prevent the possibility of mistake. Paul, though he was crucified with
Christ, did not wish to be understood that he felt himself to be
dead. He was not inactive; not insensible, as the dead are, to the
appeals which are made from God, or to the great objects which ought to
interest an immortal mind. He was still actively employed, and the more
so from the fact that he was crucified with Christ. The object of all
such expressions as this is to show that it was no design of the gospel
to make men inactive, or to annihilate their energies. It was not to
cause men to do nothing. It was not to paralyze their powers, or
stifle their own efforts. Paul therefore says, "I am not dead. I
am truly alive; and I live a better life than I did before." Paul
was as active after conversion as he was before. Before, he was
engaged in persecution; now, he devoted his great talents with as
much energy, and with as untiring zeal, to the cause of the great
Redeemer. Indeed, the whole narrative would lead us to suppose
that he was more active and zealous after his conversion than he
was before. The effect of religion is not to make one dead in regard to
the putting forth of the energies of the soul. True religion never
made one lazy man; it has converted many a man of indolence, and
effeminacy, and self-indulgence, to a man actively engaged in doing good.
If a professor of religion is less active in the service of God than
he was in the service of the world--less laborious, and zealous, and
ardent than he was before his supposed conversion--he ought to set it
down as full proof that he is an utter stranger to true religion.
Yet not I. This also is designed to prevent misapprehension. In the
previous clause he had said that he lived, or was actively engaged. But
lest this should be misunderstood, and it should be inferred that he
meant to say it was by his own energy or powers, he guards it, and says
it was not at all from himself. It was by no native tendency; no power of
his own; nothing that could be traced to himself, he assumed no credit
for any zeal which he had shown in the true life. He was disposed to
trace it all to another. He had ample proof in his past experience that
there was no tendency in himself to a life of true religion, and he
therefore traced it all to another.
Christ liveth in me. Christ was the source of all the life that
he had. Of course this cannot be taken literally that Christ had a
residence in the apostle; but it must mean that his grace resided in him;
that his principles actuated him; and that he derived all his energy, and
zeal, and life from his grace. The union between the Lord Jesus and the
disciple was so close that it might be said the one lived in the other.
So the juices of the vine are in each branch, and leaf, and tendril, and
live in them and animate them; the vital energy of the brain is in each
delicate nerve--no matter how small--that is found in any part of the
human frame. Christ was in him, as it were, the vital principle. All his
life and energy were derived from him.
And the life which I now live in the flesh. As I now live on the
earth, surrounded by the cares and anxieties of this life. I carry the
life-giving principles of my religion to all my duties and all my trials.
I live by the faith of the Son of God. By confidence in the Son of
God, looking to him for strength, and trusting in his promises and in his
grace.
Who loved me, etc. He felt under the highest obligation to him, from
the fact that he had loved him, and given himself to the death of the
cross in his behalf. The conviction of obligation on this account Paul
often expresses. See Barnes " :" and Romans 6:9-11
See Barnes "Romans 8:35", and Romans 8:36-39; See Barnes "2 Corinthians 5:15".
There is no higher sense of obligation than that which is felt towards
the Saviour; and Paul felt himself bound, as we should, to live entirely
to him who had redeemed him by his blood.
{a} "crucified with Christ" Galatians 5:24; 6:14
{b} "liveth in me" 1 Thessalonians 5:10; 1 Peter 4:2
{c} "gave himself" John 10:11; Ephesians 5:2
Verse 21. I do not frustrate the grace of God. The word rendered
"frustrate" \~ayetw\~ means, properly, to displace, abrogate, abolish;
then to make void, to render null, Mark 7:9; Luke 7:30; 1 Corinthians 1:19.
The phrase, "the grace of God," here refers to the favour of God
manifested in the plan of salvation by the gospel, and is another
name for the gospel. The sense is, that Paul would not take any
measures, or pursue any course, that would render that vain or
inefficacious. Neither by his own life, by a course of conduct which
would show that it had no influence over the heart and conduct, nor
by the observance of Jewish rites and customs, would he do anything
to render that inefficacious. The design is to show that he regarded
it as a great principle, that the gospel was efficacious in renewing
and saving man, and he would do nothing that would tend to pre,
vent that impression on mankind. A life of sin, of open depravity
and licentiousness, would do that. And, in like manner, a conformity to
the rites of Moses, as a ground of justification, would tend
to frustrate the grace of God, or to render the method of salvation
solely by the Redeemer nugatory. This is to be regarded, therefore,
as at the same time a reproof of Peter for complying with customs
which tended to frustrate the plan of the gospel, and a declaration
that he intended that his own course of life should be such as to
confirm the plan, and show its efficacy in pardoning the sinner, and
rendering him alive in the service of God.
For if righteousness come by the law. If justification can be
secured by the observance of any law--ceremonial or moral--then there
was no need of the death of Christ as an atonement. This is plain. If man
by conformity to any law could be justified before God, what need was
there of an atonement? The work would then have been wholly in his own
power, and the merit would have been his. It follows from this, that man
cannot be justified by his own morality, or his almsdeeds, or his forms
of religion, or his honesty and integrity. If he can, he needs no
Saviour--he can save himself. It follows, also, that when men depend on
their own amiableness, and morality, and good works, they would feel no
need of a Saviour; and this is the true reason why the mass of men reject
the Lord Jesus. They suppose they do not deserve to be sent to hell. They
have no deep sense of guilt. They confide in their own integrity, and
feel that God ought to save them. Hence they feel no need of a
Saviour; for why should a man in health employ a physician? And confiding
in their own righteousness, they reject the grace of God, and despise
the plan of justification through the Redeemer. To feel the need of
a Saviour, it is necessary to feel that we are lost and ruined sinners;
that we have no merit on which we can rely; and that we are entirely
dependent on the mercy of God for salvation. Thus feeling, we shall
receive the salvation of the gospel with thankfulness and joy, and show
that in regard to us Christ is not "dead in vain."
{*} "frustrate" "make void"
{d} "if righteousness" Hebrews 7:11
Printer friendly version
HOME
TOP