Galatians 2

— why compellest thou the Gentiles &c.] That is, by thy example. In Scripture he is said to “compel,” not only who doth violently force, but who, being of authority, provokes by his example, as here. As also they, who lay on others a necessity to do any thing, either by their deportment, as the Corinthians, who “compelled” St. Paul to glory, 2 Cor. xii. 11; or by their doctrine, as did the Judaisers, “constraining” the Gentiles to be circumcised, Gal. vi. 12. Dr. Whitby, Burkitt.

Galatians 2:2

2. — privately to them which were of reputation.] Or the chief men there. Not that his doctrine might be confirmed by the concurrence of St. Peter or others with him in it; for surely that doctrine, which he received by immediate revelation from Jesus Christ and God the Father, needed no confirmation from the authority of man; but only to obviate the cavils of those who laboured to hinder the effect of his Gospel, by suggesting that it was contrary to, or disowned by, those Apostles, who were called before him. Dr. Whitby.

If St. Paul had not communicated, as he did, with the leading men at Jerusalem, and satisfied them of his doctrine and mission, his opposers might unsettle the churches he had planted, or should plant, by urging, that the Apostles knew not what he preached, nor had ever owned it for the Gospel, or him for an Apostle. Of the readiness of the Judaism seducers to take any such an advantage against him, he had lately an example in the church of Corinth. Locke.

— run, in vain.] This is an allusion to the race. For he who loses the prize is said to “run in vain.” Dr. Macknight.

Galatians 2:3

3. But neither Titus, &c.] Hereby it appeared that the other Apostles assented to St. Paul’s doctrine, that Gentile Christians were not bound to the Jewish observances. Dr. Hammond.

Galatians 2:4

4. And that because of false brethren &c.] The Apostle says that he kept Titus uncircumcised, and carried him so to the other Apostles, on purpose to shew that his sentiments were quite opposite to those of the false Jewish zealots, who came to Antioch, Acts xv, and inamated themselves into the assemblies there, with a design to catch at and oppose St. Paul’s doctrine, and to bring all the Gentile Christians to embrace the unnecessary slavery of the Jewish ceremonies. Pyle.

This conduct of St. Paul, with respect to Titus, is not submitting to his being circumcised, when it was insisted on as necessary to salvation, is very consistent with what he afterwards did without constraint, to promote the circumcision of Timothy in different circumstances, Acts xvi. 3. Dr. Doddridge.

Circumcision in the case of Titus might very well have been done, as it was in the case of Timothy, Acts xvi. 3. upon the account of expediences, but was here

Galatians 2:5

5. To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour;] Though at other times I was content to comply with the weak. Dr. Hammond.

— that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.] Namely, the Gospel of Christ, which frees the Gentiles from the obligation of the law. Dr. Whitby. “Truth” and “the truth of the Gospel” are used chap. ii. 14; iii. 1; v. 7, to denote the freedom of the Gentiles from the law of Moses. Dr. Macknight.

What St. Paul maintained was, that the Christian religion was the sufficient and only condition of a Christian’s justification and happiness. Pyle.

Galatians 2:6

6. But of those who seemed to be somewhat, &c.] As for those prime men, intimated ver. 2, and named ver. 9, St. James, St. Peter, and St. John, though they were persons of great knowledge, and dignity, and authority, and that most justly, &c. Dr. Hammond. Though our translation, “who seemed to be somewhat,” literally answers to the original, yet the phrase, from the ordinary use of the words, carries with it a diminishing sense, contrary to the intent of the Apostle: who doubtless did not design to detract from St. James and the others, as those who only “seemed” to be what they were not; but to speak of them as men, who appeared, as they really were, men of the highest rank, and “pillars” of the church. Dr. Wells.

The Judaisers undervalued St. Paul’s Apostleship in comparison of the ancient Apostles; he therefore both vindicated his own authority, that it was equal to theirs, and his internal graces (of knowledge, wisdom, &c.) not inferior; as in 2 Cor. x, xi. But he doth not by any means disparage them whom he knew to be the foundations of the church laid by Christ Himself, Eph. ii. 20. Bp. Fell.

— whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: &c.] Be they as great as they will, their eminency makes me neither greater nor less. God, who made us all equally His Apostles, looks not upon present and external reputation in the church. Pyle.

— in conference added nothing to me:] When they understood what I had done, they gave me no advice to alter any thing, nor said any more to me than what I knew before. Dr. Hammond.

Galatians 2:7

7. — that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, &c.] That I had received from Christ the commission of preaching to the Gentiles, and so an equality of office apostolical to St. Peter, whose

Anno DOMINI 58. His reception by the apostles. His expostulation with Peter. Anno DOMINI 56.

Galatians 2:9

9.—who seemed to be pillars.] Who are justly accounted to be the pillars of the church. Bp. Hall. See the notes on vers. 6.

From these four verses, the supremacy of St. Peter, over the rest of the Apostles and the whole church, may by many arguments be refuted. For 1st, St. James is here mentioned first among the Apostles of the circumcision, according to the common doctrine of the ancients, who style him “the first Bishop,” &c. 2dly, St. Paul puts no difference betwixt these “pillars,” or chief of the Apostles. 3dly, He says that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him, as was that of the circumcision to St. Peter; by which words, as the ancient commentators say, he shews himself equal to St. Peter. Lastly, “it maketh no matter to me,” saith he, “what they were;” which surely could not with propriety be said of St. Peter, if Christ had constituted him to be St. Paul’s head and judge. Dr. Whitby.

—they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship:] The giving of the right hand was a symbol amongst the Jews, as well as other nations, of accord, admitting men into fellowship. Locke.

—that we should go unto the heathen.] More especially “unto the heathen.” Dr. Wells. It seems right to understand this with some qualification, as that they should do so for the present, because there is no reason to believe, that the labours of St. Peter, St. James, and St. John, were entirely appropriated to those of the circumcision; as on the other hand we are assured that those of St. Paul were not confined to the Gentiles: for we often find him preaching to the Jews, and indeed, wherever he came, he proposed the Gospel in the first place to them. Dr. Doddridge.

Galatians 2:10

10.—that we should remember the poor:] Or take into our care the wants of the poor Christians in Judea, and get collections for them among the Gentiles. Dr. Hammond.

Galatians 2:11

11.—I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.] It is the question of Hilary upon this passage, Who would dare to resist St. Peter, a chief Apostle, unless it were another like him, who, confident of his own election, and knowing himself to be not unequal to him, could firmly disapprove of what the former had imprudently done? Dr. Whitby. Though the gift of inspiration, bestowed on the Apostles, secured them from error in doctrine, it did not secure them from all imprudence in conduct, as is plain from this instance. Dr. Macknight.

St. Peter’s fault was not an error in doctrine, for he knew very well that the observation of the law was not necessary, and so himself declared, Acts xv. 7; imme-

distely also before that he had been informed by a vision, that the Gentiles were not unclean, (which was the great reason why the Jews avoided their conversation,) and he had eaten and conversed with Cornelius, Acts. x. Nor was it doing a thing in itself unlawful, for St. Paul had upon occasion circumcised Timothy, and practised legal purification. Neither did the Apostles prohibit the Jews using their ceremonies, Acts xv. 19. But it was doing a thing lawful unseasonably, in an undue or unfitting place or time. Because by so doing, he gave occasion of scandal to the Gentiles, that is, made them doubt whether they also were not obliged to observe the same law; as certain persons (perhaps Cerinthus) endeavoured to persuade some of them. Which dangerous heresy St. Peter should by all means have opposed, rather than by compliance have any way countenanced. With the danger of which doctrine he seemed not so well acquainted as St. Paul. St. Paul calls it ‘fear,’ ver. 12; ‘simulation,’ ver. 13; ‘walking not uprightly,’ ver. 14. This publick reprehension of St. Peter to his face added greater authority to St. Paul’s preaching; and is a convincing argument, that St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles did accord with him in the same doctrine. Bp. Fell.

These differences between the Apostles have sometimes been alleged as a decisive objection against the Divine authority of the Christian scheme, but surely without cause. The New Testament no where represents the Apostles as infallible, or impeccable, it has drawn one and only one perfect character, that of their Divine Lord; but Christianity derives more strength of evidence from the impartiality, with which its historians relate their own and their brethren’s occasional errors or faults, than it can suffer injury from any imputation which their conduct may seem to justify. Another signal advantage from the relations of these divisions is, that it affords the strongest evidence, that the whole scheme was founded on truth, not imposture; for whenever impostors, and these the very chief conductors of the imposition, fall into contention and dispute, the fallacy is inevitably detected. Not so with the Gospel; though its teachers might in some points for some short time disagree, these disagreements impeded not in the least the completion of their sacred work; for this was conducted by the hand of God. Dr. Graves.

Galatians 2:12

12.—certain came from James.] Some believing Jews of Jerusalem, of which St. James was bishop, who were generally zealots for the Mosaical performances, Acts xxi. 20. Dr. Hammond.

Galatians 2:13

13.—the other Jews] The whole number of the Jewish converts of Antioch. Dr. Hammond.

Galatians 2:14

14.—according to the truth of the gospel.] Wherein we have learned, that the partition wall is broken down,

Of justification by faith, and not by works. AND DOMINI 54.

Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Galatians 2:15

15. We who are Jews by nature.] And therefore, as it might seem, peculiarly chosen and privileged by God, and not Gentiles, who had been heretofore censured and rejected for impure and unclean persons. Bp. Hall.

The argument of the Apostle, contained in this verse and the next, may be thus explained: Surely if we, that were born and brought up in the Jewish religion, being now convinced of its insufficiency to justify us, have left it, and embraced the Christian religion, as the only sufficient means of pardon and salvation; it must be most absurd for us to imagine that the Gentiles, who were never brought up in it at all, should be now obliged to it, after their conversion to Christianity. It is plain you countenance this for no real advantage to them; for you and we all own, that the law can justify no man, now after the revelation of the Gospel; but the Gospel alone can fully do it. Pyle.

Galatians 2:17

17, 18. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, &c.] On the other side, do but consider the consequence of this principle: a Christian, who relies still upon the Jewish law for his justification, must allow himself to be still in a state of guilt and sin, for the law leaves us all so. Which is as much as to say, that Christ, our Redeemer, has given us a dispensation, that leaves us but where we were; namely, in an unpardoned and unjustified condition: which God forbid any Christian should hold! 18. For it is evident beyond exception, if after having taken upon me the Christian profession, as the means of this justification, I run back again for it to the Jewish law, I am but where I was, an unjustified sinner; and act just like a foolish man, who pulls down his house to make it better, and then builds it up again with the very same materials, just as it was, upon its old foundation. Pyle.

Galatians 2:19

19. For I through the law am dead to the law, &c.] We are all taught by the Old Testament itself, the law and the Prophets, that we must seek farther than the law, namely, to Christ; and so I have done, and have learned by the law itself, not to value it too much, but to give over hope of justification or life by those legal performances, that so I may find it in God, through Christ, in the new covenant. Dr. Hammond.

Galatians 2:20

20. I am crucified with Christ:] Christ by His death hath abolished the Mosaical law, Eph. ii. 14; that is, hath taken away the discrimination between Jew and Gentile, and brought into the world justification for those who observe not the Mosaical law: and I, by being a Christian, have been made partaker of this fruit of Christ’s death, and so am also “dead to the law,” ver. 19, and Rom. vii. 4. Dr. Hammond.

— nevertheless I live.] Still unto God. By living, a frequent expression of the Apostles, is meant the manner of living, conversation, continual and habitual action, life being known by its operations. Bp. Fell.

— yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.] By His Spirit, which actuateth me. Drs. Wells and Whitby. I am now no longer the man I was, that is, a Jew; but I am a Christian, and am now bound to no other observances, but those which Christ requireth of me, to whom I am obliged by all the bands of love and duty; He having given His own life for me to free me, among other things, from the Mosaical law. Dr. Hammond.

Galatians 2:21

21. I do not frustrate the grace of God.] This freedom therefore I make use of, and do not depend on the law for justification, nor think the Mosaical observances still necessary; for that were to make void the Gospel of Christ. Dr. Hammond.

— for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.] There being then no necessity that He should die to purchase justification for us, and no sufficient virtue in His death to procure it. Dr. Whitby. Could the Jewish law have justified and saved us, there had been no need of Christ’s death: and if that law has any part of our justification, then His death was of itself insufficient for it. Pyle.

Chap. III. The Apostle, having absolutely cleared himself of having ever preached up the ceremonial law to Christian believers, comes now to argue directly against the principle of the Jewish zealots. His first argument is taken from the miraculous gifts of the Holy

AND DOMINI 56.