Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Galatians 2:1,2 PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Chapter
II.
Verse
1–2
“Then after the space
of fourteen years,41
41 [“The Acts mention five such journeys after his conversion:
(1.)-ix. 23 (Comp. Gal. i.
18.)
(2.)-xi. 30; xii.
25.
(3.)-xv. 2, the journey to the
Apostolic Council, a.d. 50 or 51.
(4.)-xviii. 22, the journey in 54.
(5.)-xxi. 15 (Comp. Ro. 15:
25 ff.) the last journey when he was made a pardoner and sent to
Cæsarea in 58. The first of these journeys cannot be meant on
account of Gal. i. 18. The second is excluded by the chronological date of
Gal. ii.
1,
for as it took place during the famine of Palestine in the year of
Herod’s death, a.d. 44, it would put the
commission of Paul back to the year 30, which is much too early. There
is no good reason why Paul should have mentioned this second journey.
The fifth journey cannot be meant for it took place after the
composition of Epistle to Galatians and after dispersion of Apostles.
Nor can we think of the fourth journey which was transient, nor was
Barnabas with him on that journey, Acts xv. 39. So the journey
here mentioned is the same as that of Acts xv. 2. This took place
50 or 51, i.e., fourteen years after his conversion,
37.”—Schaff in Pop. Com.—G.A.] | I
went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.
And I went up by revelation.”
His first journey was owing to his desire to visit Peter, his second,
he says, arose from a revelation of the Spirit.
Ver.
2.
“And I laid before them the Gospel which I preach among the
Gentiles, but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any
means I should be running or had run in vain.”
What is this, O Paul! thou who
neither at the beginning nor after three years wouldest confer with the
Apostles, dost thou now confer with them, after fourteen years are
past, lest thou shouldest be running in vain? Better would it have been
to have done so at first, than after so many years; and why didst thou
run at all, if not satisfied that thou wert not running in vain? Who
would be so senseless as to preach for so many years, without being
sure that his preaching was true? And what enhances the difficulty is,
that he says he went up by revelation; this difficulty, however, will
afford a solution of the former one. Had he gone up of his own accord,
it would have been most unreasonable, nor is it possible that this
blessed soul should have fallen into such folly; for it is himself who
says, “I therefore so run, as not uncertainly; so fight I, as not
beating the air.” (1 Cor. ix. 26.) If therefore he
runs, “not uncertainly,” how can he say, “lest I
should be running, or had run, in vain?” It is evident from this,
that if he had gone up without a revelation, he would have committed an
act of folly. But the actual case involved no such absurdity; who shall
dare to still harbor this suspicion, when it was the grace of the
Spirit which drew him? On this account he added the words “by
revelation,” lest, before the question was solved, he should be
condemned of folly; well knowing that it was no human occurrence, but a
deep Divine Providence concerning the present and future. What then is
the reason of this journey of his? As when he went up before from
Antioch to Jerusalem, it was not for his own sake, (for he saw clearly
that his duty was simply to obey the doctrines of Christ,) but from a
desire to reconcile the contentious; so now his object was the complete
satisfaction of his accusers, not any wish of his own to learn that he
had not run in vain. They conceived that Peter and John, of whom they
thought more highly than of Paul, differed from him in that he omitted
circumcision in his preaching, while the former allowed it, and they
believed that in this he acted unlawfully, and was running in vain. I
went up, says he, and communicated unto them my Gospel, not that I
might learn aught myself, (as appears more clearly further on,) but
that I might convince these suspicious persons that I do not run in
vain. The Spirit forseeing this contention had provided that he should
go up and make this communication.
Wherefore he says that he went
up by revelation,42
42 [“In St. Luke’s narrative (Acts xv. 2.) he is said to
have been sent by the Church at Antioch. The revelation either prompted
or confirmed the decision of the
Church.”—Lightfoot.—G.A.] | and, taking Barnabas
and Titus as witnesses of his preaching, communicated to them the
Gospel which he preached to the Gentiles, that is, with the omission of
circumcision. “But privately before them who were of
repute.” What means “privately?” Rather, he who
wishes to reform doctrines held in common, proposes them, not
privately, but before all in common; but Paul did this privately, for
his object was, not to learn or reform any thing, but to cut off the
grounds of those who would fain deceive. All at Jerusalem were
offended, if the law was transgressed, or the use of circumcision
forbidden; as James says, “Thou seest, brother, how many
thousands there are among the Jews of them which have believed; and
they are
informed of thee, that thou teachest to forsake the law.”
(Acts
xxi. 20, et seq.) Since then they were offended he did not condescend to
come forward publicly and declare what his preaching was, but he
conferred privately with those who were of reputation before Barnabas
and Titus, that they might credibly testify to his accusers,43
43 [That
is, that Barnabas and Titus as witnesses of the proceedings might
testify to the Judaizing teachers everywhere,
&c.—G.A.] | that the Apostles found no discrepancy in
his preaching, but confirmed it. The expression, “those that were
of repute,” (τοῖς
δοκοῦσιν) does not impugn the reality of their greatness; for he says of
himself, “And I also seem (δοκῶ) to have the
Spirit of God,” thereby not denying the fact, but stating it
modestly. And here the phrase implies his own assent to the common
opinion.
Ver.
3.
“But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek,44
44 [Being
“a Greek:” Lightfoot says this is a “causal”
participial clause giving the “reason” why Titus was not
circumcised; because he was a Greek and not a Jew or part Jew as
Timothy was. Schaff makes it a “concessive” clause;
although he was a Greek, that is, a heathen. Farrar in Life
and Work of Paul (233–6) claims that Titus was
circumcised but not compelled to be. This however cannot be held in
view of the context and the position of the words in the
sentence.—G.A.] | was compelled to be
circumcised.”
What means, “being a
Greek?” Of Greek extraction, and not circumcised; for not only
did I so preach but Titus so acted, nor did the Apostles compel him to
be circumcised. A plain proof this that the Apostles did not condemn
Paul’s doctrine or his practice. Nay more, even the urgent
representations of the adverse party, who were aware of these facts,
did not oblige the Apostles to enjoin circumcision, as appears by his
own words,—
Ver.
4.
“And that because of the false brethren, privily brought
in.”
Here arises a very important
question, Who were these false brethren?45
45 [“These were formerly Pharisees (Acts xv. 5.) and were still
so in spirit although they professed Christianity and were
baptized.” Schaff in Pop. Com.—G.A.] | If the
Apostles permitted circumcision at Jerusalem, why are those who
enjoined it, in accordance with the Apostolic sentence, to be called
false brethren? First; because there is a difference between commanding
an act to be done, and allowing it after it is done. He who enjoins an
act, does it with zeal as necessary, and of primary importance; but he
who, without himself commanding it, alloweth another to do it who
wishes yields not from a sense of its being necessary but in order to
subserve some purpose. We have a similar instance, in Paul’s
Epistle to the Corinthians, in his command to husbands and wives to
come together again. To which, that he might not be thought to be
legislating for them, he subjoins, “But this I say by way of
permission, not of commandment.” (1 Cor. vii. 5.) For this was
not a judgment authoritatively given but an indulgence to their
incontinence; as he says, “for your incontinency.” Would
you know Paul’s sentence in this matter? hear his words, “I
would that all men were even as I myself,” (1 Cor. vii. 7.) in continence.
And so here, the Apostles made this concession, not as vindicating the
law, but as condescending to the infirmities of Judaism. Had they been
vindicating the law, they would not have preached to the Jews in one
way, and to the Gentiles in another. Had the observance been necessary
for unbelievers, then indeed it would plainly have likewise been
necessary for all the faithful. But by their decision not to harass the
Gentiles on this point, they showed that they permitted it by way of
condescension to the Jews. Whereas the purpose of the false brethren
was to cast them out of grace, and reduce them under the yoke of
slavery again. This is the first difference, and a very wide one. The
second is, that the Apostles so acted in Judæa, where the Law was
in force, but the false brethren, every where, for all the Galatians
were influenced by them. Whence it appears that their intention was,
not to build up, but entirely to pull down the Gospel, and that the
thing was permitted by the Apostles on one ground and zealously
practiced by the false brethren on another.
Ver.
4.
“Who came in privily to spy out our liberty, which we have in
Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.”
He points out their hostility by
calling them spies; for the sole object of a spy is to obtain for
himself facilities of devastation and destruction, by becoming
acquainted with his adversary’s position. And this is what those
did, who wished to bring the disciples back to their old servitude.
Hence too appears how very contrary their purpose was to that of the
Apostles; the latter made concessions that they might gradually
extricate them from their servitude, but the former plotted to subject
them to one more severe. Therefore they looked round and observed
accurately and made themselves busybodies to find out who were
uncircumcised; as Paul says, “they came in privily to spy out our
liberty,” thus pointing out their machinations not only by the
term “spies,” but by this expression of a furtive entrance
and creeping in.
Ver.
5.
“To whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an
hour.”46
46 [“Had we consented to the suggestion to circumcise Titus, we
should thereby have yielded to the false brethren standing in the
background, who declared the circumcision of Gentile Christians to be
necessary (Acts xv. 5.); but this did not at all take
place.”—Meyer.—G.A.] |
Observe the force and emphasis
of the phrase; he says not, “by argument,” but, “by
subjection,” for their object was not to teach good doctrine, but
to subjugate and enslave them. Wherefore, says he, we yielded
to the Apostles, but not to these.
Ver.
5.
“That the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.”47
47 [“In order that by our conduct the principle of Christian
freedom should not be shaken and ye should not be induced to deviate
from the truth of the Gospel by mixing it up with
Mosaism.”—Meyer.—G.A.] |
That we may confirm, says he, by
our deeds what we have already declared by words,—namely, that
the “old things are passed away, behold they are become
new;” and that “if any man is in Christ he is a new
creature;” (2 Cor. v. 17.) and that “if ye
receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.”
(Gal.
v. 2.) In maintaining this truth we gave place not even for an hour.
Then, as he was directly met by the conduct of the Apostles, and the
reason of their enjoining the rite would probably be asked, he proceeds
to solve this objection. This he does with great skill, for he does not
give the actual reason, which was, that the Apostles acted by way of
condescension and in the use of a scheme, (οἰκονομία) as it were; for otherwise his hearers would have been
injured. For those, who are to derive benefit from a scheme should be
unacquainted with the design of it; all will be undone, if this
appears. Wherefore, he who is to take part in it should know the drift
of it; those who are to benefit by it should not. To make my meaning
more evident, I will take an example from our present subject. The
blessed Paul himself, who meant to abrogate circumcision, when he was
about to send Timothy to teach the Jews, first circumcised him and so
sent him. This he did, that his hearers might the more readily receive
him; he began by circumcising, that in the end he might abolish it. But
this reason he imparted to Timothy only, and told it not to the
disciples. Had they known that the very purpose of his circumcision was
the abolition of the rite, they would never have listened to his
preaching, and the whole benefit would have been lost. But now their
ignorance was of the greatest use to them, for their idea that his
conduct proceeded from a regard to the Law, led them to receive both
him and his doctrine with kindness and courtesy, and having gradually
received him, and become instructed, they abandoned their old customs.
Now this would not have happened had they known his reasons from the
first; for they would have turned away from him, and being turned away
would not have given him a hearing, and not hearing, would have
continued in their former error. To prevent this, he did not disclose
his reasons; here too he does not explain the occasion of the scheme,
(οἰκονομία,) but shapes his discourse differently; thus:
Ver.
6.
“But from those who were reputed to be somewhat48
48 [Lightfoot says, “The expression is depreciatory here, not
indeed of the twelve themselves but of the extravagant and exclusive
claims set up for them by the Judaizers.” So also Dr. Schaff.
“The addition of τι
εἷναι and
ὅποιοιbetrays a
certain irritation in reference to the opponents who would not concede
Paul an estimation given to the original
Apostles.”—Meyer.—G.A.] |
(whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me, God accepteth no
man’s person.)”
Here he not only does not defend
the Apostles, but even presses hard upon those holy men, for the
benefit of the weak. His meaning is this: although they permit
circumcision, they shall render an account to God, for God will not
accept their persons, because they are great and in station. But he
does not speak so plainly, but with caution. He says not, if they
vitiate their doctrine, and swerve from the appointed rule of their
preaching, they shall be judged with the utmost rigor, and suffer
punishment; but he alludes to them more reverently, in the words,
“of those who were reputed to be somewhat, whatsoever they
were.” He says not, “whatsoever they
‘are,’” but “were,” showing that they too
had thenceforth49
49 [“It is entirely in opposition to the context that
Chrysostom, Theophylact and Jerome refer this to the earlier teaching
of the Apostles, making Paul say that whether at an earlier date they
had been Judaizers or not was to him a matter of
indifference.”— Meyer.—G.A.] | ceased so to preach, the doctrine
having extended itself universally. The phrase, “whatsoever they
were,” implies, that if they so preached they should render
account, for they had to justify themselves before God, not before men.
This he said, not as doubtful or ignorant of the rectitude of their
procedure, but (as I said before) from a sense of the expediency of so
forming his discourse. Then, that he may not seem to take the opposite
side and to accuse them, and so create a suspicion of their
disagreement, he straightway subjoins this correction: “for those
who were reputed to be somewhat, in conference imparted nothing to
me.” This is his meaning; What you may say, I know not; this I
know well, that the Apostles did not oppose me, but our sentiments
conspired and accorded. This appears from his expression, “they
gave me the right hand of fellowship;” but he does not say this
at present, but only that they neither informed or corrected him on any
point, nor added to his knowledge.
Ver.
6.
“For those who were reputed to be somewhat, imparted nothing to
me:”
That is to say, when told of my
proceedings, they added nothing, they corrected nothing, and though
aware that the object of my journey was to communicate with them, that
I had come by revelation of the Spirit, and that I had Titus with me
who was uncircumcised, they neither circumcised him, nor imparted to me
any additional knowledge.
Ver.
7.
“But contrariwise.”
Some hold his meaning to be, not only that the Apostles did not
instruct him, but that they were instructed by him. But I would not say
this, for what could they, each of whom was himself perfectly
instructed, have learnt from him? He does not therefore intend this by
the expression, “contrariwise,” but that so far were they
from blaming, that they praised him: for praise is the contrary of
blame. Some would probably here reply: Why did not the Apostles, if
they praised your procedure, as the proper consequence abolish
circumcision?50
50 [They did
virtually abolish circumcision by the decree of the council at
Jerusalem as is shown in the account in (Acts xv.) And the failure
of the effort to have Titus circumcised shows that the account
in Gal. ii. has nothing inconsistent with that decree. This as to
Gentiles. The question did not concern Jews, who were already
circumcised in infancy except in cases like that of Timothy where
circumcision had been neglected. His case Paul himself decided without
any consultation with others.—G.A.] | Now to assert that they did abolish it
Paul considered much too bold, and inconsistent with his own admission.
On the other hand, to admit that they had sanctioned circumcision,
would necessarily expose him to another objection. For it would be
said, if the Apostles praised your preaching, yet sanctioned
circumcision, they were inconsistent with themselves. What then is the
solution? is he to say that they acted thus out of condescension to
Judaism? To say this would have shaken the very foundation of the
economy. Wherefore he leaves the subject in suspense and uncertainty,
by the words, “but of those who were reputed to be somewhat; it
maketh no matter to me.” Which is in effect to say, I accuse not,
nor traduce those holy men; they know what it is they have done; to God
must they render their account. What I am desirous to prove is, that
they neither reversed nor corrected my procedure, nor added to it as in
their opinion defective, but gave it their approbation and assent; and
to this Titus and Barnabas bear witness. Then he adds,
Ver.
7.
“When they saw that I had been entrusted with the Gospel of the
Uncircumcision even as Peter with the Gospel of the Circumcision51
51 [“This passage cannot be worse misunderstood than it has
been by Baur according to whom there was a special Gospel of the
uncircumcision and a special gospel of the circumcision, one
maintaining the necessity of circumcision, the other allowing it to
drop.”—Meyer.—G.A.] | ,”—
The Circumcision and
Uncircumcision; meaning, not the things themselves, but the nations
known by these distinctions; wherefore he adds,
Ver.
8.
“For He that wrought for Peter unto the Apostleship of the
Circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles.”
He calls the Gentiles the
Uncircumcision and the Jews the Circumcision, and declares his own rank
to be equal to that of the Apostles; and, by comparing himself with
their Leader not with the others, he shows that the dignity of each was
the same. After he had established the proof of their unanimity, he
takes courage, and proceeds confidently in his argument, not stopping
at the Apostles, but advances to Christ Himself, and to the grace which
He had conferred upon him, and calls the Apostles as his witnesses,
saying,
Ver.
9.
“And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James
and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me
and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.”52
He says not when they
“heard,” but when they “perceived,” that is,
were assured by the facts themselves, “they gave to me and
Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.” Observe how he gradually
proves that his doctrine was ratified both by Christ and by the
Apostles. For grace would neither have been implanted, nor been
operative in him, had not his preaching been approved by Christ. Where
it was for the purpose of comparison with himself, he mentioned Peter
alone; here, when he calls them as witnesses, he names the three
together, “Cephas, James, John,” and with an encomium,
“who were reputed to be pillars.” Here again the expression
“who were reputed” does not impugn the reality of the fact,
but adopts the estimate of others, and implies that these great and
distinguished men, whose fame was universal, bare witness that his
preaching was ratified by Christ, that they were practically informed
and convinced by experience concerning it. “Therefore they gave
the right hands of fellowship” to me, and not to me only, but
also to Barnabas, “that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they
unto the Circumcision.” Here indeed is exceeding prudence as well
as an incontrovertible proof of their concord. For it shows that his
and their doctrine was interchangeable, and that both approved the same
thing, that they should so preach to the Jews, and he to the Gentiles.
Wherefore he adds,
Ver.
9.
“That we should go unto the Gentiles and they unto the
Circumcision.”53
53 [“There was no difference of doctrine or gospel, but only a
division of territory, and how little Paul considered his apostolic
call to the ‘Gentiles’ as excluding the conversion
of the Jews from his operations may be seen from such passages
as 1
Cor. ix. 20; Ro. i. 16; ix. 1; xi. 14.”—Meyer.—G.A.] |
Observe that here also he means
by “the Circumcision,” not the rite, but the Jews; whenever
he speaks of the rite, and wishes to contrast it, he adds the word
“uncircumcision;” as when he says, “For circumcision
indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law; but if thou be a
transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become
uncircumcision.” (Rom. ii. 25.) And again,
“Neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor
uncircumcision.” But when it is to the Jews and not to the deed
that he gives this name, and wishes to signify the nation, he opposes
to it not uncircumcision in its literal sense, but the Gentiles. For
the Jews are the contradistinction to the Gentiles, the Circumcision to
the Uncircumcision. Thus when he says above, “For He that wrought
for Peter into the Apostleship of the Circumcision, wrought for me also
unto the Gentiles;” and again, “We unto the Gentiles and
they unto the Circumcision,” he means not the rite itself, but
the Jewish nation, thus distinguishing them from the
Gentiles.
Ver.
10.
“Only they would that we should remember the poor; which very
thing I was also zealous to do.”
This is his meaning: In our
preaching we divided the world between us, I took the Gentiles and they
the Jews, according to the Divine decree; but to the sustenance of the
poor among the Jews I also contributed my share, which, had there been
any dissension between us, they would not have accepted. Next, who were
these poor persons? Many of the believing Jews in Palestine had been
deprived of all their goods, and scattered over the world, as he
mentions in the Epistle to the Hebrews54
54 [Hebrews x. 34. [This is interesting
as showing that Chrysostom attributed the Epistle to the Hebrews to St.
Paul, though most modern critics do not agree with him in that
view.—G.A.] | , “For ye
took joyfully the spoiling of your possessions;” and in writing
to the Thessalonians, (1 Thes. ii.
14.)
he extols their fortitude, “Ye became imitators of the Churches
of God which are in Judæa,…for ye also suffered the same
thing of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews.” And
he shows throughout that those Greeks who believed were not under
persecution from the rest, such as the believing Jews were suffering
from their own kindred, for there is no nation of a temper so cruel.
Wherefore he exercises much zeal, as appears in the Epistles to the
Romans (Rom. xv. 25–27.) and Corinthians
(1
Cor. xvi. 1–3.) that these persons
should meet with much attention; and Paul not only collects money for
them, but himself conveys it, as he says, “But now I go unto
Jerusalem ministering unto the saints,” (Rom. xv. 25.) for they were
without the necessaries of life. And he here shows that in this
instance having resolved to assist them, he had undertaken and would
not abandon it.
Having by these means declared
the unanimity and harmony between the Apostles and himself, he is
obliged to proceed to mention his debate with Peter at
Antioch.
Ver. 11,
12.
“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face,
because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he
did eat with the Gentiles: but when they came, he drew back and
separated himself, fearing them that were of the
circumcision.”
Many, on a superficial reading
of this part of the Epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of
hypocrisy. But this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it;55
55 [ἀλλ᾽ οῦκ
ἔστι ταῦτα,
οὐκ ἔοτιν
ἄπαγε.—G.A.] | we shall discover great wisdom, both of Paul
and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their hearers. But first
a word must be said about Peter’s freedom in speech, and how it
was ever his way to outstrip the other disciples. Indeed it was upon
one such occasion that he gained his name from the unbending and
impregnable character of his faith. For when all were interrogated in
common, he stepped before the others and answered, “Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Mat. xvi. 16.) This was when
the keys of heaven were committed to him. So too, he appears to have
been the only speaker on the Mount; (Mat. xvii. 4.) and when Christ
spoke of His crucifixion, and the others kept silence, he said,
“Be it far from Thee.” (Mat. xvi. 22.) These words
evince, if not a cautious temper, at least a fervent love; and in all
instances we find him more vehement than the others, and rushing
forward into danger. So when Christ was seen on the beach, and the
others were pushing the boat in, he was too impatient to wait for its
coming to land. (John xxi. 7.) And after the
Resurrection, when the Jews were murderous and maddened, and sought to
tear the Apostles in pieces, he first dared to come forward, and to
declare, that the Crucified was taken up into heaven. (Acts ii. 14;
36.)
It is a greater thing to open a closed door, and to commence an action,
than to be free-spoken afterwards. How could he ever dissemble who had
exposed his life to such a populace? He who when scourged and bound
would not bate a jot of his courage, and this at the beginning of his
mission, and in the heart of the chief city where there was so much
danger,—how could he, long afterwards in Antioch, where no danger
was at hand, and his character had received lustre from the testimony
of his actions, feel any apprehension of the believing Jews? How could
he, I say, who at the very first and in their chief city feared not the
Jews while Jews, after a long time and in a foreign city, fear those of
them who had been converted? Paul therefore does not speak this against
Peter, but with the same meaning in which he said, “for they who
were reputed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter
to me.” But to remove any doubt on this point, we must unfold the
reason of these expressions.
The Apostles, as I said before,
permitted circumcision at Jerusalem, an abrupt severance from the law not being
practicable; but when they come to Antioch, they no longer continued
this observance, but lived indiscriminately with the believing Gentiles
which thing Peter also was at that time doing. But when some came from
Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer
did so fearing to perplex them, but he changed his course, with two
objects secretly in view, both to avoid offending those Jews, and to
give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him.56
56 S.
Jerome adopts the interpretation given in the text, viz. that S.
Peter’s dissimulation was no sin, but intended as an opportunity
for S. Paul to declare the freedom of the Gentiles from the Jewish Law.
On the other hand, S. Austin considers that he acted through wrong
motives, and sinned in dissembling. In this opinion he is supported by
Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Cyril, of Alexandria, S. Gregory and
Ambrosiaster. (Hieron. in loc, et
alibi. August. de Bapt. contr.
Donatist. ii. 2. de Mendacio 8. Tertull. de
Præscript. 23. in Marc. iv. 3. v. 3. Cyprian, Ep. ad
Quint. 71. Cyril. Alex. in Julian. ix. fin. Gregor. in
Ezech. ii. Hom. 6, 9. Ambrosiast. in loc.) S. Austin is influenced in
his judgment of the transaction by an anxiety lest disingenuousness and
duplicity should receive countenance from the apparent example of an
Apostle; S. Chrysostom and S. Jerome by affectionate reverence for the
memory of so great a benefactor and so exalted a saint. Vid. Justinian, in
loco.
[In earlier life
Chrysostom had himself practiced such a “scheme,” as that
which he here attributes to Paul. In order to induce his friend Basil
to be consecrated as a bishop he made on him the (false) impression
that he himself had already been consecrated.] Neander (Life of
Chrysostom p. 22.) says: “In the first book of his work on
the Priesthood Chrysostom defends the principle that a falsehood is
permitted for a good object. An invention which has for its sole object
the advantage of another is rather an οἰκονομία
(the word he uses in expounding our passage.) This lax
view respecting truth was not peculiar to Chrysostom but was consonant
with the prevailing spirit of the Eastern Church. There were a few
exceptions however to this view, among whom were John of Lycopolis in
Egypt, and Basil of Cæsarea who says του κυρίον
διαφορὰν
ψεύδους
οὐδεμαίν
εκφήναντος. Schaff says (Prolegomena p. 8): “Origen,
Jerome and Chrysostom explain the offense of this collision away by
turning it into a theatrical and hypocritical farce, shrewdly arranged
by the Apostle for a purpose. In this respect the modern standard of
ethics is far superior to that of the Fathers and more fully accords
with the spirit of the New Testament.” [We may add that
Chrysostom’s view gains nothing; for to save one Apostle from the
charge of unpremeditated hypocrisy, he makes both guilty of
premeditated hypocrisy.—G.A.] |
For had he, having allowed circumcision when preaching at Jerusalem,
changed his course at Antioch, his conduct would have appeared to those
Jews to proceed from fear of Paul, and his disciples would have
condemned his excess of pliancy. And this would have created no small
offence; but in Paul, who was well acquainted with all the facts, his
withdrawal would have raised no such suspicion, as knowing the
intention with which he acted. Wherefore Paul rebukes, and Peter
submits, that when the master is blamed, yet keeps silence, the
disciples may more readily come over. Without this occurrence
Paul’s exhortation would have had little effect, but the occasion
hereby afforded of delivering a severe reproof, impressed Peter’s
disciples with a more lively fear. Had Peter disputed Paul’s
sentence, he might justly have been blamed as upsetting the plan, but
now that the one reproves and the other keeps silence, the Jewish party
are filled with serious alarm; and this is why he used Peter so
severely. Observe too Paul’s careful choice of expressions,
whereby he points out to the discerning, that he uses them in pursuance
of the plan, (οἰκονομίας) and not from anger.
His words are, “When
Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood
condemned;” that is, not by me but by others; had he himself
condemned him, he would not have shrunk from saying so. And the words,
“I resisted him to the face,” imply a scheme for had their
discussion been real, they would not have rebuked each other in the
presence of the disciples, for it would have been a great
stumblingblock to them. But now this apparent contest was much to their
advantage; as Paul had yielded to the Apostles at Jerusalem, so in turn
they yield to him at Antioch. The cause of censure is this, “For
before that certain came from James,” who was the teacher at
Jerusalem, “he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they came he
drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the
Circumcision:” his cause of fear was not his own danger, (for if
he feared not in the beginning, much less would he do so then,) but
their defection. As Paul himself says to the Galatians, “I am
afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in
vain:” (Gal. iv. 11.) and again, “I
fear lest by any means as the serpent beguiled Eve,…so your minds
should be corrupted.” (2 Cor. xi. 3.) Thus the fear
of death they knew not, but the fear lest their disciples should
perish, agitated their inmost soul.
Ver.
13.
“Insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their
dissimulation.”
Be not surprised at his giving
this proceeding the name of dissimulation, for he is unwilling, as I
said before, to disclose the true state of the case, in order to the
correction of his disciples. On account of their vehement attachment to
the Law, he calls the present proceeding “dissimulation,”
and severely rebukes it, in order effectually to eradicate their
prejudice. And Peter too, hearing this joins in the feint, as if he had
erred, that they might be corrected by means of the rebuke administered
to him. Had Paul reproved these Jews, they would have spurned at it
with indignation, for they held him in slight esteem; but now, when
they saw their Teacher silent under rebuke, they were unable to despise
or resist Paul’s sentence.
Ver.
14.
“But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the
truth of the Gospel.”
Neither let this phrase disturb
you, for in using it he does not condemn Peter, but so expresses
himself for the benefit of those who were to be reformed by the reproof
of Peter.
Ver.
14.
“I said unto Cephas before them all.”
Observe his mode of correcting
the others; he speaks “before them all,” that the hearers might be
alarmed thereby. And this is what he says,—
Ver.
14.
“If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do
the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the
Jews?”57
57 [For
the bearing of this passage upon the Tübingen theory of Baur,
“the most important of recent theological controversies”
see Lightfoot’s Commentary on Galatians, Excursus on St. Paul
and the Three, pp. 191 ff., and Fisher’s Supernatural
Origin of Christianity, pp. 205-ff.—G.A.] |
But it was the Jews and not the
Gentiles who were carried away together with Peter; why then does Paul
impute what was not done, instead of directing his remarks, not against
the Gentiles, but against the dissembling Jews? And why does he accuse
Peter alone, when the rest also dissembled together with him? Let us
consider the terms of his charge; “If thou, being a Jew, livest
as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the
Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” for in fact Peter alone had
withdrawn himself. His object then is to remove suspicion from his
rebuke; had he blamed Peter for observing the Law, the Jews would have
censured him for his boldness towards their Teacher. But now arraigning
him in behalf of his own peculiar disciples, I mean the Gentiles, he
facilitates thereby the reception of what he has to say which he also
does by abstaining from reproof of the others, and addressing it all to
the Apostle. “If thou,” he says, “being a Jew, livest
as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews;” which almost amounts
to an explicit exhortation to imitate their Teacher, who, himself a
Jew, lived after the manner of the Gentiles. This however he says not,
for they could not have received such advice, but under color of
reproving him in behalf of the Gentiles, he discloses Peter’s
real sentiments. On the other hand, if he had said, Wherefore do you
compel these Jews to Judaize? his language would have been too severe.
But now he effects their correction by appearing to espouse the part,
not of the Jewish, but of the Gentile, disciples; for rebukes, which
are moderately severe, secure the readiest reception. And none of the
Gentiles could object to Paul that he took up the defense of the Jews.
The whole difficulty was removed by Peter’s submitting in silence
to the imputation of dissimulation, in order that he might deliver the
Jews from its reality. At first Paul directs his argument to the
character which Peter wore, “If thou, being a Jew:” but he
generalizes as he goes on, and includes himself in the phrase,58
58 [For
the bearing of this passage upon the Tübingen theory of Baur,
“the most important of recent theological controversies”
see Lightfoot’s Commentary on Galatians, Excursus on St. Paul
and the Three, pp. 191 ff., and Fisher’s Supernatural
Origin of Christianity, pp. 205-ff.—G.A.] |
Ver.
15.
“We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the
Gentiles.”59
59 [Schaff
says: “The following verses to the end of the chapter are a
summary report or dramatic sketch of Paul’s address to
Peter.” So also Meyer who gives four good reasons for this view.
So also Schmoller (in Lange) and Ellicott. Others think that
vv. 15–21 are addressed to
the Galatians.—G.A.] |
These words are hortatory, but
are couched in the form of a reproof, on account of those Jews. So
elsewhere, under cover of one meaning he conveys another; as where he
says in his Epistle to the Romans, “But now I go unto Jerusalem,
ministering unto the saints.” (Rom. xv. 25.) Here his object
was not simply to inform them of the motive of his journey to
Jerusalem, but to excite them to emulation in the giving of alms. Had
he merely wished to explain his motive, it would have sufficed to say,
“I go to ministering unto the saints;” but now observe what
he says in addition; “For it hath been the good pleasure of
Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among
the saints that are at Jerusalem. Yea, it hath been their good pleasure
and their debtors they are.” And again, “For if the
Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe
it to them, also to minister unto them in carnal things.”
(Rom.
xv. 26, 27.)
Observe how he represses the
high thoughts of the Jews; preparing for one thing by means of another,
and his language is authoritative. “We being Jews by nature, and
not sinners of the Gentiles.” The phrase, “Jews by
nature,” implies that we, who are not proselytes, but educated
from early youth in the Law, have relinquished our habitual mode of
life, and be taken ourselves to the faith which is in
Christ.
Ver.
16.
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law,
save through faith, in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ
Jesus.”
Observe here too how cautiously
he expresses himself; he does not say that they had abandoned the Law
as evil, but as weak. If the law cannot confer righteousness, it
follows that circumcision is superfluous; and so far he now proves; but
he proceeds to show that it is not only superfluous but dangerous. It
deserves especial notice, how at the outset he says that a man is not
justified by the works of the Law; but as he proceeds he speaks more
strongly;
Ver.
17.
“But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves
also were found sinners is Christ a minister of sin?”
If faith in Him, says he, avail
not for our justification, but it be necessary again to embrace the
Law, and if, having forsaken the Law for Christ’s sake, we are
not justified but condemned for such abandonment,—then shall we
find Him, for whose sake we forsook the Law and went over to faith the
author of our condemnation.60
60 [“Thus to be justified in Christ, it was necessary to sink
to the level of Gentiles to become ‘sinners’ in fact. But
are we not thus making Christ a minster of sin? Away with the profane
thought! No, the guilt is not in abandoning the Law, but in seeking it
again when abandoned. Thus alone we convict ourselves of transgression.
On the other hand in abandoning the Law we did but follow the
promptings of the Law.” Lightfoot.—G.A.] | Observe how, he
has resolved the matter to a necessary absurdity. And mark how
earnestly and strongly he argues. For if, he says, it behooved us not
to abandon the Law, and we have so abandoned it for Christ’s
sake, we shall be judged. Wherefore do you urge this upon Peter, who is
more intimately acquainted with it than any one? Hath not God declared
to him, that an uncircumcised man ought not to be judged by
circumcision; and did he not in his discussion with the Jews rest his
bold opposition upon the vision which he saw? Did he not send from
Jerusalem unequivocal decrees upon this subject? Paul’s object is
not therefore to correct Peter, but his animadversion required to be
addressed to him, though it was pointed at the disciples; and not only
at the Galatians, but also at others who labor under the same error
with them. For though few are now circumcised, yet, by fasting and
observing the sabbath with the Jews, they equally exclude themselves
from grace. If Christ avails not to those who are only circumcised,
much more is peril to be feared where fasting and sabbatizing are
observed, and thus two commandments of the Law are kept in the place of
one. And this is aggravated by a consideration of time: for they so
acted at first while the city and temple and other institutions yet
existed; but these who with the punishment of the Jews, and the
destruction of the city before their eyes,61 observe
more precepts of the Law than the others did, what apology can they
find for such observance, at the very time when the Jews themselves, in
spite of their strong desire, cannot keep it? Thou hast put on Christ,
thou hast become a member of the Lord, and been enrolled in the
heavenly city, and dost thou still grovel in the Law? How is it
possible for thee to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul’s words,
that the observance of the Law overthrows the Gospel, and learn, if
thou wilt, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall.
Wherefore dost thou keep the sabbath, and fast with the Jews? Is it
that thou fearest the Law and abandonment of its letter? But thou
wouldest not entertain this fear, didst thou not disparage faith as
weak, and by itself powerless to save. A fear to omit the sabbath
plainly shows that you fear the Law as still in force; and if the Law
is needful, it is so as a whole, not in part, nor in one commandment
only; and if as a whole, the righteousness which is by faith is little
by little shut out. If thou keep the sabbath, why not also be
circumcised? and if circumcised, why not also offer sacrifices? If the
Law is to be observed, it must be observed as a whole, or not at all.
If omitting one part makes you fear condemnation, this fear attaches
equally to all the parts. If a transgression of the whole is not
punishable, much less is the transgression of a part; on the other
hand, if the latter be punishable, much more is the former. But if we
are bound to keep the whole, we are bound to disobey Christ, or by
obedience to Him become transgressors of the Law. If it ought to be
kept, those who keep it not are transgressors, and Christ will be found
to be the cause of this transgression, for He annulled the Law as
regards these things Himself, and bid others annul it. Do you not
understand what these Judaizers are compassing? They would make Christ,
who is to us the Author of righteousness, the Author of sin, as Paul
says, “Therefore Christ is the minister of sin.” Having
thus reduced the proposition to an absurdity, he had nothing further to
do by way of overthrowing it, but was satisfied with the simple
protestation,
Ver.
17.
“God forbid:” for shamelessness and irreverence need not be
met by processes of reasoning, but a mere protest is enough.
Ver.
18.
“For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove
myself a transgressor.”62
Observe the Apostle’s
discernment; his opponents endeavored to show, that he who kept not the
Law was a transgressor, but he retorts the argument upon them, and
shows that he who did keep the Law was a transgressor, not merely of
faith, but of the Law itself. “I build up again the things which
I destroyed,” that is, the Law; he means as follows: the Law has
confessedly ceased, and we have abandoned it, and betaken ourselves to
the salvation which comes of faith. But if we make a point of setting
it up again, we become by that very act transgressors, striving to keep
what God has annulled. Next he shows how it has been
annulled.
Ver.
19.
“For I63
63 [᾽εγὡ γὰρ—In my case the process has been this, using his own
experience.—G.A.] | through the Law died unto the
Law.”
This may be viewed in two ways;
it is either the law of grace which he speaks of, for he is wont to
call this a law, as in the words, “For the law of the Spirit of
life made me free:” (Rom. viii. 2.) or it is the
old Law, of which he says, that by the Law itself he has become dead to
the Law. That is to say, the Law itself has taught me no longer to obey
itself, and therefore if I do so, I shall be transgressing even its
teaching.64
64 [“This second interpretation of Chrysostom is undoubtedly
the correct one (though he errs in elucidating the relation of
διὰ;
by referring to Deut. xviii. 15.) comp. Rom. vii. 4;
6;
The law itself led him to Christ, by developing the sense of sin and
the need of redemption.”—Schaff in Pop.
Com.—G.A.] | How, in what way has it so
taught? Moses says, speaking of Christ, “The Lord God will raise
up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee of thy brethren, like
unto me; unto Him shall ye hearken.” (Deut. xviii.
15.)
Therefore they who do not obey Him, transgress the Law. Again, the
expression, “I through the Law died unto the Law,” may be
understood in another sense: the Law commands all its precepts to be
performed, and punishes the transgressor; therefore we are all dead to
it, for no man has fulfilled it. Here observe, how guardedly he assails
it; he says not, “the Law is dead to me;” but, “I am
dead to the Law;” the meaning of which is, that, as it is
impossible for a dead corpse to obey the commands of the Law, so also
is it for me who have perished by its curse, for by its word am I
slain. Let it not therefore lay commands on the dead, dead by its own
act, dead not in body only, but in soul, which has involved the death
of the body. This he shows in what follows:
Ver. 19,
20.
“That I might live unto God,65
65 [“That I might live unto God” is not to be joined to
“I have been crucified with Christ” as Chrysostom, for it
belongs to the completeness of the thought introduced by γαρ ver.
19.—Meyer.—G.A.] | I have been
crucified with Christ.”
Having said, “I am
dead,” lest it should be objected, how then dost thou live? he
adds the cause of his living, and shows that when alive the Law slew
him, but that when dead Christ through death restored him to life. He
shows the wonder to be twofold; that by Christ both the dead was
begotten into life, and that by means of death. He here means the
immortal life, for this is the meaning of the words, “That I
might live unto God I am crucified with Christ.”66
66 [“That I might live unto God” is not to be joined to
“I have been crucified with Christ” as Chrysostom, for it
belongs to the completeness of the thought introduced by γαρ ver.
19.—Meyer.—G.A.] | How, it is asked, can a man now living and
breathing have been crucified? That Christ hath been crucified is
manifest, but how canst thou have been crucified, and yet live? He
explains it thus;
Ver.
20.
“Yet67
67 [This
is the rendering of the Rev. Ver. though the American Committee has,
“And it is no longer I that live;” and correctly so. For as
Dr. Schaff says, The reading of the Rev. Ver. (and the Author. Ver.
too) conveys a beautiful and true idea, but it is grammatically
incorrect, since the original has no “nevertheless” and no
“yet.” Pop. Com. on Gal. and Companion to the
Greek Testament, p. 453.—G.A.] | I live; and yet no longer I, but
Christ liveth in me.”
In these words, “I am
crucified with Christ,” he alludes to Baptism68
and in the words “nevertheless I live, yet not I,” our
subsequent manner of life whereby our members are mortified. By saying
“Christ liveth in me,” he means nothing is done by me,
which Christ disapproves; for as by death he signifies not what is
commonly understood, but a death to sin; so by life, he signifies a
delivery from sin. For a man cannot live to God, otherwise than by
dying to sin; and as Christ suffered bodily death, so does Paul a death
to sin. “Mortify,” says he, “your members which are
upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, passion;” (Col. iii.
5.),
and again, “our old man was crucified,” (Rom. vi.
6.)
which took place in the Bath.69 After which, if thou
remainest dead to sin, thou livest to God, but if thou let it live
again, thou art the ruin of thy new life. This however did not Paul,
but continued wholly dead; if then, he says, I live to God a life other
than that in the Law, and am dead to the Law, I cannot possibly keep
any part of the Law. Consider how perfect was his walk, and thou wilt
be transported with admiration of this blessed soul. He says not,
“I live,” but, “Christ liveth in me;” who is
bold enough to utter such words? Paul indeed, who had harnessed himself
to Christ’s yoke, and cast away all worldly things, and was
paying universal obedience to His will, says not, “I live to
Christ,” but what is far higher, “Christ liveth in
me.” As sin, when it has the mastery, is itself the vital
principle, and leads the soul whither it will, so, when it is slain and
the will of Christ obeyed, this life is no longer earthly, but Christ
liveth, that is, works, has mastery within us. His saying, “I am
crucified with Him” “I no longer live,” but “am
dead,” seeming incredible to many, he adds,
Ver.
20.
“And that life which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith,
the faith which is in the Son of God.”
The foregoing, says he, relates
to our spiritual life, but this life of sense too, if considered, will
be found owing to my faith in Christ. For as regards the former
Dispensation and Law, I had incurred the severest punishment, and had
long ago perished, “for all have sinned, and come short of the
glory of God.” (Rom. iii. 23.) And we, who lay
under sentence, have been liberated by Christ, for all of us are dead,
if not in fact, at least by sentence; and He has delivered us from the
expected blow. When the Law had accused, and God condemned us, Christ
came, and by giving Himself up to death, rescued us all from death. So
that “the life which I now live in the flesh, I live in
faith.” Had not this been, nothing could have averted a
destruction as general as that which took place at the flood, but His
advent arrested the wrath of God, and caused us to live by faith. That
such is his meaning appears from what follows. After saying, that
“the life which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith,”
he adds,
Ver.
20.
“In the Son of God, Who loved me, and gave Himself up for
me.”
How is this, O Paul! why dost
thou appropriate a general benefit, and make thine own what was done
for the whole world’s sake? for he says not, “Who loved
us,” but, “Who loved me.” And besides the Evangelist
says, “God so loved the world;” (John iii. 16.) and Paul
himself, “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him
up,” not for Paul only, but, “for us all;”
(Rom.
viii. 32.) and again, “that He might purify unto himself a people
for his own possession,” (Tit. ii. 14.) But considering
the desperate condition of human nature, and the ineffably tender
solicitude of Christ, in what He delivered us from, and what He freely
gave us, and kindled by the yearning of affection towards Him, he thus
expresses himself. Thus the Prophets often appropriate to themselves
Him who is God of all, as in the words, “O God, thou art my God,
early will I seek Thee.” (Psalm lxiii.
1.)
Moreover, this language teaches that each individual justly owes as a
great debt of gratitude to Christ, as if He had come for his sake
alone, for He would not have grudged this His condescension though but
for one, so that the measure of His love to each is as great as to the
whole world. Truly the Sacrifice was offered for all mankind,70 and was sufficient to save all, but those who
enjoy the blessing are the believing only. Nevertheless it did not
deter Him from His so great condescension, that not all would come; but
He acted after the pattern of the supper in the Gospel, which He
prepared for all, (Luke xiv. 16.) yet when the
guests came not, instead of withdrawing the viands, He called in
others. So too He did not despise that sheep, though one only, which
had strayed from the ninety and nine. (Mat. xviii.
12.)
This too in like manner St. Paul intimates, when he says, speaking
about the Jews, “For what if some were without faith, shall their
want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God? God forbid:
yea let God be found true, but every man a liar.” (Rom. iii. 3,
4.)
When He so loved thee as to give Himself up to bring thee who wast
without hope to a life so great and blessed, canst thou, thus gifted,
have recourse to things gone by? His reasoning being completed, he
concludes with a vehement asseveration, saying,
Ver.
21.
“I do not make void the grace of God.”71
71 [“Negative side of the life which Paul (from ver. 19.) has described as his
own. By this negative, with the grave reason assigned for it in the
latter part of the verse, the perverse conduct of Peter is completely
condemned.”—Meyer.—G.A.] |
Let those, who even now Judaize
and adhere to the Law, listen to this, for it applies to
them.
Ver.
21.
“For if righteousness is through the Law, then Christ died for
naught.”
What can be more heinous than
this sin?72
72 [“This blasphemous inference gives the finishing stroke to
the false Judaizing gospel.
“This collision
between Peter and Paul furnished material to the Ebionites for an
attack upon Paul, to the Gnostics for an attack upon the Jewish
apostles and to Porphyry for an attack upon Christianity itself [as
well as to Baur and the Tübingen school for an attack in modern
times from a different standpoint]. But Christianity has surveyed all
these attacks and gains new strength from every
conflict.”—Schaff.—G.A.] | what more fit to put one to shame than
these words? Christ’s death is a plain proof of the inability of
the Law to justify us; and if it does justify, then is His death
superfluous. Yet how could it be reasonable to say that has been done
heedlessly and in vain which is so awful, so surpassing human reason, a
mystery so ineffable, with which Patriarchs travailed, which Prophets
foretold, which Angels gazed on with consternation, which all men
confess as the summit of the Divine tenderness? Reflecting how utterly
out of place it would be if they should say that so great and high a
deed had been done superfluously, (for this is what their conduct came
to,) he even uses violent language against them, as we find in the
words which follow.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|