Barnes' Notes on the Bible · Galatians 第2章

第二章在意义上与第一章紧密相连，实际上是同一论证的一部分。现今的分章造成了损害，恰当的划分应当在 Galatians 2:10 的末了。本章的总旨与第一章相同，就是要表明：他的福音不是从人领受的，也不是从众使徒得来的；他不承认自己对基督教的见解亏欠他们；他们甚至从未在他之上设立权威；他们反而欢迎他作同劳者，承认他是使徒职分工作中的协力者。为证实这一点，他陈述说（Galatians 2:1），他确实曾上耶路撒冷去，但那是出于明确的启示（Gal 2:2）；他在那里受到众使徒——尤其是那些被称为教会柱石的人——衷心的接纳；而且，他非但不认为自己不及其他使徒，反倒在安提阿因一项极其重要、攸关生死的教义当面抵挡了彼得。

因此，本章可以看作分为两部分：

I. “他耶路撒冷之行及当地所发生之事的记述”（Galatians 2:1-10）。

(a) 他是在归主十四年之后上去的；此前他长期照自己的方式在外邦人中劳苦，并未觉得要倚赖耶路撒冷的众使徒（Galatians 2:1-2）。

(b) 他在那里的时候，没有任何强迫他服从犹太礼仪与习俗的企图；而在这件事上具有决定性的一点是，他们连提多也没有要求他受割礼，这就证明他们并未对保罗主张管辖之权，也不打算将摩西的礼仪加在从外邦人中归信的人身上（Galatians 2:3-5）。

(c) 他说，耶路撒冷的众使徒中最杰出的人物亲切地接待了他，毫不迟疑地接纳他进入他们的信任与恩惠之中。他们没有把什么重担加在他身上（Galatians 2:6）；他们看出他奉差遣要把福音传给外邦人的凭据（Galatians 2:7-8）；他们向他与巴拿巴用右手行相交之礼（Galatians 2:9）；他们唯一所求的，只是要他们记念犹太境内贫苦的圣徒并向他们施慈惠，借此表明他们关心那些从犹太教归信的人，或者为众人的供养尽当尽的一份，并表明他们并非存心撇弃自己的同胞（Galatians 2:10）。这样，他们就给出了最充分的凭据，证明他们认可保罗所行的道路，并承认他是使徒，完全接纳他进入与他们的交通之中。

II. “安提阿的一幕，保罗在那里因彼得的装假而责备他”（Galatians 2:11-21）。提及此事的主要目的，看来首先是要表明，他并不认为自己不及其他使徒，他对福音的见解也不是从他们领受的；其次是要说明，遵守犹太礼仪并非得救所必需，而且他从起初就持守这一点。他在与彼得的争论中——并且是在彼得明显有错的一件事上——极力坚持了这一点；因此，他传给加拉太人的关于称义的教义，并不是什么新道理。于是他陈述说：

(a) 彼得在安提阿装假，他就当面抵挡他，甚至连巴拿巴也随伙被彼得所行的样式牵引去了（Galatians 2:11-14）；

(b) 犹太人必须凭着信心称义，而不是倚靠自己的律法（Galatians 2:15-16）；

(c) 因信称义的人行事为人都当与所信的一致，不可试图再把自己已经拆毁的事重新建造起来（Galatians 2:17-18）；

(d) 因信称义的果效，是叫人向律法死，好叫他可以向神活；这果效叫人真正活了过来，并献身于真宗教的事业；为表明这一点，他诉诸这事在自己内心与生命中的果效（Galatians 2:19-20）；

(e) 又指出，倘若称义可以靠律法获得，那么基督就是白白死了（Galatians 2:21）。这样，他便表明：教训人必须遵守犹太礼仪，其果效乃是毁坏福音，使它成为虚空无用。

过了十四年 - 即他归主以后首次访问耶路撒冷之后的十四年。不过有些注释家认为，这十四年当从他的归主算起。但更明显的解法，是把它关联到上一章所记他访问那里的时间（Galatians 1:18）。这段时期主要花在小亚细亚传扬福音。

我又上耶路撒冷去 - 一般认为，保罗在这里指的是使徒行传十五章所记载的那次访问。所提到的情形大体相同；而他那时上去的目的，正是在此提出来完全切合论证之需。他是与巴拿巴一同上去，要把有关遵守摩西律法之必要性的问题，提交给耶路撒冷聚集的使徒和长老们。有几个人从犹太来到外邦归信者中间，坚称必须受割礼才能得救。保罗和巴拿巴反对他们；争论变得激烈，便商定把这事提交耶路撒冷的使徒和长老。为此，保罗和巴拿巴连同其他几个人被差派去，把这事摆在整个使徒群体面前。由于保罗在本书信中所讨论的问题，正是遵守摩西律法对于称义是否必要，那么提到一次正是这一问题被提交给使徒们的行程，恰恰切中要点。保罗在这之前确实还带着为犹太贫苦圣徒所募的捐项上过一次耶路撒冷（Acts 11:29-30; Acts 12:25），但他在此没有提到那次，大概因为那时他没有见到其他使徒，或者更可能是因为那次行程并不能说明当前争论的要点。而这里所指的是使徒行传十五章的场合，此刻讨论的要点正是当时查问的主要题目，并且得到了明确的裁断。

也带着提多同去 - 路加在使徒行传（Acts 15:2）中说，保罗和巴拿巴那次上耶路撒冷的行程中还有别人同行，但他没有说明他们是谁。提多是否受教会的委派上耶路撒冷去，绝不能确定；情形更可能相反。保罗似乎是以私人的事由带他同去的；但原因并未说明。也许是要显明他的基督徒自由，并显明他对自己有权行之事的意识；也许是要为所查问的问题提供一个实例，把提多是否应当受割礼的事提交给他们。他是希腊人，却已归信基督教。保罗没有给他施行割礼，却接纳他进入基督教会的全部特权之中。这样，眼前就有一个恰当的实例；把这样一个实例摆在他们面前，使他们可以充分了解这事，也许是很重要的。正如多德里奇恰当指出的，这是关于提多的第一次记载。路加在使徒行传中并没有提到他；虽然他的名字在哥林多后书中出现多次（2 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 7:6; 2 Corinthians 8:6, 2 Corinthians 8:16, 2 Corinthians 8:23; 2 Corinthians 12:18），但应当记得，那封书信写于这封给加拉太人的书信之后相当久。提多是希腊人，而且既因保罗称他为自己的“儿子”（Titus 1:4），他无疑是由保罗的劳苦引领归主的。他常在保罗的旅行中伴随他；被保罗用于重要的职事（见上述哥林多后书的各处经文）；被保罗留在革哩底，要把没有办完的事办整齐，并在那里设立长老（Titus 1:5）；后来他往挞马太去了（2 Timothy 4:10），据认为他又回到革哩底，据传他在邻近的岛屿传扬福音，享年九十四岁去世——Calmet。

我是奉启示上去的 - 不是为了从那里的使徒领受关于基督教本质的教导。应当记得，保罗陈述这件事的目的，是要表明他的福音不是从人领受的。因此他小心地表明，他是奉神明确的命令上去的。他上去，不是为了就自己的职事从那里的使徒领受指示，也不是要他们来确认他的使徒职分，而是要提交一个关乎整个教会的重要问题。使徒行传 15:2 说，保罗和巴拿巴是奉安提阿教会的差派上去的。但这记载与这里的记载并无不合；因为他虽是那里的教会所指派的，但假设他是受特别的启示引导而应允他们的请求，并无任何说不通之处。他说自己是奉直接的启示上去的，看来是要表明他并没有向使徒们寻求教导；他不是像一个倚赖他们的人那样，出于己意上去与他们商议；即便在他上去与他们商议的这件事上，他也是在明确而直接的启示的影响之下，这证明他同样是由神所委派，正如他们一样。

把我在外邦人中所传的福音陈说给他们 - 使他们了解他在外邦人中所传讲的教义。他充分陈述了自己行动所依据的原则、他所传福音的性质，以及他关于外邦人免于摩西律法义务的教义。这样，他就在福音的见解上使他们得了满足，并向他们表明，他明白所启示的基督教体系。结果，他们完全信任他，接纳他完全与他们相交（Galatians 2:9）。

却是背地里 - 边注作“分别地”。希腊文是 κατ ̓ ἰδίαν kat' idian。这措辞的意思是：他不是以公开的方式、不是在全体大会面前、甚至不是在所有使徒聚齐的场合做的，而是私下对几位领袖和主要人物做的。他私下说明了自己的动机和见解，使他们在事情成为公开讨论的题目之前就能明白。保罗私下说明的要点，不是福音是否要传给外邦人——在彼得受了启示之后（使徒行传 10章），他们对这一点已无疑问——而是犹太人的礼仪是否要加在外邦归信者身上。保罗说明了他在这一点上的见解和实行，就是：他不把这些礼仪加给外邦人；他教训人说，人不行这些礼仪也可以称义；这些礼仪对于得救并非必需。他寻求与耶路撒冷领袖们私下会面的原因，并没有说明。但我们可以推想，理由大致如下：

(1) 犹太人一般对自己的习俗有极强的依恋，而这种依恋在他们中间归信基督教的人身上也程度很高。因此，听见这些习俗并非必须遵守的道理，他们必会大为激动。

(2) 这事若提交给从犹太教归信之人的一般性大会，必然激起极大的骚动。他们不容易明白保罗为何这样行事；在激动的集会中，也没有可能提出合宜的解释；而且即便用这种方式作了所能作的一切解释，他们也许仍不能了解事情的全部实情。

(3) 若使几位主要人物先明白这事，保罗确信他们的影响力足以防止大的难处。因此他寻找机会，先私下把事情摆在他们面前，争取他们的好感；这一做法促成了整件事的圆满收场；参见 Acts 15。确实，当这问题后来提交给“使徒和长老”时，有过不少辩论（使徒行传 15:7）；那聚会中许多法利赛教门的人坚持必须教训外邦人遵守摩西的律法（使徒行传 15:5）；倘若保罗没有像他这里所说，预先采取把事情私下提交给“有名望的人”的防范措施，倘若彼得和雅各没有这样先得着满意、没有像使徒行传 15:7-21 所记那样提出他们的见解而结束了整场争论，那么在那些从犹太教归信、易于激动的人中间，那场讨论会怎样收场，谁也无法逆料。

在这里我们可以顺带指出，这件事提供了一个佩利在《Horae Paulinae》中反复申论的那类论据——他称之为“无意中的巧合”——的例证，虽然他并未提到这件事。使徒行传 15章的经过和辩论的过程，看起来很像是彼得和雅各事先与保罗有过某种私下商谈，在那问题被公开提到“使徒和长老”面前之前，有机会充分了解了他在这题目上的见解，虽然路加在那里并未提到这样的私下商谈。但一翻到加拉太书，我们就发现，他先前确实见过这同一位彼得和雅各（Gal 1:18-19）；他曾在这些事上与“有名望的人”有过私下会面；特别是雅各、彼得和约翰曾认可他的道路，向他与巴拿巴用右手行相交之礼（Galatians 2:9）。这样理解，这里所提的事，便是保罗生平中最周全的慎重实例之一。从这个事例我们可以学到：

(1) 当要解决的难处牵涉重大原则、包含许多要点时，寻求私下解释的机会，比把它交给大众或公开辩论更好。在群众集会的情绪可能被激起、偏见强烈的地方，不宜试图解决重大要点；更好的办法是私下解释，在可以冷静发问、如实陈述事实的机会中进行。

(2) 在群众性集会中争取有影响力之人的支持、使与会者中有了解全部案情之人的重要性。像彼得和雅各这样的人若明白了案情，几乎可以肯定，要达成对难处的友好调停，不会有太大的困难。

(3) 虽然这段经文并不是论一般性的传福音——因为这里提交给有名望之人的“福音”，是上文所提的那个问题——但我们可以说，讲道时、在陈述可能引起偏见的真理时、或当我们有理由预料会有偏见时，应当运用极大的慎重；并且向有名望的人传福音，往往最好是 κατ ̓ ἰδίαν kat' idian，“分别地”或“私下地”传。这样，真理就能作用于良心；它能更切合个人的性格；他能少处于防卫的状态，少提防真理应有的影响。与人谈信仰问题时尤其是这样：只要有可能，就当在他独处时、私下面谈。几乎任何人，在他独处时、在他闲暇时、并以友善之灵接近他时，都可以被带上信仰的话题。若在群众集会中、甚至在他的家人环绕之下对他个人讲说，几乎任何人都会动怒。我自己向个人谈信仰问题，只要他是独处的，除了一两次之外，从未受过不友善的对待。传道人绝不应当在陈述真理上退缩，无论人的地位多高、才干多大、财富多巨，都绝不应当怕人；但他向“有名望的人”私下讲论时，大概会获得最大的成功。

对那有名望之人说的 - 这里指使徒中的领袖人物。丁道尔译作“被看为首领的”。多德里奇译作“教会中最有名望的人”。希腊文直译是“那些似乎是（什么）的人”，在 Galatians 2:6 说得更全：“似乎是有些人望的人”，即有名声、有显著地位的人。

惟恐我现在或是从前徒然奔跑 - 免得我劳苦奔波的果效落空。保罗担心，若不用这方法私下把事情摆在他们面前，他们就不会明白。别人可能曲解他，他们的偏见可能被激起；当事情摆到聚集的使徒和长老面前时，可能作出一个判定他见解全错的裁断，或使他所教导的人相信他是错的裁断，那将大大拦阻并困扰他日后的行动。因此，为防止这一点，并确保一个公正、又不损害他日后用处的裁断，他寻求了这次私下会面；于是他的目的达到了。

但与我同去的提多 - 保罗引入提多的事例，无疑是要表明割礼对于得救并非必需。这是一个正中要害的实例。他正是为着这个问题才上耶路撒冷去的。眼前就有一个人，他没有给行割礼就接纳进入了基督教会。他声称自己有权这样做，并声称割礼对于得救并非必需。倘若割礼是必需的，那么强迫提多服从割礼本属应当。但保罗说，这事并没有被要求；即便有人要求，那一点也被让步了，他没有被迫受割礼。应当记得，这事发生在耶路撒冷；这是提交给当地使徒的一个实例；因此这案例的裁断，就解决了摩西律法对外邦归信者是否有约束力这一整场争论。

从这里的全部叙述可以十分清楚地看出：保罗并不要提多受割礼；他坚持这并非必需；并且当这事被要求时，他加以抵挡（Galatians 2:4-5）。然而在另一个场合，他亲自给提摩太行了割礼（Acts 16:3）。但保罗的做法并无矛盾。在提多的事上，割礼是作为一种权利、一种加在他身上的义务而被要求的，保罗看这原则危险，便加以抵挡。在提摩太的事上，那是他自愿顺从犹太人的惯例，并非作为一种义务强加于人，也不会被理解为得救所不可或缺。顺从这惯例并无危险随之，且大有助于赢得犹太人的好感，因此他就顺从了。倘若处境与提摩太受割礼时相同，保罗给提多行割礼原不会犹豫；但处境不同；当割礼被作为原则与义务的问题来坚持时，反对它对保罗而言也就成了原则与义务的问题。

虽是希腊人 - 生来父母是外邦人，他自然没有受过割礼。大概他的父母双方都是希腊人。提摩太的情形稍有不同：他母亲是犹太妇人，父亲却是希腊人（Acts 16:3）。

也没有勉强他受割礼 - 我认为这里含意是：有人要求并坚持他必须受割礼。这里也含着：保罗抵挡了这事，而那一点被让步了；这样就确定了那重大而重要的原则——割礼对于得救并非必需；见 Galatians 2:5。

因为有假弟兄 - 这些假弟兄是谁，并不能确实知道；他指的是耶路撒冷的人还是安提阿的人，也不得而知。他大概是指犹太化的基督徒，或那些自称是基督徒、自称从犹太教归信的人。他们是伪装者和伪善者，还是对基督教的认识极不完全、又顽固、固执己见、乖僻——尽管在某些方面确实是好人，以致在这事上是出于良心——并不容易断定。然而清楚的是：他们反对使徒保罗；他们认为他教导危险的教理；他们歪曲并错述他的见解；他们声称对真宗教的本质持有比他更清楚的看见。保罗到处遇见这样的对敌（2 Corinthians 11:26）；应付他们貌似有理的说辞，需要他全部的机智与才干。

这里显然可见，保罗是在为他所行的某件事说明理由，而那理由就是要抵消“假弟兄”在这件事上的影响。但他所说明理由的是什么事呢？通常认为，是由于他没有顺从给提多施行割礼这件事；意即他要说，他抵挡那事，是为了抵消他们的影响、挫败他们的图谋。但我想提出：Galatians 2:3 岂不是当视为插入语？他所说明理由的事，岂不是他寻求与使徒中领袖人物的私下会面（Galatians 2:2）？他这样做的理由是明显的：这样，他就能更容易抵消假弟兄的影响；他就能充分陈述自己的教理；他就能解答他们的询问，预先应付仇敌的异议；这样，他就能把领袖使徒的影响力争取到自己一边，有效地阻止假弟兄把犹太礼仪加在外邦归信者身上的一切努力。

偷着引进来的 - 译作“偷着”的词（παρεισάκτους pareisaktous）源出一个意为“从别人旁边领进来、与别人一同引进”的动词，继而有“悄悄地领进或带进、私运进来”的意思——罗滨逊辞典（Robinson's Lexicon）。这动词在新约中只见于 2 Peter 2:1，在那里用于异端，译作“私自引进来”。在这里，它大概指那些被巧妙地引进传道职分的人——他们装出敬虔的模样，实则或对敬虔全然陌生，或对基督教体系的真性质极其无知，并且惯于利用一切机会，要把摩西制度特殊礼仪的遵守强加给别人。他们被引进什么之中，使徒没有说。也许他们是以这种方式被引进了传道职分（多德里奇）；也许是他们被引进了使徒们聚议这问题的“聚会”（钱德勒）。我认为多半保罗是指耶路撒冷所发生的事；这些假弟兄是从安提阿或保罗传道的别的什么地方引进来的，或者是对敌们引进来要求给提多施行割礼的人——表面堂皇的借口是摩西律法的要求，实际上是要取得他们所想要的那种证据，证明这礼仪必须加在外邦归信者身上。倘若保罗被迫服从这事；倘若他们能把这一点办成，那就正是他们需要的先例，能了结整个争论，证明摩西律法必须加给外邦归信者。这就是保罗如此极力反对的原因。

私下窥探我们在基督耶稣里的自由 - 指实行基督教时所享的自由。这里所说的自由，无疑是指脱离犹太教那些痛苦、费财而繁重的礼仪的自由；见 Galatians 5:1。他们窥探保罗等人所享自由的目的，无疑是要作保罗等人不遵守摩西制度特殊礼仪这一事实的见证人，要报告这事，要坚持叫他们顺从那些习俗，从而确保把那些礼仪加在外邦归信者身上。他们首要的目的，是先亲自查明保罗不坚持遵守他们习俗的事实；然后要凭使徒的权威，取得一道命令或指示，叫提多必须受割礼，叫保罗以及他职事之下归信的人都必须遵守那些律法。

要叫我们作奴仆 - 即作摩西律法之下的奴仆；参见 Acts 15:10 的注释。

我们就是一刻的工夫也没有容让顺服他们 - 我们对此完全没有屈服。我们连最短的时间也没有让步。我们在反对他们的要求上毫不动摇，也丝毫没有顺从他们的意愿。我们坚定地抵挡他们的主张，为要使摩西律法不可作为义务加在外邦归信者身上这一重大原则永远确定下来。我认为这就是本节清楚而明显的意思，尽管对它历来众说纷纭。相当多的抄本略去了 οἵς οὐδὲ hois oude（“对他们也没有”）等字（见米尔、科佩、格里斯巴赫），这样意思就会颠倒过来，变成保罗为了更好地顾念福音的长远利益，曾在一短时间内或在那之后向他们让过步。近百年来，认为此处经文受到了窜改的看法渐有市场，但决非已被证实。古译本（叙利亚译本、武加大译本、阿拉伯译本）与通行的经文读法一致；绝大多数抄本也是如此；而且在我看来，这样的意思也是文脉所要求的。保罗在这整段里要说的，乃是一个重大原则被确定了：摩西礼仪是否要加给外邦归信者的问题被正面提了出来；要求此事的假弟兄被引进了；而他坚守了自己的立场。他一刻也没有让步。他感到一个重大原则系于此；虽然在一切合宜的场合他都愿意让步、愿意向什么样的人就作什么样的人，但在这里他毫不奉承他们，也毫不与他们妥协。这里“容让顺服”一语的意思是：他没有容许自己被强制屈服。“一刻的工夫”即最短的时间。他毫不动摇，也毫不让步。

为要叫福音的真理仍存在你们中间 - 意即那曾教导你们的基督教重大原则可以长存，你们可以享受纯粹福音的全般益处，而不掺入任何虚假的见解。保罗在加拉太人中间所维护的正是这些见解；如今他寻求的是，同样的见解能藉着耶路撒冷使徒团明确的裁断得以坚立。

至于那些有名望的 - 见 Galatians 2:2。这无疑指耶路撒冷使徒中最杰出的人物。我们通行的译本在这里显得生硬，其实并无必要。这里所用的词（δοκούντων dokountōn）指那些被人看为、有名望的人，即在使徒中有名望、有影响力的人。在这里提到他们，目的是要表明：他所走的道路，得到了使徒中最杰出者的赞同与认可。

他们是什么样的人，与我无干 - 丁道尔译作：“他们从前是什么样的人，与我无干。”意思似乎是这样：保罗的意思是说，无论他们真实的地位与身份如何，都丝毫不影响他作为使徒的权柄，也不影响他的论证。他固然喜悦他们的赞同，也寻求他们的认可，但他一刻也不承认自己作为使徒低于他们，或自己见解的正确性须倚赖于他们。他们是什么样的人，或人以为他们是什么样的人，与他作为使徒的主张无干，与他作为使徒之见解的权威也无干。他的福音是从主耶稣领受的；他对自己的见解正确无误，有最充分的确据。保罗说这话，显然与前面所说的一切一致：他不认为自己以任何方式倚赖他们来得权柄。他不失敬意地对待他们；但他并不认为他们有权对他主张什么权威。

神不以外貌取人 - 见 Acts 10:34 的注释；Romans 2:11 的注释。这是一条普遍的真理：神审判人，不受人的地位、财富或外部境况的影响。它在本文的特别含义是：使徒们的权威，不可按他们的外在地位、或他们在人中间的名声来衡量。因此，即使承认他自己不像其他使徒那样处于外部尊荣的境况，或他们被视为比他地位更高，他也不承认这就给了他们主张更高权威的根据。神的判断不受任何这类考虑的影响；因此保罗主张，事实上所有使徒在权威上都处于同一水平。

所商谈的 - 指我与他们商谈的时候（Galatians 2:2）。他们当时没有把任何新的义务加在我身上；也没有把任何我先前不知道的事传给我。

传福音给那未受割礼的人 - 指向世上未受割礼的部分、即外邦人传福音的职分。保罗在归主蒙召担任圣职时，就领受了这职分作为他独特的使命（见 Acts 9:15; Acts 22:21）；如今他们从他工作所伴随的显著成功看出，这职分是特别托付给他的。这里显然不是说保罗只可向外邦人传道、彼得只可向犹太人传道，因为保罗常在犹太人的会堂里讲道，而彼得是最先向外邦人传道的人（使徒行传 10章）；而是说，向外邦人传道是保罗的主要任务，是特别托付给他的一件事。

正如传福音给那受割礼的人的职分 - 即如向犹太人传福音的职分。

是托给彼得的 - 彼得主要当向受割礼的犹太人传道。显然，直到这时，彼得主要是在犹太人中作工。保罗在这里特别提出彼得，无疑因为他是使徒中最年长的，也是要表明：与那些藉着主耶稣亲自服事蒙召担任使职的人中最年长、最可敬的一位相比，他自己论使徒的职分也被看为处于同等地位。

那感动彼得…… - 或作“藉着彼得这途径或媒介”。这里的论证是：在保罗向外邦人的传道之下所产生的效果，与彼得向犹太人讲道之下的效果相同。由此推论，神召他们二人同样担任使徒的职分；这论证的解说见 Acts 11:17 的注释。

也感动我…… - 指在使我能行神迹上，并在伴随传道事奉的成功上。

那称为教会柱石的雅各、矶法、约翰 - “柱石”即教会中的柱子或支柱。译作“柱石”的词（στύλοι stuloi）本义是坚固的支柱；继而有影响力和权威之人，如同在教会中，或如柱子支撑建筑物那样支撑教会的人。关于雅各，见 Galatians 1:19 的注释；参较 Acts 15:13。矶法即彼得，是使徒中最年长的，被视为使徒团的首领。约翰是主所爱的门徒，他在教会中的影响必然极大。保罗感到，他若得着这几个人的支持，对加拉太的众教会就是重要的凭据，证明他有权看自己为使徒。他们的支持是以最充分、最断然的方式表达的。

知道所赐给我的恩 - 指教会的伟大元首所赐给我的恩宠——他如此丰盛地祝福我在外邦人中的劳苦。

向我和巴拿巴用右手行相交之礼 - 伸出右手，作为相交或恩宠的记号。他们就这样公开承认我们是同工，并向我们表示最大的信任。在我们的习俗中，伸出右手是友好问安的记号；这似乎也是使徒时代并非不知的问安方式。他们就这样被承认为与使徒们联合、共同从事把福音传遍世界之大业的人。这事是否公开进行，不能确知；但大概是在教会面前，或是在使徒行传 15章所记那次会议结束的时候。

叫我们往外邦人那里去 - 去传福音，建立教会。事情就这样全部定局，并且照保罗所愿望的定了。保罗与耶路撒冷的使徒之间产生了可喜的和谐；结果显明了他所采步骤的智慧。没有发生激烈的争竞冲突，没有容让嫉妒生起。保罗曾寻求机会，把自己的见解私下向他们充分陈述（Galatians 2:2）；他们则完全满意，确信神召了保罗和巴拿巴去向外邦人传扬福音。他们非但不嫉妒他们的成功，反倒为此喜乐；非但不给他们设置任何障碍，反倒诚心向他们伸出右手。若都照这样，避免嫉妒纷争将是何等容易！若一方同样甘愿作充分而坦率的说明，另一方同样对显著的成功不存嫉妒，多少羞辱教会的争竞本可避免！避免纷争的正途，正是这里所示之路。让双方都有完全的坦率；都愿意把事情的原委如实说明陈明；并且乐意为别人的才干、热心与成功喜乐——即便它们远超过自己的——那么教会中的争竞就会止息，每一位奉献而成功的福音传道人，都必从一切——无论因年岁或权威何等可敬——爱真宗教事业的人手中，得着相交的右手。

只是愿意我们记念穷人 - 照我想，这是指犹太的贫苦基督徒。很难设想，对外邦归信者还需要把这一点订为明文的条款；那样做也与眼前的议题不甚切题。其目的是要使来自外邦与来自犹太的基督徒彼此相合，防止疏远与不睦。也许有人会指称，保罗倾向于完全忘记自己的同胞；他既完全以外邦人的使徒自居，就会与那“按肉体说是他亲属”的人全然疏远；这样，在犹太归信者中间，恐怕就会生出嫌隙。要平息这一点，再没有比他应承深切关怀犹太归信者中的贫苦圣徒、在祷告中记念他们、并努力为他们的需用募集捐输更好的办法了。

这样，他就表明自己并未与同胞疏远；这样，整个教会就得以在最紧密的纽带中联合。大概当时犹太的基督徒正遭受贫困之苦——或因某种公开的逼迫，或因他们处于同胞的不悦之下。凡了解当时犹太人对基督徒特殊情绪的人，都必立刻看出：许多拿撒勒人耶稣的跟从者，必因依附他而大受不便。多少妻子可能被丈夫离弃；多少儿女可能被父母剥夺继承；多少人可能因无人肯支持而被排斥于谋生之门；因此，许多基督徒必陷于贫穷。于是，供给他们便成为特别重要的事；因此，新约圣经屡屡提到这事。此外，犹太的教会还遭遇饥荒；参较 Acts 11:30; Romans 15:25-27; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 2 Corinthians 8:1-7。

这也是我本来热心去行的 - 见刚才所引的各处经文。保罗对为耶路撒冷贫苦圣徒募捐的事极其热心；他藉此最充分地证明，自己并未疏远他们，而是对骨肉之亲怀有最深的关切。促成教会合一的正当途径之一，就是有穷人在他们中间、倚靠他们的供养；因此，每个教会都有一些穷人，作为联合的纽带之一。团结所有基督徒、防止疏远、嫉妒与纷争的最好办法，就是有一个共同的伟大慈善对象，人人都关心它，人人都能为它贡献。对所有基督徒而言，这样的共同对象，就是一个有罪的世界。凡奉基督之名的人，都可以联合起来促进世人的得救；在如今分裂混乱的基督教会中，再没有比对全人类救恩深切的共同关切，更能促进合一的了。

But when Peter was come to Antioch - On the situation of Antioch, see the note at Acts 11:19. The design for which Paul introduces this statement here is evident. It is to show that he regarded himself as on a level with the chief apostles, and that he did not acknowledge his inferiority to any of them. Peter was the oldest, and probably the most honored of the apostles. Yet Paul says that he did not hesitate to resist him in a case where Peter was manifestly wrong, and thus showed that he was an apostle of the same standing as the others. Besides, what he said to Peter on that occasion was exactly pertinent to the strain of the argument which he was pursuing with the Galatians, and he therefore introduces it Galatians 2:14-21 to show that he had held the same doctrine all along, and that he had defended it in the presence of Peter, and in a case where Peter did not reply to it. The time of this journey of Peter to Antioch cannot be ascertained; nor the occasion on which it occurred. I think it is evident that it was after this visit of Paul to Jerusalem, and the occasion may have been to inspect the state of the church at Antioch, and to compose any differences of opinion which may have existed there. But everything in regard to this is mere conjecture; and it is of little importance to know when it occurred.

I withstood him to the face - I openly opposed him, and reproved him. Paul thus showed that he was equal with Peter in his apostolical authority and dignity. The instance before us is one of faithful public reproof; and every circumstance in it is worthy of special attention, as it furnishes a most important illustration of the manner in which such reproof should be conducted. The first thing to be noted is, that it was done openly, and with candor. It was reproof addressed to the offender himself. Paul did not go to others and whisper his suspicions; he did not seek to undermine the influence and authority of another by slander; he did not calumniate him and then justify himself on the ground that what he had said was no more than true: he went to him at once, and he frankly stated his views and reproved him in a case where he was manifestly wrong. This too was a case so public and well known that Paul made his remarks before the church Galatians 2:14 because the church was interested in it, and because the conduct of Peter led the church into error.

Because he was to be blamed - The word used here may either mean because he had incurred blame, or because he deserved blame. The essential idea is, that he had done wrong, and that he was by his conduct doing injury to the cause of religion.

For before that certain came - Some of the Jews who had been converted to Christianity. They evidently observed in the strictest manner the rites of the Jewish religion.

Came from James - See the note at Galatians 1:19. Whether they were sent by James, or whether they came of their own accord, is unknown. It is evident only that they had been intimate with James at Jerusalem, and they doubtless pleaded his authority. James had nothing to do with the course which they pursued; but the sense of the whole passage is, that James was a leading man at Jerusalem, and that the rites of Moses were observed there. When they came down to Antioch, they of course observed those rites, and insisted that others should do it also. It is very evident that at Jerusalem the special rites of the Jews were observed for a long time by those who became Christian converts. They would not at once cease to observe them, and thus needlessly shock the prejudices of their countrymen; see the notes at Acts 21:21-25.

He did eat with the Gentiles - Peter had been taught that in the remarkable vision which he saw as recorded in Acts 10. He had learned that God designed to break down the wall of partition between the Jews and the Gentiles, and he familiarly associated with them, and partook with them of their food. He evidently disregarded the special laws of the Jews about meats and drinks, and partook of the common food which was in use among the Gentiles. Thus he showed his belief that all the race was henceforward to be regarded as on a level, and that the special institutions of the Jews were not to be considered as binding, or to be imposed on others.

But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself - He withdrew from the Gentiles, and probably from the Gentile converts to Christianity. The reason why he did this is stated. He feared those who were of the circumcision, or who had been Jews. Whether they demanded this of him; whether they encountered him in debate; or whether he silently separated himself from the Gentiles without their having said anything to him, is unknown. But he feared the effect of their opposition; he feared their reproaches; he feared the report which would be made to those at Jerusalem; and perhaps he apprehended that a tumult would be excited and a persecution commenced at Antioch by the Jews who resided there. This is a melancholy illustration of Peter's characteristic trait of mind. We see in this act the same Peter who trembled when he began to sink in the waves; the same Peter who denied his Lord. Bold, ardent, zealous, and forward; he was at the same time timid and often irresolute; and he often had occasion for the deepest humility, and the most poignant regrets at the errors of his course. No one can read his history without loving his ardent and sincere attachment to his Master; and yet no one can read it without a tear of regret that he was left thus to do injury to his cause. No man loved the Saviour more sincerely than he did, yet his constitutional timidity and irresolutehess of character often led him to courses of life suited deeply to wound his cause.

And the other Jews - That is, those who had been converted to Christianity. It is probable that they were induced to do it by the example of Peter, as they would naturally regard him as a leader.

Dissembled likewise with him - Dissembled or concealed their true sentiments. That is, they attempted to conceal from those who had come down from James the fact that they had been in the habit of associating with the Gentiles, and of eating with them. From this it would appear that they intended to conceal this wholly from them, and that they withdrew from the Gentiles before anything had been said to them by those who came down from James.

Insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away ... - Concerning Barnabas, see the note at Acts 4:36. Barnabas was the intimate friend of Paul. He had been associated with him in very important labors; and the fact, therefore, that the conduct of Peter was exciting so unhappy an influence as even to lead so worthy and good a man as he was into hypocrisy and error, made it the more proper that Paul should publicly notice and reprove the conduct of Peter. It could not but be a painful duty, but the welfare of the church and the cause of religion demanded it, and Paul did not shrink from what was so obvious a duty.

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly - To walk, in the Scriptures, is usually expressive of conduct or deportment; and the idea here is, that their conduct in this case was not honest.

According to the truth of the gospel - According to the true spirit and design of the gospel. That requires perfect honesty and integrity; and as that was the rule by which Paul regulated his life, and by which he felt that all ought to regulate their conduct, he felt himself called on openly to reprove the principal person who had been in fault. The spirit of the world is crafty, cunning, and crooked. The gospel would correct all that wily policy, and would lead man in a path of entire honesty and truth.

I said unto Peter before them all - That is, probably, before all the church, or certainly before all who had offended with him in the case. Had this been a private affair, Paul would doubtless have sought a private interview with Peter, and would have remonstrated with him in private on the subject. But it was public. It was a case where many were involved, and where the interests of the church were at stake. It was a case where it was very important to establish some fixed and just principles, and he therefore took occasion to remonstrate with him in public on the subject. This might have been at the close of public worship; or it may have been that the subject came up for debate in some of their public meetings, whether the rites of the Jews were to be imposed on the Gentile converts. This was a question which agitated all the churches where the Jewish and Gentile converts were intermingled; and it would not be strange that it should be the subject of public debate at Antioch. The fact that Paul reproved Peter before "them all," proves:

(1) That he regarded himself, and was so regarded by the church, as on an equality with Peter, and as having equal authority with him.

(2) that public reproof is right when an offence has been public, and when the church at large is interested, or is in danger of being led into error; compare 1 Timothy 5:20, "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."

(3) that it is a duty to reprove those who err. It is a painful duty, and one much neglected; still it is a duty often enjoined in the Scriptures, and one that is of the deepest importance to the church. He does a favor to another man who, in a kind spirit, admonishes him of his error, and reclaims him from a course of sin. He does another the deepest injury, who suffers sin unrebuked to lie upon him, and who sees him injuring himself and others, and who is at no pains to admonish him for his faults.

(4) if it is the duty of one Christian to admonish another who is an offender, and to do it in a kind spirit, it is the duty of him who has offended to receive the admonition in a kind spirit, and with thankfulness. Excitable as Peter was by nature, yet there is no evidence that he became angry here, or that he did not receive the admonition of his brother Paul with perfect good temper, and with an acknowledgment that Paul was right and that he was wrong. Indeed, the case was so plain, as it usually is if men would be honest, that he seems to have felt that it was right, and to have received the rebuke as became a Christian. Peter, unhappily, was accustomed to rebukes; and he was at heart too good a man to be offended when he was admonished that he had done wrong. A good man is willing to be reproved when he has erred, and it is usually proof that there is much that is wrong when we become excited and irritable if another admonishes us of our faults. It may be added here that nothing should be inferred from this in regard to the inspiration or apostolic authority of Peter. The fault was not that he taught error of doctrine, but that he sinned in conduct. Inspiration, though it kept the apostles from teaching error, did not keep them necessarily from sin. A man may always teach the truth, and yet be far from perfection in practice. The case here proves that Peter was not perfect, a fact proved by his whole life; it proves that he was sometimes timid, and even, for a period, timeserving, but it does not prove that what he wrote for our guidance was false and erroneous.

If thou, being a Jew - A Jew by birth.

Livest after the manner of the Gentiles - In eating, etc., as he had done before the Judaizing teachers came from Jerusalem, Galatians 2:12.

And not as do the Jews - Observing their special customs, and their distinctions of meats and drinks.

Why compellest thou the Gentiles ... - As he would do, if he insisted that they should be circumcised, and observe the special Jewish rites. The charge against him was gross inconsistency in doing this. "Is it not at least as lawful for them to neglect the Jewish observances, as it was for thee to do it but a few days ago?" Doddridge. The word here rendered "compellest," means here moral compulsion or persuasion. The idea is, that the conduct of Peter was such as to lead the Gentiles to the belief that it was necessary for them to be circumcised in order to be saved. For similar use of the word, see Matthew 14:22; Luke 14:23; Acts 28:19.

We who are Jews by nature - It has long been a question whether this and the following verses are to be regarded as a part of the address of Paul to Peter, or the words of Paul as a part of the Epistle to the Galatians. A great variety of opinion has prevailed in regard to this. Grotius says, "Here the narrative of Paul being closed, he pursues his argument to the Galatians." In this opinion Bloomfield and many others concur. Rosenmuller and many others suppose that the address to Peter is continued to Galatians 2:21. Such seems to be the most obvious interpretation, as there is no break or change in the style, nor any vestige of a transfer of the argument to the Galatians. But, on the other hand, it may be urged:

(1) That Paul in his writings often changes his mode of address without indicating it - Bloomfield.

(2) that it is rather improbable that he should have gone into so long a discourse with Peter on the subject of justification. His purpose was answered by the reproof of Peter for his dissimulation; and there is something incongruous, it is said, in his instructing Peter at such length on the subject of man's justification. Still it appears to me probable that this is to be regarded as a part of the discourse of Paul to Peter, to the close of Galatians 2:21.

The following reasons seem to me to require this interpretation:

(1) It is the most natural and obvious - usually a safe rule of interpretation. The discourse proceeds as if it were an address to Peter.

(2) there is a change at the beginning of the next chapter, where Paul expressly addresses himself to the Galatians.

(3) as to the impropriety of Paul's addressing Peter at length on the subject of justification, we are to bear in mind that he did not address him alone.

The reproof was addressed to Peter particularly, but it was "before them all" Galatians 2:14; that is, before the assembled church, or before the persons who had been led astray by the conduct of Peter, and who were in danger of error on the subject of justification. Nothing, therefore, was more proper than for Paul to continue his discourse for their benefit, and to state to them fully the doctrine of justification. And nothing was more pertinent or proper for him now titan to report this to the Galatians as a part of his argument to them, showing that he had always, since his conversion, held and defended the same doctrine on the subject of the way in which people are to be justified in the sight of God. It is, therefore, I apprehend, to be regarded as an address to Peter and the other Jews who were present. "We who were born Jews."

By nature - By birth; or, we were born Jews. We were not born in the condition of the Gentiles.

And not sinners of the Gentiles - This cannot mean that Paul did not regard the Jews as sinners, for his views on that subject he has fully expressed in Romans 2; 3. But it must mean that the Jews were not born under the disadvantages of the Gentiles in regard to the true knowledge of the way of salvation. They were not left wholly in ignorance about the way of justification, as the Gentiles were. They knew, or they might know, that men could not be saved by their own works. It was also true that they were under more restraint than the Gentiles were, and though they were sinners, yet they were not abandoned to so gross and open sensuality as was the pagan world. They were not idolaters, and wholly ignorant of the Law of God.

Knowing - We who are Jews by nature, or by birth. This cannot mean that all the Jews knew this, or that he who was a Jew knew it as a matter of course, for many Jews were ignorant of it, and many opposed it. But it means that the persons here referred to, those who had been born Jews, and who had been converted to Christianity, had had an opportunity to learn and understand this, which the Gentiles had not. This gospel had been preached to them, and they had professedly embraced it. They were not left to the gross darkness and ignorance on this subject which pervaded the pagan world, and they had had a better opportunity to learn it than the converts from the Gentiles. They ought, therefore, to act in a manner becoming their superior light, and to show in all their conduct that they fully believed that a man could not be justified by obedience to the Law of Moses. This rendered the conduct of Peter and the other Jews who "dissembled" with him so entirely inexcusable. They could not plead ignorance on this vital subject, and yet they were pursuing a course, the tendency of which was to lead the Gentile converts to believe that it was indispensable to observe the laws of Moses, in order to be justified and saved.

That a man is not justified by the works of the law - See the notes at Romans 1:17; Romans 3:20, Romans 3:26; Romans 4:5.

But by the faith of Jesus Christ - By believing on Jesus Christ; see the Mark 16:16 note; Romans 3:22 note.

Even we have believed in Jesus Christ - We are therefore justified. The object of Paul here seems to be to show, that as they had believed in the Lord Jesus, and thus had been justified, there was no necessity of obeying the Law of Moses with any view to justification. The thing had been fully done without the deeds of the Law, and it was now unreasonable and unnecessary to insist on the observance of the Mosaic rites.

For by the works of the law ... - See the notes at Romans 3:20, Romans 3:27. In this verse, the apostle has stated in few words the important doctrine of justification by faith - the doctrine which Luther so justly called, Articulus stantis, vel cadentis ecclesioe. In the notes referred to above, particularly in the notes at the Epistle to the Romans, I have stated in various places what I conceive to be the true doctrine on this important subject. It may be useful, however, to throw together in one connected view, as briefly as possible, the leading ideas on the subject of justification, as it is revealed in the gospel.

I. Justification is properly a word applicable to courts of justice, but is used in a similar sense in common conversation among people. An illustration will show its nature. A man is charged, e. g., with an act of trespass on his neighbor's property. Now there are two ways which he may take to justify himself, or to meet the charge, so as to be regarded and treated as innocent. He may:

(a) Either deny that he performed the act charged on him, or he may,

(b) Admit that the deed was done, and set up as a defense that he had a right to do it.

In either case, if the point is made out, he will be just or innocent in the sight of the Law. The Law will have nothing against him, and he will be regarded and treated in the premises as an innocent man; or he has justified himself in regard to the charge brought against him.

II. Charges of a very serious nature are brought against man by his Maker. He is charged with violating the Law of God; with a want of love to his Maker; with a corrupt, proud, sensual heart; with being entirely alienated from God by wicked works; in one word, with being entirely depraved. This charge extends to all people; and to the entire life of every unrenewed person. It is not a charge merely affecting the external conduct, nor merely affecting the heart; it is a charge of entire alienation from God; a charge, in short, of total depravity; see, especially, Romans 1; 2; 3. That this charge is a very serious one, no one can doubt. That it deeply affects the human character and standing, is as clear. It is a charge brought in the Bible; and God appeals in proof of it to the history of the world, to every man's conscience, and to the life of every one who has lived; and on these facts, and on his own power in searching the hearts, and in knowing what is in man, he rests the proofs of the charge.

III. It is impossible for man to vindicate himself from this charge. He can neither show that the things charged have not been committed, nor that, having been committed, he had a right to do them. He cannot prove that God is not right in all the charges which he has made against him in his word; and he cannot prove that it was right for him to do as he has done. The charges against him are facts which are undeniable, and the facts are such as cannot be vindicated. But if he can do neither of these things, then he cannot be justified by the Law. The Law will not acquit him. It holds him guilty. It condemns him. No argument which he can use will show that he is right, and that God is wrong. No works that he can perform will be any compensation for what he has already done. No denial of the existence of the facts charged will alter the ease; and he must stand condemned by the Law of God. In the legal sense he cannot be justified; and justification, if it ever exist at all, must be in a mode that is a departure from the regular operation of law, and in a mode which the Law did not contemplate, for no law makes any provision for the pardon of those who violate it. It must be by some system which is distinct from the Law, and in which man may be justified on different principles than those which the Law contemplates.

IV. This other system of justification is that which is revealed in the gospel by the faith of the Lord Jesus. It does not consist in either of the following things:

(1) It is not a system or plan where the Lord Jesus takes the part of the sinner against the Law or against God. He did not come to show that the sinner was right, and that God was wrong. He admitted most fully, and endeavored constantly to show, that God was right, and that the sinner was wrong; nor can an instance be referred to where the Saviour took the part of the sinner against God in any such sense that he endeavored to show that the sinner had not done the things charged on him, or that he had a right to do them.

(2) it is not that we are either innocent, or are declared to be innocent. God justifies the "ungodly," Romans 4:5. We are not innocent; we never have been; we never shall be; and it is not the design of the scheme to declare any such untruth as that we are not personally undeserving. It will be always true that the justified sinner has no claims to the mercy and favor of God.

(3) it is not that we cease to be undeserving personally. He that is justified by faith, and that goes to heaven, will go there admitting that he deserves eternal death, and that he is saved wholly by favor and not by desert.

(4) it is not a declaration on the part of God that we have worked out salvation, or that we have any claim for what the Lord Jesus has done. Such a declaration would not be true, and would not be made.

(5) it is not that the righteousness of the Lord Jesus is transferred to his people.

Moral character cannot be transferred. It adheres to the moral agent as much as color does to the rays of light which cause it. It is not true that we died for sin, and it cannot be so reckoned or imputed. It is not true that we have any merit, or any claim, and it cannot be so reckoned or imputed. All the imputations of God are according to truth; and he will always reckon us to be personally undeserving and sinful. But if justification is none of these things, it may be asked, what is it? I answer - It is the declared purpose of God to regard and treat those sinners who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as if they had not sinned, on the ground of the merits of the Saviour. It is not mere pardon. The main difference between pardon and justification respects the sinner contemplated in regard to his past conduct, and to God's future dealings with him. Pardon is a free forgiveness of past offences.

It has reference to those sins as forgiven and blotted out. It is an act of remission on the part of God. Justification has respect to the Law, and to God's future dealings with the sinner. It is an act by which God determines to treat him hereafter as a righteous man, or as if he had not sinned. The ground or reason of this is, the merit of the Lord Jesus Christ; merit such that we can plead it as if it were our own. The rationale of it is that the Lord Jesus has accomplished by his death the same happy effects in regard to the Law and the government of God, which would have been accomplished by the death of the sinner himself. In other words, nothing would be gained to the universe by the everlasing punishment of the offender himself, which will not be secured by his salvation on the ground of the death of the Lord Jesus. He has taken our place, and died in our stead; and he has met the descending stroke of justice, which would have fallen on our own head if he had not interposed (see my notes at Isaiah 53) and now the great interests of justice will be as firmly secured if we are saved, as they would be if we were lost.

The Law has been fully obeyed by one who came to save us, and as much honor has been done to it by his obedience as could have been by our own; that is, it as much shows that the Law is worthy of obedience to have it perfectly obeyed by the Lord Jesus, as it would if it were obeyed by us. It as much shows that the Law of a sovereign is worthy of obedience to have it obeyed by an only son and an heir to the crown, as it does to have it obeyed by his subjects. And it has as much shown the evil of the violation of the Law to have the Lord Jesus suffer death on the cross, as it would if the guilty had died themselves. If transgression whelm the innocent in calamity; if it extends to those who are perfectly guiltless, and inflicts pain and woe on them, it is as certainly an expression of the evil of transgression as if the guilty themselves suffer. And an impression as deep has been made of the evil of sin by the sufferings of the Lord Jesus in our stead, as if we had suffered ourselves.

He endured on the cross as intense agony as we can conceive it possible for a sinner ever to endure; and the dignity of the person who suffered, the incarnate God, is more than an equivalent for the more lengthened sorrows which the penalty of the Law exacts in hell. Besides, from the very dignity of the sufferer in our place, an impression has gone abroad on the universe more deep and important than would have been by the sufferings of the individual himself in the world of woe. The sinner who is lost will be unknown to other worlds. His name may be unheard beyond the gates of the prison of despair. The impression which will be made on distant worlds by his individual sufferings will be as a part of the aggregate of woe, and his individual sorrows may make no impression on distant worlds. But not so with him who took our place. He stood in the center of the universe. The sun grew dark, and the dead arose, and angels gazed upon the scene, and from his cross an impression went abroad to the farthest part of the universe, showing the tremendous effects of the violation of law, when not one soul could be saved from its penalty without such sorrows of the Son of God. In virtue of all this, the offender, by believing on him, may be treated as if he had not sinned; and this constitutes justification. God admits him to favor as if he had himself obeyed the Law, or borne its penalty, since as many good results will now follow from His salvation as could be derived from his punishment; and since all the additional happy results will follow which can be derived from the exercise of pardoning mercy. The character of God is thus revealed. His mercy is shown. His determination to maintain his law is evinced. The truth is maintained; and yet he shows the fulness of his mercy and the richness of his benevolence.

(The reader will find the above objections to the doctrine of imputation fully considered in the supplementary notes on Romans 4:5; see especially the note at Romans 4:3, in which it is observed, that almost every objection against the imputation of righteousness may be traced to two sources. The first of these is the idea that Christ's righteousness becomes ours, in the same sense that it is his, namely, of personal achievement; an idea continually rejected by the friends, and as often proceeded on by the enemies, of imputation. The second source is the idea that imputation involves a transference of moral character, whereas the imputing and the infusing of righteousness are allowed to be two very different things. Now, in this place, the commentator manifestly proceeds on these mistaken views. What does he mean by "transference of the righteousness of Christ" when he says, "justification is not that the righteousness of the Lord Jesus is transferred to his people?" What follows, at once explains. "Moral character," he continues, "cannot be transferred. It adheres to the moral agent, as much as color does to the rays of light which cause it." But this is quite aside from the subject, and proves what never had been denied. The same remarks apply with equal force to what is said about our being "always personally undeserving," and never regarded as having ourselves actually "wrought out salvation." These objections belong to the first source of misconception noticed above.

It has been asked a thousand times, and the question is most pertinent, How can God treat believers as innocent, if there be not some sense in which they are so? "The imputations of God are according to truth," so is his treatment. The author tells us, that the ground of justification is the "merits of the Saviour," which phrase he prefers throughout, to the more scriptural and more appropriate one of the righteousness of Christ; more appropriate, because the subject if forensic, belonging to judicature and dealing in matters of law; see Hervey's reply to Wesley, vol. iv. p. 33. Yet if these merits, or this righteousness, be not imputed to us - held as ours - how can we be justified on any such ground? "I would further observe," says Mr. Hervey, replying to Wesley in the publication just quoted, "that you have dropped the word 'imputed,'" which inclines me to suspect you would cashier the thing. But let me ask, Sir, how can we be justified by the merits of Christ, unless they are imputed to us? Would the payment made by a surety procure a discharge for the debtor, unless it were placed to his account? It is certain the sacrifices of old could not make an atonement, unless they were imputed to each offerer respectively. This was an ordinance settled by Yahweh himself, Leviticus 7:18. And were not the sacrifices, was not their imputation, typical of Christ and things pertaining to Christ, the former prefiguring his all-sufficient expiation; the latter shadowing forth the way whereby we are partakers of its efficacy?

The language of President Edwards, the prince of American clergymen, indeed of theologians universally, is decisive enough, and one would think that the opinion of this master in reasoning should have its weight on the other side of the Atlantic. "It is absolutely necessary," says he, "that in order to a sinner's being justified, the righteousness of some other should be reckoned to his account; for it is declared, that the person justified is looked on as, in himself, ungodly: but God neither will nor can justify a person without a righteousness; for justification is manifestly a forensic term, as the word is used in scripture, and a judicial thing or the act of a judge; so that if a person should be justified without a righteousness, the judgment would not be according to truth. The sentence of justification would be a false sentence, unless there be a righteousness performed, that is, by the Judge properly looked upon as his."

Nor are we sure, if our author's distinction between pardon and justification be altogether accurate. By those who deny imputed righteousness, justification is frequently said to consist in the mere remission of sin. In a recent American publication, the views of the "new school party" are thus given: "Though they retain the word justification, they make it consist in mere pardon. In the eye of the Law, the believer, according to their views, is not justified at all, and never will be throughout eternity. Though on the ground of what Christ has done, God is pleased to forgive the sinner upon his believing, Christ's righteousness is not reckoned in any sense as his, or set down to his account. He believes, and his faith or act of believing is accounted to him for righteousness; that is, faith is so reckoned to His account that God treats him as if he were righteous" - Old and New Theology, by James Wood. Now Mr. Barnes does not exactly say that justification and pardon are the same, for he makes a distinction. "The main difference between the two respects the sinner contemplated in regard to his past conduct, and to God's future dealings with him." "Pardon is a free forgiveness of least offences. Justification has respect to the Law and to God's future dealings."

But this difference is not respecting the nature of the things. It is simply a matter of time, of past and future; and justification, after all, is neither more nor less than pardon of sins past and to come. A criminal is often pardoned while his guilt is still allowed. To exalt pardon to justification there most be supposed a righteousness on the ground of which not only is sin forgiven, but the person accepted and declared legally righteous. And in this lies the main difference between the two. In the case of the believer however these are never found apart. Whoever is pardoned is at the same time justified. Earthly princes sometimes remit the punishment of crime, but seldom or never dream of honoring the criminal; but wherever God pardons, he dignifies and ennobles.

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ - The connection here is not very clear, and the sense of the verse is somewhat obscure. Rosenmuller supposes that this is an objection of a Jew, supposing that where the Law of Moses is not observed there is no rule of life, and that therefore there must be sin; and that since the doctrine of justification by faith taught that there was no necessity of obeying the ceremonial law of Moses, therefore Christ, who had introduced that system, must be regarded as the author and encourager of sin. To me it seems probable that Paul here has reference to an objection which has in all ages been brought against the doctrine of justification by faith, and which seems to have existed in his time, that the doctrine leads to licentiousness. The objections are that it does not teach the necessity of the observance of the Law in order to acceptance with God. That it pronounces a man justified and accepted who is a violator of the Law. That his acceptance does not depend on moral character.

That it releases him from the obligation of law, and that it teaches that a man may be saved though he does not conform to law. These objections existed early, and have been found everywhere where the doctrine of justification by faith has been preached. I regard this verse, therefore, as referring to these objections, and not as being especially the objection of a Jew. The idea is, "You seek to be justified by faith without obeying the Law. You professedly reject that, and do not hold that it is necessary to yield obedience to it. If now it shall turn out that you are sinners; that your lives are not holy; that you are free from the wholesome restraint of the Law, and are given up to lives of sin, will it not follow that Christ is the cause of it; that he taught it; and that the system which he introduced is responsible for it? And is not the gospel therefore responsible for introducing a system that frees from the restraint of the Law, and introduces universal licentiousness?" To this Paul replies by stating distinctly that the gospel has no such tendency, and particularly by referring in the following verses to his own case, and to the effect of the doctrine of justification on his own heart and life.

We ourselves are found sinners - If it turns out that we are sinners, or if others discover by undoubted demonstration that we lead lives of sin; if they see us given up to a lawless life, and find us practicing all kinds of evil; if it shall be seen not only that we are not pardoned and made better by the gospel, but are actually made worse, and are freed from all moral restraint.

Is therefore Christ the minister of sin? - Is it to be traced to him? Is it a fair and legitimate conclusion that this is the tendency of the gospel? Is it to be charged on him, and on the plan of justification through him, that a lax morality prevails, and that people are freed from the wholesome restraints of law?

God forbid - It is not so. This is not the proper effect of the gospel of Christ, and of the doctrine of justification by faith. The system is not suited to produce such a freedom from restraint, and if such a freedom exists, it is to be traced to something else than the gospel.

For if I build again the things which I destroyed - Paul here uses the first person; but he evidently intends it as a general proposition, and means that if anyone does it he becomes a transgressor. The sense is, that if a man, having removed or destroyed that which was evil, again introduces it or establishes it, he does wrong, and is a transgressor of the Law of God. The particular application here, as it seems to me, is to the subject of circumcision and the other rites of the Mosaic law. They had been virtually abolished by the coming of the Redeemer, and by the doctrine of justification by faith. It had been seen that there was no necessity for their observance, and of that Peter and the others had been fully aware. Yet they were lending their influence again to establish them or to build them up again. They complied with them, and they insisted on the necessity of their observance. Their conduct, therefore, was that of building up again that which had once been destroyed, destroyed by the ministry, and toils, and death of the Lord Jesus, and by the fair influence of his gospel. To rebuild that again; to re-establish those customs, was wrong, and now involved the guilt of a transgression of the Law of God. Doddridge supposes that this is an address to the Galatians, and that the address to Peter closed at the previous verse. But it is impossible to determine this; and it seems to me more probable that this is all a part of the address to Peter; or rather perhaps to the assembly when Peter was present; see the note at Galatians 2:15.

For I through the law - On this passage the commentators are by no means agreed. It is agreed that in the phrase "am dead to the law," the Law of Moses is referred to, and that the meaning is, that Paul had become dead to that as a ground or means of justification. He acted as though it were not; or it ceased to have influence over him. A dead man is insensible to all around him. He hears nothing; sees nothing; and nothing affects him. So when we are said to be dead to anything, the meaning is, that it does not have an influence over us. In this sense Paul was dead to the Law of Moses. He ceased to observe it as a ground of justification. It ceased to be the grand aim and purpose of his life, as it had been formerly, to obey it. He had higher purposes than that, and truly lived to God; see the note at Romans 6:2. But on the meaning of the phrase "through the law" (διὰ νόμου dia nomou) there has been a great variety of opinion.

Bloomfield, Rosenmuller, and some others suppose that he means the Christian religion, and that the meaning is, "by one law, or doctrine, I am dead to another;" that is, the Christian doctrine has caused me to cast aside the Mosaic religion. Doddridge, Clarke, Chandler, and most others, however, suppose that he here refers to the Law of Moses, and that the meaning is, that by contemplating the true character of the Law of Moses itself; by considering its nature and design; by understanding the extent of its requisitions, he had become dead to it; that is, he had laid aside all expectations of being justified by it. This seems to me to be the correct interpretation. Paul had formerly expected to be justified by the Law. He had endeavored to obey it. It had been the object of his life to comply with all its requisitions in order to be saved by it; Philippians 3:4-6. But all this while he had not fully understood its nature; and when he was made fully to feel and comprehend its spiritual requirements, then all his hopes of justification by it died, and he became dead to it; see this sentiment more fully explained in the note at Romans 7:9.

That I might live unto God - That I might be truly alive, and might be found engaged in his service. He was dead to the Law, but not to every thing. He had not become literally inactive and insensible to all things, like a dead man, but he had become truly sensible to the commands and appeals of God, and had consecrated himself to his service; see the note at Romans 6:11.

I am crucified with Christ - In the previous verse, Paul had said that he was dead. In this verse he states what he meant by it, and shows that he did not wish to be understood as saying that he was inactive, or that he was literally insensible to the appeals made to him by other beings and objects. In respect to one thing he was dead; to all that was truly great and noble he was alive. To understand the remarkable phrase, "I am crucified with Christ," we may remark:

(1) That this was the way in which Christ was put to death. He suffered on a cross, and thus became literally dead.

(2) in a sense similar to this, Paul became dead to the Law, to the world, and to sin. The Redeemer by the death of the cross became insensible to all surrounding objects, as the dead always are. He ceased to see, and hear, and was as though they were not. He was laid in the cold grave, and they did not affect or influence him. So Paul says that he became insensible to the Law as a means of justification; to the world; to ambition and the love of money; to the pride and pomp of life, and to the dominion of evil and hateful passions. They lost their power over him; they ceased to influence him.

(3) this was with Christ, or by Christ. It cannot mean literally that he was put to death with him, for that is not true. But it means that the effect of the death of Christ on the cross was to make him dead to these things, in like manner as he, when he died, became insensible to the things of this busy world. This may include the following things:

(a) There was an intimate union between Christ and his people, so that what affected him, affected them; see John 15:5-6.

(b) The death of the Redeemer on the cross involved as a consequence the death of his people to the world and to sin; see Galatians 5:24; Galatians 6:14. It was like a blow at the root of a vine or a tree, which would affect every branch and tendril or like a blow at the head which affects every member of the body.

(c) Paul felt identified with the Lord Jesus; and he was willing to share in all the ignominy and contempt which was connected with the idea of the crucifixion. He was willing to regard himself as one with the Redeemer. If there was disgrace attached to the manner in which he died, he was willing to share it with him. He regarded it as a matter to be greatly desired to be made just like Christ in all things, and even in the manner of his death. This idea he has more fully expressed in Philippians 3:10, "That I may know him, (that is, I desire earnestly to know him,) and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;" see also Colossians 1:24; compare 1 Peter 4:13.

Nevertheless I live - This expression is added, as in Galatians 2:19, to prevent the possibility of mistake. Paul, though he was crucified with Christ, did not wish to be understood that he felt himself to be dead. He was not inactive; not insensible, as the dead are, to the appeals which are made from God, or to the great objects which ought to interest an immortal mind. He was still actively employed, and the more so from the fact that he was crucified with Christ. The object of all such expressions as this is, to show that it was no design of the gospel to make people inactive, or to annihilate their energies. It was not to cause people to do nothing. It was not to paralyze their powers, or stifle their own efforts. Paul, therefore, says, "I am not dead. I am truly alive; and I live a better life than I did before." Paul was as active after conversion as he was before. Before, he was engaged in persecution; now, he devoted his great talents with as much energy, and with as untiring zeal, to the cause of the great Redeemer. Indeed, the whole narrative would lead us to suppose that he was more active and zealous after his conversion than he was before. The effect of religion is not to make one dead in regard to the putting forth of the energies of the soul. True religion never made one lazy man; it has converted many a man of indolence, and effeminacy and self-indulgence to a man actively engaged in doing good. If a professor of religion is less active in the service at God than he was in the service of the world; less laborious, and zealous. and ardent than he was before his supposed conversion, he ought to set it down as full proof that he is an utter stranger to true religion.

Yet not I-- This is also designed to prevent misapprehension. In the previous clause he had said that he lived, or was actively engaged. But lest this should he misunderstood, and it should be inferred that he meant to say it was by his own energy or powers, he guards it, and says it was not at all from himself. It was by no native tendency; no power of his own; nothing that could be traced to himself. He assumed no credit for any zeal which he had shown in the true life. He was disposed to trace it all to another. He had ample proof in his past experience that there was no tendency in himself to a life of true religion, and he therefore traced it all to another.

Christ liveth in me - Christ was the source of all the life that he had. Of course this cannot be taken literally that Christ had a residence in the apostle, but it must mean that his grace resided in him; that his principles actuated him: and that he derived all his energy, and zeal, and life from his grace. The union between the Lord Jesus and the disciple was so close that it might be said the one lived in the other. So the juices of the vine are in each branch, and leaf, and tendril, and live in them and animate them; the vital energy of the brain is in each delicate nerve - no matter how small - that is found in any part of the human frame. Christ was in him as it were the vital principle. All his life and energy were derived from him.

And the life which I now live in the flesh - As I now live on the earth surrounded by the cares and anxieties of this life. I carry the life-giving principles of my religion to all my duties and all my trials.

I live by the faith of the Son of God - By confidence in the Son of God, looking to him for strength, and trusting in his promises, and in his grace. Who loved me, etc. He felt under the highest obligation to him from the fact that he had loved him, and given himself to the death of the cross in his behalf. The conviction of obligation on this account Paul often expresses; see the Romans 6:8-11; Romans 8:35-39 notes; 2 Corinthians 5:15 note. There is no higher sense of obligation than that which is felt toward the Saviour; and Paul felt himself bound, as we should, to live entirely to him who had redeemed him by his blood.

I do not frustrate the grace of God - The word rendered "frustrate" (ἀθετῶ athetō) means properly to displace, abrogate, abolish; then to make void, to render null; Mark 7:9; Luke 7:30; 1 Corinthians 1:19. The phrase "the grace of God," here refers to the favor of God manifested in the plan of salvation by the gospel, and is another name for the gospel. The sense is, that Paul would not take any measures or pursue any course that would render that vain or inefficacious. Neither by his own life, by a course of conduct which would show that it had no influence over the heart and conduct, nor by the observance of Jewish rites and customs, would he do anything to render that inefficacious. The design is to show that he regarded it as a great principle that the gospel was efficacious in renewing and saving man, and he would do nothing that would tend to prevent that impression on mankind. A life of sin, of open depravity and licentiousness, would do that. And in like manner a conformity to the rites of Moses as a ground of justification would tend to frustrate the grace of God, or to render the method of salvation solely by the Redeemer nugatory. This is to be regarded, therefore as at the same time a reproof of Peter for complying with customs which tended to frustrate the plan of the gospel, and a declaration that he intended that his own course of life should be such as to confirm the plan, and show its efficacy in pardoning the sinner and rendering him alive in the service of God.

For if righteousness come by the law - If justification can be secured by the observance of any law - ceremonial or moral - then there was no need of the death of Christ as an atonement. This is plain. If man by conformity to any law could be justified before God, what need was there of an atonement? The work would then have been wholly in his own power, and the merit would have been his. It follows from this, that man cannot be justified by his own morality, or his alms-deeds, or his forms of religion, or his honesty and integrity. If he can, he needs no Saviour; he can save himself. It follows also that when people depend on their own amiableness, and morality, and good works, they would feel no need of a Saviour; and this is the true reason why the mass of people reject the Lord Jesus. They suppose they do not deserve to be sent to hell. They have no deep sense of guilt. They confide in their own integrity, and feel that God ought to save them. Hence, they feel no need of a Saviour; for why should a person in health employ a physician? And confiding in their own righteousness, they reject the grace of God, and despise the plan of justification through the Redeemer. To feel the need of a Saviour it is necessary to feel that we are lost and ruined sinners; that we have no merit upon which we can rely; and that we are entirely dependent on the mercy of God for salvation. Thus feeling, we shall receive the salvation of the gospel with thankfulness and joy, and show that in regard to us Christ is not "dead in vain."