beholding and honoring Peter by his presence. appellation, and called him the son of CleoHe says, "to visit Peter; " he does not say to phas, as the Evangelist does. 3 But as he consee, (ideiv,) but to visit and survey, (loropioat,) sidered that he had a share in the august titles a word which those, who seek to become of the Apostles, he exalts himself by honoring acquainted with great and splendid cities, apply James; and this he does by calling him "the to themselves. Worthy of such trouble did he Lord's brother," although he was not by birth consider the very sight of Peter; and this His brother, but only so reputed. Yet this did appears from the Acts of the Apostles also. not deter him from giving the title; and in (Acts xxj: 17,18 etc.) For on his arrival at Jeru- many other instances he displays towards all salem, on another occasion, after having con- the Apostles that noble disposition, which verted many Gentiles, and, with labors far sur- beseemed him. passing the rest, reformed and brought to Christ Pamphylia, Lycaonia, Cilicia, and all nations in that quarter of the world, he first addresses himself with great humility to James, as to his elder and superior. Next he submits to his counsel, and that counsel contrary to this Epistle. "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them which have believed; therefore shave thy head, and purify thyself." (Acts xxi: 20 f.) Accordingly he shaved his head, and observed all the Jewish ceremonies; for where the Gospel was not affected, he was the humblest of all men. But where by such humility he saw any injured, he gave up that undue exercise of it, for that was no longer to be humble but to outrage and destroy the disciples.

Ver. 18. "And tarried with him fifteen days." To take a journey on account of him was a mark of respect; but to remain so many days, of friendship and the most earnest affection. Ver. 19. "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James," the Lord's brother."

See what great friends he was with Peter especially; on his account he left his home, and with him he tarried. This I frequently repeat, and desire you to remember, that no one, when he hears what this Apostle seems to have spoken against Peter, may conceive a suspicion of him. He premises this, that when he says, "I resisted Peter," no one may suppose that these words imply enmity and contention; for he honored and loved his person more than all and took this journey for his sake only, not for any of the others. "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James." "I saw him merely, I did not learn from him," he means. But observe how honorably he mentions him, he says not "James" merely, but adds this illustrious title, so free ishe from all envy. Had he only wished to point out whom he meant, he might have shown this by another

Ver. 20. "Now touching the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.' Observe throughout the transparent humility of this holy soul; his earnestness in his own vindication is as great as if he had to render an account of his deeds, and was pleading for his life in a court of justice.

Ver. 21. "Then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia."

After his interview with Peter, he resumes his preaching and the task which lay before him, avoiding Judæa, both because of his mission being to the Gentiles, and of his unwillingness to "build upon another man's foundation." Wherefore there was not even a chance meeting, as appears from what follows. Ver. 22, 23. "And I was still unknown by face unto the Churches of Judæa; but they only heard say, he that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc."

What modesty in thus again mentioning the facts of his persecuting and laying waste the Church, and in thus making infamous his former life, while he passes over the illustrious deeds he was about to achieve! He might have told, had he wished it, all his successes, but he mentions none of these and stepping with one word over a vast expanse, he says merely, "I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; and, "they had heard, that he, which once persecuted us, now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc." The purpose of the words, "I was unknown to the Churches of Judæa," is to show, that so far from preaching to them the necessity of circumcision, he was not known to them even by sight.

Ver. 24. "And they glorified God in me." See here again how accurately he observes the rule of his humility; he says not, they admired me, they applauded or were astonished at me, but ascribes all to Divine grace by the words, "they glorified God in me.

CHAPTER II.

VERSE I-2.

are informed of thee, that thou teachest to for-
sake the law." (Acts xxi: 20, et seq.) Since
then they were offended he did not condescend to
come forward publicly and declare what his
preaching was, but he conferred privately with
those who were of reputation before Barnabas
and Titus, that they might credibly testify to
his accusers,
'that the Apostles found no dis-
crepancy in his preaching, but confirmed it.
The expression, "those that were of repute,"
(rois doxovat) does not impugn the reality of their
greatness; for he says of himself, " And I also
seem (dox) to have the Spirit of God," there-
by not denying the fact, but stating it modestly.
And here the phrase implies his own assent to
the common opinion.

2

Ver. 3. "But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised."

What means, "being a Greek ?" Of Greek extraction, and not circumcised; for not only did I so preach but Titus so acted, nor did the Apostles compel him to be circumcised. A plain proof this that the Apostles did not condemn Paul's doctrine or his practice. Nay more, even the urgent representations of the adverse party, who were aware of these facts, did not oblige the Apostles to enjoin circumcision, as appears by his own words,

Ver. 4.

"And that because of the false brethren, privily brought in."

authoritatively given butan indulgence to their in-
continence; as he says, "for your incontinency."
Would you know Paul's sentence in this matter?
hear his words, "I would that all men were even
as I myself," (1 Cor. vii: 7.) in continence. And
so here, the Apostles made this concession, not as
vindicating the law, but as condescending to the
infirmities of Judaism. Had they been vindica-
ting the law, they would not have preached to the
Jews in one way, and to the Gentiles in another.
Had the observance been necessary for unbe
lievers, then indeed it would plainly have like-
wise been necessary for all the faithful. But by
their decision not to harass the Gentiles on this
point, they showed that they permitted it by
way of condescension to the Jews. Whereas
the purpose of the false brethren was to cast
them out of grace, and reduce them under the
yoke of slavery again. This is the first differ-
ence, and a very wide one. The second is,
that the Apostles so acted in Judæa, where the
Law was in force, but the false brethren, every
where, for all the Galatians were influenced by
them. Whence it appears that their intention
was, not to build up, but entirely to pull down
the Gospel, and that the thing was permitted
by the Apostles on one ground and zealously
practiced by the false brethren on another.
Ver. 4.
"Who came in privily to spy out
our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus,
they might bring us into bondage."

that

Here arises a very important question, Who He points out their hostility by calling them were these false brethren? 3 If the Apostles spies; for the sole object of a spy is to obtain permitted circumcision at Jerusalem, why are for himself facilities of devastation and destructhose who enjoined it, in acccordance with the tion, by becoming acquainted with his adverApostolic sentence, to be called false brethren? sary's position. And this is what those did, First; because there is a difference between who wished to bring the disciples back to their commanding an act to be done, and allowing it old servitude. Hence too appears how very after it is done. He who enjoins an act, does contrary their purpose was to that of the Aposit with zeal as necessary, and of primary impor- tles; the latter made concessions that they tance; but he who, without himself command- might gradually extricate them from their serviing it, alloweth another to do it who wisnes tude, but the former plotted to subject them to yields not from a sense of its being necessary one more severe. Therefore they looked round but in order to subserve some purpose. We and observed accurately and made themselves have a similar instance, in Paul's Epistle busybodies to find out who were uncircumcised; to the Corinthians, Corinthians, in his command to husbands and wives to come together again. To which, that he might not be thought to be legislating for them, he subjoins, "But this I say by way of permission, not of commandment." (1 Cor. vii: 5.) For this was not a judgment

[That is, that Barnabas and Titus as witnesses of the proceed

ings might testify to the Judaizing teachers everywhere, &c.-G.A
2 [Being "a Greek : Lightfoot says this is a "causal" partici-
pial clause giving the "reason" why Titus was not circumcised;
because he was a Greek and not a Jew or part Jew as Timothy was.
Schaff makes it a "concessive" clause; although he was a Greek,

that is, a heathen. Farrar in Life and Work of Paul(233-6)claims
that Titus was circumcised but not compelled to be. This how-
ever cannot be held in view of the context and the position of the
words in the sentence.-G A.]

["These were formerly Pharisees (Acts xv: 5.) and were still so in spirit although they professed Christianity and were baptized." Schaff in Pop. Com.-G. A.]

as Paul says, "they came in privily to spy out our liberty," thus pointing out their machinations not only by the term "spies," but by this expression of a furtive entrance and creeping in.

Ver. 5.

"To whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour."4 Óbserve the force and emphasis of the phrase; he says not, "by argument," but, "by subjection, "for their object was not to teach good doctrine, but to subjugate and enslave them..

4 ["Had we consented to the suggestion to circumcise Titus, we should thereby have yielded to the false brethren standing in the background, who declared the circumcision of Gentile Christians to be necessary (Acts xv: 5.); but this did not at all take place."— Meyer.-G. A.]

Wherefore, says he, we yielded to the Apostles, but not to these.

Ver. 5. "That the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.

"1

2

to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me, God accepteth no man's person.)"

were," showing that they too had thenceforth3 ceased so to preach, the doctrine having extended itself universally. The phrase, "whatsoever they were," implies, that if they so preached they should render account, for they had to justify themselves before God, not before men. This he said, not as doubtful or ignorant of the rectitude of their procedure, but (as I said before) from a sense of the expediency of so forming his discourse. Then, that he may not seem to take the opposite side and to accuse them, and so create a suspicion of their disagreement, he straightway subjoins this correction: "for those who were reputed to be somewhat, in conference imparted

Here he not only does not defend the AposThat we may confirm, says he, by our deeds tles, but even presses hard upon those holy men, what we have already declared by words, for the benefit of the weak. His meaning is namely, that the "old things are passed away, this: although they permit circumcision, they behold they are become new;" and that "if shall render an account to God, for God will any man is in Christ he is a new creature;" (2 not accept their persons, because they are great Cor. v: 17.) and that "if ye receive circum- and in station. But he does not speak so plainly, cision, Christ will profit you nothing." (Gal. v: but with caution. He says not, if they vitiate 2.) In maintaining this truth we gave place their doctrine, and swerve from the appointed not even for an hour. Then, as he was directly rule of their preaching, they shall be judged met by the conduct of the Apostles, and the with the utmost rigor, and suffer punishment; reason of their enjoining the rite would proba- but he alludes to them more reverently, in the bly be asked, he proceeds to solve this objection. words, "of those who were reputed to be someThis he does with great skill, for he does not give what, whatsoever they were. He says not, the actual reason, which was, that the Apostles" whatsoever they 'are,' '" but " acted by way of condescension and in the use of a scheme, (dexovoμía) as it were; for otherwise his hearers would have been injured. For those, who are to derive benefit from a scheme should be unacquainted with the design of it; all will be undone, if this appears. Wherefore, he who is to take part in it should know the drift of it; those who are to benefit by it should not. To make my meaning more evident, I will take an example from our present subject. The blessed Paul himself, who meant to abrogate circumcision, when he was about to send Timothy to teach the Jews, first circumcised him and so sent him. This he did, that his hearers might the more readily receive him; he began by cir-nothing to me." This is his meaning; What cumcising, that in the end he might abolish it. But this reason he imparted to Timothy only, and told it not to the disciples. Had they known that the very purpose of his circumcision was the abolition of the rite, they would never have listened to his preaching, and the whole benefit would have been lost. But now their ignorance was of the greatest use to them, for their idea that his conduct proceeded from a regard to the Law, led them to receive both him and his doctrine with kindness and courtesy, and having gradually received him, and become instructed, they abandoned their old customs. Now this would not have happened had they known his reasons from the first; for they would have turned away from him, and being turned away would not have given him a hearing, and not hearing, would have continued in their former error. To prevent this, he did not disclose his reasons; here too he does not explain the occasion of the scheme, (oixovouía) but shapes his discourse differently; thus:

Ver. 6. "But from those who were reputed

["In order that by our conduct the principle of Christian freedom should not be shaken and ye should not be induced to deviate from the truth of the Gospel by mixing it up with Mosaism."Meyer.-G. A.]

you may say, I know not; this I know well, that the Apostles did not oppose me, but our sentiments conspired and accorded. This appears from his expression, "they gave me the right hand of fellowship; " but he does not say this at present, but only that they neither informed or corrected him on any point, nor added to his knowledge.

Ver. 6. "For those who were reputed to be somewhat, imparted nothing to me:

That is to say, when told of my proceedings, they added nothing, they corrected nothing, and though aware that the object of my journey was to communicate with them, that I had come by revelation of the Spirit, and that I had Titus with me who was uncircumcised, they neither circumcised him, nor imparted to me any additional knowledge. Ver. 7.

2

"But contrariwise."

[Lightfoot says, "The expression is depreciatory here, not indeed of the twelve themselves but of the extravagant and exclusive claims set up for them by the Judaizers." So also Dr. Schaff. "The addition of ri elva and önotot betrays a certain irritation in reference to the opponents who would not concede Paul an estimation given to the original Apostles."-Meyer.-G. A.]

3

["It is entirely in opposition to the context that Chrysostom Theophylact and Jerome refer this to the earlier teaching of the Apostles, making Paul say that whether at an earlier date they had been Judaizers or not was to him a matter of indifference."Meyer.-G. A.]

Ver. 9. "And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship."

Some hold his meaning to be, not only that each was the same. After he had established the Apostles did not instruct him, but that they the proof of their unanimity, he takes courage, were instructed by him. But I would not say and proceeds confidently in his argument, not this, for what could they, each of whom was stopping at the Apostles, but advances to Christ himself perfectly instructed, have learnt from Himself, and to the grace which He had conhim? He does not therefore intend this by the ferred upon him, and calls-the Apostles as his expression, "contrariwise," but that so far were witnesses, saying, they from blaming, that they praised him for praise is the contrary of blame. Some would probably here reply: Why did not the Apostles, if they praised your procedure, as the proper consequence abolish circumcision? Now to assert that they did abolish it Paul considered He says not when they "heard," but when much too bold, and inconsistent with his own they "perceived," that is, were assured by the admission. On the other hand, to admit that facts themselves, "they gave to me and Barthey had sanctioned circumcision, would neces- nabas the right hands of fellowship." Observe sarily expose him to another objection. For it how he gradually proves that his doctrine was would be said, if the Apostles praised your ratified both by Christ and by the Apostles. For preaching, yet sanctioned circumcision, they grace would neither have been implanted, nor were inconsistent with themselves. What then been operative in him, had not his preaching is the solution? is he to say that they acted thus been approved by Christ. Where it was for the out of condescension to Judaism? To say this purpose of comparison with himself, he menwould have shaken the very foundation of the tioned Peter alone; here, when be calls them economy. Whereforehe leaves the subject in sus-as witnesses, he names the three together, pense and uncertainty, by the words, "but of "Cephas, James, John," and with an encomium, those who were reputed to be somewhat; it" who were reputed to be pillars." Here again maketh no matter to me." Which is in effect to say, I accuse not, nor traduce those holy men; they know what it is they have done; to God must they render their account. What I am desirous to prove is, that they neither reversed nor corrected my procedure, nor added to it as in their opinion defective, but gave it their approbation and assent; and to this Titus and Barnabas bear witness. Then he adds,

Ver. 7. "When they saw that I had been entrusted with the Gospel of the Uncircumcision even as Peter with the Gospel of the Circumcision',"

The Circumcision and Uncircumcision; meaning, not the things themselves, but the nations known by these distinctions; wherefore he adds,

Ver. 8. "For He that wrought for Peter unto the Apostleship of the Circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles."

He calls the Gentiles the Uncircumcision and the Jews the Circumcision, and declares his own rank to be equal to that of the Apostles; and, by comparing himself with their Leader not with the others, he shows that the dignity of

[They did virtually abolish circumcision by the decree of the council at Jerusalem as is shown in the account in (As

And the failure of the effort to have Titus circumcised shows that the account in Gal. ii has nothing inconsistent with that decree. This as to Gentiles. The question did not concern Jews, who were already circumcised in infancy except in cases like that of Timothy where circumcision had been neglected. His case Paul himself decided without any consultation with others.-G. A.]

"["This passage cannot be worse misunderstood than it has been by Baur according to whom there was a special Gospel of the uncircumcision and a special gospel of the circumcision, one maintaining the necessity of circumcision, the other allowing it to drop."Meyer-G. A.]

the expression "who were reputed" does not impugn the reality of the fact, but adopts the estimate of others, and implies that these great and distinguished men, whose fame was universal, bare witness that his preaching was ratified by Christ, that they were practically informed and convinced by experience concerning it. "Therefore they gave the right hands of fellowship" to me, and not to me only, but also to Barnabas, "that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the Circumcision." Here indeed is exceeding prudence as well as an incontrovertible proof of their concord. For it shows that his and their doctrine was interchangeable, and that both approved the same thing, that they should so preach to the Jews, and he to the Gentiles. Wherefore he adds,

Ver. 9. "That we should go unto the Gentiles and they unto the Circumcision.”

Observe that here also he means by "the Circumcision," not the rite, but the Jews; whenever he speaks of the rite, and wishes to contrast it, he adds the word "uncircumcision;" as when he says, "For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law; but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision." (Ro. ii: 25.) And again, “Neither circumcision availeth any