Bible Commentary (1871–1879 Edition) (continued)
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*
No Justification by the Works of the Law. GALATIANS III. Reproof for Abandoning Faith for Legalism.
tlon. Jesiis Christ—ro the second case, read with the oldest MSS., " Christ Je.sus," the Messia!is/iip coming into prominence iu tlie case of Jewish believers, as "Jesus" does in the first case, relerring to the general proposition.
cies which form part of the Old Testament law) of a better righteousness, and of God's law written in the heart (Deuteronomy 18. 15-19; Jeremiah 31. 33; Acts 10. 43). am dead to the law— iiz., " I died to the law," and so am dead to it, i.e., am passed from under its power, in respect to non-justification or condemnation (Colossians 2.20; Romans 6. 14; 7. 4, 6); just as a woman once married ana bound to a husband, ceases to be so bound to him when death interposes, and may be lawfully married to another husband. So by believing union to Christ in His death, we, being considered dead with him, are severed from the law's past power over us (cf. ch. 6. 14 ; 1 Corinthians
Justified by the fai(h of Christ—f. e., by Christ, llie object of faitli, as the ground of our justitlcalion. for by the •works of the law shall no flesh be justified—lie rests his argument on this as an axiom in theology, referring to Psalin 143. 2, " Jloses and Jesus Christ; The law and the promise; Doing and believing; Works and faith; Wages and the gift ; The curse and the blessing—are represei-ted as diametrically opposed." [Bengel.] The moral law is, in respect to justification, 7nore legal than tlie ceremonial, which was an elementary and iweliminary Gopel: So "Sinai" (ch. 4. 24), which is more fumed for the Decalogue than for the ceremonial law, is made pre-eminently the type of legal bondage. Thus, justificatiou by the law, whether the moral or ceremonial, is excluded (Romans 3. 20). 17. Greek, "But if, seeking to be justified IN (i. e., in believing union tcith) Christ (who has iu the Gospel theory fulfilled the law for us), we (you and I) ourselves also were found (iu your and my /ormer communion with Gentiles) sinners (such as from the Jewisli standpoint that now we resume, we should be regarded, since we have cast aside the law, thus having put ourselves iu the same category as the Gentiles, who, being without the law, are, in the Jewisli view, 'sinners,' v. 15), is therefore Christ, the minister of sin?" (Are we to admit the conclusion, In this case inevitable, that Christ having failed to justify us by faith, so has become to us the minister of sin, by putting us in the position of "sinners," as the Judaic theory, if correct, would make us, along with all others who are " without the law," Romans 2. 14;
7. 39 ; Romans 6. 6-11; 1 Peter 2. 24). live unto God—(Romans C. 11; 2 Corinthians 5. 15; 1 Peter 4. 1, 2.) 20. I am crueiftcd— " I have been crucified with Christ." This more particularizes the foregoing. "I am dead" {v. 19; Philippians 3. 10). nevertheless I live ; yet not \— Greek, " nevertheless I live, no longer (indeed) I." Though crucified I live; (and this) no longer that old man such as I once was (cf. Romans 7. 17). No longer Saul the Jew (ch.
5. 24; Colossians 3. 11, but "another man," cf. 1 Samuel 10.
6). Ellicott, &c., translate, "And it is no longer I that live, but Christ that livetli in me." But the plain antithesis between " crucified" and " live," requires the translalion, " Nevertheless." the life which I now live—as contrasted with my life before conversion. In the flesh —my life seems to be a mere animal life "iu the flesh," but this is not my true life ; " it is but tlie mask of life under which lives another, viz., Christ, who is my true life." [Ldthek.] I live by the faith, &c.— Greek, "IN faitli {viz.), that of (i. e., which rests on) the Son of God." "In faith," answers by contrast to " in the flesh." Faith, not tlie flesh, is the real element in which I live. The phrase, "the Son of God," reminds us that His Divine Sonsliip is the source of His life-giving power, loved me —His eternal gratuitous love is the link that unites me to the Son of God, and His "giving Himself for me," is the strongest proof of that love. 21. I do not frustrate the grace of God—I do not make it void, as thou, Peter, art doing by Judaizing. for-justifying the sti'ong expression "frustrate," or "make void." Is dead in vain— Greek, " Clirist died needlessly," or " without just cause." Christ's having died, shows that the law has no power to Justify us; for if the law can justify or make us righteous, the death of Christ is superfluous. [Cubysostom.]
1 Corinthians 9. 21; and with whom, by eating with them, we have identified ourselves?) The Christian mind revolts from so shocking a conclusion, and so, from the theory which would result iu it. The whole sin lies, not with Christ, but with him who would necessitate such a bhisphemous inference. But his false theory, though "seeking" from Christ, we have not "found" salvation (in contradiction to Christ's own words, Matthew 7. 7), but " have been ourselves also (like the Gentiles) found" to be "sinners," by having entered into communion with Gentiles
(11.12). 18. Greek, "For if the things which I overthrew (by the faith of Christ), tliose very things I build up again {viz., legal righteousness, by subjecting myself to the law), I prove myself {lit., 'I commend mysell')a transgressor." Instead of commending yourself as you sought to do (i). 12, end), you merely commend yourself as a transgressor. The "I" is intended by Paul for Peter to take to himself, as it is his case, not Paul's own, tliat
CHAPTEE III.
Ver. 1-29. Reproof of the Galatians for Abandoning Faith for LEOAHSia. Justification by Faith Vindicated: The Law shown to be .Subsequent to
Is described. A " transgressor" is another word lor " sinner" (in v. 17), for " sin is the transgression of the law." You, Peter, by now asserting the law to be obligatory, are proving yourself a "sinner," or "transgressor," ni your having set It aside by living as the Gentiles, and with them. Thus you are debarred by transgression from justification by the law, and you debar yourself from justification by Christ, since in your theory He becomes a minister of sin. 19. Here Paul seems to pass from bis exact words to Peter, to the general purport of liis argument on the question. However, his direct address to the Galatians seems not to be resumed till ch. a. I, " O foolisli Galatians," &c. For—But I am not a " transgressor" by Ibrsaking the law. "For," &c. Proving his Indignant denial of the consequence that "Christ is tlie minister of sin" {v. 17), and of the premises from which it would follow. Christ, so far from being the minister of Bin and death, is the establisher of righteousness and life. I am entirely in Hlin. [Bengei,.] I—here eniphaticiil. Paul himself, not Peter, as in the "I" {v. 18). tlnroiili tlie law— which was my "schoolmaster to bring nie to Christ" (ch.,3. 21); boUi by Its terrors (ch. 3. i:i; Hi ins
THI-; Pkomise: Believers are the Spiuitual Seed OF Aisrah.\m, who was Justified by Faith. The Law WAS our Schoolmaster to Bring us to Chuist, that we might Become Children of God by Faith. 1. that ye should not obey the truth—Omitted in the oldest
JNISS. bewitched—fascinated you so that you have lost your wits. Thbmistius says the Galatianscre naturally very acute iu intellect. Hence, St. Paul wonders they could be so misled in this case, you — Km])hatical. " Yoir, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been graphically set forth {lit., in ivriting, viz., hy vivid portraiture in preaching) among you, crucified" (so the sense and Greek order require rather than EngtishVei-sioa). As Christ was "crucified," so ye ought to have been by faith "crurijied with Christ," and so " dead to the law" (cli. 2. 19, 20). Heference to the "eyes" is appropriate, as fascination was supposed to be exercised through the e.ves. The sight of Christ crucified ought to have been enough to counteract all fascination. 2. " Was It by the works of the law that.ve received the Spirit (manifested by outward lairaeleu, i". 5; Mark Ifi. 17; Hebrews 2.4; and by sph'ilual graces,
V. li; Galatians 4. 5, (i; Kpheslans 1. 13), or by the hearing of laltli ?" The "only" Implies, " I desire, omitting other
3. 20) driving me to Christ, as the refuge from God's wralli against s-ln, and, when spiritually understood, teaching that Itself Is not permanent, but mustglve place to Christ, whom It prefigures as its scope and end (Romans 10. 4); and drawing me to Him by Its promises (in the projiheai'giinicnts, to rest the question on this nlonc ;" I wlio was your <m(7t(T, desire now to " learn" this one thing from you. The epithet "Holy" Is not prefixed to " Spirit," because that epithet is a Joyous one, whereas this Episllo Is