Pulpit Commentary - Galatians 2:1

Pulpit Commentary - Galatians 2:1 - 2:21

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Pulpit Commentary - Galatians 2:1 - 2:21

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

2:1 - 2:21

EXPOSITION

In the preceding chapter, St. Paul has been concerned to make clear the position that neither the gospel which he preached nor the commission which he held was derived from the older apostles- the history of the first years of his ministry showed this. The apostle is now addressing himself to a different subject; he wishes to show that his gospel, though not derived from the older apostles, had, however, while recognized as standing on an independent footing, received the sanction of their approval. This being his object, he had no occasion to refer in any way to visits which he may have made to Jerusalem between the one mentioned in Gal_1:18 and the one here referred to. The tenor of his argument, therefore, so far, does not of itself determine whether this visit was either the one mentioned in Act_11:30; Act_12:25, or the one described in Act_15:1-41., or possibly some other not recorded. That, however, it was in reality that of Act_15:1-41. rather than that of Act_11:1-30., 12., hardly admits of a doubt, if we compare the circumstances here related with those which marked the condition of Church affairs at Jerusalem on the two occasions severally as described by St. Luke. The imprisonment of St. Peter and the whole state of distress presented to us in Act_12:1-25. make it well-nigh inconceivable that any such incidents should have then occurred as St. Paul here speaks of; while, on the other hand, the question agitated on the occasion described in Act_15:1-41. corresponds precisely in character with the mutual relations here described as subsisting between St. Paul and the believers of the circumcision with their leaders. What St. Paul here relates fits in very naturally into the circumstances related in Act_15:1-41., though the situation is looked at from different points of view. "I went up again," he says; not, "I went up a second time."

The chapter falls into two sections. Of these, viewed in their leading purport, the first (Act_15:1-10) exhibits the recognition formally accorded to St. Paul's gospel and work by the highest authorities of the Church of the circumcision; the second (Act_15:11-21) displays in a very stalking light the independence and co-ordinateness of his position when standing face to face with the very chiefest of the apostles. But while these seem to be their leading objects, we find the apostle weaving in, after his manner, trenchant references to other matters relevant to the main purpose of the Epistle, and even enlarging upon them.

Gal_2:1

Then fourteen years after ( ἔπειτα διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ῤῶν ); then after a space of fourteen years. Beckoned from when? Many think from the visit mentioned in Gal_1:18; others, from the time of his conversion. At first sight, the former seems the more obvious view; but fuller consideration determines for the latter. The apostle lays stress upon the interval being so long; as if it were, "It was not less than fourteen years after, that a conference took place between me and the older apostles relative to the gospel which I preach; during all which time I was preaching it on a footing independent of them." There appears no other motive than this for his specifying the number of years. This being so, the specification would naturally at once include the whole period during which he had been so engaged, and not leave it to the reader to add the two or three years which had elapsed before the visit mentioned Gal_1:18. I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas ( πάλιν ἀνέβην εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα μετὰ Βαρνάβα ). It is questionable whether this "again" covers the clause "with Barnabas," or not. We assume with confidence that this visit to Jerusalem is the one described in Act_15:1-41. We know, therefore, that there had been at least one journey to Jerusalem previously taken by St. Paul in conjunction with Barnabas, viz. that of Act_11:1-30., 12. We know also that he had been in close association with Barnabas in that first visit to Jerusalem mentioned above in Gal_1:18 (comp. Act_9:27); it is very possible that they had then come up in company. Now, so affecting was the interest for St. Paul with which both these visits were fraught, the one on his own account, the ether on account of the distress then suffered by the Church, that we may feel certain that, in the careful review he is now taking of the past, both of them would most vividly recur to his recollection; so vividly that it is quite conceivable that he was writing to the Galatians of his "going again to Jerusalem with Barnabas," with allusion to those two former visits, though he has not before named Barnabas's name in connection with that one which alone he has spoken of. If this view is not admitted, we must suppose a comma present after "Jerusalem" And took Titus with me also; or rather, perhaps, and took in our company also Titus ( συμπαραλαβὼν καὶ Τίτον ) The σὺν in συμπαραλαβὼν seems to allude to the others whom Paul and Barnabas, as mentioned in Act_15:2, took with them on that journey. So also in Act_12:25 and Act_15:37; for in these two passages we are not to suppose that John Mark is named as being their sole companion, but rather that he is specified only in preparation for what has afterwards to be told concerning him. In Act_15:39 παραλαβόντα without the σὺν simply indicates that Mark was with Barnabas, without reference to others who may or may not have been with them. The singular number of the participle, συμπαραλαβών , appears to indicate a certain footing of independent action which St. Paul had by this time gained for himself, even when viewed in relation to Barnabas: Paul himself attached Titus to the company, At any rate, it needs to be noted that St. Paul speaks of himself as simply "going up with Barnabas," not as "taking Barnabas with him;" for it would be a misconception alike of the import of the words before us, and of the relative position as yet outwardly obtaining in public action between the two men, to think of Paul as the leader and chief organizer of the accompanying party and of Barnabas as subordinate to him. The higher apostolate of Paul was at that time only in process of manifestation, not as yet fully realized in the Church (see Introduction, Dissertation II.). Nothing is known of the antecedents of Titus, save that he was a "Greek" (verse 3), both his parents apparently being Gentiles, and that St. Paul, in designating him in the Epistle addressed to him (Tit_1:4), as his "true child" ( γνήστον τέκνον ), seems to mark him out as a convert of his own; while the manner in which he is here named to the Galatians suggests the surmise that he was no stranger to themselves. The apostle may be supposed to have secured his being appointed by the Antiochian Church to be one of the deputation to Jerusalem, both that he might be a representative of the Church of the uncircumcision, and on account of his great moral fitness to take part in the delicate and critical business then on foot. About the time the apostle wrote this letter to the Galatians, he was much employed by him, being entrusted with missions, which, like that earlier one, required especial firmness and discretion tempered with truly Christian sentiment (of. 2Co_2:13; 2Co_7:6, 2Co_7:13-15; 2Co_8:16, 2Co_8:22; 2Co_12:18. See Mr. Phillott's article on "Titus" in Smith's 'Dictionary of the Bible').

Gal_2:2

And I went up by revelation; or, and I went up in accordance with a revelation ( ἀνέβην δὲ κατὰ ἀποκάλυτιν ). The form of sentence in the Greek is similar to that(e.g.) in Joh_21:1; Rom_3:22; Jas_1:6 : a word of the preceding context is taken up afresh for the purpose of being qualified or explained. Revelations were frequently made to the apostle, both to communicate important truths (Eph_3:3) and to direct or encourage his proceedings. They appear to have been made in different ways: as, through dreams or visions (Act_16:9, Act_16:10; Act_18:9; Act_22:18-21; Act_27:23); through prophets (Act_13:2; Act_21:11); often, no doubt, through a strong impulse borne in upon his spirit, prompting him to, or debarring him from, some particular line of conduct (Act_16:6, Act_16:7). The journey now in question being that recorded by St. Luke (Act_15:1-41., init.), we have to observe that St. Luke ascribes his going to a decision come to by the brethren at Antioch (Act_15:2). But there is no discrepancy here. It is an obvious supposition, that the apostle, taking into consideration, perhaps, the prejudice entertained against him at Jerusalem, not only, as Christ had himself intimated to him, by the unbelieving Jews (Act_22:18), but, as James later on confessed, by even the members of the Church itself (Act_21:21; comp. on both points, Rom_16:1-27 :31), felt at first some hesitation in accepting the commission; was he by going likely to forward their views?—but that his hesitation was overruled by Christ himself, who in some way revealed to him that it was his will that he should go. Similarly, when visiting Jerusalem for the first time after his conversion, his hasty departure from the city is attributed by St. Luke to the care of the disciples for his safety (Act_9:25); whereas St. Paul, in his speech from the stairs, ascribes it to a" trance," in which the Lord appearing to him bade him to depart thence without delay (Act_22:17, Act_22:21) The two accounts in each instance are mutually supplementary, the one viewing the case historically from the outside, the other as an autobiographical reminiscence from within. The apostle's reason for thus pointedly mentioning the especial direction under which he took this journey, had evidently reference to its being the design of Christ, that thereby, together with other objects to be subserved by it, the doctrine and ministerial work of Paul should be sealed with the recognition of his first apostles and of his earliest Church—a result of prime necessity for the prosperous development of the whole Church; more important, perhaps, than even its more ostensible result as described by St. Luke. And communicated unto them ( καὶ ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς ); and I laid before them. The verb occurs in the New Testament besides only in Act_25:14, where it means simply giving the king an account of Paul's case with the view apparently of getting his opinion upon it. In the present case St. Paul stated his doctrine to the persons referred to, with the view likewise of seeing what they would say; but certainly not with any intention of having it modified by their suggestions (cf. the use of ἀνέθετο in 2 Macc. 3:9, which presents a curiously similar conjunction of particulars). By them, i.e. those there, are obviously meant, not the inhabitants in general, but the Christians of the place, though not immediately before mentioned. We have the like use of the pronoun in Act_20:2; 2Co_2:13. That gospel which I preach ( τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ κηρύσσω ). The present tense of the verb points to the whole period of his ministry up to the time at which he was writing. It is implied that his teaching had been the same all along. Elsewhere he styles it "my gospel" (Rom_2:16; Rom_16:25; 2Ti_2:8). Among the Gentiles ( ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι ); alluding to the complexion of his doctrine as bearing upon the acceptance of Gentiles before God simply upon their faith in Christ (cf. Eph_3:1, Eph_3:6, Eph_3:8). But privately ( κατ ̓ ἰδίαν δέ ). The phrase, κατ ̓ ἰδίαν , occurs sixteen times besides in the New Testament, always in the sense of privately, apart. To them which were of reputation ( τοῖς δοκοῦσι ); them who were of repute; men eminent in repute and position. The phrase, οἱ δοκοῦντες , was used in this sense both in classical Greek and in the later "common dialect". There is no reason to suppose that there is any tone of disparagement in the phrase, as if the persons spoken of "seemed" to be more than they really were. The apostle repeats this participle thrice in the following context—once (2Co_2:6), as here, absolutely; and twice (2Co_2:6, 2Co_2:9) with an infinitive. This harping upon δοκοῦντες suggests a surmise that St. Paul's gainsayers in Galatia had been fond of using the expression to designate the persons referred to in disparagement of himself as a man comparatively of no mark. Compare the almost mocking reiteration of "superlatively chief apostles," in 2Co_11:5 and 2Co_11:12. l 1, referring to "pseudo-apostles." In order to determine who were the persons the apostle thus distinguishes, we naturally refer to St. Luke's account of the circumstances. St. Luke, then, seems to speak of three several meetings held on this occasion. The first (in verse 4) when Paul and Barnabas with their fellow-deputies, were "received by the Church and the apostles and the elders;" when "they [Paul and Barnabas] declared what great things God had done in co-operation with them." It cannot have been then that St. Paul gave this exposition of his gospel. But certain of the Pharisees who had joined the Church began loudly to insist upon the necessity of Gentile converts being circumcised and conforming to the Law. Whether it was at this first meeting itself that this took place, or subsequently, at all events "the apostles and the elders" judged it to be undesirable that the matter should be further discussed in so large an assemblage of the circumcision, before, in the calmer atmosphere of a private conference, they had themselves considered what course it would be best to adopt. Accordingly, St. Luke tells us (verse 6), "the apostles and the elders came together to see about this matter." "After much discussion had taken place," which upon a question so closely touching the Jew's national sensibilities must even in this more select body have been fraught with no ordinary excitement, the rising passions of controversy were stilled by Peter; he recalled the story of Cornelius, and founding thereupon, he warned his hearers, that by imposing, as many perhaps even of those then present were wishful to do, the intolerable yoke of Mosaism upon the neck of the Gentile disciples, they ran the risk of contravening and provoking God; for after all (he significantly reminded them), their own hope of salvation, as well as the hope of Gentile believers, was that they would be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus. Thereupon the "whole company" ( πλῆθος , in verse 12, is used by St. Luke in the same way as in his Gospel (Luk_23:1) when speaking of the Sanhedrin; the eldership of the very large Church of Jerusalem must of itself, without the doubtful addition of elders from Judaean towns, have formed a considerable body) listened with hushed and respectful attention to Paul and Barnabas, while they gave a detailed account of what great signs and wonders God had wrought amongst the Gentiles through them. After this, upon James's proposition, "the apostles and the elders" came to the resolution that, in conjunction with the whole Church, they would choose and depute certain members of their community to convey to the Gentile brethren a certain letter, which very probably (cf. as to diction, verses 17, 23, with Jas_2:7; Jas_1:1) James himself, as presiding in their meeting, with the concurrence of the apostles and the elders, drew up. The words," with the whole Church," coming in here for the first time since verse 4, indicate a third meeting, in which the general body of believers was prevailed upon to concur in the measures before agreed upon in the second more private meeting. According to the more approved reading of verse 23 (omitting the καὶ before ἀδελφοί ), the letter issues from "the apostles and the elder brethren" alone, as these also were the persons with whom (verse 2) the deputation from Antioch had been sent to confer. Now, upon the review of all the circumstances as now stated, the second of these three meetings would seem to have presented just such an opportunity as would suit the design which St. Paul had frowned, of expounding his teaching to the leading spirits in Jerusalem. When he and Barnabas were relating those signs and wonders by which the seal of Divine sanction had been put upon their ministry among the Gentiles, it was natural that Paul, here no doubt, as generally "the chief speaker," should tell their hearers with the utmost distinctness what that teaching was which Heaven had thus ratified; most especially that part of it which was so directly relevant to the practical question which was then in debate, and which is so emphatically set forth in the Epistles to the Galatians and the Romans—to wit, that all who believe in Christ are justified and have full peace and sonship with God without any works of Mosaical ceremonialism. This was precisely "the gospel" which here (verse. 2) he speaks of as "preached by him among the Gentiles" "The apostles and the elders" answer perfectly to the description of οἱ δοκοῦντες . For there is no reason for supposing that the οἱ δοκοῦντες of verses 2 and 6, or the οἱ δοκοῦντες εἶναί τι of verse 6, represent exactly the same persons as the οἱ δοκοῦντες στύλοι εἶναι of verse 9. These last are to be conceived of rather as representative of those larger bodies of men recited in tile former three references—"James" representing the elders (for the present writer makes no question but that this James "the Lord's brother" was the presiding officer or Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, and not one of the twelve apostles), and "Cephas and John" representing the twelve, who may be believed to have been all of them at Jerusalem at this time, though these two, certainly the leading ones, are the only ones whose names there happened to be occasion for specifying. Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain ( μή πως εἰς κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον ). The comparison of 1Th_3:5 ( μή πως ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς ὁ πειρὰζων καὶ εἰς κενὸν γένηται ὁ κόπος ἡμῶν ) shows that τρέχω is the subjunctive. The present tense, lest I should be running, points to the time of which he is writing and the time onward therefrom. In classical Greek it would have been τρέχοιμι . The use of the verb τρέχω , "run," "rush on," a favourite word with the apostle, well characterizes the zealous forward, speeding manner of his activity. "In vain;" to an empty result; for no good. He intimates that there had been a danger lest the fruits of his earnest work among the Gentiles, might through some cause get wrecked. That this is what he means is clear from 1Th_3:5 just cited; and not that there had been any fear lest he might himself have been somehow mistaking his way; most especially, not lest he had been at all mistaken in the doctrine which he taught, a thing which he does not for one moment imagine. His work would have been in danger of being spoilt if the Gentile Churches as planted by himself had been disowned or discountenanced by the mother Church, or if they had got split up into factious parties by the intervention, e.g. of persons coming "from James," telling them that they were not in a state of salvation. To guard against this danger, he was led by Christ himself to seek a formal recognition of his doctrine by the apostles and the elders of the Jerusalemite Church, and through them by that Church itself. As the rank-and-file of the Jewish believers at Jerusalem were even bigotedly attached to the Mosaic Law, and also regarded St. Paul himself with great suspicion, he might very easily have failed of gaining the recognition he required, if he had at once brought the matter before the general body. If their spiritual leaders had not first come forward in the cause of truth, it was but too probable that some fanatical Mosaists would have gained the ear of the multitude, and hurried them away in a course of headlong opposition to Paul and his teaching, from which it might have been very difficult afterwards to recall them.

Gal_2:3

But ( ἀλλ ) ); and yet. "Though I explicitly stated to the leading men in the Church of Jerusalem what I taught respecting the relation of Gentile converts to circumcision and the Mosaic Law, yet in the end they, by their support, enabled us to withstand the pressure which was for a while applied for getting Titus circumcised.'' Neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised ( οὐδὲ Τίτος ὁ σὺν ἐμοί Ἕλλην ὢν ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι ); not even was Titus who was with me, being a Greek, compelled to be circumcised. This, St. Paul intimates, was a crucial case. Titus was a Gentile pure; not (like Timothy) having one parent of Jewish extraction and therefore capable of being identified with the Jewish people, but Gentile-born of both parents. The clause, '"who was with me," after verse 1, was quite unnecessary for mere definition; in fact, it is not added for definition, but to mark the close association with an uncircumcised Gentile which the apostle openly displayed at Jerusalem. He took him with him, we may suppose, when he came before the Church at its public assemblies; when he appeared before the select meeting of the apostles and elders; when he joined the brethren in the agapae and the Lord's Supper—occasions of fraternal communion, in which the presence of a "dog," "an uncircumcised Greek," would be tenfold obnoxious. We cannot, by the way, but marvel at St. Paul's great courage in thus acting. Not only was this paraded fellowship with Titus sure to give deep offence to the vast majority of his Christian brethren, but it might also well expose him to serious personal risks among the highly inflammable populace of the city. At Jerusalem his "soul was among lions." The two clauses, "who was with me, being a Greek," illustrate the "not even." Openly displayed as was Titus's companionship with St. Paul before the eyes of all the Jews, both believers and unbelievers,and Gentile as he was known to be, yet not even in his case was circumcision persistently insisted upon. The aorist tense of ἠναγκάσθη is significant of the ultimate result; it implies that an attempt was made to get Titus to submit to the rite, but failed. We must observe that St. Paul does not write,"I was not compelled to circumcise Titus," but "Titus was not compelled to be circumcised." This appears to make a material difference. By putting it as he has done, the apostle intimates that it was to Titus himself that the pressure was applied. Titus was plied, we may suppose, with theological argument, with appeals to his brotherly sympathies, with appeals to his prudent care for public peace, with threats of social and religious excommunication, and with stern, indignant remonstrance. But sustained, as he all through knew himself to be, by at least St, Paul, if not also by his fellow-deputies, he through it all maintained his firm stand upon his liberty. The "we" of the εἴχαμεν in verse 5, no doubt, includes at least Titus. The question, however, arises—Who were they that for a while endeavoured to force circumcision upon Titus? The converts from the sect of the Pharisees, mentioned by St. Luke (Act_15:5), are naturally the first to occur to our minds. But the moulding of the sentence in the next verse discountenances this solution. We cannot help identifying the "false brethren" there spoken of with just those very Pharisean converts—men who had simply thrown the cloak of professed Christian discipleship over the old Pharisean legalism still wholly clung to. But if we suppose this, we cannot imagine that the writer would have said that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised "by reason of those false brethren," if these had been the very persons alluded to as having tried to compel him. It is more probable that the persons alluded to were certain influential members of the Jewish Church, with a strong body, perhaps, of the elders of that Church, having possibly the concurrence even of James and of Cephas. James and the elders, on a later occasion (Act_21:18-26), urged Paul himself to undertake the performance of certain Mosaical observances, with the view of conciliating the believers of Jerusalem. It is, therefore, quite supposable, at this earlier and as yet immature stage in the development of the practical application of the evangelical doctrine, that Titus was now being dealt with in a somewhat similar manner. But whoever they were that were doing it, it is plain that, in effect, they were working towards the same practical result as the most eager of the Mosaist legalists, only by a different mode of approach. Titus in particular was fastened upon for this assault, apparently because St. Paul had brought him with him as a crucial instance whereupon to try the general question.

Gal_2:4

And that because of false brethren unawares brought in ( διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους ); and that because of the false brethren without warrant brought in. The conjunction δὲ often is not adversative, but only introduces a fresh thought of a qualifying or explanatory character (comp. ἀνέβην δὲ and κατ ἰδίαμ δὲ of Gal_2:2). The rendering of our English Version represents the connection with the preceding sentence quite correctly. The designation, "false brethren," after the analogy of "false apostles," "false prophets" ( ψευδαπόστολοι , ψευδοπροφῆται , 2Co_11:13; 2Pe_2:1), were those who were not really brethren in Christ, but had superinduced the profession of such over a state of mind radically incompatible with it; not children of God through faith in Christ Jesus," but only simulating faith in Christ; outwardly "baptized into Christ," but not inwardly, and therefore not really. The loud demand which those false brethren were making, that all Gentile converts should be circumcised, was distinctly rested by them upon the principle that otherwise those converts were not qualified for sonship in God's family or for admission to Church fellowship with, at any rate, the believing circumcision. This demand of theirs, made upon this pernicious principle, it was that had raised the present controversy, and had brought Paul and his fellow-deputies to Jerusalem. If, under such circumstances, Titus, with St. Paul's concurrence, had consented to be circumcised, then, whatever the motive of his consenting, it would have seemed to those false brethren, and not to them only, but indeed to the Church at large, that all had agreed in recognizing the soundness of that principle of theirs that circumcision was indispensable for perfect Divine acceptance. This consideration, we may believe, Titus and St. Paul now urged upon those who, not themselves alleging that principle, nor even allowing it to be true, yet, on other grounds, were recommending and pressing for Titus's circumcision. And the argument prevailed with them. They withdrew that pressure of theirs, and consented to leave Titus to stand there before the Church and the world, a claimant of full admission to all Christian fellowship while still in uncircumcision. It was those false brethren themselves, then, that made it impossible at the present juncture that those who held fast to the truth of the gospel should accept counsels of compromise or conciliation. In matters of indifference ( ἀδιάφορα ) there is a time for conciliation—this no one could ever be more ready to see and act upon than St. Paul; but there is also a time for the unbending assertion of truth, and the clamours of the false brethren made the present to be one of the latter kind. In that particular juncture of Church development, the doctrine itself of the absolute justification of men through faith in Christ was at stake. If Titus was not qualified for Christian fellowship by simply his faith in Christ, then neither was he qualified for acceptance with God by simply his faith. Without warrant brought in. In the compound verbal παρεισάκτους , the preposition παρὰ , appears to point, not so much to the manner in which they had been brought in, as e.g. stealthily, craftily, as to the circumstance that they had no business to be brought in at all; they were an alien brood. The Greek glosselogists, Hesychius, Photius, and Suidas, render it ἀλλότριος , i.e. alien. In 2Pe_1:1, παρεισάξουσιν αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας , reference is made to the alien character of the teaching spoken of. The apostle's feeling is that men who do not accept the truth that through faith in Christ we are justified, and through faith only, have no proper place in the Church of Christ (comp. Gal_5:4, Gal_5:5). If the question be asked—Who brought them in? the parable of the tares suggests the answer—The devil. Who came in privily ( οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον ); a set of men who without warrant came in. The preposition παρὰ in the verb has the same force as it has in παρεισάκτους . So also in παριεσέδυσαν (Jud_1:4). To spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus ( κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ); to spy out that liberty of ours which, etc. These men had come into the Church prepared to detect and to regard with the keenest dislike anything, either in doctrine or in Church action, which would infringe upon their own legalism, and to wage war upon it. For this notion of hostile intent is strongly suggested by the verb "to spy out" (cf. 2Ki_10:3; 1Ch_19:3; and κατασκοπεῦσαι in Jos_2:2). The infinitive (of purpose), viewed in reference to the men themselves, can be understood only of their disposed-ness to make this use of their membership; for they can hardly be supposed to have entered into the Church for that definite object; but the apostle views them as emissaries of the great enemy; Satan's design thus to wage war with our gospel liberty is by a bold figure ascribed in this infinitive to his instruments. This liberty means the whole spirit of freedom which faith in Christ imparts to the Christian, including, for one thing, his emancipation from the yoke of ceremonialism, but containing also more. That they might bring us into bondage ( ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλῶσουσιν [Receptus, καταδουλώσωνται ], The reading of six of the uncial manuscripts is καταδουλώσουσιν ; of three, σωσιν ; of one, - σωνται . The variation in the mood of the verb is immaterial; for the construction of ἵνα (of purpose) with an indicative, though strange to the eye of the student of classical Greek, is not foreign to the writers of the New Testament; but the variation in the voice affects the sense. Καταδουλώσωνται would mean "bring into bondage to themselves," which most probably is not the writer's meaning; he apparently means:rather, "deprive us of our liberty by enslaving us to the Law" (cf. ch. 4:25; 5:1). The simple verb δουλόω , occurs repeatedly; the compound καταδουλόω here and in 2Co_11:20, intensifies the sense: degrade us into slavery.

Gal_2:5

To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour ( οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν ) To whom; i.e. to the false brethren; not the persons immediately referred to in Gal_2:3 as seeking to compel Titus to be circumcised. These last used advice and persuasion; the false brethren demanded with clamour ( δεῖ , Act_15:5). The phrase rendered for an hour occurs also Joh_5:35; 2Co_7:8; Phmon 2Co_1:15. There seems to be an underlying allusion to those occasions on which the apostle did, as he says, "to the Jews become as a Jew, to the weak, weak" (1Co_9:20, 1Co_9:22); but this he would not do when dealing with false brethren, whose aim was in effect to turn gospel freedom into legal slavery. We; I, Barnabas, Titus. The words οἶς οὐδὲ most certainly belong to the original text. Not merely does only one uncial manuscript omit them, but their omission would leave behind a sentence self-convicted of absurdity. For it would run thus: "But because of the false brethren without warrant brought in, a set of men who without warrant came in to spy out our liberty, that they might degrade us into slavery, we yielded for a season with subjection, that the truth of the gospel might lastingly abide with you;"—yielded, i.e. by circumcising Titus; for this is what this reading most probably supposes St. Paul to have done. In this sentence the vituperative description of the false brethren, so extended and so intensely emphatic, instead of being an implied argument in favour of the course of action which the apostle states he adopted, namely, concession to those men, both lacks all motive for its introduction here, and works wholly in favour of the opposite course, of resistance to their wishes. The only suitable and logical description of those for whose sake the concession would have been made would have been that they were brethren meaning well, but weak in the faith, who should, by concession for a season, be won over to more perfect accord with the gospel. By subjection ( τῇ ὑποταγῇ ): in the way of subjection. As ὑποταγὴ In the other passages in which it occurs means the habit or spirit of subjection, and never an act of submission (cf. 2Co_9:13;! Timothy 2Co_2:11; 2Co_3:4), it probably denotes here subjection of spirit to those who were so authoritatively laying upon us their injunctions, tie might give way in a point of this kind in a spirit of brotherly concession; but he would bow to no man's imperative injunction. The article before ὑποταγῇ is the article before an abstract noun, as in τῆς ἀγάπης (Gal_5:13); τῇ ἐλαφρίᾳ (2Co_1:17). That the truth of the gospel ( ἵνα ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ). The truth, the sure unadulterated doctrine, which is embodied in the gospel, and is its very hinge and substance. The same phrase is found in Col_1:5. The "truth" is that enunciated in Col_1:16, and that it is the very essence of the gospel is declared Rom_1:17. The refusal of Church fellowship to a believer of this gospel except he were circumcised, by just inference vitiated and, indeed, nullified the truth that faith in Christ is the sole and sufficient ground of justification. Might continue with you ( διαμείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ). Might never cease to have its home with you, to be believingly entertained by you. Διαμένω is an intensified form of μένω . The preposition πρὸς is used as in Gal_1:18, where see note. It is possible that, as Alford observes, the Galatians may not specially have been in St. Paul's mind at that time, but only the Gentile Churches in general; and that for greater impressiveness he applies to the particular what was only shared by it in the general. It is, however, supposable that the eases of the several Churches which he had then lately founded with Barnabas were much in his thoughts at that time; for, as is shown by his numerous references to his specific intercessory prayer, his spirit was incessantly conversant with "all the Churches" (2Co_11:28); and he was anxiously cognizant of efforts made from the very first by legalizing Christians to pervert their faith. It is not certain that Act_16:6 records the first occasion of his visiting the "Galatic country;" he may have been there and founded "the Churches of Galatia" before the occurrences described in Act_15:1-41.; and the opinion is even held by many that Iconium and Derbe, belonging to the Roman province of Galatia, were two of "the Churches of Galatia".

Gal_2:6

But of these who seemed to be somewhat ( ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι ); now from those who were reputed to be somewhat. The conjunction δὲ does not seem to be adversative here, but simply introductory of a new particular. The writer is about to introduce, which he does in the next five verses (6-10), a fresh illustration of the independent position, which in point both of doctrine and of ministerial footing he held in relation to the first apostles and to the heads of the Jerusalemite Church, and at the same time of the full recognition which in both respects these had accorded to him. The construction of this sentence, as it proceeds, is interrupted and changed. When St. Paul wrote, from those who were reputed to be somewhat, he would seem to have meant to add, "I received nothing fresh either in knowledge of the gospel or in authority as Christ's minister," or some-tiring to that effect; but in his indignant parenthesis asserting his independence with respect to those whom his gainsayers in Galatia would seem to have pronounced his superiors, both in knowledge and in office, he loses sight of the beginning of the sentence, and begins it afresh in another form with the words ( ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκοῦντες ), for they who were of repute, etc. Reputed to be somewhat; that is, thought highly of. The phrase is of frequent occurrence, both in Greek and in Latin authors. It is obvious that he refers to the twelve and the leaders of the mother Church of Jerusalem. Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me ( ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει ); of what sort they at any time were maketh no matter to me. The ὁποῖοι (of what sort) is suggested by the preceding τι (somewhat), and the ἦσαν (they were) by the δοκούντων (reputed); from those reputed to be somewhat whatever they really were. The comparison of the usage of ὁποῖος in other passages (Act_26:29; 1Co_3:18; 1Th_1:9; Jas_1:24) hardly favours the specific interpretation, "how great." In respect to the ποτέ , in a classical author, as Bishop Light foot observes, we should have no hesitation in taking it as equivalent to cunque. But the word occurs in the New Testament in thirty-one ether places, and in not one is it cunque, but always the adverb of time, either "sometime," "in time past," as above, Gal_1:13, Gal_1:23; Joh_9:13; or "any time," as 1Co_9:7; 1Th_2:5. The latter shade of meaning seems the more appropriate here. The any time, though not to be limited to, would, however, cover the time when the twelve were in personal attendance upon our Lord—a circumstance which St. Paul's detractors were no doubt wont to hold up as a mark of distinction not possessed by him. It seems best to take of what sort as dependent upon the following words, maketh no matter to me. This last clause is not exactly equivalent to "I care not," as if it were an almost supercilious waving aside of the consideration; it is rather a grave assertion of a matter of fact. Whatever were the gifts of knowledge and spiritual insight which the twelve or other heads of the Jerusalemite Church possessed, or whatever their ministerial privileges or authority, whether derived from personal intercourse with the Lord Jesus when upon earth or in any other way, Paul's knowledge of the gospel and Paul's apostolic authority were neither of them at all affected by them. Now, at the time that he is writing this Epistle, he was just the same in respect to the possession of the essential truth of the gospel and to his apostolic authority as if he had had no intercourse with the spiritual rulers of the Jewish Church. God accepteth no man's person ( πρόσωπον Θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει ). The order of the words in the Greek throws especial emphasis upon "person:" person of man God accepteth not; that is, it is never on account of his person that God accepteth a man. This phrase, "accept a man's person," is of frequent occurrence in the Bible. In the New Testament it is always used in a bad sense, which in the Old is by no means the case. This difference is due, as Bishop Lightfoot observes, to the secondary sense of actor's mask attaching to the Greek noun, the actor on the Greek stage, as also on the Roman, being wont to wear a mask suited to the character in which he appeared; whence also πρόσωπον got to signify this character itself. The corresponding technical term among the Romans was persona, a word never used of the natural face, as πρόσωπον was. This explains the adoption of this last term in its Anglicized form by our English translators in the phrase now before us. With the like metaphorical application of the idea as that which was so common among the Romans, the word "person" seemed well fitted to denote the part, or certain accessories of the part, which a man plays on the stage, so to speak, of human life, in contradistinction to his more interior and essential character. The phrase denotes accepting a man, for example, for his worldly rank or position, for his office, for his nationality, even for his Church status (see Jas_2:1, Jas_2:9; Act_10:34; 1Pe_1:17). The special adjuncts of a man's person referred to in the present passage are those of the outward call aforetime to be apostles and personal attendants upon the Lord Jesus while upon earth, and, in the case of St. James the Lord's brother, personal relationship to him. And St. Paul means to intimate that his knowledge of Divine truth and his ministerial fidelity and efficiency might be as real and as great, if God's will were so, as the knowledge and ministerial fidelity and efficiency of the twelve and St. James, whom his gainsayers were honouring so far above him merely for their person's sake. God made no such difference between him and them, but wrought with him just as much. For they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me ( ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο ); for to me they who were of repute in conference added nothing. The verb προσανέθεντο , as it stands here, appears related to the ἀνεθέμην of verse 2. I laid before them my gospel; they imparted to me nothing fresh ( πρός ). Thus Chrysostom and Theodoret. In Gal_1:16, where the same verb occurs (see note), there is nothing to accentuate the πρός , as there is here. The "for" appears related to the foregoing clause. That God does not respect man for his person was evidenced by the fact that Paul's knowledge of the gospel was already so complete and his work was so honoured by God, that those whose person seemed to many so markedly superior to his, found that all they had to do was to frankly recognize his teaching as already adequate and complete, and his work as standing on a perfectly equal footing with their own.

Gal_2:7

But contrariwise ( ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον )l as 2Co_2:7; 1Pe_3:9. This "contrariwise" is illustrated by the foregoing note. When they saw ( ἰδόντες ); when they got to see. This implies that the fact was new to them. A few of them, no doubt, were apprised of it previously, Cephas in particular (see Gal_1:18 and note); but the majority of that assemblage of apostles and elders knew Paul chiefly by hearsay, and hearsay not always the most friendly to him. The three named in the next verse are to be conceived of as acting as they did in order to give expression to this newly awakened feeling of the general body, and not merely to their own individual judgment. That the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter ( ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτροβ τῆς περιτομῆς ); that I had been put in trust of the gospel … as Peter of that of, etc. The perfect present πεπίστευμαι , viewed from the time of their seeing it. So the present ὀρθοποδοῦσιν in 1Pe_3:14, and μέναι in Joh_1:40. The perfect is used anti not the aorist (cf. Rom_3:2), as marking the then still continuing holding of the trust, and also perhaps, as implying the con-tinning identity of the doctrine preached. Gospel of the uncircumcision. The word "gospel" is frequently used by St. Paul to denote, not so much the substance of its doctrine as the business of proclaiming it (comp. Rom_1:1, Rom_1:9; Rom_15:19; 1Co_9:14, 1Co_9:18; 2Co_2:12); and thus the gospel of the uncircumcision does not indicate any diversity in the doctrine communicated to the uncircumcision from that communicatcd to the Jews, but simply a diversity in the sphere of its proclamation. Ἀκροβυστία denotes the class of the uncircumcised in contrast to περιτομή , that of the circumcised, as in Rom_3:30. As Peter of that of the circumcision. This distinction between the spheres of work entrusted severally to the two apostles held good of them only as viewed in the main in either case; for as St. Peter was, in fact, the first who opened the gospel to the Gentiles, and afterwards, towards the close of Iris work, cared for the welfare of Gentile Christians by writing his two Epistles to them, so also St. Paul everywhere in his ministerial work addressed himself in the first instance to the Jews. Nevertheless, in the main, Peter was the head of the Church of the circumcised, Paul of that of the uncircumcised. But how completely the substance of Peter's doctrine was one with that of Paul's is strikingly evinced by his two Epistles (see 1Pe_5:12). It is difficult to feel that St. Paul could have written as he here does, if he was aware that St. Peter had been constituted by the Lord Jesus to be his own vicar upon earth, supreme over the whole Church and all its ministers.

Gal_2:8

For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision ( ὁ γὰρ ἐνεργήσας Πέτρῳ εἰς ἀποστολὴν τῆς περιτομῆς ); he that had wrought on Peter's behalf for apostleship of the circumcision. In form, the sentence is an absolute statement of fact; but its bearing in the context would be fairly represented by rendering it relatively, "for that he who," etc.; for it was the perception of the fact here stated which led that assembly to the conviction that Paul had been entrusted with the apostleship of the uncircumcision. The dative Πέτρῳ can scarcely be governed, as the Authorized Version presupposes, by the preposition in ἐνεργήσας , this verb not being a separable compound; it is rather the dativus commodi, as in Pro_31:12, Ἐνεργεῖ τῷ ἀνδρὶ εἰς ἀγαθά . When operation in a subject is meant, the preposition ἐν is added, as Eph_1:20; Eph_2:2; Gal_3:5. The worker is God, not Christ. God wrought on Peter's behalf for apostleship of the circumcision; that is, towards, in furtherance of, his work as their