Galatians 2

David Lipscomb Commentary On Galatians 2Gal 2:1 Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem—This visit to Jerusalem was to have the question of circumcising the Gentile converts, as a condition of their acceptance with God, settled by the apostles. [Since for the purpose of his argument that he had not been dependent on the other apostles (Galatians 1:12; Galatians 1:17), that is in contact with them, it is pertinent to mention the fact that throughout the period of which he is speaking Jerusalem was the headquarters of the apostles. And this being the case the denial, by implication, was the strongest possible way of denying communication with them. It follows also that, had there been other visits to Jerusalem in this period, he must have mentioned them, un­less indeed they had been made under conditions which ex­cluded communication with the apostles, and this fact had been well known to his readers. Even in that case he would naturally have spoken of them, and appealed to the well- known absence of the apostles or spoken, not of going to Jeru­salem, but of seeing those who were apostles before him. The argument is strengthened by the use of the word “ after,” which suggests that the period of fourteen years constituted a period of non-communication with the apostles.]with Barnabas,—As the prophets and teachers at Antioch ministered to the Lord, the Holy Spirit said, “ Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them,” and they sent them away, and they went through Cy­prus, the home of Barnabas; and then through the provinces of Asia Minor, proclaiming the word of God, and returning to Antioch, and called the church together, and rehearsed all things that God had done with them; and that he had opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles. “ And certain men came down from Judaea and taught the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, the brethren appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” (Acts 15:1-2).taking Titus also with me.—[It should be noted carefully that it does not say that Paul took Barnabas as well as Titus, for the church at Antioch had appointed that Barnabas equally with Paul should go to Jerusalem.

Nor was it Titus as well as others— for there were others appointed by the church to go (Acts 15:2), but Paul makes no reference to them. The also calls attention to the fact of Paul’ s taking Titus in view of the sequel, as though he had said: “ I not only went up to Jerusalem at this particular time under divine direction, but I took with me Titus besides.” With refers to Paul himself—“ Titus who was with me." (Verse 3).

From this it appears that Paul wished him to go, as an uncircumcised disciple, doubtless to have a practical example of what they would re­quire in the case. This question was one that reached and be­came a disturbing element in every church among the Gen­tiles.]Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation;—Paul was directed by the Holy Spirit to go up to Jerusalem and let the apostles decide the question. The Holy Spirit had decided it for Paul, and he taught the decision to the people; but the disaffected portion of the disciples denied his apostleship, and ability to decide such questions. [We can well conceive that amid the dis­putes at Antioch Paul sought counsel from God, and received a special reply, which moved him to undertake the journey. This revelation, guiding Paul’ s movements, attests his close relation to God. In Luke’ s account (Acts 13:1-2) of this he tells of the appointment of Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusa­lem in order to promote the settlement of the anxious contro­versy.]and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles—[The persons to whom this communication was made were the disciples in Jerusalem. Perhaps we can more clearly understand what is meant here by referring to Acts 25:14-21.

There we are told that Festus laid Paul’ s case be­fore Agrippa with the view of careful consultation concerning it. So here Paul, in harmony with the purpose for which he had gone to Jerusalem, laid before the brethren the gospel he was preaching to the Gentiles— the conditions of salvation and the obligations of believers.

It should be noted that the word preach is in the present tense, which asserts the continuity and consistency of his preaching, even to the moment of writ­ing this epistle.]but privately—He did this privately because he had been more or less misrepresented by his detractors. These private consultations were a wise precaution to avoid misunderstanding. Such private conferences are usually held in connection with public assemblies for the purpose of preparing and ma­turing business for final action.before them who were of repute,—James, Cephas, and John, and others who were reputed leaders of the church in Jerusa­lem.lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain.—[The whole phrase implies that Paul saw in the existing sit­uation a danger that his work on behalf of the Gentiles, both past and future, might be rendered ineffectual by the opposi­tion of the Jerusalem church, or of certain men in it, and the disapproval of the apostles, and fearing this, he sought to avert it.]Galatians 2:3 But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:—Certain false brethren of the Judaizing party brought him into the conference unawares to Paul and the apostles, and demanded that he should be cir­cumcised.Galatians 2:4and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus,—The freedom of which the apostle speaks is, of course, the freedom of the Christian from the bondage to the law, which would have been surrendered in principle and practice if the Gentile Christians had been compelled to be cir­cumcised. (Galatians 4:8-31; Galatians 5:1-3; Galatians 5:13). [That he calls it “ our liberty” shows that, although the obligation of the Gentiles to be cir­cumcised was the particular question at issue, this was in Paul’ s mind only a part of a larger question, which concerned both Jewish and Gentile Christians. The Antioch incident (verses 11-21) shows how closely the question of freedom of the Jews was connected with that of the liberty of the Gentile Christians.]that they might bring us into bondage:—That is, to the law, implying an already possessed freedom. This language refers to Christians in general, not to the Gentiles exclusively. Paul distinctly charges that these men entered the church for a prop­agandist purpose, in order to make a legalistic body of it.Galatians 2:5to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour;—He clearly saw that to yield to false brethren would be in effect to surrender the gospel of Christ.

This he positively refused to do. [In antithesis to the possibility of his work proving fruitless (by reason of the opposition of the Jerusalem church and the apostles) Paul here sets forth the fact that on this very occasion and in a test case his decision prevailed. The fact of the presence of Titus with Paul had al­ready been mentioned in the preceding sentence.

Its repeti­tion here is evidently, therefore, for an argumentative pur­pose, and doubtless as emphasizing the significance of the fact that he was not circumcised. It is upon this element that not even throws its emphasis. The opponents of Paul, the “ false brethren,” desired, of course, the circumcision of all Gentile Christians. But so far were they from carrying through their demand that not even Titus, who was there on the ground at the time, and to whom the demand would first of all apply, was not circumcised. The noncircumcision of Titus, there­fore, was in reality a decision of the principle.]that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.—He did this that the truth of the gospel might continue with the Gentiles, which could not be if they observed the law of Moses. (Galatians 5:2-3).Galatians 2:6 But from those who were reputed to be somewhat—So far from Paul receiving the gospel from the apostles, those who in conference seemed to be the most important, most referred to, added nothing to him, taught him nothing that had not al­ready been revealed to him, showing that God had as fully en­trusted his will to Paul as to the chiefest of the apostles.(whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man’ s person)—they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me:— In this parenthesis he evidently re­fers not to personal character but to standing, which the three here referred to had by reason of their personal relation to Jesus while he was in the flesh, in the case of James as his brother, in that of Peter and John as his personal followers. This fact of their history was undoubtedly referred to by the opponents of Paul as giving them standing and authority wholly superior to any that he could claim. (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:16; 2 Corinthians 10:7).

Paul answers that the facts of this sort do not con­cern him, have no significance. Apostleship rests on a present relation to the glorified Christ, open to him equally with them.Galatians 2:7but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision—So far from giving to him fresh ideas and thoughts, they recognized that God had committed to him the gospel of the uncircumcision, as he had the gospel of the circumcision to Peter.

That is, God had as fully in­spired Paul to preach to the Gentiles as he had Peter to the Jews. For he that enabled Peter to work as an apostle effec­tually to the Jews was equally gracious to Paul in enabling him to work among the Gentiles. [The gospel is the same, but the sphere of labor is different. Paul was directed to the field of his labor among the Gentiles at his conversion (Acts 9:15), and more clearly by a special revelation in the temple at Jerusalem (Acts 22:17-20). Yet the division of labor was not absolute and exclusive. Paul generally commenced his work in the various places he visited in the synagogue be­cause it furnished the most convenient locality and the natural historical connection for the beginning of gospel work, and because it was resorted to by the numerous proselytes who formed the most favorable access to the heathen. On the other hand, Peter opened the door for the conversion of the Gentiles by the conversion and baptism of Cornelius.]Galatians 2:8(for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles);—Paul was as fully enabled to work miracles among the Gentiles as Peter was among the Jews.

This was recognized as the mani­festation of the divine presence and of apostolic power and au­thority.Galatians 2:9and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me,—The grace that was given unto Paul sums up the facts of his having been put in trust of the gospel of the uncircumci­sion, and of God’ s having wrought on his behalf in his dis­charge of that trust.James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars,—Pillars or supports, leading men, chief champions in the church. The expression is used in all languages, espe­cially among the Jews of the great teachers of the law. [Paul does not deny his colleagues to be the leading apostles among the Jews; they were so still in fact as he was the pillar in the church among the Gentiles; but the Judaizers used the ex­pression in a partisan sense and with a view to deprecate Paul.]gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship,—This was done to express their approval of the work in which they were engaged.

The work of Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles had been called in question, and they had been discouraged by many; these apostles, to encourage them and to show to all gainsayers that they regarded Paul and Barna­bas on an equal footing with the very chiefest apostles.that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the cir­cumcision;—Thus Paul shows that the very apostles in praise of whom these people denied his apostleship had endorsed Paul and Barnabas as apostles. [The mutual recognition of the different spheres in which each was called to preach does not mean that Paul and Barnabas were precluded from preaching to the Jews, or the others to the Gentiles. The one message of salvation was to be offered to men, as they were, whether circumcised or uncircumcised. The whole evidence, therefore, clearly indicates that the meaning of the agreement was that Paul and Barnabas were to preach the gospel in Gentile lands, and the other apostles in Jewish lands.]Galatians 2:10only—[They had but one stipulation to make, and that did not touch the matter of preaching at all— so little founda­tion was there for the charge that Paul was indebted to the original apostles, either for the matter of the gospel he preached or for the authority to preach it.]they would that we should remember the poor;—Remember the poor saints in Judaea. This would not only afford tempo­ral relief to the needy, but be a bond of union between the Jewish and Gentile believers, and furnish a proof of the grati­tude of the Gentiles, to the Jews for the unspeakable gift of the blessings of the gospel which came through them. Such a collection was raised during the great famine in the reign of Claudius Caesar, by the church at Antioch, as early as A.D. 41, and sent to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul. (Acts 11:28-30). On his third missionary tour Paul raised a large contribution in the Gentile churches for this purpose, and accompanied by messengers of the churches took it to Je­rusalem.

That he had respected the wish of the church at Je­rusalem in the matter was well known to the Galatians, before whom he had laid the claims of the Jewish brethren. (1 Corinthians 16:1; Romans 15:25-27; 2 Corinthians 8:8-9; Acts 24:17).Paul did this no doubt out of kindness for them in their suf­ferings, and also as a means of breaking down the feelings of enmity between the Jews and Gentiles. When the Gentiles gave to the Jews, it eradicated in their hearts all feelings of bitterness against the Jews, and it had a tendency to subdue the feelings of enmity on the part of the Jews toward the Gen­tiles. which very thing I was also zealous to do.—In this he inti­mates that he did not need the admonition the apostles gave him, and his practice vindicated his claim.Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch,—Paul sojourned at Antioch both before and after he had brought the decrees of the apostles at Jerusalem on the subject of circumcision. While he was in Antioch, Peter came to the city. There has been differences among Bible students as to whether this visit was before or after the conference. From the interviews Paul reports in this epistle of his having with Peter up to the time of the conference, I am confident that it could not have been before. [The most judicious commentators claim that this visit of Peter to Antioch took place soon after the return of Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem, in the interval described in Acts 15:35, shortly before the separation of Paul and Barna­bas, and the departure of Paul on his second missionary jour­ney.]I resisted him to the face,—[This instance 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— it was done openly and frankly and addressed to the offender himself. This was a case so public and well known that Paul administered the reproof before the whole church.]because he stood condemned.—[He was condemned by his own inconsistency. By first eating with the Gentiles and then pressing upon them observance of the very principle he had violated.] Some think that Peter could not have been guilty of such a course after he had aided in reaching the decision at the conference; but he had been instrumental in introducing the Gentiles into the church, at the house of Cornelius, some ten years before this, and knew that God had accepted them.

His course was not the result of ignorance, but of fear of of­fending the Jewish prejudice. His wrong would have been as great before as after the conference.Galatians 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles;—[The visit to which reference is made took place soon after the return of Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem, in the interval described in Acts 15; 35, shortly before the sepa­ration of Paul and Barnabas, and the departure of Paul on his second missionary journey.] While on this visit, with Paul and Barnabas, he ate with the Gentile brethren.but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.—Some came from James at Jerusalem, stirred up the prejudice on the subject, and Peter withdrew from this association with the Gentiles, fearing the Jews. [It would be wrong to charge that James so instructed the men who came, for we are warned against this by the fact that the men from Jerusalem who stirred up the first strife in Antioch received no commandment at all. (Acts 15:24).]Galatians 2:13 And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him;—The other Jews dissembled and acted the hypocrite with Peter. [The men who had hitherto eaten with the uncircum­cised and now withdrew because they shrank from giving of­fense were, in fact, affecting religious scruples which they did not feel, and Paul does not hesitate to denounce such insincer­ity by saying they acted hypocritically.]insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.—The current became so strong that Barnabas, who had been reared in Cyprus among Gentiles, and had la­bored among the Gentiles, was swept into the current of dis­simulation, and withdrew with the others from association with them.Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly accord­ing to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before them all,—When Paul saw that they walked not according to the way of truth, he rebuked Peter as the leading apostle and most blameworthy of all, before all, that all might be rebuked. [For only in this public way the censure could have its de­sired effect upon the body of Jewish Christians.]If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews,—[Peter had lived as a Gentile in the house of Cor­nelius, in Caesarea, and had done the same for a time in An­tioch.]how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?—[Now, by withdrawing from the Gentiles, he was virtually say­ing to the Gentiles that they must live like the Jews or they could not have social intercourse with him.] Peter sought salvation not according to the Mosaic law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, which admitted persons not as Jews, but as men.

This caused Peter to illustrate a truth we well rec­ognize, that is, that the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit did not save, as it gave them the knowledge of the truth. It re­vealed the truth to them, then kept them under that truth to struggle with the temptations to do wrong as other men. The Jews reared in Gentile lands of necessity did not imbibe the strong prejudices against association with the Gentiles as the Jews of Judaea cherished. Paul, then, was not the subject of so strong prejudices as Peter, the chief of the apostles, for his course. We are not told, but Peter must have acknowledged his wrong under this reproof and changed his course. Not to have done so, when his sin was thus pointed out, would have intensified it.

For him to acknowledge his wrong would have been another acknowledgment of Paul’ s superiority to him. The facts of the case show this whether Peter owned it or not.

It is introduced as a crowning truth to his claims to be the equal of the foremost apostle. God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and all the apostles own him as an apostle. Why should these Galatians, his own children in the gospel, call it in question?Galatians 2:15 We being Jews by nature,—[The outspoken protest against an insidious attempt to force on Gentiles the Jewish law leads naturally to an inquiry what this law has done for men who are Jews by birth. Did it justify them before God? They knew it did not. They had to turn to Christ for the peace with God which the law could not give.]and not sinners of the Gentiles,—[This expresses the inso­lent contempt of Judaizers for Gentiles, who did not belong to the holy nation nor inherit the law and the covenants.

Yet in spite of these arrogant pretensions to superior sanctity they were driven by their own consciousness of being sinners to embrace the faith in Christ because they knew that no flesh could possibly be so perfect in obedience to law as to be thereby justified.]Galatians 2:16yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ,—Those who came into Christ from the Jews knew that a man is not justified by the works of the Jewish law, but through faith in Jesus Christ.even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ,—Even Paul and Peter sought justification through Christ instead of depending on the works of the law to justify them. In doing this they ignored or turned from that which made them Jews, and identified themselves in so doing with sinners needing a Savior. [We cannot doubt that Peter, before Andrew led him to Jesus, and Paul, before he went to Damascus, had sought the favor of God by obedience to the law; and that the failure of their search had taught them that thus it cannot be obtained.

Indeed without this preparation the words of Jesus to Peter (Matthew 16:19), and afterwards to Paul (Acts 26:19), would have been ineffective. Until we find that our good works cannot save us, we cannot trust for salvation to the word of Christ. Consequently these words are true of all who venture to repose faith in Christ, and they were a powerful appeal to Peter’ s remembrance of his own life. For he was now practically setting up a condi­tion, and in this sense a means, which, when he first came to Christ, he had forsaken because he had found from it salvation could not be obtained. In Paul’ s address to Peter he appeals to him to take their own case. Although they were born Jews and not the offspring of idolaters and sharers of the awful im­morality of heathenism, yet, inasmuch as they found by expe­rience that no justification comes from works done in obedi­ence to the law, but only through faith in Christ, even we born Jews and as compared with other moral men put faith in Christ in order that in him we might have a justification not to be derived from works of law.]and not by the works of the law:—The works here referred to are the works of Moses which the Jews trusted in for salva­tion.

In coming to Christ they turned from all that was dis­tinctively Jewish.because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.—It is true that no man could be justified by the law because no man left to himself could obey the law without fault, and only perfect obedience could bring justification through law, but Paul is not dealing in abstractions here. He is contrast­ing the salvation through works of the Jewish law, which the Jews sought and the salvation through Christ.

The same thing is taught in the following: “ For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” (Romans 8:3). The law of Moses had failed to keep the Jews from sin, and it was taken out of the way and faith in Christ Jesus is presented as leading to salvation.Galatians 2:17 But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ,—The word sought suggests that they who followed after a low of righteousness did not arrive at that law (Romans 9:30-31) and had then turned themselves to Christ for the satisfaction which the law had not afforded them.we ourselves also were found sinners,—They discovered themselves to be sinners, suggesting the surprise of the Jew who learned for the first time that before God he had no moral superiority over the Gentiles whom he contemptuously called sinners, while he esteemed himself to be righteous (verse 15; Romans 7:10), and now in the light of the life and death of Jesus Christ the Jew discovered himself to be exactly in the same condition (Romans 3:9).is Christ a minister of sin?—Did Christ make them sinners when through his gospel he revealed to them their sinful con­dition, and they learned that they all with their legal righteous­ness were under sin (Romans 3:9), and that “ by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” ?God forbid.—An expression of strong denial and aversion, rebutting an unjustifiable inference from his teaching.Galatians 2:18 For if I build up again those things which I destroyed,—He had preached Christ as to the end of the law. It was their tutor to bring them to Christ that they might be justified through faith in Christ, but when faith came they were no longer under law. (Galatians 3:24-25). Then if he by observing the law built up what he had pulled down, he made himself a trans­gressor. He and all who had preached Christ had preached that the law was fulfilled, taken out of the way, nailed to the cross. For him to observe the law and teach others to ob­serve it was to nullify the death of Jesus and to take away the results of his death.I prove myself a transgressor.—[If Peter did right in refus­ing to eat with the Gentiles, he had done wrong in associating with them earlier; if he had done right to obey the vision from heaven, he was a transgressor in disobeying it now.]Galatians 2:19 For I through the law died unto the law,—Paul was brought by the law to Christ.

Jesus said: “ Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me.” And, “For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me.” (John 5:39; John 5:46). Of Timothy it is said: “ From a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:15). [To die to a thing is to cease to have any relation to it, so that it has no further claim upon or control over one. (Romans 6:2; Romans 6:10-11; Romans 7:6).

That to which reference is here made is evidently the law as a legalistic sys­tem, a body of statutes legalistically interpreted. It was on the basis of the law in this sense that it was demanded that the Gentile believers should be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. It was under this that Paul had lived as a Phari­see, and under which he had ceased to live— died to it. How the necessity of abandoning the law was made evident to him by law, Paul does not here state, but it is most probable that he had in mind his experience under the law, which he de­scribes in Romans 7:7-25, where he tells us that his own ex­perience under it taught him his own inability to meets its re­quirements and its own ability to make him righteous, and thus led him finally to abandon it, and seek salvation through Christ. (Philippians 3:5-9).]that I might live unto God.—In entering into Christ he died unto the law, that in Christ he might live unto God. [This im­plies that subjection to the law in reality prevented the unre­served devotion of the life to God— this is one vice of legal­ism, that it comes between the soul and God— and that it had to be abandoned if the life was really to be given to God.]Galatians 2:20I have been crucified with Christ;—Christ was crucified, died to the law. Paul was crucified with Christ and so died to the law. Having died to the law, he was made alive in Christ. [Christ, though he had fully dispatched every obligation im­posed by the law, endured the extreme penalty prescribed for “ every transgression and disobedience.” (Hebrews 2:2).

When one, therefore, believes with the heart that Jesus is “ the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), he acknowl­edges the judgment of God against sin to be just, and accepts the death of Christ as the execution of that judgment upon him for his own guilt. In thus believing he becomes identified with Christ in his death, and since death nullifies all claims and obligations is “ made dead to the law” (Romans 7:4) and ceases to be under the jurisdiction of the law.

The idea of the be­liever’ s death reappears in Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:11-12. The reference to this mode of execution, with its association with shame, heightens the contrast between the fancied law keep­ing of his opponents and the actual fact of their absolute failure to attain to righteousness thereby. The shame of the cross was not his who died upon it, but theirs whose trans­gression and disobedience made the cross necessary.]and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me:—Christ lived in Paul. He, through faith in Christ, was made alive in him. The life of Christ was reproduced in him. [Christ lived in him by his Spirit. “ If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness.” (Romans 8:9-10).

Christ in his glorified body is in heaven, but he is represented here by the Holy Spirit. (John 14:17; Romans 8:11). When Paul sought to establish his own righteousness, everything depended upon vigilance and energy, but when he realized the failure of his best ef­forts, and trusted in Christ for directions as to how to live, he became conscious of a new power working within him.]and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith,—[The believer is said to have died with Christ, and also to have been raised together with him through faith (Colossians 3:1), and it is this life of the spirit in association with Christ to which reference is here made.] The new life is received through faith (Galatians 3:27), and is maintained by the exercise of faith (2 Corinthians 7:7), which is the characteristic function of the new life.the faith which is in the Son of God,—Christ is presented here as the proper object of the believer’ s confidence.

What Christ has done for man is the guarantee of his will and of his power to continue and to complete the work of salvation.who loved me, and gave himself up for me.—The love where­with he loved Paul inspired a responsive love in his heart for Christ, and loving him he kept his commandments. Keeping the commandments of Jesus makes us like him. [In his love for the church (Ephesians 5:25) Christ does not lose sight of the individual believer. Each member of his body is the direct ob­ject of his love, and it is as true that he died for each as it is that he died for all. Hence, the individual believer appro­priates to himself that which is the possession of all.]Galatians 2:21I do not make void the grace of God:—In trusting God, walking by faith in Jesus Christ and seeking salvation through him, and turning from the law he did not frustrate or make vain the grace of God. [The teaching of the Judaizers certainly did set it aside, for if salvation is by grace it is no more of works, and conversely, if it is of works it is no more of grace; works and grace are incompatible, they are mutually exclusive. (Romans 11:6).]for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought.—God seeks to make man righteous, and if righteous­ness could have been attained through the law of Moses, there would have been no need of the death of Christ. Hence his mission and death were meaningless, fruitless, without good to man. It was a vain and profitless mission and sacrifice that Christ made if man could have gained through the law, and without Christ all that was gained through him.

Christ came to save man from his sins and make him righteous before God and to fit him to dwell with him. If the law could have fitted him for this divine companionship, the death of Christ was meaningless and vain.

If man can be made righteous by any means out of Christ, it is equally true that Christ died for nought.Thus he has vindicated, without dispute, his apostleship, and that the law was dead, and that life and salvation are to be found through Christ, and he urges the folly of leaving the gospel, and turning to the law of Moses or to any theory of man.

Verse 1 Galatians 2 Two major divisions of this chapter are: (1) Paul’s appeal to the fact that fourteen years after his conversion (long after he had been successfully preaching the gospel), the leading apostles in Jerusalem fully endorsed his preaching and extended to him the right hand of fellowship (Galatians 2:1-10), and (2) that in one very important particular he had withstood the apostle Peter face to face, exposing his sin and hypocrisy, the obvious conclusion from such an incident being that (in one particular at least) he was superior to the apostles in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:11-21). Around these two major themes of the chapter, however, Paul wove some of the most important theological principles revealed in the New Testament, introducing the main theme of Galatians in Galatians 2:16, which is “Justification by the Faith of Christ, and not by the Law of Moses.” Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus with me. (Galatians 2:1) Paul’s intention here was to justify his apostleship, as not having been received through human beings; and, since that apostleship began with his conversion, the “fourteen years” here means fourteen years after his conversion. It is remarkable how religious fads can blind the eyes of expositors, and a startling example of it is seen in the usual treatment of this visit, making it fourteen years after his last visit to Jerusalem. This is based on the mistaken view that Paul in this letter had set out to name every trip he had ever made to the capital of Judaism. He obviously had no such intention. He left out of consideration altogether a trip to Jerusalem which he and Barnabas had made to deliver famine relief “to the elders” in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30); but, as that trip came about the time when Peter was imprisoned, James had been martyred, and all of the apostles were in hiding, it could have had no bearing whatever on what Paul was emphasizing here. I went up again to Jerusalem … has the simple meaning of “upon another occasion I went up to Jerusalem.” It is totally wrong to read this as if it said, “the second time I went up to Jerusalem.” The New Testament merely states that he went up “again.” As Ridderbos said, “Once one has rid himself of the idea that Paul wants to give a summary here of all his trips to Jerusalem,"[1] it is easy to see that the meeting described in these verses is the so-called Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1 ff), and that there is no need to identify it as the famine visit of Act 11:30. McGarvey was in perfect agreement with this view;[2] and, as Harrison asked, “If the question of the admission of Gentiles into the church had been settled on the famine visit,"[3] why was another conference necessary to settle the same question? Titus … For full discussion of this man, see under 2 Corinthians 7:6. Barnabas … It should be noted that Paul, in order to avoid assuming any domination over Barnabas, stated that he went “with” him; whereas, in the case of Titus, one of his faithful followers, he referred to “taking him.” One of Paul’s purposes, in addition to that of defending his apostleship by making this journey, was to prove that he properly respected and honored those who were apostles before him; and, as Barclay noted, “To prove that his independence was not anarchy, nor schismatic and sectarian, but that his gospel was indeed no other than the faith delivered to the church."[4]Another important sidelight here is that Paul spoke of Barnabas here with the necessary implication that he was already known to the Christians in Galatia, “a further indication that they were the churches of the first missionary journey,"[5] in which Barnabas shared. [1] H. N. Ridderbos, The Epistles of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953), p. 78. [2] J. W. McGarvey, The Standard Bible Commentary, Galatians (Cincinnati, Ohio: The Standard Publishing Company, 1916), p. 256. [3] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 698. [4] William Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964), p. 16. [5] F. Roy Coad, A New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), p. 449. Verse 2 And I went up by revelation; 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.By revelation … From Luke (Acts 15:2), it is clear that the church in Antioch commissioned Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem; but from this it is learned that Paul went by “revelation.” As Macknight said, “The church at Antioch was directed by divine revelation to send Paul and Barnabas on this mission. So, he could justly say that he went by revelation."[6] There is also the possibility that Paul, at first, would not go, until specifically commanded by Christ to do so. It is a fact that Christ personally stood by Paul on occasions (Acts 22:18). Furthermore, Paul’s reasons for going were not for the purpose of receiving instruction or of getting the apostles in Jerusalem to decide anything. He went there for the purpose of straightening out the error that, for the moment, was rampant in the church in that city. There is nothing in this whole episode that reveals “the Mother Church settling important matters of doctrine.” See comment on this so-called council in my Commentary on Acts 15. And I laid before them … Paul’s efforts here were directed to the purpose of correcting false views prevalent in the church in Jerusalem; therefore, he laid the pure gospel before them. This does not mean “that Paul had begun to feel insecure about his gospel."[7] It was an effort to unify the church. Who were of repute … seems somewhat ironical. Ridderbos said, “It positively is not that."[8] However, Paul’s mention of this, using similar and somewhat more emphatic terms, no less than four times in this passage would definitely suggest that very possibility. But privately … Some scholars dogmatically assert that Paul’s account of the “council” here cannot be harmonized with Acts 15:1 ff; but that is only because they fail to see that there were private discussions which took place before the public and more formal meeting later on. Huxtable noted that Luke mentions no less than three separate meetings[9] in Acts 15:4 Acts 15:6 Acts 15:12. Even today large public meetings are usually preceded by private discussions of those in charge of them. Lipscomb said: These private consultations were a wise precaution to avoid misunderstanding. Such private conferences are usually held in connection with public assemblies for the purpose of preparing and maturing business for final action.[10]Lest by any means I should be running … in vain … If the Twelve had repudiated Paul’s gospel, it would, in a sense, have nullified his whole life’s work, making it to be largely “in vain.” Paul definitely did not mean here that he had any question regarding his own redemption. [6] James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles with Commentary and Notes (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1969), p. 122. [7] Herman N. Ridderbos, op. cit., p. 81. [8] Ibid. [9] E. Huxtable, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), Vol. 20, p. 70. [10] David Lipscomb, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, n.d.), p. 203. Verse 3 But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of the false brethren brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.“The apostle’s language here is somewhat ambiguous,"[11] as Bruce said, making the interpretation to be: The first time I took Titus to Jerusalem the question was not even raised; but, at a later time, the false brethren spied on us and demanded that he be circumcised; but we refused to do so, etc. Sanday, Bruce and others make Galatians 2:2-5 a parenthetical statement. However, it appears to this writer that the parenthesis is to explain the fact that, even under pressure from the demands initiated by the false brethren, Titus was not circumcised, the mention of the false brethren being for the purpose of showing how the question came up. In any case, the big point is that Paul absolutely refused to have Titus circumcised; and that, even if pressure was applied to Titus personally, he also refused to accommodate the Judaizers. To spy out our liberty … “The notion of hostile intent is strongly suggested by this."[12] The Judaizing party in the church was prepared to go to any lengths to enforce law-keeping and circumcision upon all who became Christians, whether Jew or Gentile. Liberty which we have in Christ Jesus … “Being in Christ is primal in all Pauline teaching; once grasped, the secret to Paul is discovered."[13] “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature” (2 Corinthians 5:17). The liberty which Paul had in view here was primarily freedom from the ceremonials of Judaism; but there is a notable and extensive freedom “in Christ” from all encumbering religious devices. Even the grand ordinances of Christianity are only two in number, baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and one of these is observed only once at the beginning of the Christian life. How antagonistic to the true teachings of the New Testament are the declamations of those who attempt to make Paul’s words here to mean that Christians are free from those ordinances! It was not freedom from Christ’s commandments that Paul taught, but freedom from the forms and ceremonies of Judaism. Jesus himself declared that “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19). The contrast between the teaching of Paul and the teaching of men here is observable in the following: PAUL: The binding of circumcision and Jewish ceremonial upon Christians violates the truth that the Christian religion is all that is needed for salvation …. TRUE. MEN: The binding of circumcision, etc., nullified the truth that faith in Christ is the sole and sufficient ground of justification.[14] … FALSE. Such audacious perversions of sacred truth should be detected and rejected by all true believers in Christ. [11] F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), p. 103. [12] E. Huxtable, op. cit., p. 73. [13] Raymond T. Stamm, The Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1953), Vol. X, p. 472. [14] E. Huxtable, op. cit., p. 74. Verse 6 But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man’s person) - they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me.Who were reputed to be somewhat … who were of repute … Paul does not here question the legitimate reputation and prominence of the Twelve, but he is careful not to admit any lack of equality with them on his own behalf. As Howard said it: “He did not want to imply total submission to their judgment, or deny his own unique and divinely given authority."[15]God accepteth not man’s person … No man’s opinion should be received merely upon the basis of who he is, his position in life or any office that he holds. Even Jesus our Lord did not require people to believe him upon the basis of his status as a human being, but upon the basis that God had given him a message, and that that message of God was what he taught. Paul’s reference here is addressed exactly to that very principle.

Not even an apostle should be believed as a man, but as a true messenger of God. See more on this in my Commentary on John 12:49. How differently are the sayings of men urged upon us today. Lo, a bishop has spoken, a pope has circulated an encyclical, the head of a church has spoken, or a general conference has decided it, etc. The human failing in relying upon such things predisposes people to find a similar thing at Jerusalem in the events related in this chapter. Indeed this has been called the First Ecumenical Council of the Church, but it was no such thing. They imparted nothing to me … Paul was the one who imparted the truth on that occasion, not the so-called council. How amazing is a comment like this: Added nothing to me … Paul does not mean that he received from them nothing essential for his gospel![16]Despite such allegations, if language has any meaning at all, that is exactly what Paul did mean, namely, that the council made no contribution of any kind whatever to the gospel he preached, to the revelation of Christ which he had received, or to anything whatever that concerned Paul. Scholars are critical of Paul for not delivering the “findings of the council” to the Galatians in this letter, and for not any time or anywhere even mentioning them in his epistles. Some even presume to date Galatians at a time far removed from this council in order to account for his not delivering the decisions of it; but the reason for such omission is clear enough in this dynamic clause. The council made no contribution whatever to the gospel, the great result of the meeting being that they received Paul’s views in their entirety and began to preach as they should have been doing already, in full consonance with the gospel Christ had given them, exactly as he had to Paul. Stamm asserted that “Acts says that this conference was called to decide whether Gentile converts must be circumcised”;[17] but this is due to misreading Acts 15:1 ff. Stamm’s very next line is, “But (Acts) in reporting the action of the council says nothing about circumcision.[18] Of course it didn’t! No such purpose is discernible anywhere.

The question of whether Gentiles were to be circumcised had long ago been revealed to the Twelve, as well as to Paul. Peter himself had received into full fellowship the uncircumcised Cornelius, baptizing him into Christ, and defending the action against some who questioned it (Acts 10 and Acts 11). Not only had the question already been determined, all of the apostles on earth, in conference assembled, did not have the authority to alter that decision in any manner. To be sure, the councils of men held today are even more incompetent and unauthorized to meet and determine Christian doctrine; and their presuming to do so is the prime scandal that has perverted Christianity in so many particulars through the ages. [15] R. E. Howard, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1965), Vol. IX, p. 41. [16] Raymond T. Stamm, op. cit., p. 474. [17] Ibid., p. 477. [18] Ibid. Verse 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles).Gospel of the circumcision.., of the uncircumcision … Huxtable was correct in the observation that: This does not indicate any diversity in the doctrine communicated to the uncircumcision from that communicated to the Jews, but simply a diversity in the sphere of its proclamation.[19]The marvelous tenderness and forbearance of the heavenly Father are fully in view in all of these remarkable events. The failure of the apostleship in Jerusalem to get on with preaching the gospel “to the whole creation” as Christ had commanded them to do (Mark 16:15-16) was the most deplorable sin they ever committed. For God to have permitted the Judaizing of Christianity would have been, in its final result, the restriction of salvation to Jews alone; and the entire premise of God’s loving all people and desiring their salvation would have been countermanded and nullified. That was the acute and fatal nature of the problem. The intervention of God himself at such a juncture was the only way to correct it. This accounts for the conversion of Saul of Tarsus who had the power to cut the umbilical cord that strapped the infant church to Judaism, threatening to strangle Christianity to death. The weakness of the Twelve, springing from their environment, and their failure (at first) to understand the world-wide, independent nature of Christianity, was contained by Almighty God in those events clustered around the name of Paul; and with infinite mercy and tenderness, the Father did not remove or punish the Twelve, but on the other hand, committed the preaching to the Gentiles to one more able than themselves to do it. Later on, of course, the Twelve took up and discharged fully their total responsibility. Would they ever have been able to do so without Paul? It seems unlikely; therefore the miracle of Paul! ENDNOTE: [19] E. Huxtable, op. cit., p. 75. Verse 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, that we should go unto the Gentiles and they unto the circumcision.James and Cephas and John … James the brother of John had already been slain by Herod (Acts 12), and this James was the oldest brother of Jesus (Matthew 13:55 f), which probably accounts for his influence in the Jerusalem church at this time. Here he was named even ahead of Peter and John; and his position seems to have been that of a “leading elder” in the church there. Were reputed to be pillars … Paul does not deny with this the high office belonging to the Twelve, not the deserved reputation and esteem they enjoyed in Jerusalem; but there is a hint here that their specific behavior with regard to the Gentiles was unbecoming. The “reputed pillars” had caved in in this glaring particular. The words are therefore spoken in love and pity, rather than reproachfully. Right hands of fellowship … This was the big point of Paul’s relating this incident. Despite their own defection (in that sense), they nevertheless unhesitatingly agreed that Paul was preaching the pure and unadulterated gospel, a thing which they, through timidity, at the moment were not doing; and some little time would elapse before they would. Verse 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do.Paul mentioned this as a practical matter and with a view to alerting the Galatian churches that they might expect him to raise money from them to be distributed among the poor, as soon as he should have the opportunity. On Paul’s final visit to Jerusalem, he delivered such a contribution to James and the elders in Jerusalem (Acts 21:17). THE WITH PETERThe next eleven verses (Galatians 2:11-21) were written, it seems, to emphasize, not merely that Paul’s gospel had been approved by the Twelve, but that in one grave particular, he preached the true gospel even when it was opposed by such men as Peter and even Barnabas. The chronology of the incident described here is difficult, if not impossible, to determine. Dummelow noted that: Some hold that St. Paul in this passage is not mentioning a later instance of his independence, but merely another instance of it which was earlier in time than that mentioned in Galatians 2:1-10.[20]Favoring that understanding are the indefinite “when Cephas came to Antioch” (Galatians 2:11), and the “before that” of Galatians 2:12, which may be Paul’s way of saying that the episode he was about to relate happened “before” the one just recorded. This would make Peter’s conduct appear to be a little less flagrant than when it is understood as coming immediately after the events just narrated. However, if it was an earlier action, it still came after the experience he had in the home of Cornelius (Acts 10), being totally reprehensible, no matter when it occurred. Ramsay also held that it is not mandatory to interpret the last half of this chapter as coming after the first part, quoting Turner and Zahn as having the same view.[21]McGarvey wrote that “It was probably very soon after the council in Jerusalem."[22] Lipscomb declared that “I am confident that it could not have come before”;[23] and Ridderbos said, “It seems to lie in the whole bearing of the context that Peter came to Antioch after the apostolic council.[24] John William Russell thought, “This was previous to the visit of Paul to Jerusalem."[25] Not a great deal hinges on the point, either way. [20] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 949. [21] William M. Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1965), p. 304. [22] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 260. [23] David Lipscomb, op. cit., p. 208. [24] Herman N. Ridderbos, op. cit., p. 95. [25] John William Russell, Compact Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1964), in loco. Verse 11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.He stood condemned … Far from being infallible in matters of doctrine, the apostle Peter, who is alleged to have been the first pope, here committed the most fundamental doctrinal error imaginable, upsetting completely the false teaching of Peter’s supremacy. Peter was not merely condemned by a fellow-apostle, he was self-condemned, his own conscience reproving and repudiating his actions. Paul stated in Romans (Romans 2:1) the principle that holds a man self-condemned if he practices what he condemns in others. This Peter did, for he advocated eating with Gentiles in Acts 10; but here he refused to do so. Before going any further with this said failure of the beloved Peter, it should be brought to mind that this was only a momentary thing. As Halley put it: It took a few years for the apostles to get adjusted to the new teaching; and Paul adjusted more quickly than Peter did. The Galatian incident happened after Paul had come all the way out of Judaism, and while Peter was coming out. But Peter did come all the way out before any of the books of the New Testament were written, and there is not an iota of difference between the teaching of Paul and Peter in the New Testament.[26]Paul was compelled to relate this for reasons which were no doubt providential. The utter condemnation of all the arrogant claims of the historical church regarding the supremacy of Peter, his infallibility, and their own alleged succession to such prerogatives is accomplished by this narrative, as well as the practical thing at hand, in which Paul used it to defend his own apostleship. ENDNOTE: [26] Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1927), p. 561. Verse 12 For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.From James … In Acts 15, it is learned that these Judaizers actually had no commission whatever from James (Acts 15:24), yet they were sinfully and deceitfully operating in his name. The identity of these Judaizers is provided in Acts 6:7; Acts 15:5, where it is made clear that they were priests of the sect of the Pharisees who had accepted the gospel, but were unwilling to give up the customs and ceremonies of Judaism. They were a powerful and very influential group, and Paul here made extenuating remarks regarding the conduct of both Peter and Barnabas, Peter’s mistake being due to fear of the powerful Pharisaical party, and Barnabas’ being that he was just “carried away” with it in a moment of weakness. Verse 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before them all, 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?I said unto Cephas … before them all … This bold rebuke administered by Paul to Peter may not be taken as a relaxation of Jesus’ rule that the brother having sinned should first be approached privately (see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 5:24). The situation was not one which pertains to any persons today, for both Paul and Peter were inspired apostles of the highest rank; and the near-unique situation demanded exactly what Paul did here. We therefore disagree with Hendriksen that here is established the principle of “rebuking publicly those who have sinned publicly,"[27] unless and until the three steps commanded by Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17 have been taken. Church leaders, as recommended by Calvin, taking upon them to imitate Paul’s action here, are presuming far too much. Besides, it is not certainly known that Paul had not already, in this case, taken the steps of the first and second admonitions, as he had instructed Titus to do (3:10); but no matter what Paul did, it is the instruction to Titus that more correctly fits the analogy with church leaders today. See much more on this in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 18:15. ENDNOTE: [27] William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1968), p. 96. Verse 15 But we being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by the FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST, and not by the works of law; because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (KJV) This passage announces the great theme of Galatians, which is Justification by the Faith of Christ; and the key words in it have been properly rendered, in the light of the best scholarship on earth, and capitalized to emphasize the truth. THE WHICH IS HEREThe teaching set forth in this series of commentaries with regard to justification is advocated fully in my Commentary on Romans 3:22; and the student is referred to that for a great deal of material that cannot be repeated here. Since the publication of that volume in 1973, further scholarly studies by distinguished theologians have fully confirmed the undeniable accuracy of translating “faith of Christ” instead of “faith in Christ” in this place and a number of other places in the New Testament. Of course, the KJV is correct in most of these places, though not in all; and strong voices have for years been crying out against the perversion inherent in changing God’s word to read otherwise than the way it is handed down to people in the Greek New Testament. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., decried the butchering of the passage at hand thus: In this verse (Galatians 2:16), “by the faith of Christ” is changed to “only through faith in Christ”; but” the faith of Christ” refers to the gospel system of faith, and they have manipulated this passage to teach justification by faith only, going so far as to change “the works of the law” (the law of Moses) to “deeds dictated by law”; yet faith itself is a law (Romans 3:27) …. A committee of text-makers who will artfully twist such a specific gospel passage to implement the false doctrine of faith alone will do anything in the name of translation.[28]As recently as April, 1974, Professor George Howard, University of Georgia, published a study of “The Faith of Christ” in Expositor Times, pointing out that James Macknight in the 19th century, Gabriel Hebert in 1955, and other great scholars have demanded that this passage be translated correctly as “the faith of Christ."[29]After citing dozens of scientific studies by distinguished linguists, he gave as his conclusion that: We may conclude then that, grammatically speaking, [@pistis] [@Christou] should be rendered “faith of Christ."[30]He even went further and affirmed that the usual definition of faith as the word is used in the New Testament is not trust/faith as usually thought, but “faithfulness,” in the sense of “obedience,” “reliability,” or “fidelity."[31]That this is the truth appears from Paul’s references to “obedient faith” at both ends of the book of Romans (Romans 1:5; Romans 16:26). Thus, the “faith of Christ” includes both his own trust/faith in the heavenly Father, and his perfect obedience and fidelity in the discharge of his mission of redemption. The doctrine of salvation through faith only is wrong on many counts. It is wrong in misunderstanding the sinner’s trust/faith as the ground of justification, whereas it is actually the obedient faith of the Son of God; and even in the Lord’s case, it was not faith only, but faith and perfect obedience. It is totally wrong to regard “faith in Christ” (as used in the New Testament) as reference to the theological concept trust/faith, or subjective faith of the sinner; because as noted by Howard, the usual definition in the New Testament is not that at all, but fidelity. There are other instances in which “faith in Christ” means “the Christian religion,” a definition Wallace applied in this verse, but which this writer feels is incorrect in this context. Over and beyond all this, let the key expression “in Christ” be given its proper emphasis, and it is at once clear that no man who ever breathed has “faith in Christ” when he himself has refused to be baptized into Christ, in which case he might have faith out of Christ,” but not “in him.” Another legitimate meaning of “faith in Christ” is faith exercised by one who is “in Christ,” having been baptized into him, made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and fully identified as a member of Christ’s spiritual body, the church. The faith of Christ … meaning his perfect fidelity and obedience, is actually the ground of man’s redemption. Absolute perfection is required of all who would be saved (Matthew 5:48), a state that is not attainable by any man who ever lived, save only Jesus Christ our Lord, Immanuel. Perfection being the sine qua non without which none shall enter eternal life, how may it be procured and in a sense achieved by man? God’s device of making one perfect, in the sense of being absolutely justified, is that of transferring him into Christ, identifying him with Christ and as Christ, a transference and identity achieved on behalf of the Christian when he is in the spiritual body of Christ. Thus Paul could say, “That we may present every man perfect in Christ” (Colossians 1:28). See article on “Jesus Christ, Inc.,” in my Commentary on Romans. As Paul would say a little later in this chapter, the life which the Christian lives is not his own, but Christ’s (Galatians 2:20). Even we believed on Christ Jesus … This is sinners’ faith, introduced into the passage after the “faith of Christ” was mentioned just ahead of it; and if “faith of Christ” meant a sinner’s believing in Christ, this clause would not have been added. Paul develops this great theme throughout the following passages in the epistle. Works of the law … refers to Jewish ceremonial in the Law of Moses and has no reference whatever to the ordinances of the Christian religion and to moral obligations and duties of Christians. [28] Foy. E. Wallace, Jr., A Review of the New Versions (Fort Worth, Texas: The Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Publications, 1973), p. 509. [29] George Howard, Article: “The Faith of Christ,” in Expositor Times, Vol. 7, pp. 212-214, April, 1974. [30] Ibid. [31] Ibid. Verse 17 But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? God forbid.This is somewhat parenthetical to clear up any possible misunderstanding. Paul had just laid down the gospel that we are justified by the faith of Christ; and, in order to prevent any man from thinking that his own fidelity and compliance with Christ’s teaching were not needed, Paul effectively denied such a thought with this verse. Christians are not saved in their sins but from their sins. And holiness is an attainment without which no man shall see the Lord. This does not imply that one has to be perfect, an impossibility anyway, but it does teach that a man must do his best to serve God. God will supply whatever is lacking on the Christian’s part, so that at last every man shall be accounted “saved by grace” and not by any merit whatever. Verse 18 For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor.Hendriksen paraphrased the meaning of this as, “If I start to rebuild the very things I have torn down, it is then that I prove myself a transgressor."[32]“The things I have torn down” would be the ceremonial regulations of Judaism; and Paul here stated that it would be sinful if again he reverted to their observance. ENDNOTE: [32] William Hendriksen, op. cit., p. 101. Verse 19 For I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God.“To live unto God” is to be in Christ who lives at God’s right hand; where Christ is, there the Christian is; for because of his membership in Christ’s spiritual body, there is a sense in which he “is Christ.” Christ died, therefore we have died in his person on Calvary as our substitute. That is what Paul meant by saying, “We are baptized into his death.” Through the Christian’s being “in Christ,” and identified with Christ, he has already perished upon the cross in the person of his substitute. “Being dead to sin but alive unto God in Christ” (Romans 6:11) has a meaning parallel with this verse. The Romans passage does not mean that “in Christ” the Christian is no longer tempted; but that “in Christ” the penalty of sin, which is death, is already paid upon behalf of the Christians by Christ who died on the cross. Here the thought is that “in Christ” Christians have already fulfilled all of the law, since that is what Christ’ did; and we are “in him” and “of him.” Also, there is here the thought that people are dead to the law through the body of Christ. Verse 20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live by the FAITH OF THE SON OF GOD who loved me, and gave himself for me. (KJV) Here we have followed the KJV, because of the accurate rendition of “FAITH OF THE SON OF GOD.” It is no longer I that live … This touches the incredibly important truth that no man is ever saved in his own personal identity as possessing any true righteousness. All of the righteousness of God is in Christ (Ephesians 1:3); and no mortal may be saved as John Doe. He must renounce self and become identified with Christ who is righteous. “As Christ,” therefore, he is dead to sin, has fulfilled the law, is alive unto God, and the heir of eternal glory “in Christ.” “This doctrine, one of the fundamentals of Pauline theology, is one of the concepts which gives meaning to and ties together in a coherent whole the various aspects of Paul’s gospel."[33] This forsaking of one’s identity to be “Christ, in a sense, in Christ” was announced by Christ himself, who said, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matthew 16:24). Also he said, “He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit … If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, etc.” (John 15:4-6).

Therefore, if a man is able to answer two questions affirmatively, there is no way he can be lost: (1) Is he “in Christ”? (The only way one can be “in Christ” is to be baptized into him.) (2) Will he be “found in him”? (Philippians 3:9). This means, will he still be “in Christ” when life ends, or the Lord comes? The person described by affirmative answers to these questions is of them concerning whom the voice from heaven said, “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord” (Revelation 14:13). ENDNOTE: [33] George Howard, op. cit., p. 214. Verse 21 I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for naught.The great problem existing from the day man first committed sin is, “How can even God justly declare a human being to be righteous?” That the Law of Moses could not do it is an axiom. If true righteousness could have been procured by any man who ever lived on earth through means of the Mosaic Law, Christ’s death would not have been necessary. The corollary of that is that for one to rely upon law-keeping for justification is to repudiate and reject Christ’ sacrifice. And how does God justly account a man to be righteous? It is not by shooting righteousness into him gratuitously because he believed, but by transferring the sinner into Christ who IS righteous, the sinner first of all renouncing his own identity, in the sense of having any merit (as Jesus said, “denying himself”’), being baptized into Christ and remaining “in him” until the final summons. It is the perfect faith and righteousness of Jesus Christ which constitute “the righteousness of God through the FAITH OF CHRIST” (Romans 3:22-26). Please see my Commentary on Romans, chapter 3, for extensive discussion of this.

“THE EPISTLE TO THE "

Chapter Two

IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To understand why Paul would refuse to circumcise Titus (but then had Timothy circumcised later, as recorded in Acts 16:1-3)

2. To appreciate why it was necessary for Paul to rebuke Peter to his face

3. To understand why if righteousness comes by the law, then Christ’s death was in vain

SUMMARY As Paul continues defending his apostleship, he describes a meeting in Jerusalem fourteen years after the one with Peter related in chapter one. It was prompted by a revelation, and Barnabas and Titus went with him to meet “those who were of reputation”. The meeting was private, but some false brethren were secretly brought in who sought to demand that Titus, a Gentile, be circumcised. Paul refused, viewing it as an effort to bring them back into bondage from which Christ set them free (Galatians 2:1-5).

The result of the meeting was that “those who seemed to be something” added nothing to Paul. In fact, once they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcised had been given to him just as the gospel of the circumcised had been given to Peter, and once James, Cephas, and John perceived the grace that had been given to Paul, he was extended the right hand of fellowship. They only asked that Paul be mindful of the poor, something he was very eager to do (Galatians 2:6-10).

The rest of the chapter describes a confrontation in Antioch between Peter and Paul. Peter, who was visiting, at first was willing to eat with the Gentiles; but when some came from James, out of fear he withdrew himself. Through his influence the rest of the Jews, even Barnabas, were carried away into hypocrisy. This prompted Paul to withstand Peter “to his face”, and to rebuke him in the presence of all. In the course of his rebuke, Paul stressed that we are justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law, otherwise Christ died in vain (Galatians 2:11-21).

OUTLINE

I. THE MEETING AT (Galatians 2:1-10)

A. IN PRIVATE, WITH THOSE OF (Galatians 2:1-5)

1. Occurring fourteen years later, accompanied by Barnabas and Titus (Galatians 2:1)
2. Spurred to go by revelation, he communicated the gospel he had preached (Galatians 2:2)
3. Refused to allow Titus to be circumcised, as some brethren desired who were secretly brought in to the meeting (Galatians 2:3-5)

B. HIS BY JAMES, CEPHAS, AND JOHN (Galatians 2:6-10)

1. Those who seemed to be something (reputation really made no difference) did not add anything to Paul (Galatians 2:6)
2. When those of reputation saw… a. That the gospel of the uncircumcised had been committed to Paul just as the gospel of the circumcised was to Peter (Galatians 2:7-8) b. That James, Cephas, and John perceived the grace given to Paul …they extended the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas (Galatians 2:9)
3. They asked only that the poor be remembered, something Paul was very eager to do (Galatians 2:10)

II. THE AT ANTIOCH (Galatians 2:11-21)

A. PETER’S (Galatians 2:11-13)

1. Paul had to withstand Peter to the face, because he would not eat with Gentiles when those from James came to Antioch (Galatians 2:11-12)
2. Peter’s example of hypocrisy influenced other Jews, even Barnabas (Galatians 2:13)

B. PAUL’S REBUKE (Galatians 2:14-21)1. Peter’s hypocrisy (Galatians 2:14) a. He himself, though Jewish, lived as a Gentile b. Yet he was compelling Gentiles to live as Jews 2. A summary of Paul’s rebuke (Galatians 2:15-21) a. Jewish Christians realize that they are justified by faith in Christ, not by the works of the law by which no flesh can be justified (Galatians 2:15-16) b. If I seek to be justified by Christ through a means which cannot justify, isn’t that making Christ a minister of sin? (Galatians 2:17) c. If I rebuild that which cannot justify and has been destroyed (i.e., the law), won’t I become a transgressor again? (Galatians 2:18) d. Through the law, I have died to the law, having been crucified with Christ; Christ now lives in me and the life I now live to God is a life of faith in the Son of God (Galatians 2:19-20) e. If righteousness comes through the law, Christ died in vain, and the grace of God has been set aside (Galatians 2:21)

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. What are the main points of this chapter?

• The meeting at Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-10)
• The confrontation at Antioch (Galatians 2:11-21)

2. How long was it before Paul returned to Jerusalem? Who went with him? (Galatians 2:1)

• Fourteen years
• Barnabas and Titus 3) What prompted him to go? What did he do there? (Galatians 2:2)
• A revelation
• Communicated to those of reputation the gospel he had preached among the Gentiles

4. What did some who were secretly brought in to this meeting try to get Paul to do? Did Paul submit to their command? (Galatians 2:3-5)

• To have Titus circumcised
• No

5. How do you reconcile Paul’s refusal to circumcise Titus with the fact that Paul later had Timothy circumcised? (cf. Acts 16:1-3)

• Circumcision of a Jewish Christian as a matter of expediency was permissible; but circumcision imposed upon a Gentile as an element necessary for salvation was not!

6. When did those who “seemed to be something” add to Paul? (Galatians 2:6)

• Nothing

7. What two things prompted them to extend the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas? (Galatians 2:7-9)

• When they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcised had been committed to Paul, just as the gospel to the circumcised had been committed to Peter
• When James, Cephas, and John perceived the grace that had been given to Paul

8. What was the only thing they asked of Paul? (Galatians 2:10)

• To remember the poor

9. When Peter came to Antioch, why did Paul find it necessary to withstand him to his face? (Galatians 2:11-12)

• Because he was willing to eat with Gentiles at first, but when certain men from James came, he withdrew himself out of fear

10. Who else was carried away by Peter’s hypocrisy? (Galatians 2:13)

• The rest of the Jews, including Barnabas

11. Briefly describe Paul’s main argument as found in verse 16.

• One is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Christ

12. How did Paul live his life, once he had died to the law? (Galatians 2:19-20)

• Having been crucified with Christ, he lives by faith in the Son of God who loved Him and gave Himself for him

13. If righteousness can come through the law, what does that say about the death of Christ? (Galatians 2:21)

• It was in vain

Questions by E.M. Zerr On Galatians 21. How long until Paul went up to Jerusalem? 2. Who accompanied him? 3. What caused him to go there this time? 4. Tell what he communicated to them. 5. How did this gospel differ from another? 6. Did he do this preaching generally? 7. For what reason did he take this plan? 8. State the nationality of Titus. 9. What did some try to force on him and Paul? 10. Did they succeed? 11. How had these false brethren been brought in? 12. For what purpose had they been brought in ? 13. What did they hope to accomplish ? 14. How long did Paul give them consideration? 15. Why did he so conduct himself? 16. How would circumcision have affected the Gospel 17. God doth not accept what? 18. Did the pretenders add anything to Paul ? 19. Define the two “gospels” in verse seven. 20. Who are the circumcision and uncircumcision? 21. What men received special mention? 22. State what they had perceived in Paul. 23. How did they express their attitude? 24. Who are meant by the heathen? 25. Tor what work was this action taken? 26. What obligation did they both assume? 27. Who withstood Peter at Antioch? 28. On what account did he accuse him? 29. With whom did Peter previously eat? 30. Would this have been wrong? 31. What caused him to change his conduct? 32. Tell what it was he feared. 33. How far did his influence extend in this matter? 34. By what word does Paul designate the situation? 35. What did he observe about their walk? 36. After whose manner had Peter lived? 37. And yet, what did he require of the Gentiles? 38. Could any be justified by works of the law? 39. By what must it be accomplished ? 40. What part of the law is under notice now ? 41. What did natural Jews understand about this? 42. State what belief had opened this truth to them. 43. Might professed Christians be found sinners? 44. Turning to what would do this? 45. Would this make Christ minister of the law? 46. How would such departure affect Paul’ s work? 47. Through what document is Paul dead to the law ? 48. State how he could be crucified with Christ. 49. By what does he now live? 50. What would imply death of Christ to be in vain?

Galatians 2:1

Galatians 2:1. Fourteen years after is dated from the same event as “after three years” in chapter 1:18, namely, his conversion. In Acts 15:2 where this same trip to Jerusalem is recorded, it says that “certain other of them” went with Paul and Barnabas. In our present verse we are told that the “other” person was Titus.

Galatians 2:2

Galatians 2:2. The English word revelation always comes from the same Greek word, and any special part of the lexicon definition that is to be applied must be determined by the connection in any given case. However, its general definition is proper in the present verse, namely, the one word “instruction.” So the verse means that Paul was instructed to go up to Jerusalem, hence his move was not merely from a personal desire. That Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles. This does not imply that Paul preached one Gospel to the Gentiles and a different one to the Jews. No, it is a declaration that he always preached the same one wherever he went, which is what he teaches in chapter 1:6-9.

The part of this same Gospel that was confused in the minds of the Jewish brethren was that which admits the Gentiles to all the benefits of salvation without requiring them to accept circumcision. (See Acts 15:1.) Paul knew that the “rank and file” of the Jewish Christians were so perplexed over this subject that he would have difficulty in convincing them if he approached them as a group, hence his plan was first to present the matter to a few of the more able thinkers. The original foi reputation is defined by Thayer, “to seem, be accounted, reputed,” and he explains it to denote, “those who are reputed to be somewhat of importance, and therefore have influence.” Lest . . . in vain. If the Jewish Christians were to continue in this perverted teaching concerning the Gospel, it would upset the work of Paul among them. To avoid such a result, he used the tactful plan just explained.

Galatians 2:3

Galatians 2:3. Paul’s plan accomplished the desired effect as indicated by this verse. Titus being a Greek, belonged to the Gentile nation, but according to the contention of the Judaizers he should have been circumcised to be saved. The statement is made that he was not compelled to submit to it. Of course no one thought of using physical force to administer the rite on anyone. The word means to constrain, either by force or persuasion, and the latter means was attempted by the false brethren.

Galatians 2:4

Galatians 2:4. Why was Paul’s plan put to the specific test in the case of Titus? This verse answers the question by saying that false brethren had been brought in unawares. The purpose of this movement was to spy out (“plot against”–Thayer) the liberty that all Christians haye in Christ. Even Jewish Christians are not required to be circumcised in order to be saved, but these Judaizers intended to bring them into the bondage of the law of circumcision.

Galatians 2:5

Galatians 2:5. Not for an hour denotes that Paul did not yield to the pressure for a single time. The backing that he had created in verse 2 enabled him successfully to withstand the Judaizers.

Galatians 2:6

Galatians 2:6. Having disposed of the false brethren brought in, Paul gave his attention to the men of the city of Jerusalem; doubtless they were the ones referred to in Acts 15:1. This group might even have included some of the apostles living in Jerusalem who were somewhat confused on the subject at hand. These men seemed (were reputed) to be somewhat (something) on account of their previous standing with God. But that would not have anything to do with whether they were right or wrong in the present controversy. However, out of respect for their reputation, Paul listened to them but was not told anything that he did not know already. That is the meaning of in conference added nothing to me.

Galatians 2:7

Galatians 2:7. The brethren living in Jerusalem, though previously mixed up on the subject of circumcision, seemed to be more fairminded than the false brethren who had been imported in verse 4. When they saw the truth of the situation, they sided in with Paul and Peter. Gospel of the uncircumcision. This is a brief way of saying that the Gospel does not require circumcision of the Gentiles, and that Paul was to be especially commissioned to preach to them. Gospel of the circumcision means that the Jews could still observe the rite of circumcision as a national mark, while depending solely on the Gospel of Christ for salvation.

Galatians 2:8

Galatians 2:8. The pronoun he refers to the Lord. This explanatory verse is intended merely to state that the Lord showed no partiality in His qualifying Peter and Paul for the apostleship.

Galatians 2:9

Galatians 2:9. Pillars is from STULOS, and Thayer defines it by the same word that is used in the text. He then explains it to mean, “persons to whose eminence and strength the stability and authority of any institution or organization are due.” Robinson defines it, “a column, pillar,” and explains it to mean, “any firm support; for example, persons of authority and influence in the church.” Paul ascribes this character to James (the Lord’s brother), Cephas (Peter) and John (brother of James). There is nothing to indicate that any of the group were unfavorable toward the work of Paul and Barnabas, but the three men are named because of their high standing, and because they were the ones who acted in this outward expression of endorsement. Right hands. The two words are from the Greek word DEXIOS.

Robinson defines it, “right, on the right side or hand, opposite the left,” hence it does not mean right as the opposite to wrong. Greenfield explains it at this place, “to give the right hand to any one, as a pledge of sincerity in one’s promises.” The reason the right hand is used is because most men are right-handed by nature, and hence any gesture that calls for the joining of hands would naturally use the right hand. Thayer explains this feature of the subject as follow: “Property of that hand which is wont [accustomed] to take hold of as well as to point out.” The fact that special attention is called to certain persons who were left-handed (Judges 3:15 Judges 20:16), shows it is the natural rule to use the right hand. Fellowship is from and means partnership or joint interest in something. This act of the three “pillars” was to indicate to Paul and Barnabas that they were interested in the work about to be done, and would give it their full moral support. Heathen is from ETHNOS, and in the King James Version it is rendered by heathen 5 times, Gentiles 93, nation 64, people 2. As it is used in this verse, it means the Gentiles, and the term circumcision means the Jews. We know this does not mean that each one was restricted to the class designated, for Paul preached to all classes. But their assignment as a whole was to be as indicated.

Galatians 2:10

Galatians 2:10. The poor were the Christians in Judea, most of whom were Jews. The verse means that while Paul and Barnabas were especially assigned the preaching among the Gentiles in other provinces, they should not forget the poor saints in Judea though they were Jews. Paul was already thus disposed toward them, so that complete harmony existed between them.

Galatians 2:11

Galatians 2:11. When Peter was come to Antioch. It is questioned by some whether this was before or after the events of Acts 15. The information as to dates is not clear enough to decide the point definitely. The reason for such a suggestion ( that it might have been before) is to clear Peter of the charge of inconsistency in view of his stand on the issue at hand in that meeting in Jerusalem. But that is not called for, since it is not claimed that, an inspired man is not capable of personal error in conduct.

Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 9:27 shows that it is possible for an old soldier of the cross, an inspired apostle and preacher of the Gospel, to commit a sin so grievous as to cause him to be rejected by the Lord. From these considerations it should not affect our confidence in Peter’s inspired teaching, to see him here give way to human weakness. Paul being also an inspired man was able to give the proper teaching on the situation. Hence his statement that Peter was to be blamed is an inspired one, and states the truth about the uninspired conduct of the other apostle. Incidentally it disproves all claim that Peter possessed any superiority over Paul or any of the other apostles as the Romanists teach.

Galatians 2:12

Galatians 2:12. Certain came from James. There is no definite information available as to whether these men were sent by James, or that Peter was merely intimidated by the fact that they came from the vicinity of that outstanding man, and would doubtless carry a report back to him of what they saw at Antioch. Did eat with the Gentiles. On the significance of eating with others, see the comments at 1 Corinthians 5:11. There was nothing actually wrong in eating with Gentiles, and Peter had done so before (Acts 11:3); but his feeling for what he imagined was James’ exclusiveness on the matter, induced him to act in this inconsistent manner.

Galatians 2:13

Galatians 2:13. Dissembled . . . with are from the Greek word , which Thayer defines, “to dissemble with.” Robinson defines it, “to play the hypocrite with any one, to dissemble with.” Dissimulation has the same meaning, but being a noun it is from , defined by Thayer at this place, “dissimulation, hypocrisy,” and Robinson defines it in the same way. Hence we have the sad information that Peter acted the part of a hypocrite; also that his example caused Barnabas and the other Jews to be carried away (over influenced) with the unscriptural procedure. But the reader should again see the comments at verse 11 on the difference between Peter’s authority as an inspired apostle, and the correctness or incorrectness of his personal conduct.

Galatians 2:14

Galatians 2:14. Walked not uprightly means improper conduct whether it concerns the moral or the legal laws. According . . . the Gospel shows these people were going wrong as measured by that high standard. Before them all. Peter was the leader in the defection, but the others were also to blame for allowing themselves to be misled; therefore it was proper to give the chastisement publicity. (This principle is taught in 1 Timothy 5:20.) Livest after the manner of the Gentiles. There were certain customs that both Jews and Gentiles observed as a manner of life socially, which were not a part of their religion.

With reference to such, neither was required to cease the observance. Nor was a Jew or Gentile required to take up the customs of the other, although he might do so if he wished. Paul did so in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21, and Peter had been doing that in our present case. His inconsistency was shown in his association (socially) with the Gentiles voluntarily for a while, then withdrawing from them unless they conformed (which would not have been voluntarily) to the practices of the Jews. An unfortunate feature of this performance of Peter was the leaving an impression that the Gentiles would be required to go farther than the social customs of the Jews to be saved, and that they also must conform to the ordinances of the Mosaic law to be saved, as was done in the case of Act 15:1.

Galatians 2:15

Galatians 2:15. The Jews had always considered the Gentiles to be sinners as a class, and so inferior as a class that the term “dogs” even was applied to them (Matthew 15:27-27). In this verse Paul is not ignoring the field of history, nor is he denying all claims of superiority for the Jews. However, he reminds Peter that such a rating is from a national standpoint and not due to any moral or personal goodness that they possessed. (He had refuted such an idea in Romans 3:9-18.) That is why he makes the statement that they were Jews by nature.

Galatians 2:16

Galatians 2:16. The time was past when the national standing of the Jews meant anything to them religiously. No man (whether Jew or Gentile) could be justified or saved by the works of the law. That system had been “nailed to the cross” (Colossians 2:14), and the observance of the social customs was voluntary only, and could not be forced upon any person of either nation. But all justification before God must be obtained through faith in Christ–by a working faith in Him, and not by the works of the law. use of the word, which is that the things of a worldly life had been put to death by the conversion of Paul to Christ. The same thought is set forth in Romans 8:13 and Colossians 3:5, where the apostle commands us to mortify (put to death) the deeds of the flesh.

Paul was induced to do this by his faith in Christ. Being crucified with Christ shows some kind of association with Him in connection with sin. That relation may well be expressed by saying that Christ died for sin and Paul died (figuratively) to sin. After his life of sin was put to death through Christ, his spiritual being was enabled to live through Him. (See Romans 6:8-12.) Live in the flesh denotes that his life of faith is accomplished while living in the fleshly body.

Galatians 2:17

Galatians 2:17. We ourselves are found sinners. The last word is used in the sense explained at verse 15. By Jumbling the two nations together (as Peter was doing by his inconsistent conduct), it would cause the Jews to be found sinners, and that, too, right while professing to expect justification through Christ. Such a procedure would imply that Christ had become a minister of sin. Paul puts the challenge to Peter in the form of a question, but interposes his own negative answer by the words God forbid, which means “by no means.”

Galatians 2:18

Galatians 2:18. Such inconsistent conduct would be like overthrowing a building because it “had served its purpose,” then immediately trying to rebuild it with the ruins of the “wrecked” structure. Paul closes this chastisement of the apostle Peter with the severe charge that his inconsistency made him a transgressor.

Galatians 2:19

Galatians 2:19. Through the law am dead to the law. The law itself predicted its own end, to be replaced by the law of another prophet who was to be raised up from among the Jews. (See Deuteronomy 18:18-20.) Hence a Christian was to be regarded dead to the law (for religious purposes), that he might live unto God through Christ.

Galatians 2:20

Galatians 2:20. To be crucified means to be put to death, and whether it is figurative or literal depends on how sidered the Gentiles to be sinners as a the word is used. Of course we know class, and so inferior as a class that it is figurative in this case since Paul the term “dogs” even was applied to is living and active in his service to them (Matthew 15:26-27). In this Christ. Chapter 6:14 shows a practical use of the word, which is that the things of a worldly life had been put to death by the conversion of Paul to Christ. The same thought is set forth in Romans 8:13 and Colossians 3:5, where the apostle commands us to mortify (put to death) the deeds of the flesh.

Paul was induced to do this by his faith in Christ. Being crucified with Christ shows some kind of association with Him in connection with sin. That relation may well be expressed by saying that Christ died for sin and Paul died (figuratively) to sin. After his life of sin was put to death through Christ, his spiritual being was enabled to live through Him. (See Romans 6:8-12.) Live in the flesh denotes that his life of faith is accomplished while living in the fleshly body.

Galatians 2:21

Galatians 2:21. To frustrate means to hinder or set aside. In accepting the law of Christ, Paul did not show any disrespect for God’s grace that was given to previous dispensations, but rather he was carrying out the very things that were divinely intended in those ages. (See the comments on verse 19.)