EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

PART FIRST.

ARGUMENTS SUSTAINING PAUL'S GOSPEL
AND APOSTOLIC OFFICE.

1:1-2:17.

I.

PAUL'S GOSPEL AND APOSTLESHIP DIVINELY
DERIVED.

1:1-24.

      1 Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead), 2 and all the brethren that are with me, unto the churches of Galatia [These two verses form not only the text of this first section, but also the keynote of the entire epistle. Without a moment's introduction, Paul passes at once to that which caused him to write, viz.: the challenge of his apostleship. If it was urged against him that he was but the faithless messenger of the other apostles, he replies by asserting, in the clearest, most forceful way, the nature of his apostleship. Both as to source and agency it was divine. The call to it came from God and not from men, and the call came through the agency of Jesus Christ, and not through the agency of any man. The election of Matthias throws light upon these words (Acts 1:23-26), for if he was not called of the apostles, he was at least called through their agency. Paul's call, on the contrary, was from the lips of Jesus himself, and had in it no human mixture whatever. Why Paul speaks of the resurrection of Jesus is not clear. It has been thought that Paul could claim a call from God the Father, because the Father, by the resurrection of the Son, gave official countenance to the acts of the Son. Again it is thought [248] that Paul has in mind the fact that Jesus rose from the dead for our justification (Rom. 4:25), and since justification by faith in Christ is the main theme of the epistle, he mentions the resurrection to pave the way for the introduction of that theme. But it seems more likely, from the context, that he has in mind the fact that his own call came after the resurrection of Jesus, and so the resurrection of Jesus was an essential element in the proof of his apostleship. Paul mentions the brethren who were with him. For a probable list of them see Acts 20:4; 21:16. Paul does not mention them by name, as he does in the epistles to the Thessalonians and Corinthians, because the letter is of a more personal nature than any of these others. But he does mention them to let the Galatians know that others sympathized with him in all that he wrote. The address implies that there were many churches in Galatia, yet to none of them does he attach any honorable title, for none of them does he offer the usual expression of thanksgiving, and to none of them does he speak the customary words of commendation and praise. This ominous silence on the part of the apostle constitutes a most telling rebuke]: 3 Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ [see 1 Cor. 1:3 and note], 4 who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father: 5 to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. [The mention of the Lord Jesus Christ in the benediction, coupled with the thought which was uppermost in his mind, namely, that the Galatians were forsaking salvation through Jesus in the hope that they might obtain it through the law of Moses, leads Paul in these very opening sentences to fully set forth the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the deliverance through him, and the will of God, who ordered that atonement and deliverance should come in this way. Gratitude to Christ, who, owning his life, might have retained it, but freely gave it for us, and desire for deliverance from this present evil world, and respect for the sovereign will of God our Father, are three strong motives prompting us to be steadfast in the profession [249] of our Christian faith. To each of these motives Paul appeals. It is the apostle's habit, whenever he has occasion to make mention of the mercy of God, to break forth in expressions of thanksgiving (2 Cor. 9:15; Eph. 3:20), and he follows his custom here.] 6 I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel [The word translated "marvel" conveys the idea of admiration rather than of wonder. Their fickleness was sufficiently striking to be brilliant. Since, if Paul wrote this letter from Corinth on his third missionary tour, it was three years since he had been with them, commentators have been tempted to choose some other date comporting better with "quickly," for three years is rather a long period. But Paul refers to moral speed. The Galatians were changing their position hastily and without due consideration. In doing this they were withdrawing from the God who called them (for "him" refers to God, and not to Paul--1:15; 5:8; Rom, 8:30; 1 Cor. 1:9; 1 Thess. 2:12; 5:24; 2 Tim. 1:9) and from the grace, or liberty, peace, etc., of the kingdom into which they had been called, for what? for a new gospel which was not worthy of the name. There can be but one gospel; that there might be two, between which men might choose, is something which the apostle denies in the next verse]; 7 which is not another gospel: only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [This verse defines the meaning of that which precedes, so as to correct the false impression that there might be two gospels, similar in sonic respects and equally effective. The folly of such a thought is ironically set forth at 2 Cor. 11:4. There is, says the apostle, emphatically but one gospel, but there are some who would revolutionize you (the word "trouble" has this force) by perverting the gospel, making it an unholy, ineffectual compound of living truth and obsolete Jewish forms. His failure to name the leaders in this movement shows his contempt for them. They were parties unknown and deserving to remain unknown. One can not help wishing that modern churches would waken to the truth here [250] spoken by the apostle. There is and must ever be but one gospel. There is not a separate gospel suited to the prejudices or so-called "tastes" of each sect or denomination. There is but one gospel, and hence all church divisions result from perversions of that gospel, and all such secessions or revolutionary divisions are but the beguiling of Satan, drawing disciples from "the simplicity and purity that is toward Christ"--2 Cor. 11:3.] 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. 9 As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema. [Here the apostle supposes an impossibility, that he may thereby show that it is not possible to make any alterations in the gospel which God would sanction or accept. No man could make such alterations; no, not even an angel. Chrysostom suggests that these gospel perverters claim for their teaching the authority of the older apostles, Peter, James, John, etc., and interprets Paul thus: "Don't tell me of John, don't tell me of James. If one of the highest angels were to come, corrupting the truth originally preached, he must be rejected. . . . When the truth is in question, respect of persons is inadmissible." In this connection it is interesting to note that the Galatians had at first received Paul as an angel of light (Gal. 4:14), and they were now probably so receiving these perverters. Also we may observe that the words of angels would be valueless if spoken in an improper spirit (1 Cor. 13:1), and lastly that the sayings of Jesus differ from the sayings of the law in this very respect, viz.: they are weightier than any words conveyed through the agency of angels (Heb. 1:2; 2:1-3). Upon all such perverters Paul pours out the anathema of God, devoting them to destruction. See 1 Cor. 16:22. In later centuries the anathema became associated with excommunication, until the two words became convertible terms; but no such confusion of terms existed in Paul's day, and his words mean more even than severance from the church. Moreover, excommunication [251] would not affect angels, since they are not members of our churches. Paul's language shows that at his last visit (Acts 18:23) he had warned the Galatians against such Judaizers, and he now makes the warning more effectual by repetition. His reference to his former words suggests surprise that they should have so far forgotten them as to be misled despite them. The strong wording of this entire passage forms a solemn warning against the sin of corrupting the gospel. All offices, appearances and reputations to the contrary, whoso perverts the divine truth is an enemy to Christ, and rests under the curse of God. Compare Matt. 7:22, 23. And who will presume to say how large or important a change must be to constitute a perversion? It is best, as Dean Howson observes, to understand Paul as "precluding any deviation of any kind from the original gospel."] 10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. [Paul's enemies accused him of being a time-serving, man-pleasing factionist, who, to gain for himself a large party of adherents, had allowed the Gentiles undue liberty, even receiving them into the fellowship of the church without subjecting them to the essential rite of circumcision, thus being content to let them rest in a low state of imperfection and perhaps even risk their salvation rather than alienate their affections by telling them unpalatable truths, or making unwelcome requirements. Paul therefore makes his present conduct an answer to all this. Neither in his present utterance or in his life since his conversion had he proved himself such a time-server. On the contrary, however, whenever a crisis arose requiring him to make a choice between pleasing man and God, he had spoken God's unpleasant truths freely, regardless of their effect on human friendship. Whatever he had done when he was a Pharisee to please priest or people, he was not continuing to do so now. He was no longer a Jew, a Pharisee, or a persecutor of Christians as he would be if he were pleasing men, but he was a servant of Christ; though being so involved being misunderstood, hated, slandered, persecuted and reviled.] 11 For I make known [252] to you, brethren [Paul's affection will crop out], as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. 12 For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ. [I want you to understand that the gospel which I preach was in no sense my own invention or production, for it was of a nature not after man; i. e., not such as man could design or devise. And the method by which I received it proves that it was not of a human origin, and hence also not of a human character; for I did not receive it from man, nor did I acquire it by the slow and progressive method of teaching, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ. Jesus revealed himself to Paul on the way to Damascus and he was soon preaching the gospel in that city. Therefore Paul's revelations must have been received about the time of his conversion, and most probably during his sojourn in Arabia. As to exactly when they were received Paul himself is silent; but as to the manner, he declares that he received them from Jesus, so his gospel was from the same source as that of the other apostles. The rest of the chapter is taken up in proving the statements of these two verses.] 13 For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and made havoc of it: 14 and I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. [Paul's first proposition is that though it might be possible that he was taught the gospel by men, or that he might have attempted to originate it, it was certainly highly improbable; for his whole early life showed a strong antipathy and aversion to such teaching, and an intense love for that very form of teaching which was now being used to pervert the gospel. Of these very facts the Galatians themselves were in a manner witnesses; for they had doubtless heard the common report concerning them, and had also learned them from Paul himself at a time when they had no bearing on the question now discussed. Paul made no [253] secret of his past life (1 Cor. 15:9; 1 Tim. 1:13; Acts 22:4, 5; 26:10, 11). Thus the story of his miraculous call, with which they were perfectly familiar, was evidently true. By "my fathers" Paul means his spiritual fathers, the Pharisees. He was zealous for the whole Jewish religion, as expounded by the Pharisees, with all its forms, rites, laws, etc., both divine and human.] 15 But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace, 16 to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood [anything mortal]: 17 neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus. [Paul's conversion, being too well known to the Galatians to require restatement, is simply referred to in the phrases "called me," "returned to Damascus," etc. He appeals to that conversion to show that he was neither man's apostle nor even an apostle's apostle, but a true apostle of God. Moreover, even he himself had no part in the call, for he could in no way have fitted or qualified himself to be such, since God had called him to the place from birth, as he had done Moses, John the Baptist, Isaiah (Isa. 49:1), and Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5). His call to be an apostle was, therefore, due to the free grace of God and not because of anything which Paul was as a man, or held as derived from man. Moreover, in purpose the call was purely apostolic, for he was called to receive illumination, that, having received a revelation of Christ, he might be sent forth to enlighten the Gentiles with it. And this illumination was absolutely independent of any person or persons at Jerusalem, for he had received it in another land, and it was made wholly sufficient without any recourse to Jerusalem, as was clear from the fact that he had not turned to that city for more light, but had gone into Arabia, and, returning to Damascus, had entered upon his ministry (Acts 9:19, 22; 26:20). The sojourn in Arabia must have been brief. Paul's predestination to the office of an apostle is an entirely different thing from [254] predestination to salvation, for he nowhere claims the latter--1 Cor. 9:27.] 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. 20 Now touching the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. 21 Then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: 23 but they only heard say, He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc; 24 and they glorified God in me. [The term "three years" may be taken to mean three full years, or one year and parts of two others. Assuming that Paul was converted in A. D. 37, the visit to Jerusalem took place somewhere between A. D. 38 and 40. Luke describes this same period as "many days" (Acts 9:23). For a curious parallel see 1 Kings 2:38, 39. Persecution drove Paul from Damascus (Acts 9:22-25; 2 Cor. 11:31, 32), and the desire to form the acquaintance of Peter led him to Jerusalem. The James whom he met was, as described, "the Lord's brother," and was neither James, the son of Zebedee, nor James, the son of Alphæus. In fact, he was not properly an apostle, but was called such probably because of his nearness to Jesus and his great influence. For further information concerning him, see "Fourfold Gospel," page 225. Paul's reasons for leaving Jerusalem are found at Acts 9:29, 30; 22:17-21. Cilicia was commonly coupled with Syria in popular phrase; for, though part of Asia Minor, it was cut off from that district by the high ridge of Mt. Taurus, and so formed social and commercial affinities with Syria. The gist of Paul's argument is this: My gospel did not come to me from Jerusalem, for, 1. I was in no haste to go there. 2. I did not go there for the purpose of perfecting my knowledge of the gospel. 3. I was not there long enough to perfect such knowledge. 4. Leaving there, I was conscious of no deficiency of knowledge, but went at once to localities far distant, and was not personally known in the regions contiguous [255] to Jerusalem, as I must have been had I lingered in that city long enough to learn the gospel history. 5. But I was known to them by my repentance, and by works for which they praised God, which facts show that I was recognized by them as proficient in a gospel which I did not learn from them.] [256]

II.

PAUL'S GOSPEL APOSTOLICALLY APPROVED.
HIS EQUALITY WITH PETER.

2:1-21.

      [Paul, having shown that his gospel was independent of the powers at Jerusalem, proceeds to prove that it was fully endorsed by them, and so he was not a false apostle, as his enemies represented him to be.] 1 Then after the space of fourteen years [i  e., after his conversion, or about A. D. 51] I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. [Paul omits his second visit to Jerusalem, which took place about A. D. 44 (Acts 11:30; 12:25). It is not needful to mention this visit, for it was a brief one, and made at a time when persecution raged there, and when James, the son of Zebedee, was beheaded, and Peter cast into prison. It was no time for conference, and had no bearing whatever on Paul's apostleship or gospel. The third visit (Acts 15:1-35) had such bearings, and is therefore mentioned. Titus was among the "certain other" mentioned at Acts 15:2. Titus was a Gentile convert, and Paul evidently took him with him that he might use him to test the question as to whether circumcision was required of such converts. If Paul wrote from Corinth, Titus was then with him, a living witness of Paul's success in this test case. At this council which Paul and Barnabas attended, a decree confirming the liberty of the Gentiles was issued. Some question has arisen as to why Paul did not cite the decree to prove the correctness of his position on the question of circumcision. Paley gives an elaborate number of reasons for his not doing so, none of which are [256] wholly satisfactory, but the real reason is very obvious. Paul could prove his apostleship easier than he could the decree, and the decree would settle only one or two questions, while the establishment of his apostleship would enable him to settle every question. Moreover, the Galatians had no doubt seen the decree and had it explained away--Acts 16:4-6.] 2 And I went up by revelation: and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain. [Paul went up to Jerusalem because he was outwardly appointed to do so by the church at Antioch (Acts 15:2), and inwardly prompted to do so by the Lord. This revelation may have come to Paul through some prophet (Acts 13:1, 2), but it was more likely by the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:17-19; 11:12; 16:6, 7), but the important point to note is, that as his gospel came from God, so also its sanctioning was brought about by God. Paul wisely consulted with the apostolic leaders (Acts 15:4) before entering the council, lest, through some misunderstanding, he might encounter their opposition, and so have his work destroyed, for he recognized that if his labors were discountenanced at the fountain-head, all that he had done would be in vain. According to his characteristic use of metaphors, he describes his labors under the figure of the Grecian race.] 3 But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 and that because of the false brethren privily 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 in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. [But the sequel showed that I did not run in vain, for my voice and my authority were recognized in that council in the matter of Titus; and though certain Jews, who were members of the church and yet not Christians at all, but had entered the church to further Jewish interests, and who were ever then present in [257] the council as spies of the Jews to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ, that they might bring the church of Christ back into the bondage of the law--though these I say were present, demanding the circumcision of Titus, I did not yield to them at all, but saved the liberty of Titus, that the true liberty of the gospel might be preserved for you Gentiles. Paul after this circumcised Timothy, who was by birth entitled to circumcision. He did this because by so doing he would give Timothy larger influence in preaching to the Jews, and because the church at Jerusalem, having, after a full hearing, accepted one uncircumcised Christian, had once for all admitted that circumcision was not essential to Christianity. Had Paul yielded in the case of Titus, the precedent would have established the contrary rule.] 6 But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's person)--they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me [Having exposed the Judaists and set forth his triumph over them, and shown them to be no-what, he now turns to discuss those who by reason of their office, influence, etc., seem to be somewhat. Thus, he reaches the main question which the Galatians were asking, viz.: "What, Paul, was your final attitude toward the apostles, those great pillars of the church universal?" He recognizes that in the very putting of such a question they were, so far as he was concerned, exalting the Jerusalem apostles above their true height. He was himself a pillar of equal altitude, and no more to be measured by them than they by him. Though, says he, these men, buttressed by a multitude of followers and by their established official position, seemed indeed to be more important than a lone stranger such as I, yet God is not deceived by such seeming. He knew me to be an apostle as well as they; and they added no gospel fact or doctrine to my store, nor did they impart to me any new authority, or suggest any change in what I preached]: 7 but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision 8 (for he [258] that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles); 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; 10 only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do. [These men, as I say, in no way reproved or corrected me, but, on the contrary, when they saw, by the testimony of the Spirit, that I was sent to the Gentiles as Peter was sent to the Jews (for the Spirit, who gave Peter wisdom and knowledge and power when he worked among the Jews, gave me these same gifts for my work among the Gentiles), and when they also saw the manner in which the Spirit had fitted me for my work, they recognized that God had appointed to each of us a separate sphere of operations; so they agreed, these pillars, that I should preach to the Gentiles, and they should preach to the Jews, and our agreement was not a loose and tacit affair, but one to which we formally pledged ourselves by the giving of hands. The only requirement they made of me was that I should remember the poor in Judæa whenever persecution, etc., brought them into distress, and this I would have done without their request. James is mentioned before Peter because he was elder at Jerusalem, and because he appears to have acted as president of the council. (See Acts 15.) The Scripture knows nothing of the supremacy of Peter, as contended for by the Roman Catholics. As to this agreement formed between the apostles, we should note that it was not rigid. Paul, in his missionary journeys, invariably preached first to the Jews, and Peter did work at Antioch and elsewhere among the Gentiles, and was, according to the appointment of Christ, the first to open the door of the kingdom for the Gentiles (Matt. 16:19; Acts 10; 15:7). Moreover, we should note that while the greatest goodwill and cordiality and most perfect understanding existed between the leaders of these two great wings of the church, this [259] concord did not extend to the wings themselves, for it was a part of Peter's grand division of the church which was causing Paul trouble in Galatia. As to collections for the poor, Paul had taken one such offering to Jerusalem even before the meeting of this council (Acts 11:28-30), and was even now taking another such collection on a large scale (Rom 15:26, 27; Acts 24:16), of which facts the Galatians were not ignorant.] 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. [There is no means of determining when this scene took place, but it was probably very soon after the council at Jerusalem. It forms the climax in Paul's argument, showing that he was not only the equal of Peter, but, at times, even his superior. It upsets the Romish doctrine of Peter's supremacy, and also shows that in his conduct he was not infallible; for in this instance he was not so much condemned by his fellow-apostle as he was, to use Paul's phrase, self-condemned--his conduct at one time reproving and convicting him for his conduct at another. Luther regards Paul as here drawing a contrast between his own conduct in withstanding Peter to his face, and these gospel perverters who were slandering him behind his back.] 12 For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. [The Jews regarded it as unlawful to have social intercourse with, or to eat with, Gentiles; but Peter's great vision, teaching the fact that God was no respecter of races or persons, bore especially on the social difference (Acts 10:11-16). Peter, therefore, instructed by the vision, ate with the Gentiles, and defended his conduct in so doing (Acts 11:3, 4, 12). He therefore knew perfectly what was right and lawful in the matter, but, fearing those who came from James, he played the coward, being, as Alford says, "ever the first to recognize, and the first to draw back from great truths." Peter, therefore, to avoid the censure of these Jerusalem critics, began to withdraw from the Gentiles, and finally to separate himself altogether. Such a withdrawal [260] would mean that Peter could not take the communion with the Gentiles. The "certain" is contemptuous, and corresponds to the "some" of 1:7. It is not likely that James gave these men any authority for what they did. See his words at Acts 15:19, and those of the decree, Acts 15:24. But James stood in high favor with the Jewish party, and hence, in his absence, would readily be quoted as sanctioning the teachings of that party.] 13 And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. [These Jews from Jerusalem appear to have swept in like an invading army, and were joined by Peter, and then by the rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch, and lastly by even Barnabas, who had hitherto been Paul's colleague in defending the gospel liberties. Truly the situation was critical. Either the surrender of the Gentiles, or a division of the church, was sure to follow if these conditions continued. Paul calls the conduct of these men "dissimulation." They were pretending that they believed one principle, when, in reality, they believed the very opposite. Bishop Lightfoot suggests that the action of Barnabas at this time may have paved the way for the quarrel which soon after separated him from Paul.] 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before them all [Antioch was the center and citadel of Gentile Christianity with all its privileges and liberties, and Antioch was being captured. It was time to act, and the whole fate of the church, humanly speaking, rested on one man, but that man was equal to the occasion. When leaders failed to walk according to the truth of the gospel, Paul was always heard from. He spoke here, and the church was saved. The open boldness of his unsparing rebuke, delivered before some great congregation, was a warning to these gospel-perverters of what he would do should he come to Galatia. Doubt exists as to where Paul's words to Peter end, but they seem to embrace the entire chapter], If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles [261] to live as do the Jews? 15 We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. [If thou, being a Jew to begin with, livest, as is shown by your past custom, like a Gentile, and not like the Jews, by what right do you demand, by your changed custom, that the Gentiles should live like Jews? For even you and I, both being born Jews, and both taking the best view of ourselves possible, and regarding ourselves after the most untempered and unwarranted pride and prejudice of our race as infinitely superior to the degraded heathen (as we were wont to call them), both in righteousness and acceptability to God, even we, I say, despite all this, were forced to see and acknowledge that a man is not justified by those works of the law in which we trusted, but through faith in Jesus Christ, so that we believed on Christ Jesus that we might obtain the justification that comes through him, rather than the vain and insufficient justification of the law, for the Scripture itself (Ps. 143:2) says," By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."] 17 But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? God forbid. [But if we were forced by Christ's light to confess that we were sinners under the law, so that we turned our backs upon the law as a means of justification; and if we were now so disappointed and dissatisfied with the justification which we have obtained from Christ, that we in turn abandon him and seek to return to the law, what will be said of Christ? Will not all be compelled to say that, so far as we are concerned, he has proved himself not a minister to our justification, but rather a minister to our sense of sin? And is he indeed such a minister? God forbid the thought! We may regard Paul's reproof as closing here and look upon the rest of the chapter as an elaboration of the thought addressed to the [262] Galatians. But his address to them begins properly at 3:1, so we prefer to take it as a continuation of the reproof, wherein Paul drops the plural for the singular that he may declare to Peter his own intentions in the matter.] 18 For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. [If, as I say, I follow your course, Peter, and abandon and seek to destroy the law because it does not justify me, and, failing to be justified anywhere else, I return to and again build up the law, I prove myself to be a hopeless, unjustified sinner. But I am no such self-convicted transgressor; for I, following my own course, was, by the agency of the law acting as my schoolmaster (3:24), led to die to the law, thus utterly abandoning it, that I might live unto God (Rom. 7:1-6). And seeking refuge from the law, I have identified myself with Christ, and in him I have died to the law, for I have been crucified with Christ; and thus it is no longer I, Paul, the law-condemned Jew, that lives, but Christ, the righteous, the justified, liveth in me. And that life I now live in the flesh is thus merged in and identified with Christ by faith--faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me, dying to fulfill the sentence of the law in my stead.] 21 I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought. [I do not, Peter, in following my course, make void the grace of God which gave us Christ. But your course does this very thing, for if a man can be righteous and obtain justification under the law, then the death of Christ is superfluous. Paul's rebuke to Peter is not only a complete climactic justification of his claims as an apostle, but forms also a most fitting introduction, both in matter and spirit, to his immediately following rebuke of the Galatians, who were, like Peter, returning to the law.] [263]