Bible Commentary (1871–1879 Edition)
PauTi) Ezoetulation with Peter. GALATIANS II. Why Paul Believed in Jastifical ion by Failh.
%nlgMy—translate as belbre, the G7-eek being the same, right in thinking these self-styled delegates from James, were not really from him. Acts 15. 24 favours this. "Certain from James," may mean merely that they came from the Church at Jerusalem under James' bishopric. Still James' leanings were to legalism, and this gave him his influence with the Jewish party (Acts 21. 18-26). eat with
"wroiiglit effectually." in me—"for (or 'in') me also."
9. Jame»—Placed first in the oldest MSS., even before
Peter, as being bishop of Jerusalem, and so presiding at the council (Acts 16). He was called " the Just," from his strict adherence to the law, and so was especially popular among the Jewish party, though he did not fall into their extremes; whereas Peter was somewhat estranged from tbem through his intercourse with the Gentile Christians. To each apostle was assigned the sphere best suited to his temperament : to St. James, who was tenacious of the law, the Jerusalem Jews; to Peter, who had opened the door. . . Gentiles—as in Acts 10. 10-20, 48, according to the command of the vision (Acts 11. .3-17). Yet after all, this same Peter, through fear of man (Proverbs 29. 25), was faithless to his own so distinctly avowed principles (Acta
15. 7-11). We recognize the same old nature in him as ledhim, after faithfully witnessing for Christ, yet for a brief space, to deny him. " Ever the first to recognize, and the to the Gentiles, but who was Judaically disposed, the Jews of the dispersion ; to Paul, who, by the miraculous and overwhelming suddenness of his conversion, had the whole current of his early Jewish prejudices turned Into an utterly opposite direction, the Gentiles. Not separatefirst to draw back from great truths." [Alford.] An undesigned coincidence between the Gospels and the Epistle in the consistency of character as portrayed in both.
It Is beautiful to see how earthly misunderstandings of Christians are lost in Christ. For in 2 Peter 3. 15, Peter praises the very Epistles of Paul which he knew contained his own condemnation. Though apart from one another, and dif Tering in characteristics, the two apostles were one in Christ, withdrew— Grecfc, "began to withdraw," &p. This implies a gradual drawing back. "Separated," enly and individually, but collectively the apostles together represented Christ, the One Head, in the apostleship. The Twelve foundation stones of various colours are joined together to the one great foundation stone on which they rest (1 Corinthians 3. U; Revelation 21. 14, 19,
20). John had got an intimation in Jesus' lifetime of the admission of the Gentiles (John 12. 20-24). seemed—t. e., were reputed to be {Note, v. 2, 6) pillars, i. e., weighty supporters of tlie Church (cf. Proverbs 9. 1; Revelations. 12). perceived the grnce . . . given unto me—(2 Peter 3. 15.) gave to me and Barnaltag the right hands of fellowship-—recognizing me as a colleague in the apostleship, and that the Gospel I preached by special revelation to the Gentiles was the same as theirs. Cf. the phrase. Lamentations 5. 6; Ezekiel 17. 18. heathen—the Gentiles. 10. remember the poor—of the Jewish Christians in Judea, then distressed. Paul and Barnabas had already done so (Acts 11. 23-30). the same—the very thing. I . . . was for%vard—or "zealous" (Acts 24. 17; Romans 15. 23; 1 (joriuthians 16. 1; 2 Corinthians 8. and 9). Paul was zealous for good works, whilst denying justification by them. 11. Peter—"Cephas" in the oldest MSS. Paul's withstanding Peter is the strongest proof that the former gives of the independence of his apostleship in relation to the other apostles, and upsets the Romish doctrine of St. Peter's supremacy. The apostles were not always inspired; but were so always in toriting Xhf: Scriptures. If then the Inspired men who wrote them were not invariably at other times Infallible, much less were the uninspired men who kept them. The Christian fathers may be trusted generally as witnesses to facts, but not implicitly followed In matters of opinion, come, to Antioch then the citadel of the Gentile Church: where first the Gospel was preached to idolatrous Gentiles, and where the name " Christians" was first given (Acts 11. 20, 26), and where Peter is said to have been subserjuently bishop. The question at Antioch was not whether the Gentiles were admissible to the Christian covenant without becoming circumcised—that was the question settled at the Jerusalem council Just before—but whether the Gentire sevei'ance. 13. tlie other— Greei:, "the rest." JewsJewish Christians, dissembled likewise Greek, "Joined in hypocrisy," viz., in living as though the law were necessary to justification, througli fear of man, tliough they knew from God their Christian liberty of eating with Gentiles, and had availed themselves of it already (Acts
11. 2-17). The case was distinct from that in 1 Corinthians clis. 8.-10.; Romans 14. It was not a question of liberty, and of bearing with others' infirmities, but one al Tecting the essence of the Gospel, whether the Gentiles are to be virtually "compelled to live as do the Jews," in order to be Justified (v. 14). Barnabas also—"Even Barnabas:" one least likely to be led into such an error, being With Paul in first preaching to the idolatrous Gentiles : showing the power of bad example and numbers. In Antioch, the capital of Gentile Christianity, and the central point of Christian missions, the controversy first arose, and in the same spot it now broke out afresh; and liere Paul hart first to encounter the party that afterwards persecuted him in every scene of his labours (Acts 15. 30-35.) It. walked not uprightly— "straight:" "were not walking witli straightforward steps." Cf. ch. 6. 16. trnth of the Gospel—whicli teaches that justification liy legal works and observances is inconsistent with redemption by Christ. Paul alone here maintained the truth against Judaism, as afterwards against heathenism (2 Timothy 4,
16,17). Peter—" Cepiias" in the oldest MSS. before . . . all—(1 Timothy 5. 20.) If thou, Ac-"If thou, although being a Jew (and therefore one whomight seem tobe more bound to the law than the Gentiles), livest (liabitually, without scruple and from conviction, Acts 15. 10, 11) as a Gentile (freely eating of every food, and livfng in other respects also as if legal ordinances in no way justifj-, v. 12), and not as a Jew, how is It that (so the oldest MSS. read, for "why") thou art compelling (virtually, by thine example) the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (lit., to Judaize, i. e., to keep the ceremonial customs of the Jews: What had been formerly obedience to the law, is now mere Judaism). The high authority of Peter would constrain the Gentile Christians to regard Jud.aizing as necessary to all, since Jewish Christians could not consort with Gentile converts in communion without it. 15, 16. Connect these verses together, and read with most of the oldest MSS. "But" in the beginning of u. 16: " We (I and thou, Peter) by nature (not by proselytism), .lews, and not sinners as (Jewish language termed the Gentiles) from among the Gentiles, yet (lit., but) knowing that, &c., even we (resuming the ' we' of v. 15, tile Christians were to be admitted to social intercourse with the JewiM Christians without conforming to the Jewish institution. The Judaizers, soon after the council had passed the resolutions recognizing the equal rights of the Gentile Christians, repaired to Antioch, the scene of the gathering In of the Gentiles (Acts 11.20-26), to witness, what to Jews would look so extraordinary, the receiving of men to communion of the Church without circumcision. Regarding the proceeding with prejudice, they explained away the force of the Jerusalem decision; and probably also desired to watch whether the Jeufish Christians among the Gentiles violated the law, which that decision did not verbally sanction them in doing, though giving the Gentiles latitude (Acts 15.
' we also,' as well as the Gentile sinners; casting away trust in the law), have believed," &c. not Justllied by the works of the law—as the OROUND of justification. "The worlts of the law" are those which have the law for their object—wliich are wrought to fulfil the law. [Alford.] but hy—trans-
19). to toe blamed—rather, "(self) condemned;" his act atone time condemning his contrary acting at another time. 12. certain—men: perhaps James' view (in which he was not infallible, any more than Peter) was that the Jewish converts were still to observe Jewish ordinances, from which he had decided with the council the Gentiles Bbonld be Xree (Acts 15. 19). Neandek, however, may be late, "But only (in no other way save) through faith in Jesus Cbrist," as the mean aud instrument of justifica*