Galations 2:11-21 Nelson Study Bible

(This post is from the Nelson Sudy Bible NKJV from the public library.)

Galations 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.  (KJV)

• By the grace of God (v.21), the only way to be justified (declared righteous or pardoned) is through faith in Jesus Christ.  Any other way allows works, whether keeping the law of Moses or performing good deeds in general, to play a role in justification.  This is the main point of Paul’s letter to the Galatians: Salvation or righteousness cannot be obtained by obeying the law.  Salvation is only through faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:20).

2:17-19 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin?  God forbid.  18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.  19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.  (KJV)

• Paul strongly rejects the erroneous conclusion that being justified by faith in Christ actually made Jews sinners, thus painting Christ as a promoter of sin.  Those who attempt to be justified through “the works of the law” are “cursed” (3:10).  If anyone attempts to reassert the “works of the law” as having any part in justification before God, the law itself convicts that person of being a transgressor (see 3:19-25).  The law itself is not sinful; its purpose is to convince individuals of their personal spiritual deadness in sin outside of faith in Christ (see Rom.7:7-13).

2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.(KJV)

• Paul and every believer were crucified with Christ in order to die to sin, the law, and “this present evil age” (1:4).  While believers live on physically, Christ also lives within them spiritually.  Christ’s resurrection power through the Spirit is worked out through the Christian (see Rom 6:4-11) who chooses to live by faith in the Son of God. 

2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (KJV)

• If righteousness is attainable through keeping the law of Moses, then God’s gracious act of sending Christ to die on the Cross to pay for sin was unnecessary and useless (see Rom. 3:4-26).

Vain versus Pure Religion – James 1:26-27

James 1:26-27 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (KJV)

The apostle next informs us how we may distinguish between a vain religion and that which is pure and approved of God.  Great and hot disputes there are in the world about this matter: what religion is false and vain, and what is true and pure.  I wish men would agree to let the holy scripture in this place determine the question: and here it is plainly and peremptorily declared,

1.  What is a vain religion: If any man among you seemeth to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.  Here are three things to be observed: -

(1) In a vain religion there is much of show, and affecting to seem religious in the eyes of others.  This, I think, is mentioned in a manner that should fix our thoughts on the word seemeth.  When men are more concerned to seem religious than really to be so, it is a sign that their religion is but vain.  Not that religion itself is a vain thing (those do it a great deal of injustice who say, It is in vain to serve the Lord), but it is possible for people to make it a vain thing, if they have only a form of godliness, and not the power. 

(2) In a vain religion there is much censuring (Websters – condemning as wrong, strong disapproval; judgment condemning a person for misconduct), reviling (Websters – to treat as sinful or wicked), and detracting (Websters – to take away; to belittle) of others.  The not bridling the tongue here is chiefly meant of not abstaining from these evils of the tongue.  When we hear people ready to speak of the faults of others, or to censure them as holding scandalous errors, or to lessen the wisdom and piety of those about them, that they themselves may seem the wiser and better, this is a sign that they have but a vain religion.  The man who has a detracting tongue cannot have a truly humble gracious heart.  He who delights to injure his neighbour in vain pretends to love God; therefore a reviling tongue will prove a man a hypocrite.  Censuring is a pleasing sin, extremely compliant with nature, and therefore evinces a man’s being in a natural state.  These sins of the tongue were the great sins of that age in which James wrote (as other parts of this epistle fully show); and it is a strong sign of a vain religion (says Dr. Manton) to be carried away with the evil of the times.  This has ever been a leading sin with hypocrites, that the more ambitious they have been to seem well themselves the more free they have been in censuring and running down others; and there is such quick intercourse between the tongue and the heart that the one may be known by the other.  On these accounts it is that the apostle has made an ungoverned tongue and undoubted certain proof of a vain religion.  There is no strength nor power in that religion which will not enable a man to bridle his tongue. 

(3) In a vain religion a man deceives his own heart; he goes on in such a course of detracting from others, and making himself seem somebody, that at last the vanity of his religion is consummated by the deceiving of his own soul.  When once religion comes to be a vain thing, how great is the vanity!

2. It is here plainly and peremptorily declared wherein true religion consists: Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, v. 27.  Observe,

(1) It is the glory of religion to be pure and undefiled; not mixed with the inventions of men nor with the corruption of the world.  False religions may be known by their impurity and uncharitableness; according to that of John, He that doeth not righteousness is not of God neither he that loveth not his brother, 1 John 3:10.  But, on the other hand, a holy life and a charitable heart show a true religion.  Our religion is not (says Dr. Manton) adorned with ceremonies, but purity and charity.  And it is a good observation of his that a religion which is pure should be kept undefiled. 

(2) That religion is pure and undefiled which is so before God and the Father.  That is right which is so in God’s eye, and which chiefly aims at his approbation.  True religion teaches us to do every thing as in the presence of God; and to seek his favour, and study to please him in all our actions. 

(3) Compassion and charity to the poor and distressed form a very great and necessary part of true religion: Visiting the fatherless and widow in their affliction.  Visiting is here put for all manner of relief which we are capable of giving to others; and fatherless and widows are here particularly mentioned, because they are generally most apt to be neglected or oppressed: but by them we are to understand all who are proper objects of charity, all who are in affliction.  It is very remarkable that if the sum of religion be drawn up to two articles this is one – to be charitable and relieve the afflicted. 

(4) An unspotted life must accompany an unfeigned love and charity: To keep himself unspotted from the world.  The world is apt to spot and blemish the soul, and it is hard to live in it, and have to do with it, and not be defiled; but this must be our constant endeavor. 

Herein consists pure and undefiled religion.  The very things of the world too much taint our spirits, if we are much conversant with them; but the sins and lusts of the world deface and defile them very woefully indeed.  John comprises all that is in the world, which we are not to love, under three heads: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life; and to keep ourselves unspotted from all these is to keep ourselves unspotted from the world.  May God by his grace keep both our hearts and lives clean from the love of the world, and from the temptations of wicked worldly men.

Romans 14:1-23 – Difference between the Romans observing days and meats and the Galations:

(Click HERE to read all of the commentary for this passage.)

Romans 14:1-23 - Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.   For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.  Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.  Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.  Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.  One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike.  Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.  He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.  He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.  For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.  For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.  For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.  But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.  For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.  So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.  Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.  I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.  But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitable.  Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.  Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.  For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.  Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.  For meat destroy not the work of God.  All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.  It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.  Hast thou faith?  have it to thyself before God.  Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.  And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.(KJV)

Difference between the Romans observing days and meats and the Galations:

•  The Romans did it out of weakness, the Galations did it out of willfulness and wickedness.  The Galations were originally Gentiles, but were influenced by some judaizing teachers, not only to believe such a distinction and to practice accordingly, but to lay a stress upon it as necessary to salvation, and to make the observance of the Jewish festivals public and congregational.
• These differences (actually the mismanagement of them) was the disease, and we see it remaining in the church to this day; the like differences, in like manner mismanaged, are still the disturbers of the church’s peace.
• In judging and censuring our bretheren, we meddle with what does not belong to us, we have work enough to do at home; and if we must judge, do it on our own hearts and ways.
• His doom will be according to his master’s sentence, and not according to ours.  How well for us it is that we are not to stand nor fall by the judgement one of another, but by the righteous and unerring judgement of God.
• Because both the one and the other, if they be true believers, and are right in the main, have an eye to God, and do approve themselves to God in what they do.  He that regards the day – not imposing it upon others, nor laying a stress upon it, but willing as he thinks on the surer side, as thinking there is no harm in resting from worldly labors, and worshipping God on those days – it is well.
• The sincerity and uprightness of the heart were never rejected for the weakness and infirmity of the head – so good is the Master we serve.
• On the other hand, he that does not regard the day – he does not do it out of a spirit of opposition, contradiction, or contempt of his brother – to the Lord he does not regard it.
• When we are ready to reproach and reflect upon the name and memory of those that are dead and gone, and to pass a censure upon them (some do because judgements of the dead are more likely to pass uncontrolled and uncontradicted), we must consider that Christ is Lord of the dead and the living.  If they are dead, they have already given up their account, and let that suffice.
• Every one of us shall give account of himself to God.  We must not give account for others, nor they for us; but everyone for himself.  We must give account how we have spent our time, how we have improved our opportunities, what we have done and how we have done it.
• Because the stress of Christianity is not to be laid upon these things, nor are they at all essential to religion, either on the one side or on the other.  Whey should you spend your zeal either for or against those things which are so minute and inconsiderable in religion?
• At the great day it will be asked “who feared God and worked righteousness and who did not?”  Nothing is more destructive to true Christianity than placing it in modes and forms, and circumstantials, which eat out the essentials.

• modes (Webster’s) – 1) a manner or way of acting, doing, or being; 2)current fashion or style as in manners or dress

  form (Webster’s) – 1) a way of doing something a style or technique 2) a customary or conventional way of acting or behaving; ceremony; ritual; formality

  circumstantial (Webster’s) – 1) having to do with, or depending on, circumstances 2) not of primary importance; incidental

 

Galations 2:19-21 Justification by Faith

Galations 2:19-21 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (KJV)

2.  He acquaints us what his own judgement and practice were.

(1) That he was dead to the law.  Whatever account others might make of it, yet, for his part, he was dead to it.  He knew that the moral law denounced a curse against all that continue not in all things written therein, to do them; and therefore he was dead to it, as to all hope of justification and salvation that way.  And as for the ceremonial law, he also knew that it was now antiquated and superseded by the coming of Christ, and therefore, the substance having come, he had no longer any regard to the shadow. 

He was thus dead to the law, through the law itself; it discovered itself to be at an end.  By considering the law itself, he was that justification was not to be expected by the works of it (since none could perform a perfect obedience to it) and that there was now no further need of the sacrifices and purifications of it, since they were done away in Christ, and a period was put to them by his offering up himself a sacrifice for us; and therefore, the more he looked into it the more he saw that there was no occasion for keeping up that regard to it which the Jews pleaded for. 

But, though he was thus dead to the law, yet he did not look upon himself as with law.  He had renounced all hopes of justification by the works of it, and was unwilling any longer to continue under the bondage of it; but he was far from thinking himself discharged from his duty to God; on the contrary, he was dead to the law, that he might live unto God.  The doctrine of the gospel, which he had embraced, instead of weakening the bond of duty upon him, did but the more strengthen and confirm it; and therefore, though he was dead to the law, yet it was only in order to his living a new and better life to God (as Rom. 7:4,6), such a life as would be more agreeable and acceptable to God than his observance of the Mosaic law could no be, that is, a life of faith in Christ, and, under the influence thereof, of holiness and righteousness towards God.  Agreeably hereunto he acquaints us,

(2) That, as he was dead to the law, so he was alive unto God through Jesus Christ (v.20): I am crucified with Christ, etc. And here in his own person he gives us an excellent description of the mysterious life of a believer. 

1. He is crucified, and yet he lives; the old man is crucified (Rom. 6:6), but the new man is living; he is dead to the world, and dead to the law, and yet alive to God and Christ; sin is mortified, and grace quickened. 
2. He lives, and yet not he.  This is strange: I live, and yet not I; he lives in the exercise of grace; he has the comforts and the triumphs of grace; and yet that grace is not from himself, but from another.  Believers see themselves living in a state of dependence. 
3. He is crucified with Christ, and yet Christ lives in him; this results from his mystical union with Christ, by means of which he is interested in the death of Christ, so as by virtue of that to die unto sin; and yet interested in the life of Christ, so as by virtue of that to live unto God.
4. He lives in the flesh, and yet lives by faith; to outward appearance he lives as other people do, his natural life is supported as others are; yet he has a higher and nobler principle that supports and actuates him, that of faith in Christ, and especially as eyeing the wonders of his love in giving himself for him.  Hence it is that, though he lives in the flesh, yet he does not live after the flesh.  Note, Those who have true faith live by that faith; and the great thing which faith fastens upon is Christ’s loving us and giving himself for us.  The great evidence of Christ’s loving us is his giving himself for us; and this is that which we are chiefly concerned to mix faith with, in order to our living to him.

Lastly, The apostle concludes this discourse with acquainting us that by the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, without the works of the law (which he asserted, and others opposed), he avoided two great difficulties, which the contrary opinon was loaded with: -

1. That he did not frustrate the grace of God, which the doctrine of the justification by the works of the law did; for, as he argues (Rom.11:6), If it be of works, it is no more of grace. 
2. That he did not frustrate the death of Christ; whereas, if righteousness come by the law, then it must follow that Christ has died in vain; for, if we look for salvation by the law of Moses, then we render the death of Christ needless: for to what purpose should he be appointed to die, if we might have been saved without it?

Galations 2:15-18 – Justification by faith

Galations 2:15-18 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.  But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.  For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.  (KJV)

II. Paul having thus established his character and office, and sufficiently shown that he was not inferior to any of the apostles, no, not to Peter himself, from the account of the reproof he gave him he takes occasion to speak of that great fundamental doctrine of the gospel – That justification is only by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law (though some think that all he says to the end of the chapter is what he said to Peter at Antioch), which doctrine condemned Peter for his symbolizing with the Jews. 

For, if it was the principle of his religion that the gospel is the instrument of our justification and not the law, then he did very ill in countenancing those who kept up the law, and were for mixing it with faith in the business of our justification.  This was the doctrine which Paul had preached among the Galatians, to which he still adhered, and which it is his great business in this epistle to mention and confirm.  Now concerning this Paul acquaints us,

1.  With the practice of the Jewish Christians themselves:  “We,” says he, “who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles (even we who have been born and bred in the Jewish religion, and not among the impure Gentiles), knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we ourselves have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law.  And, if we have thought it necessary to seek justification by the faith of Christ, why then should we hamper ourselves with the law?  What did we believe in Christ for?  Was it not that we might be justified by the faith of Christ? And, if so, is in not folly to go back to the law, and to expect to be justified either by the merit of moral works or the influence of any ceremonial sacrifices or purifications? And if it would be wrong in us who are Jews by nature to return to the law, and expect justification by it, would it not be much more so to require this of the Gentiles, who were never subject to it, since by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified?” 

To give the greater weight to this he adds (v.17), “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ the minister of sin? If, while we seek justification by Christ alone, and teach others to do so, we ourselves are found giving countenance or indulgence to sin, or rather are accounted sinners of the Gentiles, and such as it is not fit to have communion with, unless we also observe the law of Moses, is Christ the minister of sin?  Will it not follow that he is so, if he engage us to receive a doctrine that gives liberty to sin, or by which we are so far from being justified that we remain impure sinners, and unfit to be conversed with?” This, he intimates, would be the consequence, but he rejects it with abhorrence: “God forbid,” says he, “that we should entertain such a thought of Christ, or of his doctrine, that thereby he should direct us into a way of justification that is defective and ineffectual, and leave those who embrace it still unjustified, or that would give the least encouragement to sin and sinners.”  This would be very dishonourable to Christ, and it would be very injurious to them also. 

“For,” says he (v.18), “if I build again the things which I destroyed- if I (or any other), who have taught that the observance of the Mosaic law is not necessary to justification, should now, by word or practice, teach or intimate that it is necessary - I make myself a transgressor; I own myself to be still an impure sinner, and to remain under the guilt of sin, notwithstanding my faith in Christ; or I shall be liable to be charged with deceit and prevarication, and acting inconsistently with myself.” Thus does the apostle argue for the great doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law from the principles and practice of the Jewish Christians themselves, and from the consequences that would attend their departure from it, whence it appeared that Peter and the other Jews were much in the wrong in refusing to communicate with the Gentile Christians, and endeavouring to bring them under the bondage of the law.

Galations 2:4-6 More from Martin Luther

(Here are some of the editorial reviews from Martin Luther’s Commentary on Galatians for sale on Amazon.com right HERE. There are several interesting reader reviews there too. 

“A most penetrating analysis and clear statement of doctrine in a way that everyone, from scholar to layman, may understand.” (Messenger)
“I do prefer this book of Martin Luther upon the Galatians, excepting the Holy Bible, before all books that have ever seen.” (John Bunyan)
“One cannot understand well the Reformation without reading Luther’s Commentary on Galatians.” (Standard Bearer )

About the Author
Martin Luther (1483-1546) was born in Germany and is famous for his protest, The Ninety-five Theses, which he nailed to the door of the castle church of Wittenberg. The son of middle-class parents, Luther left his comfortable life to become a monk. Luther’s own spiritual awakening was sparked by his study of the Greek text of Paul’s letter to the Romans, which challenged him with the statement, “The just shall live by faith.” )

Galatians 2:4-5: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. (KJV)

Paul here explains his motive for going up to Jerusalem. He did not go to Jerusalem to be instructed or confirmed in his Gospel by the other apostles. He went to Jerusalem in order to preserve the true Gospel for the Galatian churches and for all the churches of the Gentiles.

When Paul speaks of the truth of the Gospel he implies by contrast a false gospel. The false apostles also had a gospel, but it was an untrue gospel. “In holding out against them,” says Paul, “I conserved the truth of the pure Gospel.”

Now the true Gospel has it that we are justified by faith alone, without the deeds of the Law. The false gospel has it that we are justified by faith, but not without the deeds of the Law. The false apostles preached a conditional gospel.

So do the papists. They admit that faith is the foundation of salvation. But they add the conditional clause that faith can save only when it is furnished with good works. This is wrong. The true Gospel declares that good works are the embellishment of faith, but that faith itself is the gift and work of God in our hearts. Faith is able to justify, because it apprehends Christ, the Redeemer.

Human reason can think only in terms of the Law. It mumbles: “This I have done, this I have not done.” But faith looks to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, given into death for the sins of the whole world. To turn one’s eyes away from Jesus means to turn them to the Law.

True faith lays hold of Christ and leans on Him alone. Our opponents cannot understand this. In their blindness they cast away the precious pearl, Christ, and hang onto their stubborn works. They have no idea what faith is. How can they teach faith to others?

Not satisfied with teaching an untrue gospel, the false apostles tried to entangle Paul. “They went about,” says Paul, “to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.”

When Paul saw through their scheme, he attacked the false apostles. He says, “We did not let go of the liberty which we have in Christ Jesus. We routed them by the judgment of the apostles, and we would not give in to them, no, not an inch.”

We too were willing to make all kinds of concessions to the papists. Yes, we are willing to offer them more than we should. But we will not give up the liberty of conscience which we have in Christ Jesus. We refuse to have our conscience bound by any work or law, so that by doing this or that we should be righteous, or leaving this or that undone we should be damned.

Since our opponents will not let it stand that only faith in Christ justifies, we will not yield to them. On the question of justification we must remain adamant, or else we shall lose the truth of the Gospel. It is a matter of life and death. It involves the death of the Son of God, who died for the sins of the world. If we surrender faith in Christ, as the only thing that can justify us, the death and resurrection of Jesus are without meaning; that Christ is the Savior of the world would be a myth. God would be a liar, because He would not have fulfilled His promises. Our stubbornness is right, because we want to preserve the liberty which we have in Christ. Only by preserving our liberty shall we be able to retain the truth of the Gospel inviolate.

Some will object that the Law is divine and holy. Let it be divine and holy. The Law has no right to tell me that I must be justified by it. The Law has the right to tell me that I should love God and my neighbor, that I should live in chastity, temperance, patience, etc. The Law has no right to tell me how I may be delivered from sin, death, and hell. It is the Gospel’s business to tell me that. I must listen to the Gospel. It tells me, not what I must do, but what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has done for me.

To conclude, Paul refused to circumcise Titus for the reason that the false apostles wanted to compel him to circumcise Titus. Paul refused to accede to their demands. If they had asked it on the plea of brotherly love, Paul would not have denied them. But because they demanded it on the ground that it was necessary for salvation, Paul defied them, and prevailed. Titus was not circumcised.

VERSE 6. But of those who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me. (KJV)

This is a good point in Paul’s refutation. Paul disparages the authority and dignity of the true apostles. He says of them, “Which seemed to be somewhat.” The authority of the apostles was indeed great in all the churches. Paul did not want to detract from their authority, but he had to speak disparagingly of their authority in order to conserve the truth of the Gospel, and the liberty of conscience.

The false apostles used this argument against Paul: “The apostles lived with Christ for three years. They heard His sermons. They witnessed His miracles. They themselves preached and performed miracles while Christ was on earth. Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh. Now, whom ought you to believe: Paul, who stands alone, a mere disciple of the apostles, one of the last and least; or will you believe those grand apostles who were sent and confirmed by Christ Himself long before Paul?”

What could Paul say to that? He answered: “What they say has no bearing on the argument. If the apostles were angels from heaven, that would not impress me. We are not now discussing the excellency of the apostles. We are talking about the Word of God now, and the truth of the Gospel. That Gospel is more excellent than all apostles.

VERSE 6. God accepteth no man’s person:) (KJV)

Paul is quoting Moses: “Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty.” (Lev. 19:15) This quotation from Moses ought to shut the mouths of the false apostles. “Don’t you know that God is no respecter of persons?” cries Paul. The dignity or authority of men means nothing to God. The fact is that God often rejects just such who stand in the odor of sanctity and in the aura of importance. In doing so God seems unjust and harsh. But men need deterring examples. For it is a vice with us to esteem personality more highly than the Word of God. God wants us to exalt His Word and not men.

There must be people in high office, of course. But we are not to deify them. The governor, the mayor, the preacher, the teacher, the scholar, father, mother, are persons whom we are to love and revere, but not to the extent that we forget God. Least we attach too much importance to the person, God leaves with important persons offenses and sins, sometimes astounding shortcomings, to show us that there is a lot of difference between any person and God. David was a good king. But when the people began to think too well of him, down he fell into horrible sins, adultery and murder. Peter, excellent apostle that he was, denied Christ. Such examples of which the Scriptures are full, ought to warn us not to repose our trust in men. In the papacy appearance counts for everything. Indeed, the whole papacy amounts to nothing more than a mere kowtowing of persons and outward mummery. But God alone is to be feared and honored.

I would honor the Pope, I would love his person, if he would leave my conscience alone, and not compel me to sin against God. But the Pope wants to be adored himself, and that cannot be done without offending God. Since we must choose between one or the other, let us choose God. The truth is we are commissioned by God to resist the Pope, for it is written, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

We have seen how Paul refutes the argument of the false apostles concerning the authority of the apostles. In order that the truth of the Gospel may continue; in order that the Word of God and the righteousness of faith may be kept pure and undefiled, let the apostles, let an angel from heaven, let Peter, let Paul, let them all perish.

VERSE 6. for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: (KJV)

The Apostle repeats: “I did not so confer with the apostles that they taught me anything. What could they possibly teach me since Christ by His revelation had taught me all things? It was but a conference, and no disputation. I learned nothing, neither did I defend my cause. I only stated what I had done, that I had preached to the Gentiles faith in Christ, without the Law, and that in response to my preaching the Holy Ghost came down upon the Gentiles. When the apostles heard this, they were glad that I had taught the truth.”

If Paul would not give in to the false apostles, much less ought we to give in to our opponents. I know that a Christian should be humble, but against the Pope I am going to be proud and say to him: “You, Pope, I will not have you for my boss, for I am sure that my doctrine is divine.” Such pride against the Pope is imperative, for if we are not stout and proud we shall never succeed in defending the article of the righteousness of faith.

If the Pope would concede that God alone by His grace through Christ justifies sinners, we would carry him in our arms, we would kiss his feet. But since we cannot obtain this concession, we will give in to nobody, not to all the angels in heaven, not to Peter, not to Paul, not to a hundred emperors, not to a thousand popes, not to the whole world. If in this matter we were to humble ourselves, they would take from us the God who created us, and Jesus Christ who has redeemed us by His blood. Let this be our resolution, that we will suffer the loss of all things, the loss of our good name, of life itself, but the Gospel and our faith in Jesus Christ–we will not stand for it that anybody take them from us

Galations 2:14 – Martin Luther commentary

(This is Martin Luther’s commentary on Galations 2:14. You can read all of his Galations 2 comments HERE – opens in a new window)

Galations 2:14  I said unto Peter before them all, If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews. (KJV)

To live as a Jew is nothing bad.  To eat or not to eat pork, what difference does it make?  But to play the Jew, and for conscience’ sake to abstain from certain meats, is a denial of Christ. When Paul saw that Peter’s attitude tended to this, he withstood Peter and said to him: “You know that the observance of the law is not needed unto righteousness.  You know that we are justified by faith in Christ.  You know that we may eat all kinds of meats.  Yet by your example you obligate the Gentiles to forsake Christ, and to return to the Law.  You give them reason to think that faith is not sufficient unto salvation.”

Peter did not say so, but his example said quite plainly that the observance of the Law must be added to faith in Christ, if men are to be saved.  From Peter’s example the Gentiles could not help but draw the conclusion that the Law was necessary unto salvation.  If this error had been permitted to pass unchallenged, Christ would have lost out altogether.  The controversy involved the preservation of pure doctrine.  In such a controversy Paul did not mind if anybody took offense.

Works of the law and good works

(Not so long ago, we did not know that there was a difference between ‘works of the law’ and ‘good works’.  We used to lump them all into one category as “works.”  Here is an excerpt from a previous post that helped us understand the difference between the two.  You can read the full commentary HERE – opens in a new window/scroll down for verses 14-26)

James 2:14-26

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?  Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.  Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.  Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well; the devils also believe, and tremble.  But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?  Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?  Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?  And the the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.  Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.  Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?  For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (KJV)

A great question: How to reconcile Paul and James?  Paul says in Romans and Galations, with much emphasis, that man is justified by faith only and not by the works of the law.  James is saying here that faith without works is dead.  How to reconcile these two seemingly opposite statements. 

1. When Paul says that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law (Rom 3:28), he plainly speaks of another sort of work than James does, but not of another sort of faith.  Paul speaks of works wrought in obedience to the law of Moses, and before men’s embracing the faith of the gospel; and he had to deal with those who valued themselves so highly upon those works that they rejected the gospel (as Rom. 10, at the beginning most expressly declares); but James speaks of works done in obedience to the gospel, and as the proper and necessary effects and fruits of sound believing in Christ Jesus.  Paul magnifies the Gospel by showing the insufficiency of any works of the law before faith, or in opposition to the doctrine of justification by Jesus Christ; James magnifies the same faith, by showing what are the genuine and necessary products and operations of it.

Galations 2:11-14 – Peter reproved by Paul

Galations 2:11-14 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.  For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.  And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.  But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?   (KJV)

I.  From the account which Paul gives of what passed between him and the other apostles at Jerusalem, the Galatians might easily discern both the falseness of what his enemies had insinuated against him and their own folly and weakness in departing from that gospel which he had preached to them.  But to give the greater weight to what he had already said, and more fully to fortify them against the insinuations of the judaizing teachers, he acquaints them with another interview which he had with the apostle Peter at Antioch, and what passed between them there, v. 11-14. 

Antioch was one of the chief churches of the Gentile Christians, as Jerusalem was of those Christians who turned from Judaism to the faith of Christ.  There is no colour of reason for the supposition that Peter was bishop of Antioch.  If he had, surely Paul would not have withstood him in his own church, as we here find he did; but, on the contrary, it is here spoken of as an occasional  visit which he made thither.  In their other meeting, there had been good harmony and agreement.  Peter and the other apostles had both acknowledged Paul’s commission and approved his doctrine, and they parted very good friends.  But in this Paul finds himself obliged to oppose Peter, for he was to be blamed, a plain evidence that he was not inferior to him, and consequently of the weakness of the pope’s pretence to supremacy and infallibility, as the successor of Peter.  Here we may observe.

1.  Peter’s fault.  When he came among the Gentile churches, he complied with them, and did eat with them, though they were not circumcised, agreeably to the instructions which were given in particular to him (Acts 10), when he was warned by the heavenly vision to call nothing common or unclean.  But, when there came some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, he grew more shy of the Gentiles, only to humour those of the circumcision and for fear of giving them offence, which doubtless was to the great grief and discouragement of the Gentile churches.  Then he withdrew, and separated himself.  His fault herein had a bad influence upon others, for the other Jews also dissembled with him; though before they might be better disposed, yet now, from his example, they took on them to scruple eating with the Gentiles, and pretended they could not in conscience do it, because they were not circumcised.  And (would you think it?) Barnabas himself, one of the apostles of the Gentiles, and one who had been instrumental in planting and watering the churches of the Gentiles, was carried away with their dissimulation.  Here note,

1. The weakness and inconstancy of the best of men, when left to themselves, and how apt they are to falter in their duty to God, out of an undue regard to the pleasing of men.  And,
2. The great force of bad examples, especially the examples of great men and good men, such as are in reputation for wisdom and honour.

2.  The rebuke which Paul gave him for his fault.  Notwithstanding Peter’s character, yet, when he observes him thus behaving himself to the great prejudice both of the truth of the gospel and the peace of the church, he is not afraid to reprove him for it.  Paul adhered resolutely to his principles, when others faltered in theirs; he was as good a Jew as any of them (for he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews), but he would magnify his office as the apostle of the Gentiles, and therefore would not see them discouraged and trampled upon. 
When he saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel – that they did not live up to that principle which the gospel taught, and which they had professed to own and embrace, namely, that by the death of Christ the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile was taken down, and the observance of the law of Moses was no longer in force – when he observed this, as Peter’s offence was public, so he publicly reproved him for it:

He said unto him before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?  Herein one part of his conduct was a contradiction to the other; for if he, who was a Jew, could himself sometimes dispense with the use of the ceremonial law, and live after the manner of the Gentiles, this showed that he did not look upon the observance of it as still necessary, even for the Jews themselves; and therefore that he could not, consistently with his own practice, impose it upon the Gentile Christians.  And yet Paul charges him with this, yea, represents him as compelling the Gentiles to live as did the Jews – not by open force and violence, but this was the tendency of what he did; for it was in effect to signify this, that the Gentiles must comply with the Jews, or else not be admitted into Christian communion.

Galations 2:1-10 The apostle Paul’s journey to Jerusalem

Galations 2:1-10 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.  And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.  But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:  And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:  To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.  But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.  Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. (KJV)

(Introduction to Galations chapter 2 from Matthew Henry Commentary)

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 (v. 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.

(The following is from Matthew Henry Concise edition.)

Observe the apostle’s faithfulness in giving a full account of the doctrine he had preached among the Gentiles, and was still resolved to preach, that of Christianity, free from all mixture of Judaism.  This doctrine would be ungrateful to many, yet he was not afraid to own it.  His care was, lest the success of his past labours should be lessened, or his future usefulness be hindered.  While we simply depend upon God for success to our labours, we should use every proper caution to remove mistakes, and against opposers. 

There are things which may lawfully be complied with, yet, when they cannot be done without betraying the truth, they ought to be refused.  We must not give place to any conduct, whereby the truth of the gospel would be reflected upon.  Though Paul conversed with the other apostles, yet he did not receive any addition to his knowledge, or authority, from them. Perceiving the grace given to him, they gave unto him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, whereby they acknowledged that he was designed to the honour and office of an apostle as well as themselves.  They agreed that these two should go to the heathen, while they continued to preach to the Jews; judging it agreeable to the mind of Christ, so to divide their work.  Here we learn that the gospel is not ours, but God’s; and that men are but the keepers of it; for this we are to praise God. 

The apostle showed his charitable disposition, and how ready he was to own the Jewish converts as brethren, though many would scarcely allow the like favour to the converted Gentiles; but mere difference of opinion was no reason to him why he should not help them.  Herein is a pattern of Christian charity, which we should extend to all the disciples of Christ.