Chapter 2
The apostle, in this chapter, continues the relation of his
past life and conduct, which he had begun in the former; and, by some further
instances of what had passed between him and the other apostles, makes it
appear that he was not beholden to them either for his knowledge of the gospel
or his authority as an apostle, as his adversaries would insinuate; but, on the
contrary, that he was owned and approved even by them, as having an equal
commission with them to this office. I. He particularly informs them of another
journey which he took to Jerusalem many years after the former, and how he
behaved himself at that time (v. 1–10). And, II. Gives them an account of
another interview he had with the apostle Peter at Antioch, and how he was
obliged to behave himself towards him there. From the subject-matter of that
conversation, he proceeds to discourse on the great doctrine of justification
by faith in Christ, without the works of the law, which it was the main design
of this epistle to establish, and which he enlarges more upon in the two
following chapters.
Verses 1-10
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,
v. 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 ch. 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, Acts 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, Acts
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, v. 6. By those
who seemed to be somewhat he means the other apostles, particularly James,
Peter, and John, whom he afterwards mentions by name, v. 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, v. 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.
Verses 11-21
I. From the account which Paul gives of what passed between
him and the other apostles at Jerusalem, the Galatians might easily discern
both the falseness of what his enemies had insinuated against him and their own
folly and weakness in departing from that gospel which he had preached to them.
But to give the greater weight to what he had already said, and more fully to
fortify them against the insinuations of the judaizing teachers, he acquaints
them with another interview which he had with the apostle Peter at Antioch, and
what passed between them there, v. 11–14. Antioch was one of the chief churches
of the Gentile Christians, as Jerusalem was of those Christians who turned from
Judaism to the faith of Christ. There is no colour of reason for the
supposition that Peter was bishop of Antioch. If he had, surely Paul would not
have withstood him in his own church, as we here find he did; but, on the
contrary, it is here spoken of as an occasional visit which he made thither. In
their other meeting, there had been good harmony and agreement. Peter and the
other apostles had both acknowledged Paul’s commission and approved his
doctrine, and they parted very good friends. But in this Paul finds himself
obliged to appose Peter, for he was to be blamed, a plain evidence that
he was not inferior to him, and consequently of the weakness of the pope’s
pretence to supremacy and infallibility, as the successor of Peter. Here we may
observe,
1. Peter’s fault. When he came among the Gentile churches,
he complied with them, and did eat with them, though they were not circumcised,
agreeably to the instructions which were given in particular to him (Acts 10),
when he was warned by the heavenly vision to call nothing common or unclean.
But, when there came some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, he grew more shy of
the Gentiles, only to humour those of the circumcision and for fear of giving
them offence, which doubtless was to the great grief and discouragement of the
Gentile churches. Then he withdrew, and separated himself. His fault
herein had a bad influence upon others, for the other Jews also dissembled
with him; though before they might be better disposed, yet now, from his
example, they took on them to scruple eating with the Gentiles, and pretended
they could not in conscience do it, because they were not circumcised. And
(would you think it?) Barnabas himself, one of the apostles of the Gentiles,
and one who had been instrumental in planting and watering the churches of the
Gentiles, was carried away with their dissimulation. Here note, (1.) The
weakness and inconstancy of the best of men, when left to themselves, and how
apt they are to falter in their duty to God, out of an undue regard to the
pleasing of men. And, (2.) The great force of bad examples, especially the
examples of great men and good men, such as are in reputation for wisdom and
honour.
2. The rebuke which Paul gave him for his fault.
Notwithstanding Peter’s character, yet, when he observes him thus behaving
himself to the great prejudice both of the truth of the gospel and the peace of
the church, he is not afraid to reprove him for it. Paul adhered resolutely to
his principles, when others faltered in theirs; he was as good a Jew as any of
them (for he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews), but he would magnify his office as
the apostle of the Gentiles, and therefore would not see them discouraged and trampled
upon. When he saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of
the gospel—that they did not live up to that principle which the gospel
taught, and which they had professed to own and embrace, namely, that by the
death of Christ the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile was taken down, and
the observance of the law of Moses was no longer in force-when he observed
this, as Peter’s offence was public, so he publicly reproved him for it: He
said unto him before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of
the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live
as do the Jews? Herein one part of his conduct was a contradiction to the
other; for if he, who was a Jew, could himself sometimes dispense with the use
of the ceremonial law, and live after the manner of the Gentiles, this showed
that he did not look upon the observance of it as still necessary, even for the
Jews themselves; and therefore that he could not, consistently with his own
practice, impose it upon the Gentile Christians. And yet Paul charges him with
this, yea, represents him as compelling the Gentiles to live as did the
Jews-not by open force and violence, but this was the tendency of what he did;
for it was in effect to signify this, that the Gentiles must comply with the
Jews, or else not be admitted into Christian communion.
II. Paul having thus established his character and office,
and sufficiently shown that he was not inferior to any of the apostles, no, not
to Peter himself, from the account of the reproof he gave him he takes occasion
to speak of that great fundamental doctrine of the gospel—That justification is
only by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law (though some think
that all he says to the end of the chapter is what he said to Peter at
Antioch), which doctrine condemned Peter for his symbolizing with the Jews.
For, if it was the principle of his religion that the gospel is the instrument
of our justification and not the law, then he did very ill in countenancing those
who kept up the law, and were for mixing it with faith in the business of our
justification. This was the doctrine which Paul had preached among the
Galatians, to which he still adhered, and which it is his great business in
this epistle to mention and confirm. Now concerning this Paul acquaints us,
1. With the practice of the Jewish Christians themselves: "We,’’
says he, "who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles
(even we who have been born and bred in the Jewish religion, and not among the
impure Gentiles), knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the
law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we ourselves have believed in Jesus
Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works
of the law. And, if we have thought it necessary to seek justification by
the faith of Christ, why then should we hamper ourselves with the law? What did
we believe in Christ for? Was it not that we might be justified by the faith of
Christ? And, if so, is it not folly to go back to the law, and to expect to be
justified either by the merit of moral works or the influence of any ceremonial
sacrifices or purifications? And if it would be wrong in us who are Jews by
nature to return to the law, and expect justification by it, would it not be
much more so to require this of the Gentiles, who were never subject to it,
since by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified?’’ To give the
greater weight to this he adds (v. 17), "But if, while we seek to be
justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ the
minister of sin? If, while we seek justification by Christ alone, and teach
others to do so, we ourselves are found giving countenance or indulgence to
sin, or rather are accounted sinners of the Gentiles, and such as it is not fit
to have communion with, unless we also observe the law of Moses, is Christ
the minister of sin? Will it not follow that he is so, if he engage us to
receive a doctrine that gives liberty to sin, or by which we are so far from
being justified that we remain impure sinners, and unfit to be conversed
with?’’ This, he intimates, would be the consequence, but he rejects it with
abhorrence: "God forbid,’’ says he, "that we should entertain
such a thought of Christ, or of his doctrine, that thereby he should direct us
into a way of justification that is defective and ineffectual, and leave those
who embrace it still unjustified, or that would give the least encouragement to
sin and sinners.’’ This would be very dishonourable to Christ, and it would be
very injurious to them also. "For,’’ says he (v. 18), "if I
build again the things which I destroyed—if I (or any other), who have
taught that the observance of the Mosaic law is not necessary to justification,
should now, by word or practice, teach or intimate that it is necessary—I
make myself a transgressor; I own myself to be still an impure sinner, and
to remain under the guilt of sin, notwithstanding my faith in Christ; or I
shall be liable to be charged with deceit and prevarication, and acting
inconsistently with myself.’’ Thus does the apostle argue for the great
doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law from the
principles and practice of the Jewish Christians themselves, and from the
consequences that would attend their departure from it, whence it appeared that
Peter and the other Jews were much in the wrong in refusing to communicate with
the Gentile Christians, and endeavouring to bring them under the bondage of the
law.
2. He acquaints us what his own judgment and practice were.
(1.) That he was dead to the law. Whatever account others might make of it,
yet, for his part, he was dead to it. He knew that the moral law denounced a
curse against all that continue not in all things written therein, to do them;
and therefore he was dead to it, as to all hope of justification and salvation
that way. And as for the ceremonial law, he also knew that it was now
antiquated and superseded by the coming of Christ, and therefore, the substance
having come, he had no longer any regard to the shadow. He was thus dead to the
law, through the law itself; it discovered itself to be at an end. By
considering the law itself, he saw that justification was not to be expected by
the works of it (since none could perform a perfect obedience to it) and that
there was now no further need of the sacrifices and purifications of it, since
they were done away in Christ, and a period was put to them by his offering up
himself a sacrifice for us; and therefore, the more he looked into it the more
he saw that there was no occasion for keeping up that regard to it which the
Jews pleaded for. But, though he was thus dead to the law, yet he did
not look upon himself as with law. He had renounced all hopes of
justification by the works of it, and was unwilling any longer to continue
under the bondage of it; but he was far from thinking himself discharged from
his duty to God; on the contrary, he was dead to the law, that he might live
unto God. The doctrine of the gospel, which he had embraced, instead of
weakening the bond of duty upon him, did but the more strengthen and confirm
it; and therefore, though he was dead to the law, yet it was only in order to
his living a new and better life to God (as Rom. 7:4, 6), such a life as would
be more agreeable and acceptable to God than his observance of the Mosaic law
could now be, that is, a life of faith in Christ, and, under the influence
thereof, of holiness and righteousness towards God. Agreeably hereunto he
acquaints us, (2.) That, as he was dead to the law, so he was alive unto God
through Jesus Christ (v. 20): I am crucified with Christ, etc. And here
in his own person he gives us an excellent description of the mysterious life
of a believer. [1.] He is crucified, and yet he lives; the old man is crucified
(Rom. 6:6), but the new man is living; he is dead to the world, and dead to the
law, and yet alive to God and Christ; sin is mortified, and grace quickened.
[2.] He lives, and yet not he. This is strange: I live, and yet not
I; he lives in the exercise of grace; he has the comforts and the triumphs
of grace; and yet that grace is not from himself, but from another. Believers
see themselves living in a state of dependence. [3.] He is crucified with
Christ, and yet Christ lives in him; this results from his mystical
union with Christ, by means of which he is interested in the death of Christ,
so as by virtue of that to die unto sin; and yet interested in the life of
Christ, so as by virtue of that to live unto God. [4.] He lives in the
flesh, and yet lives by faith; to outward appearance he lives as
other people do, his natural life is supported as others are; yet he has a
higher and nobler principle that supports and actuates him, that of faith in
Christ, and especially as eyeing the wonders of his love in giving himself for
him. Hence it is that, though he lives in the flesh, yet he does not live after
the flesh. Note, Those who have true faith live by that faith; and the great
thing which faith fastens upon is Christ’s loving us and giving himself for us.
The great evidence of Christ’s loving us is his giving himself for us; and this
is that which we are chiefly concerned to mix faith with, in order to our
living to him.
Lastly, The
apostle concludes this discourse with acquainting us that by the doctrine of
justification by faith in Christ, without the works of the law (which he
asserted, and others opposed), he avoided two great difficulties, which the
contrary opinion was loaded with:—1. That he did not frustrate the grace of
God, which the doctrine of the justification by the works of the law did;
for, as he argues (Rom. 11:6), If it be of works, it is no more of grace.
2. That he did not frustrate the death of Christ; whereas, if righteousness
come by the law, then it must follow that Christ has died in vain;
for, if we look for salvation by the law of Moses, then we render the death of
Christ needless: for to what purpose should he be appointed to die, if we might
have been saved without it?
Excerpt from:
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible
Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714)
Visit www.e-sword.net
and www.ccel.org
