BIBLES NET. COM
Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary
on the Whole Bible
Back to Biblesnet.com Home Page
|
[Previous] [Next] |
Matthew Henry |
G A L A T I A N S.
CHAP. II.
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,
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.
| Paul’s Journey to Jerusalem; Paul’s Decision and Fidelity. | A. D. 56. |
|
|
|
1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with
Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2 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.
3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was
compelled to be circumcised:
4 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:
5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for a hour;
that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6 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:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the
uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the
circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship
of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the
Gentiles:)
9 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.
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same
which I also was forward to do.
It should seem, by the account Paul gives of himself in this chapter,
that, from the very first preaching and planting of Christianity, there
was a difference of apprehension between those Christians who had first
been Jews and those who had first been Gentiles. Many of those who had
first been Jews retained a regard to the ceremonial law, and strove to
keep up the reputation of that; but those who had first been Gentiles
had no regard to the law of Moses, but took pure Christianity as
perfective of natural religion, and resolved to adhere to that. Peter
was the apostle to them; and the ceremonial law, though dead with
Christ, yet not being as yet buried, he connived at the respect kept up
for it. But Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles; and, though he was a
Hebrew of the Hebrews, yet he adhered to pure Christianity. Now in this
chapter he tells us what passed between him and the other apostles, and
particularly between him and Peter hereupon.
In these verses he informs us of another journey which he took to
Jerusalem, and of what passed between him and the other apostles there,
Here he acquaints us,
I. With some circumstances relating to this his journey thither. As
particularly,
1. With the time of it: that it was not till fourteen years
after the former (mentioned
or, as others choose to understand it, from his conversion, or from the
death of Christ. It was an instance of the great goodness of God that
so useful a person was for so many years preserved in his work. And it
was some evidence that he had no dependence upon the other apostles,
but had an equal authority with them, that he had been so long absent
from them, and was all the while employed in preaching and propagating
pure Christianity, without being called into question by them for it,
which it may be thought he would have been, had he been inferior to
them, and his doctrine disapproved by them.
2. With his companions in it: he went up with Barnabas, and took
with him Titus also. If the journey here spoken of was the same
with that recorded
(as many think), then we have a plain reason why Barnabas went along
with him; for he was chosen by the Christians at Antioch to be his
companion and associate in the affair he went about. But, as it does
not appear that Titus was put into the same commission with him, so the
chief reason of his taking him along with him seems to have been to let
those at Jerusalem see that he was neither ashamed nor afraid to own
the doctrine which he had constantly preached; for though Titus had now
become not only a convert to the Christian faith, but a preacher of it
too, yet he was by birth a Gentile and uncircumcised, and therefore, by
making him his companion, it appeared that their doctrine and practice
were of a piece, and that as he had preached the non-necessity of
circumcision, and observing the law of Moses, so he was ready to own
and converse with those who were uncircumcised.
3. With the reason of it, which was a divine revelation he had
concerning it: he went up be revelation; not of his own head,
much less as being summoned to appear there, but by special order and
direction from Heaven. It was a privilege with which this apostle was
often favoured to be under a special divine direction in his motions
and undertakings; and, though this is what we have no reason to expect,
yet it should teach us, in every thing of moment we go about, to
endeavour, as far as we are capable, to see our way made plain before
us, and to commit ourselves to the guidance of Providence.
II. He gives us an account of his behaviour while he was at Jerusalem,
which was such as made it appear that he was not in the least inferior
to the other apostles, but that both his authority and qualifications
were every way equal to theirs. He particularly acquaints us,
1. That he there communicated the gospel to them, which he preached
among the Gentiles, but privately, &c. Here we may observe both the
faithfulness and prudence of our great apostle.
(1.) His faithfulness in giving them a free and fair account of the
doctrine which he had all along preached among the Gentiles, and was
still resolved to preach–that of pure Christianity, free from all
mixtures of Judaism. This he knew was a doctrine that would be
ungrateful to many there, and yet he was not afraid to own it, but in a
free and friendly manner lays it open before them and leaves them to
judge whether or no it was not the true gospel of Christ. And yet,
(2.) He uses prudence and caution herein, for fear of giving offence.
He chooses rather to do it in a more private than in a public way, and
to those that were of reputation, that is, to the apostles
themselves, or to the chief among the Jewish Christians, rather than
more openly and promiscuously to all, because, when he came to
Jerusalem, there were multitudes that believed, and yet continued
zealous for the law,
Acts xxi. 20.
And the reason of this his caution was lest he should run, or had
run, in vain, lest he should stir up opposition against himself and
thereby either the success of his past labours should be lessened, or
his future usefulness be obstructed; for nothing more hinders the
progress of the gospel than differences of opinion about the doctrines
of it, especially when they occasion quarrels and contentions among the
professors of it, as they too usually do. It was enough to his purpose
to have his doctrine owned by those who were of greatest authority,
whether it was approved by others or not. And therefore, to avoid
offence, he judges it safest to communicate it privately to them, and
not in public to the whole church. This conduct of the apostle may
teach all, and especially ministers, how much need they have of
prudence, and how careful they should be to use it upon all occasions,
as far as is consistent with their faithfulness.
2. That in his practice he firmly adhered to the doctrine which he had
preached. Paul was a man of resolution, and would adhere to his
principles; and therefore, though he had Titus with him, who was a
Greek, yet he would not suffer him to be circumcised, because he would
not betray the doctrine of Christ, as he had preached it to the
Gentiles. It does not appear that the apostles at all insisted upon
this; for, though they connived at the use of circumcision among the
Jewish converts, yet they were not for imposing it upon the Gentiles.
But there were others who did, whom the apostle here calls false
brethren, and concerning whom he informs us that they were
unawares brought in, that is, into the church, or into their
company, and that they came only to spy out their liberty which they
had in Christ Jesus, or to see whether Paul would stand up in
defence of that freedom from the ceremonial law which he had taught as
the doctrine of the gospel, and represented as the privilege of those
who embraced the Christian religion. Their design herein was to
bring them into bondage, which they would have effected could they
have gained the point they aimed at; for, had they prevailed with Paul
and the other apostles to have circumcised Titus, they would easily
have imposed circumcision upon other Gentiles, and so have brought them
under the bondage of the law of Moses. But Paul, seeing their design,
would by no means yield to them; he would not give place by
subjection, no, not for an hour, not in this one single instance;
and the reason of it was that the truth of the gospel might continue
with them–that the Gentile Christians, and particularly the
Galatians, might have it preserved to them pure and entire, and not
corrupted with the mixtures of Judaism, as it would have been had he
yielded in this matter. Circumcision was at that time a thing
indifferent, and what in some cases might be complied with without sin;
and accordingly we find even Paul himself sometimes giving way to it,
as in the case of Timothy,
But when it is insisted on as necessary, and his consenting to it,
though only in a single instance, is likely to be improved as giving
countenance to such an imposition, he has too great a concern for the
purity and liberty of the gospel, to submit to it; he would not yield
to those who were for the Mosaic rites and ceremonies, but would stand
fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, which conduct
of his may give us occasion to observe that what under some
circumstances may lawfully be complied with, yet, when that cannot be
done without betraying the truth, or giving up the liberty, of the
gospel, it ought to be refused.
3. That, though he conversed with the other apostles, yet he did not
receive any addition to his knowledge or authority from them,
v. 6.
By those who seemed to be somewhat he means the other apostles,
particularly James, Peter, and John, whom he afterwards mentions by
name,
v. 9.
And concerning these he grants that they were deservedly had in
reputation by all, that they were looked upon (and justly too) as
pillars of the church, who were set not only for its ornament, but for
its support, and that on some accounts they might seem to have the
advantage of him, in that they had seen Christ in the flesh, which he
had not, and were apostles before him, yea, even while he continued a
persecutor. But yet, whatever they were, it was no matter to
him. This was no prejudice to his being equally an apostle with
them; for God does not accept the persons of men on the account of any
such outward advantages. As he had called them to this office, so he
was at liberty to qualify others for it, and to employ them in it. And
it was evident in this case that he had done so; for in conference
they added nothing to him, they told him nothing but what he before
knew by revelation, nor could they except against the doctrine which he
communicated to them, whence it appeared that he was not at all
inferior to them, but was as much called and qualified to be an apostle
as they themselves were.
4. That the issue of this conversation was that the other apostles were
fully convinced of his divine mission and authority, and accordingly
acknowledged him as their fellow-apostle,
They were not only satisfied with his doctrine, but they saw a divine
power attending him, both in preaching it and in working miracles for
the confirmation of it: that he who wrought effectually in Peter to
the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in him towards
the Gentiles. And hence they justly concluded that the gospel of
the uncircumcision was committed to Paul, as the gospel of the
circumcision was to Peter. And therefore, perceiving the grace
that was given to him (that he was designed to the honour and
office of an apostle as well as themselves) they gave unto him and
Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, a symbol whereby they
acknowledged their equality with them, and agreed that these should
go to the heathen, while they continued to preach to the
circumcision, as judging it most agreeable to the mind of Christ,
and most conducive to the interest of Christianity, so to divide their
work. And thus this meeting ended in an entire harmony and agreement;
they approved both Paul’s doctrine and conduct, they were fully
satisfied in him, heartily embraced him as an apostle of Christ, and
had nothing further to add, only that they would remember the
poor, which of his own accord he was very forward to do. The
Christians of Judea were at that time labouring under great wants and
difficulties; and the apostles, out of their compassion to them and
concern for them, recommend their case to Paul, that he should use his
interest with the Gentile churches to procure a supply for them. This
was a reasonable request; for, if the Gentiles were made partakers
of their spiritual things, it was their duty to minister to them in
carnal things, as
And he very readily falls in with it, whereby he showed his charitable
and catholic disposition, how ready he was to own the Jewish converts
as brethren, though many of them could scarcely allow the like favour
to the converted Gentiles, and that mere difference of opinion was no
reason with him why he should not endeavour to relieve and help them.
Herein he has given us an excellent pattern of Christian charity, and
has taught us that we should by no means confine it to those who are
just of the same sentiments with us, but be ready to extend it to all
whom we have reason to look upon as the disciples of Christ.
| Peter Reproved by Paul. | A. D. 56. |
|
|
|
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the
face, because he was to be blamed.
12 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.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch
that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to
the truth of the gospel, I said unto 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?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the
Gentiles,
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.
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.
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.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness
come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
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,
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 x.),
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.
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 it 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.
2. He acquaints us what his own judgment 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 saw 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
such a life as would be more agreeable and acceptable to God than his
observance of the Mosaic law could now 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, &c. 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. vi. 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 opinion 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. xi. 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?
|
[Previous] [Next] |
Matthew Henry |
|
Back to Bibles Net . Com – Online Christian Library Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary – Free Download |
Copyright 2008. Bibles Net. Com. All Rights Reserved.