(Chapters 1-2)
The method of the Judaizing teachers was not to attack the truth directly, but to attack the teacher of the truth—Paul. Their plan was simple but effective: if they undermined Paul’s authority, they could destroy his teaching. They had persuaded the saints in the province of Galatia that Paul was a renegade preacher who had no credentials or backing from Peter and the other apostles in Jerusalem. Therefore, he had no authority for what he was doing, and consequently, they shouldn’t listen to him. Having lodged sufficient doubt in the minds of the saints in Galatia as to the authenticity of Paul’s ministry, they laid the ground-work for introducing the seeds of their evil teaching of law keeping.
Since this was the tactic of the Judaizing teachers, Paul begins the epistle by establishing his God-given authority as an Apostle in chapters 1-2. After doing that, he goes on to teach the truth of righteousness being without the Law in chapters 3-4, and then he exhorts the saints based on that truth in chapters 5-6.
Paul knew that he needed to establish the fact of his apostleship before he could expect the Galatians to receive his teaching and exhortation. Hence, the first two chapters are introductory to the teaching in the epistle.
Chap. 1:1-5—the Salutation
Paul begins by clearly and simply stating the authority of his apostleship (vss. 1-2) and the main elements of the gospel he preached (vss. 3-5). These were the two things that his opposers were challenging. This kind of forthrightness was something that was sadly lacking in Paul’s detractors who had a hidden agenda.
Vs. 1—He announces plainly that he was an “apostle,” stating three irrefutable facts of it. His apostleship was:
• “Not of men” as a source (vs. 1a). It did not emanate from men—regardless of how godly and well-meaning men may be. The source of Paul’s authority was far higher than man.
• “Neither by man” as a means (vs. 1b). It did not come through a succession passed down to him from others before him; nor was it a result of ordination by others.
• It was “through Jesus Christ and God the Father” (vs. 1c). Thus, it was not through Peter and the other apostles, but directly from divine Persons in the Godhead. Therefore, to reject Paul as an Apostle is to reject the Father and the Son who commissioned him.
It is significant that Paul says, “ ... who raised Him from the dead.” The resurrection of Christ is God’s seal of approval on what Christ accomplished on the cross for the salvation of man. Paul mentions this at the outset because those who were troubling the Galatians clearly didn’t understand the work of Christ. They thought that there was something that the believer had to do to secure his salvation—i.e. to keep the Law. The resurrection of Christ is God’s answer to His finished work on the cross. In raising the Lord Jesus from the dead, God was saying, “Amen,” to what He accomplished. There is nothing that we can do to add to that perfect and complete work. We are called to “believe” God’s testimony as to the satisfaction of divine justice in Christ’s work in atonement; the person who believes it is saved (John 3:14-1714And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:14‑17)). Both Paul and Peter attest to this (Rom. 4:24-2524But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. (Romans 4:24‑25); 1 Peter 1:19-2119But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 21Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. (1 Peter 1:19‑21)).
Vs. 2—Paul adds, “And all the brethren which are with me.” He mentions this to show that what he was about to write was considered orthodox by the mass of the Christians of that day. They were “with” Paul in the sense that they stood in agreement with him and his teaching. They clearly were not in sympathy with the Judaistic errors that the Galatians had imbibed. The Galatians needed to understand that they had forsaken the common faith of the brethren at large. It also shows that the doctrines of grace that Paul taught were not some private interpretation of his invention; they were what “all the brethren” who were orthodox held and taught.
“Unto the churches [assemblies] in Galatia.” It is significant that this is in the plural. There were not one, but several “churches [assemblies]” that had been affected by the leaven of these Judaizers. Hence, this epistle was written to all the assemblies in that region. Their case illustrates how wrong doctrine spreads, and why it must be stopped before it leavens the whole mass of believers (Gal. 5:99A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. (Galatians 5:9); 2 Tim. 2:1717And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymeneus and Philetus; (2 Timothy 2:17)).
Paul desires “grace” and “peace” toward the Galatians. If they were to be corrected in this serious error, they would need “grace” to do it; “peace” would be the result. He does not mention mercy, as he does in his greetings in his pastoral epistles, because they could not expect mercy from God if they refused Paul’s apostolic correction in this epistle.
Vss. 3-5—Having stated the fact of his apostleship, Paul gives a brief summary of the cardinal truths of the gospel that he preached, since this was also under attack:
• Paul preached that “the Lord Jesus Christ ... .gave Himself for our sins.” This shows that he taught that the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross was God’s means of settling the question of the believer’s sins. It is noteworthy that he makes no mention of the believer needing to keep the Law to secure this great blessing.
• Paul also preached that the work of Christ delivers the believer from “the present evil world [age].” The world is a vast society that man has built up to keep himself contented in his alienation from God. It has many departments—political, religious, sports, theater, etc. It is the “will of God” that in saving souls men and women would be delivered from the whole course of the world, which is heading for judgment. This is significant because what the Judaizers were teaching left a person in the world—that is, the religious side of the world.
• The gospel Paul preached, if received in faith, produces spontaneous praise and worship from the redeemed directly to the Father and the Son. He says, “Our Father: to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.” This was sadly missing with the Galatians; legalism had all but squeezed the liberty of sonship out of them (Rom. 8:1515For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. (Romans 8:15); Gal. 4:66And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (Galatians 4:6) – “crying, Abba, Father”).
The error they had adopted had essentially denied these three basic results of the gospel—sins put away, deliverance from the world, and spontaneous praise and thanksgiving to God the Father. It practically set aside the work of Christ, substituting it with the works of men (Law-keeping). It left men in the world with its forms and rituals of earthly religion. And it robbed the believer of the liberty of his sonship in the presence of the Father. Hence, the Christian is left at a distance from God as the saints were in Old Testament times, worshipping God outside the veil (Heb. 10:19-2019Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; (Hebrews 10:19‑20)), which is not Christian ground at all.
Chap. 1:6-12—the Needed Rebuke
This serious departure from the truth of the gospel demanded a stern rebuke. Normally in Paul’s epistles, after he greets the saints, he commends them for certain things that he saw in them that glorified God, and he gives them praise for it. But in this epistle, he doesn’t give his usual commendation and thanksgiving, and has no praise for them. Instead, he launches straight into a rebuke. This is quite amazing, because even with the Corinthians and all their errors, Paul still found things to commend—but it was not the case here. This shows the seriousness of the error into which they had fallen.
Vss. 6-7—Paul marvels at the instability of the Galatian believers who had “quickly” turned aside after “another gospel which is not another.” The Galatians may have thought that they were receiving a new and improved version of the gospel, but it was really “another gospel” (2 Cor. 11:55For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. (2 Corinthians 11:5)).
At this point, Paul does not mention what this other gospel is. He makes it clear, later in the epistle, that it involved adding the Law of Moses to Christ’s work on the cross for justification (chap. 2:16-18). As mentioned earlier, this was a serious error that undermined the foundation truths of Christianity. Mixing the Law with grace makes the blessing of the gospel depend upon man fulfilling his responsibility in his salvation, and essentially shuts out grace, making Christ’s work for us of no profit (chap. 5:4). Adding the Law to the gospel is indeed “another gospel.” It is not something that Paul or any other of the apostles taught (Acts 15:8-118And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. (Acts 15:8‑11); 2 Cor. 11:44For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4)).
If indeed Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium were the Galatian assemblies to whom he was writing, they ought to have known better, for they had been given “the decrees” of the apostles that spelled out most definitely that the Law of Moses and circumcision were not to be imposed upon the saints (Acts 15:23-29; 16:423And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: 24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: 25It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. (Acts 15:23‑29)
4And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. (Acts 16:4)). In a matter of about five years after Paul had given the gospel in that region (Acts 16:66Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, (Acts 16:6)), they were “removed from Him” who had called them! In the original Greek text, the word for “removed” is in the middle voice, implying that the defection was still going on; it would continue to carry them further away from the truth if they didn’t judge their error. This shows that there is no telling how far a person may go if he defects from the faith. It is a solemn thing indeed.
Paul says, “There be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel.” Note: he doesn’t say that these Judaizing teachers denied the gospel—but that they perverted it. They did not directly deny the truth of the Person of Christ or the facts of His death and resurrection, but they added (if it were possible) to Christ’s work on the cross. They taught that His finished work was not enough for a person’s salvation; he must keep the Law and be circumcised to be saved (Acts 15:11And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1)). This was a perversion of the gospel, and a perversion of the gospel is often more dangerous than a flat denial of it. In perverting the gospel there is enough truth to deceive the unwary Christian, but sufficient error to nullify the truth.
Vss. 8-9—Paul does not confront the Judaizing teachers or attempt to correct them. It may be that he saw them as apostate, and for such there is no repentance (Heb. 6:4-64For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (Hebrews 6:4‑6)). Instead, he issues his apostolic anathema. Paul declared that there was a curse upon all who tampered with or changed the gospel message. Speaking hypothetically, he supposes that if it were possible that even he and the other workers with him (“we”) preached another gospel than what the Galatians had heard from him, they would be “accursed.” And if it were possible for an angel to descend from heaven with another gospel that he would also be accursed. Note: the KJV says, “If any man preach any other gospel ... ” The word “man” is in italics and really shouldn’t be in the text. The verse should read, “If any one ... ” because he is speaking of all God’s creatures, including angels.
Vs. 10—Paul turns to speak of his motives in serving the Lord. He says, “Do I now persuade men or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” He brings this in because it was one of the things that characterized the Judaizers who were troubling the Galatians. In suggesting that he was not seeking to “please men,” he was really unclothing the motives of the Judaizers for the Galatians to see, without directly pointing the finger at them. Paul indicates elsewhere that these “false apostles” and “deceitful workers” (2 Cor. 11:1313For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:13)) saw the gospel movement as a golden opportunity to make a comfortable living for themselves (2 Cor. 2:1717For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. (2 Corinthians 2:17) – “a trade”). They, therefore, worked hard to get a footing among the Galatian saints who were unestablished, passing themselves off as being servants of Christ. They pleased men by catering to them to gain a following and have their monetary support (Gal. 4:17; 6:1317They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them. (Galatians 4:17)
13For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. (Galatians 6:13); Jude 1616These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. (Jude 16)). In contrast to these base motives, Paul would not stoop to such principles (2 Cor. 11:8-9; 12:14-178I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. 9And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself. (2 Corinthians 11:8‑9)
14Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours, but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children. 15And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved. 16But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile. 17Did I make a gain of you by any of them whom I sent unto you? (2 Corinthians 12:14‑17)). He didn’t seek the applause of men, nor did he want their money.
Vss. 11-12—The three points that Paul mentions in verse 1 in regard to his apostleship were the same in regard to “the gospel” he preached. Paul’s apostleship was not “of” men, nor was it “by” men (vs. 1). Similarly, the gospel he preached was not “according to man,” nor was it “from man.” It was not of man—so far as the source and channels were concerned, because it was outside man altogether. What is of man glorifies, honours, and flatters man; consequently, it will be pleasing to men. Such was the line of things that the false teachers were on. The gospel, on the other hand, refuses everything to do with man, and brings in what is infinitely better in Christ.
Those who were perverting the gospel were claiming that they had authority from Jerusalem (Acts 15:2424Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: (Acts 15:24)). In contrast to this, Paul shows his authority was from heaven. He had a far higher authority for his apostleship in that it was received “by revelation of Jesus Christ.”
Chap. 1:13-17—His Conversion & Divine Commission
Paul then turns to speak of his conversion and divine commission from the Lord. He had no intention of occupying his readers with himself needlessly (2 Cor. 4:55For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. (2 Corinthians 4:5)), but his life was a testimony to the power of the grace of God, and this was something that the Galatians desperately needed to see.
Three Reasons for Mentioning His Conversion
Of the many things that Paul could have mentioned about his pre-conversion life that surely would entertain us, the Spirit of God leads him to speak of three significant things that pertain to the issue at hand. They are brought in here because they have a direct bearing on the difficulty that the Galatians had gotten into:
1) Vs. 13—The first reason for drawing attention to his conversion is to show where his super zealous Law-keeping led him—it made him an outright persecutor of “the Church of God!” This shows that the more a person is steeped in the works-based system of Law-keeping, the more he will be antagonistic toward the principles of grace, which is the essence of the gospel. Legalism and grace are totally opposed to one another and cannot abide on a common ground. The truth of this should have alarmed the Galatians. It meant that the line that they were on would lead them to being outright opponents of the gospel of the grace of God!
2) Vs. 14—The second reason why Paul mentions his pre-conversion days is to show the Galatians that he was well-versed in the Jew’s religion. He had “advanced in Judaism beyond many” of his “contemporaries.” He was not boasting but letting them know that omitting Jewish elements in his gospel (Law-keeping, circumcision, etc.) was not an oversight on his part. Paul knew all about those things and he omitted them from his preaching because those things had absolutely nothing to do with God’s way of salvation through grace.
Note: Paul calls it, “the Jew’s religion;” he does not say that it was God’s religion. He speaks of it in this way because Judaism had been set aside and was no longer recognized by God (John 4:2121Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. (John 4:21); Rom. 11:1-161I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, 3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. 9And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: 10Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. 11I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? 13For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. 15For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? 16For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. (Romans 11:1‑16)). The Apostle John speaks in a similar way, calling the various feasts at Jerusalem, “the Jews’ Passover” and “the feast of the Jews.” He doesn’t call them the feasts of Jehovah (John 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2; 10:22; 11:5513And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, (John 2:13)
1After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. (John 5:1)
4And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh. (John 6:4)
2Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. (John 7:2)
22And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. (John 10:22)
55And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves. (John 11:55)). The Lord also indicated this in His ministry. In His early days He called the temple “My Father’s house” (John 2:1616And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. (John 2:16)), and then later, “My house” (Matt. 21:1313And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. (Matthew 21:13)). But after He was formally rejected by the nation, He left the temple and called it, “Your house” (Matt. 23:3838Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. (Matthew 23:38)). This being the case, the Galatians needed to realize that they were taking up with elements of a system that had been set aside by God. Clearly, they were going in a wrong direction.
3) Vss. 14-16—The third reason why Paul mentions his conversion is to demonstrate the power of God to deliver one from legalism. He himself was once “exceedingly zealous” of the Law and the “traditions” of his fathers, but God delivered him! If God can deliver a zealot like Saul of Tarsus—one who was far more entrenched in legalism than the Galatians were—He could surely deliver them. This shows that their sad condition was recoverable. This fact was intended to encourage the Galatians to hear and act on what Paul was about to say to them in this epistle regarding their error.
It is significant that Paul’s conversion took place when he was on the road to Damascus (Acts 9). Paul heard the call of the Lord when he was traveling away from Jerusalem. Nor is it an accident that the Lord first taught the truth of the Church to His disciples when He had taken them to the northern borders of the land of Israel—the farthest point from Jerusalem (Matt. 16:13-1813When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:13‑18)). These things are indicative of the fact that Judaism and Christianity are two contrasting orders. The further one gets away from Judaism, the more clearly he will see the truth of Christianity. God never intended them to be mixed into a Judeo-Christian order—a misnomer that characterizes much of Christendom today.
Paul’s first point ought to have alarmed the Galatians and produced a searching in their hearts as to the path they were on. His second point should have caused them to realize that they had taken up with something in which God did not support. And his third point should have prepared them to listen to what he was about to write.
Three Significant Places in Paul’s History
In verses 17-18, Paul mentions three places that were significant in his call and divine preparation for service—Damascus, Arabia, and Jerusalem.
First, “Damascus” was where he was converted, received the Holy Spirit, and was first brought into fellowship with brethren of like precious faith (Acts 9:1-221And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. 3And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 8And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. 10And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. 11And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, 12And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. 13Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. 17And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. 19And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. 20And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. 21But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? 22But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. (Acts 9:1‑22)).
Secondly, “Arabia” (the wilderness) was where God prepared him for the work that he was going to do (between Acts 9:2222But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. (Acts 9:22) and 23). He had received his message by revelation, but he still needed to learn—as we all do—that the flesh profits nothing in the things of God (John 6:6363It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63); Rom. 7:1818For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. (Romans 7:18)). This can only be learned experimentally, and this takes some time. It was something that the Judaizers evidently hadn’t learned. Adding the Law to a believer’s life for Christian perfection, which is what they were seeking to do (Gal. 3:33Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Galatians 3:3)), is a clear proof that one doesn’t understand the end of the flesh, as being utterly worthless and condemned by God (Rom. 8:33For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (Romans 8:3)).
The third place Paul mentions is “Jerusalem.” This was the center of Judaism and where the legalists gloried in the law of Moses. Paul makes it very clear that he stayed clear of Jerusalem after he was saved. This was a good example for the Galatians, because everything that Jerusalem stands for only tends to hinder Christians—its influence genders to the bondage of the Law (Gal. 4:24-2524Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. (Galatians 4:24‑25)). Paul, himself, is an example of this. When he did go to Jerusalem later, he fell under the influence of James and the others there who were not clear as to the distinction between Judaism and Christianity, and it led to his captivity in Caesarea (Acts 21:18-2918And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. 26Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. 27And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, 28Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place. 29(For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.) (Acts 21:18‑29)). This shows how incredibly powerful the influence of Jerusalem has over a person from a Jewish background.
Paul was helped in Damascus and in Arabia, but he was hindered by Jerusalem. The Galatians needed to understand this, because the Judaizers who were throwing the Galatians into confusion were from Jerusalem, and they brought that influence with them.
Three Encounters With Peter
(Chapters 1:18–2:21)
Paul had to contend with certain charges that were designed to weaken the confidence of the Galatian saints in him and his ministry. Since Peter was considered by many to be the pre-eminent Apostle, Paul focuses on his interactions with him. He mentions three different encounters that he had had with Peter that completely debunk the false charges. These three incidents are given to show conclusively that Paul’s apostleship was not in opposition to the other apostles—in fact, the other apostles were in support of it!
Chap. 1:18-24—Paul’s First Encounter With Peter
Vss. 18-19—Paul’s detractors had put forth the idea that he was a renegade preacher who was out of step with the other apostles and had no authorization from them for the things he taught.
Paul answers this by mentioning an incident that proved there was no truth to this. Three years after he was saved, he went up to Jerusalem and “abode with” Peter for fifteen days (Acts 9:2626And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. (Acts 9:26)). This shows that there was perfect harmony between Peter and him. He mentions “James” in a similar tone. It was simply not true that Paul was out of step with the other apostles. If he was some renegade who was heterodox concerning the Christian faith, Peter would have detected it and rejected him.
Paul makes it clear that he did not make his way to Jerusalem to become an apostle; he had been made that by the Lord’s calling (Gal. 1:11Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) (Galatians 1:1); 1 Cor. 1:1; 9:11Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, (1 Corinthians 1:1)
1Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? (1 Corinthians 9:1)). Nor did he go there for training in Christianity or for authorization from the apostles. In fact, he mentions that he purposely stayed away from Jerusalem after he was saved—not out of any disrespect for his fellow apostles—but because his commission from the Lord needed no human authorization. His special call from the Lord was to carry the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; 13:46; 18:6; 22:21; 28:2815But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: (Acts 9:15)
46Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. (Acts 13:46)
6And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. (Acts 18:6)
21And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. (Acts 22:21)
28Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. (Acts 28:28)), and therefore, he did not need to go to Jerusalem, the Jewish center.
Why then did Paul go to Jerusalem? He went there for fellowship, not for authorization. He wanted to get acquainted with Peter who was an eyewitness of the Lord’s life and ministry. He was received by him and was in happy fellowship with the others he met in Jerusalem (Acts 9:2828And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. (Acts 9:28)).
Vss. 20-24—After his visit with Peter, Paul returned to “Syria and Cilicia.” He adds that “the churches of Judea” rejoiced in fact that he had been converted and was preaching Christ, even though he was “unknown by face” to them. They were so happy with his conversion that they “glorified God.” This shows that the saints generally in Judea were also supportive of him and the gospel he preached.
Paul’s point here is clear and simple. If the apostles and the saints in Judea were in happy fellowship with him, the Galatians should have their utmost confidence in him too. Yet, they were treating him as an enemy! (Gal. 4:1616Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? (Galatians 4:16))
Chap. 2:1-10—Paul’s Second Encounter With Peter
Having spoken of the harmony that existed between Peter and himself, Paul moves on to emphasize the fullness of his understanding of the Christian revelation. Paul’s detractors insinuated that he was inferior to the other apostles so far as his knowledge of the truth was concerned, and consequently, his preaching was missing certain important elements—such as Law-keeping. Since they believed that he was deficient in his understanding, they told the Galatians that his preaching could not be trusted.
Paul answers this by bringing forward another encounter he had with Peter. This incident shows that he knew the truth so well that the other apostles couldn’t add anything to him so far as his understanding is concerned. Paul omitted Jewish elements in his preaching, such as Law-keeping and circumcision, not because he didn’t understand the gospel, but because they have no part in the Christian revelation.
Vs. 1—He recounts an incident, recorded in Acts 15, where the issue of Law-keeping in the Church was confronted and settled. Fourteen years after Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem, he went there again in regard to whether believers needed to be circumcised and keep the Law. Paul, and those with him, did not go up to Jerusalem because they had been called “on the carpet” by the leaders there; nor was it to seek their approval in what he preached. He went up to Jerusalem “according to revelation.” The Lord revealed to him that he should go, and his brethren in Antioch were in fellowship with it (Acts 15:22When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. (Acts 15:2)). The purpose of this visit was to consider the relationship of the Law to the gospel and to issue a definitive apostolic statement as to it.
There were “certain men” who had come out from them in Judea who were not clear as to the relationship of the Law to the gospel. They were essentially propounding the error that the Galatians had fallen into (Acts 15:1, 5, 241And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1)
5But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. (Acts 15:5)
24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: (Acts 15:24)). It was right, therefore, that the brethren in Antioch should take the problem to its source (Jerusalem) and have them deal with it. In doing this, the unity of the Spirit between the assembly in Jerusalem and the assembly at Antioch would be maintained. This is an important principle that assemblies should act on when there are difficulties that arise between them. After conferring with the apostles about this matter, the grand conclusion was that there was no word from God to put believing Gentiles under the Law. The apostles, therefore, put forth a letter with certain “decrees” for Christian living that strictly prohibited putting a yoke (the Law) on the Gentiles who believed the gospel.
Vs. 2—Paul says that when he arrived at Jerusalem and was received of the assembly, he first communicated “privately [separately from the others]” with those who were “of reputation.” These were “the apostles and elders” at Jerusalem (Acts 15:66And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. (Acts 15:6)). The women and young believers were not included in this meeting, which is in keeping with all administrative affairs in the Church. They met apart from the others because there was a possibility of the Church being divided. It was well known that there was a strong Jewish element in their midst that was not delivered from Judaism, which would oppose the truth of the gospel (Acts 15:55But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. (Acts 15:5)). Dealing with the matter in an open forum (before all) risked rupturing the fellowship of the saints and dividing the Church at large into a Jewish wing and a Gentile wing.
The apostles were made thoroughly acquainted with Paul’s gospel in private so that if such a thing happened, they could meet it. Paul says, “Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.” The enemy would like to have thrown the saints into confusion; having the whole assembly together could easily have done this, and his purpose in coming to Jerusalem would have been defeated. This shows that there may be times when it is necessary for the responsible leaders in an assembly to meet together to discuss certain issues confronting the local assembly without those who are unestablished or governed by emotion being there. Such persons being present tend to throw dust in the air.
Vs. 3—The brethren at Antioch “determined” that Paul and Barnabas should take Titus with them as a test case. He was a Gentile believer who had never been circumcised. What would the apostles at Jerusalem have to say about him? It is significant that Peter, James, and John, and the other apostles never “compelled” Titus to be circumcised! This proved that they didn’t see that it was necessary. This fact was something for the Galatians to consider; if the apostles at Jerusalem did not see it to be necessary, why had they taken up with the idea?
Some might say that Paul wavered on this point because he circumcised Timothy later (Acts 16:33Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek. (Acts 16:3)). However, this was for a completely different reason. He did it because of his liberty in the gospel. He sought to become “as” a Jew to reach and win the Jews in that area with the gospel. He said that he would go so far as to make himself “as” “those under the law.” But in saying this, he quickly added, “not being myself under law. He said, “In order that I might gain them under law” (1 Cor. 9:2020And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; (1 Corinthians 9:20)). He didn’t believe that a Christian should be under the Law, but he would go along with it to win some under it for Christ.
Vss. 4-5—Furthermore, when “false brethren,” who had infiltrated the private meeting, rose up and tried to convince the others that Christians needed to be under the Law, Paul says, “To whom we yielded in subjection not even for an hour.” His point here is equally powerful. The apostles witnessed firsthand this confrontation and would not side with the Judaizers in their midst who pressed for law-keeping! Instead, they supported Paul in standing for “the truth of the gospel.” And it was out of the mouth of Peter that this was established (Acts 15:7-117And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. (Acts 15:7‑11)).
Paul says plainly that these Judaizers had been brought in among the saints “unawares.” One lesson we can learn from this is the need to be careful in reception. The brethren in that day were not careful, and these people slipped in. In almost all quarters, the church today does not practice reception principles, and it has led to the entrance of much evil and harm in the church.
Vs. 6—Since the Judaizers were making much of the leaders at Jerusalem, Paul—not intending to speak disparagingly of them—says, “Those who were conspicuous as being somewhat—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me.” His point here was that the apostles and leaders at Jerusalem didn’t awe him, though he respected them in the Lord (Mark 8:2424And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking. (Mark 8:24); Jude 1616These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. (Jude 16)).
When Paul conferred with the other apostles in regard to his gospel, they did not need to correct or modify what he preached, as was the case with Apollos when Aquila and Priscilla took him and “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:24-2824And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. 27And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: 28For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:24‑28)). In fact, the apostles could add “nothing” to Paul as far as imparting further light and knowledge in the Christian revelation. They simply recognized its divine source and affirmed its truth and completeness.
Vss. 7-10—The apostles recognized that “the gospel to the circumcision” was committed to Peter, and “the gospel to the uncircumcision” was committed to Paul. Paul goes on and says, “He” who had wrought in Peter, making him an apostle, was the very “same” Person who wrought in himself, making him an apostle. This, of course, was the Lord. Not only did the apostles at Jerusalem recognize and affirm the truth that Paul taught, they happily supported him and Barnabas in their work, giving them “the right hands of fellowship.”
This second historical incident answers the insinuation that Paul’s gospel was deficient in certain elements of doctrine—namely, his exclusion of the Law in his message. It proves that the charge of his detractors was utterly false.
Hence, there are three things here that the Galatian saints needed to consider:
• The apostles at Jerusalem never insisted on Titus being circumcised.
• The apostles at Jerusalem would not support the Judaizing element that rose up and pressed for believers being under the Law, but rather, sided with Paul against them.
• The apostles at Jerusalem happily recognized Paul’s teaching and gave Barnabas and him the “right hands of fellowship” in support of what they were doing.
Paul’s argument here is powerful. If the apostles at Jerusalem were in happy fellowship with what he was teaching, why were the Galatians having difficulty with it? Those who were “pillars” in the Church agreed with Paul and did not see it as being defective in any way. Did the Galatians think that they were more spiritual and knowledgeable than the apostles at Jerusalem? To condemn Paul’s teaching was to condemn the apostles who supported his preaching with the right hands of fellowship! This showed that the Galatians were on dangerous ground. They had taken a position that put them in collision, not only with Paul, but also with the other apostles at Jerusalem.
Chap. 2:11-21—Paul’s Third Encounter With Peter
Paul’s detractors also claimed that he didn’t have any authority as an apostle. Paul answers this by mentioning another incident when he encountered Peter. He shows that he had sufficient authority to rebuke him who was reputed as the chiefest apostle! At the same time, Paul deals with the question of whether Jewish believers needed to observe the Law. The previous incident had shown that Gentile believers were not to be put under the Law (vss. 1-10), but the question remained as to whether Jewish believers should be under it. This is addressed in this third encounter with Peter. Paul shows conclusively that believing Jews should not be under the Law either.
Vss. 11-13—Sometime after the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, Peter went to Antioch and found the Jewish believers eating freely with the Gentile believers. He knew that it was God’s order and joined them, for “the middle wall of partition” between the Jew and Gentile had been broken down (Eph. 2:1414For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; (Ephesians 2:14)). But when certain men came from James in Jerusalem, Peter “withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.” Others, including “Barnabas” were “carried away with their dissimulation.” Peter upheld the truth of the gospel in word at the council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:7-117And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. (Acts 15:7‑11)), but when it came to practice, he did otherwise. He failed in that he denied the truth that he taught by his conduct. Some Bibles translate “dissimulation” as “hypocrisy”—and that is exactly what it was.
The root of Peter’s failure was that he wanted to be well thought of by those in reputation in Jerusalem. He feared that he would lose their respect, and this led him to dissemble. The fact that he held the position of an apostle made the offence that much more serious. The more a man is honoured, the greater a stumbling block he will be to others, if he fails. This is exactly what happened. “Other Jews dissembled likewise”—so much so, that “Barnabas also was carried away” with it. The book of Proverbs says, “The fear of man bringeth a snare” (Prov. 29:2525The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe. (Proverbs 29:25)). Peter surely fell into this snare, and it led him to compromise principles.
Vs. 14—This needed to be addressed immediately. Paul realized that the truth of the gospel was at stake, perhaps in a more serious way than Peter realized. A public defection—especially one that affects and influences others—requires a public rebuke (1 Tim. 5:2020Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. (1 Timothy 5:20)). Paul, therefore, asked Peter 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 [to Judaize]?” By refusing to eat with the Gentile believers, his action implied that the observances of the Jewish laws and customs were necessary for holiness. And if this were true, then the Gentiles did need to be under the Law after all, in order to be fit for fellowship with Jewish believers. In effect, Peter, by his actions, was compelling the Gentiles “to Judaize.” This was the same error that the Judaizing teachers were propagating in Galatia, and therefore, Paul’s rebuke of Peter had an underlying rebuke for the Galatians.
It may seem like a small thing to merely refuse to eat a common meal with Gentile believers, but at the bottom of it “the truth of the gospel” was being compromised, and there were great practical consequences that would endanger the fellowship of saints. If Peter’s action went unchallenged, an inner circle within the fellowship of saints would have developed—sort of an aristocracy among brethren. It would create a church within the Church. It implied that there was a superior sanctity and spiritual standing among the saints, and if the Gentile saints wished to be admitted into that circle, they would have to Judaize and obey the requirements of Moses. This is what legalism among Christians often produces—an elite group will develop within the fellowship of the saints. It was a divisive thing that needed to be addressed at once.
Peter knew better because the Lord had taught him otherwise when he was on the housetop of Simon the tanner. The Lord said to him, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common” (Acts 10:1515And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15)). As we all often do at times, Peter didn’t live up to the truth that he knew. His conduct betrayed a lingering conviction of the superiority of the Jews over the Gentiles. It shows that while the Judaizers had been defeated at the council of the apostles in Jerusalem in regard to adding the Law to the gospel, the leaven of legalism was still at work in the Christian Church.
Vss. 15-18—In the remaining verses of the chapter, Paul records a brief summary of his reasoning with Peter as to the Law in relation to the believer. (Most expositors assume that verses 15-21 were spoken to Peter.) This is given here because it states the very essence of his doctrine and acts as an introduction to the next chapters (3-4) where he expounds the truth of justification.
Paul asked Peter a second question that further exposed the inconsistency of his behaviour. He said, “We, Jews by nature, and not sinners of the nations, but knowing that a man is not justified on the principle of works of law but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also have believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified on the principle of the faith of Christ; and not of works of law; because on the principle of works of law no flesh shall be justified. Now if in seeking to be justified in Christ we also have been found sinners, then is Christ a minister of sin?” Paul’s point here is that if Peter was right in turning back to the Law, then Christ had led him to do wrong in refusing it in Acts 15. But this was impossible; the Lord would not lead a person to do both. Paul asks him, “Are you saying by your actions that Christ is a ‘Minister of sin?’” Paul recoils from such a conclusion, saying, “God forbid.” The real sinner or transgressor was not Christ, but Peter! Whichever was right—giving up the Law or taking it up again—one thing for sure is that Peter was wrong in one of the two. If he was right now (in returning to legal observances), then his former actions were wrong. If his former actions were right, then he was wrong now. Either way, he stood as a transgressor.
Besides the truth in question here, this passage effectively refutes the notion that Peter was the infallible leader of the Church, as Roman Catholics teach. Peter clearly erred here. There is a lesson for us in this: we are not to suppose that because a man is a leader among the Lord’s people, and honourable, that he is always right. Leaders can fail too.
Christ’s Death and Resurrection Applied to the Believer
Vss. 19-21—In the closing three verses of the chapter, Paul gives a summary of the truth he taught in his gospel in connection with the death and resurrection of Christ in relation to the Law. If this is properly apprehended, a person will have no difficulty in seeing that the Law has no application to the believer who is “justified in Christ.”
In Paul’s reasoning with Peter about this particular truth, he switches from the first person plural to the first person singular—from “we” to “I,” “myself,” and “me.” When it came to the truth of the believer’s identification with the death and resurrection of Christ, he could not say “we” because Peter’s actions called in question whether he understood this truth, which is intensely personal. Paul had apprehended the meaning of it and could speak of it for himself, but Peter’s actions did not indicate that he was in the good of it. Paul says that if he built again the things that he destroyed, he would be “a transgressor” (vs. 18). Unfortunately, this is what Peter (and the Galatians) had done.
This leads Paul to show that while the Law cannot justify a person, it could kill him! He says, “For I through the law have died to the law” (vs. 19). In Romans 7:9-119For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. (Romans 7:9‑11) he enlarges on this, saying, “I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found it to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.” Such is the experience of every man who seriously tries to save himself by keeping the Law. It slays him and pronounces the sentence of death on him. Instead of the Law giving life, it only produces death! But in having died “through the law” the believer is then dead “to the law.” That is, it has no more application to him.
Again, in Romans 7, Paul says, “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead to that wherein we were held that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter” (Rom. 7:4-64Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 5For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. (Romans 7:4‑6)). The sentence of death has been executed on the believer in the Person of Christ. In Christ’s death we have died. Since the Law only has dominion over a man while he lives (Rom. 7:11Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? (Romans 7:1)), it has nothing more to say to the believer now that he is dead. J. N. Darby pointed out that this deliverance from the Law for the believer has not come about through the Law dying; it is the believer who is dead. Since you can’t make a dead man keep the Law, the Law is completely powerless to touch the Christian. It has killed him and that is all it can do. Hence, in Christ’s death, the believer is freed from the Law.
An old illustration helps here. A man was executed for murder. Afterwards it was proved that he was guilty of several other murders. But the Law was powerless to touch him. It had killed him, and it had nothing more it could say or do to him. This is the Christian’s position in relation to the Law of Moses. It has proved us guilty and has slain us, and now that our connections with it are broken, it has nothing more to say to us.
Paul has told us how he died—“through the law” (vs. 19). Now he goes on to tell us when and where he died—at the cross of Christ. He says, “I am [was] crucified with Christ” (vs. 20). Our old “I” is now gone judicially before God in the death of Christ. In fact, this epistle presents various aspects of Christ’s death for various reasons:
• In chapter 1:4 Christ’s death puts my sins away.
• In chapter 2:20 Christ’s death puts me away.
• In chapter 6:14 Christ’s death puts the world away.
The believer’s identification with Christ does not stop in death. Paul goes on and says, “Nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” The believer is also identified with Christ on the other side of death, in resurrection life (John 20:2222And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: (John 20:22); Phil. 3:1010That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; (Philippians 3:10)). This is where Christianity really begins—on the other side of death—that is, Christ’s death. It is in His resurrection and ascension that we are brought into our full Christian position and in touch with our spiritual blessings, and it is where our life is, as “hid with Christ in God” (Col. 3:22Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. (Colossians 3:2)).
The believer not only escapes judgment in Christ’s death, but in his identification with Christ in resurrection, he becomes a vessel for the expression of the new “I,” which is Christ living in him. It is not that Christ personally dwells in the physical bodies of believers (as does the Holy Spirit), but rather that the life of Christ is in the believer. The point here is not so much that we are to live for Christ but that we are to live Christ. The character of Christ is to be seen in us.
Furthermore, this life is to be lived “by the faith of the Son of God.” Note: it is not faith in the Son of God, but “the faith of the Son of God.” This means that in every step of our Christian lives we are to exhibit the same kind of faith that the Lord Himself exhibited when He walked on earth. The article “the” (in the KJV) before the word “flesh” should not be in the text when referring to the life the Christian now lives. This would imply living after the dictates of the sin-nature and would negate the whole point of the passage. We do not live the new life “in the flesh,” but rather, “in flesh,” which simply means in our human bodies.
God knows that the new life we are to live by faith needs an object to sustain our interest. Hence, He has given us a new Object for our lives—“the Son of God.” He is more than enough to fill and satisfy our hearts and minds. Note: this Object is not the Law of Moses, but a living Person—Christ. Faith sees Christ, the Son of God, and looks to Him; and in the measure in which we are occupied with Him as our Object we will be empowered by the Spirit of God to do the things that are pleasing to God (Rom. 8:44That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:4)).
Not only do we have a new Object for our hearts, but we also have a new motive for Christian living. He says, “Who loved me and gave Himself for me.” Note again: He loved us and He proved His love by giving Himself on the cross. I live indeed, but at what a cost! Such love begets love in our hearts, which produces obedience in our lives. This is not a legal obedience but an obedience that is born out of devotion of heart to Christ. When what Christ has done for us comes home to our hearts, it produces a response of obedience in our lives that the Law could never produce. Such love is the source of devotion in the believer’s life.
The opponents of grace will argue that if the Law had no part in the believer’s life, there would be no restraint on sinful living. A person could believe on the Lord Jesus for salvation and then go out and live a sinful life. Paul shows here that there are new principles in the believer’s life that motivate him—not to sin—but to live a godly life.
Four New Things in the Life of the Believer
Hence, resulting from the Christian’s identification with Christ in resurrection, there are four great things that govern his life now. He has:
1. A new life—“Christ liveth in me.”
2. A new power—“faith.”
3. A new Object—“the Son of God.”
4. A new motive—“who loved me.”
Paul concludes by saying, “I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness is by law, then Christ has died for nothing” (vs. 21). The whole purpose of Christ’s dying falls to the ground as needless if righteousness can be found by keeping the Law. If there is a legitimate way for sinners to get saved and have a righteous standing before God, why would God send His Son to the cross and allow Him to suffer those unfathomable agonies? Christ could have been spared all that suffering to make atonement. To suggest that there was indeed another way to save sinners (i.e. through their Law), yet God still made Christ to suffer on Calvary, casts a huge slur on the heart of God. It also slights the greatness of the work of Christ. These are serious ramifications that result from teaching that righteousness can be had by keeping the Law.
The New Life Needs No Law
The mistake of trying to add the Law to grace is to assume a premise that is totally false. To put the new nature under the Law is to suppose that there is something in that life that wants to do wrong—but it has no such impulse. The new life desires nothing but to do the will of God, and therefore, all it needs is instruction therein. God has given us the Scriptures that we might know His will, and He has also given us the Holy Spirit to empower us to do it. As the believer looks to Christ and is thus empowered by the Spirit, he will do those things that will be pleasing in His sight. He will fulfill “the righteous (moral) requirements of the law” without being under the Law (Rom. 8:44That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:4)). In fact, in living the life of Christ, the believer will go far beyond the moral standards of the Law, as exhibited in the Lord’s life when He walked here.
Hence, to think that the Law is necessary to guide the new life manifests a gross lack of understanding of the Law and the new nature in the believer. The Law cannot correct the flesh, and the new life doesn’t need Law.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We mustn’t lose the thread of Paul’s reasoning in his defence of his apostleship. His reason for mentioning this third encounter with Peter is to show that he was not the least bit inferior to him, even though Peter was reputed as being the chiefest apostle. The point the Galatians needed to get here is that not only did Paul rebuke Peter, but Peter accepted the correction! Peter’s second epistle shows that he had received Paul’s correction and profited from it (2 Peter 3:15-1615And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15‑16)). The Galatians could learn from Peter's example; if Paul had the power to correct the chiefest apostle, then he surely had the power to correct them. Hence, they should be willing to receive his correction as to the Christian’s position and practice apart from the law, as Peter did.
Summary of Paul’s Three Encounters With Peter
1. His first encounter answers the false charge that Paul was a renegade preacher who was not in step with the other apostles. There was, in fact, perfect harmony between him and Peter and the others in Judea (chap. 1:18-24).
2. His second encounter answers the insinuation that Paul was deficient in his understanding of the Christian revelation, and therefore, his preaching could not be trusted. This account establishes that the other apostles could add nothing to Paul in the way of understanding of the truth. They recognized this and gave him “the right hands of fellowship” in his preaching and teaching (chap. 2:1-10).
3. His third encounter answers the charge that he had no authority as an apostle. The account at Antioch establishes the fact that Paul’s authority as an apostle was not inferior to Peter’s, and this was demonstrated in his rebuke of Peter (chap. 2:11-21).
This set the stage for the defence of the gospel Paul preached in the next two chapters. In understanding these facts concerning his apostleship, the Galatians would be ready to receive Paul’s teaching regarding the truth of Christian liberty apart from the Law.