Galatians 2

I fourteen years after. Fourteen years from his conversion, which is the starting-point of the whole narrative (i. 15). This visit to Jerusalem is most likely not the second (Acts xi. 30), at which nothing material to this subject occurred, Peter and others being absent, but the third (A.D. 50): see Acts xv., and notes, and Conybeare and Howson (Appendix I.); though Meyer thinks the second visit is here meant. Luke in his history relates the public object of this visit; here Paul speaks of its being upon himself personally.

Titus. An uncircumcised Gentile Christian, one of the “certain other” (Acts xv. 2).

2 by revelation. Paul had not only a commission from the church at Antioch (Acts xv. 3), but also a special revelation and commission from the Lord. This is mentioned as showing that in the subsequent discussion he was not a learner from “James, Cephas, and John,” the “pillars” of the church at Jerusalem (9), but was as fully prepared and authorised to express the Holy Spirit’s will as they were.

them which were of reputation. The leading men in the church at Jerusalem, of course including the apostles. Paul took care to have first a private interview with them, to prevent any such interference with his labours in the gospel as would make these efforts fruitless. But, so far from opposing him, “they gave to him the right hand of fellowship,” etc. (9).

3 was compelled. Implying that the circumcision of Titus had been strongly urged by the Judaisers, as indicated in ver. 4. The apostle afterwards circumcised Timothy (Acts xvi. 3), “because of the Jews that were in those parts.” But Timothy’s mother was a Jewess, although his father was a Gentile. Titus was wholly a Gentile. This may have made the difference between the two cases. Or the difference may have been the attempt to compel in the case of Titus. Paul would do voluntarily what he would never yield to dictation.

4 and that because of false brethren, etc. This clause may be connected with ver. 5, thus: “And because of false brethren, etc., we gave not place by subjection,” etc.: see note on Acts xvi. 3.

false. They were thus designated, because they did not acknowledge faith in Christ as the only method of justification. This is “the truth of the Gospel” (5); essential not only as assuring the liberty and privileges of Gentile Christians, but also as the foundation of every sinner’s hope.

6. But of these. Rather, “But from those”; i.e., from the leaders I received nothing. Paul makes no allusion here to the decision (Acts xv. 22-29) which confirmed the exemption of Gentile converts from the Mosaic ritual; insisting only on his own independent inspiration and authority.

whatsoever they were. “What they once were,”

referring to their special privilege in having been the associates of our Lord on earth.

added nothing to me. Rather, “imparted nothing to me” (R.V.).

7 the gospel of the uncircumcision. The commission to carry the glad tidings to the Gentiles. “Gospel” here, as in other places, has much the same force as our modern “evangelisation.”

9. Cephas. Cp. 1 Cor. i. 12, and note.

pillars. Chief supporters of the faith. “James” is here mentioned without the adjunct “the Lord’s brother,” as the other James had been put to death since Paul’s first visit.

10 the poor. Particularly the poor Christians in Judæa (Rom. xv. 26), many of whom lost all for Christ (Heb. x. 34). On the words “only that we should remember,” etc., Meyer says: “This by no means excludes the ordinances of the apostolic council, for Paul here has in view nothing but his recognition as apostle on the part of the original apostles in the private discussions held with the latter. . . . In the face of real antagonism of doctrine, the older apostles certainly would not have tendered Paul their hands” (ver. 9).

11. But when Peter (Cephas) was come to Antioch. But as Barnabas was there too, it was most probably about A.D. 51: see Acts xv. 35, not so late as Paul’s visit mentioned in Acts xviii. 22 (about A.D. 54). It is possible that this disagreement may have prepared the way for the subsequent dispute and separation: see note on Acts xiii. 13.

because he was to be blamed. Rather, “because he stood condemned,” R.V. Peter’s conduct in refusing to eat with Gentiles after the Divine lesson (Acts x. 15), which he had clearly understood, declared, and acted upon (Acts xi. 3, 17; xv. 9), brought him under the guilt of great and mischievous inconsistency. But his colleague’s reproof probably led him back to right conduct, without leaving any unfriendly feeling in his heart: see 2 Pet. iii. 15.

12 came from James. Probably sent on some errand by James, as chief pastor in the church at Jerusalem.

withdrew. Or, “began to withdraw”; was so inclined.

he was afraid. “Here is the old enemy, timidity, which Peter no doubt thought he had conquered, but by which he was suddenly foiled” (Girdlestone: Devotional Commentary).

13 hypocrisy. Their practical disowning of their convictions.

14 uprightly. Or, “straightforwardly.”

16 by the works of the law, etc. Cp. Psa. cxliii. 2.

17 by Christ. Rather, “in Christ” (R.V.); i.e., as united with Him.

18. I make myself. Rather, “I prove myself.” “If, after destroying the old ceremonial, I build it up again,” I make myself out to have been guilty in destroying it.

19. I . . . am dead to the law. Properly, “I died unto the law” (R.V.). Paul seems to refer to the fact that in his conversion he became so united to Christ, as to be “crucified with Him,” and consequently is no longer subject to the Mosaic law either for justification or for sanctification. He is dead to the law, but he has a new life in its place. Cp. iii. 13; Rom. vii. 4.

20 nevertheless I live, etc. Rather, “and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me” (R.V. marg.). This is fully explained in the next clause; “and the life which I now live,” etc.

who loved me, and gave Himself (up) for me. “Paul appropriates to himself the love which belongs equally to the whole world” (Chrysostom).

21. I do not frustrate the grace of God. That is, I do not “set at nought” the mercy of God in Christ as if it were needless, by looking to the law for justification; see v. 4.

Is dead. Rather, as A.V., “died.”