Galatians 2

CHAPTER II

2. How the Other Apostles Acknowledged Paul’s Gospel, 2:1–10

Galatians 2:1

1 Root and branch Paul destroys the allegation of the Judaizers that his gospel is not the original gospel but that of the other apostles, and that he is not a genuine apostle, sent by the Lord like the Twelve, but has come from or through men only. He continues to let the facts speak their crushing language. In chapter 1 the facts reveal that Paul had his gospel by revelation, that during a long period of time he had only fifteen days’ contact with Peter and slight contact with James, but that Jerusalem and all the Judean churches glorified God because he preached the very faith he had once persecuted. So much for the source.

Now he presents the contents of his gospel regarding the very point assailed by the Judaizers, Christian liberty and circumcision in particular. Paul advances to the time of the great apostolic convention at Jerusalem when he came into fullest contact with the other apostles, yea, with all the leaders and with the church officially assembled. This was the decisive occasion when the first Judaizers were publicly and officially discredited and their Judaistic claims rejected. They were disowned, Paul was most fully acknowledged. Not that he needed such endorsement—he had never needed it. But if anything was wrong with either Paul’s apostleship or his gospel of Christian liberty, this wrong would most certainly have been exposed at this convention in Jerusalem, regarding which Paul now presents the pertinent facts.

The Galatians know all about this convention. For, some time after it took place, Paul started on his second missionary journey and began it by visiting the Galatian churches he had founded and delivered to all of them the resolution adopted at the great conference. See the resolution sent out to the Gentile churches, Acts 15:23–29; Paul delivered it in Galatia, Acts 16:4, 5. When he recalls this convention to the minds of the Galatians, Paul needs only to touch the points he deems vital; he does not need to tell the whole story over again. It certainly was preposterous that not so long after the whole Judaistic contention had been utterly repudiated by the apostles and the church as such right in Jerusalem, Judaizers should creep into Galatia and try to make the Galatians believe that Paul and his gospel were repudiated, that the Judaizers were endorsed, that the Twelve themselves were Judaizers.

Thereupon, with an interval of fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem in company with Barnabas, taking along with me also Titus.

This is the third “thereupon,” and, as in the case of the first in 1:18, a phrase expressing time follows. Διά with the genitive indicates an interval (R. 581) and counts from the time indicated in 1:18, 21, Paul’s fifteen-day visit in Jerusalem. Fourteen years after that visit means seventeen years after Paul’s conversion. These fourteen years include the eight Paul spent in Tarsus, regarding which we know nothing definite; the years spent in Syrian Antioch, working there with Barnabas in the great church which was chiefly Gentile; the period of the first missionary journey when Paul and Barnabas founded the Galatian churches; their return to Antioch and Paul’s further stay in that city until he went to attend the Jerusalem conference.

The supposition that Paul is speaking of the visit which he and Barnabas paid to Jerusalem to bring the relief gathered in Antioch for the poor (Acts 11:27–30; 12:25) is chronologically untenable. This visit antedates the founding of the Galatian churches. At that time the situation in Jerusalem was distressing; James, the brother of John, had been killed by Herod, Peter had fled, Paul and Barnabas saw no apostle. The visit of which Paul speaks here cannot be identified with the one mentioned in Acts 11:30.

Some interpreters count the fourteen years from the time of Paul’s conversion on the plea that this is the dominating date for the reckoning of time. It is; but it dominates just as strongly when the fourteen years follow the three as when they include the three. If they include the three, the conversion of Paul is moved forward three years, which upsets the entire chronology. The date of Herod’s frightful death (Acts 12:23) is known independently of the Scriptures: the summer of the year 44. Paul is speaking of the time of the convention (Acts 15). All is in order when we accept this date, the beginning of the year 52. But this is not a matter of dates; what happened on this visit of Paul’s and Barnabas’ to Jerusalem cannot be assigned to a time when it could not have happened.

We see no reason for questioning the force of πάλιν; whether it is retained in the text or not, this was “again” a visit to Jerusalem. The fact that Paul and Barnabas had brought relief to Jerusalem in the fall of the year 44 need not be mentioned because this visit to Jerusalem had no bearing on Paul’s gospel. The claim that Paul could not have ignored a mention of this visit is untenable.

We should note the marked difference with which Barnabas and Titus are named. Paul went up “in company with” Barnabas (μετά), with him as his chief associate. They were the two main members of the commission who were sent from Antioch to the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15:2). The Galatians knew all about this; Paul himself had visited them and had brought them the resolution of the conference, which was to be brought to all the Gentile churches.

Paul names Barnabas because Barnabas had helped to found the Galatian churches. Another reason is that Barnabas had stood with Paul in what Paul now tells about the happenings at the time of this conference. This is of importance because the Judaizers were in reality demanding that the Galatians should turn from both founders of their churches. Titus was not a member of the Antioch commission. Paul took him along. We know Titus as being Paul’s assistant in the period following the conference. He is mentioned because of what follows; his became a test case at the conference.

Galatians 2:2

2 Moreover, I went up in accord with a revelation, and I laid before them the gospel which I am preaching among the Gentiles, and in private before those in repute, whether I am running or did run in vain.

The church in Antioch elected Paul as one of the commission that was to go to Jerusalem for the conference regarding the issue the Judaizers had raised. In Acts 15 Luke reports only that Paul went along. From Paul we now learn more, namely that the Lord bade him go in a revelation. It seems that, although he was duly elected to go, he had some reluctance about accepting. The Lord himself removed his scruples, and he went.

Δέ adds this for the sake of the Galatians. They are to understand that he did not go of his own accord even after being elected; the Lord himself bade him go. The Galatians must not get the impression that Paul was obliged to lay his gospel before others for their approval, or that the church at Antioch perhaps obligated him to do so, or that he at least felt that he ought to do so. The idea that the Lord, who had called Paul as an apostle, wanted him to get the approval of the men at Jerusalem is, of course, preposterous. The Lord’s acts are not subject to any man’s approval. As his own approved apostle the Lord wanted Paul present at Jerusalem in order to help with the deliberations just as Paul did help.

Nothing is gained by asking whether the Lord gave the revelation to Paul himself or to one of the other prophets in Antioch. The Lord gave so many revelations to Paul that such a question should not be raised. Paul went with the Lord’s own assurance that his going would in no way harm his own apostolic standing. He, of course, does not recite the whole story of that conference. The Galatians knew that; Paul and Silas had made a full report to them. Silas was one of the two who were especially commissioned by the conference to carry the written resolution of the conference to the Gentile churches (Acts 15:27). He was Paul’s chosen assistant for the second missionary journey (Acts 15:40) and thus officially informed the Galatians of the conference resolution (Acts 16:4, 5).

Paul here presents the test case that was made of Titus and of circumcision. This actual case shatters the whole contention of the Judaizers, shatters it right at Jerusalem to which the Judaizers constantly appealed, and reveals the fact that the other apostles and the whole church stood with Paul.

It was at the first public meeting at Jerusalem that Paul “laid before them (the entire assembly) the gospel which I am preaching among the Gentiles” as also Luke records in Acts 15:4. Luke speaks of “all the things God had done” through Paul and Barnabas; Paul speaks of the means by which all these things were done. We know that the means, namely the gospel Paul preached, was the subject for calling the conference. Means and results naturally go together. In the assembly at Jerusalem the Antioch delegation told the story of the great work that had been done in their city. Paul and Barnabas had their share in that.

Then these two told of their first missionary tour to Cyprus and to Galatia. Paul words it well: “the gospel which I am preaching among the Gentiles.” It was entirely a story of the gospel which founded the Galatian churches, of the gospel Paul is still preaching. From Antioch it had extended to Galatia and now at the time of Paul’s writing was extending still farther. Jesus had ordered the apostles to carry this gospel to “all the ἔθνη” (“nations” or Gentiles).

Paul adds information that is perhaps new to the Galatians, that he laid this gospel of his “in private (δέ, also) before those in repute,” the leaders in Jerusalem. This was not in any way a secret conclave; it furnished direct personal opportunity for the leaders to learn from Paul all they might desire to know; we take it that Paul had Barnabas with him. Paul was very glad to tell everything, and, no doubt, James, Peter, and John were equally glad to hear all they could from Paul and from Barnabas. It was a rare opportunity of which all concerned made the most. Whether any others of the elders of Jerusalem were present at this private meeting we cannot determine; it is possible.

Paul calls those with whom he conferred οἱδοκοῦϛτες and repeats this expression four times and plays on it in a pointed manner. In v. 6 and 9 he amplifies the designation. The sense is the same throughout. It might be either they who think themselves something; or they who seem to be something to others—the latter with or without the idea of justification. The context determines just what is meant. Here it must be “they who seem to be something to others,” they who are considered to be somebody, more briefly, “those in repute.”

The very repetition of this designation shows that Paul is quoting it from the lips of the Judaizers in Galatia. “Who,” they said, “is Paul when compared with men like James, Peter, and John? These are the men of standing who are considered so in the church.” Paul rubs the word in by his repetitions. The irony of that procedure is directed against the Judaizers. They were the ones who thought that repute was the main thing and that it settled everything against Paul. If they denied standing and repute to Paul, then Paul counted for nothing, and, of course, the Galatians would accept what they‚ these Judaizers, were pleased to say.

Now Paul is the last man to deny the high repute of James, Peter, and John, or of anybody else. He is also the last man to be jealous of his own repute. All repute among men, whether his own or that of others in the church, is secondary entirely; the essential is something far higher, namely what the Lord makes of any man. The business of the church is to consider that and to make its repute correspond to that. That Paul himself held James, Peter, and John in the highest repute is evidenced by the fact that he laid his gospel before these men. He could not have done so if he thought that they did not fully deserve this high repute. He would be a fool for telling the Galatians how he laid his gospel before these men if he at the same time intends to say that in his own estimation these men were nothing.

But the laying of his gospel before James, etc., does not mean that he and his gospel were dependent on the verdict of these men because of their repute. Verse 6 leaves nothing to be desired regarding that. Paul is not afraid of laying his gospel before anybody, least of all before these high men of whose great repute the Judaizers sought to make capital against him. Paul’s gospel was from God, so was theirs. It was and had ever been one and the same. Any and every time a proper examination is made, this would appear. Paul’s repute thus took care of itself. God was back of it as he was back of any true repute that James, etc., enjoyed in the church.

It was solely because of the Judaizers who had appeared in Antioch and with others were now making themselves obnoxious in Jerusalem that Paul (and Barnabas) got together with James, Peter, and John, in order by means of the true gospel, which they all unitedly preached, to crush the Judaistic error most effectively and completely. When the Judaizers of Jerusalem laid their perversion of the gospel (Acts 15:5) before the conference, Peter gave them a crushing reply in his address (Acts 15:7–11). Paul and Barnabas did the same (Acts 15:12), and it was James, who, presiding at this conference, formulated the resolution which the whole conference adopted, put in writing, and sent out to all the Gentile churches (Acts 15:13–32). In this resolution the whole contention of the Judaizers was repudiated. What a farce for any Judaizers now to come to the Galatians with talk of “those in repute” and thereby to throw dust in the eyes of the Galatians! Why are these Judaizers not telling the truth?

Read μήπως as an indirect question: “whether I am running or did run (the English prefers the perfect: have been running) in vain.” The implied answer is: “Certainly not!” Both verbs are naturally indicatives, all is grammatically simple. This question does not express a doubt on Paul’s part; even πως, “in some way,” “perhaps,” leaves him without doubt. This question was raised by the Judaizers in Jerusalem; they either said outright that all Paul’s work was in vain or implied as much. In fact, Paul was running in vain if the gospel of the Judaizers was the true gospel. Then all Paul’s work was εἰςκενόν, “for emptiness,” empty, hollow; it would all have to be done over again. In this indirect question Paul lays the Judaistic contention before the private meeting. James, Peter, and John would have to declare regarding their own work that it has all been in vain if they pronounced this verdict on Paul’s work.

Our versions translate: “Lest by any means I should be running or had run in vain.” R. 988 thinks that this expresses purpose, “purely final.” Let us say that purpose is not acceptable. B.-D. 370, 2 finds a feeling of concern in the main verb: Paul laid his gospel before these men with a feeling of concern “lest he be running,” etc. This is not tenable: Paul had a feeling of perfect certainty which rested on God’s own direct revelation. Can any man have greater objective or subjective certainty? As the purpose, so the feeling of concern is untenable. R.

W. P.‚ regards τρέχω as being subjunctive and explains the aorist indicative ἔδραμον as a sort of afterthought or retrospect and in his grammar adds that in such final clauses the classics expressed unreality by the indicative. R. admires Paul for thus implying that he had not run in vain. B.-D. 361 contradicts this: this indicative is “not unreal.” This question regarding the modes becomes clear the moment we see that this is an indirect question, one that was precipitated by the Judaizers, the answer to which was beyond a shadow of doubt to men such as James, Peter, and John.

Galatians 2:3

3 So crushingly was the question answered to the complete overthrow of the Judaizers that Paul writes: But not even Titus, the one with me, although he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised even on account of the pseudo-brethren sneakingly brought in, such as sneakingly came in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus in order that they might completely enslave us; to whom we yielded no, not for an hour by way of the submission (they demanded) in order that the truth of the gospel might continue on for you.

The Judaizers failed utterly and completely in their contention at Jerusalem. The Galatians have the verdict, the resolution worded by James and formally adopted by the assembly (Acts 15:13, etc.); the failure of the Judaizers was even more complete as we see from the test case of Titus. This was an actual case which occurred right there in the conference. Facts speak even louder than words.

The indirect question asked in v. 2 embodies the verdict of the Judaizers: “Paul had run, was still running in vain!” Ἀλλά is set squarely against this: “On the contrary,” and on the contrary to this extent: “not even Titus was compelled to be circumcised.” Paul had purposely taken Titus along (v. 1); “the one with me” emphasizes this fact. Paul made Titus an open challenge to the Judaizers. They might have allowed other Gentiles who were living in distant places to remain uncircumcised; they dared not permit this regarding Titus right in the conference itself now that he was thrown into their faces as a challenge by Paul himself. He was a Greek, both of his parents were Gentiles. Paul had never had him circumcised and never circumcised him even later on. His case was entirely different from that of Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess and whom Paul intended to use for mission work among the Jews.

Circumcision was a complete adiaphoron to Paul: it was nothing either way (1 Cor. 7:19). He performed it with regard to Timothy because it would prove a help in the work. Since Titus was a Greek, it would prove no help in his case, Jews would always be suspicious of him. Titus was just the man with whom to challenge the Judaizers. When they demanded his circumcision, Paul absolutely refused. He had to. The moment any adiaphoron is demanded as being necessary to salvation, it ceases to be an adiaphoron, it becomes a vital issue on which we dare not yield. C. Tr. 1059, etc., elaborates this subject on which so many are confused to the detriment of real Christian liberty.

In the person of Titus the whole gospel as it was preached by Paul, by Peter (Acts 11:1–18; 15:7–11), and by all the apostles came to be embodied. That gospel would have crumbled and fallen if this man would have been circumcised at the demand of the Judaizers. That is why he was not circumcised, not even for minor, secondary, innocent reasons. Once the Judaizers made their demand regarding Titus, they destroyed all reasons for his ever being circumcised.

Among the exegetical curiosities we list the one which has Paul say the opposite of what he does say, namely that Titus was circumcised, yet not under constraint but by voluntary action on Paul’s part. The emphasis is placed on ἠναγκάσθη, and οὐδέ is regarded as modifying only this verb: Titus “was not even forced” to be circumcised. Even if Paul intended to say this, he would not have put it in the words which he here used. The emphasis is on “not even Titus,” and it cannot be shifted to “was forced.” “Not even Titus” = he with whom Paul made the challenge, not even he, to say nothing about others who were not made a test case.

Galatians 2:4

4 Δέ emphasizes the διά phrase and does not start a new sentence. Δέ calls on the reader to bear in mind that not even Titus was compelled to be circumcised, compelled “on account of the pseudo-brethren,” etc., the very men who so strenuously tried to force his circumcision. We do not have an anacoluthon; this view is due to the claim that δέ is metabatic and starts a new sentence. Zahn removes the anacoluthon by cancelling οἷςοὐδέ from v. 5. The texts, however, are against this procedure, especially regarding οὐδέ.

Zahn’s concern is to get another thought; the matter of the anacoluthon is only incidental. We are told that Paul did yield for a moment with due subjection in order to conserve the gospel. To whom? To the pseudo-brethren, the Judaizers? That is unthinkable. Some suggest, to the resolution framed by James (Acts 15:13, etc.). But Paul did not yield to that, that was his own hearty conviction; to say that he yielded to it only “for an hour” is unacceptable. Well, then, Paul yielded to the authorities in Jerusalem by laying the clash with the Judaizers in Antioch before these authorities in due submission. This is Zahn’s answer.

Aside from the alteration of the text involved, this answer itself is unsatisfactory. It bids us jump from v. 5 to v. 1 and forget about Titus. No reader does that; no writer could expect it. When one says in a preamble that certain men tried to enslave him and then adds that he yielded, every ordinary reader will understand that he yielded to these men—he must so understand. Textually and in every other way the negative stands: “I did not yield for one moment!” Add to this the fact that Paul was not subject to any authorities in Jerusalem, that he repudiates this assumption throughout, most decidedly in v. 6. He was subject only to God and to Christ, was on a perfect equality with the Twelve. To make Paul subject to James is unwarranted.

Paul says that what set everybody against circumcising Titus for any reason was the attitude of “the pseudo-brethren,” a term that is like “pseudo-apostle” found in 2 Cor. 11:13. In forming our estimate of them we should not forget Acts 15:5 and paint them too black. Luke calls them “Pharisees who believed” yet demanded “that it was needful to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” They were not disbelievers but misbelievers, errorists, but such as had become fixed in their error. They accepted Christ yet added the Mosaic law to Christ and thus falsified Christ. From Paul we learn more. First the adjective “brought in on the side,” surreptitiously, sneakingly.

They should never have been brought into the church as members. Somebody was to blame for bringing them in; who is not said, but it surely was not any of the apostles.

“Such as came in on the side,” sneakingly, adds the thought that they were of this type. The real blame lay on them; they deceived those who brought them in. This is evidenced by what they proved to be, not brethren whose aim it was to let go their Pharisaism and to accept the free gospel wholeheartedly, but men who were determined to cling to their Pharisaism, set on “spying” out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus.”

They are not to be identified with the Judaizers who appeared in Antioch and first caused the Judaistic question to be raised. They were not the same men, for we must conclude from Luke’s account that the Judaizers in Antioch did not send a delegation to Jerusalem at the time of the conference. The pseudo-brethren in the mother church made it their special business to pry out whether one or the other of the delegation that came from the church in Antioch was perhaps uncircumcised. Of course, they soon found Titus and centered their general demand for circumcision (Acts 15:5) on him. It was entirely a matter of liberty whether a Christian man wanted to remain uncircumcised or not. Paul writes “our liberty,” for the matter concerned the entire delegation from Antioch irrespective of how many were or were not circumcised. “Which we have in Christ Jesus” declares this to be the true Christian and gospel liberty.

Paul adds that the purpose of the spying out was “that they might completely enslave us,” κατά in καταδουλώσουσιν, a future indicative after ἵνα (R. 984), the verb itself being causative (R. 802). “Enslave” matches “liberty.” Acts 15:5 accords with what Paul says here. It would be the worst kind of spiritual slavery again to be forced under the old Jewish Mosaic ceremonial regulations. With these again in control, works and outward observance would destroy the doctrine of “by faith alone.” And that would mean loss of justification and salvation. Even on account of these men, who, in their Pharisaic zeal, surely made the most strenuous efforts, Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. James, Peter, John, and the great body of the church were not moved an inch.

Galatians 2:5

5 Οἷς, like other relatives that are attached at the end of a longer statement, has demonstrative force, cf., Rom. 1:25; 3:8, 30. It is like saying: “These fellows to whom we yielded no, not for an hour by way of the submission” (i.e., the one they demanded). “We” refers to the entire delegation from Antioch (Acts 15:2). “The submission” was not “the submission which Paul and the delegation owed to James,” etc. Τῇὑποταγῇ is the dative of mode, and the article refers to the submission or obedience in question. Not for a moment did we yield “by way of the (demanded) submission” to the enslavement proposed by the pseudo-brethren and give up our liberty in Christ Jesus.

Paul states why “we did not yield for an hour (we say: for a moment).” He and Barnabas together with their fellow delegates thought of the Galatians to whom they had brought the truth of the gospel. If they had yielded, that truth would have been lost to the Galatians. Paul and Barnabas would have had to go back to Galatia and undo all that they had done. They stood solid “in order that the truth of the gospel (its verity and reality) might continue on (on through, διά) for you.” Πρὸςὑμᾶς is not “with you”; it is the face-to-face preposition: the truth of the gospel facing the Galatians, they facing the truth. “For you” is a most effective touch when Paul now writes to the Galatians. We can almost see Paul and Barnabas at the convention talking about their Galatian congregations and showing how the point at issue regarding Titus affected them all, and, of course, any other Gentile congregations yet to be founded.

It was only the circumcision of Titus—many shortsighted and weak-kneed preachers would have yielded and then perhaps justified themselves by a reference to their love. But Paul and Barnabas and their associates saw that in this one case “the truth of the gospel” itself was at stake, its very heart was at stake. If the pseudo-brethren gained their point, “by faith alone” would be overthrown right in the mother church in Jerusalem. What was that bound to do to all the other churches?

We add that if οὐδέ is cancelled, if Paul says that he did yield, the purpose clause: “in order that the truth of the gospel might be conserved for you,” becomes unintelligible. The idea that Paul submitted to the authorities in Jerusalem in order to secure a favorable verdict, in order that the Galatians might keep the gospel truth, is strangely involved, and the main point is introduced from the outside. Such an exegesis will not meet universal approval.

The situation obtaining at the conference in Jerusalem is a kind of parallel to the one now obtaining in Galatia. There, as here, the Judaizers tried to destroy the liberty of the gospel with their legalism; there, as here, Paul yields not an inch. We may add that there the truth of the gospel was maintained against all legalism. Would that we could say: “It has always been so maintained.” Alas, there are many legalists today. Paul’s fears that he expressed in Acts 20:29, 30 have become reality. His warning uttered in Rom. 16:17, 18 is not heeded.

But note: if the Judaizers in Galatia who opposed Paul’s doctrine claimed the support of the apostles and of the mother church, the very opposite was the fact: all of the latter stood solidly behind Paul in the test case of Titus. The force of this truth must have been powerful, indeed, for the Galatians.

Galatians 2:6

6 Paul has facts in connection with the conference, both negative and positive, that are so powerful as doubly to close any Judaizer’s mouth. No change in the work of Paul was proposed; on the contrary, James, Peter, and John gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, each acknowledging the other. No right hand of fellowship for the Judaizers! This is what happened at that notable conference.

Moreover, from those reputed to be something (whatever kind they were makes no difference to me—God does not accept a man’s face)—before me, then, those in repute placed nothing; on the contrary, the very opposite, etc.

Here we, indeed, have an anacoluthon, and a beautiful one at that. In the middle of the sentence Paul changes from the expected passive (“there was placed before me”) to the unexpected active (“they placed before me”). Why did Paul write an anacoluthon, and why did he retain it? It was not due to the rapidity of his mind. That very rapidity saw where he was going when he began the sentence. R. 438 states that the parenthesis led Paul to change the construction. But that view is unsatisfactory. Paul uses the anacoluthon as a legitimate form of expression; it is as “regular” as what the grammarians call regular.

That is the formal side. The material is more important. Paul’s anacoluthon is used for a reason: to express what would otherwise not be expressed, what would otherwise require several statements. In the present instance this is quite apparent. The literary beauty of this anacoluthon shows the mastery of Paul in fitting language to thought. We shall explain.

“From those reputed to be something” repeats the designation that was used by the Judaizers when they pitted James and the Twelve against Paul, see v. 2. He now amplifies the designation as the Judaizers themselves did who said that these men really amounted to something while Paul amounted to nothing. To be sure, these men did amount to something, for which reason Paul also laid his whole gospel and his work before them. But if Paul amounted to nothing in comparison with these men, then they would, no doubt, point out to him certain things that he had overlooked, certain mistakes that he ought to correct, errors that he must avoid, in particular that he must insist on circumcision and on the legal regulations of Moses (Acts 15:5). What are the facts? The very contrary.

These authorities that enjoyed this high repute laid absolutely nothing before Paul, not a thing regarding those mentioned, and not a thing concerning other, even lesser, matters. This is only the negative side, but it speaks volumes. It declares that in the finding of these very authorities, of whom the Judaizers made so extravagantly much, Paul’s gospel and his work were in literally every respect as perfect as their own.

But it is now time to add a remark or two on the designation used so pointedly by the Judaizers: “those reputed to be something.” Paul does it in only two brief, parenthetical remarks; no more is necessary: “whatever kind they (actually) were makes no difference to me—God does not accept a man’s face.” Ὁποῖοίποτε should not be separated (B.-D. 303: welcherlei Leute immer), “whatever kind,” R. 732; the adverb merely makes the adjective indefinite. It, of course, made no difference to Paul (verschlaegt mir nichts) what high repute James, etc., enjoyed; they might have enjoyed a still greater repute. Paul had received his gospel from far higher authority, from God himself. It is necessary to remind the Galatians of the fact that human repute does not count and did not count at the Jerusalem convention in the case of Paul.

But such a limited statement may seem derogatory to James and to the Twelve as though Paul cared nothing for them or their standing. It is not intended in this way. Paul does not wish to detract from them in the least, for is he not telling the Galatians that these men acknowledged him and his gospel? So he adds a second parenthetical statement: “God does not accept a man’s face or person.” The emphasis is on πρόσωπον and then on “God” and “man’s,” which are placed in contrasting juxtaposition: With God man’s face does not count. The fact that Paul was only Paul, once a persecutor of the church, an abortion when he was called to be an apostle (1 Cor. 15:8, 9), was of no consequence to God in comparison with Peter and John and others who followed Jesus from the beginning. God is able to make an apostle of whomever he will.

Faces, names, persons are not decisive for him. Any wrong deductions that might be made from the first part of the parenthesis are thus removed.

Paul has begun as if he intends to say, “From them I on my part received nothing.” But if he had finished thus, it might sound as though these men of repute tried to impart something to him. Yet they assumed no superior airs toward him, they did not even attempt to lay anything before him which, in their opinion, he ought to accept. He wants to deny both ideas. Most skilfully and with great delicacy he achieves this double denial by using an anacoluthon. The thought that they might possibly have wanted to lay something before him is thereby left only as a mild implication. It is kept down to that by the phrase: “from those reputed to be something,” i. e., who might feel they had a right to dictate to me.

By leaving this incomplete he brushes away the implication. The anacoluthon, starting the sentence anew with a nominative: “before me, then, those in repute,” etc., constitutes only an easy turn in the construction, especially after the two parenthetical insertions.

This is made still easier by placing the dative forward: “—before me on my part ‘those in repute’ placed nothing.” Count my repute what you will—such as I was and still am, these men in high repute, according to the phraseology of the Judaizers, strange as they may deem the fact, “before me they placed nothing” that I should accept. The aorist states the fact as a fact. Thus two birds are killed with one stone: the suggestion that “from them” something at least in the way of correction should surely have been placed before Paul; and the cold, solid fact that they did nothing of the kind. Verily, anacolutha are excellent means for expressing thought if, like Paul and other good writers, one knows how to use them.

Γάρ is another delicate touch. It connects the new turn of the sentence with the parenthesis by implying that those in repute fully deserved their repute far beyond what the Judaizers realized. These men in repute understood perfectly what Paul here says, that with God there is no respect of persons. They never dreamed of letting Paul feel their authority by putting at least something before him. That is what men in repute so generally like to do. They want all others to feel that they are in repute; hence they insist on something even if it be only a triviality in order to have their authority noted.

James, etc., were far above that. Catch this effect from the way in which “those in repute” is once more inserted—they truly deserved to be in repute! We translate: “Before me, then.” “I say” (R. V.) is not so good; “for” in the A. V. is better. Προσανέθεντο has the dative as in 1:16: to lay something before another either in the way of counselling with him (thus in 1:16) or in order to have him accept it (so here).

Galatians 2:7

7 Beside the negative, which already says so much, is placed the still stronger positive: on the contrary, the very opposite, having seen that I have been entrusted with the gospel for the foreskin even as Peter (with the gospel) for the circumcision (for he who wrought for Peter with regard to an apostolate for the circumcision wrought also for me with regard to the Gentiles), and having realized this grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that we on our part (go) to the Gentiles, and they on theirs to the circumcision, only the poor, that we keep remembering them—the very thing I also hastened to do.

How mightily the facts do speak! The whole is one grand sentence. While after a negation ἀλλά means “on the contrary” and might thus suffice, here it is re-enforced, for this contrary is the direct opposite. Those in repute did the complete opposite of making any demand on Paul, they endorsed him by a solemn public act and agreement. Can anything that is more crushing to the Judaizers be imagined?

The construction is simple: “having seen—and having realized—they gave.” Here, for once, Paul’s whole teaching and his work were fully examined and competently compared with those of the other apostles. Hitherto no occasion for such a comparison had arisen. Now that the occasion had come, these men saw what was so apparent, that Paul had been entrusted with the gospel for the foreskin just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcision.

The abstracts “foreskin” and “circumcision” generalize and in this sense stand for Gentiles and for Jews. We regard the two genitives as objective: “for the foreskin,” etc. God entrusted the one as he did the other. The perfect refers to a past act with continuous effect: the trust given remained. This passive is not intransitive although the active is (R. 816); hence it takes the accusative like other transitive passives.

This does not indicate a difference in the contents of the gospel. It is identical for all nations and all times. The idea that our modern times need a different gospel, or that in mission work the gospel should be changed for this or that nation is unwarranted. Any change loses the gospel to the extent of the change attempted. The gospel is fixed and permanent in the Scriptures, in particular in the New Testament. These men naturally had nothing whatever to lay before Paul just as he had nothing to lay before them.

The remarkable thing is that Paul and Peter are placed on a par. John is not mentioned in the statement. This is scarcely due to the fact that the Judaizers claimed Peter as their patron; for the term Paul borrows from their lips is a plural: “those in repute.” Peter is not named with the idea of excluding the eleven but as representing them. The division of territory can also not be meant in an exclusive sense. Paul always began his work in the synagogue; Peter preached to Cornelius and to other Gentiles in Caesarea. A fortiori fit denominatio; the distinction and the division of work was made on broad lines.

In Acts 23:11 the Lord orders Paul to do the great mission work among the Jews that was waiting to be done in Rome. Yet, beginning with Paul’s original appointment, especially he was to be the apostle of the Gentiles (Acts 26:17, 18). This is what the men saw at Jerusalem.

Galatians 2:8

8 They compared what God had done. Paul adds this in explanation by means of γάρ; by placing it in a parenthesis the statement is made the more objective: “for he who wrought for Peter with regard to an apostolate for the circumcision wrought also for me with regard to the Gentiles.” The two are closely paralleled. As Peter was placed in the Jewish work by God, so Paul was placed in the Gentile work. The datives are indirect objects (R. V.) and are not due to the ἐν in the verb; “in Peter—in me” (A. V.) The place referred to by this verb is indicated by an ἐν phrase. “Also for me with regard to the Gentiles” is only a briefer form of expression that uses the concrete “Gentiles” instead of the abstract “foreskin.” How God wrought is not stated.

The fact that he wrought the same miracles for both apostles seems too narrow a conception; also that he bestowed the charismata of the Spirit equally on converted Jews and Gentiles (Acts 15:8, 9). God wrought alike for Peter and for Paul by grace and by providence in the widest sense so that one came to work mostly among the Jews, the other among Gentiles. The credit for what was done by each is given wholly to God. Regarding himself Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:10: “Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.”

Galatians 2:9

9 The men at Jerusalem saw what the facts were and then also realized what these facts involved regarding Paul, namely, “the grace given to him” by God. Here it is again best to take this grace in its widest sense as including Paul’s office, his ability, and his marked success. Although the participle already has its subject, “those in repute,” Paul now names “James and Cephas and John” and adds “those reputed to be pillars.” The latter is the most specific designation which the Judaizers employed. A few others are perhaps to be included in those of repute. It is immaterial. No other apostles at least were present at this conference, for they would either be named as Cephas and John are or be indicated in some plain manner.

The figure suggested by “pillars” states outright what being “something” means in v. 6: columns that support the οἰκοδομή of the church, that are at once essential and ornamental. If they are broken, the building would be wrecked. The men named were pillars indeed although the Judaizers used the expression to deny such importance to Paul.

James we meet already in 1:19. He is rightly named first although he is not an apostle; he presided at the conference (Acts 15:13). Cephas is next because, aside from all else, he was most prominent at the conference (Acts 15:7). The fact that John was present we know only from what Paul states here. Yet we are not surprised to find Peter and John together also on this occasion. Though each had a brother, we find Peter and John together in John 20:2, etc.; 21:20, etc.; Acts 3:1; 8:14. The two were evidently most intimately attached to one another. The three named here were certainly the foremost pillars of the Jerusalem church; although at the time of the conference they were absent from Jerusalem because of the work, also the rest of the Twelve deserved to be called pillars.

Behold, what these three did! “They gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.” And this was not merely fraternal fellowship such as is extended to brethren in the faith; κοινωνίας is placed last in order that ἵνα may define it: “of fellowship, that we on our part (go, the verb understood) to the Gentiles, and they on theirs to the circumcision.” This was the fellowship of the apostles, the fellowship of the apostolic work. Three pillars acknowledge two others. This is what James, Peter, and John did at the great conference; behold what the Judaizers were trying to do in Galatia!

This giving of the right hand must have been a public act, one that was performed before the entire conference. The most likely moment must have been after the resolution offered by James was adopted. Note that the drafted resolution which was to be sent out to all the Gentile churches contains the words: “our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,” Acts 15:25, 26. That this giving of the hand occurred only at the private consultation is highly improbable. In the Greek the first person is named first, in English last; hence here: “to me and Barnabas.” As James is concerned in this, so also is Barnabas. Paul and he were the ones who had gone out from Antioch on the first great missionary journey among Gentiles; they were the heads of the delegation sent to the conference from Antioch (Acts 15:2); they were the ones who would lead in the continuance of this work. The Spirit named Barnabas in Acts 13:2.

Regard both ἵνα clauses as subfinal, as defining the terms of the fellowship here solemnly published. R. 1000 thinks that the first ἵνα = “on condition that,” and that the second is an expletive with a voluntative subjunctive (933). Both are alike, the second is added to the first, and neither denotes purpose.

The first stipulation was in regard to fields of work, the Gentile field was assigned to Paul and Barnabas, but not as being just a human arrangement, no, as one that was most plainly indicated by God himself. This implied the fullest endorsement of the work done in Galatia, of all the liberty of the gospel Paul had been and was preaching, and complete repudiation of all the contentions of the Judaizers. What more could Paul’s soul desire?

Galatians 2:10

10 In the second ἵνα clause: “only that,” etc., the genitive object is placed first: “only the poor, that we keep remembering them.” This prolepsis is used for the purpose of emphasis and occurs frequently in connection with ἵνα. These are the poor among the Palestinian churches to whom already on a previous occasion Antioch had sent help by the hands of Barnabas and Saul (Acts 11:30). Zahn rightly says that the pillar-apostles were not begging, nor were they using this great occasion for begging. The fellowship in the division of labor included the fellowship of love and of loving aid.

When Paul adds: “the very thing I also hastened to do,” i. e., carry out, this must refer to collections he took up during the year immediately following the conference; for it was at the end of this year that he wrote this epistle in Corinth. We know nothing further about these alms. The great collection which he later gathered in all his Gentile churches can thus not be referred to here. But we see how Paul got the idea of such a great collection, the object of which was not merely most materially to help the poor but also to cement the “fellowship” between all his Gentile churches and the mother church in Jerusalem from which the gospel had first gone forth into the world.

3. How Paul Corrected even Peter, and how Peter Accepted this Correction, 2:11–21

Galatians 2:11

11 Ad summa venit argumentum. This is, in-indeed, the climax. Paul corrects no less a man than Peter himself, and Peter accepts the correction! Is it possible? It was done in public before scores of witnesses. Again Paul lets only the facts, the straight historical facts speak. The secret of all his work is that he is a theologian of fact. He meets the Judaizing movement in its attack upon his person and his apostle-ship by a few facts, incontrovertible facts. This part of the attack is thereby literally crushed.

When did this episode occur? Before or after the public acknowledgment mentioned in v. 9? No indication of time appears. Such a temporal particle ought to appear if this happened earlier. Otherwise the natural thing to do is to follow the previous narrative where one episode succeeds the other in time, and to understand this last as likewise occurring later than the preceding. Yet, starting with Augustine, a few writers assume that this event antedates the one mentioned in v. 1–10.

They tell us that Peter came to Antioch, then the strict Jewish Christians from James, then the pseudo-brethren who made the Jerusalem conference necessary. This is thought to make the case against Peter and for Paul much stronger. But the reverse is true; for then the matter was still subject to a final decision on the part of the church. Summary: Paul follows the chronological order up to 2:10, the natural expectation is that he continues thus in the final episode. If Paul now reversed the order of time, this would necessitate an indication to this effect. Besides all this, it is incomprehensible that Paul could use this episode regarding Peter as the climax of his historical proof if it had occurred at an earlier date.

Then, most assuredly, the conference would form the climax.

Now when Cephas came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face because he (already) stood condemned.

Δέ is transitional. The terse way in which Paul states the fact that he withstood Peter shows that the Galatians had already heard of this affair, that Paul is now merely recalling it to their minds and emphasizing the features that bear on the present issue in Galatia. It is also probable that the Judaizers made capital of this incident and twisted the facts so as to make it appear that Paul turned against Peter, forsook the old, original gospel that Peter preached together with its legal requirements, and was swept into his liberalism so that he might please the Gentiles. The exact reverse was true.

There is no need to say what brought Peter to Antioch for this visit. In the absence of all information it is gratuitous to say that he had no business there. The apostles did not run around where they had no business. Nor is it necessary to try to save Peter’s reputation by assuming this Cephas to be some other man who had this Hebrew name. Paul has been speaking of the Cephas who is Peter and is reputed to be one of the pillars. The main point is stated at once: “I withstood him to his face.” That must have occurred in public as also the following shows.

It occurred in connection with the agape, before the whole congregation at Antioch. Picture the scene; it was surely dramatic in the highest degree. We know of no other case after Pentecost when one apostle corrected another. The aorist is significant and implies that Paul withstood successfully, that Peter had no defense, that he yielded. Think how this smashed the Judaistic contention which would have Peter correct Paul and never Paul correct the great Peter.

What makes the statement about Peter so severe is the clause: “because he stood condemned.” Peter himself stood so by his own act. Anybody could stand against him, and Peter had no defense. Paul did it in Antioch; we shall see why Barnabas failed. R., W. P.‚ regards the verb as a paraphrastic past perfect passive. C.-K. 259, and others consider the perfect participle the predicate of the imperfect ἦν; it does then not mean, “because he had been pronounced against,” but, “he was a person who had a pronouncement standing against him,” one that had been made some time ago and was still in force (perfect tense).

Paul says that Peter was in this unfortunate position. We shall see that this was due to Peter’s own act. The term Paul employs is legal, in the active it means wider jemand erkennen‚ so that nothing is left but the fixing of the penalty by the judge. Outside of that the case had been closed. All that Paul did was to point out this fact.

This verb never means “to accuse” in Biblical Greek. When it is used in this sense in secular Greek, the charges are always added. The mere accusation of Peter would leave the question open as to whether he was guilty or not. Accusation would also call for a competent judge to try Peter; the judge might find him innocent. Paul does not use κατακρίνειν, for that would imply that Peter had had an adverse trial; he uses καταγινώσκειν: an adverse judicial pronouncement stood against Peter.

This fits the situation exactly. It was the pronouncement made by the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15:13, etc. Peter himself had helped greatly in making that pronouncement. If this affair at Antioch preceded that pronouncement, we are left to imagine some pronouncement against which Peter was now sinning and to invent some proper authority who could have so pronounced. All is clear if the conference preceded. For this reason, too, Paul does not need to name the court here involved; it was the conference and its finding against all Judaizers.

Here at Antioch, Peter placed himself among these already condemned Judaizers. The moment he did that he stood condemned, condemned by the pronouncement he himself had helped to issue. All defense and even the right to enter a defense had been removed.

Barnabas and all the others at Antioch who acted as Peter did were certainly under the same verdict. Paul took Peter to task, not because he intended to leave out these others, but because Peter was the great apostle, the one who was blameworthy in this instance. When he was convicted, all those who stood with him were convicted. Peter misled even a man like Barnabas. We see at a glance what a calamity was threatening because of Peter’s act of Judaizing. It was a God’s blessing that Paul was there and withstood Peter to his face.

We see why Peter made no defense. It would have been preposterous for him to make even the attempt. To deny or to contradict the finding of the conference would have included a denial of the central part of the gospel. Peter was erring. But his greatness is evident: he accepted public rebuke in all humility, he mended his ways. How many men, high in the church, have done the same when they were in the wrong?

Do not ask how a man like Peter could have done what he did. Just ask yourself how you at times can and do sin even against better knowledge. That is the answer. Peter’s erring at Antioch has been mentioned in connection with his inspiration. Instead of hurting the inerrancy of inspiration, Peter’s erring helps to establish the inerrancy. Save for inspiration errors such as that of Peter here at Antioch would have spoiled many a page of Scripture.

The assumption that every holy writer was constantly under inspiration in every word he uttered down to “Good morning!” and “How are you?” was infallible also in every act and movement, is contradicted right here. Inspiration is that act of God’s when he speaks through the voice or through the pen of chosen men (see Matt. 1:22). This is the Biblical definition. God spoke “at sundry times” (Heb. 1:1); then there was inspiration, then only. And then error was excluded, for God spoke “through” (διά) his human instrument.

Galatians 2:12

12 Paul explains what Peter did so as to make him stand condemned. For before certain ones came from James he went on eating in company with the Gentiles, but when they came, he began to draw back and to separate himself, fearing those of the circumcision. And there acted the hypocrite with him also the rest of the Jews, so that even Barnabas was carried away in their hypocrisy.

Here we have a graphic description of the situation brought about by the wrong action on the part of Peter. How long a time elapsed until certain ones from James arrived in Antioch we do not know, yet it was long enough to justify the imperfect: “he went on eating in company with the Gentiles,” i.e., the Gentile Christians. This occurred at the agape where the congregation dined together. All the members save the poor brought their own food. They dined in groups, families together with friends, many groups in natural formations. Until those from James arrived, Peter ate regularly with Gentile groups.

To understand this aright we must remember that these Gentile Christians had joyfully received the resolution of the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15:30–32) and brought no meat that had been a part of the sacrifices to idols, or had been taken from strangled animals, or food that was made with blood (Blutwurst). Their food was not kosher, but it complied with the omissions the conference asked in order to keep harmony between Jewish and Gentile church members. In their groups the Jewish Christians brought only kosher food such as they had always eaten. They, too, did this in entire Christian liberty, condemned no Gentile Christian for eating other kinds of food. Some Jewish groups perhaps also gave up kosher eating; some Jews and Gentiles ate together in certain groups just as Peter did.

All went well until some came to Antioch from James. “From James” is scarcely the same as “from Jerusalem.” These people were not sent by James, did not represent him. They were from the circle about James, in close association with him. When they came to the agape they naturally ate kosher as many Jewish Christians at Antioch did, which was their privilege, Paul hints at no disturbance that they made about Peter’s eating in Gentile groups. Paul pictures them as the innocent cause of Peter’s wrong action, for he says: “When they came,” Peter changed. He “began to draw back” from all Gentile groups, “began to separate himself” from these groups.

The inchoative imperfects are also descriptive; at the same time they point forward to the outcome mentioned in v. 14, to the aorist used there. Peter’s change was marked; all noted the reversal in his conduct. If he had eaten in Jewish groups in the first place as was his privilege, all would have been well; if at first he had only occasionally eaten with Gentile groups, it would not have been so bad. But to eat so long a time with Gentiles and then, the moment a few from the circle of James arrived, to eat only with Jews—that was bad.

What was the matter with Peter? He “feared those of the circumcision.” Peter turned coward. Fear made him act against his own better convictions. “Those of (the) circumcision” is a specific designation. It might refer to any Jewish Christian, Peter, Paul, Barnabas being among them. It is far narrower here and signifies the Judaizers, those at Jerusalem. Yet “certain ones from James” were not Judaizers; the very phrase “from James” forbids this idea.

For James presided at the conference and himself formulated the conference resolution which was adopted in order to disown the Judaizers, and which, when it was sent out, pleased the Gentile church at Antioch and all others exceedingly. Peter’s fear was that, on returning to Jerusalem, these friends of James’ might report that he ate steadily with the Gentile Christians in Antioch, that the Judaizers would get to hear of it and be enflamed against him. This was the brave Peter who was thrown into a panic in the courtyard at the time of the trial of Jesus. “They that were of the circumcision” (the same designation as here) had assailed him in Jerusalem after he had eaten with Cornelius (Acts 11:2, 3). At that time he had successfully defended his action.

One wonders why he should now be afraid of such Judaizers. Did he now intend to act prudently, to use his Christian liberty first in one way by eating with the Gentile Christians in Antioch and then in another way by eating only with the Jewish Christians? That was false prudence which was dictated by fear and not at all Paul’s principle of love (1 Cor. 9:19–23) but wretched concern for self. Fear produces strange actions. Calm reason must declare that Peter was wrong, totally wrong. Many wrong acts are devoid of a sensible, reasonable explanation.

So it is with Peter’s action on this occasion. The fact that an apostle like Peter should become guilty of a grave wrong at this time of his career should be a grave warning to us all (1 Cor. 10:12). It is a wonder that he did not lose his apostleship.

Galatians 2:13

13 The worst feature of his action was the evil effect it produced at Antioch. Why did Peter not fear that? He thought only of himself and of possible attacks from already completely discredited Judaizers. The position he held caused the other Jewish Christians, of whom there was a large number in Antioch, to act the hypocrite with him, i.e., to herd off by themselves at the agape and eat only kosher food. An evil rent was being made in the church. The whole question which had been settled at much pains in the Jerusalem conference, threatened to be opened again in a way that was worse than before. What must have pained Paul especially was the fact that even staunch Barnabas who, with Paul, had founded the Galatian congregations, who had been his fellow delegate to the conference, to whom he had been a bosom friend since Barnabas called him from Tarsus to Antioch, that even he should be carried away with the hypocrisy of all the rest (dative of means, R. 532, and not just after σύν in the verb). Ὥστε with the indicative is one of the two instances of this classic construction found in the New Testament to indicate actual result.

Peter, of course, did not set out to act the hypocrite, nor did the Jewish Christians of Antioch, nor did Barnabas. But Peter and those Christians did so act. Paul states the cold fact. He is more considerate with regard to Barnabas: their hypocrisy carried him away; he should have remained firm like his friend Paul. But that is the sad result when high and revered men head into a wrong course: they often sweep most excellent lesser men along with them. Barnabas is a warning to us. The church is full of great names that are still constantly quoted in support of some false doctrine, false practice, false principle, false interpretation. Their very names stop lesser men from testing what they advocate, and so they, like Barnabas, are carried away.

But is Paul not too severe when he labels their acts hypocrisy? Note that he deliberately uses the word twice, once the verb (an aorist at that!) and then the noun. This duplication serves notice that Paul means just what he says. These men acted as if they believed one thing when at heart they believed another. They all believed as Paul did, that all outward observances were unimportant as far as Christianity is concerned, but here they acted as if, after all, outward observances in regard to meat and drink were an essential, at least a very important thing in Christianity. Both verb and noun are used with reference to show acting; the ancient actors wore masks. These men were playing a part: their action was done for effect, it was thoroughly insincere.

But could Paul look into their hearts? He did not need to do that. At Jerusalem, Peter and Barnabas and the rest of the Antioch delegation had solemnly subscribed to the modus vivendi established for Gentile and for Jewish Christians; but here all of them were by their actions denying what they had solemnly affirmed and what the whole church at Antioch had heartily accepted. They acted as if eating with Gentile Christians was defiling and yet knew it was nothing of the kind, such a thing as ceremonial defilement no longer existed for them. Indeed, hypocrisy is the proper term. How could they stoop to it? All sins against better knowledge lack a rational explanation; they are committed against right reason, are irrational.

Galatians 2:14

14 Paul now states how he withstood Peter to his face. But when I saw that they did not walk uprightly with regard to the truth of the gospel I said to Cephas in the presence of all: If thou who art a Jew livest Gentile-like and not Jew-like, how compellest thou the Gentiles to eat Jew-like?

Paul did not act hastily; he waited until he saw things clearly. He had just stated when this moment came, namely when even Barnabas was carried away with the hypocrisy. Then it was, indeed, plain “that they are not walking uprightly.” The Greek does not change the present tense of the direct discourse to the past as we do after a main verb in the past. The verb is derived from ὀρθόπους, one with straight feet, who is able to stand and to walk accordingly. Πρός, face-to-face with the truth of the gospel, has the idea of comparison and of a reciprocity in this regard: their conduct did not match the truth of the gospel, nor did that truth match their conduct. The two were out of line, badly so. “The truth” of the gospel is its substance, the divine reality it embodies. This is one grand unit. Peter was in conflict with that truth and was putting others into danger.

Then Paul acted and did so effectively. He rebuked Peter, the one who was chiefly guilty, “in the presence of all.” Should he not have gone to Peter privately? We have found that men who have committed some grave error are very particular not to have those who rebuke them commit the least error in the place and in the manner of the rebuke otherwise they become the guilty ones and the errorists persecuted martyrs. Well, Paul gave Peter a public rebuke, public not as a deserved punishment for him but so that all might hear it for their own good. Even Pelagius says: Publicum scandalum non poterat privatim curari. Augustine, otherwise his opponent, agrees: Non enim utile erat errorem, qui palam noceret, in secreto emendare.

A public wrong is not to be corrected in private. We certainly do not hang our dirty linen in the front yard. It was Peter who sinned as a public man in a public way; he forced the public rebuke from Paul, he made it necessary that all should hear.

Paul puts his rebuke into the form of a question. He throws the onus of the answer on Peter himself. No legitimate answer can be given save one by which Peter condemns himself. Peter stood as having been condemned (v. 11), not by Paul and by what Paul now says, but by the Jerusalem conference in which Peter had taken a leading part. Paul merely asks Peter whether that is not the fact. The moment he asked this, Peter saw it, had to see it, and all the rest who were present likewise saw it.

It was masterly in every respect to use the question. But the point of importance in this epistle is the fact that Peter deflected from the gospel truth and not Paul. This the Galatians are to see. The Judaizers of Galatia tried to play Peter against Paul; such a procedure was farcical in view of what happened at Antioch. All Judaistic falsehoods which tried to use Peter as a shield are exposed by the episode at Antioch as they are already by what Peter did in conjunction with James and John at the Jerusalem conference (v. 9, 10). Here perishes the Catholic contention that Peter was the first pope, on which much more may be said.

Peter was a Jew by birth but had lived in Gentile fashion when, on first coming to Antioch, he had steadily eaten with the Gentile Christians. The present tense, “livest Gentile-like and not Jewish-like,” describes Peter’s conduct without reference to time. It was not the first time Peter had done this; he had done it years before this at Caesarea after that special revelation at Joppa when he remained at the house of the Gentile Cornelius. How often Peter had repeated this we do not know; he must have done so on a number of other occasions.

In the apodosis, which is put into the form of a question, the deduction to be drawn from the “if” clause at once advances to the ultimate deduction. Paul does not stop and ask, “How, then, canst thou now so significantly separate thyself from the Gentile Christians?” He leaps to the conclusion which this wrong conduct involves for all Gentile Christians: “How compellest thou the Gentiles to act Jew-like?” for that was what Peter was really doing.

Peter may not at this time have realized that his action involved so much; but it is undeniable when Paul now points this out to him. It often happens so: the judgment is beclouded in erring conduct. The decisive things which should be seen at once to make us recoil from such conduct are not seen or are placed into a false light. Then, too, many refuse to see when the true light is brought to bear upon them. Paul was right in speaking out publicly. If Peter did not now see, many, if not all the rest, would see. All the Gentile Christians who beheld Peter’s marked withdrawal, which was followed by that of the other Jewish Christians at Antioch, including even their pastor Barnabas, could not help but conclude that they, too, in order to be Christians in the full sense of the word, should henceforth, like Peter, stop living Gentile-like and live Jew-like. “Art compelling” refers to silent, moral compulsion which was, however, effective.

The wrong which Peter perpetrated was not that he at one time lived Gentile-like and at another time Jew-like. That was a matter of liberty. The revelation which he had received at Joppa did not imply that he was henceforth to live only Gentile-like. Paul became a Jew to the Jews, but note, only in order that he might gain the Jews, gain them for this truth of the gospel and its liberty (1 Cor. 9:20); he also did the same and for the same purpose with regard to the Gentiles. What the revelation granted him at Joppa made a wrong for Peter was any conduct that cast reflection on Gentile-like living. Of that conduct Peter had made himself guilty here at Antioch. “Those from James” were not guilty, nor does Paul in the least imply this. They exercised their liberty by eating kosher and thereby cast no reflection on Gentile Christians for eating otherwise.

Galatians 2:15

15 Is the section, v. 15–21, the continuation of the rebuke administered at Antioch or some reflections on that incident which Paul now adds as he writes about it? In support of the latter view we are told that σύ or ἡμεῖς do not occur in these verses. But the very first word is a plain “we” which is followed by an emphatic ἐγώ. The absence of a connective is to be expected. Paul paused after stating his question, and when Peter offered no answer as he, indeed, could not, Paul continued to speak.

The assertion that “stood condemned” in v. 11 requires no more than the pointed question of v. 14, is not convincing; all ordinary readers expect more, for Paul surely did say more. The fact that Paul reproduces at length what he said to Peter is certainly exceptional; but this entire incident is exceptional, in fact, this whole part of the epistle is so, for it is entirely historical. Just because it is historical, an extended discourse may be reproduced in it; histories abound in such discourses.

At Antioch, Paul stated the doctrinal principles on which his rebuke rested. Peter needed reminding, but so did all others. These principles were the main factor, “the truth of the gospel.” The fact that Paul did not interrogate Peter beyond that first painful question shows his consideration and his tact; yet in a fine way he includes Peter in ἡμεῖς, and when he uses ἐγώ he does it so as to voice what must be the conviction also of Peter and of every Jewish Christian.

Paul’s reproduction of just what he said at Antioch is admirably suited to the Galatians; this is just what they want to hear. Paul could not tell them anything that would be more necessary, for what Paul said to Peter contains the very gospel that both he and Peter preached, for which Paul was assailed, among the Galatians. Finally, the reproduction of the address delivered at Antioch is a perfect transition to the next part of the letter, which is entirely doctrinal.

First a solemn and a complete statement to which every truly believing Jew assents. We, by nature Jews and not sinners from the Gentiles, yet having come to know that a man is not declared righteous in consequence of work of law but only by means of faith in Jesus Christ, even we came to believe in Christ Jesus in order that we might get to be declared righteous in consequence of faith in Christ and not in consequence of works of law; because no flesh will be declared righteous in consequence of works of law.

We do not divide this sentence by supplying “are” with the first “we” and letting the second “we” begin a new sentence. The second “we” emphatically takes up the first one: “we—even we.”

“We on our part, by nature Jews,” characterizes Paul, Peter, and the other Jewish Christians according to their nationality. The apposition makes them “by nature Jews” (R. 532 dative of means) who were born so, trained so. Paul adds the contrast: “and not sinners from the Gentiles.” He uses the expression that was current among Jews who denominated all Gentiles ἁμαρτωλοί, “open, plain sinners.” The idea contained in this expression was the thought that the Jews strove after righteousness, something that did not occur to Gentiles. The Jews had their νόμος or law and labored to produce “works of law” in order thereby to become righteous; the Gentiles were ἄνομοι, devoid of this law. Paul is simply using Jewish language. He is not calling Jews saints and Gentiles sinners; he is not saying Jews are righteous, Gentiles not.

Who is righteous before God he says in the next breath. All he says is that we native Jews are not like the common run of Gentiles who are called “sinners” by Jews because they are not Jews.

Galatians 2:16

16 Δέ marks a contrast and singles out one class of native Jews, the believing, Christian Jews who “came to know that a man is not declared righteous ἐξἔργωννόμου, in consequence (as a result) of works of law but only by means of faith in Jesus Christ.” The participle is the ingressive aorist: they got to the point where they knew this. The gospel brought them to this point. Jews though they were who throughout their entire lives banked on the Mosaic law and on works of law as the source (ἐκ) from which to obtain true righteousness before God, they finally discovered their terrible mistake, namely, “that a man is never pronounced righteous (by God) as a result of works of law,” no matter how many of such works he may muster; they discovered that a man is not declared righteous thus “but only by means of faith in Jesus Christ.” In a succinct statement Paul formulates the old Jewish error which was so fatal to his nation and the simple gospel truth. “A man” is universal: be he Jew or Gentile, it is the German man. The Greek keeps the negative with the verb, a construction which we can imitate in English although our common idiom is: “no man (niemand) is justified.”

Here would be the place for a full discussion of δικαιοῦν and its cognates, which, however, would require many pages. We must refer the student to the best and the richest source: C.-K. 296 (δίκαιος), 311 (δικαιοσύνη), 317 (δικαιόω). See the author on Rom. 1:17. We content ourselves with a summary.

The passive δικαιοῦται has God as the agent. The verb, the noun, and the adjective are always forensic; so are the opposites; so are the synonyms, in Hebrew, in Greek, in the Old Testament, in the Apocrypha, in the New Testament. The sense is, “to declare righteous” and never, “to make righteous.” This is the sense in even secular statements. Always a judge is involved who pronounces a verdict. When the judge is God, the verdict establishes a relation to God and to his judgment, to his δίκη or norm of right. Αδίκαιος is “righteous” because God so declares in his judicial verdict. Δικαιοσύνη is the quality of “righteousness” possessed by him whom the heavenly Judge pronounces righteous. The passive is to be understood in the same sense: “to be pronounced righteous,” and is never converted into the middle “to become righteous.” True, some passive forms found in the Koine are to be understood in a middle sense; a few German commentators translate the passive gerecht werden and quote Luther in support of their translation. When certain modern interpreters translate δικαιοσύνη “uprightness” or “goodness,” or employ a term that denotes a virtue to be found in us and not a forensic relation established by God as the Judge in a verdict pronounced by him, they depart from the Scriptural use of this term and eliminate the central doctrine of Scripture.

Ἐκ pictures God’s verdict as arising out of works of law so that these would call forth the verdict in the court of God. In “works of law” neither noun has the article, which makes the quality of each stand out; the two are a practical compound, Gesetzeswerke. Paul is speaking of Jews, hence he has in mind the law of Moses and the corresponding works. Yet “works of law” is general, any law and any works of any law are included as being completely barren in eliciting a declaration of righteousness from God. The Jews of whom Paul speaks, “we,” including himself, have discovered this fact, hence no argument is necessary, and none is appended.

Ἐὰνμή is elliptical and is really a case of brachylogy (R. 1204) because it follows a negation. It states how alone a man is justified. The sense is offered by the translation of the American Committee of the R. V.: “but (or: but only) by faith.” The genitive is objective: “by faith in Jesus Christ.” Διά denotes the subjective means. Πίστις is a correlative term that involves the object on which faith or trust rests, which is here “Jesus Christ,” his person as the Savior together with his office and his redemptive work.

It should not be necessary to say that “faith in Jesus Christ” is wrought entirely by him who kindles this confidence by coming in contact with us through the gospel. The only means by which we may obtain the divine verdict in our favor is faith, fiducia, in Jesus Christ. He who comes before the judgment seat of God with Jesus Christ is instantly pronounced righteous. “We,” Paul says, “have come to know this.” Hence he adds no more.

What Paul has stated as a truth that he and the others came to realize he now restates in other words; in fact, he states the negative side two additional times: “not in consequence of works of law—not in consequence of works of law,” driving this fact in deeply. “Even we” emphasizes the thought that we Jews, we who once thought we had righteousness by works of law, became exactly like the sinners from the Gentiles who never knew anything about such works of law. “Even we,” just as they, “came to believe in Christ Jesus in order that we might be declared righteous in consequence of faith in Christ Jesus and not in consequence of works of law.”

“Came or got to believe” is the ingressive aorist and marks the first instant of faith; we may say the same regarding the aorist passive: “might get to be declared righteous.” In the former instance Paul used “faith” but now he uses the verb “we believed.” He turns his expressions over and over in order to make them register the more. “Once,” Paul says, “our trust rested in our own works of law, now all our trust has come to be utterly removed from all such works and rests only in Christ Jesus. Such Jews are we now.”

He even changes the phrase διὰπίστεως to ἐκπίστεως and thus makes it the exact opposite of the repeated phrase ἐξἔργωννόμου. See the exposition in Rom. 1:17. “Faith” is both means and source of justification. The latter should not be more startling than the former unless we still have a synergistic conception of faith. It is ever the contents of faith that justifies and saves, and never faith apart from its contents. It is the Christ in the faith and not the faith devoid of Christ. All the believing in the world secures nothing but damnation from the Judge, but the tiniest believing in Christ secures acquittal on the instant.

The Scriptures attribute everything to faith because they know only a faith that is filled with Christ, only a faith that is wrought by Christ. Now Paul writes “Christ Jesus,” office and person, the sense is the same.

So faith in Christ Jesus is the opposite of all works of law; they exclude each other: to be justified “as the result of faith” = to be justified not “as a result of works of law.” The two will not mingle. He who would put one foot on faith and the other on such works plunges into the gulf. Make Christ the bridge, all save the last inch, use works of law for that, and the bridge crashes the moment you step upon it.

Enough has been said, and yet Paul repeats once more as though enough cannot be said. Διότι = denn (B.-P. 310): “because (this fact stands forever) no flesh will be declared righteous in consequence of works of law.” This negative is so important because of Peter’s dangerous action. For the third time “works of law” are excluded; for the third time we have the verb “to declare righteous.” In all three instances the passive is used with God as the agent. The road to righteousness by way of works is triply barred.

The future “shall not be declared righteous” means that no case of this kind will ever occur although blind fools refuse to be convinced and try again and again. Instead of the previously used ἄνθρωπος we now have πᾶσασάρξ, which has the same sense but is more emphatic and emphasizes man’s frailty; we may translate “every mortal.” The Greek idiom construes the negative with the verb: “every flesh shall not be justified”; we negative the subject: “no flesh, no mortal shall be justified.” The negation in οὐ—πᾶς is absolute (R. 752). Is Paul quoting Ps. 143:2: “In thy sight shall no man living be justified”? He has no formula of quotation, and the words are not identical. It is enough to assume an allusion just as we also often use expressions that are more or less Scriptural.

We are perfectly satisfied to let Paul write: “Having gotten to know—we got to believe—in order that we might be justified.” That succession and that order are correct. In the case of adults it is always thus. We gain nothing by philosophizing, by letting Paul look back over his past life and by asking how and why he came to faith; for even then he is telling us his exact experience: knowledge—faith—purpose of the faith. No adult arrives at faith except through knowledge of the very fact here emphasized by Paul. And no adult believes except for the one purpose that he may be justified. To say that Paul speaks so but does not mean so is to employ dangerous language. True knowledge merges into faith, and faith’s vital intent is justification.

Galatians 2:17

17 In v. 15, 16 Paul states what we Jews discovered about works of law and about Christ; what we did, we left the works of law and believed in Christ. Why? So as to be justified, since no mortal can possibly be justified by works of law. Now there follows a thrust at Peter’s action and at that of Barnabas and the other Jews who followed their lead: If after all this we only dropped to the level of sinners like the Gentiles and now still have to go back to works of law, must we not then say this blasphemous thing that Christ has ministered nothing but sin to us? Do not Peter and the rest see that their present action necessitates this conclusion?

But if by (our) seeking to be declared righteous in connection (only) with Christ also we on our part came to be found (nothing but) sinners (after all), is Christ a minister of sin? Perish the thought!

The condition of reality argues the matter as though it were a fact although, of course, it is not. To put it thus makes the point clearer and stronger. The participle “seeking to be declared righteous in connection with Christ” repeats the preceding purpose clause: our believing “in order that we may be declared righteous in consequence of faith in Christ and not in consequence of works of law.” That was our purpose, that was what we were seeking. Paul has said that we were sure we should be righteous in that way by simply believing, by giving up all work of law.

But if, after all, we were mistaken, if our purpose was not attained, if our seeking did not bring us what we sought, if our connection with Christ (ἐν, by faith) did not get us declared righteous by God, if despite this our seeking “we were also ourselves found (nothing but) sinners,” we who once were Jews but had given up Jewish works of law and thus sank to the level of “the sinners from the Gentiles”:—what good, then, is Christ to us? “Is he (only) a minister of sin?” Is that all he amounts to? The very idea is blasphemous. “Perish the thought!” But this conclusion that Christ is only a minister of sin automatically follows if the action of Peter and of these other Jewish Christians is right, their action of separating themselves from the Gentile Christians who do not eat kosher and of eating only with those Jewish Christians who do. Then kosher eating and, of course, other Jewish observances have to be added in order that we may escape being such “sinners,” in order to be declared truly righteous by God. What a reflection on Christ! See what it makes of him! And we Jews believed that faith in him would get us the declaration of righteousness from God!

Most of the manuscript have the reading ἆρα, the interrogative particle; some have the reading ἄρα, “then” which marks a natural conclusion. The thought is the same; the question is more dramatic. The genitive in “a minister of sin” is objective. It does not imply that Christ ministers to sin as his master (διακονεῖντινί) but that he produces sin (διακονεῖντι) with his ministry. The thought is that he makes us do nothing but drop law and works of law so that we are “sinners” who are on the same level with the Gentile sinners who are called ἁμαρτωλοί by all Jews. We must construe together “sinners from the Gentiles” (v. 15)—“ourselves also sinners” (“also” like the Gentiles)—“of sin.”

Paul’s question is directed straight at Peter and those whom he was misleading, at what their action involved: that faith in Christ would not give them the righteousness they sought, would only make them the same as Gentile sinners, would turn Christ into a minister of sin. Here we have another instance in which Paul’s thought does not halt halfway but advances to the end, to Christ, to what Peter’s action makes of Christ.

We are told that this interpretation is wrong. From v. 15 onward Paul is writing in general terms; these verses do not contain what he said to Peter and to the rest at Antioch; if Paul is addressing anybody, the Judaizers are referred to. But Paul never stoops to argue with the Judaizers, he denounces them. That all of this belongs to Paul’s address at Antioch we have shown in v. 15. More serious is the assumption that Paul is speaking of what Jesus makes of every Jew before his justification, namely that he reduces all Jews to sinners like the rest of mankind. But then Paul ought to exclaim: “Thank God!” not: “Perish the thought!” If this makes Jesus “a minister of sin” in this general sense of revealing all men and thus also all Jews as sinners, Paul could not be shocked at the thought, in fact, he could not use the expression: “Perish the thought!”

In addition to this, by making Jews sinners in the general sense of the term sinners Jesus would bring them to salvation; for God justifies every contrite and believing sinner. No, no; Paul here speaks of believing Jews. If after believing in Christ they are found sinners, not merely sinning daily as Christians still commit sins that must be pardoned daily by God, but “sinners” as the Jews called all Gentiles “sinners” because they had no works of law: then, indeed, the awful conclusion follows that Christ is a minister of sin, that he reduces law-abiding Jews to the low level on which the Jews placed all Gentiles.

This question of Paul’s rests on Peter’s action in turning from all the Gentile Christians to live in Jewish fashion. If that is necessary, then all believing Jews are not justified, are only Gentile “sinners” until they do what Peter now did; and Christ would be nothing but “a minister of sin” who aided sin—frightful thought. In μὴγένοιτο we have the optative of wish, one of the few optatives left in the Koine: “May it not be!” in our idiom: “God forbid!” or “Perish the thought!”

Galatians 2:18

18 Paul explains with γάρ by stating the matter in a different way. Peter’s action would make all believing Jews nothing but Gentile sinners and Christ a minister of sin. But see what it would make of every apostle if Peter’s action is right, if every apostle should do likewise.

For if these very things which I tore down I start building again I prove mine own self a transgressor. For I on my part by means of law died to law in order that I might become alive to God.

“I” is unemphatic, being found only in the verb suffix; no contrast with another person or persons is intended. Paul uses the first person to soften the rebuke to Peter; hence he also uses the conditional form. The singular “I,” it seems, refers especially to an apostle, for his was the special work of tearing down and of building up. The condition is again one of assumed reality even as Peter was actually doing what is here stated. What is said fits Peter so accurately that Paul must be writing what he said at Antioch.

When Peter ate regularly with the Gentile Christians in Antioch he certainly tore down works of law, the conception that any Christian needed anything whatever besides faith in Christ for his justification by God; he held true to what v. 15, 16 say of all Jewish Christians when they came to faith. But when Peter turned back, separated himself so markedly from all Gentile Christians, and began to live strictly Jew-like (v. 14), he started to build up again (inchoative present tense) the identical things he had torn down. Actions speak louder than words. They spoke to the entire congregation at Antioch. Peter contradicted all that he had heretofore taught and done. He acted as though he had undergone a second conversion.

His action proclaimed that some Jewish ceremonial works were after all necessary—of course, also for Gentile Christians (v. 14b). Paul loves the figure of building and uses it aptly here.

Συνίστημι (some texts read συνιστάνω) = ich stelle dar, yet not in order to reveal what one really is or has in mind but to present and thus to prove and to establish what is otherwise doubtful or hidden. “I prove mine own self a transgressor,” i.e., of the law, means a guilty transgressor in all my previous action of tearing down. My present building it up again is proof positive of my past transgression. I should never have torn down, should never have relied on faith alone. Although Paul softens the rebuke by predicating it of himself, he nevertheless aimes it squarely at Peter. And Peter understood. If Peter now continued the course of conduct he had entered upon, he would be a Judaizer.

If he was afraid of the Judaizers (to be afraid of whom was foolish), Paul here points him to something of which to be afraid. “So,” Paul says, “thou now standest forth as having been a miserable transgressor of the law during all these past years and art now just coming out of thy long transgression! So this is the kind of apostolic builder thou art!”

Galatians 2:19

19 With the emphatic ἐγώ Paul now refers to himself. He for his part had not become a transgressor of the law in the sense in which Peter was now proving himself one. “For” adds as an explanation how he had used the law in order to be forever done with the law. The reference is to the three phrases used in v. 16: “not in consequence of works of law.” Paul states what he does with regard to himself, but every true Jewish Christian will second this as being equally true of himself. “I on my part by means of law died to law.” This is purposely paradoxical: “by means of law to law I died.” The thought is at the same time concentrated. Paul used law in order to be forever rid of law. Peter is not done with law, he has started to go back to it as though he had been a bad transgressor because he ever left it. Paul writes “law” without the article; R. 796 thinks that this refers to the Mosaic law. Anarthrous νόμος includes everything that is “law,” Mosaic or otherwise.

The right, the first and foremost use of law is to use it so as never to respond to it again, so as to die to it. Let law bring you to the realization of sin (Rom. 3:20), to despair that any and all work of law can ever do even the least toward securing God’s verdict of righteousness. Let law make you a sinner indeed and not merely in the sense of the self-righteous Jews who called Gentiles “sinners.” Let law make you give up all hope in law and by faith place all your hope in Christ Jesus. The moment you do that you are rid of law forever unless you blindly return to it as Peter was doing. You are dead to law. You are like a corpse, at which law can thunder with all its might and get in response not even the stirring of a finger or the flicker of an eyelash.

Why? Because you have found the righteousness of faith. Believing in Christ, you are justified, “justified from all things from which you could not be justified (even) by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:39). There is no verdict of condemnation against those in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). The servitude “under law” is ended. No master is able to give orders to a dead slave.

Of course, this is only the negative side which is never without the positive. Paul utters both in one breath: “Died to law in order to become alive to God.” His statement is again a paradox but gloriously true. This death makes alive. But note that the subjunctive is an aorist, punctiliar, to designate the moment in which the life enters. It is the moment of God’s acquittal, and that is the moment of faith, and that faith is life, spiritual life. Once kindled, that life goes on unless, like Peter, we again endanger it. “Alive to God” means in Christ Jesus, responsive to all God’s grace, children, sons in his household, etc.

Galatians 2:20

20 Paul adds only the main part of it. Verse 20 is an expanded and elucidative parallel to v. 19. With Christ have I been crucified; and there is living no longer I, but there lives in me Christ. Moreover, what I am now living in flesh, in faith I am living, the (faith) in the Son of God who did love me and did give himself up in my stead. In this way Paul died to law to become alive to God.

The first two sentences are phrased in mystical language, especially the first: “With Christ have I been crucified.” Symbolical language is something different. What occurred in a physical way in the case of Christ, Paul predicates of himself in whom it occurred in a spiritual way. We have no figure, no symbol, no verbal beauty, but concentrated facts.

Paul says more than that Christ was crucified for him, and that Christ’s crucifixion is regarded as though Paul himself had been crucified, or even as if all the benefits of Christ’s crucifixion were personally made Paul’s own. The spiritual effect produced in Paul is at once included: “crucified together with.” The interval of time is disregarded. Yet this difference remains: Christ’s crucifixion was sacrificial, vicarious; Paul’s crucifixion spiritual only, escape from law and sin and from the dominion of both. This concentrated predication rests only on the verity of this difference. Of course, the next step follows, the joint life. see Rom. 6:4 and the following mystical statements: entombed with, died with, living in. Note the force of the perfect tense “I have been crucified”: having been once crucified, Paul remains so, the effect is permanent.

This state of crucifixion is the state of death Paul entered when he died to law. Only by being crucified with Christ does one die to law. It is the one avenue of escape. Otherwise law has us by the throat and will destroy us. Σύν in the verb denotes faith, for it alone joins us to Christ crucified to be crucified “with” him.

Paul might have continued to use the same completely mystical language: “and with him have I been raised up.” He uses modified mystical expressions: “and there is living no longer I, but there lives in me Christ.” The first δέ is not adversative (our versions: “yet”), for this living is the normal effect of being crucified with Christ and not its opposite. The verbs are placed first, subjects last, both are emphasized. “And there lives no longer I”; Rom. 6:6: “our old man was crucified with him.” Paul was dead, his old personality was in the bonds of sin, vainly striving for righteousness by means of works of law.

It was the same Paul and yet not the same, the same being, yet one that was utterly changed. “No longer I” is true. Elsewhere the change is called the new birth, regeneration; here Paul says: “there lives in me Christ.” Christ, the Life, lives in Paul. By faith Christ fills Paul’s heart, soul, being. That means, first of all, Christ as Paul’s righteousness. His expiation on the cross became Paul’s own when he was crucified with Christ, and this expiation gave him God’s verdict of acquittal. Thus Christ lived in him. Secondly, Christ lives in him so that his mind and will ever respond to Christ in thought, word, and deed. The former is justification, this latter is sanctification, the two are never separated just as life and its manifestations always occur together and are inseparable.

“No longer I, but Christ in me,” is correct. “In me” is mystical. Hence he adds the further (δέ) entirely literal statement: “Moreover, what I am now living in flesh, in faith I am living,” etc. Paul is speaking of his life in the body since he was first crucified with Christ. The neuter “what I am living” is the whole of this life as it manifests itself day by day. The Greek needs no article with phrases such as “in flesh.” “Flesh” is used much as it was in v. 16, to denote our frail, mortal nature and earthly form of existence; here the word is not to be understood in the ethical sense. Paul’s whole present life is “in faith,” in this blessed sphere of trust.

He thinks and acts as faith ever guides and controls him. At one time this was the case; at one time he was dominated by law and works of law, his whole life was vain and empty.

The article adds the object of faith attributively: “the (faith) in the Son of God,” etc., the genitive being objective as in v. 16. The emphasis is first placed on the phrase “in faith” and secondly on “the Son of God,” etc. Here the wonderfulness of justifying faith becomes evident. This lies entirely in its object. We have had this named as “Jesus Christ”—“Christ Jesus”—and then “Christ.” Now his deity is added: “the Son of God.” Again and again Paul calls Jesus “the Son of God.”

Two participles are added with one article, thus indicating that the two acts belong closely together. The whole is thus a unit designation: who he really is and what he did. It was the Son of God, he that loved me and gave himself up in my stead. The all-sufficiency of his loving expiation is assured by the deity of his person. Both participles are aorists. The great, supreme act of his love is referred to when he gave himself over into death. Compare 1:4: “he who gave himself for our sins,” etc. The motive and the deed are combined.

Ἀγαπᾶν denotes the love of intelligence and comprehension coupled with corresponding purpose, the love with which God loved the world, John 3:16. This love sees the sinner in his doom and resolves to deliver him. It passes all human understanding. It moved God’s own Son to give himself up for us on the cross. This God’s Son did after he had become incarnate in our human nature. Here he is named according to his deity alone, and yet his dying on the cross is predicated of him, an act that became possible only by means of his human nature.

The Scriptures often speak thus. Without Matt. 1 and Luke 1 and 2 all these and other statements become incomprehensible. Yet some think that if Matt. 1 and Luke 1 and 2 can be discredited, the incarnation would be removed. It is woven clear through the New Testament and appears even in the Old. Remove those chapters from Matthew and from Luke, and we should have to supply their main substance from the rest of Scripture. Παραδίδωμι is the verb that is regularly used to designate this act of the Son’s self-sacrifice.

Here we have one of the numerous cases in which ὑπέρ plainly denotes substitution: “instead of me.” Translate, if you wish, “for me,” “in my behalf,” these phrases convey and must convey vicariousness, substitution. Linguistically this is settled by R. 632 and his The Minister and his Greek New Testament with its chapter on this preposition. In many connections an act cannot be for me or for my benefit unless it is so by being done in my stead. The statement that this latter thought must be expressed by ἀντί is unwarranted; in fact, the Greek prefers ὑπέρ although it may use either. Those who deny Christ’s substitutionary act do so in the face of ὑπέρ.

When Paul writes: who loved “me” and gave himself up “in my stead” he voices his own faith which appropriates to him personally this love and sacrifice. This is the very function of your faith and of mine. He loved me, he gave himself instead of me! This faith is forever done with the intolerable and hopeless burden of works of law; it rejoices in the certainty of justification and righteousness which is assured to it through Christ’s loving self-sacrifice.

Galatians 2:21

21 The closing statement clinches all that precedes. Not nullifying am I the grace of God. For if by means of law (there is) righteousness, then did Christ die for nothing.

Who is nullifying the grace of God, setting it aside, that grace which gave us the Son to die for us so that by faith in him we might be declared righteous? Who? Not Paul! We know who: Peter and those who were following his lead were beginning to make God’s grace void. Paul is not answering a charge made against himself; nobody in Antioch is charging anything against him. Paul is washing his hands of what Peter is doing. The stress is not on “I,” for which we have only the verbal ending, but on this nullifying: none of it for Paul.

The reason is mighty, indeed. If by means of any law whatever the quality of righteousness could in any way be obtained in a divine pronouncement and verdict, then (inferential ἄρα) Christ died for nothing, his death and sacrifice were unnecessary. Since the grace of God climaxes in the sacrificial death of his Son, if his death were for nothing, this grace would be abolished with a vengeance. That is what Peter was starting. That is what the Judaizers had finished. Either God’s grace is all, or it is nothing.

Either Christ’s death is all, or it is for nothing. If the verdict that one is righteous is gained by means of law, then law and works of law are the means and not Christ and his death. Paul states this thought in the negative. We may add the positive: Christ did die. It is impossible to believe that God’s Son should die for nothing. He died because no law could gain God’s acquitting verdict.

God’s grace is forever established by Christ’s death. Amen and Amen!

Paul says nothing about the effect produced by his action in opposing Peter face to face. He does not need to. Peter dropped his wrong course. His mistake was one of the moment, one of conduct and not one of principle. If Peter had rebelled, Paul would be compelled to say so. Paul is not lowering Peter’s standing in the eyes of the Galatians. But he is proving that he has the old, genuine gospel, proving it by showing that he had at one time to maintain it even against the Peter whom the Judaizers tried to make their patron. Now Judaizers, men who on principle nullified grace and Christ’s death, were trying to sweep the Galatians away to join in this nullification. Peter swiftly recovered from the first step in his wrong course. The Galatians would surely do the same.

R A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.