Paul is put to the sad necessity of defending to his children in the faith in Galatia the Divine authority of his gospel which he had preached to them. In chapter one he has thus far appealed to the well-known facts attending his conversion, and his subsequent movements, which all precludes the possibility of his having received his gospel from human sources. Now he proceeds to add yet more, and, if such were possible, even weightier proof.

      First of all--(the Galatians must have known all about this)--there was his journey to Jerusalem, when he and Barnabas, by the wishes of the church at Antioch, went up to settle the question concerning the circumcision of the Gentiles. (See Acts 15.) He went up at that time not only by request of the church, but "by revelation"--that is, he was so directed by the Lord Himself. And with him he took Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile brother--for a test-case as it were--into the very citadel of Jewish Christianity where "the Twelve" resided. Surely if there had been any such requirement as that Gentile Christians must be circumcised, an uncircumcised Gentile convert would not have been fellowshipped or even tolerated among the brethren at Jerusalem. They would certainly have insisted that Titus be circumcised. Did they? Far from it! No such demand was made or even suggested. How then could Judaizers come to distant Galatia and inform the Gentile brethren there that they must be circumcised? It was ridiculous. And that the Galatians would for a moment lend their ears to such teaching was a "marvel" indeed, and simply inconceivable. Paul could not understand it. (Gal. 1:6.)

      Nor was this all that happened at Jerusalem at that time. So far from receiving cautions and instructions from the apostles and leaders at Jerusalem, they recognized the truth and authority of Paul's gospel which he preached among the Gentiles; and the leaders of the church in Jerusalem--"they who were reputed to be pillars"--James, Cephas, and John, not only did not attempt to teach Paul anything (v. 6) but gave him the right hand of fellowship. (Verses 7-9.)

      And now another fact comes forth--a fact of tremendous bearing on this question. When Cephas (the apostle Peter) came to Antioch he became guilty there of a grave breach of conduct: he withdrew himself from the uncircumcised Gentile brethren, refusing to eat with them. This from the apostle Peter! Whatever in the world would have caused him to do such a thing as that? "When certain ones came down from James," we are told. Now James, the Lord's brother, was the chief leader and elder in the church in Jerusalem. But this was also the James that had counselled the Jewish brethren not to trouble them that from among the Gentiles turn to God--that is, not to trouble them by seeking to bind circumcision and law-keeping upon them (Acts 15:19). Did he now [12] send messengers with contrary instructions? Hardly, Those messengers from James, being intense Jews (Acts 21:20), no doubt took it upon themselves (as certain others before them had done in a similar matter, Acts 15:24) to press the eminent value and virtue (if not necessity) of circumcision upon the Gentile brethren. They had strong arguments in favor of their contention. Granting that the Gentiles were, like Abraham, saved by faith--yet, did not Abraham afterward receive circumcision, "a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had"? And was not Jesus Christ Himself circumcised, so also had been all His apostles? Circumcised believers therefore surely are of a higher pattern and standing than the uncircumcised. To super-add circumcision to faith gives the believer a place in the fellowship and the company of all the patriarchs and with Christ Himself and with the apostles and the early church of Jerusalem.

      That was a different plea from that of Acts 15:1 and 5, and harder to combat. It must have been some such appeal to the old prejudice and Jewish feeling of superiority that influenced Peter. At least he was afraid to stand out against those who had "come from James"--fearing what the brethren in Jerusalem and even James himself might say. Peter's error was not one of doctrine, but like that of many another weak man, the failure to act according to the high and holy principles, which, by the Spirit, he had himself taught and preached. And many Jewish brethren--including even good old Barnabas--followed Peter's example in drawing away from the Gentiles, as if they, the circumcised ones, were a superior sort of Christians who could not afford to associate on a common level with Gentile brethren.

      Paul saw at once that the truth of the gospel itself was imperilled by this movement; and since it was a public wrong it must be publicly rebuked, in the person of the most prominent sinner in the matter--the apostle Peter. Paul "withstood him to the face," and "before them all." His rebuke to Peter is given in full. It extends from the middle of verse 14 (Gal. 2) through verse 21.

      "If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? we being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor. For I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God."--Gal. 2:14-18.

      1. First of all he here exposes Peter's inconsistency. Peter had himself lived as the Gentiles--partaking of their food and associating with them (Acts 11:3). What now has happened that the Gentiles are no longer fit for his fellowship, and that (by action and example) he would try to compel them to come to Jewish standards?

      2. Secondly--he reminds Peter that he and all the Jewish brethren and the Gentiles were alike justified by faith and therefore stood [13] on the same level; and that (as Peter had himself taught, Acts 15:7-11) Jewish believers were to be saved in exactly the same way as the Gentiles. (Verses 15, 16.) That left not any room for Jewish superiority.

      3. Verses 17, 18 have occasioned much discussion. The simplest meaning, as I see it, is this--that if in all our trusting in the simple gospel for salvation for Jew and Gentile, we were wrong, did the simple faith in Christ leave us as sinners? To say so is to say that Christ is a minister of sin. For obviously, if I now go back to Jewish principles for salvation--I either did wrong when I left them and (by the gospel) destroyed them; or else I am doing wrong now if I try to build them up again.

      4. And now Paul sets forth his own position-which Peter can not deny, but cannot help consenting to. It is summarized in the following mighty words:

      "For I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me."--Gal. 2:19, 20.

Here Paul declares that through the law (that is, by the law's just verdict and sentence) he had died to the law, so that henceforth he might live unto God. (For there is no such thing as living unto God until one has first died to the law.) The question immediately arises, when, where, how, did this happen? When was death--the sentence of the law--executed upon him? The answer is given in the next verse. Not upon himself in person, but on Him who died for him and in his stead, was this death-sentence executed. When Paul was baptized into union with Christ, Christ's death became his own. (See Rom. 6:2-4.) He was crucified with Christ: it was no longer he (his old self) that lived, but henceforth only Christ lived in him; and the earthly life which he now lived, he lived in faith--"the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me." This, and not circumcision, makes up the real and true Christian life.

      5. One more word, the apostle now adds: "I do not make void the grace of God." Now the grace of God is God's free acceptance of us in Christ. As a principle of acceptance and salvation it is directly opposed to "works," in the sense of human merit and desert. "If it is of grace it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace." (Rom. 11:6; see also 4:4, 5; Eph. 2:8, 9.) "It is the mark of heathen religions," said Sir Monier Williams, "that they one and all hold out salvation only to those who by works attain to it. All their devotees therefore are bent on acquiring merit." Now if circumcision is something man must perform to make himself acceptable to God (or something he must add to make his acceptance complete)--then is the grace of God made void. If it is by works or ritual of law that righteousness is attained, then Christ died in vain. For why, if man by aught that he could do could make himself righteous in the sight of God, why should Christ have to [14] come down from heaven and die for us? "If we could have been saved at any less price," said Martin Luther, "what needed the Son of God to be given?"-- Thus by the unfaithfulness of his course and conduct, did Peter sin against the cross of Christ and make void the grace of God. And thus did Paul uphold the claims of the free gospel against that weak apostle, to his face. [15]

[PLG 12-15]