II. Paul's Apostolic Authority. Chs. 1:11 to 2:21

A. INDEPENDENT OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. Ch. 1:11-24

11 For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. 12 For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and made havoc of it:14 and I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace, 16 to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood:17 neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned tmto Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. 20 Now touching the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. 21 Then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judæa which were in Christ:23 but they only heard say. He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc; 24 and they glorified God in me.

After the introductory statements, the main body of the epistle consists of three divisions: First, the defense of Paul's apostolic authority, chs. 1; 2; second, a statement of Paul's doctrine, particularly justification by faith, chs. 3; 4; and, third, the application of his doctrine to life, chs. 5; 6. The first section is personal; the second is argumentative or polemical; the third is practical. The great theme of the epistle is Christian liberty. In the first section this theme is stated; in the second it is defended; in the third it is applied to life.

The argument for his apostolic authority is drawn wholly from Paul's biography. It is of special interest because in the English Bible it follows the last four chapters of Second Corinthians in which Paul makes a similar defense. Like that classic passage, these two chapters contain an explanation of Paul's life. They constitute an apologia pro vita sua.

There are three parts to the argument: First, Paul insists that he was an apostle before he met the other apostles, ch. 1:11-21. Second, when meeting them he was recognized as an equal by the apostles, ch. 2:1-10. And, third, he found it necessary to rebuke Peter who was the reputed chief of the apostles, ch. 2:11-21. It is evident that Paul's authority and the truth of his doctrine are inseparable. Thus, as he argues in these three paragraphs for his authority, in the first place he shows that his gospel was not learned in Jerusalem; in the second place, it was indorsed by the leading apostles; and in the third place, it was maintained against Peter, the most prominent apostle.

In establishing his position as an apostle, his contention is that his gospel is not of human origin, but is absolutely divine and has come directly from God through Christ: "For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ."

The first word of this paragraph relates Paul's contention as to the divine nature of his gospel, with the rebuke which immediately precedes. He was there pronouncing accursed anyone who should preach a different gospel; and he was there replying to his enemies who had accused him of duplicity and of "seeking the favor of men." Paul intimates that his vehement language is justified and that the seeking of human favor is inconceivable, "for . . . the gospel [which he preaches] . . . is not after man." It is not human in its character, its content, or its origin. Paul declares that he did not receive it "from man," nor was he "taught it" by man. He had not derived it from the apostles nor from any other human source. It came to him "through revelation of Jesus Christ." God was, therefore, the source of Paul's gospel message, but Christ was the agent by whom it was revealed to Paul. It came to him by means of a revelation which Jesus Christ had made. Paul does not explain the method which Christ employed. This method was not instantaneous nor should it be regarded as wholly miraculous, although it did have in it elements which were plainly supernatural. It should not be denied that before his conversion Paul had a rather definite knowledge of the great central truths of the gospel. These he refused to believe, but he had learned them from the lips of Stephen and the other martyrs in whose persecution and death Paul had a leading part. He had heard the facts relative to the life and the death and resurrection of Christ. He regarded the statement of these facts as foolish and blasphemous, but with their general character he was familiar.

Then came the marvelous experience of his conversion. He was on his way to Damascus when there was granted to him an appearance of the glorified Christ. It was this experience which was used to change his attitude toward the truth and to accept the great realities which formed the essence of his gospel message.

There was, however, a third phase to his experience. It was while he meditated on his experience and the claims of Christ that the Spirit of God revealed more fully to him that gospel message which he went forth to proclaim in all the world. It was possibly such a comprehensive experience to which Paul refers when he declares of the gospel which he preached, "It came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ."

In order more fully to establish this contention as to the divine source of his gospel message, Paul argues first from his experiences before his conversion, vs. 13, 14, and second from the earlier years of his apostolic preaching, vs. 15-24. As to those earlier experiences there had been nothing to incline him to the acceptance of Christianity, and no possible human source from which the gospel could have been derived. Paul had been a Jew, and one of the most strict in his adherence to the ancestral faith. He had not accepted Christianity because he had failed as a Hebrew. He had been foremost in his zeal for Judaism: "For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and made havoc of it: and I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers."

There had been nothing in his experience to explain or to prepare the way for his conversion. His great zeal had been shown in his bitter and cruel persecution of the Church and in his endeavor to exterminate the followers of Christ. As a Jew he had surpassed the young men of his own age, both in his zeal for the law and in his defense of the traditions of his fathers.

The endeavor to account for the conversion of Paul on natural grounds has always been a failure. To suggest that he was greatly troubled by his conscience because of his cruelty to Christians, and that on his way to Damascus some physical malady precipitated an approaching crisis and made him imagine that he had caught a vision of Christ whom he ever after claimed as his Lord, is quite contrary both to the history as given by Luke and to the statements which he here makes concerning himself.

Nothing could be more cruel or absurd than to style Paul an epileptic, and to endeavor thus to explain the transformation which occurred on his visit to Damascus. Paul was converted by a real appearance of Christ, and it was to this Christ that he owed his changed life and the content of his gospel. Paul himself realized that it was a supernatural experience, that his gospel came from a superhuman source, and that it was in its nature divine. He therefore declares that God had "separated" him, had set him apart, had marked him off from the rest of mankind, for his special task, even from the day of his birth. He further declares that it was by the grace of God that he had been called into the apostleship. This statement is quite in accordance with the phrase which so frequently opens his epistles; namely, "Paul, an apostle . . . through the will of God." He insists that, to prepare him for his ministry, God revealed "his Son in me." Following the outward revelation on the way to Damascus, there was this inner revelation to the heart of the apostle. The former would have had little meaning or power if it were not for the latter, and this inner revelation was in order that Paul might preach Christ among the heathen.

The burden of this message, the essence of this divine gospel, did not come, however, from Paul's inner consciousness. It was no dream, no philosophy of his own, nor did he secure it from the apostles in Jerusalem. "Straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood," writes the apostle: "neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus." Arabia was the region east and south of Palestine. Within its boundaries was the historic Mount Sinai. In that region God had revealed himself to his people through Moses; and in that region, too, Elijah had received his revelation of the grace and power of God. It was to this region Paul went that he might have time for meditation and for prayer. There, in communion with his divine Master, he received that message which he henceforth was to proclaim to the Gentile world. For this special ministry he had been predestined; to it he had been graciously called by a supernatural vision; for it he had been prepared by the revelation of Christ which had burst upon his soul, V. 15.

From Arabia Paul "returned unto Damascus." He did not go to Jerusalem as might have been expected. He returned to the place of his conversion there to testify boldly for Christ, not to be taught the gospel, not to receive a commission from the Christian apostles. It is evident that Paul is insisting upon the divine origin and authority of his apostleship. It was "not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead."

It is not difficult to understand why Luke, in the ninth chapter of The Acts, makes no reference to this visit to Arabia which followed immediately upon the conversion of Paul. The purpose of Luke was not to give a narrative of the apostle's personal life. He was concerned specifically with the story of the Christian Church; and he introduced personal matters only as they were vitally related to the one purpose which determined the selection of his literary material.

It is a little more difficult to find the agreement between the account, given by Luke, of the subsequent visit of Paul to Jerusalem and the account which Paul gives here in Galatians of that same experience. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." Vs. 18, 19. According to the narrative of Luke, "Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles." According to the statement of Paul he saw only two of the apostles. There is no necessary contradiction here. The purpose of Paul in going to Jerusalem was to become acquainted with Peter. Not unnaturally, the apostles were afraid of the powerful persecutor of the Church until Barnabas introduced him to the apostolic fellowship. It would seem that in addition to Peter, Paul met at this time only one other person who was given the title of an "apostle." James was not one of the Twelve. But this man, "the Lord's brother," held a place of great prominence in the Jerusalem church, and is here styled an apostle, together with Peter.

The impression which Paul here intends to convey is not at variance with the statements of Luke. He makes it quite clear that his purpose in this visit to Jerusalem was not to be taught the gospel or to receive apostolic sanction. His introduction by Barnabas was not to secure prestige for himself but to remove suspicion and fear from the minds of the Jerusalem Christians. So important does Paul regard this fact of his independence of human teachers, and so much is he troubled by the persistent falsehoods of his enemies, that he makes a solemn appeal to God in attestation of the truthfulness of his statements: "Now touching the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not," v. 20. The reality of the divine source of his gospel warrants Paul in making so serious an appeal.

He continues the argument from his personal history by touching briefly upon experiences which filled with activity ten years of his early ministry. He insists, however, that there was nothing in these experiences to indicate any human source of his knowledge, or any authorization by man of his recognized apostolic standing. "Then I came," he writes, "into the regions of Syria and Cilicia." Syria is mentioned first because it was a province of far greater importance than Cilicia, and further because the ministry of Paul in Syria was of even greater significance than that in Cilicia. It was in Antioch of Syria that Paul had begun his notable ministry in companionship with Barnabas. The latter had called the apostle from his home in Cilicia to undertake the important tasks connected with the founding in Antioch of the first Gentile church. It was from Antioch in Syria that Paul and Barnabas had set forth on their first historic missionary journey which brought them to Cyprus and then to the cities of southern Galatia.

During all this period of his labors Paul had not been in direct and personal relations with Judea and Jerusalem. He had not been receiving from those sources either guidance or instruction or authority. Judæa was not the source of his knowledge of the gospel. "I was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judæa which were in Christ." It is a beautiful description of these churches to state that they were "in Christ." It may simply mean that they were Christian churches, but the implications are rather larger. It may indicate that Christ was the very sphere in which these Christians were living. His will, his Spirit, his service formed the very elements in which they moved and worked. Of such churches Paul writes, "They only heard say. He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc; and they glorified God in me." The joy of these Judean Christians is an essential part of Paul's argument. The Galatians were being led to distrust Paul. The false teachers in Galatia who claimed to have come with superior knowledge from Jerusalem were discrediting him. By way of contrast and to silence his enemies he declares that the "churches of Judæa which were in Christ" glorified God for the life and ministry of the apostle. This fact in addition should further establish in the minds of his Galatian readers his authority as an apostle.

B. RECOGNIZED BY THE APOSTLES. Ch. 2:1-10

1 Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. 2 And I went up by revelation; and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:4 and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:5 to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's person) — they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me:7 but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision 8 (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles); 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, that we should go into the Gentiles, and they into the circumcision; 10 only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do.

Paul is still continuing the story of his life. He is not writing a biography, however, but is forging an argument. Every detail of his personal history is intended to establish his claims as an apostle of Christ. Nor is this his ultimate purpose. His further and real aim is to convince his readers of the truth of his gospel message. In the preceding chapter he had shown how his conversion and early ministry had given no opportunity for the suspicion that his gospel was of human origin, but all his activities had intimated that his message and his mission came directly from God.

He is now to show how one of the most important incidents in his life would support the same claims. This incident was that of the Council at Jerusalem which is further described in the fifteenth chapter of The Acts. There are many to-day who question the identity of the incidents described in these two passages. Indeed there are those who take it for granted that the identification cannot be pro^-ed, who seem to feel that the case against such identification is absolutely closed. The probable explanation of the differences between the two accounts is that Luke had in mind his definite and continuous purpose of writing a chapter in Church history, while Paul is concerned here with giving an account of his own personal and individual experiences. It would seem that the two accounts are easily reconciled if we understand that after Paul's arrival in Jerusalem there was first a private conference with the leaders of the Church, which Paul describes here, and then the conference representing the entire Church, which Luke describes.

Paul states that after the fourteen years of his early ministry, he "went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas." These two evangelists, both of whom were often designated as apostles, had journeyed together through Asia Minor and had established there strong Christian churches. The membership of these churches was largely Gentile, and it was the very success of the mission of Paul that had raiied the question among the Christian believers as to whether it would be necessary for converted Gentiles to observe the Mosaic law. Paul had declared for freedom from the law, but there were many in Jerusalem who held that in addition to having faith in Christ, the Jewish ritual must be carefully observed. Paul adds that when he went to Jerusalem he took "Titus also" with him. The selection of Titus as a companion was particularly significant. Titus was a Gentile. He had never submitted to Jewish rites, but had accepted Christ with no thought of keeping the Mosaic ritual. That he should accompany Paul to Jerusalem would only intensify and bring to a definite focus the question of the relation of Gentile believers to the law of Moses.

Paul declares that he "went up by revelation." There is no explanation of his exact meaning further than that he intends to signify that his going to Jerusalem was in accordance with the will of God which had been made plain to him. Whether this revelation was made to Paul alone or to the entire church at Antioch cannot be affirmed, but Paul felt sure that under divine guidance he was making this momentous journey to visit the mother church in Jerusalem.

Whether this "revelation" was made to Paul in person, or whether it was through the Spirit to the church, is not known. In either case, it gave to Paul the absolute assurance that it was the will of God for him to go to Jerusalem to attend the historic Council which determined for the Church and for all time the very question which the false teachers had revived in Galatia. This was the question as to whether Christians needed to observe the Mosaic law. Therefore, in referring to this Council at Jerusalem, Paul not only further establishes his apostolic authority but also answers the very question which was troubling the churches of Galatia.

The difficulty which the Council was to settle had caused special trouble in the church at Antioch, at the close of Paul's First Missionary Journey. Certain Judaizing teachers had come from Jerusalem, insisting that all Christians in order to be saved must keep the law of Moses. In order to settle the controversy, Paul and Barnabas and other disciples were sent as a delegation to Jerusalem, where the matter was presented before a council representing the entire Christian Church.

"I laid before them," writes the apostle, "the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles." The present tense of the verb, "preach," is significant. Paul is preaching the same gospel which he preached in Galatia. This gospel had received the sanction of the church in Jerusalem. Surely, therefore, Paul was no timeserver. He did not change his message to suit different occasions and hearers. If "a different gospel" had been preached to the Galatian churches, it was by false teachers and not by Paul. He knew only one gospel. To him a preacher of any other gospel was "anathema." He was justified in this position by his experiences at the Council at Jerusalem which he here narrates.

Before the public discussions, in which he took a prominent part, Paul first held private conferences with the recognized leaders of the Church. He presented his case "privately before them who were of repute," probably to "the apostles and elders" of whom Luke writes in his account of the Council, Acts 15:2, 4, 6.

Paul felt that the success of his whole ministry was at stake. He had no doubts as to the truth and accuracy of his gospel message. He feared, however, lest there might be some difference of view as to the necessity of keeping the Mosaic law. Such a difference might divide the church at Jerusalem, and so cause divisions in all the churches he had established. In fact, Paul felt that the very gospel was at stake and that all his work might be overthrown. He sought these preliminary private interviews, so he states, "lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain." He introduces this familiar figure of the foot race. If he could not convince the Church leaders of the legitimacy of his gospel, he would be like a runner, who, in spite of all his efforts, was to be disqualified or was to lose the prize of victory.

In these important preliminary conferences the discussion centered upon the case of Titus. He was a friend and companion of Paul. As a Gentile, a Greek by birth, he had never observed the Mosaic law. He was a significant and crucial embodiment of the whole principle at stake. Some insisted that Titus should be "compelled to be circumcised." Those who so insisted are described by Paul as "the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus."

These "false brethren" may have been unconverted Jews, seeking to injure the Christian cause; but more probably they were Judaizing Christians who insinuated themselves into the councils of the Church, secretly seeking some weak point of attack in order to discredit the preaching of Paul and particularly his doctrine of justification by faith and freedom from the burden of the Jewish law.

To these enemies of the gospel and of Christian liberty Paul absolutely refused to yield: "We gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour." His determined opposition was due to the fact that he felt himself, in this case of Titus, fighting the battle for the whole Church, and so, specifically, for the Galatian Christians. He contended for Titus, he declares to the Galatians, "that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."

Paul has been accused of inconsistency because in the case of Titus he refused to observe the Jewish rite which he had administered to his other friend and companion, Timothy, Acts 16:3. The principles involved were, however, quite different. In the case of Titus, Paul was refusing to admit the principle that observance of the Mosaic law was necessary to salvation. This was the doctrine of the Pharisaic legalists who opposed Paul in the Council at Jerusalem and who were represented by the false teachers troubling the Galatian churches.

In the case of Timothy, however, no such principle was at stake. Jewish Christians were not involved. Paul wished to avoid needlessly offending the unconverted Jews among whom he was to work. Paul made a concession to Jewish prejudices merely to avoid needless opposition. He permitted the rite as a matter of racial and social significance, and not as a ground of salvation. It was at most a practical compromise to make his companion more acceptable to the Jews. Furthermore, Titus was a pure Gentile, while Timothy was the son of a Jewess, and the question at issue involved the Christian liberty of Gentiles.

Paul gave by his personal practice similar grounds for the charge of inconsistency. He pleaded for freedom from the law, yet he himself observed the requirements of the law. Acts 18:18; 20:16; 21:23, 24. He ever distinguished between ceremonial rites as a ground of salvation and as racial or national customs. The first art illustrated by the case of Titus; the second, by that of Timothy.

This distinction must be kept in mind throughout the Epistle to the Galatians. Here Paul's objection to the law is to a system viewed as a proposed or imaginary substitute for the atoning work of Christ. The Council at Jerusalem was considering the way of salvation. Paul's attitude in the case of Titus was exactly that which he defends throughout the entire course of this epistle.

His reference to Titus has been quite pertinent to his whole argument. It has been introduced, however, in the form of a digression. He now returns to his narrative in relation to the apostles whom he met at Jerusalem. He shows how they set their seal upon his apostolic mission and message.

They are described as "those who were reputed to be somewhat." It is commonly supposed that Paul means to disparage those to whom he refers, and that his language is sarcastic. This is hardly the case. It would weaken his argument. The greater the actual worth and standing of these leaders, the more significant would be the fact that they extended to Paul "the right hands of fellowship." These leaders are probably the same as those "who were of repute," v. 2, with whom Paul had first consulted "privately." They were almost certainly the Twelve.

Nevertheless, there may be something of irony in Paul's expression. The false teachers in Galatia had evidently made much of the alleged superior power and position of the "authorities," the "leaders," the "apostles" in Jerusalem, in order to disparage Paul. He now shows that he was recognized as an equal by these authorities, these persons of great reputation.

He adds by way of parenthesis, "Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's person." In speaking of what "they were" or "they once were," v. 6, margin, Paul probably refers to their privileges and status as apostles who had known Christ during his earthly ministry and had been commissioned by him. Paul insists, however, that such supposed or real advantages made not the slightest difference to him and in no way affected the validity and independence of his mission. The reason was this: "God accepteth not man's person." He is not affected in his derisions or choice or approval by any outward appearance, or by human position or privilege. No matter what may have been granted to the primitive apostles, that would in no wise have concerned the truth of Paul's message or the authority of his apostleship, for the latter came directly from the Lord Jesus Christ.

As to these primitive apostles, however, Paul states that they "imparted nothing to me." They made no correction or addition to his gospel teaching. They recognized its soundness and its divine source. On what grounds then was it being questioned by the false teachers in Galatia?

Furthermore, instead of opposing him, they recognized that he had received a divine commission to preach the gospel among the Gentiles, just as Peter had to labor among the Jews. This conviction of theirs was based upon the fact that God, who had given such success to Peter in his sphere of ministry, had given like success to Paul as he preached the gospel to the Gentiles.

However, as to Paul's apostolic authority, most conclusive of all was the fact that James and Peter and John, who were recognized as "pillars," and supreme in their position in the Church, gave to Paul "the right hands of fellowship" and commended him to his mission among the Gentiles.

There was, therefore, no question as to two different doctrines. There was but one gospel. There was, however, a clear recognition of two spheres of labor. The Twelve accepted as their special province their Jewish fellow countrymen; Paul's particular sphere of ministry was to be among the Gentiles.

There was, however, one stipulation upon which the elder apostles insisted; namely, that Paul "should remember the poor," a requirement which he declared himself eager to fulfill.

"The poor" to whom reference is here made were undoubtedly the needy Christians in Jerusalem. Just why these Christians were in such special poverty one is left to conjecture. Some reasons can easily be supposed Judea was frequently visited by famine. The Christians were the chief sufferers, owing to religious hatred and social ostracism, causes which, even in most favorable times, operated to make it difficult for them to secure a livelihood. Furthermore, they had attempted, in Jerusalem, a system of communism, which, despite its admirable features, seems to have shown more charity than wisdom, and may have contributed to the poverty of the church.

Whatever the causes, the condition was chronic and pitiful; and it is easy to see why the Twelve, and particularly why Paul himself, should be eager to secure aid from the wealthier and more favored Gentile churches. It was a course which human sympathy would prompt, but which would be encouraged by special regard for those of their own race and nation. Chiefly, however, and this was a weighty consideration with Paul, it would show to Jewish Christians the sincerity of Gentile converts, and would establish between these two elements of the Church a bond of spiritual unity. It would be a safeguard against the very misunderstandings and alienations which were destroying the peace of the Galatian church, and were the occasion of this very epistle.

Therefore, on this point, as in all others, Paul was in perfect agreement with the Twelve, who unreservedly set their seal of recognition and approval upon his apostolic authority and doctrine and mission.

C. MANIFESTED IN REBUKING THE CHIEF OF THE APOSTLES. Ch. 2:11-21

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before them all, 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? 15 We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 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. 17 But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died into the law, that I might live into God. 20 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. 21 I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought.

Paul is taking another step in his argument. His purpose is to prove his position as an apostle. With this in view he has related certain incidents in his personal career. First he has reviewed the story of his conversion and of his early ministry which were quite independent of the other apostles- Ch. 1:11-24.

Next he has shown how, at the Council at Jerusalem, he was recognized as an equal by the apostles. Ch. 2:1-10. He now recalls the occasion on which he found it necessary to rebuke Peter, the reputed chief of the apostles. Surely, then, his apostolic standing and authority must be at least as great as that of Peter, the recognized leader of the apostolic band. Ch. 2:11-21.

However, the purpose of Paul in proving his authority as an apostle was due in no sense to personal pique or pride. He was endeavoring thereby to establish the truth of his teaching. He believed that the gospel of Christ was at stake. Therefore his encounter with Peter is related, not only as the climax of his argument for his apostolic authority, but because it affords him an opportunity for stating the very essence of his doctrine. This doctrine he is to defend in the two chapters which follow. Thus the close of the personal portion of the epistle forms an admirable introduction to the doctrinal portion, chs. 3 and 4.

Moreover, the particular error to which Peter had given countenance was the very error which the false teachers were propagating among the churches at Galatia. Thus Paul's rebuke of Peter brings his readers to the very heart of his epistle. The exact time at which Peter "came to Antioch," ch. 2:11, it is impossible to state. Most probably it was some years after the Council at Jerusalem to which Paul has just referred. At this Council it had been determined, for all time, that the observance of the Mosaic law was not a condition of salvation. However, the leaven of legalism was still at work in the Christian Church. It soon took a more subtle and dangerous form. The Judaizers began to teach that legal observances placed believers on a higher plane than that of those who refused to be burdened by the ceremonial law. They attempted to establish among Christians an aristocracy of legalists. They insisted that Gentiles who wished to be admitted to the inner circle of the followers of Christ must scrupulously obey the requirements of Moses. They attempted to establish a Church within a Church.

This was an insidious attempt to bind upon the necks of believers the intolerable burden of the law. Peter. while at Antioch, was led to countenance this endeavor. It was for this reason that Paul "resisted him to the face," because he had stultified himself. He had acted inconsistently; "he stood condemned" by his own conduct. "For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision." Those who "came from James" were evidently fanatical Jewish Christians, who were eager to bind upon all believers the Mosaic law. They had probably received letters of commendation from James, the head of the church in Jerusalem. He must not be suspected of any complicity in this legalist plot. While himself a strict observer of the law, he had defended, in the Council at Jerusalem, the cause of Christian liberty. He was ignorant of the use made of his commendation by the representatives of the legalizing faction at Jerusalem. However, Peter was swept away by their alleged authority, and by their specious arguments. He weakly yielded to what seemed to be the popular movement.

Before the arrival of these zealots, "he ate with the Gentiles"; that is, he associated freely with Gentile Christians, more specifically eating at the same table with them at the "love-feasts." Now "he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision"; that is, the party of Jewish Christians who favored the observance of the Mosaic law. This course on the part of Peter was not due to conviction; it was occasioned by cowardice and was an act of insincerity and deceit. Yet it is not wholly surprising. It was in accordance with the weak strain in the character of the apostle. With the strength and worth of that character all are familiar. His love for Christ, his honesty, his loyalty, his impulsiveness, his enthusiasm, have endeared him to every Christian heart. However, none forget his lack of stability and his timid sensitiveness to the opinions of others. Once before his courage had failed — not his faith, but his courage — and he had denied his Lord. Once again his courage has failed and he is imperiling the gospel of Christ, denying the full efficacy of his atoning death and seeming to countenance the substitution of works of law for the work of the Spirit and the gifts of grace.

Affected by the example of Peter, "the rest of the Jews," that is, the Jewish converts at Antioch, "dissembled likewise with him." Most astonishing of all, "even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation." He who had been the companion of Paul, who had seen the triumph of the gospel among Gentile peoples; he who with Paul had ever proclaimed the gospel of grace and freedom from the law — even he became guilty of the same pitiful hypocrisy.

The seriousness of the situation Paul was not slow to realize. A stigma of uncleanness was being cast upon the Gentile converts. The Jewish Christians were assuming that the law could give some sanctity which faith in Christ could not secure. To supplement the righteousness which Christ offered was to declare it incomplete and ultimately to supplant it. Paul "saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel." He recognized that they were really compromising the truth by casting the slur of uncleanness upon those who had accepted the gospel and were loyal to Christ.

Peter was the chief offender; Peter was most consciously insincere; Peter above all the rest was guilty of deception. Peter wielded the widest influence as the reputed chief of the Twelve. Therefore Paul administered to him a severe public rebuke in the presence of the entire Church. "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?" V. 14.

It is a severe rebuke. Peter is charged with the most flagrant inconsistency and with the most glaring insincerity. And he is guilty; he stands condemned. Years before, on that housetop in Joppa, he had learned that one should not regard as "unclean" that which God has cleansed. He had laid aside his Jewish scruples and had lived in free intercourse with Gentile believers. Now he belies his own convictions. He acts in a way contrary to his custom. He places a slur upon fellow Christians. Merely to win favor with legalists from Jerusalem, he lends the weight of his influence to compel Gentile believers to observe Jewish law. "Compel" was not too strong a word to use; for if Peter countenanced even the teaching that Jewish observances conferred a superior sanctity or spiritual standing, it would be in effect a demand that all Gentile Christians should obey the Mosaic law. For Peter to make such a demand was a betrayal of Christian liberty; it was disloyalty to the gospel of Christ. No wonder that Paul remonstrated in public with the guilty apostle!

How far does the rebuke extend? Does it consist merely in the charge that Peter was compelling Gentiles "to live as do the Jews"? V. 14. Or does the rebuke continue through v. 16, or through v. 18, or through v. 21? It is difficult to say. No one can affirm positively where the rebuke ends and where the argument of the epistle begins.

It is certain that when Paul publicly reproved Peter he uttered more than the single sentence in reference to living as a Gentile. He must have proceeded to show the inconsistency between Peter's conduct and Peter's beliefs. Probably the remaining verses of the chapter are a brief summary of Paul's public rebuke at Antioch; they form, however, a superb introduction to his message to the Galatians.

The point to be noted is that the position which Peter pretends to hold is exactly that of the false teachers who are troubling the Galatian churches. In rebuking Peter for his hypocrisy, Paul naturally states and advocates his gospel of grace. In relating the incident at Antioch, he finds occasion to give a concise outline of that gospel, and to set forth the doctrine of justification by faith, which in the following chapters he will proceed to defend.

This admirable summary of the gospel message, vs. 15-21, is both negative and positive. It shows, first, the insufficiency of the law and, second, the power of faith in Christ.

Even Jews, with all their superior privileges and advantages and attainments, have found it impossible to secure righteousness by the works of the law, but have been justified by faith in Christ. "We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles . . . ," writes Paul, "even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ." There is probably something of irony in the words, when he speaks of "sinners of the Gentiles." Peter, and the party of legalists to whom he had yielded, had shown contempt for the Gentile converts with whom they had refused to eat. It was in accordance with the usual arrogant attitude of Jews toward men of other nations whom they regarded as "godless" and "unclean" and "sinners."

However, the Jews did form a holy nation and had inherited the covenants and promises of God. They had attained a certain sanctity in contrast with sinful Gentiles. Paul reasons from this fact, and he turns against the Judaizers their familiar language. He declares that in spite of all their privileges and regardless of their arrogant pretensions to superior holiness, even Jews, even men like Peter and Paul, had found that they could not be justified by works of the law, and had been compelled to turn to Christ for salvation. If, then, even Jews could not be justified by their attempt at keeping the law, why bind the law upon Gentiles who had been saved, like Jewish believers, by faith in Christ?

Paul's own conscience and the conscience of Peter, as of all Jewish believers, had given the verdict that, judged by the law, they were all sinners and under condemnation. It was this conviction that had brought them to accept Christ as their Saviour.

This insufficiency of the law, which Paul and Peter had recognized, and in view of which they had turned to Christ, was in accordance with the statement of their Hebrew Scriptures. The psalmist had declared that by the works of the law "no man living" shall be justified, Ps. 143:2. In all ages justification had been by grace and through faith. Finally, in Christ the grace of God was fully revealed and all who accepted Christ and trusted Christ and obeyed Christ were justified by faith and found acceptance with God.

Since this was true, since the law could not justify and justification had come by faith in Christ, what a reflection upon Christ to insist that the followers of Christ lacked a righteousness which the law could supply ! Or, as Paul states the case, "If, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin?"

That is to say: If we Christians, who have regarded ourselves as justified by faith in Christ, now resort to legal methods, and Jewish rites and ceremonies, in order to be justified, is that not confessing that we are sinners and in need of being saved, and is not Christ then at fault for our present sinful state? Can this be possible? "Is Christ a minister of sin?"

Paul recoils from so monstrous a suggestion. "God forbid," he cries, using a phrase he commonly employed to express horror and deprecation.

The real "sinner," the actual transgressor, is the one who turns from Christ to the law, who tries to add to justification by faith justification by works, who supplants Christ by supplementing Christ, and who offers self-righteousness in place of the righteousness of Christ. "For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor." Paul here courteously puts himself in the place of Peter or his companions in error. He supposes himself guilty of taking so false a step. If he should go back to law as a means of salvation, then he would convict himself of sin in ever having renounced the law; or if it has been right to renounce the law, then it is wrong to return now to the law. In either case he would be not vaguely a "sinner" in condition, but a real "transgressor" in action.

By way of contrast to such an imaginary course, Paul now relates his actual experience, and over against the insufficiency of the law he pictures the all-sufficiency of Christ.

This insufficiency of the law as a means of salvation was twofold. Its moral standard was so high that in its light no man could be justified, and, secondly, it had no power or principle that aided a man in meeting its demands. Christ held out a moral standard not one whit lower; but by his death he made atonement for sin, and by his resurrection and the gift of his Spirit he provided power for holy living.

Instead of finding in the law a way of salvation, by the very operation of the law Paul was led to abandon the law, that he might love and serve God. "For I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God." When Paul realized what the law really demanded, in all its deep meaning and implication, he discovered that he never could secure justification by his endeavor to keep the law. Rather the law passed on him a moral sentence of death. It revealed the reality and the depth of his sin; but it gave him no power to overcome sin. Therefore he turned from the law as a means of salvation, or of acceptance with God. He did so once for all, as truly as though he had died to the law. He could never return to it. He could never again look to it, as the Galatians were looking to it, as a ground of acceptance with God.

His relation to the law was broken as completely as earthly relations are broken by death. Yet his purpose was not that he might act in a way contrary to the law, but that he might truly "live unto God," and attain that experience of holiness he had sought for in vain under the yoke of the law. V. 19.

Such, indeed, is the experience of every man who seriously tries to save himself by keeping the moral law, by personal uprightness, or by obedience to conscience. The more truly he perceives the height and depth and length and breadth of the law's demands, the more fully does he understand that he can never meet those demands, and the more eagerly does he turn from his own feeble efforts to cast himself upon Christ, that in Christ he may find pardon for past transgressions and power for holy living.

It was by identifying himself with Christ that Paul entered upon a new and truer life. When he surrendered his will to Christ and came to trust Christ alone for his salvation, it was an experience in which he was so united with Christ that in effect he partook of the death of Christ and became one with the risen Christ: "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me."

Crucifixion may picture the pain and anguish of soul which accompanies death to self and a complete yielding to the service of Christ. Here, however, it pictures the absolute abandonment of Paul's former life of legal righteousness and confidence in the law. To all that world of rites and ceremonies, as means of salvation, he was dead. He died to them at the cross of Christ, for in that cross he found the perfect sacrifice for sin, and by faith in the risen Christ he found the source of true righteousness.

So truly was Paul surrendered to Christ that he could say with all sincerity, "It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me."

That vital, spiritual union with Christ is a reality in which every believer should rejoice. The words, however, are not to be pressed with undue literalness. The person and personality of Paul were not destroyed. Christ and the believer are ever distinct. Two beings can never be merged into one. Personalities ever persist and are separate, no matter how much one may be influenced by another. Paul never ceased to think and act. His self-consciousness was not lost. His moral responsibility never was suspended.

There are those who have brought the doctrine of "the indwelling Christ" so far into the sphere of mysticism as to have bordered on fanaticism, and have taught the actual merging of the divine and human, so that only one personality can be said to exist, only one being to be conscious and active.

The corrective of such mystical teaching, the explanation of a true spiritual union, is given in the verse which follows. It is a union by faith. It is a continuance of the personality of Christ and the personality of the believer; and the relation between them is one of obedience, of trust, and of love. "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." Paul is still living an actual life "in the flesh"; that is, in a mortal body. No matter how real his union with Christ may be, it does not end or suspend any of the natural functions and operations of mind or body. It is Paul, the individual, who still thinks and wills and chooses and hopes and fears, regardless of how much he may be influenced or strengthened by his divine Lord.

Faith is the link which unites the person of Paul with the person of his Lord. Faith becomes the channel through which Paul receives new power for living. Christ is the Object on which the faith of Paul rests. Some have supposed these words to mean that Paul lived "by the faith of the Son of God," as though it were the faith of Christ or Christ's own faith that saved Paul or gave him his new life. The words rather mean that Christ is the Object of Paul's faith.

It should be carefully noted that faith rests on a Person. We are not saved by believing in the death of Christ or in the work of Christ. We do believe these great realities and all they may import. Yet our faith, our saving, justifying sanctifying faith rests on a divine Person, "the Son of God."

Paul adds, "Who loved me, and gave himself up for me." This is the explanation of Paul's life, the sum of all his beliefs. In the death of Christ for him, Paul saw revealed the purpose and grace and love of God. All his efforts to save himself ceased. He accepted pardon and peace as free gifts, and in loving gratitude he went forth to serve the Christ who for his sake had died and risen again.

Paul declares that he does not, he cannot "make void the grace of God," as he indeed would be doing if he were attempting by works of the law to secure his acceptance with God. If men could have been justified by keeping the law, there would have been no necessity for the death of Christ. "For if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought."

One who keeps the law as a ground of salvation virtually rejects the atoning death of Christ. The choice must be made between works and grace, between the law and Christ. The decision of Paul has been reached; it is final and changeless. What will be the choice of the churches of Galatia?