Galatians, chapter 2

“Then, after an interval of fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus with me as well. And I went up by revelation.” [a]

His first journey came from his desire to visit Peter; his second, he says, came from a revelation of the Spirit.

Verse 2: “And I laid before them the good news that I preach among the Gentiles — but privately, before those who were of repute — in case I should somehow be running, or had run, in vain.”

What is this, Paul? You would not consult the apostles at the beginning, nor after three years; and now, after fourteen years have gone by, you consult them, for fear that you might be running in vain? It would have been better to do it at the start than after so many years. And why did you run at all, if you were not satisfied that you were not running in vain? Who would be so senseless as to preach for so many years without being sure that his preaching was true?

And what makes the difficulty greater is that he says he went up by revelation. Yet this very difficulty will give us the answer to the first one. If he had gone up of his own accord, it would have been most unreasonable; and it is not possible that this blessed soul should have fallen into such folly. For it is he himself who says, “So I run, not as one who is uncertain; so I fight, not as one beating the air” (First Corinthians 9, verse 26). If, then, he runs “not as one who is uncertain,” how can he say, “in case I should be running, or had run, in vain”? It is clear from this that if he had gone up without a revelation, he would have done something foolish. But in fact there was nothing absurd in it. Who will dare to hold on to this suspicion any longer, when it was the grace of the Spirit that drew him there? That is why he added the words “by revelation”: so that he would not be condemned for folly before the question was answered. He knew well that this was no merely human event, but God’s deep providence concerning the present and the future.

What, then, was the reason for this journey? When he had gone up before from Antioch to Jerusalem, it was not for his own sake — he saw clearly that his duty was simply to obey the teachings of Christ — but from a desire to reconcile those who were quarreling. In the same way, his aim now was to satisfy his accusers completely, not any wish of his own to learn that he had not run in vain. They imagined that Peter and John, whom they thought more highly of than Paul, differed from him, since he left circumcision out of his preaching while they allowed it; and they believed that in this he was acting unlawfully and running in vain. So he says, in effect: “I went up and laid my good news before them, not so that I might learn anything myself, but so that I might convince these suspicious people that I am not running in vain.” That he did not go up to learn anything will appear more clearly further on. The Spirit foresaw this dispute and arranged for him to go up and lay the matter before them.

That is why he says that he went up by revelation, and that, taking Barnabas and Titus as witnesses of his preaching, he laid before them the good news he preached to the Gentiles — that is, with circumcision left out. [c]

“But privately, before those who were of repute.” What does “privately” mean? Surely anyone who wants to correct teachings held in common does not set them out in private, but before everyone together. Paul, however, did this privately, because his aim was not to learn or to correct anything, but to cut the ground from under those who were eager to deceive. Everyone at Jerusalem was offended if the law was broken or the practice of circumcision forbidden. As James says, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed; and they have been told about you that you teach them to forsake the law” (Acts 21, verse 20 and following). Since, then, they were offended, he did not see fit to come forward publicly and declare what his preaching was. Instead he conferred privately with those who were of repute, in the presence of Barnabas and Titus, so that these two could testify credibly to his accusers that the apostles had found nothing out of line in his preaching, but had confirmed it.

The expression “those who were of repute” does not call into question the reality of their greatness. For he says of himself, “And I too seem to have the Spirit of God,” and in saying so he does not deny the fact, but states it modestly. And here too the phrase expresses his own agreement with the common opinion.

Verse 3: “But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.” [d]

What does “being a Greek” mean? Greek by birth, and uncircumcised. Not only did I preach this way, he means, but Titus acted this way, and the apostles did not compel him to be circumcised. This is plain proof that the apostles did not condemn Paul’s teaching or his practice. More than that, not even the pressing demands of the other side, who knew these facts, forced the apostles to require circumcision, as his own words show. Verse 4: “And that because of the false brothers secretly brought in.”

Here a very important question arises. Who were these false brothers? If the apostles permitted circumcision at Jerusalem, why are those who required it, in keeping with the apostles’ decision, called false brothers?

First, because there is a difference between commanding a thing to be done and allowing it once it has been done. The one who commands a thing does it with zeal, as something necessary and of first importance. But the one who does not command it himself, yet allows someone else who wishes to do it, gives way not because he thinks it necessary but to serve some purpose. We have a similar case in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, where he tells husbands and wives to come together again. So that he would not be thought to be making a law for them, he adds, “But I say this by way of permission, not of command” (First Corinthians 7, verse 5). For this was not a ruling given with authority, but an allowance made for their lack of self-control, as he says: “because of your lack of self-control.” Would you like to know Paul’s own verdict on the matter? Listen to his words: “I wish that all men were even as I myself am” (First Corinthians 7, verse 7) — that is, in self-control.

So here too the apostles made this concession not to uphold the law, but stooping down to meet the weakness of Judaism. If they had been upholding the law, they would not have preached one way to the Jews and another way to the Gentiles.

If the observance had been necessary for those who did not believe, then plainly it would have been necessary for all the faithful as well. But by deciding not to trouble the Gentiles on this point, they showed that they permitted it as a concession to the Jews. The false brothers, on the other hand, meant to throw them out of grace and bring them back under the yoke of slavery. This is the first difference, and a very wide one. [g]

The second is that the apostles acted this way in Judea, where the law was in force, while the false brothers did it everywhere, for all the Galatians were being swayed by them. From this it is clear that their intention was not to build up the good news but to pull it down entirely, and that the thing was permitted by the apostles for one reason and zealously pushed by the false brothers for another.

Verse 4: “Who slipped in secretly to spy out our freedom, which we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery.”

He shows their hostility by calling them spies. A spy has one object only: to learn his enemy’s position, so as to make it easier for himself to lay it waste and destroy it. And this is what they did who wanted to bring the disciples back to their old slavery. This also shows how completely opposed their purpose was to the apostles’. The apostles made concessions so that they might free them from their slavery little by little; these men plotted to put them under a harsher one.

So they looked around, watched closely, and busied themselves finding out who was uncircumcised. As Paul says, “they slipped in secretly to spy out our freedom.” He exposes their scheming not only with the word “spies,” but with this language of slipping in by stealth and creeping in. [i]

Verse 5: “To whom we did not give way in submission, no, not for an hour.”

Notice the force and emphasis of the phrase. He does not say “in argument,” but “in submission,” because their aim was not to teach good doctrine but to subdue and enslave them. So, he says, we gave way to the apostles, but not to these men.

Verse 5: “So that the truth of the good news might remain with you.” He means: “We did this so as to confirm by our actions what we had already declared in words: that ‘the old things have passed away; look, they have become new’; that ‘if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation’ (Second Corinthians 5, verse 17); and that ‘if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you’ (Galatians 5, verse 2). In upholding this truth we did not give way even for an hour.”

Then, since the apostles’ own conduct stood squarely against him, and people would probably ask why they had required the rite, he goes on to answer this objection. He does it with great skill. He does not give the real reason, which was that the apostles had acted as a concession, using a kind of strategy; for otherwise his hearers would have been harmed. Those who are to benefit from such a strategy must not know its design; if the design comes to light, everything is undone. So the one who carries it out should know its purpose, but those who are to benefit from it should not.

To make my meaning clearer, I will take an example from the subject before us. The blessed Paul himself, who meant to do away with circumcision, first circumcised Timothy when he was about to send him to teach the Jews, and only then sent him. He did this so that his hearers would receive Timothy more readily. He began by circumcising so that in the end he might abolish it.

But he shared this reason with Timothy alone and did not tell it to the disciples. If they had known that the very purpose of circumcising him was to abolish the rite, they would never have listened to his preaching, and the whole benefit would have been lost. As it was, their not knowing was of the greatest use to them. Because they thought his conduct came from respect for the law, they received both him and his teaching with kindness and courtesy; and having received him little by little and been taught, they gave up their old customs. That would not have happened if they had known his reasons from the start. They would have turned away from him; having turned away, they would not have given him a hearing; and not hearing, they would have stayed in their former error. To prevent this, he did not disclose his reasons. [l]

Here too Paul does not explain the reason for the strategy, but shapes his words differently, like this. Verse 6: “But from those who were reputed to be something — whatever they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality —”

Here he not only does not defend the apostles, but even presses hard on those holy men, for the benefit of the weak. What he means is this: even if they permit circumcision, they will have to give an account to God, for God will not show them partiality because they are great and hold high position.

But he does not say it plainly; he says it with caution. He does not say, “If they corrupt their teaching and swerve from the appointed rule of their preaching, they will be judged with the utmost strictness and will suffer punishment.” Instead he speaks of them more reverently, in the words, “of those who were reputed to be something, whatever they were.” He does not say “whatever they are,” but “whatever they were,” showing that they too had from then on stopped preaching that way, since the teaching had spread everywhere. The phrase “whatever they were” implies that if they did preach so, they would have to give an account; for it was before God, not before people, that they had to answer for themselves. He said this not because he doubted, or did not know, that what they did was right, but, as I said before, because he saw it was useful to shape his words this way.

Then, so that he would not seem to be taking the opposite side and accusing them, and so raise a suspicion that they disagreed, he at once adds this correction: “For those who were reputed to be something contributed nothing to me in conference.” This is what he means: “What you may say, I do not know. This I know well: the apostles did not oppose me. Our views agreed and were in harmony.”

This is clear from his words, “they gave me the right hand of fellowship.” But he does not say that yet. For now he says only that they did not inform him or correct him on any point, and did not add to what he knew.

Verse 6: “For those who were reputed to be something contributed nothing to me.” That is to say: “When they were told what I was doing, they added nothing and corrected nothing. They knew that the purpose of my journey was to consult them, that I had come by revelation of the Spirit, and that I had Titus with me uncircumcised; and yet they did not circumcise him, and they did not give me any further knowledge.”

Verse 7: “But on the contrary.”

Some take his meaning to be not only that the apostles did not teach him, but that they were taught by him. But I would not say this. What could they have learned from him, when each of them had been fully taught himself? So this is not what he means by “on the contrary.” He means that they were so far from blaming him that they praised him; for praise is the contrary of blame. Here someone would probably answer:

“If the apostles praised what you were doing, why did they not follow it through and abolish circumcision?” Now to claim that they did abolish it Paul thought far too bold, and inconsistent with what he himself had admitted. [m]

On the other hand, to admit that they had approved circumcision would necessarily expose him to another objection. For people would say: “If the apostles praised your preaching and yet approved circumcision, they contradicted themselves.” What, then, is the answer? Is he to say that they acted this way as a concession to Judaism? To say that would have shaken the whole arrangement to its foundation. So he leaves the matter hanging and undecided, in the words, “But of those who were reputed to be something — it makes no difference to me.” This amounts to saying: “I do not accuse those holy men or speak against them. They know what they have done; they must give their account to God. What I want to prove is that they neither overturned what I was doing nor corrected it, nor added to it as though they thought it lacking, but gave it their approval and agreement. And Titus and Barnabas bear witness to this.”

Then he adds, verse 7: “When they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news of the uncircumcision, just as Peter had been with the good news of the circumcision.” By the circumcision and the uncircumcision he means not the things themselves, but the peoples known by these marks. That is why he adds, verse 8: “For he who worked for Peter toward the apostleship of the circumcision worked for me also toward the Gentiles.”

He calls the Gentiles the uncircumcision and the Jews the circumcision, and he declares that his own rank is equal to that of the apostles. By comparing himself with their leader, and not with the others, he shows that each held the same dignity. Having established the proof of their agreement, he takes courage and presses on confidently with his argument. He does not stop at the apostles, but goes on to Christ himself and to the grace Christ had given him, and he calls the apostles as his witnesses, saying, verse 9: “And when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.” [n]

He does not say when they “heard,” but when they “perceived” — that is, when they were convinced by the facts themselves — “they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.” Notice how, step by step, he proves that his teaching was confirmed both by Christ and by the apostles. For grace would never have been planted in him, or been at work in him, if his preaching had not been approved by Christ. Where he was comparing someone with himself, he mentioned Peter alone. Here, where he calls them as witnesses, he names the three together, “Cephas, James, John,” and adds a word of praise: “who were reputed to be pillars.” Here again the expression “who were reputed” does not call into question the reality of the fact. It takes up the estimate of others, and implies that these great and distinguished men, whose fame was everywhere, bore witness that his preaching was confirmed by Christ, having learned it from what they saw and been convinced of it by experience.

“So they gave the right hands of fellowship” to me, and not to me only but to Barnabas also, “that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision.” Here there is great good sense, and also proof beyond dispute of their agreement. For it shows that his teaching and theirs could be exchanged one for the other, and that both approved the same thing: that they should preach this way to the Jews, and he to the Gentiles. That is why he adds, verse 9: “That we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision.”

Notice that here too by “the circumcision” he means not the rite but the Jews. Whenever he speaks of the rite and wants to set something against it, he adds the word “uncircumcision,” as when he says, “For circumcision does indeed profit, if you keep the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision” (Romans 2, verse 25). And again: “Neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision.” But when he gives this name not to the act but to the Jews, and means the nation, he sets against it not uncircumcision in the literal sense, but the Gentiles. For the Jews stand opposite the Gentiles, as the circumcision stands opposite the uncircumcision. So when he says above, “For he who worked for Peter toward the apostleship of the circumcision worked for me also toward the Gentiles,” and again, “we to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision,” he means not the rite itself but the Jewish nation, and so distinguishes them from the Gentiles. [o]

Verse 10: “Only they wanted us to remember the poor, which was the very thing I was also eager to do.”

This is what he means: “In our preaching we divided the world between us: I took the Gentiles and they the Jews, as God had decreed. But I also contributed my share to feeding the poor among the Jews; and if there had been any disagreement between us, they would not have accepted it.” [p]

Next, who were these poor? Many of the Jews in Palestine who believed had been stripped of all their goods and scattered across the world. He mentions this in the letter to the Hebrews: “For you joyfully accepted the plundering of your possessions.” And writing to the Thessalonians (First Thessalonians 2, verse 14), he praises their courage: “You became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea… for you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Jews.” And throughout, he shows that the Greeks who believed were not being persecuted by the rest of their people in the way the believing Jews were suffering at the hands of their own kindred; for there is no nation with so cruel a temper.

That is why he shows great zeal that these people should be well cared for, as appears in the letters to the Romans (Romans 15, verses 25 to 27) and to the Corinthians (First Corinthians 16, verses 1 to 3). And Paul not only collects money for them but takes it to them himself, as he says, “But now I am going to Jerusalem to serve the saints” (Romans 15, verse 25); for they lacked the necessities of life. And here he shows that, having resolved to help them in this matter, he had taken it on and would not abandon it.

Having shown by these means the agreement and harmony between the apostles and himself, he now has to go on to his dispute with Peter at Antioch. [r]

Verses 11 and 12: “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.”

Many who read this part of the letter superficially suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But it is not so — truly it is not, far from it. We will find great wisdom on the part of both Paul and Peter hidden here, for the benefit of their hearers.

But first a word must be said about Peter’s boldness of speech, and how it was always his way to get ahead of the other disciples. Indeed, it was on one such occasion that he received his name, from the unbending and unassailable character of his faith. For when all of them were questioned together, he stepped out ahead of the others and answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16, verse 16). That was when the keys of heaven were entrusted to him. So too on the mountain he seems to have been the only one who spoke (Matthew 17, verse 4). And when Christ spoke of his crucifixion and the others kept silent, he said, “Far be it from you!” (Matthew 16, verse 22). These words show, if not a cautious temper, at least a burning love. In every case we find him more vehement than the others and rushing forward into danger.

So when Christ was seen on the shore and the others were bringing the boat in, he was too impatient to wait for it to reach land (John 21, verse 7). And after the resurrection, when the Jews were murderous and enraged and wanted to tear the apostles to pieces, he was the first to dare to come forward and declare that the one who was crucified had been taken up into heaven (Acts 2, verses 14 and 36). It is a greater thing to open a door that is shut, and to be the first to act, than to speak freely afterward.

How could a man who had exposed his life to such a mob ever play the hypocrite? He was flogged and bound and still would not give up the least bit of his courage — and that at the beginning of his mission, in the heart of the chief city, where the danger was so great. How could he, long afterward, in Antioch, where no danger was near and his character had gained luster from the witness of his deeds, feel any fear of the Jews who believed? How could he, I say, who at the very first, and in their chief city, did not fear the Jews while they were still Jews, fear after a long time, in a foreign city, those of them who had been converted? So Paul does not say this against Peter, but with the same meaning in which he said, “For those who were reputed to be something — whatever they were makes no difference to me.” But to remove any doubt on this point, we must lay out the reason for these expressions.

As I said before, the apostles allowed circumcision at Jerusalem, because a sudden break with the law was not possible. But when they came to Antioch, they no longer kept up this observance; they lived side by side with the believing Gentiles and made no distinction, and Peter too was doing this at that time. But when some came from Jerusalem who had heard the teaching he gave there, he stopped doing it, for fear of unsettling them. He changed his course with two purposes he kept to himself: to avoid giving offense to those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable ground for rebuking him. For if he, who had allowed circumcision when he preached at Jerusalem, had changed his course at Antioch, those Jews would have thought he was acting out of fear of Paul, and his own disciples would have condemned him for bending too easily. That would have caused no small offense. But in Paul, who knew all the facts well, his drawing back raised no such suspicion, since Paul knew the intention behind it. [t]

That is why Paul rebukes and Peter submits: so that when the teacher is blamed and keeps silent, his disciples may come over more readily. Without this incident Paul’s urging would have had little effect; but the occasion it gave him for a sharp rebuke struck Peter’s disciples with a livelier fear. If Peter had disputed Paul’s verdict, he could fairly have been blamed for upsetting the plan. But as it was, with the one rebuking and the other keeping silent, the Jewish party was filled with serious alarm. That is why Paul treated Peter so severely. Notice too how carefully Paul chooses his words, and how by them he shows those who can see it that he is speaking as part of a plan, and not out of anger.

His words are: “When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned” — that is, condemned not by me but by others; if Paul himself had condemned him, he would not have shrunk from saying so. And the words “I opposed him to his face” point to a planned arrangement. If their dispute had been real, they would not have rebuked each other in front of the disciples, for that would have been a great stumbling block to them. But as it was, this apparent contest was very much to their advantage: as Paul had given way to the apostles at Jerusalem, so they in turn give way to him at Antioch. [u]

The reason for the blame is this: “For before certain men came from James” — who was the teacher at Jerusalem — “he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision.” What he feared was not danger to himself — for if he did not fear at the beginning, much less would he fear then — but their falling away. So Paul himself says to the Galatians, “I am afraid for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain” (Galatians 4, verse 11); and again, “I am afraid that somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve, … your minds may be corrupted” (Second Corinthians 11, verse 3). The fear of death they did not know; but the fear that their disciples might be lost shook them to the depths of their souls.

Verse 13: “So that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.” [v]

Do not be surprised that he gives this conduct the name of hypocrisy. As I said before, he does not want to disclose the true state of affairs, because he means to correct his disciples. Since they clung so fiercely to the law, he calls what happened “hypocrisy” and rebukes it sharply, so as to tear their prejudice out by the roots.

And Peter too, hearing this, joins in the pretense, as though he had done wrong, so that they might be corrected through the rebuke given to him. If Paul had rebuked these Jews, they would have spurned it indignantly, for they thought little of him. But now, when they saw their own teacher silent under rebuke, they could neither despise Paul’s verdict nor resist it.

Verse 14: “But when I saw that they were not walking uprightly according to the truth of the good news.” Do not let this phrase disturb you either. In using it he is not condemning Peter; he speaks this way for the benefit of those who were to be set right by the rebuke given to Peter.

Verse 14: “I said to Cephas in front of them all.” Notice how he corrects the others: he speaks “in front of them all,” so that those listening might be alarmed by it. And this is what he says — Verse 14: “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” [w]

But it was the Jews, not the Gentiles, who had been carried away along with Peter. Why then does Paul charge him with what had not been done, instead of aiming his remarks not at the Gentiles but at the Jews who were playing the hypocrite? And why does he accuse Peter alone, when the rest played the hypocrite along with him? Let us consider the terms of his charge: “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” — for in fact Peter alone had withdrawn.

His aim, then, is to take suspicion away from his rebuke. If he had blamed Peter for keeping the law, the Jews would have found fault with him for his boldness toward their teacher. But as it is, by taking him to task on behalf of his own particular disciples — I mean the Gentiles — he makes what he has to say easier to accept. He does the same by holding back from rebuking the others and addressing it all to the apostle. “If you,” he says, “being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews” — which comes close to an open call to imitate their teacher, who, though a Jew himself, lived in the Gentile way. He does not say this outright, since they could not have accepted such advice; but under cover of rebuking him on the Gentiles’ behalf, he brings Peter’s real mind into the open.

On the other hand, if he had said, “Why do you compel these Jews to live like Jews?” his language would have been too harsh. But as it is, he brings about their correction by seeming to take the side not of the Jewish disciples but of the Gentile ones; for rebukes that are only moderately severe are the most readily received. And none of the Gentiles could charge Paul with taking up the defense of the Jews. The whole difficulty was removed by Peter’s submitting in silence to the charge of hypocrisy, so that he might free the Jews from the real thing. At first Paul directs his argument at the part Peter was playing, “If you, being a Jew”; but as he goes on he widens it and includes himself in the words, Verse 15: “We who are Jews by birth, and not Gentile sinners.”

These words are meant to urge them on, but they are put in the form of a rebuke, because of those Jews. Elsewhere too he conveys one meaning under cover of another, as when he says in his letter to the Romans, “But now I am going to Jerusalem to serve the saints” (Romans 15, verse 25). His purpose there was not simply to tell them why he was going to Jerusalem, but to stir them to match others in giving alms. If he had only wanted to explain his reason, it would have been enough to say, “I am going to serve the saints.” But notice what he says in addition: [x]

“For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. Yes, they have been pleased to do it, and they are in their debt.” And again: “For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual things, they owe it to them also to serve them in material things” (Romans 15, verses 26 and 27).

Notice how he puts down the high thoughts of the Jews, preparing for one thing by means of another; and his language carries authority. “We who are Jews by birth, and not Gentile sinners.” The words “Jews by birth” mean this: we, who are not converts but were brought up in the law from early youth, have left the way of life we were used to and taken refuge in the faith that is in Christ.

Verse 16: “Knowing that a person is not counted righteous by the works of the law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Christ Jesus.” [y]

Notice here too how cautiously he expresses himself. He does not say they had given up the law as evil, but as weak. If the law cannot bestow righteousness, it follows that circumcision is unnecessary; this much he proves for now. But he goes on to show that it is not only unnecessary but dangerous. It deserves special notice how at the start he says that a person is not counted righteous by the works of the law, but as he goes on he speaks more strongly:

Verse 17: “But if, while we sought to be counted righteous in Christ, we ourselves also were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin?” “If faith in him is not enough for us to be counted righteous, and we must take up the law again; and if, having left the law for Christ’s sake, we are not counted righteous but condemned for leaving it — then we will find that he, for whose sake we left the law and went over to faith, is the cause of our condemnation.”

Notice how he has driven the matter to a plain absurdity. And see how earnestly and forcefully he argues. For if, he says, we ought not to have given up the law, and we have given it up for Christ’s sake, we will be judged.

But why do you press this on Peter, who knows it better than anyone? Had not God made it plain to him that an uncircumcised man ought not to be judged by circumcision? And in his dispute with the Jews, did he not rest his bold stand on the vision he had seen? Did he not send from Jerusalem unmistakable decrees on this very subject? So Paul’s aim is not to correct Peter. His criticism had to be addressed to Peter, but it was aimed at the disciples — and not only at the Galatians, but also at others who suffer from the same error as they did.

For though few people are circumcised now, yet by fasting and keeping the sabbath with the Jews they shut themselves out from grace just as surely. If Christ is of no benefit to those who are only circumcised, there is far more danger to be feared where fasting and sabbath-keeping are practiced, for then two commands of the law are kept instead of one. And the time makes it worse. Those others acted this way at first, while the city and the temple and the other institutions still stood. But these people have the punishment of the Jews and the destruction of the city before their eyes, and still keep more commands of the law than those others did. What defense can they find for keeping it, at the very time when the Jews themselves, for all their strong desire, cannot keep it? [aa]

You have put on Christ; you have become a member of the Lord and been enrolled in the heavenly city — and are you still groveling in the law? How can you possibly gain the kingdom? Listen to Paul’s words: keeping the law overthrows the good news. Learn, if you are willing, how this comes about; and tremble, and shun this pitfall.

Why do you keep the sabbath and fast with the Jews? Is it that you fear the law, and fear to give up its letter? But you would not have this fear unless you looked down on faith as weak and powerless to save by itself. Fear of leaving out the sabbath plainly shows that you fear the law as still in force. And if the law is needed, it is needed as a whole, not in part or in one command only; and if as a whole, then the righteousness that comes by faith is shut out little by little. If you keep the sabbath, why not be circumcised too? And if circumcised, why not offer sacrifices too? If the law is to be kept, it must be kept as a whole, or not at all. If leaving out one part makes you fear condemnation, that fear attaches equally to every part. If breaking the whole is not punishable, far less is breaking a part; but if breaking a part is punishable, far more is breaking the whole.

But if we are bound to keep the whole, then we are bound either to disobey Christ, or, by obeying him, to become lawbreakers. If the law must be kept, those who do not keep it are lawbreakers, and Christ will turn out to be the cause of this lawbreaking, for he himself set the law aside as regards these things and told others to set it aside. Do you not see what these Judaizers are bringing about? They would make Christ, who for us is the author of righteousness, the author of sin; as Paul says, “Then Christ is a servant of sin.” Having brought the proposition to an absurdity, he had nothing more to do to overthrow it, but was content with a simple protest, Verse 17: “Far from it!” For shamelessness and irreverence need not be met with reasoning; a bare protest is enough.

Verse 18: “For if I build up again the things I tore down, I prove myself a lawbreaker.”

Notice the apostle’s insight. His opponents tried to show that anyone who did not keep the law was a lawbreaker; but he turns the argument back on them and shows that whoever did keep the law was a lawbreaker — not only against faith, but against the law itself. “I build up again the things I tore down” — that is, the law. What he means is this: the law has, by common admission, come to an end, and we have left it and taken refuge in the salvation that comes from faith. But if we insist on setting it up again, by that very act we become lawbreakers, striving to keep what God has done away with. Next he shows how it has been done away with.

Verse 19: “For I through the law died to the law.” This can be taken in two ways. Either it is the law of grace he is speaking of — for he often calls this a law, as in the words, “For the law of the Spirit of life set me free” (Romans 8, verse 2) — or it is the old law, and he says that through the law itself he has become dead to the law. That is to say: “The law itself has taught me no longer to obey it; so if I do obey it, I will be breaking even its own teaching.” How, in what way, has it taught this? Moses says, speaking of Christ, “The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet from among you, from your brothers, like me; you must listen to him” (Deuteronomy 18, verse 15). So those who do not obey him break the law.

Again, the words “I through the law died to the law” can be understood in another sense. The law commands that all its precepts be carried out, and punishes the one who breaks them; so we are all dead to it, for no one has fulfilled it. Notice here how guardedly he attacks it. He does not say, “The law is dead to me,” but, “I am dead to the law.” This means that just as it is impossible for a dead body to obey the commands of the law, so it is for me, who have perished under its curse; for by its word I have been killed. So let it not lay commands on the dead — dead by its own act, and dead not in body only but in soul, and this has brought on the death of the body as well. He shows this in what follows:

Verses 19 and 20: “That I might live to God, I have been crucified with Christ.” [ab]

Having said, “I am dead,” he heads off the objection, “How then are you alive?” and adds the reason he lives. He shows that while he was alive the law killed him, but when he was dead Christ brought him back to life through death. He shows that the wonder is twofold: that through Christ the dead man was brought to birth into life, and that it was done by means of death. He means here the life that does not die; for that is the meaning of the words, “That I might live to God, I have been crucified with Christ.” Someone asks: “But how can a man who is alive and breathing have been crucified? That Christ was crucified is plain; but how can you have been crucified and still be alive?” He explains it this way:

Verse 20: “Yet I live; and yet no longer I, but Christ lives in me.” In the words “I have been crucified with Christ,” he is alluding to baptism; and in the words “yet I live, and yet not I,” to our way of life afterward, by which our members are put to death. By saying “Christ lives in me,” he means that nothing is done by me that Christ disapproves of. For just as by death he does not mean what people usually understand but a death to sin, so by life he means a release from sin. A man cannot live to God except by dying to sin; and as Christ suffered death in the body, so Paul suffers a death to sin. “Put to death,” he says, “your members that are on the earth: sexual immorality, impurity, passion” (Colossians 3, verse 5); and again, “our old self was crucified” (Romans 6, verse 6) — which took place in the washing. After this, if you remain dead to sin, you live to God; but if you let sin come alive again, you are the ruin of your new life.

Paul did not do that; he remained wholly dead. “If then,” he says, “I live to God a life other than the life under the law, and am dead to the law, I cannot possibly keep any part of the law.” Consider how perfect his way of living was, and you will be carried away with admiration for this blessed soul. He does not say, “I live,” but, “Christ lives in me.” Who would be bold enough to speak such words?

Paul indeed, who had harnessed himself to Christ’s yoke, thrown away all worldly things, and was obeying his will in everything, does not say, “I live to Christ,” but something far higher: “Christ lives in me.” When sin has the mastery, it is itself the principle of life, and leads the soul wherever it wants. In the same way, when sin has been killed and the will of Christ is obeyed, this life is no longer earthly; Christ lives — that is, works and has the mastery — within us. [ac]

Since his saying “I have been crucified with him,” “I no longer live,” “I am dead,” seemed incredible to many, he adds, Verse 20: “And the life I now live in the flesh, I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God.” “What I said before concerns our spiritual life. But this life of the senses too, if you think about it, will be found to be owed to my faith in Christ. For as far as the old covenant and the law were concerned, I had incurred the severest punishment and would have perished long ago; for ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3, verse 23).”

And we who lay under sentence have been set free by Christ. For all of us are dead, if not in fact, at least by sentence; and he has rescued us from the blow we were waiting for. When the law had accused us and God had condemned us, Christ came, and by giving himself up to death he rescued us all from death. So “the life I now live in the flesh, I live in faith.” If this had not happened, nothing could have prevented a destruction as universal as the one at the flood; but his coming stopped the wrath of God and made us live by faith. That this is his meaning is clear from what follows. After saying, “the life I now live in the flesh, I live in faith,” he adds, Verse 20: “in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me.”

How is this, Paul? Why do you claim for yourself a benefit shared by all, and make your own what was done for the whole world’s sake? For he does not say, “who loved us,” but, “who loved me.” And besides, the evangelist says, “God so loved the world” (John 3, verse 16); and Paul himself says, “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up” — not for Paul only, but “for us all” (Romans 8, verse 32); and again, “that he might purify for himself a people for his own possession” (Titus 2, verse 14). But he speaks this way because he is thinking of how desperate the state of human nature was, and of Christ’s care for us, tender beyond words — what he rescued us from and what he freely gave us — and because he is set on fire by his longing love for him. So too the prophets often claim for themselves him who is God of all, as in the words, “O God, you are my God; early I will seek you” (Psalm 63, verse 1). [ad]

Moreover, this language teaches that each one of us rightly owes Christ as great a debt of gratitude as if he had come for his sake alone. For he would not have held back this stooping down of his even for a single person, so that the measure of his love for each is as great as for the whole world. The sacrifice was truly offered for all humankind, and it was enough to save all; but those who enjoy the blessing are the believers only. Yet the fact that not all would come did not keep him from stooping down so far. He acted after the pattern of the supper in the Gospel, which he prepared for all (Luke 14, verse 16): when the guests did not come, instead of taking the food away, he called in others. So too he did not despise that sheep, though it was only one, which had strayed from the ninety-nine (Matthew 18, verse 12).

Paul points to this too, when he says about the Jews, “For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God of no effect? Far from it! Rather, let God be found true, and every man a liar” (Romans 3, verses 3 and 4). When he loved you so much that he gave himself up to bring you, who were without hope, to a life so great and so blessed, can you, after being given so much, turn back to things that are past?

His reasoning complete, he closes with a forceful declaration, Verse 21: “I do not set aside the grace of God.” Let those who even now live like Jews and cling to the law listen to this, for it applies to them. [ae]

Verse 21: “For if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.” What could be more monstrous than this sin? What could put a person to shame more than these words? Christ’s death is a plain proof that the law cannot count us righteous; and if it does count us righteous, his death was unnecessary. Yet how could it be reasonable to say that something was done heedlessly and in vain which is so awe-inspiring, so far beyond human reason, a mystery beyond words — something the patriarchs labored with, the prophets foretold, the angels gazed on in astonishment, and all people confess as the height of God’s tender care? He reflects how utterly out of place it would be for them to say that so great and so lofty a deed had been done for nothing — for this is what their conduct came to — and so he even uses harsh language against them, as we find in the words that follow.