Chapter 2

1 He sheweth when he went up again to Jerusalem, and for what purpose: 3 and that Titus was not circumcised: 11 and that he resisted Peter, and told him the reason, 14 why he and other, being Jews, do believe in Christ to be justified by faith, and not by works: 20 and that they live not in sin, who are so justified.

1. Fourteen years after. Paul’s line of thought continues without interruption. It is not clear whether this 14-year period began with his conversion or with his visit to Jerusalem three years later. For comment on the problem see p. 100 and Additional Note Acts 15. The purpose in mentioning the 14 years is to point out how long it was after his conversion before Paul had an extended contact with the Twelve. He had not borrowed from them the gospel he had been preaching for some 14 (or 17) years.

Again to Jerusalem. If the 3-year and the 14-year periods are successive, it was 17 years from Paul’s conversion to the time of his second visit to Jerusalem, and 14 years since the brief 15-day visit there with Peter (ch. 1:18). As already noted (vs. 18, 19), there had been little opportunity for Paul to learn anything from the apostles at the time of that first visit. In ch. 2:1–10 Paul makes it clear that he is in no way indebted to the apostles for the message he has been preaching (see on vs. 6, 7). For the relation of the visit of Gal. 2:1–10 to that of Acts 11:25–30 see pp. 318, 319. This commentary favors equating the visit of Gal. 2:1–10 with that of Acts 15.

With Barnabas. When the apostles Paul was sent by the church at Antioch to attend the council in Jerusalem certain others accompanied him, one of these being Barnabas (see Acts 15:2). Considering the accounts of Acts 15 and Gal. 2 to be parallel, one of them was Titus. Luke makes no mention of Titus in connection with any of Paul’s journeys. Paul’s first reference to him is in the second Corinthian letter, where he evidently considers him a most valuable helper (see on 2 Cor. 2:13).

2. By revelation. Granting that this is the same visit as that of Acts 15, Paul’s statement here that God directed him to visit Jerusalem appears to be in conflict with that of Luke, who says that Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem by the Antioch church. Apparently both Paul and the church at Antioch were directed by God to make the visit to Jerusalem to which the apostle here makes reference. In a similar way the Holy Spirit and the church were united in sending Paul and Barnabas forth on their First Missionary Journey (Acts 13:2, 3). Compare also Num. 13:1, 2 with Deut. 1:22. Often Paul was the recipient of heavenly illumination. At various times he was directed, warned, or encouraged by God (see Acts 16:9; 20:23; 23:11; 27:22–26).

Communicated. Or, “declared,” “set forth.” The instructions Paul received by revelation directed him to go to Jerusalem and to present before the leaders there the gospel he had been preaching among the Gentiles. In view of the doubt in the minds of some concerning his qualifications as an apostle and the nature of his gospel, this procedure seems most appropriate. The leaders in Jerusalem had the right and duty to know.

Privately. Wisely, Paul sought to avoid unnecessarily stirring up opposition to the course of action to which God had called him, yet at the same time took counsel with the recognized leaders of the church.

Of reputation. That is, those who were leaders, identified in v. 9 as James, Peter, and John. There is no reason to doubt that Paul recognized the position of these senior apostles, though later (v. 6) he minimizes the value of any instruction he may have received from them.

Lest by any means. Paul does not here suggest a doubt in his mind concerning the soundness of his gospel, but of the success of his visit to Jerusalem. He feared that the brethren in Jerusalem might disapprove of his gospel ministry among the Gentiles. This would be a major victory for his Judaizing opponents and a serious obstacle to his plans for evangelizing the Gentiles. Had the Judaizers been able to oppose Paul with official letters from the twelve apostles condemning him and his gospel, he would have been cast in the role of an apostle of error.

3. Circumcised. Verses 3–5 are parenthetical to the main line of argument. The incident of Titus is tangible evidence that the apostles understood and approved Paul’s gospel. There may be another and equally important reason in Paul’s mind for inserting this incident. Timothy, himself a Galatian, half Jew and half Gentile, had been circumcised at the beginning of his ministry as a concession to Jewish prejudice (Acts 16:1–3). For a statement of the principle involved see 1 Cor. 9:21–23. The compromise was a practical one intended to facilitate the preaching of the gospel among the Jews of Gentile lands. In the case of Titus, a full-blooded Gentile, it was different. Had Paul consented to circumcise Titus he would have denied his gospel and appeared to admit that these outward forms were essential to salvation. Paul’s purpose in mentioning the incident involving Titus is to cite an instance where the apostles themselves did not require a Gentile convert to be circumcised. Obviously they did not concede to the demands of the “false brethren” of Gal. 2:4, 5. The false teachers who have been leading the Galatians astray must face these facts, which confront them with an argument they will find most difficult to answer. The fact that the leaders in Jerusalem did not press Titus to be circumcised is evidence of their stand in the matter.

This incident reveals both Paul’s consistency and the willingness of the leaders to lay aside prejudice and recognize truth when it was presented to them. This spirit made it possible for God to work through the early church in a marvelous way. He looks for the same spirit of love and tolerance in the church today. There must be the same willingness to accept new light when it is presented, if the church is to attain to new heights of spiritual experience, and new depths—a new comprehension—of God’s plan for His church.

4. False brethren. These bigoted Judaizers were probably the Pharisee Christians of Acts 15:5. Their purpose was to influence believing Jews against Paul because of his indifference to the requirements of the ceremonial law.

To spy out. Their pretended friendliness had a sinister motive—jealousy of the “freedom” of Gentile converts.

Liberty. That is, freedom from the requirements of the ritual law and from legalism as a means of salvation (see p. 933).

Bondage. That is, to the requirements of the ritual law and to legalism (see chs. 4:3, 9, 24, 25, 31; 5:1, 2). All who adopt the principle of legalism—that salvation can be earned by conformity to a prescribed code—obviously bind themselves to comply with every requirement of that code. They become bondservants of the law, obliged to do “all things which are written in the book of the law” (ch. 3:10). Should the Judaizers have their way, the liberty of the gospel would be exchanged for the bondage that comes from dependence on works.

5. To whom. That is, to the Judaizers and their demand that Titus be circumcised.

Gave place by subjection. Or, “submitted.” The very question now troubling the churches of Galatia had arisen at Jerusalem with respect to Titus. But the apostles apparently refused to support the demand of the Judaizers that Titus be circumcised. Thus, in attempting to force circumcision upon the Galatians, it was the Judaizers—not Paul—who stood opposed to the position of the apostles.

The truth. To have yielded to the Judaizers—either at Jerusalem or in Galatia—would have been to deny the great principle of justification by faith. It was in no sense an exhibition of stubbornness on Paul’s part; rather it was a determined stand against an attempt to pervert the gospel by substituting justification by the works of the law for the cardinal truth of the gospel—justification by faith.

6. Seemed to be somewhat. That is, probably, the apostles themselves, the recognized leaders of the church. These persons are also described in v. 2 as men “of reputation.” Verse 6 continues the line of thought interrupted by vs. 3–5. Paul does not here speak deprecatingly of these men “of reputation,” as might at first appear, for their acceptance of him and approval of his gospel (chs. 1:24; 2:9) constitute important evidence confirming his authority as an apostle. See v. 9.

Whatsoever they were. The purpose of this parenthesis is to remind the Galatians that the question under discussion is not the excellence of the apostles but the validity of Paul’s gospel. Personality, and even high office, is of less consequence than truth. Unquestionably the Twelve had had great privileges. They had been associated personally with Jesus for three years. They had heard Him preach. They had witnessed His miracles. Paul is not detracting from the importance of the apostles, but he endeavors to make clear that their position and office could have no bearing whatever on the problem under consideration. God did not consult man with respect to what is truth, but commissions him to declare truth. To this important duty Paul has been called, even as had the Twelve.

Person. Literally, “face,” that is, outward appearance in contrast with inward character (see on 1 Sam. 16:7). This being God’s method of evaluation, why should position or rank be considered more highly than character? Truth is of paramount importance, while the position or rank of those proclaiming it is of little consequence. Nevertheless, Paul ever loyally supported those who had been appointed to positions of responsibility in the church. He held in highest esteem those who, like himself, had been commissioned by God to preach the gospel. He considered his own call a high honor and believed it carried authority which he was under obligation to exercise when the occasion demanded (see Rom. 11:13; 2 Cor. 13:2). Compare Acts 10:34.

Added nothing. Paul’s gospel had come from the same source as that of the apostles, and was a complete gospel. To add to or subtract from it would mar its perfection. The strength of his argument is that, although Paul had not conferred with, or been instructed by, the Twelve, his gospel was nevertheless the same as theirs. Examining the demand of the Judaizers that Titus and all Gentile converts to Christianity be required to submit to circumcision, the apostles found themselves in complete agreement with Paul. They did not propose that Paul either alter or modify his stand.

7. Gospel of the uncircumcision. There are not two different gospels, one for the circumcised and the other for the uncircumcised. As Paul makes clear in chs. 3 and 4, both Jew and Gentile are saved by faith and not by the works of the law (see ch. 3:28). The works of the law are really not a part of the gospel at all. The difference was not in the message, but in the prior status of those to whom it was given.

Unto Peter. There are two circles of hearers—Jew and Gentile—but one gospel. Paul was commissioned an ambassador to one and Peter to the other (see vs. 7–9).

8. Wrought effectually in. Literally, “worked in,” that is, animated. The word “effectually” was supplied by the translators. The success of Peter’s ministry constituted evidence that God was at work through him. But the same was true of Paul’s ministry. It would be inconsistent to acclaim the one and denounce the other. The source of Paul’s authority and power is the same as that of Peter. If one is an apostle, so is the other.

Was mighty in. Identical in the Greek with the word translated “wrought effectually in,” in the first part of the verse.

9. James. Not the brother of John, who had been put to death before Paul’s First Missionary Journey (Acts 12:1, 2), but doubtless “James the Lord’s brother,” already introduced in Gal. 1:19. The fact that he is named first implies that he was, at the time, leader among the apostles at Jerusalem. In Luke’s account of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) James ranks first among the leaders of the church (see vs. 13, 19–22). The fact that James, the acknowledged leader of the church, had not been one of the Twelve, deflates the charge of the Judaizers that Paul cannot be considered a genuine apostle. A few ancient manuscripts and versions read “Peter and James,” obviously to make Peter appear to be first among the apostles.

Cephas. See on Matt. 16:18; Mark 3:16.

John. See on Mark 3:17.

Seemed to be. That is, were generally held to be. Paul may purposely have avoided saying that these three were leaders. The success or failure of the gospel does not depend upon any man or group of men. No person is indispensable to its success.

Pillars. That is, leaders in the church. If James, who is not of the Twelve, is held in such high esteem as to be rated a “pillar” in the church on an equality with Peter and John, why not Paul also?

The right hands. The leading apostles entered into a formal, friendly agreement with Paul, acknowledging his apostleship and approving his gospel. The giving of the right hand was a practice familiar to other nations as well as to the Jews. This act obviously involved more than a grudging admission that God had called and blessed Paul and Barnabas, and a reluctant concession to their views. The apostles, by this gesture, recognized them as equal in the Christian ministry. Also, their gospel was accepted as pure and worthy to be preached.

Fellowship. Gr. koinoµnia, “participation,” “sharing,” “association.”

Unto the heathen. The apostles were not jealous of the success reported by Paul and Barnabas, but rejoiced in it. They consented to Paul’s continuation of his work, as formerly, among the Gentiles. This is a good illustration of the possibility of reaching a harmonious solution to difficult church problems without harsh contention or strife. Many conflicts that disgraced the church in later centuries would never have occurred had the believers been as honest and noble-minded as the leaders of apostolic times.

10. Remember the poor. This doubtless refers to poor Christians in Judea. Two reasons are evident for this request. The first, of course, is the need. The second is a desire to prevent alienation of the new Gentile converts from the Jewish Christians. The fact that he has been formally accepted by the leaders of the church as apostle to the Gentiles will not alter his attitude toward his kinsmen, the Jews.

I also was forward. Paul zealously honored this request, making repeated appeals to the Gentile churches of Macedonia and Greece for liberal contributions (see Rom. 15:25–27; 1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8).

11. Peter was come. Although Peter’s conduct (vs. 11–14) seems strange to us after his experience with Cornelius (Acts 10:19 to 11:18), and especially after the decision of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:7, 22, 29), it is evident that Paul is here narrating the incident in its proper chronological order. It should be remembered that the decision of the Jerusalem Council pertained to Gentile believers only. It did not specifically release Jewish Christians from the requirements of the ritual law. Having lost their case with respect to Gentile converts, the Judaizers naturally refused to read more into the decision than was actually stated. But Paul and others rightly reasoned that if Gentiles could be saved apart from the ritual law, so could the Jews. When in Jerusalem Paul had no serious objection to participating in ritual ceremonies himself (cf. Acts 21:20–27), as a Jew. As with eating food offered to idols (1 Cor. 10:27–29), no moral principle was involved (ch. 8:8). Paul’s concern on this occasion was for the members of the church (cf. 1 Cor. 10:29–33), and the church at Antioch was composed largely of Gentiles (Acts 11:19–21). Peter therefore should have been ready to stand firmly in the position he originally took, of entering into full fellowship with the Gentile believers on a basis of full reciprocity.

This visit of Peter to Antioch was apparently made soon after the close of the Jerusalem Council. From Acts 15:1, 2 it is evident that the discussion at Antioch concerning the question of circumcision had provided the immediate occasion for calling that council. Now that the question had been settled in a way seemingly satisfactory to all concerned, it would be natural for at least some of the leaders to visit Antioch. From the record of Peter’s participation in the council (see Acts 15:6–11), particularly his experience in the home of Cornelius, he would be expected to do what he could at Antioch to compose differences of opinion and to help carry out the decision of the council.

I withstood him. This incident clearly proves Paul’s equality as an apostle and vindicates his argument against requiring the Gentiles to conform to Jewish legal practices (see v. 14). Paul, Barnabas, and two others had been chosen to carry the decision of the council back to Antioch (see Acts 15:22, 23). Because Peter had been favorable to, and no doubt concurred wholeheartedly in, the decision, it can hardly be said that there was a controversy between him and Paul. They were in agreement, at least on the general principles, and thus on the decision, laid down at the council with respect to the status of Gentiles within the Christian church. This clear and unequivocal decision doubtless provided the basis of Paul’s open rebuke to Peter, and justified it.

It should be possible for church leaders to discuss various opinions without creating feelings of resentment. It is reasonable to assume that Peter’s silence reflected his admission of having erred in judgment. This was a noble thing for him to do. Unity of effort is necessary for success in any enterprise. The church can never fulfill her commission until there is the same type of honesty and straightforwardness that was evident among apostolic leaders.

He was to be blamed. Some early church writers insisted that the Peter here mentioned was not the apostle Peter but one of the Seventy. Others claimed that the two apostles had arranged the scene beforehand as a lesson to the Judaizers that they should be as willing to submit as Peter was under Paul’s persuasive arguments. These and other attempts to explain away the simple facts were prompted by the preconceived belief in the primacy of Peter and an unwillingness to admit that he could have been in the wrong, to say nothing about his being openly rebuked by a fellow apostle. Apparently Peter realized his own error and made no attempt to justify or excuse himself. Such a reaction is in keeping with what might be expected of Peter after his great confession (see John 21:15–17). It marked him as a man of noble spiritual stature.

12. From James. The most that can safely be inferred concerning these believers who are said to have come from James is that they were members of the Jerusalem church, of which James was the leader. Inasmuch as it is not stated that he sent them, it would be an unwarranted assumption to say they had come with official authorization from James. They apparently represented the circumcision party, and were probably Pharisee Christians (see Acts 15:5). They may have come to Antioch without the approval of James. Certainly they did not have his authorization to stir up trouble, for in his remarks at the council he had given evidence of his sincere desire for harmony among the believers everywhere (Acts 15:13–21).

With the Gentiles. Prior to his vision and the subsequent experience at the home of Cornelius (Acts 10:9–48), Peter would not have associated with Gentiles as he now did at Antioch. His precaution in taking along six witnesses (Acts 11:12) reflects his fear that the brethren in Jerusalem would be hesitant to accept his testimony if it stood alone. But after the unusual demonstration of God’s approval evident in the gift of the Spirit before their baptism, Peter was confident of the acceptance of the Gentiles into the Christian church. This confidence was confirmed by the attitude of the Jerusalem Council several years later (Acts 15). There was no longer room for legitimate doubt on this question. Therefore when Peter went to Antioch he felt free to join his brethren in fellowship with the Gentile believers.

Withdrew and separated. Apparently, Peter quietly discontinued his association with the Gentiles, without explanation. Probably this separation involved no more than a break in social relationships.

Fearing them. In self-defense Peter sought to avoid further conflict with these unreasonable, Judaizing brethren from Jerusalem. It was the same group that had stirred up trouble in Antioch, prior to the council, by insisting on the circumcision of all Gentiles who sought admission to the Christian church (see Acts 15:5). Representatives of this party had also subverted the loyalty of many in the church at Corinth (see on 2 Cor. 11:22). Peter’s fear may have been due, in part at least, to the same spirit of caution that prompted him to take six fellow Jews to the home of Cornelius (Acts 11:12). After all, the Jerusalem Council had not provided that Jews might associate freely with Gentiles (see on Gal. 2:11), and Peter may have feared that these Judaizing brethren would interpret his actions in a way he would find it difficult to explain when he returned to Jerusalem.

13. Dissembled. Literally, “acted under a mask with [Peter],” that is, acted the part of hypocrites. Peter and these “other Jews” knew they were not doing right, but compromised themselves in order to avoid trouble with the Judaizers. They acted as they did in order to conceal their true sentiments from those who had come from Jerusalem. They pretended to side with the Judaizing brethren. If Paul’s charge of insincerity was true—and there is no reason to doubt that it was—Peter did well to remain silent, as he seems to have done. Nothing can be said in defense of his conduct, nor can it be excused.

Barnabas also. It must have been a great blow to Paul when his own familiar friend and co-worker succumbed to the pressure of popular opinion. Apparently, even strong Christian leaders are in danger of yielding their own convictions if sufficient pressure is brought to bear upon them.

Dissimulation. Literally, “hypocrisy,” “insincerity.”

14. Walked not uprightly. The course of Peter, Barnabas, and the other Jews would bring confusion and division in the church. The question involved far more than the conduct of leaders. The welfare of the Gentile believers was at stake, and even the fate of the gospel itself. If the Judaizing party were permitted to have its way, then the gospel—salvation through faith in the atoning death of Jesus—would be superseded by the doctrine of salvation through the works of the law. Thus “the truth of the gospel” would no longer be proclaimed.

Before them all. The rebuke was public because the offense was public. All, or nearly all, were concerned. To Timothy, Paul later wrote that a public rebuke for open sin would effectively deter others from following the same course (see 1 Tim. 5:20). The action of Peter and the other Jews created a rift in the fellowship of the church and threatened to shatter the unity of Gentile and Jew in Christ. The prospect was disastrous. Paul addressed his remarks to Peter because his course of action was primarily responsible for the crisis that had arisen upon that occasion.

The manner of Gentiles. It had taken a miracle to convince Peter that Gentiles should be admitted to Christian fellowship on an equality with the Jews (see Acts 10:20, 28, 29, 34). Since that experience he had evidently felt free to associate with Gentiles, contrary to Jewish custom. His apparent silence, when rebuked, implies that he recognized the error of his hasty move and the seriousness of its implications for the future of the church as a universal, united body. This much may be conceded in Peter’s favor.

Why compellest thou? Peter’s sudden change of attitude would require the Gentiles to comply with the demands of the Judaizers that they be circumcised and observe Jewish rites if friendly relations between them and Jewish Christians were to continue. This would virtually be compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews. Paul here points out the inconsistency resulting from this attitude of Christian Jews toward the Gentiles in the church.

15. Jews by nature. That is, literal descendants of Abraham. It is not altogether clear whether vs. 15–21 are part of Paul’s public censure of Peter at Antioch or whether Paul again addresses the Galatian churches directly. It is reasonable to consider the absence of any obvious transition as indicating that Paul here repeats in substance what he said to Peter, rephrased and addressed to the Christians in Galatia. Verses 15, 16 in particular seem to be addressed to Jewish Christians, but whether in Antioch or in Galatia is not certain. The fact that v. 14 speaks of Jewish Christians in Antioch may imply that Paul is still quoting what he said to them.

Sinners of the Gentiles. Or, “Gentile sinners,” probably a common Jewish term reflecting a certain measure of contempt for the unregenerate Gentiles as being a lesser breed, without the law. Paul admitted that there were certain advantages in being a Jew (see Rom. 3:1, 2; 9:4, 5), but when it came to their standing before God, all were sinners in need of salvation (see ch. 3:9). The Gentiles were, in a sense, at a disadvantage, for they had not enjoyed all the benefits that had been accorded the Jews. Nevertheless, Gentiles are without excuse (see Rom. 1:20).

16. Justified. Or, “reckoned righteous” (see on Rom. 3:20, 28; 4:8, 25).

The works of the law. Literally, “works of law” (see on Rom. 2:12). Paul here refers not so much to the ritual observances of the ceremonial law alone as to the Jewish concept that a man could save himself by meticulously keeping (see on 2 Cor. 3:3–9) “the law,” which consisted of moral, ceremonial, and civil precepts (see pp. 933, 934). In his Epistle to the Galatians, Paul is concerned only with the moral and ceremonial codes. The civil code apparently did not enter directly into the problem under discussion. The Jews erred in: (1) considering that salvation could be attained by one’s own efforts, through compliance with the requirements of “the law,” and by virtue of a meritorious life in which a surplus of good deeds would cancel out evil deeds, (2) adding to the law, as given by God, a mass of man-made requirements, commonly called “tradition” (see Vol. V, p. 96; see on Mark 7:3), and (3) extending, and attempting to enforce, certain features of the ritual and ceremonial provisions of “the law” beyond the cross, when they expired by limitation. All of this was no doubt in Paul’s mind as he wrote. As already stated, the word “law,” as used by Paul in the book of Galatians, includes both the moral law, or Decalogue, and the ceremonial law (see EGW Supplementary Material on Gal. 3:24). But Paul is not concerned so much with either of these, as such, as he is with the Jewish legal system of righteousness by works, which was based upon them.

Faith of Jesus Christ. That is, faith in Jesus Christ (see on John 1:12; 3:16; Rom. 4:3; 5:1). Justification comes as a free gift of God through Jesus Christ (see on John 3:16). Works have no part in this transaction. On God’s part it is a gift made possible through Jesus Christ. On man’s part it requires complete faith and trust in God that He is able and willing to justify a sinner. Faith is the means by which man receives justification.

We have believed. This was true of Peter as well as of Paul, and Peter already knew that observance of the law could not justify anyone. It was for this reason that they had turned to Christ for salvation from sin. This very profession, Paul intimates, is an acknowledgment that their former observances were in and of themselves worthless and void.

No flesh. That is, no man, or no human being. See on Rom. 3:20.

17. We. That is, “we who are Jews” (v. 15), meaning Christian Jews, Jews who “seek to be justified by Christ.”

Seek to be justified. Professedly at least, Christian Jews acknowledged the need of coming to Christ for salvation, thus tacitly admitting the inadequacy of “the works of the law” (v. 16).

We ourselves. In the Greek the pronoun is emphatic.

Are found sinners. That is, in addition to the Gentile sinners of v. 15. The Greek reads literally, “were found sinners,” meaning at some particular time in the past, after having become Christians. Christ had promised justification to those who should come unto God through Him (see v. 16). But if those who do so are still “sinners,” then the provision of grace made by Christ is insufficient. He, having made a promise, is unable to fulfill it, and thus must be held responsible for the remaining state of sin.

Minister of sin. Or, “agent of sin,” that is, the one through whom we became sinners, and thus the one to blame for our being sinners. If the demands of the Judaizing Christians were followed, such would appear to be the case, for, though they called themselves Christians, they maintained the necessity of a strict fulfillment of the ceremonial law in order to be free from sin. If this were so, why be a Christian at all? Thus Christians would be back where they began, sinners condemned by the law. If Christ requires this of them, Paul concludes, then Christ has become an agent, or accomplice, of sin.

God forbid. Literally, “May it not be!” Away with such an idea! Yet such was the logical, though absurd, conclusion to which the position of the Judaizers led. The idea is preposterous and altogether out of harmony with a true concept of what Christ has done to save man from the plight into which his sins have brought him. To attempt to substitute works for faith is to confuse and distort the simple truth of the gospel that salvation is by faith alone.

18. If I build. That is, if after I, as a Jewish Christian, have recognized the utter inefficacy of the law as a means of salvation and have turned to Christ for justification, I return to the Jewish legal system in an attempt to find justification.

Things which I destroyed. That is, the ritual observances of Judaism as a means to salvation. For a Jew to accept Christ was a tacit admission that in and of itself Judaism could not save a man. Even though Paul writes in the first person, it is evident that he is thinking of what would be true of all Jewish converts to Christianity.

A transgressor. For a converted Jew to return to the practices of Judaism as a means of salvation would be to admit the inadequacy of Christ to save a man by faith alone. Furthermore, it would be an admission that he had done wrong to turn away from Judaism in the first place, and, by doing so, had made himself “a transgressor” of the ritual law. This was the very thing Peter had done (vs. 11–14), and which all Judaizers were doing.

19. For I. In the Greek the pronoun “I” is emphatic. Whereas in v. 18 Paul speaks as if he were one of the Judaizers, he now refers to personal experience (vs. 19–21).

Through the law. By personal experience in seeking salvation through compliance with the requirements of the legal system Paul had proved to his own satisfaction the inefficacy of that system. Furthermore, he now saw that the law pointed the sinner to Christ.

Dead to the law. That is, have nothing more to do with it. Formerly Paul had expected to be justified by careful compliance with all the law’s requirements. This had been the objective of his life. Now that the law’s true purpose had become clear to him he realized that he could expect no help from that source. Accordingly, he had abandoned the legal system altogether as a means of salvation.

Live unto God. His life was now oriented toward God, as it had formerly been toward the law. His purpose in life was now to appropriate the means of salvation God had graciously provided (see Phil. 3:13).

20. Crucified with Christ. That is, Paul had accepted the atonement provided by Christ’s death upon the cross (see Rom. 6:3–11; Phil. 3:8–10). He considered himself as dead to sin, to the world, and to man-devised methods of attaining to righteousness, as if he had actually been crucified. These methods no longer appealed to him, and in his heart there was no response to them.

Nevertheless I live. The Greek translated “nevertheless I live; yet not I,” may also be rendered, “it is no longer I who live.” Both are appropriate to the context, and either way the sense of the statement as a whole is unchanged.

While dead to some things, Paul was very much alive to others. He was as active after conversion as he was before, for the life of a Christian is not one of inactivity. Jesus spoke of this new life as a more abundant life (see John 10:10). Since Jesus is the source of life, there can be no true appreciation of life apart from Him.

Christ liveth in me. This is the secret of a successful Christian life—Christ abiding within and living out in us the same perfect life that He lived here on earth. The love of Christ constrains him (2 Cor. 5:14), and the righteousness of Christ becomes a reality in his life (Rom. 8:3, 4).

In the flesh. That is, this present life. The Christian is still in the world, though not of it (John 17:11, 14).

Faith of the Son of God. That is, faith in the Son of God. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 10) for reading “faith in God and Christ.”

21. Frustrate. Or, “thwart,” “nullify,” “make void.” To return to the legal system of righteousness by works would nullify all that has been received through the grace of God, by faith in Jesus Christ. Paul refuses even for one moment to concede to the demands of those who, like Peter and the Judaizers, insist on a return to the works of the law as a requirement for justification. This must be considered as a reproof to the attitude taken by Peter (see on v. 15). Thus Paul’s evident conclusion is that all who, like Peter, separate themselves from the Gentile Christians, will be frustrating the grace of God.

If righteousness come. If grace is not needed the gospel has no value or appeal. In discussing the righteousness which Abraham received through faith, Paul argues that the rewards of one who works are not a favor or a gift; they belong to him, as the result of his own efforts (see Rom. 4:4, 5). Now if, by the works of the law, one may obtain all the benefits that come through the gospel, the plan for man’s redemption through Jesus Christ has been made unnecessary. The logic of this conclusion must have been apparent to Peter and to all who were following his example.

Ellen G. White comments

11–44AA 198

20   AA 251; CT 36; DA 390, 510; MB 15, 94; MH 62, 457; MM 203; MYP 84; SC 63, 72; TM 389, 400; 2T 145, 321, 443, 566; 4T 349; 8T 317