Galatians 2:1

It should seem, by the account Paul gives of himself in this chapter, that, from the very first preaching and planting of Christianity, there was a difference of apprehension between those Christians who had first been Jews and those who had first been Gentiles. Many of those who had first been Jews retained a regard to the ceremonial law, and strove to keep up the reputation of that; but those who had first been Gentiles had no regard to the law of Moses, but took pure Christianity as perfective of natural religion, and resolved to adhere to that. Peter was the apostle to them; and the ceremonial law, though dead with Christ, yet not being as yet buried, he connived at the respect kept up for it. But Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles; and, though he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, yet he adhered to pure Christianity. Now in this chapter he tells us what passed between him and the other apostles, and particularly between him and Peter hereupon.

In these verses he informs us of another journey which he took to Jerusalem, and of what passed between him and the other apostles there, Gal 2:1-10. Here he acquaints us,

I. With some circumstances relating to this his journey thither. As particularly, 1. With the time of it: that it was not till fourteen years after the former (mentioned Gal 1:18), or, as others choose to understand it, from his conversion, or from the death of Christ. It was an instance of the great goodness of God that so useful a person was for so many years preserved in his work. And it was some evidence that he had no dependence upon the other apostles, but had an equal authority with them, that he had been so long absent from them, and was all the while employed in preaching and propagating pure Christianity, without being called into question by them for it, which it may be thought he would have been, had he been inferior to them, and his doctrine disapproved by them. 2. With his companions in it: he went up with Barnabas, and took with him Titus also. If the journey here spoken of was the same with that recorded Acts 15 (as many think), then we have a plain reason why Barnabas went along with him; for he was chosen by the Christians at Antioch to be his companion and associate in the affair he went about. But, as it does not appear that Titus was put into the same commission with him, so the chief reason of his taking him along with him seems to have been to let those at Jerusalem see that he was neither ashamed nor afraid to own the doctrine which he had constantly preached; for though Titus had now become not only a convert to the Christian faith, but a preacher of it too, yet he was by birth a Gentile and uncircumcised, and therefore, by making him his companion, it appeared that their doctrine and practice were of a piece, and that as he had preached the non-necessity of circumcision, and observing the law of Moses, so he was ready to own and converse with those who were uncircumcised. 3. With the reason of it, which was a divine revelation he had concerning it: he went up be revelation; not of his own head, much less as being summoned to appear there, but by special order and direction from Heaven. It was a privilege with which this apostle was often favoured to be under a special divine direction in his motions and undertakings; and, though this is what we have no reason to expect, yet it should teach us, in every thing of moment we go about, to endeavour, as far as we are capable, to see our way made plain before us, and to commit ourselves to the guidance of Providence.

II. He gives us an account of his behaviour while he was at Jerusalem, which was such as made it appear that he was not in the least inferior to the other apostles, but that both his authority and qualifications were every way equal to theirs. He particularly acquaints us,

1. That he there communicated the gospel to them, which he preached among the Gentiles, but privately, etc. Here we may observe both the faithfulness and prudence of our great apostle. (1.) His faithfulness in giving them a free and fair account of the doctrine which he had all along preached among the Gentiles, and was still resolved to preach - that of pure Christianity, free from all mixtures of Judaism. This he knew was a doctrine that would be ungrateful to many there, and yet he was not afraid to own it, but in a free and friendly manner lays it open before them and leaves them to judge whether or no it was not the true gospel of Christ. And yet, (2.) He uses prudence and caution herein, for fear of giving offence. He chooses rather to do it in a more private than in a public way, and to those that were of reputation, that is, to the apostles themselves, or to the chief among the Jewish Christians, rather than more openly and promiscuously to all, because, when he came to Jerusalem, there were multitudes that believed, and yet continued zealous for the law, Act 21:20. And the reason of this his caution was lest he should run, or had run, in vain, lest he should stir up opposition against himself and thereby either the success of his past labours should be lessened, or his future usefulness be obstructed; for nothing more hinders the progress of the gospel than differences of opinion about the doctrines of it, especially when they occasion quarrels and contentions among the professors of it, as they too usually do. It was enough to his purpose to have his doctrine owned by those who were of greatest authority, whether it was approved by others or not. And therefore, to avoid offence, he judges it safest to communicate it privately to them, and not in public to the whole church. This conduct of the apostle may teach all, and especially ministers, how much need they have of prudence, and how careful they should be to use it upon all occasions, as far as is consistent with their faithfulness.

2. That in his practice he firmly adhered to the doctrine which he had preached. Paul was a man of resolution, and would adhere to his principles; and therefore, though he had Titus with him, who was a Greek, yet he would not suffer him to be circumcised, because he would not betray the doctrine of Christ, as he had preached it to the Gentiles. It does not appear that the apostles at all insisted upon this; for, though they connived at the use of circumcision among the Jewish converts, yet they were not for imposing it upon the Gentiles. But there were others who did, whom the apostle here calls false brethren, and concerning whom he informs us that they were unawares brought in, that is, into the church, or into their company, and that they came only to spy out their liberty which they had in Christ Jesus, or to see whether Paul would stand up in defence of that freedom from the ceremonial law which he had taught as the doctrine of the gospel, and represented as the privilege of those who embraced the Christian religion. Their design herein was to bring them into bondage, which they would have effected could they have gained the point they aimed at; for, had they prevailed with Paul and the other apostles to have circumcised Titus, they would easily have imposed circumcision upon other Gentiles, and so have brought them under the bondage of the law of Moses. But Paul, seeing their design, would by no means yield to them; he would not give place by subjection, no, not for an hour, not in this one single instance; and the reason of it was that the truth of the gospel might continue with them - that the Gentile Christians, and particularly the Galatians, might have it preserved to them pure and entire, and not corrupted with the mixtures of Judaism, as it would have been had he yielded in this matter. Circumcision was at that time a thing indifferent, and what in some cases might be complied with without sin; and accordingly we find even Paul himself sometimes giving way to it, as in the case of Timothy, Act 16:3. But when it is insisted on as necessary, and his consenting to it, though only in a single instance, is likely to be improved as giving countenance to such an imposition, he has too great a concern for the purity and liberty of the gospel, to submit to it; he would not yield to those who were for the Mosaic rites and ceremonies, but would stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, which conduct of his may give us occasion to observe that what under some circumstances may lawfully be complied with, yet, when that cannot be done without betraying the truth, or giving up the liberty, of the gospel, it ought to be refused.

3. That, though he conversed with the other apostles, yet he did not receive any addition to his knowledge or authority from them, Gal 2:6. By those who seemed to be somewhat he means the other apostles, particularly James, Peter, and John, whom he afterwards mentions by name, Gal 2:9. And concerning these he grants that they were deservedly had in reputation by all, that they were looked upon (and justly too) as pillars of the church, who were set not only for its ornament, but for its support, and that on some accounts they might seem to have the advantage of him, in that they had seen Christ in the flesh, which he had not, and were apostles before him, yea, even while he continued a persecutor. But yet, whatever they were, it was no matter to him. This was no prejudice to his being equally an apostle with them; for God does not accept the persons of men on the account of any such outward advantages. As he had called them to this office, so he was at liberty to qualify others for it, and to employ them in it. And it was evident in this case that he had done so; for in conference they added nothing to him, they told him nothing but what he before knew by revelation, nor could they except against the doctrine which he communicated to them, whence it appeared that he was not at all inferior to them, but was as much called and qualified to be an apostle as they themselves were.

4. That the issue of this conversation was that the other apostles were fully convinced of his divine mission and authority, and accordingly acknowledged him as their fellow-apostle, Gal 2:7-10. They were not only satisfied with his doctrine, but they saw a divine power attending him, both in preaching it and in working miracles for the confirmation of it: that he who wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in him towards the Gentiles. And hence they justly concluded that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to Paul, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter. And therefore, perceiving the grace that was given to him (that he was designed to the honour and office of an apostle as well as themselves) they gave unto him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, a symbol whereby they acknowledged their equality with them, and agreed that these should go to the heathen, while they continued to preach to the circumcision, as judging it most agreeable to the mind of Christ, and most conducive to the interest of Christianity, so to divide their work. And thus this meeting ended in an entire harmony and agreement; they approved both Paul's doctrine and conduct, they were fully satisfied in him, heartily embraced him as an apostle of Christ, and had nothing further to add, only that they would remember the poor, which of his own accord he was very forward to do. The Christians of Judea were at that time labouring under great wants and difficulties; and the apostles, out of their compassion to them and concern for them, recommend their case to Paul, that he should use his interest with the Gentile churches to procure a supply for them. This was a reasonable request; for, if the Gentiles were made partakers of their spiritual things, it was their duty to minister to them in carnal things, as Rom 15:27. And he very readily falls in with it, whereby he showed his charitable and catholic disposition, how ready he was to own the Jewish converts as brethren, though many of them could scarcely allow the like favour to the converted Gentiles, and that mere difference of opinion was no reason with him why he should not endeavour to relieve and help them. Herein he has given us an excellent pattern of Christian charity, and has taught us that we should by no means confine it to those who are just of the same sentiments with us, but be ready to extend it to all whom we have reason to look upon as the disciples of Christ.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Gal_2:1

I went up to Jerusalem.

The journey to Jerusalem

I. Which? The third (Act_15:2), the first being that of the previous chapter (Act_9:26), the second that of Act_11:30, both the purpose and time of which forbid its being confounded with them. Both Gal_2:1-21. and Act_15:1-41. agree in time, geography, persons, intent, and subsequent events.

II. When? Fourteen years after, when by experiences, trials, and achievements, Paul had earned the right to take the position he had assumed. Let young Christians learn from this to wait until experience and service give them the right to assert their equality with their elders.

III. What for? To fight and win the battle of Christian liberty, equality, and fraternity.

IV. With whom? Titus, a representative of the cause he was fighting; Barnabas, an unexceptionable witness of the justice of his cause.

The reason of the visit

Not to submit, as to a supreme tribunal, the question as to whether he might be permitted to go on receiving uncircumcised Gentiles into the Church: the idea of a human hierarchy to regulate the faith of some by that of others was altogether alien to his spirit. The fact is he had no fear whatever of being gainsaid by the heads of the mother Church. Had it been otherwise he would certainly not have taken a course which in such a case could not but make the rupture open and the evil incurable. The event proved that Paul was not mistaken in the hope that his colleagues would stand by him; and by their timely help Pauls fear was removed that the labour he had spent in founding a truly universal Church might be lost in the creation of two rival Churches. (E. Reuss, D. D.)

Barnabas and Paul

Barnabas may be said, in a certain sense, to have made Paul what he afterwards became. He brought him out of obscurity. He put him in the forefront, though he must have been well aware that he was likely to become more distinguished and powerful than himself. This is that peculiar mark of a generous disposition, the absence of anxiety for personal credit, the readiness for friendly combination in useful undertakings without any selfish end in view. There are some men who have no heart for any enterprise unless they can have the first place in it. This is perhaps a prevalent temptation with most energetic characters. But this habit of mind is not according to Christ (Mat_20:27), and Barnabas is a good example to show us how such temptation can be overcome. (Dean Howson.)

A memorable journey

I. The time when it was undertaken. Fourteen years after I went up to Jerusalem.

II. The companions of his journey. Barnabas was appointed to go to Jerusalem with Paul, and the latter took with him Titus also. Christian companionship should therefore include--

1. Unity of purpose in the chief aims of life. There may be differences as to inferior things, but in regard to the highest endeavours of the heart and life there should be unity.

2. Christian companionship ought to be the friendship of men governed by the same spirit, and that spirit should be the Spirit of Christ.

3. Christian companionship should be formed with a view to mutual edification.

III. The reason for Pauls journey--And I went up by revelation. In Act_15:1-41. there is given the history of the events which apparently led to this journey being undertaken. Lesson: In the life of every good man there are epochs which show the progress of Gods plan in reference to him. (R. Nicholls.)

The council of Jerusalem

But now, finally, we are confronted with the question, What may we learn from this whole subject that may be of service in our modern Church life? To this I answer, that for one thing we are taught to be on our guard against introducing division into Churches which are zealously doing Gods work. Never, surely, were men more intent on carrying forward the triumphs of the gospel than these Christians at Antioch. Yet strangers from Jerusalem, more anxious about a matter of ritual observance than for spiritual progress, did not hesitate to interrupt their activity and introduce controversy among them by raising the question of circumcision. It was an unjustifiable, if not also a malicious, proceeding. Missionary work was for the time suspended; and Paul and Barnabas, who might have been earnestly labouring in some new field, were sent to Jerusalem, all because these Judaizers insisted on the essential importance of that which was really indifferent. But how often have similar things been done in our existing Churches? A foolish question has been started by some one-ideaed enthusiast, who has pertinaciously kept it before the minds of the brethren, and those who should have presented an unbroken phalanx to the enemies of religion have turned their weapons against each other. Let us set our faces against all discussion upon such microscopic matters as have no essential importance. The progress of the Church as a whole is infinitely more to be considered than the airing of the pet crotchet of any individual, or even the advancement of that which we may reckon the best form of worship. Nor does this lesson hold only in the intercourse between members of the same Church or congregation. It is of force also in the dealings of denominations with each other. Another thing which we ought to learn from this history is, that our Christian liberty should be regulated by love. We may have a right to do many things which yet, in present circumstances, and out of regard to our brethren, we should not do. Finally, we may learn from this whole narrative to be very zealous for the free grace of the gospel. Paul would not allow that anything was necessary to salvation but faith in Christ. (W. M. Taylor.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal 2:1. Then fourteen years after my conversion: I went up again to Jerusalem — This seems to be the journey mentioned Acts 15., several passages here referring to that great council, wherein all the apostles showed that they were of the same judgment with him. From the history which the apostle gives of himself to the Galatians in the preceding chapter, it appears that from the time of his conversion, to his coming with Barnabas from Tarsus to Antioch, he had no opportunity of conversing with the apostles in a body, consequently in that period he was not made an apostle by them. And by relating in a similar way, in this chapter, what happened when he went up from Antioch to Jerusalem, fourteen years after his conversion, in company with Barnabas, he proves to them that he was an apostle before he had that meeting with the apostles in a body; for at that time, instead of receiving the gospel from the apostles, he communicated to them the gospel, or doctrine, which he preached among the idolatrous Gentiles: not because he acknowledged them his superiors, or was in any doubt about the truth of his doctrine, but lest it might have been suspected that his doctrine was disclaimed by the apostles, which would have marred his success among the Gentiles. And took Titus with me also — Though he was uncircumcised, that I might therein show my Christian liberty, and assert that of my Gentile brethren, against those who are so zealous in their attempts to invade it. “This is the earliest mention that we meet with of Titus, for he is no where mentioned by St. Luke in the Acts; and what we read of him in the second epistle to the Corinthians, (2Co 2:13; 2Co 7:6; 2Co 7:14; 2Co 8:6,) as well as in that to Timothy, (2Ti 4:10,) was later by some years. He is here said to have been a Greek, (Gal 2:3,) and being born of Gentile parents, was not circumcised; but where or when he was converted is uncertain; only we may conclude he was converted by Paul, from the title he gives him of his own son after the common faith, Tit 1:4; and as he now took Titus with him from Antioch to Jerusalem, so he employed him afterward on several occasions, and appears to have regarded him with great affection and endearment.” — Doddridge.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

His Authority recognised by the Apostles at Jerusalem and maintained in his Conflict with St. Peter

1-10. It was not until upon the occasion of a subsequent visit to Jerusalem fourteen years later that St. Paul had laid his gospel before the chief authorities there, and they had approved of all that he had done and taught.

Paraphrase. '(1) It was fourteen years before I again visited Jerusalem, in company with Barnabas and Titus. (2) It was an impulse from the Spirit which led me to go and explain my teaching to the leaders there, that I might see whether they approved it. (3) That they did so was shown by the fact that they did not demand the circumcision of my companion, Titus, Gentile though he was. (4) Some, no doubt, desired it, but on account of the Judaisers, who were trying to bind the burdens of the Law upon us, (5) I utterly refused, because by allowing it I should have compromised the truth of the gospel. (6) But the most influential leaders of the Jerusalem Church—let their authority be what it may, that does not concern the truth or divine approval of my teaching—had no desire to correct or supplement my views, (7) but recognised that I had my sphere of labour among the Gentiles as truly as Peter had his among the Jews, (8) and that each was successful in his own sphere. (9) Not only so, but these leaders, James, Peter, and John, gave us the right hand of fellowship in token of their approval and sympathy, and bade us God-speed in our foreign mission, while they themselves sought to evangelise the Jews, (10) only asking us to send contributions for the poor at Jerusalem, which indeed we were eager to do.'

1. Fourteen years after] i.e. after his conversion (Gal_1:16), from which the various subsequent events are dated: cp. Gal_1:16, Gal_1:18, Gal_1:21. Again] There is much difference of opinion as to which of St. Paul's visits to Jerusalem, as recorded in the Acts, he here refers. Many scholars hold that this visit corresponds to that recorded in Acts 15 at the close of the First Missionary Journey. Others, especially Ramsay, identify this visit with that recorded in Act_11:27-30 and Act_12:25.

Barnabas was his companion on both occasions. Certainly that mentioned in Act_11:27-30;—his second visit—was caused by a revelation—that to Agabus—but the third visit (Acts 15), the direct occasion of which was about the Mosaic Law, seems, from what follows, the one to which the Apostle alludes. Barnabas] cp. Act_4:36-37; Act_11:22; Act_13:2. Titus] was perhaps the most trusted of all St. Paul's companions and emissaries. When any specially delicate work had to be done requiring experience and tact, Titus was chosen for the purpose: cp. 2Co_7:6; 2Co_8:6, 2Co_8:17-18, and notes there. It is remarkable that his name is never mentioned in Acts.

2. By revelation] in response to a prophetic inspiration. Them.. of reputation] cp. Gal_2:9.

Last, etc.] that it might be evident that even in their view he was not labouring in vain.

3. But neither (RV 'not even') Titus.. was compelled] This was a crucial instance of the application of the principle at stake. A demand was made by the rigid Judaists that Titus should be circumcised. The demand raised the whole question of the obligation of the Gentiles to observe the Jewish Law, and St. Paul peremptorily refused it. There is an apparent inconsistency between the Apostle's rejection of the demand in this case and his consent to the circumcision of Timothy at Lystra (Act_16:3) 'because of the Jews which were in these parts.' The inconsistency, however, is only apparent. In the case of Titus St. Paul was opposing the principle that observance of the Jewish Law (and circumcision as the sign of it) was necessary to salvation. This was the doctrine of the Jewish-Christian party, and St. Paul gave no place to them, 'no, not for an hour.' In the case of Timothy there was no such principle at stake. There were no Jewish Christians in question, only Jews, who evidently thought that Timothy, being of Jewish nationality on his mother's side, should bear the. outward sign of his nationality. As the matter had only a racial, not a religious, significance, St. Paul circumcised Timothy on grounds of expediency. We may compare his own personal attitude in similar matters (Act_18:18; Act_20:16; Act_21:23) as showing that he continued to practise some of the Jewish customs, even in religious observances, though he did not regard them as necessary to salvation, or think of imposing them upon others. It is to be remembered also that while Timothy was half a Jew, Titus was a pure. Gentile, and the question at issue involved the Christian liberty of the Gentiles.

4. Liberty] i.e. from the requirements of the Mosaic Law.

5. We maintained our position firmly in order to preserve for you (and for all like you) the distinctive truth of the gospel, viz. that faith in Christ is the one condition of salvation.

6. But of those, etc.] RV 'But from those who were reputed to be somewhat'; those to whom was accorded the greatest influence.

Maketh no matter] does not affect the merits of my claim. In conference added (RV 'imparted') nothing] did not propose any correction or addition to my teaching.

7. The reference is not to two different doctrines, but to two different spheres of the Gospel's operation.

8. God gave to me success in my work, as He had given to Peter success in his.

10. Only they would] they made this one stipulation. The poor] cp. Act_11:29-30; Act_24:17; 1Co_16:3. I also was forward] RV 'zealous'; I was as eager to do this as they were to have me.

11-16. Not only was St. Paul's independence of the Twelve established by the circumstances already mentioned, but on one memorable occasion he had felt obliged to rebuke Peter for inconsistent action (thereby asserting his own independent authority), and at the same time to remind him that it was by faith they themselves had been saved.

Paraphrase. '(11) On another occasion, at Antioch, I similarly maintained my independence of the Judæan Apostles, for I testified against Peter's unworthy action there to his face. (12) When he came at first among the brethren there he joined freely in the love-feasts with the Gentile converts; but on the arrival of some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem he dissociated himself from the Gentiles owing to a weak dread of criticism. (13) Other Jews, including even Barnabas, were led away by his example. (14) In view of this inconsistency, I publicly challenged Peter thus: If hitherto you have been content to associate freely with the Gentiles and conform to their way of life, why do you now keep aloof as if these brethren ought to adopt the Mosaic Law before you can admit them to your company? (15) You and I, Jews as we are, and not Gentile outcasts, (16) know from our own experience that it is by faith in Christ that men are saved, and not by works of Law.'

11. Peter] RV 'Cephas.' To Antioch] Those who hold that the previous passage (Gal_2:1-10) refers to St. Paul's second visit to Jerusalem (Act_11:29-30), of course place this visit of Peter to Antioch after St. Paul's return there, i.e. between Act_12:25 and Act_13:1. Those who take Gal_1:1-10 as referring to the Apostle's third visit (Acts 15), for the most part date this occurrence after the council of Jerusalem, i.e. during the interval mentioned in Act_15:35 though some hold that St. Paul in this passage is not mentioning a later instance of his independence, but merely another illustration of it which was earlier in time than that mentioned in Gal_2:1-10.

Because he was to be blamed] RV 'because he stood condemned,' i.e. by the very inconsistency of his acts.

12. He did not eat with the Gentiles] He would thus be defiled according to the Jewish Law. Withdrew] i.e. refused any longer to sit with the Gentile Christians at the love-feasts, and perhaps also in their houses. Peter had evidently forgotten the lesson of his vision at Joppa (Act_10:9-16), and if this action of his was done after the decision of the council at Jerusalem (Act_15:14-21), his conduct is placed in a still more unfavourable light.

13. Barnabas also] RV 'even Barnabas,' whom the Galatians knew as fellow-missionary with St. Paul.

15. Sinners of the Gentiles] St. Paul is here adopting for argument's sake the rigid Jew's contemptuous description of the Gentiles.

16. Even we] i.e. with all our Jewish privileges we are no better than the Gentiles we despise, but must equally with them seek salvation by faith in Christ.

17-21. St. Paul seems here quite imperceptibly to pass from his rebuke to Peter to the broader question of the obligation of the Law and to the impassioned statement of his own living faith.

Paraphrase. '(17) But some one says that in spite of their trust in Christ some have fallen into sin (and therefore require the guidance of the Law). Is Christ then, or the Gospel, the cause of their sin? Whatever conclusion we may draw, that one is manifestly absurd. (18) But whoever goes back to the Law for guidance, after having left it and put his trust in Christ, is the real transgressor. (19) I was led by the Law to know my sin and put my trust in Christ, that I might live unto God; delivered by Him from sin, I was done with the Law—as much so as if I had been dead. (20) Through the power of Christ's Cross I died to my old life; and yet I live in a truer sense than before: rather I should say that it is no longer I who live, it is Christ who lives in me; and if I can speak of living at all, it is in so far as I live by faith in the Son of God, who is the source and support of my life, the indwelling power of a new righteousness. (21) I do not thus make the grace of God of no effect, as I would if I clung to the Law; for if we could be made righteous by the Law, Christ need not have died for our salvation.'

17. But if, etc.] This is a difficult passage. It seems to state an objection of the Judaising party, that faith in Christ is insufficient to keep men from sin. Or possibly it deals with an argument put forth by the Galatians themselves, that their faith in Christ was insufficient to enable them to withstand their temptations, and that adoption of the Law would be a help. In any case St. Paul pushes the argument to its logical conclusion, and shows its absurdity.

God forbid] lit. 'be it not so,' 'far be it'; St. Paul's usual formula for rebutting an argument: cp. Gal_3:21; Rom_3:4, Rom_3:6, Rom_3:31; Rom_6:2, Rom_6:15, etc.

19. Dead] ethically; broke relations with the Law system as by a death. That I might live] I died to the old life and relations in order to live to the new.

20. St. Paul passes from the inability of the Law to the ability of Christ to save him.

Crucified with Christ] He identifies himself with Christ in His death. Christ's death means to him the cessation of the old life of sin as well as of legal justification: cp. Gal_6:14; Rom_6:1-11; 2Co_5:14; Col_3:3. Nevertheless I live] RM 'and it is no longer I that live'; my real life is not this natural life, but the life of faith in union with Christ. By the faith of] RV 'in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God.' St. Paul here enunciates his doctrine of mystic union with Christ. He is so entirely under the influence of Christ that he regards his thoughts and words and deeds as prompted by the Saviour. All that he is he owes to Christ who abides in Him. The spiritual relation between Christ and himself is so intimate that he can only describe it as Christ living in him: cp. Rom_6:1-11.

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. The genuineness of Paul’s gospel acknowledged by the apostles— The Council of Jerusalem, Gal_2:1-10.

How independent Paul’s gospel was of the other apostles he has now shown. His next step is to show that his gospel was fully endorsed by those apostles; a fact conclusive against the troublers at Galatia, who represented him as a false apostle. He proves this by retracing the facts of the Jerusalem Council, with which retracing the reader must carefully compare Luke’s narrative given Act_15:1-35.

1. Fourteen years after—That this visit cannot be identified with Paul’s brief mission to Jerusalem mentioned Act_11:30 we have shown in our note on that verse. Paul does not say that the visit here narrated was his first after that of Gal_1:18. Hence this going up to Jerusalem was, beyond question, the attendance from Antioch to the Council. The time, persons, and business is the same in both narratives. Titus is doubtless included in the certain other of them of Act_15:2, and was taken by Paul, as a young Gentile Christian, to test the question whether he should be required to be circumcised. Gal_2:3. Probably Titus was with Paul at Corinth when writing this epistle.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

In the preceding chapter, St. Paul has been concerned to make clear the position that neither the gospel which he preached nor the commission which he held was derived from the older apostles- the history of the first years of his ministry showed this. The apostle is now addressing himself to a different subject; he wishes to show that his gospel, though not derived from the older apostles, had, however, while recognized as standing on an independent footing, received the sanction of their approval. This being his object, he had no occasion to refer in any way to visits which he may have made to Jerusalem between the one mentioned in Gal_1:18 and the one here referred to. The tenor of his argument, therefore, so far, does not of itself determine whether this visit was either the one mentioned in Act_11:30 Act_12:25, or the one described in Ac 15, or possibly some other not recorded. That, however, it was in reality that of Ac 15 rather than that of Ac 11 Ac 12, hardly admits of a doubt, if we compare the circumstances here related with those which marked the condition of Church affairs at Jerusalem on the two occasions severally as described by St. Luke. The imprisonment of St. Peter and the whole state of distress presented to us in Ac 12 make it well-nigh inconceivable that any such incidents should have then occurred as St. Paul here speaks of; while, on the other hand, the question agitated on the occasion described in Acts 15. corresponds precisely in character with the mutual relations here described as subsisting between St. Paul and the believers of the circumcision with their leaders. What St. Paul here relates fits in very naturally into the circumstances related in Ac 15, though the situation is looked at from different points of view. "I went up again," he says; not, "I went up a second time." (For a more complete discussion of this question, see Conybeare and Howson, vol. 1., appendix on "The Chronology of Galatians 2;" Bishop Lightfoot, additional notes after Gal_2:10; and Dean Howson in "Speaker"s Commentary," New Testament, vol. 3. p. 510.)

The chapter falls into two sections. Of these, viewed in their leading purport, the first (vers. 1-10) exhibits the recognition formally accorded to St. Paul"s gospel and work by the highest authorities of the Church of the circumcision; the second (vers. 11-21) displays in a very stalking light the independence and co-ordinateness of his position when standing face to face with the very chiefest of the apostles. But while these seem to be their leading objects, we find the apostle weaving in, after his manner, trenchant references to other matters relevant to the main purpose of the Epistle, and even enlarging upon them.

Then fourteen years after (epeita diarwn rjwn); then after a space of fourteen years. Beckoned from when? Many think from the visit mentioned in Gal_1:18; others, from the time of his conversion. At first sight, the former seems the more obvious view; but fuller consideration determines for the latter. The apostle lays stress upon the interval being so long; as if it were, "It was not less than fourteen years after, that a conference took place between me and the older apostles relative to the gospel which I preach; during all which time I was preaching it on a footing independent of them." There appears no other motive than this for his specifying the number of years. This being so, the specification would naturally at once include the whole period during which he had been so engaged, and not leave it to the reader to add the two or three years which had elapsed before the visit mentionedlin Gal_1:18. I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas (pa ajnebhn eijv JIerosoluma metaba). It is questionable whether this "again" covers the clause "with Barnabas," or not. We assume with confidence that this visit to Jerusalem is the one described in Ac 15. We know, therefore, that there had been at least one journey to Jerusalem previously taken by St. Paul in conjunction with Barnabas, viz. that of Act 11:, Act_11:12. We know also that he had been in close association with Barnabas in that first visit to Jerusalem mentioned above in Gal_1:18; (comp. Act_9:27) it is very possible that they had then come up in company. Now, so affecting was the interest for St. Paul with which both these visits were fraught, the one on his own account, the ether on account of the distress then suffered by the Church, that we may feel certain that, in the careful review he is now taking of the past, both of them would most vividly recur to his recollection; so vividly that it is quite conceivable that he was writing to the Galatians of his "going again to Jerusalem with Barnabas," with allusion to those two former visits, though he has not before named Barnabas"s name in connection with that one which alone he has spoken of.

If this view is not admitted, we must suppose a comma present after "Jerusalem" And took Titus with me also; or rather, perhaps, and took in our company also Titus (sumparalabwn kaiton) The sun in sumparalabwn seems to allude to the others whom Paul and Barnabas, as mentioned in Act_15:2, took with them on that journey. So also in Act_12:25 and Act_15:37; for in these two passages we are not to suppose that John Mark is named as being their sole companion, but rather that he is specified only in preparation for what has afterwards to be told concerning him. In nta (Act_15:39) paralabo without the sun simply indicates that Mark was with Barnabas, without reference to others who may or may not have been with them. The singular number of the participle, sumparalabwn, appears to indicate a certain footing of independent action which St. Paul had by this time gained for himself, even when viewed in relation to Barnabas: Paul himself attached Titus to the company, At any rate, it needs to be noted that St. Paul speaks of himself as simply "going up with Barnabas," not as "taking Barnabas with him;" for it would be a misconception alike of the import of the words before us, and of the relative position as yet outwardly obtaining in public action between the two men, to think of Paul as the leader and chief organizer of the accompanying party and of Barnabas as subordinate to him. The higher apostolate of Paul was at that time only in process of manifestation, not as yet fully realized in the Church (see Introduction, Dissertation II). Nothing is known of the antecedents of Titus, save that he was a "Greek" (ver. 3), both his parents apparently being Gentiles, and that St. Paul, in designating him in the Epistle addressed to him, (Tit_1:4) as his "true child" (gnhston teknon), seems to mark him out as a convert of his own; while the manner in which he is here named to the Galatians suggests the surmise that he was no stranger to themselves. The apostle may be supposed to have secured his being appointed by the Antiochian Church to be one of the deputation to Jerusalem, both that he might be a representative of the Church of the uncircumcision, and on account of his great moral fitness to take part in the delicate and critical business then on foot. About the time the apostle wrote this letter to the Galatians, he was much employed by him, being entrusted with missions, which, like that earlier one, required especial firmness and discretion tempered with truly Christian sentiment. (2Co_2:13 2Co_7:6, 13-15 8:16, 22 12:18) See Mr. Phillott"s article on "Titus" in Smith"s "Dictionary of the Bible

Vers. 1-5.

The battle of Christian liberty fought over the case of Titus.

The apostle proceeds to show that, on his subsequent journey to Jerusalem, he maintained his independence, and was recognized by the other apostles as possessing equal authority with themselves.

I HIS NEXT INTERVIEW WITH THE APOSTLES. "Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

1. The period of this visit. It was fourteen years from the date of his conversion not from the date of his former visit to Jerusalem for he seems always to view his conversion as the true starting-point of his career. The word "again "does not determine whether he here refers to the second or third visit. It was evidently his third visit; for the second was with alms, when he probably saw no apostle, for the gift of the Gentile Churches was sent to "the elders," not the apostles, "by the hands of Barnabas and Saul". (Act_11:30) There was no need to mention all his visits to Jerusalem, only those which gave him opportunities of intercourse with the apostles. This visit, then, was that of Ac 15, the period of the council of Jerusalem.

1. His companions on this visit Barnabas and Titus. There was something significant in this companionship. Barnabas, a pure Jew, was the companion of the apostle in preaching freedom from the Law. He was one of the most beautiful characters in New Testament times, especially distinguished by the generosity of his disposition. Titus was a Gentile Christian, not even circumcised, and may have been sent to the council as the representative of Gentile Christians. The apostle took him there as an illustration of Christian liberty, for the council would be obliged to decide whether Titus was to be circumcised or not. Thus the apostle manifested the consistency of his doctrine and his practice. This is the first mention of Titus in Scripture; for the Galatian Epistle preceded the Second to the Corinthians, in which his name occurs in terms of high commendation.

2. The interval between his visits to Jerusalem was filled with constant labours as an apostle. He was engaged during all this period in independent labours, and therefore before the apostles could have had an opportunity of recognizing his work. During this time the apostles never thought of calling in question his free gospel. The Acts of the Apostles supply the history of his labours during this time. (Act_11:26 Act_13:14:28)

3. His journey was taken by revelation. " According to St. Luke, he was sent by the Church at Antioch, (Act_15:2) and therefore was not summoned by the apostles to give an account of his gospel. But the revelation may have suggested the very action of the Church at Antioch, or it may, on the other hand, have confirmed it. The apostle was in any case assured of Divine guidance at a most critical epoch in Christian history.

II HIS BOLD YET PRUDENT EXPOSITION OF HIS GOSPEL. "And I went up by revelation, and laid before them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them of reputation, lest by any means I might be running, or have run, in vain.

1. His public exposition.

(1) It was addressed to the general body of Christians at Jerusalem, not to the apostles or eiders exclusively; for he expounded the gospel "privately" to the apostles.

(2) His gospel was that of justification by faith without circumcision.

(3) It was a gospel which had not changed since the council; for he speaks of it as that which "I preach," not which "I preached." The conference, therefore, made no change upon it.

2. His private exposition.

(1) It was addressed to the apostles them of reputation," as Peter, James, and John are called in ver. 9. Not so called in any spirit of irony, but because it is as authorities their names came at all in question. Besides, one of them, James, was not an apostle.

(2) Its object was to have a more thorough discussion, with a view to a mutual understanding in the interests of peace and the gospel. A private conversation admits of greater freedom and discursiveness in dealing with difficult or contested points. The apostle did not seek the testimony of men, as if the Word of God could not stand without it; but he knew that a cordial understanding with the apostles would add powerfully to the confirmation of the faith. If his gospel was approved by apostles, it would be clear of the charge of singularity, and would no longer be regarded as an invention of his own. He knew, besides, that, if the leading men could be gained over, the multitude would follow. He was anxious for the success of the gospel," lest he should run in vain," for a misunderstanding at that critical moment might involve the loss of his past and future labours, by imperilling the free mode of his offering the gospel to the Gentiles. Grave differences of judgment among ministers of the gospel compromise alike its authority and its practical effect.

(3) There is nothing here to justify a secret and underhand policy. The Church of Rome points to this case as favouring its doctrine of reserve. It is necessary to see, however, the utter groundlessness of this assertion. The apostle did not say one thing in private and another in public, but communicated, as he expressly says, the same gospel on both occasions. Openly he expounded it to the Christians at Jerusalem, but entered into its doctrinal aspects more deeply in private.

III THE APOSTLE"S VICTORY. "Titus was not compelled to be circumcised," Greek though he was.

1. The language implies that efforts had been made to this end, not by the apostles, however, but by "the false brethren." But these efforts were defeated by the council. Had the council been of the opinion of the false brethren, Titus would have been compelled to be circumcised.

2. Mark the firmness of the apostle. "Not even Titus though he was brought into close contact with the Jews, and might therefore have taken a more conciliatory course toward them, especially in the great centre of Judaist influence forced to be circumcised." If the apostle yielded at Jerusalem, he must yield everywhere else. Yet he allowed Timothy to be circumcised at Lystra, but that was a case of deference to the scruples of weak brethren. For the sake of gaining souls he will renounce liberty. But

3. he will not allow the truth of the gospel to be sacrificed by men who say that circumcision is necessary to salvation.

4. Mark the ground of the apostle"s firmness. "And this, because of false brethren insidiously brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ, that they might bring us into bondage." That is, he resisted the circumcision of Titus, because the false brethren would have taken advantage of the concession to bring the Gentiles into bondage to legal ceremonies.

(1) Who were the false brethren? They were persons at Jerusalem, not at Antioch. (2Co_11:26) They were brethren only by profession, and therefore more dangerous than open enemies. "Pharisees at heart, these spies and traitors assume the name and garb of believers." The apostles did not coincide with them. They must have been Judaizers. Yet all Judaizers were not necessarily false brethren; but these were Christians only in profession.

(2) Their furtive attitude. They were "brought in insidiously," either into the ministry or into the membership of the Church. They had a standing somehow that entitled them to influence the usage or doctrine of the Church. False teachers always enter the Church in disguise. (2Pe_2:1) "These hell-scouts are skulking in every corner" (Trapp). The policy of such persons has nothing of Christian simplicity in it.

(3) Their design. "To spy out our liberty which we have in Christ." Their work was" inspection for a sinister purpose." An impure intention was at the bottom of the movement. The liberty they threatened to destroy was not spiritual liberty in general, but that which was compromised by the demand of subjection to the ceremonial law. The liberty of believers was a present possession enjoyed by virtue of their union with Christ.

(4) The result of the apostle"s firmness. "To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour." If he had done it once, Christian liberty would have been sacrificed. The characteristic truth of the gospel justification by faith without the deeds of the Law was now safe. It was to "remain steadfast" with the Gentiles. Thus truth and freedom were henceforth to go together.

HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR Vers. 1-10.

The apostolic conference.

Fourteen years elapsed between the first and second visits of Paul as apostle to Jerusalem. During this interval of severe work he had experienced the opposition of the Judaizers. He deemed it advisable, therefore, and was also impelled by the Spirit, to go up to have a conference with the apostles about the whole policy to be pursued in the Gentile mission. In the verses before us he relates what took place in connection with the conference. And here we learn

I HOW AGREEABLE TO THE MIND OF THE SPIRIT THE CONFERENCE OF BRETHREN IS. (Ver. 2.) For Paul went up with Barnabas and Titus "by revelation." The Spirit impelled him to confer with the apostles at Jerusalem, and to strengthen his own judgment by securing theirs. And in the conference he seems to have laid before them the gospel of free grace which for fourteen years he had been preaching among the Gentiles. His statement was an exposition of his message, how he had taught the Gentiles that they were to be justified by faith and not by ceremony. Moreover, he was careful to enter into conference only with those who were of reputation, whose judgment would command respect, and to insist on the conference being private and confidential. Now, there can be no question about the great value of such confidential interchanges of thought by brethren. Even when there is not much light shed upon the path of duty, as seems to have been the case here, there is yet the confirmation of the Lord"s servants in the propriety of their course.

II IN CONTENTION WITH OTHERS WE SHOULD HAVE CLEARLY BEFORE US THE INTERESTS OF THE GOSPEL. (Vers. 35.) Titus, who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, had been Paul"s companion in Galatia and in the mission tom"s of Asia Minor. He was a Greek, a Gentile therefore, as distinct from a Jew. He had not, like Timothy, any Jewish blood in his veins. When the Judaizers, therefore, urged that Titus should be circumcised, and so become a proselyte to Jewish ceremonials, Paul resisted the demand so determinedly that no circumcision of Titus ever took place. In doing so, Paul had the interests of truth clearly in view. Had he yielded to the clamour, the gospel would have ceased practically to be a power in Galatia. It would not have continued with them. It would have been said, on the contrary, that salvation does not come by faith alone, but by ceremony as well. It was the interests of the gospel which Paul had clearly in view. It would be well if we had always so clear a view of the interests of truth in our contentions with others. It is to be feared we sometimes fight for our consistency and personal interests rather than for the gospel. We should suspect our motives until we see the gospel"s interests clearly involved in our struggle.

III A CONFERENCE MAY ADD NO FRESH LIGHT TO WHAT WE HAVE, BUT SIMPLY CONFIRM US IN OUR COURSE. (Ver. 6.) The apostle admits that the brethren at Jerusalem seemed to the Galatians to be most important judges of such matters as were brought before them. He himself did not form the same extravagant opinion of their ability, for he felt assured that "God accepteth no man"s person," and that he, as an apostle born out of due time, had as much light given to him for his work as those who were in Christ before him. Hence he states plainly that they imparted nothing to him in the conference. They simply confirmed him in the practice of Christian liberty. And this will often be the case in Christian conferences. It is not the fresh light they shed upon doctrine or duty, but mainly the confirmation they afford of lines of duty already taken up. This, however, ought not to be despised, but rather gratefully accepted as according to the will of God.

IV THE IMPRIMATUR OF THE APOSTLES IS SIGNIFICANT. (Vers. 7-9.) It is to be observed that Paul never sought apostolic ordination. He and Barnabas were designated by the brethren at Antioch when about to proceed upon their first missionary journey. (Act_13:1-3) But he had never all these years sought for ordination at the hands of the apostles who were in office before him. At the end of fourteen years he gives in a report, and all that he receives from the apostles is "the right hand of fellowship." In this connection we may quote from the able book of the "American citizen" on "The Philosophy of the Divine Operation." He is contending for Paul, not Matthias, being the twelfth apostle. After showing Paul"s superior marks of apostleship, he proceeds," Ordination, where there is no Holy Spirit, is not scriptural ordination. The laying on of hands by men who do not possess the Spirit of Christ themselves is not consecration. Hence offices and interests imparted by men or Churches whose spirit is merely formal and secular have no Divine validity. The men appointed under such circumstances may be good and useful, as many of them are. Communications of grace from above may be granted them. But the seal of God is not in the act of ordination. And Paul, called of God, with only the right hand of fellowship given him by the apostles, does the work of God better than Matthias, ordained by non-spiritual administrators.

V THE REMEMBRANCE OF THE POOR WAS ALWAYS TO CHARACTERIZE THE CHRISTIAN MISSION. (Ver. 10.) The apostles, in recognizing Paul"s policy and mission among the Gentiles, merely reminded him of the care of the poor, which was to be a first note of the Christian mission. The gospel is preached to the poor; it charges itself with their care. It was with the gospel the obligation recognized by the "poor laws" arose. The care of the poor was not felt by other religious systems as it is by Christianity. And it is questionable if the poor are as well cared for by law as they would be if left to Christian love. Now, there can be no doubt of this trait of Christianity being a most important evidence of its Divine origin. The care of the poor would never have become the commonplace it now seems to be had not Christianity charged itself with the enlightenment and the care of the poor. (Mat_11:5) The Christian commune, the noble experiment which succeeded Pentecost, put for a time poverty outside the Church"s pale. (Act_4:34) But even when poverty is driven out of the Church, it will still exist in the world, and for the poor Christianity must provide. This is one of its great missions; the apostles, though poor themselves, nobly responded to the call and faced the problem; and so must we all in our spheres if we have aught of the apstolic spirit. R.M.E.

HOMILIES BY R. FINLAYSON Vers. 1-10.

Period of third visit to Jerusalem.

Three preliminary points are mentioned.

(1) Time. "Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem." It is possible to date this from his conversion, but it is more natural and quite tenable to date it from the last-mentioned visit. If so, then we have seventeen important years, during which all the intercourse that Paul bad with the senior apostles extended to fifteen days spent with Peter in Jerusalem. That, surely, was very little on which to found a representation of his being a pupil of these apostles, or one acting under their orders.

(2) Companions. "With Barnabas, taking Titus also with me." The mention of Barnabas as his principal companion helps to identify the visit with that recorded in the fifteenth of the Acts. Titus also is brought in, as afterward to be referred to. Both may have been known to the Galatian Churches, and would be able to bear witness to the accuracy of his account of the conference.

(3) Impulse. "And I went up by revelation." The impelling influence was a supernatural communication made to him, that it was his duty to go up to Jerusalem. It may have been with or against his own inclination. It was certainly conjoined with the action of the Gentile Churches. But what determined his action was no feeling of his own as of doubt about his teaching, or summons from Jerusalem to give an account of his teaching, but simply the intimation to him of the Divine will. The private conference. The great feature of the third visit was conference. There was the public conference, of which we have a record in the fifteenth of the Acts. But there seems to have been beforehand a private conference with the men of repute, which alone is mentioned here, as being that which affected the question of his independence as an apostle.

(1) Subject of conference. "And I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles." He laid not before some, but before all the Christians at Jerusalem, the gospel which he was still in the habit of preaching among the Gentiles. He made it a public enough matter that he preached justification by faith. He made it equally public that, as an inference from that, he taught that there was no necessity to impose circumcision on Gentile converts.

(2) Reason for private conference. "But privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain." While courting publicity, he had a regard to prudence. The gospel he preached might have a strange sound to them at Jerusalem. He did not, therefore, in the first place lay it before the general body of Christians there. But he began by laying it privately before the three afterward mentioned, viz. James, Peter, and John. They had special qualifications for understanding what was to come up for public conference. And experiences, reasons, nice points, could be gone into with them that could not so suitably be gone into at a public conference. They were, moreover, men of repute, men of leading, who might be expected to influence the others. If, then, he secured a good understanding with them, his course, both what it had been and what it might yet be, would have its full effect. Whereas, if for want of the proper means being used, he failed in securing a good understanding, he would really be impairing the effect of what he had done or might yet do.

Results of private conference as bearing on the question of independence

I HE DID NOT YIELD ON THE QUESTION OF LIBERTY.

1. No compulsion was used in the case of Titus. "But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." This was a good ease for trying the question of liberty. Timothy, who was after this circumcised in accommodation to Jewish feeling, was of hail-Jewish extraction. Titus was of pure Gentile extraction. Was he, then, necessitated to circumcise Titus? No; it was a notorious fact that under the eye of the three, under the eye of the whole Church, he was allowed to go about Jerusalem with an uncircumcised Gentile convert as his recognized companion and assistant. That was not as though he had weakly yielded at the conference. It was, on the contrary, a signal triumph obtained for liberty.

2. The reason of his taking so firm a stand was that it was made a question of liberty. Character of the false brethren. "And that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." They were false, men who had never really agreed to the terms of Christian membership. They had become connected with the society of Christians, not as genuine believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, but on falsely pretending faith. They climbed into the Christian fold by some other way than Christ. There were others in the background who prompted them to make a false profession. They acted as the tools of others for illegitimate purposes. Espionage was one purpose. They stole into the Christian camp, not because they had any delight in being there, but simply as spies. What they wished to spy out was the liberty enjoyed by the Gentile Christians, i.e. liberation from circumcision in the possession of Christ. More particularly, it was the action of the Church in Jerusalem in view of the association of an uncircumcised Gentile convert with Paul. A further purpose was bondage. They spied out the liberty that they might have it as an object for their attack. Their tactics were to make a demand for the circumcision of Titus. Their success would have been the enslavement of Gentile Christians. Stand made by Paul against the false brethren. "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." It was a bold step, in the first place, to take Titus to Jerusalem. Feeling may have been stronger than he expected to find it. How was he to act? It would, no doubt, have been pleasing to many if he had seen his way to circumcise Titus. Under certain circumstances he might have been free to do it in the way of accommodation. But seeing that the false brethren, by the circumcision of Titus, meant the enslavement for ever of Gentile Christians, he gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour. He acted thus decisively in the interests of all his Gentile constituents. And his successful resistance on this occasion, which some were now seeking to turn against him (as though he had then given in his submission to Peter and the rest), was really a triumph obtained for the Gentile Christians everywhere, for which particularly they, the Galatians, should show gratitude in the way of resisting the assaults of the Judaists on them. Let the truth of the gospel justification simply by faith continue with them.

II HE PRESERVED HIS EQUALITY WITH THE THREE.

1. They imparted nothing to him. "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." The construction with which the sentence commences is not carried out to the end. "From them of repute" would naturally be followed up by "I received nothing." But instead of that, after the parenthesis which is in three clauses, it is taken up in the form of repute," which is followed by "imparted nothing to me." The three were reputed to be somewhat, and Paul does not mean to hint that this reputation was not deserved. What he has to do with is that their reputation should be thought to destroy his independence. He esteemed them, and he was glad to know of their being esteemed. In that respect their reputation did matter to him, but it mattered nothing for his independence. It is not upon reputation that God proceeds in his choice or acknowledgment of instruments, And with all their reputation they imparted to him no additional authority or element in teaching, as superiors to an inferior.

1. They recognized him. As having an independent trust. "But contrariwise, when they saw that I had been entrusted 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)." Of the men of repute, he singles out Peter as the principal representative of the circumcision. He was entrusted with the gospel whose sphere was the circumcision; and he presented it, as may be seen from his address and Epistles, with a certain adaptation to the

2. Jews. The burden of his early preaching was the great crime which the Jews had committed in crucifying their Messiah, and their duty to repent of that crime and to trust in Christ for salvation. When he writes to them as the Dispersion, he is still a Jew, in dwelling on the ancient glories of the race. His mind is imbued with the deliverances wrought for them, the majesty and sanctity of their temple, the sacred functions of the priesthood, the mystery of sacrifice, all receiving their fulfilment in the Christian manifestation. He is also a Jew in looking forward to a glorious future. His gospel points away to" the inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away;" "the salvation ready to be revealed in the last time;" "the appearing of Jesus Christ." But Paul was on a parity with Peter. He was entrusted with the gospel, whose sphere was the uncircumcision, and he presented it with a certain adaptation to the Gentiles. Not shunning Jewish imagery, he combined with it a certain free use of Gentile imagery. And it was specially given him to preach, what Peter indeed had learnt before him, that the Gentiles were to be admitted into the kingdom of God without being required to submit to circumcision. This parity of trust was made evident to the men of repute at Jerusalem. And the way in which it was made evident was this. It was evident that Peter was appointed to the apostleship of the circumcision by the abundant energy with which God supplied him for working among them. It was equally evident that Paul was appointed to the apostleship of the Gentiles by the abundant energy with which God supplied him for working among them. As having such a trust by the display of grace toward him. "And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me." The conclusion was forced home on them that he had an independent trust. When they compared that with their former knowledge of him, they could only ascribe it to grace. Their knowledge was now of him as a remarkable trophy of grace.

1. They gave him formal recognition. "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." The three are now mentioned by name. The last mentioned is John, and it is remarkable that in this, the only mention of him by Paul, he is represented as doing a kindly act. Peter, who is called Cephas (which also means "rock"), has just had a wide sphere connected with him. James is here placed before him on the same ground on which he presided at the public conference, viz. as representative (not necessarily bishop)of the mother Church at Jerusalem. His taking the lead made the formal recognition of Paul the act of the Church: while the association of Peter and John with him gave it a wider significance. These three were had in estimation as pillars (stoops, supports), i.e. men upon whom (humanly speaking) the keeping up of the Church greatly depended. Their formal recognition extended to Barnabas. They recognized in what was not exclusively Eastern fashion (being rather universal), by each giving the right hand of fellowship. That in regard to which they expressed fellowship was the division of work Gentile and Jewish which is not to be understood with the greatest strictness. The fellowship they expressed amounted to giving Paul and Barnabas their hearty good wishes in their separate and co-ordinate sphere.

2. They only recommended. "Only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do." There is a recognized ecclesiastical distinction between an injunction and a recommendation. The three did not, as ecclesiastical superiors, lay their authority upon Paul and Barnabas; they ony, as brethren, made a request of them. The request chimed in with Paul"s own habitual feeling. He speaks only for himself, his zeal extending beyond the time when he could speak for Barnabas, who shortly afterwards parted from him. Thus conclusively does he establish his independence. The matter of the request was remembering the poor. It was a request that came very naturally from the three. They were connected with a poor Church. Intolerance, too, was more rife and keen in Palestine than elsewhere. And it would often be a perplexity to them taking them to the throne of grace how the poor under their charge were to be provided for. They therefore took occasion to commend them to these representatives of the Gentile Churches. It was a providential arrangement that the Jewish Christians were to some extent dependent for support on the Gentile Christians. It tended to call forth the charity of the latter and to counteract the narrowness of the former, and thus to promote unity. It is a peculiarly Christian thing to remember the poor. Christ has shown men to be equal irrespective of condition, in that he has died for all, and would have all raised to sonship. Having taught us to care for men"s souls, he has taught us, as we could not otherwise so forcibly be taught, to care also for men"s bodies. We are to show our affection for Christ in ministering to the wants of his poor. And we will show a tenderness even for the wants of those who are not with us in the same Christian bond. R.F.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

Gal_2:1. Then fourteen years after.—From Paul’s conversion inclusive. I went again to Jerusalem.—The same visit referred to in Acts 15, when the council of the apostles and Church decided that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised.

Gal_2:2. I went up by revelation.—Quite consistent with the fact that he was sent as a deputy from the Church at Antioch (Act_15:2). The revelation suggested to him that this deputation was the wisest course. Communicated privately to them which were of reputation.—It was necessary that the Jerusalem apostles should know beforehand that the gospel Paul preached to the Gentiles was the same as theirs, and had received divine confirmation in the results it wrought on the Gentile converts.

Gal_2:3. Neither Titus [not even Titus], being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.—The apostles, constrained by the firmness of Paul and Barnabas, did not compel or insist on his being circumcised. Thus they virtually sanctioned Paul’s course among the Gentiles, and admitted his independence as an apostle. To have insisted on Jewish usages for Gentile converts would have been to make them essential parts of Christianity.

Gal_2:4. False brethren unawares [in an underhand manner] brought in privily to spy out.—As foes in the guise of friends, wishing to destroy and rob us of our liberty—from the yoke of the ceremonial law.

Gal_2:5. To whom we gave place by subjection not for an hour.—We would willingly have yielded for love, if no principle was at issue, but not in the way of subjection. Truth precise, unaccommodating, abandons nothing that belongs to itself, admits nothing that is inconsistent with it (Bengel).

Gal_2:6. They in conference added nothing to me.—As I did not by conference impart to them aught at my conversion, so they now did not impart aught additional to me above what I already knew. Another evidence of the independence of his apostleship.

Gal_2:9. They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.—Recognising me as a colleague in the apostleship, and that the gospel I preached to the Gentiles by special revelation was the same as theirs.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Gal_2:1-9

Confirmatory Proofs of a Divine Call—

I. Seen in a prudent consultation with the acknowledged leaders of the Church (Gal_2:1-2).—The men of reputation referred to in these verses are not so called by way of irony, but because of their recognised authority in the mother Church. Paul was not summoned to Jerusalem, but divinely directed to take the journey. Neither his teaching nor his office was called in question, nor did he fear the most searching inquiry into his commission. Conscious of his divine call, he claimed equality of status with the rest of the apostles, and explained to them and to the Church the principles and methods of the gospel he preached. He had nothing to fear, whatever might be the judgment of the Church leaders in Jerusalem. He expected from them nothing but sympathy and encouragement in his work, and he hailed with joy the opportunity of sharing the counsel of men as interested as himself in the success of the gospel. With his God-given convictions and views, it was impossible for him to meet the apostles on any other ground than that of perfect equality.

II. Seen in a prompt and stern refusal to compromise principle (Gal_2:3-5).—The object of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem was to discuss a vital principle of the gospel—the right of the Gentiles to the privileges of the gospel without observing the works of the Jewish law. A misunderstanding at that critical moment might have imperilled the liberty of the gospel. The presence of Barnabas and Titus was significant—the one a pure Jew, a man of gentle disposition and generous impulse; and the other a Gentile convert, representing the world of the uncircumcised. It is to the credit of the Church leaders at Jerusalem that, with their strong Jewish prejudices, they admitted that the legal rite of circumcision must not be imposed on Gentile converts. They were so convinced that this was the will of God, and that He had already sanctioned this as an essential feature of the gospel, that they dared do no other. An attempt was made, not by the apostles, but by certain “false brethren,” to insist that Titus should be circumcised; but this was promptly and stoutly opposed. A concession on this point would have been fatal to the universality of the gospel—the whole Gentile world would have been trammelled with the bondage of legal ceremonies. It was then that the great battle of Christian liberty was fought and won. The victory was another testimony of the validity and power of the divine commission with which Paul was entrusted.

III. Seen in the inability of the wisest leaders to add anything to the divine authority.—“But of these who seemed to be somewhat … in conference added nothing to me” (Gal_2:6). When Paul was called to the apostleship he “conferred not with flesh and blood”; now he affirms that flesh and blood did not confer anything on him. In conference and debate with the chiefs of the Church he showed himself their equal, and on the great essentials of the gospel he was in perfect agreement with them. Though Paul is too modest to say it, so far from his learning anything from them, they were more likely to learn something from him, especially as to the wider scope of the gospel. “In doctrine Paul holds the primacy in the band of the apostles. While all were inspired by the Spirit of Christ, the Gentile apostle was in many ways a more richly furnished man than any of the rest. The Paulinism of Peter’s first epistle goes to show that the debt was on the other side. Their earlier privileges and priceless store of recollections of all that Jesus did and taught were matched on Paul’s side by a penetrating logic, a breadth and force of intellect applied to the facts of revelation, and a burning intensity of spirit which in their combination was unique. The Pauline teaching, as it appears in the New Testament, bears in the highest degree the marks of original genius, the stamp of a mind whose inspiration is its own” (Findlay).

IV. Seen in winning the recognition of a special mission and of equality in the apostleship.—“They saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, … and perceived the grace that was given unto me,” etc. (Gal_2:7-9). Paul won the confidence and admiration of his fellow-apostles. They listened with candour and ever-deepening interest to his explanations, and, whatever might have been their prejudices, they frankly acknowledged his divine commission. What a memorable day was that when James, Peter, John, and Paul met face to face! “Amongst them they have virtually made the New Testament and the Christian Church. They represent the four sides of the one foundation of the City of God. Of the evangelists, Matthew holds affinity with James; Mark with Peter; and Luke with Paul. James clings to the past, and embodies the transition from Mosaism to Christianity. Peter is the man of the present, quick in thought and action, eager, buoyant, susceptible. Paul holds the future in his grasp and schools the unborn nations. John gathers present, past, and future into one, lifting us into the region of eternal life and love.”

Lessons.—A divine call—

1. Confers the necessary qualifications to carry out its mission.

2. Demands courage and fidelity.

3. Compels public recognition.

GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES

Gal_2:1-2. Truth its Own Evidence.—

1. Though the minister of Jesus Christ is not to depend upon the approbation of others for confirmation of his doctrine, as if he were uncertain before their testimony is added, yet he is not to be so self-willed as to misregard what others judge or think, but ought to demit himself so far as to give a friendly account of the doctrine, that mistakes arising from misinformation may be removed and the joint consent of others to the truth obtained.

2. As there are always some in the Church of God who have deservedly more reputation than others, so Christian prudence will teach a man to be so far from striving against such that he will endeavour, by giving due respect to them, to receive approbation from such, that he may be in a better capacity to do good to others.

3. Nothing marreth the success of the gospel more than difference of judgments and strifes and debates among eminent preachers, many resolving to believe nothing till preachers agree among themselves, and many stumbling-blocks are cast before people by the venting of passions, jealousies, animosities, and revenge. Paul endeavoured to get the consent of the other apostles to the doctrines preached by him, lest by the calumnies of his adversaries his preaching should be useless.—Fergusson.

Gal_2:3-5. The Power of Truth.

I. Superior to ceremonial observances (Gal_2:3).

II. Detects and exposes the wiliest tactics of false teachers (Gal_2:4).

III. Is uncompromising in its attitude towards the subtlest errors (Gal_2:5).

Gal_2:4-5. False Brethren and their Treatment.

I. The Church of God on earth, even at the best, hath wicked men and hypocrites in it.

II. They who teach Christ, joining some other thing with Him in the cause of salvation, are said to creep in, because in appearance they maintain Christ; yet because they add something to Christ, they neither enter nor continue in the true Church with any good warrant from God.

III. No man can set down the precise time when errors had their beginning, for the authors thereof enter in secretly, not observed of men.

IV. The false brethren urged circumcision to bring the converts into bondage.—They that be of a corporation stand for their liberties. What a shame it is that men should love bondage, and neglect the spiritual liberty which they have by Christ.

V. The false brethren urged the apostles to use circumcision but once; but they would not yield so much as once, because their act would have tended to the prejudice of Christian liberty in all places. Julian, sitting in a chair of state, gave gold to his soldiers one by one, commanding them to cast frankincense so much as a grain into the fire that lay upon a heathenish altar. Christian soldiers refused to do it, and they which had not refused afterwards recalled their act and willingly suffered death. We are not to yield the least part of the truth of the gospel. This truth is more precious than the whole world beside. There is no halting between two religions.

VI. The apostles gave no place by way of subjection.—They willingly suffered their doctrine to be tried, yet they were not bound to subjection. We are to give place by meek and patient bearing of that which we cannot mend, but we are not to give place by subjection.

VII. If circumcision be made a necessary cause of salvation, the truth of the gospel does not continue, and falsehood comes in the room.—Perkins.

Gal_2:4. A Spy.—Captain Turner Ashby was a young officer in the Confederate army, the idol of the troops for his general bravery, but especially for his cleverness in gathering information of the enemy. On one occasion he dressed himself in a farmer’s suit of homespun that he borrowed, and hired a plough-horse to personate a rustic horse-doctor. With his saddlebags full of some remedy for spavin or ringbone, he went to Chambersburg, and returned in the night with an immense amount of information. His career was one full of romantic episode.

Gal_2:5. Fidelity to Truth.—

1. Though much may be done for composing Church differences by using meekness and forbearance towards those who oppose themselves, yet we are not for peace’ sake to quit the least part of truth. Thus Paul, who for lawful ceding became all things to all men, would not give place by way of subjection, so as to yield the cause to the adversaries; neither would he do anything, in its own nature indifferent, that would be an evidence of yielding.

2. A minister, when called to confess and avow truth, hath not only his own peace with God and keeping of a good conscience to look to, but also the condition of his flock, who will be shaken or confirmed in the truth by his faint or bold and faithful confession.

3. It is not enough that people have the name of the gospel among them or some truths mixed with errors; but all, and especially ministers, should endeavour to have the gospel in purity and integrity, free from any mixture of contrary errors.—Fergusson.

The Truth not to be yielded.—Shortly after James I. came to the throne of England he set up a claim to all the small estates in Cumberland and Westmorland, on the plea that the Statesmen were merely the tenants of the Crown. The Statesmen met, to the number of two thousand, at Ratten Heath, between Kendal and Staveley, where they came to the resolution that “they had won their lands by the sword, and were able to hold them by the same.” After that meeting no further claim was made to their estates on the part of the Crown.

Gal_2:6-9. Recognition of a Special Mission.

I. By men of reputation who confessed their inability to augment its authority (Gal_2:6).

II. Acknowledging that the commission was distinctly divine (Gal_2:7-8).

III. Confirmed by cordially admitting the messenger into the fellowship of highest service (Gal_2:9).

Gal_2:8-9. Divine Blessing the Highest Sanction of Ministerial Authority.—

1. It is not the pains of ministers, or any virtue in the word preached, from whence success flows, but from the effectual working of the Spirit. Paul ascribed the success both of his own and Peter’s ministry to this.

2. Whom God doth call to any employment, and chiefly whom He calls to the ministry, He fitteth with gifts and abilities suitable thereto. James, Cephas, and John did not acknowledge Paul to be an apostle called by God, but on perceiving that grace and gifts, ordinary and extraordinary, were bestowed upon him.

3. We ought not to withhold our approbation, especially when it is craved, from that which by evident signs and reasons we perceive to be approved of God, though the giving of our approbation may disoblige those who pretend much friendship towards us.—Fergusson.

The Efficacy of the Christian Ministry.

I. That grace or power to regenerate is not included in the word preached, as virtue to heal in a medicine. To regenerate is the proper work of God.

II. That grace is not inseparably annexed and tied to the word preached, for to some it is the savour of death unto death.

III. The preaching of the word is an external instrument of faith and regeneration, and the proper effect of it is to declare or signify.

IV. The apostles at Jerusalem acknowledged Paul to be an apostle, because he had the gifts of an apostle, and because his ministry was powerful among the Gentiles.

V. As all ministers in their places are pillars, they are hereby admonished to be constant in the truth against all enemies whatsoever.

VI. As ministers are pillars, we are taught to cleave to them and their ministry at all times—in life and death.—Perkins.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal_2:1-10.

1Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also [also with me]. 2And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto [or laid before] them that [the] gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were [are] of reputation, lest by any means [per chance]1 I should run [be running]2 or had [have]3 run, in vain. But neither [not even] Titus, who was with me, being [though he was]4 a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4And that because of [the] false brethren unawares [insidiously]5 brought in, who came in privily [crept in] to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:6 5To whom we gave place by subjection [by the submission, i.e., required of us] no, not [not even]7 for an hour; 6that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But of those who seemed to be somewhat, [who are of reputation—]8 whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person: for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: [—to me those who are of reputation imparted9 nothing]: 7But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me [that I am entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision],10 as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter [as Peter with that of the circumcision]: 8(For he that wrought effectually [omit effectually] in [for]11 Peter to [toward] the apostleship of the circumcision, the same [omit the same] was mighty in me [wrought for me also] toward the Gentiles;) 9And when James, Cephas,12 and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they [and became aware of the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, who were esteemed as pillars,]13 gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go14 unto the heathen [Gentiles], and they unto the circumcision. 10Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which [which very thing]15I also was forward to do.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Gal_2:1. Then fourteen years after.—Is this to be reckoned from the calling of the Apostle, or from his first journey to Jerusalem (Gal_1:18)? At first view we might incline to the latter opinion. But the period of time mentioned Gal_1:18, is unquestionably to be reckoned from the calling, not from the return to Damascus; it is natural, therefore, to do the same here. His calling is the deciding point of time, and Paul wishes to show what he was doing from that time on, how his apostolical activity has its root in the revelation of Christ then given, and not in human instruction. Besides, if it is acknowledged that Paul here does not mean to enumerate his journeys to Jerusalem in an uninterrupted series, but that the journey to the apostolic council is here meant, there is no purpose served in giving the interval between the two journeys; but it might well be of importance to make known how many years he had already spent in his apostolical office. It would be important to know that, having received it at his calling, he had already been long in the exercise of it, when the other Apostles expressed their concurrence with his doctrine. Comp. also Elwert, programm on Galat. Gal_2:1-10. The difficult question, which of the Apostle’s journeys to Jerusalem, mentioned in the Acts, is here meant, is too extended to be treated in our present space. Besides, it is of more essential importance for the Acts than for our Epistle. For no one doubts the historical character of the journey mentioned in the Epistle. The result of my investigation is that it was no other than the journey to the apostolic council, that it is not that mentioned Act_11:30—since he is not giving an unbroken enumeration—nor that mentioned Act_18:21 (against Wieseler).

[Although this question occupies so large a space in most commentaries on this Epistle, the view given above has been so ably defended latterly, and is now so well established, that a synopsis of the argument and a reference to more extended discussions will be sufficient. The point from which Paul reckons, is his conversion, “being a purely subjective epoch” (Ellicott). Schaff thus states the case: “The Acts mention five journeys after his conversion, viz.: 1. Act_9:23 (comp. Act_1:18), the journey of the year 40, three years after his conversion. 2. Act_11:30; Act_12:25, the journey during the famine year in 44. 3. Act_15:2, the journey to the apostolic council in 50 or 51. 4. Act_18:22, the journey in 54. 5. Act_21:15 (comp. Rom_15:25 sq.), the last visit, on which he was made a prisoner and sent to Cæsarea, in 58.

“Of these journeys the first, of course, cannot be meant on account of Gal_1:18. The second is excluded by the chronological date in Gal_2:1. For as it took place during the famine of Palestine and in the year in which Herod died, A. D. 44, it would put the conversion of Paul back to the year 30, which is much too early. Some proposed to read four instead of fourteen, but without any critical authority whatever. There is no necessity why Paul should have mentioned this second journey, since it was undertaken simply for the transmission of a collection of the Christians at Antioch for the relief of the brethren in Judea, and not for the purpose of conferring with the Apostles on matters of dispute. In all probability he saw none of them on that occasion, since in that year a persecution raged in which James the elder suffered martyrdom, and Peter was imprisoned. The fifth journey cannot be meant, as it took place after the composition of the Epistle to the Galatians and after the dispersion of the Apostles. Nor can we think of the fourth, which was very short and transient (Act_18:21-22), leaving no time for such important transactions as are here alluded to; nor was Barnabas with him on that occasion, having separated from Paul some time before (Act_15:39).

“We must therefore identify our journey with the third one mentioned in the 15th chapter of Acts. For this took place in 50 or 51, i.e., fourteen years after his conversion (37), and was occasioned by the important controversy on the authority of the law of Moses and the exact relation of the Gentile converts to the Christian church (Act_15:2). This visit Paul could net possibly pass over, as it was of the greatest moment to his argument. It is true our passage differs somewhat from the account given by the Acts. But the difference is not irreconcilable. Luke, in keeping with the documentary character of his historical narrative, gives us only the public transactions of the council at Jerusalem; Paul shortly alludes to his personal conference and agreement with the Apostles (Gal_2:2); both together give us a complete history of that remarkable convention, the first Synod in Christendom, for the settlement of the first doctrinal and practical controversy which agitated the Church.” (Schaff, Comm. in loco.) See also his Apostolic Church, p. 245 sq.; Conyb. and How son, Vol. I., p. 227 sq.; Meyer and Wordsworth, in loco; Alford, Vol. II., Proleg., p. 26; and the valuable note of Lightfoot, p. 122 sq. The authorities in support of this view might be multiplied.—R.]

Gal_2:2. And I went up by revelation.—Not without design, doubtless, does he bring into view the fact that he went up κατὰ ἀποκά λυψιν, and so was again deemed worthy of a special revelation from God. He will also remove every thought of his having been, as it were, obliged to present himself before the Apostles, of their having summoned him before them. Laid before them the gospel=that which I preach among the Gentiles, namely, that they are justified by faith.—“Them,” probably the whole church of Jerusalem.—But privately to them which are of reputation.—Besides having addressed the Christians in Jerusalem generally, he appears to have held separate conferences with those “of reputation.” wieseler’s distinction, however, is quite arbitrary; making Gal_2:3-5 contain the account of his general agreement with the whole church of Jerusalem, and Gal_2:6-10 the first account of the separate conferences with he Apostles. [Alford thinks there was but one conference, making κατʼ ἰδίαν δέ limit αὐτοῖς; “when I say ‘to them,’ I mean privately to those,” etc., but the view given above (that of Meyer, Ellicott, Lightfoot) is preferable. The general conference is described Acts 15 “they declared what things God had done with them,” (Act_15:4) may refer to these private conferences which probably preceded. The emphasis here is undoubtedly on the private consultations, the result of the public council being already known to the Galatians.—R.] The judgment of “them” [the whole body] is thrown in the background, and he only speaks of “those in reputation,” just mentioned; for the fact that he had received their acquiescence is what he is opposing to the false teachers. Hence we must regard what is stated in Gal_2:3, as their judgment also.—Δοκοῦντες, æstimati, principal persons. Men of authority; in fact, doubtless, the senior Apostles; especially the three who are named afterwards in Gal_2:9. He calls them not “Apostles,” but δοκοῦντες, “men of repute” because it is as authorities, as those who stood in repute in the Jerusalem church first, but also in the Christian church generally, nay more, were decisive authorities, that they come into consideration. For precisely this is of moment to him, to be able to say to the Galatians that he has been acknowledged by these as an equally authorized Apostle. Of course δοκοῦντες does not in the least imply a disparagement of the Apostles themselves, for it is the church that accords to them this consideration;—the expression conveys a censure upon this estimation in the church only so far as it might imply a failure to recognize his own apostolic dignity. The censures therefore, touched especially this estimation in the sense in which the Apostles were δοκοῦντες for the Galatian false teachers, and in which these turned it to their own account. The censure of this false preference is given prominence in Gal_2:6, by the addditional phrase “whatsoever they were.” Paul cannot intend to dispute in the least that in the right sense the senior Apostles were δοκοῦντες for the Christians. [The force of Paul’s expression is weakened by rendering “were of reputation,” since when he writes, they “are” of reputation, hence thus brought into the argument (Lightfoot).—It must be noted also that Paul throughout does not use the word “Apostle.” Whether they were Apostles or no, is not evident from anything in the passage, except the mention of James and Cephas and John (Gal_2:9), and whether that James was either an Apostle or one of the twelve is an open question. Without discussing the point here, it maybe suggested that one reason for not calling them “Apostles,” was that one of the three “who seemed to be pillars,” and “of repute” was not an Apostle, but James the Just, the head of the church at Jerusalem. This will not only explain the omission of the title, but meet subsequent difficulties.—R.]

Lest perchance I should be running or have run in vain.—The sense remains essentially the same, whether we take μήπως as a final particle, or=whether perchance. After the thorough exposition of Wieseler, however, the latter is to be preferred. (So also Meyer in 4th ed.) Of course, however, he does not mean to say that he himself was doubtful about it. This would have been in conflict with the whole purpose of his detailed account, and would have represented him as dependent on the Senior Apostles. He wished only, on account of the antagonists of his teaching, to obtain from the Apostles, on whose authority these supported themselves, a confirmation of this teaching, in order to cut off every pretext from his opponents. “Run in vain”=labor to no purpose, operam perdere. This would have been the case, if Paul had actually proclaimed a false doctrine, with which the senior Apostles could not agree. The outward success of his preaching is not primarily in view, though we may conclude from Gal_2:7-9, that he spoke of this also. Others take μήπως as a final particle, and interpret as follows: in order not to appear as one who was running or had run, in vain, as might have been the case, if I had not submitted my gospel to examination, had its harmony with Apostles established; but the idea of “appearing” is extraneous to the passage. [For a clear discussion of the grammatical and exegetical difficulties of this clause, see Ellicott, in loco. Whatever view be adopted, we must not concede that Paul had any doubt about his Gospel. The conditional μήπως is probably used to indicate respect for those in reputation at Jerusalem. The doubt could only concern the opinion of others, which by being opposed, might render his labors in vain.—R.] In what follows he says that he received the desired acquiescence on the part of the Apostles. He does not however at once declare this, but mentions a special circumstance, which implies it in a striking manner.

Gal_2:3. But not even Titus.—The sense is clear: οὐδέ points to a thought to be supplied. “I laid frankly before them, how I preach among the Gentiles; not concealing that I do not at all hold them to the keeping of the law, to the receiving of circumcision—and now, according to the representation of the false teachers, it was to be expected that they would appear in opposition to me; but. (ἀλλά) so far was this from being the case, so far from declaring this doctrine false [or, connecting it with the last clause, so far from my having run in vain—R.], not. even with respect to Titus, a born Gentile, who had come to Jerusalem, to the very mother of the Jewish Christian churches with me, was the demand made that he should be circumcised, though it might readily have been, when Jewish prejudice was so greatly offended by his uncircumcision.” Still less did they censure the doctrine of Paul, or demand of him that he should preach the necessity of circumcision among the Gentile Christians as a body. The case has been thoroughly perplexed by bringing in, in direct contradiction to what the words say, the thought, that the Apostles had wished, or even demanded, the circumcision of Titus; but that Paul and Titus had set themselves against their desire. Elwert justly remarks, Programm, p. Gal 10: Quid enim incptius dici potest quam illud: tantum abfuit, ut apostoli causam meam improbarent, ut ne Titus quidem illis contraria petentibus obsequeretur? [The word ἠναγκάσθη seems to imply that there was a demand made for the circumcision of Titus, not by the Apostles, but by the false brethren (Gal_2:4). Had the idea bean merely, that the circumcision was not even demanded, so strong a word would not have been used. There is some force in the suggestion of Lightfoot, that the Apostles recommended Paul to yield as a charitable concession, but convinced at length that he was right, they gave him their support. Still we have not sufficient knowledge of the circumstances to decide whether Paul cites this as an evidence of the Apostles’ agreement with him or of his firmness—in all probability it is both. Not even Titus, of whom as a Greek the false brethren made the demand, was required to submit—or whom as a Greek I would not allow to be circumcised, since this would have been a giving up of the whole matter. The preceding context suggests the former, the subsequent context the latter side of the occurrence. On the reasons for the non-circumcision of Titus, and the circumcision of Timothy (Act_16:2), see doctrinal notes.—R.]

Gal_2:4. And that because of the false brethren.—What is to be supplied with “because of the false brethren?” After an examination of all the views presented, it appears to me that we can only say: we do not and cannot know, since Paul has broken off the sentence, and all attempts to fill it out are hazardous, from the danger of introducing foreign matter. The mention of the ψευδάδελφοι is very intelligible. He has already indicated the concurrence of the Apostles by reference to the striking case of Titus, or at least, negatively, that they did not oppose him. But before he says anything definite, positive, respecting this concurrence (Gal_2:6 sq), he mentions his opposers, who did not concur, who attacked him and his teaching, and had also especially occasioned his journey to Jerusalem. The mention of the false brethren, however, stirs his displeasure, so that he does not complete the thought begun, but first by a brief and fit phrase, describes his opposers, and then falling out of the construction, continues with οἰς, and expresses the thought, which probably he had in mind in mentioning the “false brethren,” namely, that he had not in the least yielded to them. In what he did not yield, is not expressed; probably to their demands, in general, respecting the obligation of the Gentile Christians to keep the law. Not till he has first established this negative result does he revert to the action of the δοκοῦντες, and he now relates the positive acknowledgment, which he had from them.—If we seek a complement to διά, three suggest themselves. (1), ἀνέθην—(Ewald, substantially). According to this, as he cannot pass over the remoter cause of his journey, namely, the intrigues of the Pharisees, the same party that had now of late again persecuted him so bitterly, he begins in Gal_2:4, anew, as it were, the account of this journey.—Ordinarily, however, the complement is sought in the foregoing sentence, because the somewhat abrupt character of this was rather perplexing, and its contents appeared to require the statement of a reason. This view took δέ usually as epexegetical, and therefore supplied (2) οὐκ ἠναγκάσθη, which, in fact, strongly commends itself; simply, however, in the sense: Now, this took place on account of the “false brethren,” that is, it was even on account of these, that the Christians in Jerusalem, particularly the Apostles, did not urge it upon him, lest, by yielding to them, the opinion that circumcision was necessary, should receive sanction. This contains the implied thought, that in itself they would not unwillingly have seen him circumcised, but that now, for the sake of principle, they did not press it. But this makes it necessary, first to ascribe to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem a way of thinking, which is not ascribed to them in this chapter, but expressly limited to individuals, “false brethren,” in order afterwards to find it impossible that they should have abstained from all demands for circumcising Titus, on account of these “false brethren.” Whether the “false brethren” demanded particularly the circumcision of Titus, is not said. On the other hand, if we complete the sentence thus, the sense is inadmissible, that Paul, precisely on account of the false brethren, opposed himself to a demand to have Titus circumcised, from whomever it proceeded. This alters the plain meaning of Gal_2:3; ἠναγκάσθη receives the sense: the constraint, which it was attempted to exercise, was frustrated; and especially ούδέ, and the implied thought to which it points, is quite neglected. Then we should have this absurdity: “so far were they from disapproving my teaching, that I or Titus did not even yield when his circumcision was demanded.” If this demand is referred to the Apostles, the thought is completely inverted (see above), but even if it is referred only to the “false brethren,” it is none the less impossible. And the case remains the same, if, instead of “he was not compelled,” we supply “he was not circumcised,” still explaining it, “I or we, on account of the false brethren, did not consent, when it was desired.” Finally, (3) “He was circumcised,” is supplied (δέ therefore being taken adversatively), and in its turn defended by Elwert, Programm, with much acuteness. And, in fact, if we must fill out the sentence, I should be most disposed to declare for this. It especially commends itself by the light which it throws both upon Gal_2:3 and upon Gal_2:11. For, beyond question, it remains somewhat enigmatical, why he instances so particularly this one fact of refusing to circumcise Titus, hastening to it even before he has spoken, on the positive side, of the reception of his preaching in Jerusalem. The reproach (Gal_2:11) then remains not altogether intelligible. On the other hand, all is easily explained, if we assume that Titus was then circumcised. That is, many founded upon this the allegation that he commended circumcision. But especially was this circumstance urged, in order to deduce therefrom, that his teaching had been disapproved by the Apostles, and that he had yielded to these. Therefore, he declares at once: It is not even true, as is commonly related, that Titus was constrained to receive circumcision. Titus was circumcised, not upon a requisition of the Apostles, but voluntarily by me, solely on account of the false brethren insidiously brought in, that they might not, making a handle of his being uncircumcised, prepossess the Christians in Jerusalem against me, and dispose them to a resolution unfavorable for the Gentile Christians. “Quare eandem, quam semper et in omnibus normam secutus, ne quid detrimenti capiat res Christiana, suæ libertatis minime tenax illorum se voluntati sub-mittit, imbecillioribus servit. Neutiquam fratrum irrepttiorum habita ratione hoc fecit, sed eos respiciens, quos, quum fidei infirma ac Judicii parum subacti essent, illorum insectationibus objectos videret. Circumcisione Titi permissa insidias hominum malignorum evitavit, animos imbecilliorum sibi conciliavit apostolus.” Elwert, p. 13. This interpretation is only apparently in conflict with Gal_2:5. Nay, Elwert remarks that only so does τῇ ὑποταγῇ, find its true explanation; for that only the following translation is natural: to whom not even for an hour did we yield by the submission: “obsequium se præstitisse Paulus profitetur, sed non ita præstitisse, ut illis se victum daret vel de jure suo aliquid cederet.” For he provided that the truth of the Gospel should remain with the Gentile Christians. Of course, he could not yield to the circumstances of the time, without, at the same time, giving a testimony to the evangelical truth, whereby this was maintained in its integrity. This explanation of τῇ ὑποταγῇ, however, awakens some misgiving; could Paul well admit a “ὑπο-ταγή” towards the ψευδάδελφοι? Is not this expression too strong? We are tempted, therefore, even admitting this explanation of διά, etc., to join τῇ ὑποταγῇ to the negation, making Paul say that an εἵκειν τῇ ὑποταγῇ nevertheless did not take place, even if their behavior occasioned him to have Titus circumcised.

[As Lightfoot well remarks: “The counsels of the Apostles of the circumcision are the hidden rock on which the grammar of the sentence is wrecked,” but because the grammar is wrecked on this hidden rock, it is not necessary to wreck Paul’s facts and arguments and even principles, on a rock so easily avoided as the theory of Elwert advanced above. In fact, as Meyer remarks, such conduct “would have been unprincipled and wrong.” That is an all-sufficient objection. As regards what should be supplied, it is most naturally taken from the preceding verse, to which our verse then refers, δέ being explicative. Whether “he was not compelled,” or “he was not circumcised,” is open to discussion. The first implies that “those of reputation” did not compel it on this account; the other, that the thing was not done, either because Paul would not thus surrender a principle, or “those of reputation” thought it were best not to do it. As this latter does not imply any definite counsel of the other Apostles—the very point about which there is greatest doubt—it is on the whole safer to adopt it—R.]

Ψευδάδελφοι (also 2Co_11:26), comp. ψευδαπόστολοι, ψευδοπροφήται, are in general, brethren, fellow-Christians, who bear this name unworthily; specifically, because they, on account of their Judaizing opinions, especially on the necessity of circumcision for Christians, are properly still Jews. So Wieseler. Yet this in itself hardly suffices to explain the strong ψευδο (and especially the παρείσακτοι and παρεισῆλθον), but we must add to it their behavior towards the other Christians, the utterly unbrotherly hateful opposition (not shrinking indeed from intrigues and slanders), which they maintained against the freer evangelical views. The complete definition of “false brethren” is given in “spy out,” “bring us into bondage;” they do not yet stand in the freedom which there is in Christ; nay, more they wish to deprive others also of it; nay, more, they exercise a system of espionage against these. The false teachers in Galatia were essentially such people, perhaps they were emissaries of those in Jerusalem; and on this account it is with special purpose that their conduct in Jerusalem, and their discomfiture, are mentioned. But the Galatian teachers themselves are not meant here; this would be entirely foreign to the context.—A more particular notice respecting these people is given Act_15:5, whatever judgment may be held of the general relation of the present chapter to Acts 15. They were, according to this, persons of the sect of the Pharisees, who, it is true, had come to believe on Jesus, that He was the Christ, but had not given up their Nomism and Ergism, and, therefore, doubtless were so much the more hostile to their former fellow-Pharisee, Paul, on account of his present position, so sharply anti-Pharisaic. Holding fast, as they thus did, essentially, to their Pharisaism, it is easy to understand that their belief in Christ had as yet produced in them few effects of moral transformation. The article describes the persons as the Pharisaical Christians, historically known to the readers; either the particular individuals were known, or, at all events, this sort of people, since the Galatian false teachers were of the same class.

[Insidiously brought in. Lightfoot:—“The metaphor is that of spies or traitors introducing themselves by stealth into the enemy’s camp. The camp is the Christian Church. Pharisees at heart, these traitors assume the name and garb of believers.” He thus paraphrases: “The agitators, who headed the movement, were no true brethren, no loyal soldiers of Christ. They were spies, who had made their way into the camp of the gospel under false colors, and were striving to undermine our liberty in Christ, to reduce us again to bondage.” Wordsworth:—“By mentioning these, he clears the holy Apostles from the imputation of being supposed to have been parties to such a requisition, as that Titus, a Gentile, should be compelled to be circumcised.”—R.] “What is already indicated in the composite ψευδάδελφοι is, by the predicate παρείσακτοι, interchanging immediately after with παρεισῆλθον, brought forward with especial emphasis. They are called παρείσακτοι, because they have pressed in on one side of the entrance; that is, by a forbidden way, sc. into the Christian church, and, therefore, do not properly belong to it. Παρείσακτοι and παρεισῆλοθν are doubtless to be applied to these alone, and not to an outward insinuation of themselves into a single church (for instance, that of Antioch), in order there to oppose Paul. Comp. Acts 15.”—Wieseler. Of course, they did the latter also; it was closely connected with their having insinuated themselves into the Christian Church. But here, doubtless, the primary reference is only to their appearance in Jerusalem itself. A local interpretation of παρείσακ-τοι and παρεισῆλθον is the less necessary, as parallel expressions are found: παρεισάγειν, 2Pe_2:1, and παρεισδύειν, Judges 4, where the reference is clearly to the Christian Church in general. Who crept in to spy out.—The immediate purpose of their “creeping in” in itself was hardly “to spy out” the liberty of others; but what they did made their coming in (εἰσέρχεσθαι) a “creeping in” (παρεισέρχεσθαι) whose purpose could only be regarded as this “spying out.” “The false brethren are thus characterized according to their common dangerousness to Christian liberty, in order to give the reason why Paul could not yield to such false brethren.”—Wieseler.

Two things are laid to their charge: first, a “spying out of” our liberty;—they lie in ambush for our liberty, spy out in what we show ourselves freemen, turn their notice to that, but with hostile intent; therefore, how widely removed from brotherly love! Then, in the second place, they seek to reënslave the free, i.e., they demand of them to give up their freedom. By the freedom which we have in Christ Jesus is primarily meant freedom from the Mosaic law, from its ritual ordinances, and especially therefore from circumcision. The wider, deeper meaning of this freedom is involved in this, but here, doubtless, not primarily in view. “Our liberty.” Whose? Certainly it does refer to Paul merely, but yet primarily only to those who understood the freedom in Christ, and availed themselves of it, and these without exception. But as Paul no doubt vindicates this standing fast in freedom as at least a right of all Christians, and regards the “false brethren” with their views and their conduct as in truth no Christians, the “we,” in point of fact, embraces all Christians, the Gentile Christians, of course, and also the Jewish Christians, so far as these were not “false brethren.”—In Jesus Christ, as being found in him. [Schaff:—“In living union with Him who is the end of the law (Rom_10:4). This is the positive side of freedom.”—Ellicott:—Not “through Christ,” a meaning it may bear, but in the fuller and deeper sense “in Christ.”—R.]—That they might bring us into bondage:—that is, under the law. On this account, also, the reading καταδουλώ-σωνται=make us their servants, is to be rejected, and καταδουλώσουσιν to be read, which is better attested than the subjunctive—σωσιν.

Gal_2:5. To whom we gave place by the submission, no, not even for an hour.—Here “we” unquestionably, takes on a more restricted sense =I, Paul, probably also Titus himself, and Barnabas. This narrowing of the sense will appear arbitrary to no one. For here the reference is to a single, definite transaction, where Paul can have in mind only the individuals who had part in it; it is somewhat different with “freedom in Christ.” The yielding is still more strongly designated by ὑποταγῇ. (Comp. the different interpretation of Elwert above, Gal_2:4.)

This decided refusal to yield had been adequately explained by the foregoing characterization of the pseudo-brethren; it is now given again; that the truth of the gospel might continue.—For yielding would have represented Christian freedom as void, and would have overturned the truth of the gospel, on which it is founded.—With you; in itself, doubtless, signifying with the Gentile Christians generally—nay, more, with all Christians; but Paul “individualizes the matter, with reference to those to whom he writes.” For it concerned him to bring home to them, that even at that time he had guarded the benefit of Christian freedom for them, in order to show in what contradiction their present behavior stood with this fact, since they themselves were now abjuring this benefit.

Gal_2:6. But of those who are of reputation.—To the pseudo-brethren he now opposes “those of repute.” The former he withstood, from the latter he received no instruction implying disapprobation of his teaching. Gal_2:6 is an anacoluthon, his language being somewhat disturbed in the thoughts of the presumption and deceit with which the Galatian false teachers had elevated the “δοκοῦντες” above him, and had vindicated the apostolic authority of the former only, denying it to him. He begins as if he would subjoin an οὐδὲν ἔλαβον. But the remark respecting the δοκεῖν εἰ̄ναί τι leads him away from this, and he continues with another verb, afterwards resuming δοκοῦντες, and giving at the same time the grounds of the parenthetical statements. Ewald, on the contrary, however, joins οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει with ἀπὸ τῶν δοκ.=compared with these, however high they stood, I am in nothing inferior. It is difficult to justify this grammatically. “Of reputation.”—See above, Gal_2:2. The main idea implied in δοκοῦντες, used absolutely, is here clearly expressed by the addition εἶναί τι=to be something great, to be of some account; with what incidental meaning, see above.—Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me.—On the one hand Paul has emphasized the consideration in which the Apostles stood, because it was of moment to him to be able to say, that he had been acknowledged even by these. Yet this might be misunderstood, hence the parenthesis. He emphasizes only for the sake of his readers. To him, on his own account, “it makes no difference in how high authority soever they stood;” as respected him, they did not come into consideration as δοκοῦντες, they asserted no authority: to me they imparted nothing. This exaltation of individuals=the Apostles, in such a way as to throw the authority of Paul into the shade, rests entirely upon mere human judgment. God’s census does not rank them thus: God accepteth no man’s person.—He makes no such distinction, to Him the senior Apostles are not “of repute” in contrast with Paul; he has chosen Paul to be an Apostle as much as them. And, he continues, I have a right so to speak, for those “of repute” demeaned themselves altogether agreeably to this divine valuation, and did not undertake to instruct me. [The E. V., “in conference added nothing to me,” gives the commonly received interpretation of the verb προςανέθεντο: “gave no new or additional instruction.” But notwithstanding the authority for such a rendering, it does not seem to be justified by the use of the word (Meyer, Alford, Ellicott). The idea of imposing burdens is obviously inadmissible.—R.] It is most simple to refer the ποτέ to the lifetime of Jesus=it signifies nothing to me that they enjoyed the immediate, confidential intercourse of Jesus, while I did not. For it was on this that the Judaizers founded special preëminence which they attributed to the other Apostles over Paul. Others: then in Jerusalem; which is less probable. [The point in question respecting ποτέ is: has it a temporal reference in the sense of olim, formerly (either during our Lord’s lifetime or then in Jerusalem), or does it simply render ὁποῖοι more general and inclusive, having the force of cunque. The latter is classical, but the N. T. usage is disputed. Since it is not said anywhere that these “of repute” were Apostles, who enjoyed immediate intercourse with the Lord, the latter is, on the whole, preferable, as giving a wider signification to δοκοῦντες. “Were” may mean in the past from the time of narration or of the incident narrated; the latter is more probable if ποτέ is taken as referring to intercourse with the Lord during His lifetime.—R.]

Gal_2:7. When they saw that I am entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision.—Naturally, “gospel” of course means here (comp. πεπίστ. and Gal_2:8) an official activity of the Apostle, therefore not the gospel as to its contents, but the evangelical preaching, τὸ εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, as often. The genitives, “of the uncircumcision,” “of the circumcision,” are therefore gen obj.=preaching of the gospel among the uncircumcision, or the circumcision; Gal_2:8 exchanges it for “apostleship of the circumcision,” and as εἰς τὰ ἔθνη (Gal_2:8-9) shows that the abstracts “uncircumcision,” “circumcision,” stand for the concretes—Jews, Heathen. That here we are not to suppose two gospels different in character, the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, and the Gospel of the Circumcision, of which the latter maintained the necessity of circumcision, while the former let it drop (Baur), but only two different circles of hearers of the same gospel, may be regarded as self-evident to the unprejudiced reader.16 Peter appears as the representative of the Apostles to the Jews, because he especially had hitherto labored as such. Afterwards, however, the two other Apostles, James and John, are designated, with Peter, as Apostles for the Jews (Gal_2:9. αὐτοὶ δέ). “That Peter had a Gentile Christian vocation also (Act_15:7) is not denied, but a parte potiori fit denominatio.”—Meyer; The converse applies to Paul. In Gal_2:9 Barnabas also appears conjointly with him, as Gentile Apostle. [It must be noted that while Paul uses the word “apostleship” in Gal_2:8, with reference to himself and Peter, he does not use it or anything to the same purport in Gal_2:9, where James and Barnabas are spoken of. The same is true of the whole passage. There is no evidenoe of the apostleship of James or Barnabas in this whole Epistle, whatever the probabilities may be. See notes on Gal_2:9.—R.] “Entrusted;”17 Supply: By God through Christ—agreeably to the proof of this affirmation rendered in Gal_2:8. For from what facts did they perceive what is said in Gal_2:7 respecting the different mission of each? Primarily from what follows in Gal_2:8 (γάρ).

Gal_2:8. For he that wrought effectually for Peter.—From the fact that God had been operative for Peter in the one, and for Paul in the other direction, they concluded that God had given to the one the one, and to the other the other vocation. How far now was God operative for one and the other?—Meyer, Wieseler:—“He furnished them forth for the apostolic office, with illumination and endowments, gave them the χαρίσματα of an Apostle.” (Comp. Act_15:12 : God did miracles and wonders by them among the Gentiles.) True, it is certainly not merely these endowments themselves that are referred to, but also and especially what they did in virtue of the same, the beginning and result of their activity, wherein God’s “working” was recognized. What immediately follows in Gal_2:9 : and became aware of the grace that was given unto me, [unfortunately misplaced in E. V.—R.] undoubtedly also refers to the outfit for the apostolic office by means of charisms, yet it is most naturally referred mainly to the success of their preaching. Precisely from this they perceived how highly endowed Paul was. They first inferred his equal apostolic calling from the “grace given,” hence the calling itself cannot be meant. [Yet what more natural than that Paul should mean: “they recognize my calling, because they perceive that I was called by grace.” The main reference may be to the success, but the perception of the calling through the grace given, is not to be excluded. On the two participles ἰδόντες and γνόντες, Lightfoot says: “the former describes the apprehension of the outward tokens of his commission, as evinced by his successful labors; the latter the conviction arrived at in consequence that the grace of God was with him.”—R.]

Gal_2:9. James and Cephas and John.—“James.” Is this one identical with James the Lord’s brother, Gal_1:19? The fact that there the additional appellation is expressly given, while it is lacking here, does not, of course, disprove the identity. Inasmuch as James had already been just mentioned as “the Lord’s brother,” if the same one is meant this special designation might be omitted here. The main question is: Could the James, whom Paul names in this passage, have been other than an Apostle? And this question we shall always be inclined to answer negatively. In itself it would be very intelligible, that a brother of the Lord converted to the faith, although not an Apostle, might have attained an eminent position in the church of Jerusalem. But, considering how plainly our Epistle itself brings to view the strong emphasis laid by the Jewish Christians on an immediate inauguration into the apostolate by Christ, would it have been probable that such a one, not an Apostle, would have been reckoned by these among the “pillars,” “those of reputation?” And if one not an Apostle had enjoyed so eminent an estimation as a “pillar” (James being here placed even before Peter), could they then have so strongly charged upon Paul a want of parity with the senior Apostles? And would he then have found it necessary to prove his equality with such strength of assertion as he does in Galatians 1? James, the Lord’s brother also lacks this parity, and could claim it even less than Paul, since he could not appeal to any immediate revelation and calling [? comp. 1Co_15:7.—R.], and Paul certainly would not have omitted bringing this forward, thereby to invalidate the reasoning of his opponents. These are substantially Wieseler’s arguments. We must then either take James the Lord’s brother as identical with James, the son of Alpheus, and therefore himself an Apostle (a view already rejected in commenting on Gal_1:19), or take the James of this passage as a different one, i.e., the son of Alpheus and not the Lord’s brother. That the James in question occupied a certain official position as chief pastor in the church of Jerusalem is justly inferred from the precedence of his name here and also from Gal_2:12. This on the other hand accords well with the special prominence given to Peter, Gal_2:7-8. In reference to proper apostolic activity, in missionary activity, Peter precedes James.

[We are again confronted with this difficult question respecting James. On the theory of the identity of James Alphaei and James, the Lord’s brother, all difficulty vanishes here, as well as in Acts 15, and for this reason it is adopted by many. The view, that there were other Apostles besides the Twelve and Paul, avoids both the other difficulties, but is on other grounds very objectionable. We are to reconcile the view advanced Gal_1:19 (that there were two prominent men named James, one the son of Alpheus and an Apostle, the other James the Lord’s brother, who was not an Apostle) with this passage. Which is referred to here? Schmoller, following Wieseler, says, the former, to which view objection must now be made. 1. The James here referred to was the head of the church at Jerusalem. Such a position is ascribed to the Lord’s brother, to James the Just; if he cannot be identified with the son of Alpheus, the son of Alpheus is not referred to here. 2. This position over the church of Jerusalem, so obviously implied here, does not necessarily imply that James was an Apostles. For with respect to missionary activity Peter stands first, with respect to the church at Jerusalem this James. Was not missionary work distinctively apostolic work? was not one not an Apostle more likely to be in a permanent position at Jerusalem? 3. Paul does not call these three, Apostles, any more than he calls Barnabas an Apostle. In fact all the way through he uses a term that is indefinite—“of reputation.” If he meant Apostles only and wished to show his agreement with the senior Apostles, he would hardly have so carefully avoided saying so.—“Those in repute” were esteemed in Galatia as well as Jerusalem, and he was defending himself against Judaizers, who while denying his apostleship, quoted against him the mother church as well as the college of the Apostles. Hence he speaks of “the pillars” of the church then and there, not of Apostles as such, and puts them in the order of precedence in that church, “James and Peter and John.” Had all of them been of the Twelve, and as such recognized his apostleship (for these three gave him the right hand of fellowship), how could James, name come first? Any argument proving James to have done this as a distinctively apostolic act proves too much: proves him to be the head of the apostolic college. It is as head of that church, whence the Judaizing influence in Galatia came, that he takes precedence. Therefore we identify this James with the Lord’s brother (so in Gal_2:12).—R.]

Who were esteemed as pillars=as supports of the Christian church. Christ, of course, is the foundation. The Christian world is viewed as an οἰκοδομή.

They gave—the right hands of fellowship.—In general=They concluded with me and Barnabas an agreement as formal and firm as it was amicable. The more precise sense is given by the preceding context, inasmuch as this agreement was founded upon that. Seeing the coöperation (ἐνεργεῖν) of God rendered to both Peter and Paul, they had become persuaded of the equal divine vocation of each, of the former to the preaching of the gospel among the Gentiles, of the latter to the preaching of the gospel among the Jews. To this clearly recognized divine will they now rendered obedience by the formation of this compact. Agreeably to this twofold vocation they regulated also the twofold activity; assigning formally to each the field of labor to which, as they had become convinced, he was called. This was, it is true, a division of the work, but in the consciousness that it was a common work of preaching the gospel, one in God, who had only assigned to one this post, and to the other that. Therefore they gave “right hands of fellowship.” [Lightfoot: “gave pledges.” “The outward gesture is lost sight of in this expression, as appears from the fact that the plural is often used of a single person.”—R.] It was to be a parallel but a coöperative activity. The assumption of Baur therefore is entirely untenable, that it had only been a purely external compromise, that the senior Apostles after as before had held firmly the necessity of circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic law to salvation; that for the mission to the Gentiles they had tolerated Paul’s so widely divergent principles, because they could not prevent them, but that a further, inner bond between Paul’s mission to the Gentiles, and their mission to the Jews, did not exist. This would make “gave the right hands of fellowship” signify nothing more than, to come to an agreement and indeed really to an agreement to separate.18 That we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the Circumcision.—The purpose of the words, according to the connection, is doubtless to point out, that in this act the acknowledgment of the parity of Paul, and particularly the approbation of his teaching, was expressed in the strongest manner. So far were the senior Apostles from demanding a change in his teaching, that by this fixed compact they gave a full sanction to it, and declared in the most unequivocal manner, that they held it to be a pure gospel and worthy to be preached. For otherwise they would not have been able so composedly to make over the Gentile world to Paul as his mission field. To the general purpose of the statement the added clause “only,” etc., (Gal_2:10) also contributes. One wish, to be sure, they had respecting Paul and Barnabas; which, however, related in no way to a change of doctrine, implied no obligation toward the “circumcision,” concerning doctrine, but was only an entreaty to remember the poor. But the meaning and purpose of this added clause is not, that this was the only limitation of the separation here coming to light (Baur). In practice, modifications of this partition of the field of labor arose, especially to Paul, in consequence of the Jews of the dispersion. The partition therefore is to be understood not so much ethnographically as geographically. (Comp. also Gal_2:10, where “the poor” means poor people in Judea, and, therefore, “circumcision” here in contrast with the Gentile countries is also Judea.)

Gal_2:10. Remember the poor:—of course by gifts. As to the cause of the poverty of the Christians in Judea there are different conjectures.—Which very thing.—Paul studiously brings this forward in order to strengthen the contrast between the Jewish Christian opposition to him, and his approved zeal and affection for the Jewish Christians.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The significance of this event. On the significance, with respect to Christian doctrine and the Christian Church, of the proceedings between the Apostle Paul and the Christians in Jerusalem, especially the senior Apostles, since the proceedings themselves are not here detailed, the reader is referred to Acts 15 and to the remarks of Lechler in loco, Lange’s Comm. Acts, p. 282 sq. Only this need be said here; by the acknowledgment of the “liberty in Christ Jesus”, an emancipation from the old Covenant was for the first time effected; it was authoritatively established that a new Covenant was come, and Christianity was recognized as the absolutely perfect and the universal religion. Even though it was Paul who first brought this truth, in theory and practice, to its just validity, it was not, by any means, merely his own subjective view to such an extent as to make of Christianity something else than what it was, or was meant to be, in itself. This appears in the clearest light from his representation. Doubtless there were not a few who imputed this to him, and, therefore, were passionately hostile to the rise of his influence (“pseudo-brethren”), Jewish Christians, who were as yet more Jews than Christians. Against these Paul had to combat, and to what extent is shown, not only in our Epistle, but also in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. But precisely those whose voice was most availing (“those of repute”), and who, at the same time, best knew what was Christ’s true mind and purpose, frankly concurred with Paul, were one with him, and with them certainly all who had really become disciples of Christ, and, in the power of the Holy Ghost, had overcome all Pharisaic leanings, or had never had them. And although they for themselves did not stand upon that point of the “liberty in Christ Jesus” represented by Paul, yet these only needed a setting forth, on the part of Paul, of his preaching among the Gentiles, and of the argument inhering in the fact of its success, to convince them, in the first place of the possibility, in the case of the Gentiles, of being saved through faith in Christ alone. Comp. respecting Peter, Gal_2:16; moreover, his course, Acts 10, his justification of it, Acts 11; must not the other Apostles then have been prepared by the latter for the report rendered by Paul, Acts 15? Therefore, that chapter and Galatians 2, do not at all make the impression that they might still have had an opposite opinion and only now gave it up; and, of course, not the impression that they yet retained their antagonistic opinion, and yielded only externally. And even if they, and with them, the greater part of the Jewish Christians emancipated themselves only partially and gradually from a personal observance of the law, yet with that admission respecting the Gentiles, the principle of Christianity was acknowledged, it was acknowledged that a new Covenant had come, founded upon Christ alone.—There existed a consensus apostolorum on this question of principle: shall we have Law and the old Covenant or Christ and the new Covenant? This, thank God, is securely guaranteed, and the dissensus, which is said to have arisen between the original Apostles, as contracted Judaizers, and Paul, the man of Progress, is a discovery of modern criticism, which views testimony so plain as that of our chapter, and of Acts 15, only through the glass of its own preconceptions.

2. Liberty in Christ. In opposition to the pseudo-brethren, Paul, in the interest of the truth of the gospel, indicates the “liberty in Christ,” with the utmost decision, and will not be brought into bondage. On the other hand, where the truth of the gospel is not at stake, Paul scruples not of his own accord to make himself the servant of all, and for the sake of gaining souls (1Co_9:19-20) renounces “liberty.” The rule herein contained for the conduct of the Christian is clear; he may not bind his conscience by a human ordinance, which passes itself off for a commandment of God, nor permit it to be imposed upon him as a condition of salvation; but he not only may, but ought to, make himself a servant, to bind himself, to make something a duty of conscience to himself, for the sake of a weak brother. But because he does this of free will, in thus “becoming a servant,” he most shows his freedom, he does it as freeman, and remains clearly conscious of the distinction between God’s commandment and man’s ordinance. The rule in itself is clear, but demands much wisdom in its practical applications.

3. [Titus and Timothy. The principle just stated can best be illustrated by a reference to the Apostle’s conduct in this case of Titus and that of Timothy (Act_16:3) subsequently. Wordsworth thus judiciously states the difference: “If Timothy was circumcised (as was probably well known in Galatia), why not Titus? If not Titus, why Timothy? St. Paul replies to this question here: ‘But not even he who was with me at Jerusalem, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised. I would not consent that he should be circumcised, even at Jerusalem. I do not consent to your circumcision,—because you are Gentiles, and because you have embraced the gospel, and because it would be to force you backwards, instead of forwards, if I compelled you, or permitted others to compel you, to submit to the Levitical Law. But Timothy’s case was very different from yours. As has been well said by Augustine, St. Paul circumcised Timothy, in order that Timothy’s mother and maternal friends might not imagine that he detested circumcision, as if it were an idolatrous thing; for circumcision was from God, but Idolatry is of the Devil. But he did not circumcise Titus, lest he should afford a handle to those who alleged that Gentiles, receiving the gospel, could not be served without circumcision; and who deceived the Gentile Christians by imputing such an opinion to St. Paul. He might perhaps have allowed even Titus to receive circumcision, as a thing indifferent, and for the sake of peace and charity. But these false brethren did not proffer circumcision as a thing but as necessary. Observe 1) His charity, in circumcising Timothy at Lystra, in condescension to the scruples of weak brethren. 2) His courage in refusing to circumcise Titus at Jerusalem, in submission to the requisitions of false brethren. He would be tender-hearted to the erring, but he would not make the least compromise with error; and he would make no concession to any who would impose their errors on others as terms of communion.”—R.]

4. The importance of Paul’s position. Paul emphasizes so decidedly the fact that the senior Apostles gave him no new instruction, but recognized him as of equal authority, not out of pride, but in order to establish the truth of his preaching of the gospel, and the title by which he exercised the apostleship. He does it in the same spirit as in chap. 1; he declares that he did not receive his gospel from man.—Paul is protesting, in fact, against the beginnings of a Papacy, which the “false brethren” wished to erect by exaggerating the authority of the “Pillar Apostles” (and probably of Peter especially), as something to which a Paul must accommodate himself, as having no commission independently of it. “The authority of the pillars,” however, was only a pretext, the rallying word that they used; their own authority was what they sought.—Heubner.

[The authority of the “Mother Church” seems, from the drift of Paul’s narrative, to have been the rallying cry rather than the authority of Peter, since, in the sentence which establishes the acquiescence of the “pillars,” the name of James stands first. The argument gains force as a protest in this view (especially if James were not one of the Twelve). For the essence of Papacy is not the primacy of Peter, that was just such a pretext as the Galatians used, but the infallible authority of a Mother-Church. Therefore, the ground on which Paul stands is the basis for other protests than the famous one of the 16th century, since the insisting upon things indifferent as necessary is not confined to one Pope at Rome, but often issues from a body claiming like authority.—R.]

5. Diversity of calling. Paul and Peter were engaged in the same one gospel, but to each the Lord had assigned a different mission; to the one, that to the Gentiles; to the latter, that to the Jews. Clearly conscious of this, they divided the field of labor between them. This diversity of calling, resting upon diversity of gifts (Charisms), or perhaps diversity in the providential course of previous life, etc., must be carefully considered in the kingdom of God, if anything is to be really accomplished. One may stand fully and firmly upon the ground of evangelical faith, himself have living faith, and yet be by no means qualified for every task in the kingdom of God. In this respect also, the body of Christ has many members, having diverse offices, but coöperating for the same end. It is an organic whole, and hence such an organization as took place on a small scale among the Apostles is entirely admissible. It must, however, be natural, inwardly true, not artificial and merely external, else it were mechanical, not organic.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Gal_2:1. From Starke:—A preacher must not shrink from toil and labor, when he finds opportunity in his ministry to further the gospel, but neglecting his own convenience, should be ready to offer up all the powers of his body and spirit in the service of God.—Rieger:—A carefully chosen company; Barnabas, a Jew, one of the first fruits unto Christ, and Titus a born Gentile, not even circumcised, but both one in Christ.—Starke:—It is an excellent thing when brethren are at one.—This is in the church of God a beginning of Synods, which are rightly retained.

Gal_2:2. Let us strive at least for this, that what we do in weighty matters, we may do by God’s governance and not after our own will. Conferences which are held concerning the affairs of the kingdom of God, by men who stand in one Spirit, have a great advantage, for thereby there comes to pass a communication of gifts between each other to the common use.—Hedinger:—To ask men for counsel, must have divine command, will and order, else it helps little in matters of faith, and it is hurtful for man to trust thereon.—Rieger:—Also as concerns repute with others, a man can receive nothing except it be given him from above. Paul with all that God had bestowed on him, and wrought through him, came into no such general repute. He had to endure continually increasing contradiction against himself. It must, however, have been for him a needful mantle of obscurity.—Starke:—As all hindrances, that can hinder the fruit of the Gospel must be diligently avoided, and removed out of the way, so also the undeserved suspicion of any.

Paul does not therefore defiantly say, “I know that I preach the right Gospel, let others think of it what they will,” but he is concerned for a mutual understanding, for the convincing of others, in the interest of peace and of the cause which they serve in common.—[Calvin:—What then? Does the word of God fall, when it is unsupported by the testimony of men? No, but a powerful confirmation of faith is yielded, when all the teachers “speak the same thing and there are no divisions among them.” Were many as desirous as he to edify the Church, they would take more pains to be agreed among themselves.—Wordsworth:—Paul did all that was requisite on his part to obviate that very result which, unhappily, manifested itself among the Galatians, viz.: the bringing of his doctrine into public collision with that of the other Apostles. Also by the mention of the private conference, particularly with Peter, he prudently prepares the way for his description of the public dispute with Peter at Antioch.—R.]

Gal_2:3. Spener:—In things indifferent we may well, out of love, yield something of our liberty to the good of the weak. But where men would press these upon us as necessary to salvation, and our yielding would have the appearance of bringing the truth of the gospel into jeopardy, we should never yield.—Starke:—It is wholly contrary to the nature of the gospel to lay on any one a constraint of conscience in things that concern our salvation, for the nature of the gospel is not to constrain, but to beseech, to allure, and to convince. But the spirit of Antichrist binds and constrains the consciences to his ordinances and doctrines of men.

Gal_2:4. Even in the best state of the Christian church there are false brethren, who will be taken as right-minded Christians, and are not. Now these are much more dangerous than open enemies of the gospel.—Cramer:—The true behavior of false teachers. They come not in at the right door; they are sneakers in, and hide themselves behind a false disguise.—Hedinger:—Legal disciplinarians, who look at the outward cannot endure that others should enjoy liberty, and yet in the Spirit do more than they. Dear Christian! learn once for all, that outward taskwork cannot make a living heir of God. The heart! the heart! The heart, from its inmost centre must love, fear, honor God, flee sin, and praise Him, who for thee has died and is risen again.—Starke:—The main aim of false teachers is only to take us prisoners to deprive us of our liberty in Christ, although they do not confess such an aim in words, but will have the appearance of wishing only to check carnal security and liberty.

Gal_2:5. Berlenb. Bible:—The world and hypocrites count this for obstinacy. Is that then commendable? is the cry with it. I thought now that Christians should yield, and Paul boasts himself of just the opposite ! But we must get the true understanding of the matter from the words that follows: We would not give way thereto in subjection, so as to suffer ourselves to be placed under this order of things. Otherwise a Christian willingly gives way, as Paul also proved when he circumcised Timothy. But when they would have him do it as a matter of conscience he did it not. One may be zealous for true freedom, and yet for love’s sake bear with much. If it be not given out for a first step to salvation, love endures all; but faith will suffer no derogation of itself.—In our time many a one thinks on a sudden, that he will be as valorous as Paul, as Luther; but he must first have their spirit. For valor there needs a divine power.—Freedom and Truth must go together, else freedom profits not. Truth is inward, freedom, what one maintains outwardly thereof. They are treasures of two kinds, but springing from the same root. And because I will not suffer men to plant anything false in my heart, I must guard myself without.—From Starke:—The law is something transient: it is the gospel that is permanent. The gospel too contains the kernel of all the Mosaic ceremonies, the shell only falls away. The shadow recedes when the sun rises.

The liberty which is in Christ: 1. We may renounce it for love’s sake; 2. we must not let ourselves be robbed of it—for the truth of the gospel’s sake.—The truth of the gospel is above all; may be hazarded at no price.—If the truth of the gospel is at stake, the combat may not be shunned.—[Our freedom, 1. negatively, from the bondage of the law, 2. positively, in Christ Jesus; hence Christian liberty no license.—False brethren the most dangerous enemies to liberty. Weak brethren disturb yet strengthen it; false brethren seek to undermine and destroy it. Because “out of Christ,” yet in His camp, they spy out and would betray what we have in Him, our liberty.—What a contrast! the false brethren creeping in to rob others of truth and liberty; Paul our faithful, fearless, yet humble and holy champion for the truth which makes us free (Joh_8:32).—R.]

Gal_2:6. Wurt. Summ.:—This is Paul’s meaning: God looks not on the outward person and standing of a man, so that he should prefer a learned one to an unlearned, a rich man to a poor, a powerful man to a weak, but abides by the rule of His word, namely: “In every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of Him.” In which thing we then should all follow God, and neither for the sake of a person or of any earthly thing, should we retire from the right or from the rule of God’s word, but should abide steadfastly by it, even though an emperor, a king or a governor should command otherwise, or though it should cost life or limb.—Starke:—In matters of faith, the authority of persons and outward preëminence has no weight, but only the truth of doctrine, which is Christ’s and from Christ.—[Schaff:—Paul means no disrespect to his colleagues, but even their advantages, he represents as having no weight where the truth of the gospel was concerned. His high sense of independence far from being identical with pride, rested in his humility; it was but the complement to the feeling of his absolute dependence upon God.

“God no respecter of persons.” The Galatians were; why else this constant reference to those “of repute?” There is no slight intended to those of repute, but a rebuke to those who in their Christian opinion lean not on God, but on men, men of position, reputation. How many neither false brethren, nor so far gone in error as the bewitched Galatians pin their faith on the δοκοῦντες.—R.]

Gal_2:7. Starke:—The gospel is a Divine deposit and treasure, which is not given to any one for his own, but is only entrusted, so that we must deal with it as pleases Him who has given us such a trust.—Spener:—God has made wise distribution among His servants; though He calls them in common to all spiritual functions, and none of them is quite free from some; yet He appoints to each in particular his certain part, where and in which he shall serve Him, and for that He fits him out with the needful gifts. Therefore, special blessing attends their labor, when they are where the Lord has set them.

[The gospel treasure, the chosen vessels to which it was entrusted. The adaptation for the field of labor is the gift and trust of God’s grace. The preparation of the field, God’s providential work. The assignment of the field, God’s act, to which the Church but consents, as in the first and weightiest case.—R.]

Gal_2:8. Spener:—All gifts, all power in instruction and success of labor, come from God, who must be effectual with us and in us, if we are to accomplish anything. 1Co_3:6; 2Co_3:6. Therefore, to Him belongs all the praise and thanks.—Cramer:—The holy ministry is not a mere babbling, but a mighty instrument, wherewith God breaks hearts to pieces, as with a hammer, and also a two-edged sword, and a sharp knife, wherewith He cuts out the stony heart.

Gal_2:9. Starke:—We are bound, not only to recognize the grace which God has given to us, and rightly to use the same, but also to recognize that which others have received, and to be helpful that this also may be turned to use.

[“James, and Cephas, and John.” From Wordsworth:—He mentions these by name, because what he says was honorable to them. When he has anything less creditable to record, ho spares the names of individuals even of the false brethren. He mentions Peter below, for which, doubtless, there was a necessity. It was providential, too, since some who claim to be the successors of St. Peter profess to be above error and beyond rebuke.—R.]

Spener:—Although the teachers of the gospel, in respect of their office, are alike, yet there is a distinction between them in respect to gifts; and it is not amiss that, according to such distinction, they should be used for weightier and greater, or for lesser functions, and accordingly should be had in greater or less reputation. [Calvin:—Even in the Church of God, he who enjoys a larger measure of grace ought, on that account, to receive higher honor. But, in all cases, let the rule be followed: “He that is greatest among you shall be your servant.”—R.]—“They gave the right hands of fellowship.” Anacker, Bibelstanden:—What a moment must that have been! What a blessed working of the Holy Ghost! What a victory for the good cause of Paul, or rather for the cause of Christ’s Gospel itself!

We here see the distinction between true and false union in matters of faith; it would have been false union, if Paul had yielded; that is, had abandoned the sound evangelical ground upon which he stood, and the three senior Apostles had then first recognized him; it was true union when Paul, with decision, maintained the evangelical truth, and the three yet joined fellowship with him, because they were persuaded of the truth, of the divine origin, of his preaching.—Accord in matters of faith: 1. Possible and permitted only where evangelical truth is maintained, and, therefore, Paul’s firmness is not to be censured; 2. but this maintained, it is not only beautiful, but a duty; a) in the interest of the fulfilment of the commandment of love; b) in the interest of the advancement of the cause of God’s kingdom.—The willingness of the Apostles to recognize Paul, an example for us; 1. they examined Paul’s doctrine first; but 2. so soon as they had persuaded themselves of his Divine mission, they entered into fellowship with him, giving up their particular opinions and scruples.—The one apostolic church, built: 1. not upon the authority of one or another Apostle, but 2. upon the agreement of the same, or rather upon the One Gospel.—The gospel of righteousness through faith in Christ Jesus, the touchstone of true and false Apostles; the former unite in this, in spite of all other differences; the latter not, because they are concerned for themselves, and not for Christ.—Anacker, Bibelstunden:—Did they not then immediately separate themselves again? O, no; they were and remained one in the Lord, but each knew the field into which especially the Lord had sent him, each joyfully accepted his part, and joyfully and humbly left to the other what belonged to him. So should it be among Christians!

Gal_2:10. Cramer:—It is a part of the holy ministry to have an eye to the poor and to the distribution of alms.—Anacker, Bibelstunden:—With respect to the poor no division should occur; but in all the various spheres and callings which separate men, mainly in place and station, let compassionate love be a continual outward proof that we are one in the inner ground of faith. On the other hand, such fellowship of love in fruitful measure is only possible where there is a consciousness of the fellowship of faith.—F. Müller:—Such love, we rejoice to believe, will again awake in our days; the hearts of Christians have become warm and intent on remembering the need of their brethren, whether it be in showing love to the distant heathen, or to those who, though in the midst of Christendom, yet live no better than heathen, or to oppressed brethren in the faith, who, surrounded by a hostile communion, lack the most necessary means for the maintenance of their church life. But such love is still far from prevailing fully among us.

[Luther:—True religion is ever in need. Wherefore a true and faithful pastor must have a care of the poor also.—Burkitt:—The faithful ministers of Christ ought, upon first and fit occasions, to excite and stir up their people to duties of charity, as well as piety; to costly and expensive duties, as well as those that are easy and less burdensome; these being no less profitable to the Church, and much more evidential of a real work of grace upon the heart.—Wordsworth:—Paul here shows 1. His fraternal cooperation with the other Apostles; 2. His love for the Jewish Christians; 3. That his non-compliance with the requirements of the false brethren was from no lack of charity to them, He became a suitor to the Gentiles for alms to the Jews, and at length a victim to the rancor of the Jews, when he was engaged at Jerusalem in the act of promoting this very thing.—R.]

[Unity in beneficence: 1. a fruit of the Spirit in the early Church; 2. a hopeful sign in the Church of the present day.—Paul forward in this work of beneficence; first in time, first in effort.—He continued to be forward. Just after writing this Epistle, he made a tour, gathering the alms of the Greek churches for the saints at Jerusalem, whence came the impugners of his office and doctrine. Christian beneficence, like God’s, overlooks unworthiness and ingratitude. “The false brethren” would be “forward” at the distribution of alms to the “saints,” yet Paul’s forwardness was not affected by this.—R.]

Footnotes:

[1]Gal_2:2.—[On μήπως. See Exegetical Notes.—R.]

[2]Gal_2:2.—[This form of the English present undoubtedly gives the better meaning. So Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot.—R.]

[3]Gal_2:2.—[“Have” must take the place of “had” for grammatical reasons, “should” being an auxiliary here also.—R.]

[4]Gal_2:3.—[The E. V. is literally correct, but does not bring out the reason for his being circumcised, here implied.—R.]

[5]Gal_2:4.—[Παρεισάκτους, only here in N. T. It means “insidious,” “those foisted in” (Alford, Schaff). It must be rendered adverbially in English.—R.]

[6] Gal_2:4.—[The reading of the Rec. καταδουλώσωνται is generally regarded as a correction, since the subjunctive usually follows ἵνα. The future καταδουλώσουσιν is found in א. A. B. C. D. E., and adopted by modern editors.—R.]

Gal_2:5.—[Τῇ ὑποταγῇ, a particular submission, that demanded of us.—R.]

[7]Gal_2:5.—Οἶς οὐδέ is to be retained with Lachmann, Tischendorf, etc. [For this reading there is an immense preponderance of external authority; א. A. B. C. F. K. L. Modern editors all retain it—the omission is easily accounted for. See the extended critical note of Lightfoot on this passage, p. 120 sq.—R.]

[8]Gal_2:6.—[Τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι. The idea of “seeming to be somewhat,” must give place to that of “being deemed somewhat.” So Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, and most commentators, and E. V. Gal_2:2. The very strong anacoluthon is rendered more easy by putting ὁποῖοί … λαμβάνει, “whatsoever … person” in a parenthesis, and placing “to me” in the beginning of the resumptive clause, as indeed is done in the Greek, ἐμοί standing first.—R.]

[9]Gal_2:6.—[Προςανέθεντο. Eillicott, “communicated;” Alford, “imparted;” Schaff, “gave no new instruction.” See Exeg. Notes.—R.]

[10]Gal_2:7—[The structure is altered from the original in the E. V., “I” and “Peter” are the proper subjects of the respective clauses. “Am entrusted with” is a better rendering of πεπίστευμαι, the perfect of permanent state.—R.]

[11]Gal_2:8.—Ἐνεργέω takes ἐν after it, when the meaning is “wrought in;” here it is the simple dative. The E. V. renders the same verb differently m this verse. Literally: “energized,” “gave strength to.”—R.]

[12]Gal_2:9.—D. E. F. G. H. and most of the Fathers have Πέτρος καὶ Ἰάκωβος. An inversion to preserve the precedence of rank. Meyer. [The reading Ἰάκωβος καὶ κηφᾶς is supported by א. B. C. K. L. and adopted by modern editors generally, on internal as well as external grounds.—R.]

[13]Gal_2:9.—[The order of the E. V. is an inversion of the original. The true order, given above, is found in Wickliffe’s, Tyndale’s, Cranmer’s, Bishop’s and Rhemish, with a slight variation from the above reading. The participle γνόντες is co-ordinate with ἰδόντες (Gal_2:7). The whole passage should read thus: “When they saw that I am entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, as Peter with that of the circumcision: (For he that wrought for Peter toward the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought for me also toward the Gentiles;) and became aware of the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, who were esteemed as pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.”—R.]

[14]Gal_2:9.—[Ellicott supplies here “should be apostles,” which is objectionable on historical and dogmatical grounds. Schaff: “that we should pleach the gospel for.”—R].

[15]Gal_2:10.—[Ὃ αν̓τὸ τοῦτο, is stronger than “the same which.” “Which very thing” (Ellicott). Alford more literally: “Which was the very thing that I also was anxious to do.”—R.]

[16][Tertullian; Non separationem evangelii, nec ut aliud alter sed ut aliis alter prædicassent.—R.]

[17][Notice the exact use of the perfect πεπίστευμαι, “I have been, I am still entrusted with it.”—R.]

[18][For a compact survey of the transactions narrated in this section, see Schaff, Apostolic church, p. 249 sq.—for a valuable note against Baur’s hypotheses, p. 251 sq.—For a very thoughtful and interesting sketch of the relations between Jewish and Gentile Christianity in the first ages of the church, against the advocates of a distinctive Pauline Christianity, the reader is referred to Lightfoot, Dissertation iii. Paul and the Three, p. 283 sq.—R]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 2

1. How Jerusalem had Confirmed the Gospel Paul Preached. (Gal 2:1-10)

2. Peter’s Failure; Paul’s Rebuke and Testimony. (Gal 2:11-21)

Fourteen years passed by before he ever saw Jerusalem again. What wonderful years of service these years were! The great servant of Christ had preached the divine message in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. The day of Christ will reveal the blessed results of these years. Act 15:1-41 must be read to see why Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem. The same false teachers had visited the great Gentile center, Antioch, and taught “except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” Then Paul and Barnabas were appointed to go to Jerusalem to lay this question before the apostles and elders. Here the additional information is given that Paul went up by a direct revelation from God. It shows his dependence on the Lord. They also took Titus with them, who was a Gentile believer and not circumcised. He was acknowledged as in Christian fellowship and not compelled to be circumcised. This, in itself, was sufficient evidence that the apostles in Jerusalem did not sanction the teaching that circumcision is necessary for salvation. Paul communicated to the leaders in Jerusalem the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles. He did so privately first, for there was grave danger of a division in the body of Christ which he wanted to avoid; he did this so that he might not run in vain. In all this he manifested a gracious spirit. But when the false brethren introduced their perverted gospel to bring him and his fellow-laborers into bondage, he did not yield to them for a moment, but contended earnestly for the faith “that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.” The result was the full confirmation of the Gospel Paul preached, by James, Cephas and John, who gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. The pillars of the church, as these three Apostles are called, recognized the fact that the gospel of the uncircumcision had been committed unto Paul, as the gospel to the circumcision was Peter’s calling and ministry. Both apostleships were from God and depended upon His gift. Thus the Apostle Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles, to whom was also committed the truth concerning the church, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile, one body with Christ as the Head.

“It is evident that these facts are of great importance in the history of the church of God. How often have we not heard Peter spoken of as head of the church. That Peter, ardent and full of zeal, began the work at Jerusalem, the Lord working mightily by his means, is certain; we see it plainly in scripture. But he had nothing to do with the work carried on among the Gentiles. That work was done by Paul, who was sent by the Lord, Himself, and Paul entirely rejected the authority of Peter. For him, Peter was but a man; and he, sent by Christ, was independent of men. The church among the Gentiles is the fruit of Paul’s, not of Peter’s work, it owed its origin to Paul and to his labor, and in no way to Peter, whom Paul had to resist with all his strength, in order to keep the assemblies among the Gentiles free from the influence of that spirit which ruled Christians, who were the fruit of Peter’s work. God maintained unity by His grace; had He not kept the church, it would have been divided into two parts, even in the days of the Apostles themselves” (Darby, Epistle to the Galatians).

This confirmation of Paul and the gospel he preached was a complete answer to the false claims and accusations of the enemies of the apostle.

A more serious matter is next brought to our attention. It shows the failure of Peter and how he had compromised the truth of the gospel. This exposure was necessary, for the false teachers claimed for Peter a special place of authority as if he were the perfect apostle, whose words and actions were next to infallible. The perverted gospel which teaches law-keeping and ordinances as necessary means for salvation, puts up man as authority and looks to man and not to the risen and glorified Lord. The Judaistic claims of Peter’s superiority was the starting point of the Romish system, which asserts that Peter occupied a place as the visible head of the church in Rome, and which has culminated in the wicked assumption that the popes are the infallible vice-regents of Christ on earth.

Peter had visited Antioch and Paul had to withstand him to the face, for he was blameworthy.

Coming to Antioch, where Peter found a large Gentile church he there enjoyed his liberty in Christ; he ate with the Gentiles, realizing that the middle wall of partition was broken down (Eph 2:14) and that believing Jews and Gentiles were one in Christ. All went well till some from James in Jerusalem showed themselves in Antioch. Then Peter, afraid of opposition, not because he thought in the least that he was wrong, separated himself, leaving them which were of the circumcision. His example led the other Jewish believers to dissemble likewise with him and even Barnabas joined in and, as a result, the unity of the Spirit was given up and the truth of the gospel marred. And Paul when he saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the Gospel, rebuked Peter before them all. The leaven of the Pharisee, hypocrisy, is manifest in Peter’s action. He wanted to appear before those who were still Jewish in their customs and sentiments as being in sympathy with them, and therefore he gave up his liberty in Christ, which he knew was according to the truth of the gospel. Paul rebuking Peter in public shows that Peter had not the least authority over Paul.

“If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” These are the words Paul addressed to Peter. Why should Gentiles be forced to live as Jews, when Peter, being a Jew, had lived as the Gentiles? Gal 2:15-18 reveal the fatal consequences of Peter’s action. He shows that Peter was a transgressor by building again what he had destroyed (Gal 2:18). How had Peter done so and what suggested the question “Is, therefore, Christ the minister of sin?” (Gal 2:17). When Peter refused to eat with the Gentiles he went back to the law and was thereby attempting to be justified by works; he was building again the law. But, previous to that, he had abandoned the law as a means of justification before God and he had believed in Jesus Christ to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law. He had found out that “by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” By building again the system of the law, which he had given up as unable to justify him, he made himself a transgressor, because he had left it. Inasmuch as it was Christ who had led him to do this--was, then, Christ a minister of sin? God forbid. It was the doctrine of Christ which had made him a transgressor in giving up the law; for in building it again and going back to it he acknowledged that he was wrong when he had rejected it as a means of justification. This is the argument of these verses.

The concluding verses of this chapter give the truth of the position of a believer in Christ who is justified by faith. It is Paul’s individual testimony which every believer in Christ may repeat, for what was the apostle’s position is ours also. “For I through the law died to the law, that I might live unto God.” The law had pronounced the sentence of death and condemnation upon him and, through the law he had died to the law. But the sentence of the law was executed upon him in the person of Christ, who took the curse of the law, the condemnation, upon Himself, and believing in Christ he had died as to the old man. The law had slain him, but Christ had died in his stead, and thus he had died to the law, for the law only has dominion over a man as long as he lives. Death, the death of Christ, had freed him from the dominion of the law. As having died with Christ, he was dead to the law. (Rom 6:1-23; Rom 7:1-25 gives us the doctrine concerning these blessed facts of being dead to the law and delivered from the power of sin.)

All this is true of every believer. The great and precious truth of being dead with Christ and living unto God is blessedly stated in Paul’s triumphant declaration, “I was crucified with Christ.” (Not “I am crucified”; not in the sense of living as crucified with Christ, etc., but “I was crucified,” put to death as to the old man, when Christ died.) The death of Christ has not only set the believer free from the guilt of sins, but has also put him to death as to the old man and delivered him from the power of sin in the flesh. “Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be annulled, that we should no longer serve sin” (Rom 6:6). Then follow the other equally blessed statements: “Nevertheless, I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” Dead to sin and the law, the believer no longer lives in his old life, but he has another life, which is Christ--”Christ liveth in me.” It is that life which we receive, believing on Him.

The principle which governs this life is not the law principle, but it is a life lived in the faith of the Son of God. “All life in the creature has an object--we cannot walk without one. If the Lord Jesus is our life, He is also, personally, the object of the life, and we live by faith in Him. The heart sees Him, looks to Him, feeds upon Him, is assured of His love, for He gave Himself for us. The life that we live in the flesh, we live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved us and gave Himself for us. Happy certainty! Blessed assurance! It is a new life, the old man is crucified, and Christ, whose perfect love we know, is the sole object of faith and of the heart.”

“It is this which always characterizes the life of Christ in us: He Himself is its object--He alone. The fact, that it is by dying for us in love that He who was capable of it, the Son of God--has given us thus freed from sin this life as our own, being ever before the mind, in our eyes He is clothed with the love He has thus shown us. We live by faith of the Son of God, who has loved us, and given Himself for us. And here it is personal life, the individual faith that attaches us to Christ, and makes Him precious to us as the object of the soul’s intimate faith.” (Synopsis)

And then the conclusion. “I do not frustrate (set aside) the grace of God; for if righteousness is by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (or: has died for nothing). If righteousness can be obtained by works, by a self-made character, or through keeping ordinances, then the death of Christ was superfluous and the grace of God is set aside. Christ is dead in vain if there is any other way to obtain righteousness than by faith in Him and through the grace of God.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Subdivision 2. (Gal 2:1-21.)

Confirmation, spite of opposition.

The apostle goes on now to the history of his after-communications with those who were apostles before him, and to show that while they added nothing to him in the matter of testimony, they themselves did in the fullest way confirm the reality of that apostleship which he independently received.

1. He did not go up again to Jerusalem till fourteen years had elapsed, during which much work had been done amongst the Gentiles, and Titus accompanying himself and Barnabas was the fruit of that work. The time at which he went up was that when there had been raised at Antioch itself a question of the character of this new gospel to the Gentiles. We have had the history of it already in the fifteenth of Acts. Paul and Barnabas, as we find there, were sent with the full concurrence of the brethren at Antioch, to settle once for all this matter which was agitating them; but, as he tells us here, even in this case, he did not go up as yielding merely to the solicitation of others, but by express revelation from God. The time had come, in fact, when if there was not to be an open breach, there must be the manifestation of an agreement between those who were the leaders at Jerusalem, the central place for Judaism, and those who were preaching the new gospel. He went up accordingly and communicated to them the gospel that he was preaching; first of all, (on account of the height to which the opposition ran,) "privately to those who were of reputation," lest the outbreak of the legalism which was carrying the multitude should work disaster among those who had been gathered out among; the Gentiles. This is what he means evidently by saying that he did this, "lest he should run or had run in vain:" There was no yielding to the opposition in the slightest degree. Titus was with him, a Greek, yet in fullest Christian fellowship, and without being circumcised. Already he speaks of false brethren who had been unawares brought in, who were seeking to bring into bondage Christ’s free men. Christianity, in fact, at Jerusalem was at present so little more than a Jewish sect that we can readily understand how open would be the door for men of this class to flock into it. The apostle withstands them, not giving place, as he says "for an hour." It might seem to others to be a small matter, that for which he was contending. With him it involved the whole truth of the gospel. The success was manifest. In conference he found that "those who seemed to be somewhat" had nothing to communicate to him but, on the other hand, recognized that to him God had, in fact, committed the gospel of the uncircumcision just as truly as to Peter he had given that of the circumcision. The same mighty power in signs and wonders accompanied his work amongst the Gentiles as that which had manifested itself in Peter among the circumcision; and those who seemed to be pillars, (whom he now names, as James, Cephas and John,) perceived the grace that was given to him. They gave then to him and to Barnabas "the right hand of fellowship"; not simply as Christian brethren, but that they should go to the Gentiles, as they themselves remained as ministers to the circumcision. They only stipulate that the poor should be remembered; a testimony, as it seems, as to the character of those who were being reached by the gospel in Israel; and we find, accordingly, Paul zealous afterwards to bring to these the offerings of the Gentiles.

2. Such then had been the confirmation given him; but he now goes further and shows that upon an after occasion at Antioch, he had had to withstand Peter himself and that as blameworthy. He had been with them in the unrestricted liberty of Christianity, eating with the Gentiles. A change was induced by the coming of some from James. We see how firmly the Judaizing character still remained with many of these. And when they were come, Peter withdrew and separated himself, not from any conviction of error on his part, but simply as giving way, as Paul had not given way, to the opposition which he feared. Such an example in such a place soon worked disastrously. The other Jews, apparently the mass of those there, dissembled likewise with him. It was not, as we see again, conviction, but retrograde movement in spite of their convictions; and this went so far that Barnabas, the companion of Paul himself; was carried away with this dissimulation. The power of God to resist this movement was found with Paul alone. He saw that they "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel;" and singling out Peter, not now for private conference, but in the presence of them all, (for Peter needed not to be convinced but convicted,) he said to him: "If thou being a Jew livest after the manner of Gentiles," as he had been doing, "and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou now the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" Necessarily they were doing that if they were making circumcision a necessity for the Jews to have fellowship with them. He appeals to the character of Judaism in itself in opposition to this. What had they themselves who were Jews by nature done with regard to this? They were not sinners of the Gentiles, yet -he could speak for himself fully, as we know, as the most zealous of law-keepers, -yet they knew that a man was not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. They had given up, therefore, the one for the other. They had believed in Christ to be justified by the faith of Christ; because by the works of the law could no flesh be justified. Judaism had thus been given up: for men could not take up the law as they pleased, as a rule of life, as people say sometimes, but not as a rule of judgment. They had to take it for that for which God gave it, and a rule of judgment it necessarily was if it was to answer the purpose for which He gave it. If then they had renounced the law in order to be justified by Christ, and had found justification in this way, could it at the same time be sin to renounce it; and had Christ become the minister of sin in this matter of their justification? To build again the things destroyed was to make themselves transgressors in having destroyed them. The law either existed for them or it did not exist. We see that he goes much further than applying it or not to Gentiles; and carries to its full result the principle of the decision at Jerusalem, which went beyond the decision itself. He himself through the law had become dead to the law, and that be might live to God. The whole Christian life, therefore, was involved in this. The epistle to the Romans has made us fully acquainted with the argument here. The law itself, through Christ bearing its penalty for them, had, as it were, affirmed their death to it. He was crucified with Christ, with Him who, as he says afterwards, had borne the curse of the law, its extremest penalty, beyond which it had no claim at all. Thus he was free. Dead with Christ, it was to live, and he lived; yet not, so to speak, himself. The Christ who had been upon the cross for him, who was now in heaven, had won him for Himself, that Christ who henceforth in the glorious reality of what he saw Him to be, lived in him. It was more than Christ being his life: Christ was his true self, the aim and object of his life from henceforth; for the life which he lived in the flesh, he lived now in the faith of the Son of God who, in the wonder of His perfect grace, had loved and given Himself for him. Would they put Christ under the law also? Alas, some would and do even today. For the apostle, it was far otherwise. The law, if it remained now for him, would be simply the destruction of all the value of Christ’s death for him. If righteousness came by the law, that death of Christ was null and void. Thus it is plain that the question of the law as a possible rule of life for the Christian is settled by the apostle’s words here. God never made it that. It is manifest that even as a rule, if it were, -nay, just because it was -the perfect rule for the Jew, if the Christian be anything different, anything higher than a Jew, the Jew’s rule could not give to his walk its Christian character. Instead of being too high for Christian attainment as a standard, it is all too low. In fact, there is nothing of the heavenly side of Christianity expressed in the law at all. It is the man in the flesh over whom the law has dominion; and, as we have seen elsewhere, the sphere of law is thus altogether this side of death, and not beyond it. The Christian is, through grace, beyond it. Death and judgment are behind him, not before him. He belongs to another sphere; and though upon earth, he is, nevertheless, the man in Christ, to live and walk as that. It is plain that Peter, in pursuing the course he did, had no thought whatever to be in conflict with the truth of justification before God. He simply adopted the law for the moment as a rule of life, but the apostle makes it a question of the whole gospel. He has no thought of the possibility of its being a mere rule of conduct. God meant it to raise the question of righteousness before Him. "The man that doeth these things shall live by them" was, in regard to it, the whole matter.

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 7

PAUL AND THE FALSE BRETHREN.

Gal_2:1-5

"FOURTEEN years" had elapsed since Paul left Jerusalem for Tarsus, and commenced his Gentile mission. During this long period-a full half of his missionary course-the Apostle was lost to the sight of the Judean Churches. For nearly half this time, until Barnabas brought him to Antioch, we have no further trace of his movements. But these years of obscure labour had, we may be sure, no small influence in shaping the Apostles subsequent career. It was a kind of Apostolic apprenticeship. Then his evangelistic plans were laid; his powers were practised; his methods of teaching and administration formed and tested. This first, unnoted period of Pauls missionary life held, we imagine, much the same relation to his public ministry that the time of the Arabian retreat did to his spiritual development.

We are apt to think of the Apostle Paul only as we see him in the full tide of his activity, carrying "from Jerusalem round about unto Illyricum" the standard of the cross and planting it in one after another of the great cities of the Empire, "always triumphing in every place"; or issuing those mighty Epistles whose voice shakes the world. We forget the earlier term of preparation, these years of silence and patience, of unrecorded toil in a comparatively narrow and humble sphere, which had after all their part in making Paul the man he was. If Christ Himself would not "clutch" at His Divine prerogatives, {Php_2:5-11} nor win them by self-assertion and before the time, how much more did it become His servant to rise to his great office by slow degrees. Paul served first as a private missionary pioneer in his native land, then as a junior colleague and assistant to Barnabas, until the summons came to take a higher place, when "the signs of an Apostle" had been fully "wrought in him." Not in a day, nor by the effect of a single revelation did he become the fully armed and all-accomplished Apostle of the Gentiles whom we meet in this Epistle. "After the space of fourteen years" it was time for him to stand forth the approved witness and minister of Jesus Christ, whom Peter and John publicly embraced as their equal.

Paul claims here the initiative in the momentous visit to Jerusalem undertaken by himself and Barnabas, of which he is going to speak. In Act_15:2 he is similarly placed at the head of the deputation sent from Antioch about the question of circumcision. The account of the preceding missionary tour in Acts 13, 14, shows how the headship of the Gentile Church had come to devolve on Paul. In Lukes narrative they are "Barnabas and Saul" who set out; "Paul and Barnabas" who return. {Act_13:2; Act_13:7; Act_13:13; Act_13:43; Act_13:45-46; Act_13:50; Act_14:12; Act_14:14; Act_15:2; Act_15:12} Under the trials and hazards of this adventure at Paphos, Pisidian Antioch, Lystra-Pauls native ascendency and his higher vocation irresistibly declared themselves. Age and rank yielded to the fire of inspiration, to the gifts of speech, the splendid powers of leadership which the difficulties of this expedition revealed in Paul. Barnabas returned to Antioch with the thought in his heart, "He must increase; I must decrease." And Barnabas was too generous a man not to yield cheerfully to his companion the precedence for which God thus marked him out. Yet the "sharp contention" in which the two men parted soon after this time, {Act_15:36-40} was, we may conjecture, due in some degree to a lingering soreness in the mind of Barnabas on this account.

The Apostle expresses himself with modesty, but in such a way as to show that he was regarded in this juncture as the champion of the Gentile cause. The "revelation" that prompted the visit came to him. The "taking up of Titus" was his distinct act (Gal_2:1). Unless Paul has deceived himself, he was quite the leading figure in the Council; it was his doctrine and his Apostleship that exercised the minds of the chiefs at Jerusalem, when the delegates from Antioch appeared before them. Whatever Peter and James may have known of surmised previously concerning Pauls vocation, it was only now that it became a public question for the Church. But as matters stood, it was a vital question. The status of uncircumcised Christians, and the Apostolic rank of Paul, constituted the twofold problem placed before the chiefs of the Jewish Church. At the same time, the Apostle, while fixing our attention mainly on his own position, gives to Barnabas his meed of honour; for he says, "I went up with Barnabas,"-"we never yielded for an hour to the false brethren,"-"the Pillars gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles." But it is evident that the elder Gentile missionary stood in the background. By the action that he takes Paul unmistakably declares, "I am the Apostle of the Gentiles"; {Comp. Rom_11:13; Rom_15:16-17} and that claim is admitted by the consenting voice of both branches of the Church. The Apostle stepped to the front at this solemn crisis, not for his own rank or offices sake, but at the call of God, in defence of the truth of the gospel and the spiritual freedom of mankind.

This meeting at Jerusalem took place in 51, or it may be, 52 A.D. We make no doubt that it is the same with the Council of Acts 15. The identification has been controverted by several able scholars, but without success. The two accounts are different, but in no sense contradictory. In fact, as Dr. Pfleiderer acknowledges, they "admirably supplement each other. The agreement as to the chief points is in any case greater than the discrepancies in the details; and these discrepancies can for the most part be explained by the different standpoint of the relaters." A difficulty lies, however, in the fact that the historian of the Acts makes this the third visit of Paul to Jerusalem subsequently to his conversion; whereas, from the Apostles statement, it appears to have been the second. This discrepancy has already come up for discussion in the last chapter. Two further observations may be added on this point. In the first place, Paul does not say that he had never been to Jerusalem since the visit of Gal_1:18; he does say, that on this occasion he "went up again," and that meanwhile he "remained unknown by face" to the Christians of Judea {Gal_1:22} - a fact quite compatible, as we have shown, with what is related in Act_11:29-30. And further, the request addressed at this conference to the Gentile missionaries, that they should "remember the poor," and the reference made by the Apostle to his previous zeal in the same business (Gal_2:9-10), are in agreement with the earlier visit of charity mentioned by Luke.

1. The emphasis of Gal_2:1 rests upon its last clause, - taking along with me also Titus. Not "Titus as well as Barnabas"-this cannot be the meaning of the "also" - for Barnabas was Pauls colleague, deputed equally with himself by the Church of Antioch; nor "Titus as well as others"-there were other members of the deputation, {Act_15:2} but Paul makes no reference to them. The also (και) calls attention to the fact of Pauls taking Titus, in view of the sequel; as though he said, "I not only went up to Jerusalem at this particular time, under Divine direction, but I took along with me Titus besides." The prefixed with (sun-) of the Greek participle refers to Paul himself: compare Gal_2:3, "Titus who was with me." As for the "certain others" referred to in Act_15:2, they were most likely Jews; or if any of them were Gentiles, still it was Titus whom Paul had chosen for his companion; and his case stood out from the rest in such a way that it became the decisive one, the test-case for the matter in dispute.

The mention of Titus name in this connection was calculated to raise a lively interest in the minds of the Apostles readers. He is introduced as known to the Galatians; indeed by this time his name was familiar in the Pauline Churches, as that of a fellow-traveller and trusted helper of the Apostle. He was with Paul in the latter part of the third missionary tour - so we learn from the Corinthian letters-and therefore probably in the earlier part of the same journey, when the Apostle paid his second visit to Galatia. He belonged to the heathen mission, and was Pauls "true child after a common faith," {Tit_1:4} an uncircumcised man, of Gentile birth equally with the Galatians. And now they read of his "going up to Jerusalem with Paul," to the mother-city of believers, where are the pillars of the Church-the Jewish teachers would say-the true Apostles of Jesus, where His doctrine is preached in its purity, and where every Christian is circumcised and keeps the Law. Titus, the unclean Gentile, at Jerusalem! How could he be admitted or tolerated there, in the fellowship of the first disciples of the Lord? This question Pauls readers, after what they had heard from the Circumcisionists, would be sure to ask. He will answer it directly.

But the Apostle goes on to say, that he "went up in accordance with a revelation." For this was one of those supreme moments in his life when he looked for and received the direct guidance of heaven. It was a most critical step to carry this question of Gentile circumcision up to Jerusalem, and to take Titus with him there, into the enemies stronghold. Moreover, on the settlement of this matter Paul knew that his Apostolic status depended, so far as human recognition was concerned. It would be seen whether the Jewish Church would acknowledge the converts of the Gentile mission as brethren in Christ; and whether the first Apostles would receive him, "the untimely one," as a colleague of their own. Never had he more urgently needed or more implicitly relied upon Divine direction than at this hour.

"And I put before them (the Church at Jerusalem) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles-but privately to those of repute: am I running (said I), or have I run, in vain?" The latter clause we read interrogatively, along with such excellent grammatical interpreters as Meyer, Wieseler, and Hofmann. Paul had not come to Jerusalem in order to solve any doubt in his own mind; but he wished the Church of Jerusalem to declare its mind respecting the character of his ministry. He was not "running as uncertainly"; nor in view of the "revelation" just given him could he have any fear for the result of his appeal. But it was in every way necessary that the appeal should be made.

The interjected words, "out privately," etc., indicate that there were two meetings during the conference, such as those which seem to be distinguished in Act_15:4; Act_15:6; and that the Apostles statement and the question arising out of it were addressed more pointedly to "those of repute." By this term we understand, here and in Act_15:6, "the apostles and elders," {Acts 15} headed by Peter and James, amongst whom "those reputed to be pillars" are distinguished in Act_15:9. Paul dwells upon the phrase οι δοκουντες, because, to be sure, it was so often on the lips of the Judaisers, who were in the habit of speaking with an imposing air, and by way of contrast with Paul, of "the authorities" (at Jerusalem)-as the designation might appropriately be rendered. These very men whom the Legalists were exalting at Pauls expense, the venerated chiefs of the mother Church, had on this occasion, Paul is going to say, given their approval to his doctrine; they declined to impose circumcision on Gentile believers. The Twelve were not stationary at Jerusalem, and therefore could not form a fixed court of reference there; hence a greater importance accrued to the Elders of the city Church, with the revered James at their head, the brother of the Lord.

The Apostle, in bringing Titus, had brought up the subject-matter of the controversy. The "gospel of the uncircumcision" stood before the Jewish authorities, an accomplished fact. Titus was there, by the side of Paul, a sample-and a noble specimen, we can well believe-of the Gentile Christendom which the Jewish Church must either acknowledge or repudiate. How will they treat him? Will they admit this foreign protege of Paul to their communion? Or will they require him first to be circumcised? The question at issue could not take a form more crucial for the prejudices of the mother Church. It was one thing to acknowledge uncircumcised fellow-believers in the abstract, away yonder at Antioch or Iconium, or even at Caesarea; and another thing to see Titus standing amongst them in his heathen uncleanness, on the sacred soil of Jerusalem, under the shadow of the Temple, and to hear Paul claiming for him-for this "dog" of a Gentile-equally with himself the rights of Christian brotherhood! The demand was most offensive to the pride of Judaism, as no one knew better than Paul; and we cannot wonder that a revelation was required to justify the Apostle in making it. The case of Trophimus, whose presence with the Apostle at Jerusalem many years afterwards proved so nearly fatal, {Act_21:27-30} shows how exasperating to the legalist party his action in this instance must have been. Had not Peter and the better spirits of the Church in Jerusalem laid to heart the lesson of the vision of Joppa, that "no man must be called common or unclean," and had not the wisdom of the Holy Spirit eminently guided this first Council of the Church, Pauls challenge would have received a negative answer: and Jewish and Gentile Christianity must have been driven asunder.

The answer, the triumphant answer, to Pauls appeal comes in the next verse: "Nay, not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." Titus was not circumcised, in point of fact-how can we doubt this in view of the language of Gal_2:5 : "Not even for an hour did we yield in subjection?" And he "was not compelled to be circumcised"-a mode of putting the denial which implies that in refusing his circumcision urgent solicitation had to be withstood, solicitation addressed to Titus himself, as well as to the leaders of his party. The kind of pressure brought to bear in the case and the quarter from which it proceeded, the Galatians would understand from their own experience. {Gal_6:12; comp. Gal_2:14}

The attempt made to bring about Titus circumcision signally failed. Its failure was the practical reply to the question which Paul tells us (Gal_2:2) he had put to the authorities in Jerusalem; or, according to the more common rendering of Gal_2:2 b, it was the answer to the apprehension under which he addressed himself to them. On the former of these views of the connection, which we decidedly prefer, the authorities are clear of any share in the "compulsion" of Titus. When the Apostle gives the statement that his Gentile companion "was not compelled to be circumcised" as the reply to his appeal to "those of repute," it is as much as to say: "The chiefs at Jerusalem did not require Titus circumcision. They repudiated the attempt of certain parties to force this rite upon him." This testimony precisely accords with the terms of the rescript of the Council, and with the speeches of Peter and James, given in Acts 15. But it was a great point gained to have the liberality of the Jewish Christian leaders put to the proof in this way, to have the generous sentiments of speech and letter made good in this example of uncircumcised Christianity brought to their doors.

To the authorities at Jerusalem the question put by the delegates from Antioch on the one side, and by the Circumcisionists on the other, was perfectly clear. If they insist on Titus circumcision, they disown Paul and the Gentile mission: if they accept Pauls gospel, they must leave Titus alone. Paul and Barnabas stated the case in a manner that left no room for doubt or compromise. Their action was marked, as ver. 5 declares {Gal_2:5}, with the utmost decision. And the response of the Jewish leaders was equally frank and definite. We have no business, says James, {Act_15:19} "to trouble those from the Gentiles that turn to God." Their judgment is virtually affirmed in Gal_2:3, in reference to Titus, in whose person the Galatians could not fail to see that their own case had been settled by anticipation. "Those of repute" disowned the Circumcisionists; the demand that the yoke of circumcision should be imposed on. the Gentiles had no sanction from them. If the Judaisers claimed their sanction, the claim was false.

Here the Apostle pauses, as his Gentile readers must have paused and drawn a long breath of relief or of astonishment at what he has just alleged. If Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, even at Jerusalem, who, they might ask, was going to compel them?-The full stop should therefore be placed at the end of Gal_2:3, not Gal_2:2. Gal_2:1-3 form a paragraph complete in itself. Its last sentence resolves the decisive question raised in this visit of Pauls to Jerusalem, when he "took with him also Titus."

2. The opening words of Gal_2:4 have all the appearance of commencing a new sentence. This sentence, concluded in Gal_2:5, is grammatically incomplete; but that is no reason for throwing it upon the previous sentence, to the confusion of both. There is a transition of thought, marked by the introductory But, from the issue of Pauls second critical visit to Jerusalem (Gal_2:1-3) to the cause which made it necessary. This was the action of "false brethren," to whom the Apostle made a determined and successful resistance (Gal_2:4-5). The opening "But" does not refer to Gal_2:3 in particular, rather to the entire foregoing paragraph. The ellipsis (after "But") is suitably supplied in the marginal rendering of the Revisers, where we take it was to mean, not "Because of the false brethren Titus was not (or was not compelled to be) circumcised, " but "Because of the false brethren this meeting came about, or I took the course aforesaid."

To know what Paul means by "false brethren," we must turn to Gal_1:6-9; Gal_3:1; Gal_4:17; Gal_5:7-12; Gal_6:12-14, in this Epistle; and again to 2Co_2:17; 2Co_3:1; 2Co_4:2; 2Co_11:3-4; 2Co_11:12-22; 2Co_11:26; Rom_16:17-18; Php_3:2. They were men bearing the name of Christ and professing faith in Him, but Pharisees at heart, self-seeking, rancorous, unscrupulous men, bent on exploiting the Pauline Churches for their own advantage, and regarding Gentile converts to Christ as so many possible recruits for the ranks of the Circumcision.

But where, and how, were these traitors "privily brought in"? Brought in, we answer, to the field of the Gentile mission; and doubtless by local Jewish sympathisers, who introduced them without the concurrence of the officers of the Church. They "came in privily":-slipped in by stealth-"to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus." Now it was at Antioch and in the pagan Churches that this liberty existed in its normal exercise-the liberty for which our Epistle contends, the enjoyment of Christian privileges independently of Jewish law-in which Paul and his brother missionaries had identified themselves with their Gentile followers. The "false brethren" were Jewish spies in the Gentile Christian camp. We do not see how the Galatians could have read the Apostles words otherwise; nor how it could have occurred to them that he was referring to the way in which these men had been originally "brought into" the Jewish Church. That concerned neither him nor them. But their getting into the Gentile fold was the serious thing. They are the certain who came down from Judea, and taught the (Gentile) brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, "ye cannot be saved"; and whom their own Church afterwards repudiated. {Act_15:24} With Antioch for the centre of their operations, these mischief-makers disturbed the whole field of Paul and Barnabas labours in Syria and Cilicia. {Act_15:23; Gal_1:21} For the Galatian readers, the terms of this sentence, coming after the anathema of Gal_1:6-9, threw a startling light on the character of the Judean emissaries busy in their midst. This description of the former "troublers" strikes at the Judaic opposition in Galatia. It is as if the Apostle said: "These false brethren, smuggled in amongst us, to filch away our liberties in Christ, wolves in sheeps clothing-I know them well; I have encountered them before this. I never yielded to their demands a single inch. I carried the struggle with them to Jerusalem. There, in the citadel of Judaism, and before the assembled chiefs of the Judean Church, I vindicated once and for all, under the person of Titus, your imperilled Christian rights."

But as the Apostle dilates on the conduct of these Jewish intriguers, the precursors of such an army of troublers, his heart takes fire; in the rush of his emotion he is carried away from the original purport of his sentence, and breaks it off with a burst of indignation: "To whom," he cries, "not even for an hour did we yield by subjection, that the truth of the gospel might abide with you." A breakdown like this-an anacotuthon, as the grammarians call it-is nothing strange in Pauls style. Despite the shipwrecked grammar, the sense comes off safely enough. The clause, "we did not yield," etc., describes in a negative form, and with heightened effect, the course the Apostle had pursued from the first in dealing with the false brethren. In this unyielding spirit he had acted, without a moments wavering, from the hour when, guided by the Holy Spirit, he set out for Jerusalem with the uncircumcised Titus by his side, until he heard his Gentile gospel vindicated by the lips of Peter and James, and received from them the clasp of fellowship as Christs acknowledged Apostle to the heathen.

It was therefore the action of Jewish interlopers, men of the same stamp as those infesting the Galatian Churches, which occasioned Pauls second, public visit to Jerusalem, and his consultation with the heads of the Judean Church. This decisive course he was himself inspired to take; while at the same time it was taken on behalf and under the direction of the Church of Antioch, the metropolis of Gentile Christianity. He had gone up with Barnabas and "certain others"-including the Greek Titus chosen by himself-the company forming a representative deputation, of which Paul was the leader and spokesman. This measure was the boldest and the only effectual means of combating the Judaistic propaganda. It drew from the authorities at Jerusalem the admission that "Circumcision is nothing," and that Gentile Christians are free from the ritual law. This was a victory gained over Jewish prejudice of immense significance for the future of Christianity. The ground was already cut from under the feet of the Judaic teachers in Galatia, and of all who should at any time seek to impose external rites as things essential to salvation in Christ. To all his readers Paul can now say, so far as his part is concerned: The truth of the gospel abides with you.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

2:1-10 During Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem, the other apostles affirmed his message. Traditionally, this passage has been seen as a description of the church council (Acts 15:1-41), but it is much more likely that Paul was talking about his previous visit to Jerusalem (Acts 11:30; 12:25; see Galatians Book Introduction, “Date of Writing”).

2:1 Counting fourteen years from Paul’s conversion (1:15-17), instead of from his previous visit (1:18), fits well with Acts. • That Barnabas was familiar to the Galatians suggests that the Galatians were evangelized during the first missionary journey (Acts 13:4–14:26; see Galatians Book Introduction, “Recipients”). • Titus: See “Titus” Profile.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Gal 2:1. Διὰ, after) At an interval of fourteen years between the two journeys to Jerusalem.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal_2:1. On Gal_2:1-10, see C. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 158 ff.; Elwert, Progr. Annott. in Gal. ii. 110, etc., 1852; Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 1 ff. On Gal_2:1, see Stölting, Beiträge z. Exeg. d. Paul. Briefe, 1869, p. 155 ff.

ἔπειτα] thereafter, namely, after my sojourn in Syria and Cilicia; correlative to the ἔπειτα in Gal_1:21, and also in Gal_1:18. Ἔπειτα joins the statement to what is narrated immediately before. Therefore not: after the journey to Jerusalem, Gal_1:18 (Wieseler).

διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν] interjectis quatuordecim annis, after an interval of fourteen years: comp. Polyb. xxii. 26. 22, διʼ ἐτῶν τριῶν; Act_24:17. The length of this period quite accords with the systematic object of the apostle, inasmuch as he had already, up to the time of this journey, laboured for so many years entirely on his own footing and independently of the original apostles, that this very fact could not but put an end to any suspicion of his being a disciple of these apostles. As to the use of διά, which is based on the idea that the time intervening from the starting-point to the event in question is traversed [passed through] when the event arrives (comp. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 856), see generally Bernhardy, p. 235; Krüger, § 68. 22. 3; Winer, p. 336 [E. T. 475]; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 50, and in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 162 f.; Herod. iv. 1, ἀποδημήσαντας ὀκτὼ κ. εἰκοσι ἔτεα καὶ διὰ χρόνου τοσούτου (after so long an interval) κατιόντας κ.τ.λ.; Deu_9:11, διὰ τεσσαράκοντα ἡμερῶν … ἔδωκε κύριος ἐμοὶ τὰς δύο πλάκας; Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 12. Comp. the well-known διὰ χρόνου, Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 8. 1; διʼ αἰῶνος, Blomfield, Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 1003; διὰ μακροῦ, Thuc. iv. 15. 3; διʼ ἔτους, Lucian, Paras. 15; διʼ ἡμέρων, Mar_2:1, and the like; also 4Ma_8:20. Following Oeder (in Wolf) and Rambach, Theile (in Winers Neue krit. Jour. VIII. p. 175), Paulus and Schott have understood διά as within, during the 14 years I have now been a Christian; or, as Stölting, acceding to this explanation, gives to it the more definite sense, during a space of time which has lasted 14 years from my conversion, and is now, at the time I am writing this epistle, finished. But against this view may be urged the grammatical objection that διά is never used by Greek authors of duration of time, except when the action extends throughout the whole time (Valckenaer, ad Herod. iv. 12; Ast, ad Plat. de Leg. p. 399), either continuously, as Mar_14:53, or at recurring intervals, as Act_1:3 (see Fritzschior. Opusc. l.c.). Even the passages which are appealed to, Act_5:19; Act_16:9; Act_17:10; Act_23:31, admit the rendering of διὰ τῆς νυκτός as throughout the night, without deviation from the common linguistic usage.[41] Moreover, how unintelligibly Paul would have expressed himself, if, without giving the slightest intimation of it (possibly by ἐξ οὗ ἐν Χριστῷ εἰμι, or in some other way), he had meant the present duration of his standing as a Christian! Lastly, how entirely idle and objectless in itself would be such a specification of time! For that Paul could only speak of the journeys which he made as a Christian to Jerusalem, was self-evident; but whether at the time when he wrote the epistle his life as a Christian had lasted 14 years, or longer or shorter, was a point of no importance for the main object of the passage, and the whole statement as to the time would be without any motive in harmony with the context.

From what point has Paul reckoned the 14 years? The answer, From the ascension of Christ (Chronic. Euseb., Peter Lombard, Lud. Cappellus, Paulus), must at once be excluded as quite opposed to the context. Usually, however, the conversion of the apostle is taken as the terminus a quo (so Olshausen, Anger, Matthies, Schott, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, Ebrard, Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 55, Stölting), an appeal being made to the analogy of Gal_1:18. Thus the three years of Gal_1:18 would be again included in the fourteen years. But πάλιν and the διά, indicating the interval which in the meantime had elapsed, point rather to the first journey to Jerusalem as the terminus a quo. The πάλιν points back to the first journey, and so διὰ δεκατεσσ. ἐτῶν presents itself most naturally as the period intervening between the first journey and this πάλιν. If Paul had again written μετά, as in Gal_1:18, we might have inferred from the intentional identity of expression the identity also of the starting-point; but since he has here chosen the word διά not elsewhere employed by him in this sense (after an interval of fourteen years), the relation of this διά to πάλιν leads us to take the first journey to Jerusalem as the starting-point of the reckoning. This is the reckoning adopted by Jerome, Chrysostom on Gal_2:11, Luther,[42] Ussher, Clericus, Lightfoot, Bengel, Stroth (in the Repert. für bibl. u. morgenl. Lit. IV. p. 41), Morus, Keil, Koppe, Borger, Hug, Mynster, Credner, Hemsen, Winer, Schrader, Rückert, Usteri, Zeller, Reiche, Bleek, and others, as also by Hofmann, who, however, labours under an erroneous view as to the whole aim of the section beginning with Gal_1:21 (see on Gal_1:22).

δεκατεσσάρων] emphatically placed before ἐτῶν (differently in Gal_1:18), in order to denote the long interval. Comp. Herod. l.c.

πάλιν ἀνέβην εἰς Ἱεροσ.] Paul can mean by this no other than his second[43] journey to Jerusalem, and he says that between his first and his renewed (ΠΆΛΙΝ) visit to it a period of 14 years had elapsed, during which he had not been there. If Paul had meant a third journey, and had kept silence as to the second, he would have furnished his opponents, to whom he desired to prove that he was not a disciple of the apostles, with weapons against himself; and the suspicion of intentionally incomplete enumeration would have rested on him justly, so far as his adversaries were concerned. Indeed, even if on occasion of a second visit to Jerusalem, here passed over, he had not come at all into close contact with the apostles (and how highly improbable this would be in itself!), he would have been the less likely to have omitted it, as, in this very character of a journey which had had nothing to do with any sort of instruction by the apostles (comp. Gal_1:18), it would have been of the greatest importance for his object, in opposition to the suspicions of his opponents.[44] To have kept silence as to this journey would have cut the sinews of his whole historically apologetic demonstration, which he had entered upon in Gal_1:13 and still continues from Gal_1:21 (though Hofmann thinks otherwise). Comp. also Bleek, Beitr. p. 55. This purely exegetical ground is quite decisive in favour of the view that Paul here speaks of his second journey to Jerusalem;[45] and considered by itself, therefore, our passage presents no difficulty at all. The difficulty only arises when we compare it with Acts. According to the latter, the second journey (Act_11:30; Act_12:25) is that which Paul made with Barnabas in the year 44 in order to convey pecuniary assistance to Judaea; hence many hold our journey as identical with that related in Act_11:30; Act_12:25. So Tertullian c. Marc. i. 20, Chron. Euseb., Calvin,[46] Keil (Opusc. p. 160, and in Potts Sylloge, III. p. 68), Gabler (neutest. theol. Journ. II. 2, p. 210 ff.), Rosenmüller, Süskind (in Bengels Archiv. I. 1, p. 157 ff.), Bertholdt, Kuinoel (ad Act. p. xxv.) Heinrichs (ad Act. p. 59), Tychsen (on Koppe, p. 149), Niemeyer (de temp. quo ep. ad Gal. conscr. sit, Gott. 1827), Paulus, Guericke (Beitr. p. 80 ff.), Küchler (de anno, quo Paul. ad sacra Chr. convers. est, Lips. 1828, p. 27 ff.), Flatt, Fritzsche, Böttger, Stölting. So also Caspari (geograph. chronol. Einl. in d. Leb. Jesu, 1869). But the chronology, through the 14 years, is decisively opposed to this view. For as the year 44 A.D. or 797 U.C. is the established date of the journey in question (see Introd. to Acts), these 14 years with the addition of the three years (Gal_1:18) would carry us back to the year 27 A.D.! Among the defenders of this view, Böttger has indeed turned δεκατεσσάρων into ΤΕΣΣΆΡΩΝ; but how little he is justified in this, see below. Fritzsche, on the other hand, has endeavoured to bring out the 14 years, by supposing the reckoning of Luk_3:1 to begin from the year of the joint regency of Tiberius, that is, the year 765 U.C., as, following Ussher, has been done by Clericus, Lardner, and others (see on Luk_3:1), and now also by Wieseler in Herzogs Encykl. XXI. p. 547 ff., and especially in his Beitr. z. Würdigung d. Evang. 1869, p. 177 ff. It is assumed, consequently, that Christ commenced His ministry in 779, and was crucified in 781; that Paul became a Christian at the beginning of 783, and that 14 years later, in 797, the journey in question to Jerusalem took place. But against the assumption that the 14 years are to be reckoned from Pauls conversion, see above. Besides, the year of the conversion cannot, for other chronological reasons, be put back beyond the year 35 A.D., that is, 788 U.C. (see on Acts, Introd.). Lastly, the hypothesis, that Luke in Gal_3:1 did not reckon from the actual commencement of the reign of Tiberius, is nothing but a forced expedient based on extraneous chronological combinations, and finding no support at all in the plain words of Luke himself (see further, in opposition to it, Anger, rat. temp. p. 14 f., and z. Chronol. d. Lehramtes Chr. I.). The opinion, therefore, that the journey Gal_2:1 is identical with that mentioned in Acts 11, must be rejected; and we must, on the other hand, assume that in point of fact those expositors have arrived at the correct conclusion who consider it as the same which, according to Acts 15, was undertaken by Paul and Barnabas to the apostolic conference. So Irenaeus, adv. haer. iii. 13, Theodoret, Jerome, Baronius, Cornelius a Lapide, Pearson, and most of the older expositors, Semler, Koppe, Stroth, Vogel (in Gablers Journ. für auserl. theol. Lit. I. 2, p. 249 ff.), Haselaar, Borger, Schmidt (Einl. I. p. 192 and in the Analect. III. 1), Eichhorn, Hug, Winer, Hemsen, Feilmoser, Hermann (de P. ep. ad Gal. tribus prim. capp., Lips. 1832), Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Anger, Schneckenburger, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Zeller, Lekebusch, Elwert, Lechler (apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 394 ff.), Thiersch, Reuss, Reiche, Ewald, Ritschl, Bleek, Ellicott, Hofmann, Laurent, Holsten, Trip, Oertel, and others.[47] This result is, however, to be based in the first instance not on a comparison of the historical references contained in Galatians 2 and Acts 15, but on διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν; and the historical references of Acts 15 afterwards serve merely as a partial, although very material, confirmation. For the point of view, from which the journey is brought forward in our passage, is one so special and subjective, that it cannot present itself in the connected objectively historical narrative of Acts, whether we take it in connection with Acts 11 or Acts 15. By the search for points of agreement and of difference, with the view of thereby arriving at a decision, far too much room is left for argument pro and contra, and consequently for the play of subjective influences, to reach any certain result.

[41] See on these passages the Commentary on Acts. There is no cause for accusing (with Fritzsche) Luke of an improper deviation from the Greek usus loquendi. Comp. on διὰ νυκτός, Thuc. ii. 4. 1; Xen. Anab. iv. 6. 22. On the Homeric διὰ νύκτα, during the night, see Nägelsbach on the Iliad, p. 222, ed. 3.

[42] In the Commentary of 1519 (Opp. Jena 1612, I. p. 336 B), Post annos 14, quibus si annos tres, quos supra memoravit, adjunxeris, jam 17 aut 18 annos eum praedicasse invenies, antequam conferre voluerit. Even with this reckoning, his conversion still remains the great event by which Paul measures for himself all Christian time (Ewald); for the whole reckoning begins at Gal_1:18 from this event as its starting-point.

[43] Very correctly put in the Chron. Euseb., ὅ εἶπε πάλιν, δηλονότι ἑτέρα ἐστὶν ἀνάβασις αὕτη.

[44] Wieselers objection that Paul, according to our view of his historical argument, would also have left unmentioned the journey spoken of in Act_18:22, where by the reasoning above would fall to the ground as nimium probans, is incorrect. For if he had shown that up to the apostolic council (see the sequel) he could not have received the instruction of the apostles, his task of proof was completely solved; because on occasion of his presence at that council he received formal acknowledgment and sanction as the apostle to the Gentiles. If up to that time he had not been a disciple of the apostles, now, when he had received in an official way the fullest acknowledgment as an independent apostle, there could no longer be any discussion as to his having at some subsequent date procured apostolic instruction in Jerusalem. It would therefore have been purely unmeaning, and even absurd, to have continued the history of his journeys to Jerusalem beyond the date of the apostolic council. But up to that date he could not omit any journey, without rendering his historical deduction nugatory as a proof.

[45] Bloch, Chronotax. p. 67 f., and Schott find two journeys mentioned in ver. 1 : the former obtains them from πάλιν (after 14 years I made the second journey to Jerusalem, undertaken with Barnabas); and the latter brings them out thus: intra 14 annos iterata vice adscendi Hierosolymas, cum Barnaba quidem (Act_11:30), posthac (Acts 15) assumto etiam Tito. Both views are introduced into the passage inconsistently with the text. For according to Blochs explanation, Paul must have spoken previously of a journey made with Barnabas; and in Schotts interpretation not only is διά wrongly understood (see above), but it would be necessary at least that instead of συμπαραλ. καὶ Τίτον the text should run, εἶτα δὲ συμπαραλ. κ. T. Nevertheless Lange, apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 99 f., has again resorted to the evasion that πάλιν is to be referred to μετὰ Βαρν. and presupposes an earlier journey already made with Barnabas (Acts 11).

[46] Among the older expositors, J. T. Major is also named as in favour of this view, whose Annotata ad Acta Ap. Jen. 1647, 8vo, are quoted by Gabler and Winer. But in the second edition of Majors Annotata, which appeared after his death, Jena 1670, 4to, Major (p. 410 ff.) pronounces decidedly for the view which holds the journey mentioned in Gal_2:1 to be identical with that in Acts 15.

[47] Rückert does not come to a decision, but (in his Commentary and in the (exeget. Mag. I. 1, p. 118 ff.) denies the identity of our journey with that related in Acts 11, 12, and leaves it a matter of doubt whether the journey mentioned in Acts 15 or that in Act_18:22 is the one intended.

I. Thus in support of the identity of the journey Gal_2:1 with that of Acts 11, 12, it is argued (see Fritzsche, l.c. p. 227)(1.) That the journey follows on the sojourn in Cilicia and Syria (Gal_1:21, Gal_2:1; comp. Act_9:30; Act_11:25 ff.). But why should not Paul, in the ἔπειτα, Gal_2:1, have also mentally included his first missionary journey (to Cyprus, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia, Acts 13, 14) as preceding, seeing that he made this journey from Antioch and after its completion again abode in Antioch for a considerable time, and seeing that his object made it important not so much to write a special history of his labours, as to show at what time he had first come into closer official connection with the apostles, in order to make it plain that he had not learnt from them? (2.) That it is probable that Paul soon after the beginning of his labours as the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal_1:23; Act_11:25 f.; comp. Act_15:23; Act_9:30) expounded his system of teaching at Jerusalem, and laid it before the apostles for their opinion. But this is an argumentum nimium probans, since it is evident from Gal_1:16 that Paul commenced the exercise of his vocation as an apostle to the Gentiles immediately after his conversion; so that, even if the 14 years are reckoned from the conversion, there still remains this long period of 14 years during which Paul allowed this alleged requirement to be unsatisfied. According to our interpretation of Gal_2:1, this period is increased from 14 to 17 years; but, if Paul had taught 14 years without the approbation of the apostles, he may just as well have done so for 17 years. (3.) That the sanction given to Paul and Barnabas as apostles to the Gentiles (Gal_2:9) must have been consequent on the journey mentioned in Acts 11, 12, because otherwise the Holy Spirit would not have set them apart (Act_13:2 f.) as apostles to the Gentiles. But might not the ordination of the two to be teachers of the Gentiles (Act_13:2) have taken place previously, and the formal acknowledgment of this destination on the part of the apostles in Jerusalem have followed at a subsequent period? This latter view, indeed, is supported even by the analogy of αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν (Gal_2:9), inasmuch as James, Peter, and John had been already for a long time before this apostles to the Jews, but now arranged that as their destination formally in concert with Paul and Barnabas. (4.) That the stipulation respecting the poor (Gal_2:10) was occasioned by the very fact of Paul and Barnabas having brought pecuniary assistance (Act_11:30). But the care for the poor lay from the very beginning of the church so much at its heart, and was so much an object of apostolic interest (Act_2:44 f., Act_4:34 ff., Gal_6:1 ff.), that there was certainly no need of any special occasion for expressly making the remembrance of the poor one of the conditions in the concert, Gal_2:9 f. (5.) That the apostles, according to Gal_2:3, had insisted on the circumcision of Titus,a non-emancipation from Mosaism, which might agree with the time of Acts 11, 12, when the conversion of the Gentiles was still in its infancy, but not with the later time of Acts 15. But see the note on Gal_2:3. Even if we allow the (erroneous) idea that the apostles had required this circumcision, we should have to consider that James at a much later point (Act_21:17 ff.) required Paul to observe a completely Jewish custom, from which it is evident how much, even at a very late date, the Jewish apostles accommodated themselves to the Jewish Christians, and Paul also assented to it. (6.) That in Acts 15 there is no trace of the presence of John at Jerusalem. But although John is not mentioned by name, he may very well have been included in the general οἱ ἀπόστολοι (Acts 15). (7.) Lastly, Fritzsche remarks, Paulum novem circiter annos in Cilicia commoratum esse (5. Act_9:30; Act_11:25; Gal_1:18, cf. Gal_2:1; Act_11:30), quis tandem, quum multorum ab apostolis actorum memoria aboleverit … praefracte negare sustineat? etc. Paul may certainly have been a long time in Syria and Cilicia, but how long, must remain entirely undetermined after what we have remarked on (1). Besides these arguments[48] it has been urged (see especially Süskind and Keil), that the conduct of Peter at Antioch (Gal_2:11 ff.) is too contradictory to the apostolic decree of Acts 15 to permit our identifying the journey in question with that made to the conference; that in the whole of the epistle Paul makes no mention at all of the authority of the conference; and lastly, that after the conference Paul judged more mildly as to the nullity of circumcision than he does in our epistle. But nothing can be built on these arguments; since (a) even if our journey were that mentioned in Acts 11, 12, still the reproach of inconstancy (grounded on his natural temperament) would rest upon Peter, because he had in fact at an earlier period been already divinely instructed and convinced of the admissibility of the Gentiles to Christianity (Act_10:8 ff; Act_11:2 ff.); (b) in the principle of his apostolic independence Paul had quite sufficient motive (comp. Introd. § 3) for not mentioning the apostolic decree, especially when dealing with the Galatians;[49] and lastly (c) the severe judgment of the apostle as to the nullity of circumcision in our letter was, in his characteristic manner, adapted altogether to the polemical interest of the moment: for that he should pass judgment on the same subject, according to circumstances, sometimes more severely and sometimes more mildly, accords completely with the vigorous freedom and elasticity of his mind; hence the passages cited for the freer view (Act_16:3; 1Co_9:20 ff.; Act_21:20 ff.) cannot furnish any absolute standard.

II. To prove the identity of our journey with that of Acts 15, appeals have been made to the following arguments: (1) That Titus, whom Paul mentions in Gal_2:1, is included in τινας ἄλλους ἐξ αὐτῶν, Act_15:2; (2) That in Gal_2:2, ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς τὸ εὐαγγ. ὃ κηρ. ἐν τοῖς ἔθν. is parallel to Act_15:4; Act_15:12; (3) That the Judaizers mentioned in Act_15:5 are identical with the παρεισάκτοις ψευδαδέλφοις, Gal_2:4; (4) That the result of the apostolic discussions recorded in Acts 15 quite corresponds with ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ Τίτος … ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι, Gal_2:3; (5) That in an historical point of view, Gal_2:11 agrees exactly with Act_15:30; (6) That in Acts 11 Barnabas still has precedence of Paul, which, however, is no longer the case throughout in Acts 15 (only in Act_2:12; Act_2:25); (7) That in our epistle Paul could not have omitted to mention the important journey of Acts 15. But on the part of those who look upon our journey as that related in Acts 11, 12., or even in Act_18:22 (Wieseler), such grounds for doubt are urged against all of these points (see especially, Fritzsche l.c. p. 224 ff.; Wieseler, p. 557 ff.), that they cannot be used at least for an independent and full demonstration of the identity of our journey with that of Acts 15, but merely furnish an important partial confirmation of the proof otherwise adduced; to say nothing of the fact that the accounts in Galatians 2 and Acts 15 present also points of difference, from which attempts have been made with equal injustice to deny the whole historical parallel, and to abandon unduly the historical truth of the 15th chapter of the Acts (Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Holsten).

The result of all the discussion is as follows:

As Paul, in accordance with his own clear words in Gal_2:1 as well as with his whole plan and aim in the passage, can mean no other journey whatever except the second which he made as an apostle to Jerusalem; and as, moreover, the διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν forbids our thinking of that journey which is related in Acts 11, 12. as the second; the journey represented by him in Gal_2:1 as his second journey must be held to be the same as that represented by Luke in Acts 15. as the third,an identity which is also confirmed by the historical parallels to be found in Galatians 2. and Acts 15.[50] In this way, doubtless, the account of the Epistle to the Galatians conflicts with that of Acts;[51] but, in the circumstances, it is not difficult to decide on which side the historical truth lies. The account of Luke, as given in Act_11:12., that Paul came to Jerusalem with Barnabas to convey the moneys collected, must be described as in part unhistorical. Perhaps (for it is not possible definitely to prove how this partial inaccuracy originated) Paul went only a part of the way with Barnabas (Act_11:30), and then, probably even before reaching Judaea (see below), induced by circumstances unknown to us, allowed Barnabas to travel alone to Jerusalem; and thereafter the latter again met Paul on his way back, so that both returned to Antioch together (Act_12:25), but Barnabas only visited Jerusalem in person. Schleiermacher (Einl. ins N.T. p. 369 f.) assumes an error on the part of Luke as author; that, misled by different sources, he divided the one journey, Acts 15, into two different journeys, Acts 11, 15. But the total dissimilarity of the historical connection, in which these journeys are placed by the narrative of Acts, makes us at once reject this supposition; as, indeed, it cannot possibly be entertained without unjustifiably giving up Lukes competency for authorship, and by consequence his credibility, in those portions of his book in which he was not an eye-witness of the facts. Credner also (Einl. I. 1, p. 315) has pronounced himself inclined to the hypothesis of an error on the part of Luke. He, however, makes the apostle travel with Barnabas (Act_11:12.) as far as Judaea, only not as far as the capital; assuming that Paul remained among the churches of the country districts, and made the acquaintance with them presupposed in Gal_1:22-24, Rom_15:19. But, on the one hand, looking at his apostolic interest, it is not in itself probable that, having arrived in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, he would fail, after so long an absence, to be drawn towards the mother-seat of the church, especially when he had come as deputy from Antioch; on the other hand, we should expect that, in order to preclude his opponents from any opportunity of misrepresenting him, he would have briefly mentioned this presence in Judaea (comp. Gal_1:22), and mentioned it in fact with the express remark that at that time he had not entered Jerusalem itself. And, as regards the acquaintance with the churches in the country districts presupposed in Gal_1:22-24, he may have made it sufficiently during his journey to the conference. The fact itself, that Paul during the journey recorded in Acts 11 was not at Jerusalem (which is admitted by Neander, ed. 4, p. 188, following Bleek, Beitr. p. 55, and has been turned to further account by Baur and his school against the historical character of the narrative of the Acts; see on Act_11:30), remains independent of the possible modes of explaining the so far unhistorical account there given.

μετὰ Βαρνάβα] The following συμπαραλ. κ. Τίτον shows that Paul recognised himself as on this occasion the chief person, which agrees with Act_15:2, but not with Act_11:25; Act_11:30; Act_12:25.

συμπαραλαβὼν καὶ Τίτον] having taken along with us (as travelling companion) also Titus. This καὶ finds its reference in μετὰ Βαρνάβα, to which the σύν in συμπαραλ. also refers; not among others also (Wieseler),a meaning which is not suggested by the text. Whether, however, at Act_15:2, Titus is meant to be included in καί τινας ἄλλους ἐξ αὐτῶν, must remain an open question. If he is meant to be included, then our passage serves to put the statement on the more exact historical footing, that Titus was not sent with the others by the church at Antioch, but was taken by Paul on his own behoof. The idea that he was sent on the part of the opposite party (Fritzsche), cannot, on a correct view of Acts l.c., be entertained at all.

[48] As a revelation afforded to Paul himself must certainly be intended, the assertion often brought forward, that κατʼ ἀποκάλυψιν in Gal_2:2 applies to the narrative about the prophet Agabus (Act_11:28 ff.), is so evidently incorrect, that it does not merit notice. Also the special ground brought forward by Böttger, in order to confirm the identity of the journey Gal_2:1 with that described in Acts 11, 12, carries with it its own refutation. See, on the contrary, Rückert, in the Magaz. f. Exeg. u. Theol. des N. T. I. 1, p. 118 ff.

[49] Comp. Ritschl, altkathol. K. p. 149.

[50] Accordingly, the opinions that our passage relates to a journey still later than that reported in Acts 15 fall to the ground of themselves, for the journey Acts 15 can neither be historically disputed nor can it have been omitted by Paul. Following Jac. Cappellus, Whiston, and others, Köhler (Abfassungsz. p. 8) has found our journey in Act_18:22,a view more recently defended by Wieseler, Chronologie d. ap. Zeitalt. p. 201 ff., and Komment. p. 553 ff., also in Herzogs Encykl. XIX. art. Galaterbrief; but Schrader transfers it to the interval between vv. 20 and 21 of Acts 19to the time of the composition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Against Köhler and Schrader, see especially Schott, Erörterung, p. 22 ff.; Wurm, in the Tübing. Zeitschr. 1833, I. p. 50 ff.; Anger, rat. temp. p. 153 ff. According to Epiph. Haer. xxviii. 4, even the journey of Act_21:15-17 is the one intended! Against Wieseler, who is supported by Lutterbeck, see Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 460 ff.; Zeller, Apost. p. 218 f.; Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1860, p. 144 ff.; Möller on De Wette (ed. 3), p. 35 ff. Comp. also Düsterdieck in Reuters Repert. Sept. 1849, p. 222; Schaff, Gesch. d. chr. K. I. p. 181 ff.; Holtzmann, in Schenkels kirchl. Zeitschr. 1860, 8, p. 55 ff.; Ebrard, and others. It is unnecessary for us here to go farther into Wieselers arguments from an exegetical point of view; for the supposition of some later journey than Acts 15 must at all events from Gal_2:1 appear an exegetical impossibility, so long as we allow this much at least of truth to the Acts of the Apostlesthat Paul was at the apostolic council. The journey to this council cannot have been passed over by Paul in his narrative given in our passage; and consequently the journey Act_18:22which, too, he cannot have taken in company with Barnabas (Act_15:36 ff.)cannot have been the one intended by him. This is completely sufficient to invalidate even the latest discussions of Wieseler. Reiche aptly observes (Comm. crit. p. 3): Paulus aut non affuisse in apostolorum conventu Acts 15, aut male causae suae consuluisse, silentio id praeteriens, censendus esset.

[51] Hofmann (with whom Laurent agrees) still contents himself with the superficial current evasion, that Paul had no need to mention the journey related in Acts 11, because it did not afford his opponents any matter for suspicion. As if his opponents were to be reckoned so innocent and guileless in their judgment, and as if Paul would not have been shrewd enough to see the use that would be made of his passing over in silence one of the journeys made by him to the seat of the apostles!

Note.

Τεσσάρων, which Ludwig Cappellus, Grotius, Semler, Keil, Bertholdt, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others, also Guericke, Rinck, Küchler, Böhl, Matthaei (Religionsl. d. Ap. I. p. 624), Schott (in his Isagoge, p. 196, not in his later writings), Wurm, Ulrich, and Böttger, wish to read instead of δεκατεσσάρων, is a mere conjectural emendation on chronological grounds, confirmed by no authority whatever, not even by the Chronic. Euseb., from the words of which it is, on the contrary, distinctly evident that the chronographer read δεκατεσσάρων,[52] but on account of the chronology, because he took the journey for that recorded in Acts 11, 12, suggested τεσσάρων.[53] See Anger, Rat. temp. 128 ff.; Fritzsche, l.c. p. 160 ff.; Wieseler, Chronol. p. 206 f. Nevertheless Reiche, in the Comm. Crit., has again judged it necessary to read τεσσάρων, specially because the few matters related of Paul in Acts 10-15 cannot be held compatible with his having been seventeen years an apostle, and also because so early a conversion, as must be assumed from the reading δεκατεσσάρων, does not agree with Acts 1-9, several of the narratives of which, it is alleged, lead us to infer a longer, perhaps ten years, interval between the ascension of Christ and the conversion of the apostle; as indeed the existence of churches already established in Judaea at the time of this conversion (Gal_1:22) points to the same conclusion, and 2Co_12:2 ff., where the ἀποκάλυψις refers to the conversion, agrees with τεσσάρων, but not with δεκατεσσάρων in our passage. But when we consider the great incompleteness and partial inaccuracy of the first half of Acts, the possibility of explaining the establishment of the Judaean churches even in a shorter period embracing some four years, and the groundlessness of the view that 2Co_12:2 (see on the passage) applies to the conversion of the apostle, these arguments are too weak to make us substitute a conjecture for an unanimously attested reading.

[52] Τῷ εἰπεῖν αὐτὸν διὰ ιδʹ ἐτῶν δοκεῖ μοι τοὺς χρόνους τῶν ἀποστόλων τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς ἀναλήψεως ἀριθμεῖν αὐτὸν.… Καὶ εἰ μὴ τοῦτο δῶμεν, εὑρεθήσεται ὁ χρόνος ἀφʼ οὗ ἐβαπτίσθη καὶ ἀνέβλεψεν, ὡς περιέχουσιν αἱ Πράξεις, ἐ ́τ η δʼ.

[53] It is therefore a pure error, when τεσσάρων is sometimes styled a varia lectio.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal 2:1-10 . NARRATIVE OF THE AUTHOR’S VISIT WITH BARNABAS TO THE CHURCH OF JERUSALEM, HIS FRUITLESS NEGOTIATIONS WITH PARTY LEADERS, AND THE BROTHERLY WELCOME AND RECOGNITION HE RECEIVED FROM JAMES PETER AND JOHN. The author has shown by a rapid glance over the first thirteen years of his Christian life how independent he had been of human teaching at his conversion and subsequently. He now proceeds to record the true history of the negotiations which he had undertaken at Jerusalem in conjunction with Barnabas in the fourteenth year of his ministry. (On the identity of this conference with the Apostolic Council, whose proceedings are recorded in Act 15 , see Introd., pp. 141 144). The Galatians were well aware of the position of Paul and Barnabas in the Church of Antioch: it was not therefore necessary to state in express terms that they were deputed to represent that Church. Enough that their first act was to lay before the Church of Jerusalem an account of the Gospel they were preaching to the Gentiles, and that their divine commission to the Gentiles was fully recognised by the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem. They knew already the general outline of events: for the resolution adopted at Jerusalem, and subsequently approved at Antioch, had been duly communicated to them by Paul himself. His object in this Epistle is to remove misconstruction as to his own position. His reference of this question to the Church of Jerusalem had been misrepresented as an act of submission and acknowledgment of his own inferiority, whereas he had really procured the condemnation of the false brethren who denied his authority, had silenced his opponents, and met with brotherly fellowship and full recognition at the hands of James Peter and John.

Gal 2:1 . διὰ δεκατ . ἐτῶν . Greek usage in calculating intervals of time between two events reckons two years for the two broken years at the beginning and end of the period. Some critics, notably Lightfoot, calculate this period from the meeting with Peter mentioned in Gal 1:18 : but this attaches far too much importance to that interview. It is only mentioned and its date loosely indicated in order to show that three full years passed before they had any intercourse. The dominant note of time throughout in the mind of the author is surely the conversion: and the object of specifying a period of time here, as in Gal 1:18 , is to show how many years of Christian life had passed before the event. Τίτον . The names of the Christians who accompanied Paul and Barnabas are not given in Act 15:2 . It appears that Titus, a Greek Christian, one of Paul’s own children in Christ, was among them, and that Paul was responsible for his selection. His choice of a Greek for his companion evinces the determined spirit with which he started on his mission.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10–2:21. ST PAUL’S DEFENCE OF HIMSELF

10–12. My one object is to please God, and to serve Christ, who revealed to me the Gospel

(Gal 1:10) I say “now,” for my words show clearly that I care not to win over men, but God alone. I once indeed tried to please men, but that was before my conversion. If that were still my practice I should not be Christ’s servant—His by right and my full consent. (Gal 1:11) I say that a change came over me; for I will tell you, my brothers, of the Gospel that I brought to you and how I came to preach it. It is not of human measure, (Gal 1:12) For indeed it came not to me from man at all, neither did human lips explain it to me, but it came entirely by revelation given me by Christ Himself.

1–10. The next visit to Jerusalem and its result; my independence was fully recognized

(Gal 2:1) When did I see the Apostles next? Not till fourteen years after my last visit. I then went up to Jerusalem with so well known a worker as Barnabas for my friend, and with Titus as my attendant. (Gal 2:2) It was not however for my own sake, or of my own motion, that I went up. It was in accordance with revelation. And I laid before the believers there a statement of the gospel which I always preach among the Gentiles (e.g. that it is unnecessary for them to obey the Law), but first privately before the leaders (with the desire to win them over) lest my present or past work should be damaged.

NOTE B

Gal 2:1-10 in relation to Act 15:4-29

It has been asserted that it would be a suppression of the truth if St Paul omitted one of his visits to Jerusalem in Gal 1:17 to Gal 2:10 and that therefore the visit recorded in Gal 2:1-10 must be his second visit, mentioned in Act 11:29-30. But this is to misunderstand the object of St Paul’s enumeration. He does not seem to have had any interest in his visits to Jerusalem as such, but in his independence of the older Apostles, and if for some reason he did not see them on his second visit—either because of their absence, or because his visit was purely to the administrators of the funds—he would quite naturally omit this visit. That he did not see them on that second visit seems plainly indicated by the wording of Act 11:30. There is therefore no a priori necessity for identifying the visit of Gal 2:1-10 with that of Act 11:29-30, and we are free to consider the theory that it is the same as that of Acts 15, the occasion of the conference in Jerusalem.

I. There are however many points of difference between the two reports.

1. St Paul says (Gal 2:2) that he went up by revelation; St Luke (Act 15:2) that he was sent by the Church at Antioch (ἔταξαν ἀναβαίνειν Παῦλον κ.τ.λ.). But the two statements are not incompatible, especially if the revelation was made to the Church.

2. St Paul says that he took Titus, and enlarges on the question of his circumcision. St Luke never mentions him either in Acts 15 or anywhere else. Observe however that St Paul uses a term (συμπαραλαβών) which implies that Titus was only a subordinate (see notes).

3. “False brethren” (Gal 2:4) seems too harsh a title to apply to the Jewish Christians of Act 15:1. But, whatever the motive of these may have been, the issue of their teaching was certainly contrary to the Gospel, and if St Paul saw this, and the whole of our Epistle proves him likely to do so, he might easily regard them as “false brethren.”

4. St Paul speaks of a private interview with “them of repute,” apparently the Three; St Luke rather of a public meeting. But it may be noticed that St Paul’s language (κατʼ ἰδίαν δὲ) implies a public meeting of some kind, and that St Luke implies two public meetings (Luk 15:4; Luk 15:6). Judging from the analogy of most public conferences it is probable that they would be preceded, or accompanied, by private interviews.

5. St Paul (Gal 2:10) speaks of insistence by the Three on his remembering the poor, which, he adds, he was zealous to do. St Luke makes no mention of this. His second visit indeed had the ministry to the poor of Jerusalem for its special object, but the language of Gal 2:10 would be extraordinary if descriptive of that mission. It would also have been most ungracious of the Three to insist on this when he had just brought money for them to distribute.

6. St Paul makes no allusion to the decrees about food etc., made at the Council, and disseminated by its letter (Act 15:20; Act 15:29). This would, we must confess, be strange if, with Zahn, we date the Epistle soon after the Council (see Introd., p. xxxii.), but not if some years had elapsed, as is more probable. During that time it had become increasingly evident to St Paul that it was impossible to make such decrees binding on Gentile converts, even if they had ever been more than advisory.

7. St Paul speaks of his dispute with St Peter immediately after describing this visit, and it is urged that if the passage Gal 2:1-10 refers to Acts 15 it is passing strange that St Peter should so soon have fallen back, and that therefore St Paul in Gal 2:1-10 really refers to his second visit (Act 11:29-30). But if St Paul’s order is not chronological (see the Commentary) this argument falls to the ground.

II. Even if some doubt be felt about some of the answers to the difficulties now just stated, the points of similarity between the narratives of St Paul and St Luke are enough to make us decide in favour of the theory that Gal 2:1-10 and Act 15:4-29 refer to the same events.

1. The chief persons are the same, Barnabas and Paul on the one hand, James and Peter on the other. The fact that St Paul also mentions St John, but not as taking any lead, is hardly an objection. At any rate none of the Three are mentioned in Act 11:29-30.

2. The subject of the discussion is the same, the freedom of Gentile converts from the Law. If too, as is probable, St Paul’s dispute with St Peter (Gal 2:11-14) chronologically precedes Gal 2:1-10, the occasion of the discussion is mentioned in nearly similar words, the presence of “certain from James,” Gal 2:12, and of some who had “come down from Judaea,” Act 15:1, cf. Act 15:24.

3. The general character also of the discussion was the same; a prolonged and hard fought contest.

4. The general result was the same; liberty of the Gentile converts and agreement of the Three with St Paul.

5. Lastly, the dates agree. The second visit (Act 11:29-30) took place before the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 A.D. and the mention of fourteen years in Gal 2:1 makes it impossible to place the events of Gal 2:1-10 so early as that. For if we understand the fourteen years of Gal 2:1 to mean fourteen years from St Paul’s conversion, this would throw back his conversion to 31 or even 30 A.D., which is impossible; while if, as is probable, the fourteen years date from the end of the first visit to Jerusalem, i.e. some three years after his conversion, the difficulty is even greater.

6. In spite therefore of acknowledged difficulties—such, after all, as are to be expected when events are related from very different standpoints and with very different objects—it is in every way better to hold to the usual opinion that St Paul in Gal 2:1-10 refers to the events recorded by St Luke in Act 15:4-29, than to say that he refers to those recorded in Act 11:29-30. It is hardly worth while discussing other theories, according to which the situation of Gal 2:1-10 is that of Act 18:22 or Act 21:17.

1. ἔπειτα (Gal 1:18; Gal 1:21) διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν, “after fourteen years.” διά (which had originally the local idea of “interval between,” see A. T. Robertson, Short Grammar of the Greek N.T., 1908, p. 119), here marks the time between one event and the next as already passed through before this arrives. Mar 2:1; Act 24:17; Polyb. XXII. 23 (26) 22 διʼ ἐτῶν τριῶν ἄλλους ἀνταποστέλλων: cf. the classical διὰ χρόνου. The ἔπειτα strongly suggests that the fourteen years date from the last matter of interest, viz. the commencement of the journey to Syria etc. Gal 1:21, which took place at the end of the first visit to Jerusalem, Gal 1:18-19. So Lightfoot and Zahn. But for chronological reasons some (e.g. Ramsay, Turner) date it from his conversion.

πάλιν, “again,” but not necessarily only a second time. It appears to have been absent from the text of Marcion and Irenaeus.

ἀνέβην. The ἀνά may be used because of the geographical position of Jerusalem, or more probably because of its religious superiority. Compare ὁ στρατηγὸς ἀναβαίν(ει) αὔριον εἰς τὸ Σαραπιῆν in a papyrus of the 2nd cent. B.C. (Moulton and Milligan, Expositor, VII. 5, 1908, p. 184, cf. p. 271). This visit is doubtless to be identified with that recorded in Acts 15. On the relation of the two accounts, see Appendix Note B.

μετὰ Βαρνάβα. Therefore certainly before the separation in Act 15:39. But in itself the fact that Barnabas went with him does not help us to identify the visit, for they were together in all the three visits, Act 9:27; Act 11:30 with Act 12:25, Act 15:2. Barnabas is mentioned here to show that not only St Paul went up, but also one whose orthodoxy no Hebrew-Christian doubted. On the inference drawn from his name here by upholders of the South Galatian theory see the Introduction, pp. xxvii. sq.

συνπαραλαβὼν. Act 12:25; Act 15:37-38[62] of John Mark. The verb thus signifies taking a dependent, as in LXX. Job 1:4, Job’s sons take their sisters, and 3Ma 1:1, Philopator takes his sister Arsinoe. Ramsay (Gal. p. 294) objects to the translation “taking … with me,” as though it connoted superiority to Barnabas, but it really only implies that Titus was dependent on St Paul not on Barnabas.

[62] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

καὶ Τίτον. We know of him only from St Paul’s writings, Gal 2:3, 2 Cor. (nine times); 2Ti 4:10; Tit 1:4[63]: mentioned here because being a full-born Gentile (Gal 2:3) and uncircumcised, his was a crucial case. For this very reason also, as we may suppose, St Paul took him with him to Jerusalem. See Gal 2:3 note.

[63] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2:1-10.] On his subsequent visit to Jerusalem, he maintained equal independence, was received by the Apostles as of co-ordinate authority with themselves, and was recognized as the Apostle of the uncircumcision.

1. διὰ δεκατ. ἐτῶν] First, what does this διὰ imply? According to well-known usage, διὰ with a genitive of time or space signifies ‘through and beyond:’ thus, ὁ μὲν χρόνος δὴ διὰ χρόνου προὔβαινέ μοι, Soph. Philoct. 285,—διὰ δέκα ἐπάλξεων πύργοι ἦσαν μεγάλοι, Thuc. iii. 21, and then τῶν πύργων ὄντων διʼ ὀλίγου: see reff., and Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 235. Winer, Gramm. edn. 6, § 51. (The instrumental usage, διὰ δακρύων, διὰ νυκτός, &c. is derived from this, the instrument being regarded as the means, passed through before the end is attained: but obviously has no place here, where a definite time is mentioned.) See more in Ellic. διὰ δεκ. ἐτ. then is after fourteen years, δεκατεσσάρων παρελθόντων ἐτῶν, Chrys. Next, from what time are we to reckon? Certainly at first sight it would appear,—from the journey last mentioned. And Meyer maintains that we are bound to accept this first impression without enquiring any further. But why? Is the prima facie view of a construction always right? Did we, or did he, judge thus in ch. 1:18? Are we not bound, in all such cases, should any reason ab extra exist for doing so, to reexamine the passage, and ascertain whether our prima facie impression may not have arisen from neglecting some indication furnished by the context? That this is the case here, I am persuaded. The ways of speaking, in ch. 1:18, and here, are very similar. The ἔπειτα in both cases may be well taken as referring back to the same terminus a quo, διὰ being used in this verse as applying to the larger interval, or even perhaps to prevent the fourteen years being counted from the event last mentioned, as they would more naturally be, had a second μετά been used. What would there be forced or unnatural in a statement of the following kind? “After my conversion (ὅτε δέ, &c. ch. 1:15) my occasions of communicating with the other Apostles were these: (1) after three years I went up, &c. (2) after fourteen years had elapsed, I again went up, &c.?” This view is much favoured, if not rendered decisive, by the change in position of ἐτῶν and the numeral, in this second instance. In ch. 1:18, it is μετὰ ἔτη τρία: ἔτη, in the first mention of the interval, having the emphatic place. But now, it is not διʼ ἐτῶν δεκατεσσάρων, but διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν—ἐτῶν now passing into the shade, and the numeral having the emphasis—a clear indication to me that the ἔτη have the same reference as before, viz. to the time of his conversion. A list, and ample discussion, of the opinions on both sides, will be found in Anger, de ratione temporum, ch. 4.

This (cf. Chronol. Table in Prolegg. Vol. II.) would bring the visit here related to the year 50: see below.

πάλιν ἀνέβην] I again went up: but nothing is said, and there was no need to say any thing, of another visit during the interval. It was the object of the Apostle to specify, not all his visits to Jerusalem, but all his occasions of intercourse with the other Apostles: and it is mere trifling, when Meyer, in his love of creating discrepancies, maintains that in such a narration as this, St. Paul would be putting a weapon into the hands of his opponents by omitting his second journey. That journey was undertaken (Act 11:30) in pursuance of a mission from the church at Antioch, to convey alms to the elders of the suffering church at Jerusalem. It was at a period of persecution, when James the son of Zebedee and Peter were under the power of Herod.—and in all probability the other Apostles were scattered. Probably Barnabas and Saul did not see any of them. They merely (Act 12:25) fulfilled their errand, and brought back John Mark. If in that visit he had no intercourse with the Apostles, as his business was not with them, the mention of it here would be irrelevant: and to attempt, as Mey., to prove the Acts inaccurate, because that journey is not mentioned here, is simply absurd. That the visit here described is in all probability the third related in the Acts (a.d. 50) on occasion of the council of Apostles and elders (Act_15), I have shewn in a note to the chronological table, Prolegomena to Acts, Vol. II. The various separate circumstances of the visit will be noticed as we proceed.

συνπ. καὶ Τίτον] In Act 15:2, ἔταξαν ἀναβαίνειν Π. κ. Βαρν. καί τινας ἄλλους ἐξ αὐτῶν. Titus is here particularized by name, on account of the notice which follows, ver. 3: and the καί serves to take him out from among the others. On Titus, see Prolegg. to Ep. to Titus.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(e) Evidence of his independent apostleship drawn from his conduct on a visit to Jerusalem fourteen years after the preceding one (2:1-10)

Following, as before, a chronological order, the apostle now narrates the circumstances of a very important occasion on which he came in contact with those who were apostles before him. At the outset he calls attention to the length of his absence from Jerusalem, fourteen years, during which, so it is implied, he had had no contact with the Jerusalem apostles; then to the fact that when he went up it was not at their command, but in obedience to divine revelation; then, indicating that the question at issue was then, as now in Galatia, the circumcision of the Gentiles who had accepted his gospel, he tells how he laid his gospel before the Jerusalem Christians, and in a private session before the pillars of the church, James and Cephas and John, since he recognised that their disapproval of his preaching might render of no avail his future work and undo what he had already done. Though, out of consideration for the opponents of his gospel of freedom from law, who had crept into the Jerusalem church for the purpose of robbing the Christians of their freedom and bringing them into bondage to the law, the apostles urged him to circumcise Titus, a Greek Christian who was with him, he refused to do so; and so far from his yielding to the authority or persuasion of these eminent men, whose eminent past did not weigh with him, as it did not with God, they imparted nothing new to him, but when they perceived that God, who had commissioned Peter to present the gospel to the Jews, had given to Paul also a commission to the Gentiles, these leaders of the church cordially agreed to a division of the territory and of responsibility. Paul and Barnabas were to preach among the Gentiles, Peter among the Jews, and the only additional stipulation was that Paul and Barnabas should remember the poor among the Jewish Christians, which thing, Paul affirms, he gladly did.

Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem, with Barnabas, taking Titus also along. 2And I went up in accordance with [a] revelation. And I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,—but privately before the men of eminence—lest perchance I should run or had run in vain. 3But not even Titus, who was with me and was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised (4now it was because of the false brethren surreptitiously brought in, who sneaked in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage [that his circumcision was urged], 5to whom not for an hour did we yield by way of the subjection [demanded]), that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6And from those who were accounted to be something—what they once were matters not to me—God accepts not the person of man—for to me the men of eminence taught nothing new—7but on the contrary when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised as Peter with the gospel to the circumcised—8for he who wrought for Peter unto an apostleship to the circumcised wrought also for me unto an apostleship to the Gentiles—9and when, I say, they perceived the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were accounted pillars, gave to me and to Barnabas right hands of fellowship, that we should go among the Gentiles and they among the circumcised, 10provided only that we should remember the poor, which very thing I have also taken pains to do.

1. Ἔπειτα διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν πάλιν ἀνέβην εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα “Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem.” Since for the purposes of his argument that he had not been dependent on the other apostles (cf. 1:12, 17) it is his contacts with them that it is pertinent to mention, the fact that he speaks of these as visits to Jerusalem (cf. 1:18) indicates 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, that he had been in Jerusalem is the strongest possible way of denying communication with the Twelve. 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 Twelve, 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 have spoken, not of going to Jerusalem, but of seeing those who were apostles before him.

Ἔπειτα, primarily a particle of chronological succession, clearly has this force here, as is suggested by διὰ…ἐτῶν. The ἔπειτα… ἔπειτα … ἔπειτα of 1:18, 21 and the present v. mark the successive steps of a chronological series, and at the same time of the apostle’s argument, because he is arranging it on a chronological framework; they thus acquire as in some other cases (see 1Th 4:17, 1Co 15:46) a secondary logical force. That διά may mean “after the lapse of” is clearly shown by Hdt. 3:27; Soph. Ph. 758; Xen. Cyr. 1. 4:28, and other passages cited by L.&S. s. v. A. II 2, and by W. XLVII i. (b) (WM p. 475), and that this use was current in Jewish Greek appears from Deu 9:11, Mar 2:1, Act 24:17. That this rather than “throughout,” the only alternative meaning in chronological expressions, is the meaning here is evident from the unsuitableness of “throughout” to the verb ἀνέβην. On the question whether the period is to be reckoned from the same starting point as the three years previously named (1:18) or from the end of that period, there is room for difference of opinion. Wies. Ell. Alf. hold the former view; Ltft. Mey. Beet, Sief. Lip. Zahn, Bous. the latter. For the exposition of the apostle’s thought at this point the question is of little consequence. His purpose is evidently to emphasise the limited amount of his communication with the Twelve as tending to show that he did not receive his gospel from them, and for this purpose it matters little whether the period during which he had no communication with the Twelve was fourteen years or eleven. For the chronology of the life of Paul, however, the question is of more significance. While it is impossible to determine with certainty which view is correct, the balance of probability seems to favour reckoning the fourteen years as subsequent to the three years. The nature of his argument requires him to mention not how long after his conversion he made this visit, but during how long a period he remained without personal communication with the other apostles, which period would be reckoned, of course, from his latest preceding visit. This argument is somewhat strengthened by the use of the preposition διά, which, meaning properly “through,” and coming to signify “after” only through the thought of a period passed through, also suggests that the period of fourteen years constitutes a unit in the apostle’s mind—an unbroken period of non-communication with the apostles.

The substitution of τεσσάρων for δεκατεσσάρων (advocated by Grot. Seml. et al., named by Sief. and Zahn ad loc.), resting as it does on no external evidence, calls for no refutation. The supposed difficulties of the chronology of the apostle’s life based on δεκατεσσάρων are insufficient to justify this purely conjectural emendation of the text.

For the doubt whether πάλιν belonged to the original text expressed by Zahn and Bous. there seems slight justification. It is lacking in no ancient ms., though standing in DFG d g Goth. Aeth. after ἀνέβην, and in but one ancient version, the Boh. The quotation of the sentence without it by Mcion. Iren. Ambrst. Chrys. seems insufficient evidence that the original text lacked it.

μετὰ Βαρνάβα, “with Barnabas,” i. e., accompanied by him, as in Mat 16:27, 1Th 3:13, 2Th 1:7, rather than accompanying him, as in Mat 25:10, Mat 26:47, Act 7:45; for the remainder of the narrative, especially the constant use of the first person singular, implies that Paul and not Barnabas was the chief speaker and leader of the party.

συνπαραλαβὼν καὶ Τίτον· “taking Titus also along.” Titus is thus assigned to a distinctly subordinate position as one “taken along,” and the members of the party evidently ranked in the order, Paul, Barnabas, Titus. The apostle says nothing at this point concerning the reason for taking Titus with him. But the specific mention of the fact and the part that Titus played in the subsequent events (vv. 3-5) suggest that Paul intended to make his a test-case for the whole question of the circumcision of the Gentile Christians.

Concerning the tense of the participle συνπαραλαβών, see BMT 149, and cf. Act 12:25. The act denoted by the participle, though coinciding in time with the action of the principal verb, is expressed by an aorist rather than a present participle, because it is conceived of as a simple fact, not as an action in progress, least of all as one within the time of which the action of the principal verb falls.

1. Those which make it limit some following word. (a) εἴξαμεν. So, omitting οἵς οὐδέ (in v. 5; cf. textual note below), Tert. et al., and in modern times Zahn. This yields the sense, “but because of the false brethren… I yielded for a brief space.” This may be dismissed because based on a text insufficiently supported by textual evidence, and giving the impossible sense that Paul yielded by way of the subjection demanded by the false brethren that the truth of the gospel might continue with the Gentiles.* (b) So, retaining οἵς οὐδέ, but assuming that the insertion of οἵς involves an anacoluthon, Wies. p. 110; Philippi; and substantially so Weizs. Ap. Zeit. p. 155. Cf. Butt. p. 385. Paul, it is supposed, having intended at first to make διὰ… ψευδαδ. limit οὐκ εἴξαμεν directly, was led by the length of the sentence to insert οἵς, thus changing the thought from an assertion that on their account he did not yield into a denial that he yielded to them, and leaving διὰ … ψευδαδ. without a regimen. The objection of Sief. (ad loc., p. 98) to this interpretation that these two conceptions “yielded on account of” and “yielded to” are so different that the one could not be merged in the other is of little force; for certainly Paul might naturally think of a yielding to a demand made for the sake of the false brethren as in effect a yielding to them. Nor can the fact of the anacoluthon itself be urged against this view, since anacolutha are common in Paul, and especially so in this very paragraph. The real objection to this interpretation lies in the difficulty of supposing that Paul could say that he refused to circumcise Titus because it was requested for the sake of the false brethren, or as Wies. in effect makes it, by them. Is it to be supposed that, when the very question at issue was the legitimacy of the gospel which offered itself to the Gentiles without legal requirement, he would have consented to circumcise Titus, if only the request had not been made for the sake of the false brethren? Weizs., indeed, interprets διὰ … ψευδαδ. as giving not the decisive reason, but for the urging of which Titus would have been circumcised, but a contributory reason, which made his course all the more necessary—a meaning which has much to commend it, but which it seems would have necessitated the insertion of some such word as μάλιστα (cf. chap. 6:10).

1. A visit to Jerusalem between that of Gal 1:18 and that of 2:1 is rendered improbable by the constant implication of the apostle that Jerusalem was the headquarters of the Jewish church and its leaders, combined with his implied assertion that he is enumerating in succession the occasions of his contact with these leaders. See more fully on 2:1, and contra, Steinmann, Abfassungszeit des Galaterbriefes, pp. 127 ff.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Fourteen years after [δια δεκατεσσαρων ετων] . Rev. after the space of fourteen years. Comp. dij ejtwn pleionwn after several years, Act 24:17; dij hJmerwn after (some) days, Mr 2:1. Dia means after, that is, a given number of years being interposed between two points of time. Not, in the course of (Rev. marg.).

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Now he showeth how he agreeth with the Apostles with whom he granteth that he conferred touching his Gospel which he taught among the Gentiles, fourteen years after his conversion, and they allowed it in such sort, that they constrained not his fellow Titus to be circumcised, although some tormented themselves therein, which traitorously laid wait against him, but in vain: neither did they add the least iota that might be to the doctrine which he had preached, but contrariwise they gave to him and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship and acknowledged them as Apostles appointed of the Lord to the Gentiles.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

CHAPTER II.

The apostle mentions his journey to Jerusalem with Barnabas and

Titus, 1.

Shows that he went thither by revelation; and what he did while

there, and the persons with whom he had intercourse, 2-8.

How the apostles gave him the right hand of fellowship, 9, 10.

Here he opposes Peter at Antioch, and the reason why, 11-14.

Shows that the Jews as well as the Gentiles must be justified by

faith, 15, 16.

They who seek this justification should act with consistency,

17, 18.

Gives his own religious experience, and shows, that through the

law he was dead to the law, and crucified with Christ, 19, 20.

Justification is not of the law, but by the faith of Christ, 21.

NOTES ON CHAP. II.

Verse 1. Then fourteen years after] There is a considerable difference among critics concerning the time specified in this verse; the apostle is however generally supposed to refer to the journey he took to Jerusalem, about the question of circumcision, mentioned in Ac 15:4-5, c. These years, says Dr. Whitby, must be reckoned from the time of his conversion, mentioned here Ga 1:18, which took place A.D. 35 (33) his journey to Peter was A.D. 38 (36,) and then between that and the council of Jerusalem, assembled A.D. 49 (52,) will be fourteen intervening years. The dates in brackets are according to the chronology which I follow in the Acts of the Apostles. Dr. Whitby has some objections against this chronology, which may be seen in his notes.

Others contend that the journey of which the apostle speaks is that mentioned Ac 11:27, c., when Barnabas and Saul were sent by the Church of Antioch with relief to the poor Christians in Judea there being at that time a great dearth in that land. St. Luke's not mentioning Titus in that journey is no valid objection against it: for he does not mention him in any part of his history, this being the first place in which his name occurs. And it does seem as if St. Paul did intend purposely to supply that defect, by his saying, I went up with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. The former St. Luke relates, Ac 11:30; the latter St. Paul supplies.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1. Fourteen years after. This cannot with certainty be affirmed to be the same journey mentioned by Luke. (Acts 15:2.) The connection of the history leads us rather to an opposite conclusion. We find that Paul performed four journeys to Jerusalem. Of the first we have already spoken. The second took place when, in company with Barnabas, he brought the charitable contributions of the Greek and Asiatic Churches. (Acts 15:25.) My belief that this second journey is referred to in the present passage rests on various grounds. On any other supposition, the statements of Paul and Luke cannot be reconciled. Besides, there is ground for conjecturing that the rebuke was administered to Peter at Antioch while Paul was residing there. Now, this happened before he was sent to Jerusalem by the Churches to settle the dispute which had arisen about ceremonial observances. (Acts 15:2.) It is not reasonable to suppose that Peter would have used such dissimulation, if that controversy had been settled and the decree of the Apostles published. But Paul writes that he came to Jerusalem, and afterwards adds that he had rebuked Peter for an act of dissimulation, an act which Peter certainly would not have committed except in matters that were doubtful.

Besides, he would scarcely have alluded, at any time, to that journey undertaken with the consent of all the believers, without mentioning the occasion of it, and the memorable decision which was passed. It is not even certain at what time the Epistle was written, only that the Greeks conjecture that it was sent from Rome, and the Latins from Ephesus. For my own part, I think that it was written, not only before Paul had seen Rome, but before that consultation had been held, and the decision of the Apostles given about ceremonial observances. While his opponents were falsely pleading the name of the apostles, and earnestly striving to ruin the reputation of Paul, what carelessness would it have angered in him to pass by the decree universally circulated among them, which struck at those very persons! Undoubtedly, this one word would have shut their mouth: “You bring against me the authority of the apostles, but who does not know their decision? and therefore I hold you convicted of unblushing falsehood. In their name, you oblige the Gentiles to keep the law, but I appeal to their own writing, which sets the consciences of men at liberty.”

We may likewise observe, that, in the commencement of the Epistle, he reproved the Galatians for having so soon revolted from the gospel which had been delivered to them. But we may readily conclude, that, after they had been brought to believe the gospel, some time must have elapsed before that dispute about the ceremonial law arose. I consider, therefore, that the fourteen years are to be reckoned, not from one journey to another, but from Paul’s conversion. The space of time between the two journeys was eleven years.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(1) Fourteen years after.—From what date is this fourteen years to be reckoned? The phrase “I went up again” seems to be decisive in favour of reckoning it from the visit to Jerusalem just mentioned. We should therefore have to add the three years of Gal_1:18, in order to reach the date of the Apostle’s conversion The relation of the present narrative to that in the Acts will be more fully discussed in an excursus. (See Excursus A: On the Visits of St. Paul to Jerusalem.)

In the meantime, it may be assumed that there appear to be sufficient reasons for identifying the visit to Jerusalem here described with that recorded in Acts 15, commonly known as the Council of Jerusalem, which is placed by the best chronologists about A.D. 50 or 51.

And took Titus with me also.—In the corresponding passage (Act_15:2) we are told that “certain others” were sent with Paul and Barnabas. St. Paul mentions especially Titus because of the part which he subsequently played in the history of the Council, and because of the importance of this for his present argument.

II.

(1-10) The argument proceeds, still taking the shape of vivid personal retrospect:—The next visit at which I had any communication with the elder Apostles was after an interval of fourteen years. That, too, only served to bring out at once the independence and the soundness of my teaching. I spoke on the subject freely to the whole Church, and besides I had private conferences with the leaders; but no alteration was made either in my teaching or in my practice. One crucial instance was that of Titus, my companion, who, Gentile as he was, was not compelled to be circumcised, though his circumcision was urged upon me, not by the free motion of the Apostles themselves, but to silence the malicious rumours set on foot by certain Judaising spies who had found their way into our midst. To these Barnabas and I did not give way for a moment. And the upshot of the matter was that my mission was fully recognised by the leading Apostles, and that we agreed to go different ways—they to the Jews, we to the Gentiles—with the one condition, which I needed no prompting to accept, that we should not forget the poor.

Thoughts and arguments crowd in upon the Apostle with great vehemence. His amanuensis cannot take them down fast enough. Sentences are begun and not rightly ended, and much of the sense is left to be supplied by conjecture. The general drift of the passage is sufficiently plain, but there is much uncertainty about the details. This will appear in the Notes which follow.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1. fourteen years after] This is not to be reckoned from the time of the first visit, mentioned ch. Gal_1:18, but from the date of St Paul’s conversion; and this visit may therefore be assigned to a.d. 51. It was on the occasion described in Acts 15.

St Paul had gone to Jerusalem once during the interval, to carry relief to the poor brethren who were suffering from the famine, Act_11:30; Act_12:25. But he does not here refer to that visit, because its object and attendant circumstances are foreign to the purpose of his present argument, and because he had probably no opportunity then of conferring with the Apostles. The visit was purely one of benevolence, and may have been brief in duration. Calvin, however, and others identify the visit of this verse with that of Act_11:30. Twice after this, St Paul revisited the Holy City—in a.d. 54, of which visit a cursory mention is made Act_18:21-22, and finally in a.d. 58 (Act_21:17).

with Barnabas] This name, which signifies ‘the Son of Exhortation’, was given by the Apostles to an early convert, whose original name was Joseph or Joses. He was a Levite of Cyprus, and was associated with Paul in the commencement of his missionary work among the Gentiles. He accompanied him on this occasion, as well as on the previous visit to Jerusalem, recorded in Act_11:30. Like St Paul, though not of the number of the Twelve, he was included in “the glorious company of the Apostles”[26] (see Lightfoot, p. 93).

[26] His festival is retained in the Calendar of the English Church, with special Collect, Epistle and Gospel. In the Collect he is termed ‘thy holy Apostle Barnabas’. Under June 11, to the bare name Barnabas in the Calendar was prefixed in 1663 ‘S.’, and added, ‘Apost. and M.’

At the conclusion of this visit, owing to a dispute with St Paul, Barnabas separated from him, and is not again mentioned in St Luke’s narrative.

Titus also] He was one among the ‘certain others’ appointed by the Church in Antioch to go up to Jerusalem with Paul and Barnabas (Act_15:2). He is specially mentioned because of the incident narrated in Gal_2:2 foll.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem,.... That is, either after it pleased God to call him by his grace, and reveal his Son in him; or rather after he had been at Jerusalem to see Peter, with whom he stayed fifteen days, and then went into Syria and Cilicia; so that it was seventeen years after his conversion that he took this journey to Jerusalem he here speaks of; and he seems to refer to the time when he and Barnabas went from the church at Antioch to the apostles and elders about the question, whether circumcision was necessary to salvation, Act 15:1 which entirely agrees with the account the apostle here gives of this journey, and which he went not alone, but

with Barnabas: and took Titus with me also; Barnabas is mentioned in Luke's account as going with him at this time, but Titus is not; who, though he was not sent by the church, yet the apostle might judge it proper and prudent to take him with him, who was converted by him, was a minister of the Gospel, and continued uncircumcised; and the rather he might choose to have him along with him, partly that he might be confirmed in the faith the apostle had taught him; and partly that he might be a living testimony of the agreement between the apostle's principles and practice; and that having him and Barnabas, he might have a competent number of witnesses to testify to the doctrines he preached, the miracles he wrought, and the success that attended him among the Gentiles; and to relate, upon their return, what passed between him and the elders at Jerusalem; for by the mouth of two or three witnesses everything is established.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

Ver. 1. I went up] To that first Christian council, Acts xv.

With Barnabas] His constant companion, till that bitter bickering, Act 15:39. {See Trapp on "Act 15:39"}

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then fourteen years after - That is, 14 years after his first visit there subsequent to his conversion. Some commentators, however, suppose that the date of the fourteen years is to be reckoned from his conversion. But the more obvious construction is, to refer it to the time of his visit there, as recorded in the previous chapter; Gal 2:18. This time was spent in Asia Minor chiefly in preaching the gospel.

I went up again to Jerusalem - It is commonly supposed that Paul here refers to the visit which he made as recorded in Acts 15. The circumstances mentioned are substantially the same; and the object which he had at that time in going up was one whose mention was entirely pertinent to the argument here. He went up with Barnabas to submit a question to the assembled apostles and elders at Jerusalem, in regard to the necessity of the observance of the laws of Moses. Some persons who had come among the Gentile converts from Judea had insisted on the necessity of being circumcised in order to be saved. Paul and Barnabas had opposed them; and the dispute had become so warm that it was agreed to submit the subject to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. For that purpose Paul and Barnabas had been sent, with certain others, to lay the case before all the apostles. As the question which Paul was discussing in this Epistle was about the necessity of the observance of the laws of Moses in order to justification, it was exactly in point to refer to a journey when this very question had been submitted to the apostles. Paul indeed had made another journey to Jerusalem before this with the collection for the poor saints in Judea Act 11:29-30; Act 12:25, but he does not mention that here, probably because he did not then see the other apostles, or more probably because that journey furnished no illustration of the point now under debate. On the occasion here referred to Acts 15, the very point under discussion here constituted the main subject of inquiry, and it was definitely settled.

And took Titus with me also - Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles Act 15:2, says, that there were others with Paul and Barnabas on that journey to Jerusalem, but who they were he does not mention. It is by no means certain that Titus was appointed by the church to go to Jerusalem; but the contrary is more probable. Paul seems to have taken him with him as a private affair; but the reason is not mentioned. It may have been to show his Christian liberty, and his sense of what he had a right to do; or it may have been to furnish a case on the subject of inquiry, and submit the matter to them whether Titus was to be circumcised. He was a Greek; but he had been converted to Christianity. Paul had not circumcised him; but had admitted him to the full privileges of the Christian church. Here then was a case in point; and it may have been important to have had such a case before them, so that they might fully understand it. This, as Doddridge properly remarks, is the first mention which occurs of Titus. He is not mentioned by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, and though his name occurs several times in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians 2Co 2:13; 2Co 7:6; 2Co 8:6, 2Co 8:16, 2Co 8:23; 2Co 12:18, yet it is to be remembered that that Epistle was written a considerable time after this to the Galatians. Titus was a Greek, and was doubtless converted by the labors of Paul, because he calls him his own “son,” Tit 1:4. He attended Paul frequently in his travels; was employed by him in important services (see 2 Corinthians in the places referred to above); was left by him in Crete to set in order the things that were missing, and to ordain elders there Tit 1:5; subsequently, he went into Dalmatia 2Ti 4:10, and is supposed to have returned again to Crete, where it is said he propagated the gospel in the neighboring islands, and died at the age of 94 - Calmet.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Then fourteen years after. That is, after my former going to Jerusalem, which was seventeen years after my conversion, an. 51 [the year A.D. 51]. See Tillemont. (Witham) The cause of St. Paul’s second journey to Jerusalem was as follows. Some brethren coming from Judea to Antioch, there maintained the necessity of circumcision and the other Mosaic rites, asserting that without them salvation could not be obtained. St. Paul, upon his return to Antioch, strongly defended, in conjunction with Barnabas, the liberty of the gospel. As the contest grew warm, it was resolved to depute Paul and Barnabas to consult the other apostles and ancients of Jerusalem. By the approbation of the living and speaking tribunal, which all are commanded to hear, the Scriptures are not made true, altered or amended; they merely are declared to be the infallible word of God, a point only to be learned by authority; hence that memorable saying of St. Augustine: "I would not believe the gospel unless the authority of the Church moved me." (Cont. ep. fund. chap. v.)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Fourteen years after; either fourteen years after the three years before mentioned, and the fifteen days; or fourteen years after the conversion of Paul, or fourteen years after the death of Christ. This journey seeming to be that mentioned Act 15:2, it seems rather to be understood of fourteen years after the death of Christ.

I went up again to Jerusalem: motions to Jerusalem are usually in Scripture called ascendings or goings up; either because of the mountains round about it, or in respect of the famousness of the place: see Act 15:2; 21:4. The occasion of this journey we have, Act 15:1,2. It was to advise with the apostles and elders, about the necessity of circumcision; some that came from Judea having taught the disciples at Antioch, that except they were circumcised they could not be saved.

With Barnabas, and took This with me also; Barnabas was chosen to go with Paul, Act 15:2, and some others, whom Luke nameth not, but it is plain by this text Titus was one.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Then fourteen years after - My first journey thither. I went up again to Jerusalem - This seems to be the journey mentioned Acts xv, 2; several passages here referring to that great council, wherein all the apostles showed that they were of the same judgment with him.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

VERSE 1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem.

Paul taught justification by faith in Christ Jesus, without the deeds of the Law. He reported this to the disciples at Antioch. Among the disciples were some that had been brought up in the ancient customs of the Jews. These rose against Paul in quick indignation, accusing him of propagating a gospel of lawlessness.

Great dissension followed. Paul and Barnabas stood up for the truth. They testified: "Wherever we preached to the Gentiles, the Holy Ghost came upon those who received the Word. This happened everywhere. We preached not circumcision, we did not require observance of the Law. We preached faith in Jesus Christ. At our preaching of faith, God gave to the hearers the Holy Ghost." From this fact Paul and Barnabas inferred that the Holy Ghost approved the faith of the Gentiles without the Law and circumcision. If the faith of the Gentiles had not pleased the Holy Ghost, He would not have manifested His presence in the uncircumcised hearers of the Word.

Unconvinced, the Jews fiercely opposed Paul, asserting that the Law ought to be kept and that the Gentiles ought to be circumcised, or else they could not be saved.

When we consider the obstinacy with which Romanists cling to their traditions, we can very well understand the zealous devotion of the Jews for the Law. After all, they had received the Law from God. We can understand how impossible it was for recent converts from Judaism suddenly to break with the Law. For that matter, God did bear with them, as He bore with the infirmity of Israel when the people halted between two religions. Was not God patient with us also while we were blindfolded by the papacy? God is longsuffering and full of mercy. But we dare not abuse the patience of the Lord. We dare no longer continue in error now that the truth has been revealed in the Gospel.

The opponents of Paul had his own example to prefer against him. Paul had circumcised Timothy. Paul defended his action on the ground that he had circumcised Timothy, not from compulsion, but from Christian love, lest the weak in faith should be offended. His opponents would not accept Paul’s explanation.

When Paul saw that the quarrel was getting out of hand he obeyed the direction of God and left for Jerusalem, there to confer with the other apostles. He did this not for his own sake, but for the sake of the people.

VERSE 1. With Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

Paul chose two witnesses, Barnabas and Titus. Barnabas had been Paul’s preaching companion to the Gentiles. Barnabas was an eye-witness of the fact that the Holy Ghost had come upon the Gentiles in response to the simple preaching of faith in Jesus Christ. Barnabas stuck to Paul on this point, that it was unnecessary for the Gentiles to be bothered with the Law as long as they believed in Christ.

Titus was superintendent of the churches in Crete, having been placed in charge of the churches by Paul. Titus was a former Gentile.

Martin Luther — Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535), English translation by Theodore Graebner (Zondervan, 1939) — public domain (U.S. copyright not renewed). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Further Confirmation of Paul’s Apostleship.

Paul refuses to yield to false brethren:

v. 1. Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

v. 2. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

v. 3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised;

v. 4. and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage;

v. 5. to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.

After proving that he had not been made an apostle by any man’s teaching, but by divine revelation, Paul now shows that his confidence and reliance upon this fact was so great that he could frankly challenge examination by any person and yielded to the unauthorized impetuosity of no man. He therefore relates the history of an event which occurred after his first missionary journey: Then, after fourteen years, I again made the journey to Jerusalem, with Barnabas, taking also Titus along. As he had been figuring from the time of his conversion in the previous chapter, as the foremost event in his life, so he here refers to the number of years which had elapsed since he became a Christian. Fourteen years he had spent in his apostolic office when an occasion arose which made it necessary for him to make the trip from Syria up to Jerusalem. He went with Barnabas, who had been his coworker on the first missionary journey and could testify to the wonderful success which the Lord had laid upon their labors. His young assistant Titus he took along as a companion.

Here again Paul’s independence of the older apostles is set forth. For he went up, as he writes, in accordance with a revelation, not on account of any instruction which had been given by any hierarchy. The Lord Himself transmitted His will to the apostle, and the fact that the congregation at Antioch then chose him as a delegate shows that their decision was prompted by this revelation. Luke tells the story of this journey and of the meeting which it occasioned in Jerusalem in its general aspects, Act 13:1-29; Paul relates the incidents which will bear him out in his contention. There had been a meeting with the entire congregation, in which Paul had laid before them the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles, giving them a summary of his preaching, of his message, thus enabling them to see for themselves that he was teaching the truth, justification by faith alone. But there had also been a private conference with the men that were of some reputation, that were leaders of the Congregation in Jerusalem, whether before or after the general meeting is immaterial. With his customary tact Paul wanted to avoid misunderstandings, mistaken ideas concerning his work. It was not that he was not absolutely sure of his position and of the truth of his doctrine, but that his doctrine might be represented falsely, lest perhaps he should be running or had run in vain, that his labor had been performed to no purpose.

What success the apostle had in this conference is implied in a striking manner by an incident which he here mentions: Yet even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised. Paul made a very complete and detailed report of his work among the Gentiles, not only of his preaching, but also of his practice, not concealing the fact that he no longer demanded that the Gentiles be circumcised. Now his argument to the Galatians is this: If the claims of the Judaizing teachers in their midst were true, if the ceremonial law had not yet been abrogated then the leaders of the congregation in Jerusalem would certainly have insisted upon his changing his practice in this respect. But far from declaring his position false, these men, two of whom were members of the original band of apostles, sided with him to that extent that they did not even demand the circumcision of Titus, who was of Gentile parentage.

Paul now returns to the reason for his journey to Jerusalem, saying that he went up because of the false brethren, Act 15:1, who had smuggled themselves in, such men as came in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, to lie in wait to deprive us of it, in order to bring us into bondage. These men belonged to the Pharisaic party, and they had come into the congregation at Antioch in the same manner in which spies manage to enter into the camp of an army. They had given no evidence of their intention, but had come under the guise of seekers of truth. If they had had honest doubts of the truth of the one or the other doctrine taught by Paul and Barnabas, integrity would have demanded that they make an open statement of their position, state their objections, and accept Scriptural proof. But these men lacked all honesty and frankness; they were filled with malice; the object which they hoped to gain was to deprive the disciples at Antioch of the liberty which they had by virtue of the redemption of Christ, and thus to bring them back into the former bondage of the Law with all that this state implied.

But Paul soon discovered their duplicity and frustrated their intention by insisting upon the liberty which was his through the merits of Christ: To whom not even for an hour we gave place by submission, in order that the truth of the Gospel might permanently remain with you. Paul’s spiritual insight, which amounted almost to instinct, sharpened as it was by his own experience, realized at once what was at stake, that the question did not concern an insignificant, indifferent matter, regarding which people could well be of different opinions, but that the contention of the Judaizing teachers struck at the very root of Christian doctrine. And therefore he and Barnabas refused to yield, to submit, even for a moment. They knew that if they had given way at that point, the whole fabric of Christ’s doctrine would have fallen to pieces. And so the motive for their firmness was the maintenance of the truth of the Gospel, also for the Galatians, of the retention of the evangelical freedom to which the believers were entitled by virtue of Christ’s redemption. Even at that time, therefore, the apostle had guarded the blessings of the Gospel for the Galatians and for all Christians; he had foiled the plans of the false teachers, he had prevented their reintroducing the servitude of the Law into the Christian Church. Just as soon as any suggestion is introduced into a congregation or a church-body which goes beyond things indifferent and attempts to confirm false doctrine and to suppress pure doctrine and Christian liberty, then the only stand to take is that of uncompromising opposition.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal 2:6-10

Many, but One.

It would seem as if in the slow progress of some men’s minds the last discovery that they make is that truth is many-sided; they have gone on year after year mistaking a statement of truth for the entire truth itself, until at last, perhaps in communion with some larger-hearted disciple of another faith, they have found the statement far too narrow for the larger conceptions which have happily dawned upon them. In the text we have—

I. The very first principle of Christian charity. The Gospel is the expression of God’s endeavour to bring man to His own standpoint; and what is true of character must also be true of thought: the liberal-mindedness of a truly Christian man is not the indifference of one whose hold upon his own principles is so slight that it does not seem to him to matter what a man believes, but is rather the recognition of a great circle of truth in God’s purpose, of which many differing statements may be simply segments, imperfectly seen. We constantly admit this principle even in the degrees of human knowledge. Truth has its dim and limited visions in dark places and the full blaze of its day and brightness, and the whole spirit of Christ’s demand upon us is that not only shall we seek always to dwell in the fullest possible light which we can see, but, much more than that, we are to bear ourselves also with the reverence and the charity of men who believe that truth is greater and broader than any vision of ours can realise, and that the statement which to us appears a full light may to another, nearer to God, be miserably imperfect and insufficient.

II. With all the variety of service in the early Church, there was one thing in which the differing parties were absolutely at one: "They would that we should remember the poor, which very thing I also was zealous to do." The ministry to the needy was something concerning which there was no cause to dispute. The Apostles, on one side, are eager to make it a condition of service; the great Apostle, upon the other side, is even more eager to fulfil that condition. It is, I think, perfectly clear that the selfsame spirit which enabled them to take the broad catholic view of the Gospel which they preached would necessarily involve this desire to minister to the poor. In the history of men’s thoughts of God we may almost compare the approach to Him to the approach to a fortified city. At the outer circle are the fortresses and defences: there are the polemics, the mere theologians, those whose chief activity is about the letter and theory of their religious faith. The next circle is the city itself: those who are chiefly concerned about God’s government, whose chief speech is of law and order and justice. The next circle is the temple, the religious part of the city life: these are the devout, religious souls whose religion is yet something of a restraint. But beyond the temple is the home of the city’s King, and there are the beginnings and the causes of all; whatever is there must determine all the rest. Christ’s great Gospel is that there is love, and that for this love He came to fulfil God’s great redeeming purpose, and it is essential that all who seek in any fashion to forward that purpose should date their inspiration from there.

W. H. Harwood, Christian World Pulpit, vol. 1., p. 379.

References: Gal 2:9.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 248. Gal 2:10.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ii., No. 99; Ibid., Morning by Morning, p. 77. Gal 2:11.—Archbishop Thomson, Church of England Pulpit, vol. vi., p. 1; S. Pearson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 42. Gal 2:11-21.—W. M. Taylor, Paul the Missionary, p. 186. Gal 2:16.—Homilist, 4th series, vol. i., p. 214.

Gal 2:19

I. St. Paul was dead to the law in two ways. First, he no longer sought in it the motive power which should enable him to bring forth fruit to God. It had itself cured him of this delusion. Henceforth he knew a more effectual motive, the love of Christ, that should constrain him to obedience, being in itself precept and power in one. And, secondly, he was loosed from the law, dead to it, in that he no longer sought to be accepted with God through, and on the ground of, his observance of it. For he had found, by a mournful experience, that it wrought not acceptance, but rejection, a terror of God, and not a confidence toward God; that by works of the law could no flesh be justified. While yet this dying to the law, as he goes on to say, was not a dying to all law. The law of the Spirit of life took the place of a dead, yet threatening, letter. He put one yoke off him, but in the act of this he put another on him. In fact, he only could get rid of one by assuming the other, even the yoke of Him whose yoke is easy, and whose burden is light. He died to the law; but he died to it that he might live unto God.

II. For us also it stands true that we are not under the law, but under grace; and we also should be able to say with Paul, "I through the law am dead to the law." Christ’s Gospel is not a law at all, but rather a new power communicated to humanity; a new hiding of the heavenly leaven in the lump of our nature; the casting of fire upon earth, the new fire of a heavenly love and of the Holy Ghost, who is love, which should enkindle the cold hearts of men and burn up in them the dross which the law indeed could make them aware of, but which it could never burn out from them. It was the coming in of new spiritual forces into the world. It demanded more from man, but it also gave more; in fact, it demanded nothing which it had not first given. The law, when regarded apart from Christ, is like that fabled Medusa’s head which froze those that looked at it into stone. But Christ thaws those frozen hearts again, causes the pulses to play and the genial life-blood to flow in them once more.

R. C. Trench, Westminster and Other Sermons, p. 177.

References: Gal 2:19.—G. E. L. Cotton, Sermons to English Congregations in India, p. 145. Gal 2:19, Gal 2:20.—W. B. Pope, Sermons, p. 292; S. Pearson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 56.

Gal 2:20

From Centre to Circumference.

I. We have, first, the great central fact named last, but round which all the Christian life is gathered: "The Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." (1) Christ’s death is a great act of self-surrender, of which the one motive is His own pure and perfect love. (2) That great act of self-surrendering love which culminates on the Cross is regarded as being for man in a special and peculiar sense. (3) We have here brought into vivid prominence the great thought that Jesus in His death has regard to single souls.

II. Note the faith which makes that fact the foundation of our own personal life. True faith is personal faith, which appropriates and, as it were, fences in as my very own the purpose and benefit of Christ’s giving of Himself.

III. Note the life which is built upon this faith. The true Christian life is dual. It is a life in the flesh, and it is also a life in faith. It has its surface amidst the shifting mutabilities of earth, but its root in the silent eternities and the centre of all things, which is Christ in God.

A. Maclaren, The Unchanging Christ, p. 192.

I. St. Paul’s words imply two chief elements in this new life, which thus by faith he lived in the Son of God. (1) One of these two points is love, for it was our Lord’s love towards him that he here dwells upon. He had embraced the love of Christ towards himself, and love in his own soul towards his Lord was the result. It is to be observed that our Lord’s individualising love is what he speaks of: "The Son of God, who loved me." This individuality gives intensity to love, causing it to be a personal, as distinguished from a mere general, love. (2) The second element of life on which St. Paul dwells in the text is the consciousness of mercy in being redeemed. This consciousness is intimately connected with love; but yet they are to be distinguished: "The Son of God, who gave Himself for me." This conviction embraced in his soul was the assurance of the forgiveness of his sins. St. Paul’s words assume the fact of the Atonement in the sense of a substitution of Another sacrificed and accepted for himself.

II. The text, moreover, touches on one of the deep, practical questions of Christianity, namely, whether its aim be to make Christ and His example the standard and guide of our life or to establish us in the freedom and power of an illuminated reason, which supersedes the necessity of an appeal to our Lord’s life as a standard. St. Paul’s words prove that Christ was to him the living mould and pattern of his life in its most advanced stage.

III. We here see one reason of the difference between the righteous men of the old and those of the new covenant, a difference manifest to every one who reads even cursorily the book of God. There is in the great men of the New Testament a completeness, a consistency, a steadfastness, a maturity of formed character, which marks a different era.

IV. There are conditions of mind which must cooperate with the grace of God in order to attain any measure of such likeness to our Lord. There must be (1) a yielded will, (2) a contrite sense of the sinfulness which is past, with (3) a rejoicing thankfulness that the precious blood has touched it and cleansed it away.

T. T. Carter, Sermons, p. 386.

Gal 2:20

I. We may see in the principles involved in the text the chief characteristic note of sanctity. What forms the spirit is the ready compliance of the soul with the influences of the indwelling presence of God. He moves the springs of life, gives them their bent, endues them with power, and directs them to their appointed end. Saintliness always exhibits a likeness to Christ. As the streams of water that gush upward are identified with the spring from which they issue, even so there is a likeness in the saint to Christ, because it is Himself reproducing Himself in the individual forms of character of the separate persons in whom He dwells.

II. We may also here learn how there exists a perpetual power of revival in the Church’s life, and by what means it may be quickened. The indwelling of Christ is the source of faith. Now there is a twofold presence on which the Church’s life hangs. There is a presence common to the whole body, external to every individual member, which centres in the blessed Eucharist; and there is a presence which is personal, confined to each individual soul, and centred in its own hidden life, for it is not the presence of God simply as God which constitutes the life of the Church—this is the creed of nature—but the presence of God incarnate, of God in Christ, revealing Himself according to express covenant. As faith in this twofold presence rises or falls, so may we expect that the life of the Church and its members will rise or fall also. (1) It is manifestly so with regard to the Church. Is not each revival in the Church the very awakening of the Lord in the ship on the sea of Galilee, where He had slept for awhile, but where He had never ceased to be? And is it not reasonable to believe that as faith in that presence revives, and we cry unto Him in the prayer of such a faith, we have the surest hope of the revival of the Church’s life? (2) Is it not the same in each individual’s life? Must it not be the looking off from all secondary motives, all intervening objects, and looking direct on the Divine will that impels us forward, and by faith in Him who commands it going forth to fulfil it?

T. T. Carter, Sermons, p. 222.

References: Gal 2:20.—C. Vince, Christian World Pulpit, vol. v., p. 56; G. E. L. Cotton, Sermons to English Congregations in India, p. 44; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ix., p. 306; Homilist, 2nd series, vol. iv., p. 380; R. Tuck, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xix., p. 261; H. W. Beecher, Ibid., vol. xxv., p. 276; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. i., p. 24,7; vol. ii., p. 249; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiii., No. 781; vol. xxvii., No. 1599; Ibid., Evening by Evening, p. 351; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. i., p. 28; vol. iii., p. 113; vol. iv., p. 87. Gal 2:21.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvi., No. 1534; Tyng, American Pulpit of the Day, p. 364; H. W. Beecher, Plymouth Pulpit Sermons, 4th series, p. 526; Ibid., 5th series, p. 57; Parker, City Temple, vol. III., p. 373; A. Jessopp, Norwich School Sermons, p. 183; S. Macnaughton, Real Religion and Real Life, p. 50; J. Vaughan, Sermons, 13th series, p. 13. Gal 3:1.—A. Barry, Sermons for Passiontide and Easter, p. 21; J. Irons, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. ix., p. 177; T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. iv., p. 254; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 248; Christian World Pulpit, vol. v., p. 182; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvi., No. 1546; Homilist, 3rd series, vol. iii., p. 287; Ibid., vol. ix., p. 61. Gal 3:2.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxix., No. 1705. Gal 3:2-24.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iii., p. 87. Gal 3:3.—Ibid., vol. iv., No. 178.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, 1. How the gracious care and good providence of God did watch over St. Paul from place to place, and from time to time, when and wheresoever he went forth to preach, to plant, and propagate the gospel. After fourteen years he went up to Jerusalem, that is, fourteen years after his conversion; soon after which he went about preaching the gospel to the Gentile world. Blessed be God, who is oft-times pleased, in mercy to his church, to preserve the lives of his laborious ministers, and their liberties also, for the free exercise of their ministry, notwithstanding the joint endeavours of men and devils to the contrary. This good man, this great apostle, whose blood was thirsted after having obtained help of God, continued fourteen years together, preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Observe, 2. The end, design, and intent of St. Paul, in this present going up to Jerusalem, and appearing before St. Peter there: It was not to acknowlege St. Peter’s supremacy over him, or to appeal to him as the infallible judge in matters of religion: but it was, in a friendly and brotherly manner, to acquaint St. Peter and the rest of the apostles, with the doctrine preached by him; that their concurring approbation being given to it, the mouth of his adversaries, the false apostles, might be stopped, who accused him for preaching contrary to what the rest of the apostles both believed and practiced.

Observe, 3. The ground upon which St. Paul undertook this journey to Jerusalem at this time; He went up by revelation; he advised with God about the matter, and received direction from God to undertake the journey. Blessed be God, that although we cannot expect immediate direction and information from God, now, as the saints of old had before the canon of the scripture was completed, yet we have the written word of God to be a light to our feet, and a lamp unto our paths, to direct and guide us in all our enterprises: and we ought to regulate all our actions according to it, and to judge of the lawfulness and expediency of our undertakings by it.

Observe, 4. With what prudence and holy caution the blessed apostle proceeded in this matter; he imparted his sentiments, and communicated his doctirne to the rest of the apostles privately, for fear of exasperating the zealous Judaizing Christians: And to the most eminent of the apostles, such as were of greatest reputation; lest if there should be any opposition made to his doctrine, he should hereafter run, or had run in vain. Nothing more obstructs the success and efficacy of the gospel, than differences of judgment, and strife and debate about those differences, amongst the most eminent preachers of it.

Hence it was, that St. Paul endeavoured so much to get the joint consent of the most eminent apostles to the doctrine delivered by him, lest by the calumnies of his adversaries, his preaching should have been rendered unsuccessful, and he should hereafter run and labour in vain.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

[Paul, having shown that his gospel was independent of the powers at Jerusalem, proceeds to prove that it was fully endorsed by them, and so he was not a false apostle, as his enemies represented him to be.] Then after the space of fourteen years [i e., after his conversion, or about A. D. 51] I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me . [Paul omits his second visit to Jerusalem, which took place about A. D. 44 ( Act_11:30 ; Act_12:25 ). It is not needful to mention this visit, for it was a brief one, and made at a time when persecution raged there, and when James, the son of Zebedee, was beheaded, and Peter cast into prison. It was no time for conference, and had no bearing whatever on Paul's apostleship or gospel. The third visit ( Act_15:1-35 ) had such bearings, and is therefore mentioned. Titus was among the "certain other" mentioned at Act_15:2 . Titus was a Gentile convert, and Paul evidently took him with him that he might use him to test the question as to whether circumcision was required of such converts. If Paul wrote from Corinth, Titus was then with him, a living witness of Paul's success in this test case. At this council which Paul and Barnabas attended, a decree confirming the liberty of the Gentiles was issued. Some question has arisen as to why Paul did not cite the decree to prove the correctness of his position on the question of circumcision. Paley gives an elaborate number of reasons for his not doing so, none of which are wholly satisfactory, but the real reason is very obvious. Paul could prove his apostleship easier than he could the decree, and the decree would settle only one or two questions, while the establishment of his apostleship would enable him to settle every question. Moreover, the Galatians had no doubt seen the decree and had it explained away-- Act_16:4-6 ]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Galatians Chapter 2

He then speaks historically of his ministry, and of the question whether man had anything to do with it. His gospel was not according to man, for he had not received it from any man; he had not been taught it. That which he possessed was his by the immediate revelation made to him by Jesus Christ. And when God, who, from his mother’s womb, set him apart, and had called him by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in him, the revelation had at once all its own power as such. He did not consult any one. He did not put himself into communication with the other apostles, but at once acted independently of them, as being directly taught of God. It was not till three years after that he went to make acquaintance with Peter, and also saw James. The churches of Judea did not know him by sight; only, they glorified God for the grace he had received. Moreover he was only fifteen days in Jerusalem. He then went into Syria and Cilicia. Fourteen years afterwards he went up to Jerusalem (we have the account in Act 15:1-41) with Barnabas, and took Titus with him. But Titus, Gentile as he was, had not been circumcised; an evident proof of the liberty in which the apostle publicly stood. It was a bold step on his part to take Titus with him, and thus decide the question between himself and the judaising Christians. He went up because of false brethren, who sought to spy out the liberty into which Paul (enjoying it in the Spirit) introduced believers; and he went up by virtue of a revelation.

We may observe here, how the communications of God may be inwardly the guides of our conduct, although we yield to motives presented by others. In Act 15:1-41 we find the outward history; here, that which governed the apostle’s heart. God (in order that the thing might be decided at Jerusalem, to shut every mouth and to maintain unity) did not allow the apostle to have the upper hand at Antioch, or to arrange on the spot the walk of the assembly formed in that place. Neither did He allow him to isolate himself in his own convictions, but made him go up to Jerusalem and communicate to the chief apostles that which he taught, so that there should be community of testimony on this important point; and that they also should acknowledge Paul as taught of God independently of them, and at the same time recognise his ministry as sent of God, and that he was acting on the part of God as much as themselves. For, although God would have him communicate to them that which he had taught others, he received nothing from them. The effect of his communication was, that they owned the grace which God had granted him and the ministry he had received for the Gentiles, and they gave to him and to Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.

Had he gone up earlier, whatever his knowledge might have been, the proofs of his special and independent ministry would not have existed. But he had laboured fruitfully for many years without receiving any mission from the other apostles, and they had to recognise his apostleship as the immediate gift of God, as well as the truths which God had imparted to him: the proofs were there; and God had owned this apostleship, as He had given it. The twelve had nothing to do but to acknowledge it, if they acknowledged God as the source of all these excellent gifts. Paul was an apostle from God without their intervention. They could acknowledge his ministry, and in it the God who had give them that which they themselves exercised.

Moreover Paul had always acted independently in the fulfilment of his mission. When Peter came to Antioch, he withstood him to the face, because he was to blamed. He was not, as to Paul, as a superior before whom his subordinates must maintain a respectful silence. Although God had wrought mightily in Peter, yet his companion in apostleship (faithful to Him who had called him) could not allow the gospel to be falsified, which had been committed to his own care by the Lord Himself. Ardent as he was, poor Peter always cared too much about the opinion of others. Now the opinion that prevails in the world is always that which influences the heart of man; and this opinion is always one which gives a certain glory to man after the flesh. Paul, taught from above and full of the power of the Spirit, who, by revealing heavenly glory had made him feel that all which exalted the flesh obscured that glory and falsified the gospel that declared it-Paul, who lived and moved morally in the new creation, of which a glorified Christ is the centre; and as firm as he was ardent, because he realised the things that are not seen; as clear-sighted as firm, because he lived in the realisation of spiritual and heavenly things in Christ-Paul, for whom to win Christ thus glorified was everything, clearly sees the carnal walk of the apostle of the circumcision. He is not deterred by man; he is occupied with Christ who was his all, and with the truth. He does not spare one who overturned this truth, be his position in the assembly what it might.

It was dissimulation in Peter. While alone, where the influence of heavenly truth prevailed, he ate with the Gentiles, surrounding himself with the reputation of walking in the same liberty as others. But when certain persons came from James, from Jerusalem, where he himself habitually lived, the centre where religious flesh and its customs still had (under the patient goodness of God) so much power, he no longer dared to use a liberty which was condemned by those Christians who were still Jewish in their sentiments; he withdrew himself. What a poor thing is man! And we are weak in proportion to our importance before men; when we are nothing, we can do all things, as far as human opinion is concerned. We exercise, at the same time, an unfavourable influence over others in the degree in which they influence us-in which we yield to the influence which the desire of maintaining our reputation among them exercises over our hearts: and all the esteem in which we are held, even justly, becomes a means of evil. [2] Peter, who fears those that came from Jerusalem, draws away all the Jews and even Barnabas with him in his dissimulation.

Paul, energetic and faithful, through grace, alone remains upright: and he rebukes Peter before them all. Why compel Gentiles to live as Jews in order to enjoy full Christian communion, when he, being a Jew, had felt himself free to live as the Gentiles? Themselves Jews by nature, and not poor sinners of the Gentiles, they had given up the law as a means of securing the favour of God, and had taken refuge in Christ. But if they sought to rebuild the edifice of legal obligations, in order to acquire righteousness, why had they overturned it? Thus acting, they made themselves transgressors in having overturned it. And more than that; since it was in order to come to Christ-in exchange for the efficacy which they had formerly supposed to exist in the law as a means of justification-that they had ceased to seek righteousness by the law, Christ was a minister of sin. His doctrine had made them transgressors! For in rebuilding the edifice of the law, they made it evident that they ought not to have overthrown it; and it was Christ who made them do so.

What a result from the weakness which, in order to please men, had returned to those things that were gratifying to the flesh! How little did Peter think of this! How little do many Christians suspect it! To rest upon ordinances is to rest upon the flesh; there are none in heaven. When Christ, who is there, is everything, it cannot be done. Christ has indeed established ordinances to distinguish His people from the world, by that which signified, on the one hand, that they were not of it, but dead with Him to it, and, on the other hand, to gather them on the ground of that which alone can unite them all-on the ground of the cross and of accomplished redemption, in the unity of His body. But if, instead of using them with thanksgiving according to His will, we rest upon them, we have forsaken the fulness, the sufficiency, of Christ, to build upon the flesh, which can thus occupy itself with these ordinances, and find in them its fatal sustenance and a veil to hide the perfect Saviour, of whose death, as in connection with this world and with man living in the flesh, these ordinances so plainly speak to us. To rest upon Christian ordinances is exactly to deny the precious and solemn truth which they present to us, that there is no longer righteousness after the flesh, since Christ is dead and risen.

This the apostle deeply felt; this he had been called to set before the eyes and consciences of men by the power of the Holy Ghost. How many afflictions, how many conflicts, his task cost him! The flesh of man likes to have some credit; it cannot bear to be treated as vile and incapable of good, to be excluded and condemned to annihilation, not by efforts to annul itself, which would restore it all its importance, but by a work that leaves it in its true nothingness, and that has pronounced the absolute judgment of death upon it, so that, convicted of being nothing but sin, it has only to be silent. If it acts, it is only to do evil. Its place is to be dead, and not better. We have both right and power to hold it as such, because Christ has died, and we live in His risen life. He has Himself become our life. Alive in Him, I treat the flesh as dead; I am not a debtor to it. God has condemned sin in the flesh, in that His Son came in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin. It is this great principle of our being dead with Christ which the apostle sets forth at the end of the chapter (only first recognising the force of the law to bring death into the conscience). He had discovered that to be under a law was to find himself condemned to death. He had undergone in spirit the whole force of this principle; his soul had realised death in all its power. He was dead; but, if so, he was dead to the law. The power of a law does not reach beyond life; and, its victim once dead, it has no more power over him. Now Paul had acknowledged this truth; and, attributing to the principle of law its whole force, he confessed himself to be dead by law-dead then to law. But, how? Was it by undergoing the eternal consequences of its violation; for if the law killed, it condemned too? (see 2Co 3:1-18). By no means. It is quite another thing here. He did not deny the authority of the law, he acknowledged its force in his soul, but in death, in order that he might live to God.

But where could he find this life, since the law only slew him? This he explains. It was not himself in his own responsibility, exposed as he was to the final consequences of the violation of the law-who could find life in it! Christ had been crucified-He who could suffer the curse of the law of God, and death, and yet live in the mighty and holy life which nothing could take away; which made it impossible for death to hold Him, although in grace He tasted it. But the apostle (whom this same grace had reached) owning it according to the truth as a poor sinner in subjection to death, and blessing the God who granted him the grace of life and of free acceptance in Christ, had been associated with Christ in God’s counsels in His death (now realised by faith, and become true practically by Christ, who had died and risen again, being his life). He was crucified with Him, so that the condemnation of it was gone for Paul. It is Christ whom death under the law had reached. The law had reached Saul the sinner, in the Person of Him who had given Himself for him, in fact, and now Saul himself in conscience, and brought death there-but the death of the old man (see Rom 7:9, Rom 10:1-21)-and it had now no more right over [3] Nevertheless he lived: yet not he, but Christ, in that life in which Christ rose from among the dead-Christ lived in him. Thus the dominion of the law over him disappeared (while ascribing to the law all its force), because that dominion was connected with the life in regard to which he reckoned himself to be dead in Christ, who had really undergone death for this purpose. And Paul lived in that mighty and holy life, in the perfection and energy of which Christ was risen from among the dead, after having borne the curse of the law. He lived to God, and held the corrupt life of his flesh as dead. His life drew all its character, all its mode of being, from the source whence it flowed.

But the creature must have an object to live for, and so it was as to Paul’s soul, it was by the faith of Jesus Christ. By faith in Jesus Christ Paul lived indeed. The Christ who was the source of his life, who was his life, was its object also. It is this which always characterises the life of Christ in us: He Himself is its object-He alone. The fact, that it is by dying for us in love that He-who was capable of it, the Son of God-has given us thus freed from sin this life as our own, being ever before the mind, in our eyes He is clothed with the love He has thus shewn us. We live by faith of the Son of God, who has loved us, and given Himself for us. And here it is personal life, the individual faith that attaches us to Christ, and makes Him precious to us as the object of the soul’s intimate faith. Thus the grace of God is not frustrated: for, if righteousness were established on the principle of law, Christ died in vain, since it would be by keeping the law ourselves that we should, in our own persons, acquire righteousness.

Footnotes for Galatians Chapter 2

2: It is practically important to remark that worldliness or any allowance of what is not of God, by a godly man, gives the weight of his godliness to the evil he allows.

3: Christ had also borne his sins; but this is not the subject here spoken of; it is the dominion of the law over him while living on earth.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem. “Three years after” his conversion he went up to Jerusalem (1:18); fourteen years after, he went up again. If his conversion took place about a.d. 37, as is generally supposed, the visit now spoken of was in a.d. 51. At that time we find that Paul and Barnabas and “certain others” went up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this very question of the relation of the Gentile Christians to Judaism. See Acts 15. That this is the visit Paul means, is evident (1) because it is the right date; (2) the right persons are present, viz: Paul, Barnabas, Peter and James, and (3) the right question is the one discussed. The visit of Gal. 1:17. is mentioned in Acts 9:22 and took place in a.d. 40. Another, to carry relief at a time of famine, took place in a.d. 44 (Acts 11:30; 12:25); and the third, here referred to, took place in a.d. 50 or 51. Took Titus with me. Titus is not named in Acts 15:2, but only that “certain other” went with Paul and Barnabas.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul continues to give the history of how he learned the gospel from God, not the apostles.

went up

"traveled." Jerusalem is located in hilly country. The Jews also viewed Jerusalem as the place on earth that is closest to heaven, so Paul may have been speaking figuratively, or it may be that it was reflecting the difficult, uphill, journey to get to Jerusalem.

those who seemed to be important

"the most important leaders among the believers"

I was not running—or had not run—in vain

Paul uses running as a metaphor for work, and he uses a double negative to emphasize that the work he had done was profitable. AT: "I was doing, or had done, profitable work" (See: Double Negatives and Metaphor)

in vain

"for no benefit" or "for nothing"

translationWords

Jerusalem

Barnabas

Titus

reveal

good news

preach

Gentile

run

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.