Galatians 2:14 Komentář

The apostle, in this chapter, continues the relation of his past life and conduct, which he had begun in the former; and, by some further instances of what had passed between him and the other apostles, makes it appear that he was not beholden to them either for his knowledge of the gospel or his authority as an apostle, as his adversaries would insinuate; but, on the contrary, that he was owned and approved even by them, as having an equal commission with them to this office. I. He particularly informs them of another journey which he took to Jerusalem many years after the former, and how he behaved himself at that time (Gal 2:1-10). And, II. Gives them an account of another interview he had with the apostle Peter at Antioch, and how he was obliged to behave himself towards him there. From the subject-matter of that conversation, he proceeds to discourse on the great doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, without the works of the law, which it was the main design of this epistle to establish, and which he enlarges more upon in the two following chapters.

INTRODUCTION TO GALATIANS 2 In this chapter the apostle proceeds with the narrative of himself, and gives an account of another journey of his to Jerusalem, where he had a conversation with the chief of the apostles; in which they approved of his ministry, allowed of his commission, and took him into fellowship with them, but gave him no new instructions, nor added to his spiritual light and knowledge; from whence it appeared that the Gospel he preached was not after men, or received from men, as he had asserted in the preceding chapter; and he also gives an account of his meeting with Peter at Antioch, and how he reproved him for some judaizing practices; which leads him to assert the doctrine of justification by faith, in opposition to the works of the law; which is the grand point he had in view to establish in this epistle, and which he vindicates from the charge of licentiousness. He begins with an account of another journey of his to Jerusalem, the circumstances of which he relates, as the time when, fourteen years ago; the persons he took with him as his companions, Barnabas and Titus, Gal 2:1 what moved him to it, a revelation from God; and the business he did when come thither, he communicated the Gospel, and that not to any but to such that were of reputation, and not publicly but privately; his end was, that it might appear how successful he had been in his ministry, and had not laboured in vain, Gal 2:2 then follows a narrative of a particular event relating to Titus, who is described as one of his companions, and by his nation, a Greek; and who though an uncircumcised person, yet the apostles and elders at Jerusalem did not oblige him to be circumcised, which showed that they were of the same mind with the apostle in this point, Gal 2:3 and the reason of it was because of the false teachers, that they might not give them any handle; who are described by their character, false brethren, by their private manner of getting in among the saints, and by their ends and views, which were to spy out their Christian liberty and bring them into bondage, Gal 2:4 to whom the apostle opposed himself, and would not give way for the least space of time; for this end, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with the Gentiles, Gal 2:5 and as for the apostles, though they were men of great character and reputation, nor would the apostle detract from it; yet they added nothing to him, he received nothing from them, Gal 2:6 but, on the other hand, partly because they saw that as the Gospel to be preached to the Jews was committed to Peter, so the same Gospel to be preached to the Gentiles was committed to Paul; and partly because of the same efficacy and success in the ministry of the one as in the ministry of the other; as also because they perceived what gifts of grace were bestowed on the apostle; they gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, as a token of their mutual agreement, and as being of the same society, Gal 2:7 nor did they give him and Barnabas anything in charge, but only to remember the poor, to which he was forward enough of himself, Gal 2:10 after which follows an account of an opposition made by the apostle to Peter, which was done at Antioch, and to his face, and not without reason, Gal 2:11 for whereas some time before he ate with the Gentiles, which was commendable in him, he afterwards declined conversation with them, moved to it by fear of the converted Jews, Gal 2:12 and such was the force of his example, that other Jews, who before did not scruple eating with the Gentiles, separated likewise, and even Barnabas himself, Paul's companion, Gal 2:13 wherefore seeing this was not walking according to the Gospel of Christ, and with that integrity and uprightness which became such persons, the apostle publicly reproved Peter, and expostulated with him; partly on account of his former conversation with the Gentiles, though he himself was a Jew, and therefore it was absurd and contradictory in him to oblige the Gentiles to live as the Jews did, Gal 2:14 and partly on account of the ledge which he and Peter and others who were Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles, had of the doctrine of justification; that it was not by the works of the law, but by faith in Christ; for to this end they had believed in Christ that they might be justified, not by the one, but by the other; which doctrine is confirmed by a passage referred to in Psa 149:2 and whereas it might be objected that this doctrine of free justification opened a door to licentiousness, the apostle answers to it by an abhorrence of it, Gal 2:17 and by observing that this would build up what he had destroyed, Gal 2:18 besides, he argues the contrary from his being dead to the law, that he might live unto God, Gal 2:19 and from his crucifixion with Christ, and of the old man with his deeds; and from Christ's living in him, and his living by faith upon him, Gal 2:20 and for the further confirmation of the doctrine of justification being by faith, and not by works, he suggests, were it otherwise, both the grace of God would be frustrated and made void, and the death of Christ be in vain, Gal 2:21.

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly,.... Or "did not foot it aright"; or "walked not with a right foot": they halted, as the Jews of old did, between two opinions, being partly for God, and partly for Baal; so these seemed, according to their conduct, to be partly for grace, and partly for the works of the law; they seemed to be for joining Christ and Moses, and the grace of the Gospel, and the ceremonies of the law together; they did not walk evenly, were in and out, did not make straight paths for their feet, but crooked ones, whereby the lame were turned out of the way; they did not walk in that sincerity, with that uprightness and integrity of soul, they ought to have done: nor according to the truth of the Gospel; though their moral conversations were as became the Gospel of Christ, yet their Christian conduct was not according to the true, genuine, unmixed Gospel of Christ; which as it excludes all the works of the law, moral or ceremonial, from the business of justification and salvation, so it declares an entire freedom from the yoke of it, both to Jews and Gentiles. Now when, and as soon as this was observed, the apostle, without any delay, lest some bad consequences should follow, thought fit to make head against it, and directly oppose it: I said unto Peter before them all. The Alexandrian copy, and others, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions, read "Cephas", as before. The reproof was given personally and principally to Peter, though Barnabas and others were concerned with him, because he was the first in it, the chief aggressor, who by his example led on the rest; and this was given publicly before Barnabas, and the other Jews that dissembled with him, and for their sakes as well as his; before the Jews that came from James for their instruction and conviction, and before all the members of the church at Antioch, for the confirmation of such who might be staggered at such conduct; nor was this any breach of the rule of Christ, Mat 28:15 for this was a public offence done before all, and in which all were concerned, and therefore to be rebuked in a public manner: and which was done in this expostulatory way, if thou being a Jew; as Peter was, born of Jewish parents, brought up in the Jews' religion, and was obliged to observe the laws that were given to that people: livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews; that is, he had done so, he had ate with the Gentiles, and as the Gentiles did, without regarding the laws and ceremonies of the Jews relating to meats and drinks; being better informed by the Spirit of God, that these things were not now obligatory upon him, even though he was a Jew, to whom these laws were formerly made: why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? he asks him, with what conscience, honour, and integrity, with what consistency with his own principles and former practice, he could compel, not by force, nor, it may be, even by persuasions and exhortations, but by his example, which was very strong and powerful, the Gentiles, to whom these laws were never given, and to observe which they never were obliged; how he could, I say, make use of any means whatever to engage these to comply with Jewish rites and ceremonies. The argument is very strong and nervous; for if he, who was a Jew, thought himself free from this yoke, and had acted accordingly, then a Gentile, upon whom it was never posed, ought not to be entangled with it: and in what he had done, either he had acted right or wrong; if he had acted wrong in eating with the Gentiles, he ought to acknowledge his fault, and return to Judaism; but if right, he ought to proceed, and not by such uneven conduct ensnare the minds of weak believers.

"But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel." Neither let this phrase disturb you, for in using it he does not condemn Peter, but so expresses himself for the benefit of those who were to be reformed by the reproof of Peter. "I said unto Cephas before them all." Observe his mode of correcting the others; he speaks "before them all," that the hearers might be alarmed thereby. And this is what he says, "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?" But it was the Jews and not the Gentiles who were carried away together with Peter; why then does Paul impute what was not done, instead of directing his remarks, not against the Gentiles, but against the dissembling Jews? And why does he accuse Peter alone, when the rest also dissembled together with him? Let us consider the terms of his charge; "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?" for in fact Peter alone had withdrawn himself. His object then is to remove suspicion from his rebuke; had he blamed Peter for observing the Law, the Jews would have censured him for his boldness towards their Teacher. But now arraigning him in behalf of his own peculiar disciples, I mean the Gentiles, he facilitates thereby the reception of what he has to say which he also does by abstaining from reproof of the others, and addressing it all to the Apostle. "If thou," he says, "being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews;" which almost amounts to an explicit exhortation to imitate their Teacher, who, himself a Jew, lived after the manner of the Gentiles. This however he says not, for they could not have received such advice, but under color of reproving him in behalf of the Gentiles, he discloses Peter's real sentiments. On the other hand, if he had said, Wherefore do you compel these Jews to Judaize? his language would have been too severe. But now he effects their correction by appearing to espouse the part, not of the Jewish, but of the Gentile, disciples; for rebukes, which are moderately severe, secure the readiest reception. And none of the Gentiles could object to Paul that he took up the defense of the Jews. The whole difficulty was removed by Peter's submitting in silence to the imputation of dissimulation, in order that he might deliver the Jews from its reality. At first Paul directs his argument to the character which Peter wore, "If thou, being a Jew:" but he generalizes as he goes on, and includes himself in the phrase,

(Verse 14.) But when I saw that they were not walking straight towards the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter in front of everyone. Just as those who pretend to limp with healthy steps do not have a fault in their feet, but there is some reason why they limp, so Peter, knowing that circumcision and uncircumcision mean nothing, but the observance of God's commandments does, used to eat with the Gentiles, but for a time he withdrew from them, lest he should make the Jews lose faith in Christ. And so Paul, using the same tactic as Peter had pretended, confronted him to his face and spoke openly in front of everyone; not so much to accuse Peter, but rather to correct those for whose sake Peter had pretended, or even to remove pride from the Jews and despair from the Gentiles. But if someone does not like this interpretation, in which neither Peter is shown to have sinned nor Paul to have boldly accused him, they must explain in what way Paul criticizes this in the other case, which he himself committed. If you, being a Jew, live as a Gentile and not as a Jew, how do you force the Gentiles to live as Jews? Peter is strongly convinced by an unbreakable argument, or rather, through Peter, those who were compelling him to engage in disputes: If, Peter, you being a Jew by nature, born a Jew and observing all the precepts of the Law, now know that these things have no inherent usefulness but are examples and images of things to come, and if you, eating with those who are from the Gentiles, do not live in a superstitious manner as you did before, but now live freely and impartially; how then can you compel those who believed from the Gentiles to Judaize, now separating yourself from them and considering them unclean? For if those from whom you separate are unclean, and yet you do separate, it follows that you compel them to be circumcised and become Jews; while you yourself, being born a Jew, live like a Gentile. And he joyfully shows the reason why he disputed against him: namely, because he was compelling the Gentiles to judaize through his own hypocrisy, as they desired to imitate him.

Those who wish to defend Peter from error and from the depravity of life into which he had fallen overturn the very way of religion in which lies the salvation of all. This shatters and diminishes the authority of the Scriptures. They do not see that in this defense they are implicitly charging the apostle Paul not only with the crime of lying but even with perjury in the very teaching of piety, that is, in the letter in which Paul proclaims the gospel. It is for this reason he says, before narrating these things [in 1:20], “What I write to you, understand before God that I do not lie.

That he rebuked him “before all” was necessary, in order that everyone might be bettered by his rebuke. For it was not expedient to correct in secret an error that was doing public harm. It should be added that in his steadfastness and charity Peter, to whom the Lord had said three times, “Do you love me? Feed my sheep,” was very ready to bear this rebuke from a junior shepherd for the salvation of the flock. For the one who was being rebuked was himself more remarkable and more difficult to imitate than the one rebuking. For it is easier to see what one should correct in others than to see what ought to be corrected in oneself. It is easier to correct others by admonishing and rebuking than to be corrected readily even by yourself, let alone by another, still less if you add another and “before all.”

So that one might fulfill the works of the law, his infirmity being assisted not by his own merit but by the grace of God, they were not to demand from the Gentiles a fleshly observation of the law but were to understand that through the same grace of God they were able to fulfill the spiritual works of the law.

He says this so that Hebrews no less than Gentiles may be compelled to accept the grace of faith, not the impositions of the law, which no one could fulfill.

In what sense has it been said, "joined him in his pretense," (Gal. 2:13) likewise also, "not walking straight," it was said. For he does not wish to reveal the arrangement. "according to the truth of the Gospel." For the truth of the Gospel is not to circumcise nor to withdraw from those faithful from uncircumcision. "For there is neither Jew nor Greek." (Gal. 3:28) "I said to Peter before them all." You see that for this reason he scolded Peter before all, not to condemn Peter, but so that he might benefit those of the circumcision, as has been said before. "If you, being a Jew." But he did not say it openly to the followers of James; "Imitate your teacher living as a Gentile," that is, quietly. For this is constructed from the speech addressed to Peter. "why do you compel the Gentiles?" Which, he says, you do not do, nor compel others to do. But why did he not say: Why do you compel those who are of the circumcision to Judaize? since he was speaking because of them, and the sequence of the discourse was such that it could have been said so. Yet he spoke in this way so that he might seem to care for his own disciples, namely those who were of the Gentiles, for fear that the arrangement for which the rebuke existed be revealed.

Namely that they did not cease altogether from [observing] the tradition of the Law. As we already said, he spoke in this way on account of the economy; for the whole event was an economy, including the rebuke made by Paul, and the silence and condescension of Peter. For both of them sought one thing, namely, that those who believed in Christ should cease to observe the Law. “If you are a Jew and live as a pagan, and not as a Jew.” Namely, you do not keep the observance of the Law, but like those believers from the nations, you no longer keep the new months and the sabbaths. “How then do you force the nations to do this?” This too indicates the economy of this affair. Although he does not force you, nor does he attempt to persuade the nations to Judaize, Paul says that he does so that the rebuke addressed to Peter might be found to be a useful occasion to him with respect to his own disciples. By saying all this he educates the Galatians to easily cope with the weight of the rebuke for if Peter, being from the Jews, and persuading others to Judaize, was rebuked, and accepted the rebuke, as having been properly addressed to him, how much more should the Galatians, who are from the nations, and believed in Christ, and subjected themselves again to the slavery of the Law should accept the rebuke when it is addressed to them.

But do not be troubled by these words — he says this not to condemn Peter, but for the sake of those who could benefit from hearing that even Peter was subjected to rebuke for his attachment to the law. Why then should you hold to it? For it was with this purpose that he rebuked him then before all, so that they would be frightened, hearing that so great a man is subjected to censure and cannot object. Eusebius, however, says that the one subjected to rebuke from Paul was not the great Peter, but some other Cephas, one of the Seventy, and in support of this he points to the impossibility that the one who had already previously defended himself regarding the scandal he had caused by sharing a meal with Cornelius could again be subjected to such rebuke. But we too do not say that Peter was censured by Paul for ignorance of his duty, but that he voluntarily submitted to condemnation so that others too might be corrected. Paul all but cries out to everyone: "Imitate your teacher — for behold, he is a Jew, yet he ate food together with the Gentiles." And notice — he does not accuse him: "You do wrong by observing the Law," but reproaches him on behalf of his own disciples from among the Gentiles, that he compels them to be circumcised and to live according to Jewish customs. For in this form the word could be more readily accepted.

Then when he says, "But, when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all...," he explains what he had said concerning the rebuke with which he rebuked Peter. As to this he does three things: First, he gives the reason for the rebuke; Secondly, the manner of rebuking; Thirdly, the words of the rebuke. The occasion of the rebuke was not slight, but just and useful, namely, the danger to the Gospel teaching. Hence he says: Thus was Peter reprehensible, but I alone, "when I saw that they," who were doing these things, "walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel," because its truth was being undone, if the Gentiles were compelled to observe the legal justifications, as will be plain below. That they were not walking uprightly is so, because in cases where danger is imminent, the truth must be preached openly and the opposite never condoned through fear of scandalizing others: "That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light" (Mt 10:27); "The way of the just is right: the path of the just is right to walk in" (Is 26:7). The manner of the rebuke was fitting, i.e., public and plain. Hence he says, "I said to Cephas," i.e., to Peter, "before them all," because that dissimulation posed a danger to all: "Them that sin, reprove before all" (1 Tim 5:20). This is to be understood of public sins and not of private ones, in which the procedures of fraternal charity ought to be observed. The words the Apostle spoke to Peter when he rebuked him, he adds, saying, "If thou, being a Jew" by nature and race, "livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews do," i.e., if you observe the customs of Gentiles and not of Jews, since you know and feel that discriminating among foods is of no importance, "how dost thou compel the Gentiles," not indeed by command, but by example of your behavior, "to live as do the Jews?" He says, "compel," because as Pope Leo says, "Example has more force than words." Hence Paul rebukes Peter precisely because he had been instructed by God that although he had previously lived as the Jews do, he should no longer discriminate among foods: "That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common" (Acts 10:15). But now Peter was dissembling the opposite. It should be noted that these words occasioned no small controversy between Jerome and Augustine and, as their writings clearly show, they are seen to disagree on four points. First, as to the time of the legal justifications, namely, when they should have been observed. For Jerome distinguishes two periods, one before the passion of Christ and one after. Jerome's opinion is that the legal justifications were living before the passion of Christ, i.e., had validity, inasmuch as original sin was removed through circumcision, and God was pleased with sacrifices and victims. But after the passion they were, according to him, not only not living, i.e., dead, but what is more, they were deadly, so that whoever observed them after the passion of Christ sinned mortally. Augustine, on the other hand, distinguishes three periods. One period was before the passion of Christ and, in agreement with Jerome, he says that during that period the legal justifications were living. Another was the period immediately following the passion of Christ, before grace was promulgated (as the time of the apostles in the beginning); during this period, says Augustine, the legal justifications were dead but not yet deadly to the converted Jews, so long as the ones observing them placed no hope in them. Hence the Jews observed them during that period without sinning. But had they placed their trust in them when observing them after their conversion, they would have sinned mortally; because if they placed their trust in them so as to believe that they were necessary for salvation, then, as far as they were concerned, they would have been voiding the grace of Christ. Finally, he posits a third period, after the truth and grace of Christ had been proclaimed. It was during that period, he says, that they were both dead and deadly to all who observed them. The reasoning that underlies these statements is that if the Jews had been forbidden the legal observances right after their conversion, it might have seemed that they had previously been on an equal footing with idolaters, who were immediately forbidden to worship idols, and that just as idolatry had never been good, so too the legal observances. Therefore, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the legal observances were condoned for a short time for the reason given, namely, to show that the legal observances had been good in the past. Hence, says Augustine, the fact that the legal justifications were not forbidden right after the passion of Christ showed that the mother, the synagogue, was destined to be brought in honor to the grave. But whosoever did not observe them in that manner would not be honoring the mother, the synagogue, but disturbing her grave. Secondly, the aforesaid Jerome and Augustine disagree on the observance of the legal justifications with respect to the apostles. For Jerome says that the apostles never really observed them but pretended to do so, in order to avoid scandalizing the believers who had been of the circumcision. He says that even Paul made this pretense when he fulfilled a vow in the temple at Jerusalem, as is narrated in Acts (21:26), and when he circumcised Timothy, as in Acts (16:3), and when on advice from James he observed some of the justifications, as recorded in Acts (20:20). But in so doing the apostles were not misleading the faithful, because they did not act with the intention of observing the justifications but for other reasons; for example, they rested on the Sabbath, not because it was a legal observance, but for the sake of rest. Likewise, they abstained from food legally unclean, not for the sake of observing the legal justifications but for other reasons; for example, on account of an abhorrence or something of that nature. But Augustine says that the apostles observed the legal justifications and intended to do so, but without putting their trust in them as though they were necessary for salvation. Furthermore, this was lawful for them to do, because they had been Jews. Nevertheless, they observed them before grace was proclaimed. Hence just as certain other Jews could safely observe them at that time without putting any trust in them, so too could the apostles. Thirdly, they disagree on the sin of Peter. For Jerome says that in the dissimulation previously mentioned, Peter did not sin, because he did this from charity and, as has been said, not from mundane fear. Augustine, on the other hand, says that he did sin—venially, however—on account of the lack of discretion he had by adhering overmuch to one side, namely, to the Jews, in order to avoid scandalizing them. But the stronger of Augustine's arguments against Jerome is that Jerome adduces on his own behalf seven doctors, four of whom, namely, Laudicens, Alexander, Origen, and Didymus, Augustine rejects as known heretics. To the other three he opposes three of his own, who held with him and his opinion, namely, Ambrose, Cyprian, and Paul himself, who plainly teaches that Peter was deserving of rebuke. Therefore, if it is unlawful to say that anything false is contained in Sacred Scripture, it will not be lawful to say that Peter was not deserving of rebuke. For this reason the opinion and statement of Augustine is the truer, because it is more in accord with the words of the Apostle. Fourthly, they disagree on Paul's rebuke. For Jerome says that Paul did not really rebuke Peter but pretended to do so, just as Peter pretended to observe the legal justifications, i.e., just as Peter in his unwillingness to scandalize the Jews pretended to observe the justifications, so Paul, in order not to scandalize the Gentiles, feigned displeasure at Peter's action and pretended to rebuke him. This was done, as it were, by mutual consent, so that each might exercise his care over the believers subject to them. Augustine, however, just as he says that Peter really did observe the justifications, says that Paul truly rebuked him without pretense. Furthermore, Peter really sinned by observing them, because his action was a source of scandal to the Gentiles from whom he separated himself. But Paul did not sin in rebuking him, because no scandal followed from his rebuke.

The apostle mentions his journey to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus, Gal 2:1. Shows that he went thither by revelation; and what he did while there, and the persons with whom he had intercourse, Gal 2:2-8. How the apostles gave him the right hand of fellowship, Gal 2:9, Gal 2:10. Here he opposes Peter at Antioch, and the reason why, Gal 2:11-14. Shows that the Jews as well as the Gentiles must be justified by faith, Gal 2:15, Gal 2:16. They who seek this justification should act with consistency, Gal 2:17, Gal 2:18. Gives his own religious experience, and shows, that through the law he was dead to the law, and crucified with Christ, Gal 2:19, Gal 2:20. Justification is not of the law, but by the faith of Christ, Gal 2:21.

That they walked not uprightly - Ουκ ορθοποδουσι· They did not walk with a straight step - they did not maintain a firm footing. According to the truth of the Gospel - According to that true doctrine, which states that Christ is the end of the law for justification to every one that believes; and that such are under no obligation to observe circumcision and the other peculiar rites and ceremonies of the law. If thou, being a Jew, livest - This was a cutting reproof. He was a Jew, and had been circumstantially scrupulous in every thing relative to the law, and it required a miracle to convince him that the Gentiles were admitted, on their believing in Christ, to become members of the same Church, and fellow heirs of the hope of eternal life; and in consequence of this, he went in with the Gentiles and ate with them; i.e. associated with them as he would with Jews. But now, fearing them of the circumcision, he withdrew from this fellowship. Why compellest thou the Gentiles - Thou didst once consider that they were not under such an obligation, and now thou actest as if thou didst consider the law in full force; but thou art convinced that the contrary is the case, yet actest differently! This is hypocrisy.

HIS CO-ORDINATE AUTHORITY AS APOSTLE OF THE CIRCUMCISION RECOGNIZED BY THE APOSTLES. PROVED BY HIS REBUKING PETER FOR TEMPORIZING AT ANTIOCH: HIS REASONING AS TO THE INCONSISTENCY OF JUDAIZING WITH JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. (Gal. 2:1-21) Translate, "After fourteen years"; namely, from Paul's conversion inclusive [ALFORD]. In the fourteenth year from his conversion [BIRKS]. The same visit to Jerusalem as in Act 15:1-4 (A.D. 50), when the council of the apostles and Church decided that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised. His omitting allusion to that decree is; (1) Because his design here is to show the Galatians his own independent apostolic authority, whence he was not likely to support himself by their decision. Thus we see that general councils are not above apostles. (2) Because he argues the point upon principle, not authoritative decisions. (3) The decree did not go the length of the position maintained here: the council did not impose Mosaic ordinances; the apostle maintains that the Mosaic institution itself is at an end. (4) The Galatians were Judaizing, not because the Jewish law was imposed by authority of the Church as necessary to Christianity, but because they thought it necessary to be observed by those who aspired to higher perfection (Gal 3:3; Gal 4:21). The decree would not at all disprove their view, and therefore would have been useless to quote. Paul meets them by a far more direct confutation, "Christ is of no effect unto you whosoever are justified by the law" (Gal 5:4), [PALEY]. Titus . . . also--specified on account of what follows as to him, in Gal 2:3. Paul and Barnabas, and others, were deputed by the Church of Antioch (Act 15:2) to consult the apostles and elders at Jerusalem on the question of circumcision of Gentile Christians.

walked not uprightly--literally, "straight": "were not walking with straightforward steps." Compare Gal 6:16. truth of the gospel--which teaches that justification by legal works and observances is inconsistent with redemption by Christ. Paul alone here maintained the truth against Judaism, as afterwards against heathenism (Ti2 4:16-17). Peter--"Cephas" in the oldest manuscripts before . . . all-- (Ti1 5:20). If thou, &c.--"If thou, although being a Jew (and therefore one who might seem to be more bound to the law than the Gentiles), livest (habitually, without scruple and from conviction, Act 15:10-11) as a Gentile (freely eating of every food, and living in other respects also as if legal ordinances in no way justify, Gal 2:12), and not as a Jew, how (so the oldest manuscripts read, for 'why') is it that thou art compelling (virtually, by thine example) the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (literally, to Judaize, that is, to keep the ceremonial customs of the Jews: What had been formerly obedience to the law, is now mere Judaism). The high authority of Peter would constrain the Gentile Christians to regard Judaizing as necessary to all, since Jewish Christians could not consort with Gentile converts in communion without it.