Bibelkommentare

Galatians 2:1,2 Paul showeth for what purpose after many years he went

to Jerusalem.

Galatians 2:3-5 That Titus, who went with him, was not circumcised,

and that on purpose to assert the freedom of the

Gentile converts from the bondage of the law.

Galatians 2:6-10 That no new knowledge was added to him in conference

with the three chief apostles, but that he received

from them a public acknowledgment of his Divine

mission to the Gentiles.

Galatians 2:11-13 That he openly withstood Peter for dissimulation with

respect to Gentile communion.

Galatians 2:14-20 Expostulating with him, why he, who believed that

justification came by the faith of Christ, acted as

though it came by the works of the law.

Galatians 2:21 Which was, in effect, to frustrate the grace of God.

Fourteen years after; either fourteen years after the three years before mentioned, and the fifteen days; or fourteen years after the conversion of Paul, or fourteen years after the death of Christ. This journey seeming to be that mentioned Acts 15:2, it seems rather to be understood of fourteen years after the death of Christ.

I went up again to Jerusalem: motions to Jerusalem are usually in Scripture called ascendings or goings up; either because of the mountains round about it, or in respect of the famousness of the place: see Acts 15:2 21:4. The occasion of this journey we have, Acts 15:1,2. It was to advise with the apostles and elders, about the necessity of circumcision; some that came from Judea having taught the disciples at Antioch, that except they were circumcised they could not be saved.

With Barnabas, and took This with me also; Barnabas was chosen to go with Paul, Acts 15:2, and some others, whom Luke nameth not, but it is plain by this text Titus was one.

And I went up by revelation; revelation signifieth God’s immediate declaration of his will to him, that he would have him take this journey; which is not at all contradicted by Luke, saying, Acts 15:2,3, that their journey was determined by the Christians at Antioch. God, to encourage Paul, had let him know it was his will he should go; and also put it into the Christians’ hearts at Antioch, to choose him to the journey. His motions from one place to another were much by revelation, or immediate order and command from God, Acts 16:9 Acts 22:18 23:11.

And communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles; he saith, he communicated, or made a report or relation of, (in which sense the word is used, Acts 25:14), that doctrine of the gospel which he had preached amongst the Gentiles; he, doubtless, more particularly means, the abolition of circumcision, and no necessity of the observance of the law of Moses contained in ordinances.

But privately to them which were of reputation; but he saith that he did it privately, and to men of reputation; by which he meaneth the apostles, or some other Christians of greatest eminency.

Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain; lest he should have prejudiced himself, as to the course of the gospel, which he metaphorically compareth to a race: see 1 Corinthians 9:26.

Objection. If any ask how this influenced Paul, so as to make him privately to communicate the doctrine which he had amongst the Gentiles preached publicly? It is easily answered:

1. That the consent of those who were apostles before him to the doctrine which he preached, was of great moment to persuade all Christians to embrace it; and by this means he obviated the scandal of being singular in the doctrine which he preached.

2. Besides that Paul was now at Jerusalem, which was the chief place of the Jews’ residence, to whom God indulged a greater liberty for the ceremonial usages, than to the churches of the Gentiles, wlto had not been educated in that religion. And had Paul openly there declared the liberty of Christians from circumcision, and the ceremonial usages, he had both enraged those who as yet continued in the Jewish religion, and possibly given no small offence to those who had been educated in that religion, though they were converted to the faith of the gospel, they not fully yet understanding the liberty of Christians from that yoke. By one or both of which ways, had Paul openly at Jerusalem published the doctrine which he had publicly preached in Damascus and Arabia, and other places of the Gentiles, his labours might have been rendered useless, and he might also have been less successful in his further course of preaching it.

The apostle brings this as an instance of the apostles at Jerusalem agreeing with him in his doctrine, as to the non-necessity of circumcision; for though Titus was with him, who was a native Gentile, being a Greek, and a minister of the gospel, (and possibly Paul carried him with him for an instance), yet the apostles at Jerusalem did not think fit to impose upon him circumcision; no, not upon a solemn debate of that question. If any shall object that Paul himself circumcised Timothy, who was a Greek, Acts 16:1,3; the answer is easy, the same text letting us know that his mother was a Jewess, and that he did it because of the Jews in those quarters. As to the Jews, it was matter of liberty at this time, they might or might not be circumcised. Now in matters of this nature, where men have a liberty, they ought to have regard to circumstances, and to do that which they, from a view of circumstances, judge will be most for the glory of God, the good of others, and give least offence, 1 Corinthians 10:28-31.

He gives the reason why circumcision was not urged upon Titus, viz. because there were some got into that meeting, where Paul debated these things with the apostles that were at Jerusalem, who, though they had embraced the Christian religion, (and upon that account were brethren), yet were soured with the Jewish leaven, and were very zealous for all Christians to observe the Jewish rites of circumcision, &c.; upon which account it is that he calleth them

false brethren. These (he saith)

came in privily, to spy out that

liberty which all Christians had, and Paul had preached and used, as to these Jewish ceremonies; who, could they have obtained to have had Titus circumcised, they had had a great advantage to have defamed Paul, as teaching one thing to the Gentile churches, and practising the contrary when he came to Jerusalem to the apostles, and amongst the Jews. And this being a liberty which he and all Christians had, in and from Jesus Christ, he would not part with it, for they aimed at nothing but the bringing of Christians again under the bondage of the ceremonial law. Some may say: It being a thing wherein Christians had a liberty, why did not St. Paul yield to avoid their offence; becoming all things to all men to gain some?

Answer. In the use of our liberty, all circumstances are to be considered, as well as that of scandal and offence. The valuable opposite circumstance in this case, seems to be the validity and success of the apostle’s ministry, the efficacy of which would have been much weakened, if his enemies had from hence gained an advantage to represent him, as doing one thing in one place and the quite contrary in another. Besides, though at this time the use or not use of the ceremonial rites, by the Jews, was a matter of liberty, by reason of God’s indulgence to them for the prejudices of their education, yet whether they were at all so to the Gentile churches, may be doubted: see Galatians 5:2,3. Further yet, these brethren urged the observation of these rites, as necessary to salvation, (as appears from Acts 15:1), for they were of the sect of the Pharisees, Galatians 2:5. And to use them under that notion, was no matter of liberty.

To these Judaizing Christians the apostle did not think fit to yield one jot, not for the least time, nor in so much as one precedent; having a desire that these Gentile churches might not be perverted. Or, (as others think), to which men of reputation we yielded not in the least. It is very probable, that Peter and James, upon their first arguing the case, to avoid the scandal and offence of the Jews, would have had Titus circumcised: St. Paul would not yield to it, that he might preserve the doctrine of the gospel, which he had planted amongst the Galatians, and other Gentiles, pure, and not encumber those churches with the Mosaical rites. But the most and best interpreters rather judge the persons here mentioned, to whom Paul would not yield, to be some Judaizing Christians, rather than the persons of reputation, mentioned Galatians 2:2.

But of those who seemed to be somewhat: the word translated seemed, is the same with that in Galatians 2:2, which we there translate of reputation. The apostle means the same persons that were of the greatest reputation, and so the following words,

to be somewhat, do import, Acts 5:36 8:9. We must not understand the apostle, by this expression, to detract from the just reputation that the apostles, and these eminent Christians at Jerusalem, had; he only taketh notice here of them, as magnified by the false teachers of this church, to the lessening of himself; and as those who seemed to be somewhat, must be interpreted as relating to these men’s estimation of them; that seemed to you to be somewhat, though I seem nothing to you.

Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; whatsoever they were formerly, suppose (as probably some of these Galatians had said) that they saw Christ in the flesh, were immediately called by him, when I was a Pharisee, &c.

God accepteth to man’s person; hath no regard to what a man hath been, but to what he is.

For they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me; when I came to confer and discourse with them, about the doctrine which I and they had taught, I learned no new doctrine from them, different from what I had before taught, neither did they reprove or correct me, for any thing which I had taught amiss; we were all of the same mind.

But contrariwise, when they saw; they were so far from contradicting any thing that I had preached, that when they understood from me, and Barnabas, {who Acts 15:12, declared in the council what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them} that the gospel of the uncircumcision, that the business of preaching the gospel to those who were no Jews, (for that is meant by

uncircumcision; not simply those that were not circumcised, for some of the heathens were circumcised, yet all go in Scripture under the name of uncircumcised),

was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; as the preaching of the gospel to the Jews was committed to Peter, and not to him only, but to James and John. It must not be so understood, as if Paul might not preach to the Jews, or Peter might not preach to the Gentiles, (for the contrary is evident from Acts 9:15, as to Paul, and from Peter’s preaching to Cornelius, Acts 10:1-48), but because God designed the Gentiles to be more especially the province for Paul to exercise his ministry in, Acts 26:17, (and accordingly he was specially sent out by the church, Acts 13:3), as Peter’s chief work was among the Jews.

As Paul’s call was equal to that of Peter both of them being Divine, so, saith the apostle, my ability and success was equal; as God

wrought effectually in and by Peter in the discharge of his apostleship in the province intrusted to him, (which was preaching to the Jews), so he wrought effectually and mightily in me, or by me, in the province wherein I was employed, viz. carrying the gospel to the Gentiles. This efficious working of God, both by Paul and Peter, was seen in the conversion of multitudes by their ministry, as well as in their miraculous operations, by which they confirmed the doctrine of the gospel which they preached.