Gann's Commentary on the Bible

Four fold - historical argument.

1. Time before Paul’s conversion (see Galatians 1:13 Galatians 2:1)

2) Time Immediately After Conversion v. 15-24

3) Paul Endorsed by Jerusalem Apostles

fourteen years -- After his first visit to Jerusalem after conversion, Acts 9:26-30. (Some commentators, however, suppose that the date of the fourteen years is to be reckoned from his conversion.)

went up again Jerusalem -- The relief of Acts 11:17-30 had been about 7 years earlier. The visit of which Paul now speaks of coincides with Acts 15:1-2 ff.

Paul is not saying that was his next visit, but he is telling of another time he went up to Jerusalem and did meet with the apostles.

The use of again need not mean: for the second time. It does not rule out the possibility of a visit sometime between the occasions indicated in Galatians 1:18 and Galatians 2:1. ... at issue here in Galatians 2:1 is material agreement about a very pressing point: whether the Gentiles are bound by the law of Moses. - Ridderbos

with Barnabas -- Paul’s first ally who vouched for him before the apostles at Jerusalem (Acts 9:27), and became his traveling companion on his first missionary journey (Acts 13:2-3). He accompanied Paul to the Jerusalem meeting, Acts 15:2. (See note on Acts 4:36)

Titus -- Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles Acts 15:2, says, that there were others with Paul and Barnabas on that journey to Jerusalem, but did not mention Titus by name. Titus was a Greek who had been converted to Christ but without being circumcised.

Titus is not mentioned by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, [this had led some to think Titus may have been a relation to Luke, even his brother possibly] and though his name occurs several times in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians 2 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 7:6; 2 Corinthians 8:6, 2 Corinthians 8:16, 2 Corinthians 8:23; 2 Corinthians 12:18, yet it is to be remembered that that Epistle was written a considerable time after this to the Galatians.

Titus was a Greek, and was doubtless converted by the labors of Paul, because he calls him his own “son,” Titus 1:4. He attended Paul frequently in his travels; was employed by him in important services (see 2 Corinthians in the places referred to above); was left by him in Crete to set in order the things that were missing, and to ordain elders there Titus 1:5; subsequently, he went into Dalmatia 2 Timothy 4:10, and is supposed to have returned again to Crete, where it is said he propagated the gospel in the neighboring islands, and died at the age of 94 - (Calmet as a source by Barnes)

Sir William Ramsay and A.T. Robertson speculate that Titus was Luke’s brother, explaining the absence of any specific mention of him, but this is unsubstantiated.

Went -- by revelation -- Acts 15:1-2; Acts 15:28. Not for the purpose of receiving instruction from the apostles. It is to be remembered that the design for which Paul states this is, to show that he had not received the gospel from human beings.

Paul does not elaborate on the form of the revelation. "Revelation" by the Spirit is attested in Paul’s writings, 1 Corinthians 14:6, 1 Corinthians 14:26; 1 Corinthians 14:30; Galatians 3:5; ( cf. Acts 13:1-3)

It is even possible that the revelation did not come to him personally (cf. Acts 13:2, Acts 13:4) - Ridderbos, NICNT-Gal

set before them the gospel that I preach -- Paul made known to them fully what he preached among the gentiles, meaning apparently on what basis the believers were accepted into fellowship.

but privately -- He did not do it in public manner, not in a general assembly. He made a private explanation of his motives and views, so that they might understand it before it became a matter of public discussion.

The gospel had already been preached to Gentiles, Peter did so, Acts 10 -11.

reputation -- Meaning here the leading men in the church there, (Galatians 2:8-9 )

Paul and his gospel were under fire. He laid it before the apostles so they could see it was true.

Better, ‘to those of high reputation’, the leaders, pillars of the Church. The same expression occurs with slight additions vv. Galatians 2:6, Galatians 2:9. - CBSC

which I preach -- The present tense shows that Paul was still preaching the same message he did before the leaders in Jerusalem.

run -- The word for athletic contests.

run in vain -- The particle rendered ‘or’, may mean ‘than’ or ‘more than’. And so the sense would be, ‘Lest I should run less successfully than heretofore’. The metaphor of a ‘race’ as descriptive of a course of life or of labour is a familiar one with St Paul. Acts 20:24; 2 Timothy 4:7. -CBSC [cf. 1 Corinthians 15:58 and Philippians 2:16.]

run in vain -- If the Gentiles also had to subject themselves to the law of Moses, Paul might as well begin all over again from the very start. - Ridderbos

If the leaders had required Gentiles to be circumcised, then Paul’s gospel would have been discredited. Paul’s account of his faithfulness to the gospel serves as the basis of a later appeal he makes to the Galatians (Galatians 5:7). - FSB

Paul hoped the Jerusalem leaders would support his ministry to the Gentiles and not soften their opposition to legalism. He did not want to see his ministry efforts wasted because of conflict with the other apostles. - MSB

Titus -- Titus 1:4; see note on Galatians 2:1.

Titus = A Test Case. first mention on record. (Luke doesn’t mention him in Acts, leading some to suspect he was related to Luke.)

being a Greek -- Since Titus was Greek, he would not have been circumcised ... The question about whether non-Jewish believers needed to be circumcised (for salvation or acceptance into the Christian community) already had been resolved; hence, the apostles would not have compelled Titus to be circumcised. - FSB

circumcised -- This is the first point at which circumcision is mentioned in the letter. That it is, however, the great point of contention in the whole controversy between Paul and his opponents [the Judaizing false teachers] is the tacit assumption of the entire book of Galatians. - Ridderbos

compelled to be circumcised -- At the core of the Judaizers’ works system was the Mosaic prescription of circumcision (see notes on Genesis 17:9-14; Romans 4:9-12). They were teaching that there could be no salvation without circumcision (Acts 15:1, Acts 15:5, Acts 15:24). ... The apostles’ refusal to require Titus’ circumcision verified the church’s rejection of the Judaizers’ doctrine (cf. Timothy, Acts 16:1-3, and note on Acts 16:3.)

There was a difference between Titus and Timothy in the matter of circumcision. In Acts 16:3 Paul agreed to Timothy’s circumcision because Timothy was half Jew and it was expedient to make his work among Jews easier. However, Paul did not have Timothy circumcised in order for him to become a Christian or be saved. - Merideth

And -- The conjunction δὲ ... represents the connection with the preceding sentence quite correctly. - PC

This ties the reference to the "false brethren" in the Jerusalem meeting recorded in Acts 15.

false brethren -- The Judaizers, who pretended to be true Christians. Yet, their doctrine, because it claimed allegiance to Christ, was opposed to traditional Judaism, and because it demanded circumcision and obedience to the Mosaic law as prerequisites for salvation, was opposed to Christianity. - MSB

“the pseudo-brethren,” [is] a term that is like “pseudo-apostle” found in 2 Corinthians 11:13. - Lenski

The term “false brothers” (pseudadelphous) is similar to the compound used in 2 Peter 2:1 to designate “false leadership” (pseudoprophētai and pseudodidaskaloi). The term’s usage in Koine Greek commonly designated traitors within a city who allowed the enemy to sneak into the city and survey its defenses. - Utley

The problem among the Galatians had reared it’s head previously at Jerusalem. (Not sure if these false teachers were Christians, or deliberate spies. Some "spies" probably won adherents.)

came in stealth -- unawares; "insidiously brought in".

The verbal form is PASSIVE, implying that they were smuggled in by someone, possibly (1) unbelieving Jews, (2) a sect of believing Jews called Judaizers - Utley

to spy out -- This Greek word pictures spies or traitors entering by stealth into an enemy’s camp. The Judaizers were Satan’s undercover agents sent into the midst of the church to sabotage the true gospel. - MSB

Traitors came into the church in Jerusalem (Acts 15) prepared to wage war on the doctrine of salvation in Christ without Jewish circumcision. - WG

liberty -- Christians are free from the law as a means of salvation, from its external ceremonial regulations as a way of living, and from its curse for disobedience to the law—a curse that Christ bore for all believers (Galatians 3:13). This freedom is not, however, a license to sin (Galatians 5:13; Romans 6:18; 1 Peter 2:16). - MSB

In this context, freedom from Jewish rules and regulations is meant, a concept expanded in the following chapters. - Utley

"freedom in Christ!" vindicated and Paul’s apostleship. (note 2 Corinthians 12:12)

bring us into bondage -- [might enslave us] A strong expression = ‘utterly enslave us’. For the thought, ever uppermost in St Paul’s mind when writing this Epistle, comp. ch. Galatians 4:21 – 5:1. - CBSC

To turn again to the Mosaic law for deliverance from sin is to be cut off from Christ, Galatians 5:4. -WG

Conveys the idea of absolute slavery - MSB

The compound word for "bondage" (katadoulosousin) indicated abject subjection or complete slavery. cf 2 Corinthians 11:20.

to whom -- The pseudo-brethren, smuggled into the Jerusalem church to spy out the liberty of Christians.

we -- The entire apostleship stood together, Paul and the Jerusalem church leaders stood against these false teachers. (cf. Acts 15:22)

not yield submission -- Paul intends for his response to the false brothers to serve as a model for the Galatians in their present situation. - FSB [Titus was not circumcised.]

gave place -- no -- We would say, "not a minute", we can measure time more minutely!

truth of the Gospel -- Justification through faith in Jesus Christ. (see phrase Galatians 2:14), Galatians 3:1

The true gospel as opposed to the different (Galatians 1:6-8) and false one propagated by the Judaizers. - MSB

This phrase refers to the integrity of the message of the gospel and its implications for Christian living (Galatians 2:14). - FSB (In particlar the gospel frees believers from the law and its requirements, including dietary laws and circumcision (vv. 1–10; Galatians 5:2-6). ... it is a new life of faith and love in Christ (Galatians 5:6). - FSB

with you -- Galatians, and all other Gentile converts.

#3 rd point in Paul’s argument.

those who were of high reputation -- From the same word "of repute" in Galatians 2:2. This phrase can either refer to: (1) some of the Twelve; or (2) certain leaders in the Jerusalem church.

seemed -- F.F. Bruce quotes Josephus in War of the Jews, 3.453; 4.141, 159 to illustrate that “seemed” is not always used derogatorily. - Utley

whatsoever they were -- Rather, ‘once were’, i.e. as the chosen companions of Christ during His earthly ministry. - CBSC

The Jerusalem apostles’ reputation as great leaders was probably derived from their personal acquaintance with Jesus’ earthly ministry - NLTSB

they make no difference to me -- The word "diaphero" means "to matter, it of importance, it makes a difference." It made no difference to Paul who these men were, what position, influence, or advantage they might have. He had received his apostolic commission from the Lord just as they had.

no difference to me --

God shows no partiality -- This OT metaphor originally meant “to lift the face” (cf. Acts 10:34). Paul was alluding to the judicial practice of making decisions based on favoritism or special standing. - Utley

God shows no partiality -- The unique privileges of the 12 did not make their apostleship more legitimate or authoritative than Paul’s—Christ commissioned them all (cf. Romans 2:11). Paul never saw himself as apostolically inferior (see 2 Corinthians 12:11-12). - MSB

The force of this Hebraism is well illustrated by its use, Acts 10:34. “God does not confine His favours to those upon whom He has already bestowed them, however abundantly”. - DBSC

for they who seemed -- ‘for’ is here merely resumptive:—‘to me, I say, those of reputation (is there not a tinge of irony in the repetition of the phrase?) imparted nothing new’. -CBSC

added [contributed] nothing me -- The word "added" is prosanatithemi and means to communicate, to impart. These men could not tell Paul anything about the gospel, nor did they add stipulations.

They saw nothing defective in the gospel as Paul preached it. - NIVZSB

Here is Paul’s central affirmation of independence, both for himself and for his gospel, from the authority of the Twelve or the Mother Church in Jerusalem. This is not a debasement of the Twelve or the leaders of the Jerusalem Church but an emphasis on the divine nature of Paul’s call and revelation. - Utley

But on the contrary -- See 2 Corinthians 2:6-7; 1 Peter 3:9. In both these passages the word expresses the strongest possible contrast. It is used absolutely, ‘The very reverse was the case—when they saw, &c.’ - CBSC

when they saw -- They (those of reputation) saw when Paul laid it out for them. [(ἰδόντες); when they got to see. - PC]

--they ‘saw’ the success of St Paul’s missionary labours, ‘the signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles’ by Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:12); and they recognised the cause of this success, the grace of God, which alone can make a weak and sinful man to be an able minister of the new covenant. - CBSC

entrusted -- [committed] 1 Thessalonians 2:4; 1 Corinthians 4:1; 1 Timothy 1:11; Titus 1:3. Other passages further support Paul’s call to be an Apostle to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 9:15; and Galatians 1:16).

uncircumcised -- Gentiles. Paul preached the gospel primarily to the Gentiles (also to Jews in Gentile lands, as his pattern was to go to the synagogue first; cf. Acts 13:5).

Peter -- The use of the term “Peter” in verses 7 and 8 is somewhat unusual in Galatians. In all of the other citations where Peter is named, he is called “Cephas,” Aramaic for “rock,” (cf. Galatians 1:18; Galatians 2:9, Galatians 2:11, Galatians 2:14). However, “Peter” does seem to be original here, and the two names are synonymous. - Utley

circumcised -- The Jews. Peter’s ministry was primarily to the Jews, but he also preached to Gentiles, cf. Acts 10, Cornelius and his household.

Gospel -- Not two gospels here, but the same to two different people. (cf. Galatians 1:6-9)

In the Greek the word ‘Gospel’ is not repeated, but has been supplied (in Italics) in both A.V. and R.V. A more exact rendering would be, “I have been entrusted with the Gospel for the Gentiles, even as Peter was for the Jews”. - CBSC

The apostles in Jerusalem saw that Paul and Peter had different scopes of ministry (for Peter’s, see Acts 1–5; 9–10; for Paul’s, see Acts 13–28), but they both preached the same gospel. - NLTSB

He who worked -- When operation in a subject is meant, the preposition ἐν is added, as Ephesians 1:20; Ephesians 2:2; Galatians 3:5. The worker is God, not Christ (comp. 1 Corinthians 12:6; Philippians 2:13). -- PC

Though Paul and Peter had two different spheres for their major activity, the same God was working through both of them.

in Peter -- The place [of work] referred to by this verb is indicated by an ἐν phrase. - Lenski

circumcised ... Gentiles -- Another parenthesis inside the complex grammatical structure of verses 1–10, it may refer to either geography or an ethnic community.

What Paul wants to establish for the Galatians, however, is that his own apostleship is just as genuine as Peter’s, and therefore the Galatians should not view themselves as inferior to any other group of believers. - ESVSB

Sermon Outline: "Pillars in the Church"

Pillars In The Church

Introduction:

1. A pillar is the main support of something, therefore, Peter, James and John were referred to as a main support in the church. Why where they thought of as a main support in the church?

a. They were present when the Lord need them (Acts 2:1).

b. Because they spoke when the Lord needed them to speak. (Acts 2:14; Acts 3:1; Acts 15:13-21).

2. Would one think of me as a pillar in the church?

DIFFERENT USES OF PILLAR IN THE BIBLE

1. Jacob took the stone that he used for his pillow and set it up as a pillar (Genesis 28:18).

a. This is a great need in the church today. Many brothers & sisters need to turn their pillows into pillars. They need to quit sleeping on the job and become a monument to remind people of interest and deep concern for spiritual things.

b. Jacob made a great vow and set his life right with God. This pillar became a monument, a marker, a reminder of all these things.

c. Do I stand as a reminder of God’s presence, of God’s family, and of vows made to God?

2. God led Israel by a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night (Exodus 13:20-22).

REASONS WHY PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN WERE PILLARS

1. They took a stand on important controversial issues.

a. Acts 15:9; Acts 15:19. They took an unpopular stand for truth.

b. Are we ready to stand up in the midst of controversy?

2. They perceived the grace of God given unto Paul to preach to the gentiles (Galatians 2:9).

a. Do we see the hand of God in the great missionary opportunities in Eastern Europe and Liberia today?

b. Do we stand for more missionary work being done, even when there is opposition to it as in the situation Peter, James and John faced?

3. They gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.

Do we cooperate and encourage good works in the church?

4. They were interested in the poor (Galatians 2:10). The Lord blesses those who remember the poor (Matthew 25:34 f). (Acts 11:20-30).

CONCLUSION:

1. Am I a pillar? How much funds would the church have to support mission work and remember the poor if each Christian gave as I give?

2. How much work in the local church would be accomplished if it was supported as I do?

#4 th point: Apostles endorsed Paul.

James -- The Lord’s brother and author of the book of James, cf. Acts 15:13. The Apostle James had been killed by Herod, Acts 12:1-2.

Cephas -- See notes on Galatians 1:18 and Galatians 2:7.

John -- The Apostle John, author of the Gospel of John, three epistles, and the book of Revelation.

pillars -- This metaphor indicates the supportive and integral roles that James, Peter, and John fulfilled as leaders in the early church.

The metaphor by which the Church is compared to a house or temple is frequent both in the O. T. and N. T. See 2 Corinthians 6:16, and Revelation 3:12, ‘I will make him a pillar in the sanctuary of my God’. - CBSC

perceived the grace ...given me -- In the Greek the order is, ‘And when they perceived the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John &c.” - CBSC

The only conclusion these leaders could make was that God’s grace was responsible for the powerful preaching of the gospel and the building of the church through Paul’s efforts. - MSB

Barnabas -- Paul’s companion on the first missionary journey and had accompanied him to the Jerusalem conference. Acts 15.

the right hand of fellowship -- This act indicates the acceptance of Paul’s apostleship and gospel message by the apostles in Jerusalem, as well as the recognition of their partnership as ministers. If the Galatians were formerly concerned that Paul might be a rogue apostle, they no longer needed to be. - FSB

This symbolic handshake showed full acceptance for Paul and Barnabas, their ministry, and their message. - NLTSB

... signifying that they approved the message of the gospel as preached by Paul as well as his ministry to the Gentiles. - ESVSB

we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised -- While they all proclaimed the same message (1 Corinthians 15:9-11), Paul and Barnabas focused on outreach to the Gentiles, whereas James, Cephas, and John focused on the Jews. - NIVZSB

Only -- poor -- One request: cf. Romans 15:25-28, Acts 11:27-30, this benevolence would bridge the gap between Jew and Gentile.

In the second ἵνα clause: “only that,” etc., the genitive object is placed first: “only the poor, that we keep remembering them.” - Lenski

By the poor Paul is recognizably referring to the poor at Jerusalem (cf. Romans 15:26). Again and again we learn that the Gentile churches took up collections for the church at Jerusalem (Romans 15:25 ff., 1 Corinthians 16:1 ff., 2 Corinthians 8:1 ff., 2 Corinthians 9:1 ff., Acts 11:29 ff., Acts 12:25, and Acts 24:17). - Ribberbos

we should remember the poor -- The leaders likely encouraged Paul to help the economically impoverished believers in Jerusalem. As Paul continued to focus on his role as the apostle to the Gentiles, they did not want him to forget the Jewish believers in need. - FSB

Paul (with Barnabas) had already shown concern for their need (Acts 11:29-30), and the collection that he would later gather from his Gentile churches (Romans 15:25-27; 2 Cor 8–9) expresses the same concern. - NIVZSB

thing I was also eager to do -- Expresses Paul’s shared desire to contribute to the poor in the Jerusalem church. Paul frequently mentions in his letters his effort to raise funds among the Gentiles to support the poor Jewish believers in Jerusalem (Romans 15:25-28; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:1-6). Paul also knew that remembering the poor represented a further opportunity to unite Gentile and Jewish believers (2 Corinthians 8:6). - FSB

Paul was first introduced to the concept of a special offering for the poor in Jerusalem by the church at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:27–30). He developed this into an initial procedure for Gentile churches (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8, 9; and Romans 15:25-27). If Gal. 2 parallels Acts 15, explaining why the other stipulations of Acts 15:23-29 are not mentioned becomes more difficult. Therefore many have seen this verse as an argument for making this visit contemporary with Acts 11:27-30. - Utley

However, the situation could be that the leaders at Jerusalem, remembering what Paul and the church at Antioch had done earlier (Acts 11:27-30), request that as Paul travels among other Gentile churches they continue to remember the poor brethren here at Jerusalem. - WG

vs. 11-18 Peter’s Inconsistency and Paul’s Consistency.

But when Cephas came -- The time of Peter’s visit to Antioch is unknown. Some scholars place the visit immediately after the Jerusalem Council; some place it before. Apparently the mention of this visit is out of chronological order. It could have followed the Council meeting of Acts 15 highlighting the fact that all of the practical problems were not completely solved. However, it is difficult to imagine Peter acting like this after affirming Paul and his gospel at the Council (cf. Galatians 2:9; Acts 15:6-11), another argument for those who think it refers to the Acts 11 vision. - CBSC

This must have been after the conversion of Cornelius, since he was the first gentile convert and there are more such converts now at Antioch. From the vision Peter had and the actions of Acts 10, Peter knew better. - WG

Peter -- Peter knew the "middle wall" (Ephesians 2:14) was broken down. But we don’t always practice what we know.

Antioch -- Located in Syria, nearly 300 miles north of Jerusalem. The location where the disciples were first called "Christians" (Acts 11:26). Many missionaries went from Antioch to other Gentile regions (Acts 13:1-3). Peter’s visit to Antioch is not recorded in Acts.

was come to Antioch -- This occasion, not recorded in Acts, probably occurred following the return of Paul and Barnabas from their first missionary journey (Acts 14:26-28). Paul probably wrote this letter [Galatians] soon afterward. - NLTSB

withstood him to his face -- Paul felt strongly about the implications of Peter’s actions for the gospel message and so confronted him directly. - FSB

Paul wanted to keep the Good News from being corrupted (Galatians 2:21), which required showing publicly that Peter’s own public action was wrong (cp. 1 Timothy 5:20). - NLTSB

For in 2 Peter 3:15, Peter praises the very Epistles of Paul which he knew contained his own condemnation. [cf 2 Peter 3:1; 1 Peter 1:1] Though apart from one another and differing in characteristics, the two apostles were one in Christ. - JFB

because he was wrong [stood condemned; to be blamed] -- The tense and construction does not imply that Peter continued in this attitude.

The Apostles were inspired to write trustworthy and eternal Scripture but this never implied that they did not have sin or did not make poor choices in other areas! - Utley

Peter’s actions were inconsistent with what he knew to be true—that God accepts Gentiles by faith, not by keeping the law (see Acts 10–11). - NLTSB

G 2:12

certain men ... from James -- Peter, knowing the decision the Jerusalem Council had made (Acts 15:7-29), had been in Antioch for some time, eating with Gentiles. When Judaizers came, pretending to be sent by James, they lied, giving false claims of support from the apostles. Peter had already given up all Mosaic ceremony (Acts 10:9-22) and James had at times held only to some of it (Acts 21:18-26). - MSB

certain men -- perhaps James’ view (in which he was not infallible, any more than Peter) was that the Jewish converts were still to observe Jewish ordinances, from which he had decided with the council the Gentiles should be free (Acts 15:19). NEANDER, however, may be right in thinking these self-styled delegates from James were not really from him. Acts 15:24 favors this. "Certain from James," may mean merely that they came from the Church at Jerusalem under James’ bishopric. Still James’ leanings were to legalism, and this gave him his influence with the Jewish party (Acts 21:18-26). - JFB

[See note on Acts 21:18 for further comments on James and Jewish Christians keeping their Jewish customs.]

from James -- These people came apparently pretending to have authority from James and possibly the apostles still at Jerusalem , Acts 15:24. But the question of receiving Gentile brethren had already been settled. - WG

We do not know what the men from James said to Peter to influence his behavior (and that of Barnabas and other Jewish believers).... those whose mission was directed to Jews (like Peter, James, and John) [may have thought this] would jeopardize the success of their outreach if word were to spread that they had eaten with Gentiles ... They showed their “hypocrisy” by acting inconsistently with the unity that Jewish and Gentile believers share in Christ. - ESVSB

eat with the Gentiles -- Since Gentiles did not observe Jewish food laws, the groups did not eat together. At first, Peter shared meals with Gentiles as an act of unity in Christ, but his later separation from them reinforced a divisive atmosphere in the Antioch church. - FSB

withdrew and separated -- Why?

1) Was it to avoid being a stumbling block to Jewish Christians?

2) Was it to avoid censure? Note the words with and fearing.

withdrew -- The Greek term refers to strategic military withdrawal. The verb’s form may imply that Peter’s withdrawal was gradual and deceptive. To eat with the Judaizers and decline invitations to eat with the Gentiles, which he had previously done, meant that Peter was affirming the very dietary restrictions he knew God had abolished (Acts 10:15) and thus striking a blow at the gospel of grace. - MSB

fearing those … of the circumcision -- The true motivation behind Peter’s defection. He was afraid of losing popularity with the legalistic, Judaizing segment of people in the church, even though they were self-righteous hypocrites promoting a heretical doctrine. - MSB

with him -- With Peter. Peter’s influence and example had led some into this error.

The other Jews living in Antioch followed Peter’s example, as did Barnabas. They were being hypocritical, saying one thing and doing another. Peter had a tendency to compromise his convictions when he was under pressure (cf. Matthew 16:16-23; Matthew 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:15-18, John 18:25-27). - Constable

rest of the Jews -- At least some of the Jewish members of the Antioch church ceased eating with their Gentile brothers because of Peter’s example.

“The Jews,” i.e. the Christian Jews who were at Antioch before these brethren “from James” arrived there, and who, as Cephas had done till their coming, associated quite frankly with the Gentile Christians. - PC

The problem here was not the freedom of Gentile believers from the requirements of the Mosaic Law, but rather the implications of this freedom for the Jewish believers. - Utley

hypocrite [dissimulation] -- This Greek word refers to an actor who wore a mask to depict a mood or certain character. In the spiritual sense, it refers to someone who masks his true character by pretending to be something he is not (cf. Matthew 6:1-6). - MSB

played the hypocrite [acted insincerely] -- Paul calls their actions hypocritical because they were hiding the previous practices in order to be viewed favorably by the people from James.

The apostle brands their behaviour as “dissimulation” or “hypocrisy,” because their motive was a deceitful one. - PC

Barnabas -- Barnabas was also known as Joseph, was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36; Acts 9:26-27; Acts 11:22; Acts 11:30; Acts 12:12.)

even Barnabas was carried away -- It must have hurt Paul deeply to see his companion of the first missionary journey to be caught up in Peter’s action when he and Paul had already converted many Gentiles and fellowshiped with them.

This may have been the commencement of the dissension which took place so soon after between Paul and Barnabas, resulting in their separation (Acts 15:39). - CBSC

dissembled -- "joined"; Notice the contagious affect of "fear".

They believed and professed that they might eat with the Gentiles, they acted as if it were unlawful to do so. - CBSC

But is Paul not too severe when he labels their acts hypocrisy? Note that he deliberately uses the word twice, once the verb (an aorist at that!) and then the noun. This duplication serves notice that Paul means just what he says. These men acted as if they believed one thing when at heart they believed another. - Lenski

carried away -- led astray.

The decree of the Council of Jerusalem had virtually exempted Gentile converts from the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law (see Acts 15:1, Acts 15:5, Acts 15:28-29). It is probable that James, fearing lest the Jewish Christians should be led to claim the same exemption, sent delegates to Antioch to keep them steadfast in their adherence to it. This would be quite in accordance with his conduct as recorded Acts 21:20-25. St Peter had been taught by a heavenly vision not to call any man common or unclean (Acts 10:28). Before the coming of these delegates, he had boldly exercised his freedom in the Gospel, and had eaten with Gentile believers, not only at the Holy Communion and the Agapæ, or love feasts, but perhaps in social life. The Pharisees regarded such intercourse with abhorrence. They had murmured against our Lord, saying, ‘This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them’. (To those murmurs the Church owes the three parables of Luke 15) But on the arrival of the emissaries from James, Peter began to shew signs of timidity and gradually withdrew from the company of the Gentile Christians. - CBSC

[See note on Acts 21:18 for further comments on James and Jewish Christians keeping their Jewish customs.]

walked -- not ever as a false teacher, but by their life.

straightforward -- Literally, to walk “straight” or “uprightly.” By withdrawing from the Gentile Christians, Peter and the other Jewish believers were not walking in line with God’s Word. - MSB

truth of the gospel -- Paul uses this phrase in Galatians to describe actions that violate the truthfulness of the gospel message (see Galatians 2:5; compare Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5). By withdrawing from meals with Gentiles, Peter and Barnabas effectively returned to life under the law and discredited the gospel’s promise of freedom in Christ. - FSB

Paul argues directly from the truth of the gospel. He does not mention the decision that had been taken at Jerusalem. Still, that decision made for the same result. The moment Jews and Gentiles came together, the dilemma turned up again. Paul saw that very clearly in this situation. And he pointed it out to Peter, apparently on the assumption that Peter would agree. - Ridderbos, NICNT

I said -- Paul said, Galatians 2:14-21 to Peter in rebuke.

Galatians 2:15-21 is probably a theological summary and not necessarily Paul’s exact words to Peter. Paul’s public confrontation of Peter over his hypocrisy and inconsistency further proved Paul’s independence. - Utley

before them all -- Usually church problems need to be dealt with privately, but the actions of Peter hit at the heart of the gospel. The conflict had affected the entire church at Antioch and had to be addressed publicly and decisively in order to resolve the church’s disunity (cf. 1 Timothy 5:20). - Utley

Because Peter’s sin was a public sin that was setting a bad example for the church, Paul confronted him publicly (compare the different procedure that Jesus commands regarding a private sin against an individual person, which hopefully can be corrected privately; cf. Matthew 18:15-20; James 5:19-20). - ESVSB

Peter’s apparent repentance acknowledged Paul’s apostolic authority and his own submission to the truth (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16). - MSB

If you being a Jew --

living like a Gentile -- By eating with Gentiles and not observing Jewish food laws — Peter communicated God’s acceptance of Gentiles on equal terms with Jews, on the basis of faith in Christ (see Acts 10:34-43; Acts 11:17-18). - NLTSB

live in the manner of Gentiles -- Peter, an ethnic Jew who followed Jewish food laws (Acts 10:14; Lev 11), began to practice table fellowship with Gentile believers on account of the revelation that God can make all people clean (Acts 10:15, Acts 10:34-35). Peter’s actions demonstrate the irrelevancy of the law for those “in Christ. - FSB

Before his gradual withdrawal, Peter regularly had fellowship and ate with the Gentiles, thus modeling the ideal of Christian love and liberty between Jew and Gentile. - MSB

compellest -- Note Galatians 2:3 where Peter did not "compel" Titus; Peter is accused of inconsistency.

Gentiles to live as Jews? -- Expresses the aim of Judaizers to force non-Jewish believers to observe certain aspects of the law. - FSB

force the Gentiles to live like Jews? -- Peter was guilty of hypocrisy (Galatians 2:13) because, though he had been happily living like a Gentile (i.e., not observing food laws), he was now requiring Gentile Christians to observe Jewish table regulations if they wanted to eat with him. Such a requirement, however, would undermine the gospel itself by making justification depend on “works of the law” rather than “faith in Jesus Christ” (see Galatians 2:16). - ESVSB

By ceasing to have fellowship with Gentile believers in order to maintain Jewish practices, Peter conveyed the message that Jewish practices were important, perhaps crucial, even for Christians. - NIVZSB

Judaizers (see note on Galatians 1:7)

Judaizers insisted that Gentile Christians be circumcised, obey food laws, and observe calendar cycles in accordance with the law. In Galatians 2:14, Paul accuses Peter of trying to “Judaize” the Gentiles, using a Greek verb meaning “live in a Jewish way.” Josephus uses the word to describe how a Roman soldier captured by the Jews during the revolt (AD 66–70) avoided execution by promising to be circumcised and live as a Jew. Paul believed Gentile followers of Jesus were not required to become Jewish in that sense because the gospel transcended ethnic and social boundaries. - FSB

We -- "We" is emphatic; Paul is still speaking to Peter (Galatians 2:14 "I said to Peter") and included Peter and himself as being Jews by birth.

Some translators hold that the quotation extends through v 14; others through v 16; and still others through v 21. - NLTSB

Jews by nature [birth] -- Therefore from birth and by their special privileges they were regulated and expected to follow the food restrictions laid out in the Law.

But their advantages did not relate to salvation but to revelation and fellowship with God through the Old Covenant as the People of God. Thus, the heart of Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles was the equality of Jews and Gentiles before God (cf. Eph. 2:11–3:13). - Utley

not Gentile sinners -- The word “sinners” must be here taken, not in that purely moral acceptation in which all are “sinners,” but in that mixed sense in which moral disapproval was largely tinged with the bigoted disdain which the theocratic Israelite felt for “the uncircumcised;” - PC

[Paul’s wording] Captures the attitude of most Jewish people of the time toward Gentiles. From the Jewish point of view, a sinner is a person who does not live by the law. Because the Gentiles were not given the law, they are sinners by default (compare Romans 2:17-29). - FSB

Jews regarded the Gentile world en masse as sinful because of their idolatry and consequent widespread immorality. - NIVZSB

Gentiles who do not even attempt to follow the OT laws and therefore clearly do not live up to them. - ESVSB

Paul was apparently using a derogatory phrase which was common in rabbinical Judaism and was possibly used by the false teachers. - Utley

This is used in the legal sense since Gentiles were sinners by nature because they had no revealed divine written law to guide them toward salvation or living righteously. - MSB

Gentiles were ‘sinners’ in that they did not have the law and could not obey God’s commands. Paul was using the categories of Jewish thinking (cp. Matthew 15:21-28; Matthew 26:45; Luke 6:32-34; Luke 18:9-14) with strong irony in light of the sinful condition of all people (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:23). - NLTSB

KEY VERSE

justified -- Those who place obedient trust in Christ are declared righteous by God and acquitted of sin.

justified -- This basic forensic Greek word describes a judge declaring an accused person not guilty and therefore innocent before the law. Throughout Scripture it refers to God’s declaring a sinner not guilty and fully righteous before Him - MSB [see note on Romans 3:24]

works of the law -- If people were sinless and perfectly obeyed all of God’s perfect moral standards, they could be justified or “declared righteous” on the basis of their own merits. But Paul says that this is impossible for any Gentile or even for any Jew to do (cf. Romans 1–2). - ESVSB

In Galatians 2:16, “works of the law” means not only circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath, but any human effort to be justified by God by obeying a moral law. - ESVSB

works of the law -- the law of Moses. It was the Mosaical law that spoke of circumcision to the Jews.

Jews observed [the law] to preserve their ethnic identity and honor their covenantal obligations (dietary laws, circumcision, etc.). The phrase also might describe legalistic observance of these requirements to gain favor before God. Paul recognized the significance of these works for those under the law, but insists they have no value when it comes to justification (compare Galatians 5:6). - FSB

WORKS - James 2:24, James 2:26, John 12:42, Galatians 5:6, Acts 10:34-35, Matthew 7:21, Hebrews 5:9.

Kinds of Works

1. Works of the flesh- Galatians 5:19-21

2. Our own works- Acts 7:41, 2 Timothy 1:9

3. Works of the law of Moses Galatians 2:16

4. Works of obedience- Acts 10:34-35, Luke 6:46, John 6:29.

but by -- εἰ μή, properly means “except,” “save;” ... here it has the meaning "but only". - PC

faith in Jesus Christ -- Three times in this verse Paul declares that salvation is only through faith in Christ and not by law. The first is general, “a man is not justified”; the second is personal, “we might be justified”; and the third is universal, “no flesh shall be justified.” - MSB

through faith of Christ -- dia pisteos Christou, διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, "The words "the faith of Christ" have been variously understood. One group takes it to refer to our faith in Christ; another group takes it to refer to the gospel thus the objective faith of Christ. On the whole it seems more probable that in this context it refers to the gospel." - Noel Merideth

faith in Jesus Christ. -- Some believe that the reference is to the “faithfulness of Jesus Christ.”

Lightfoot, however, observes, “Faith is, strictly speaking, only the means, not the source of justification. - PC

even we -- Jews also, as well as Gentiles! (this is spoken to Peter still.)

have believed in [into, eis] Christ Jesus -- While in the first phrase grammatically the genitive is of (dia) and is objective referencing the gospel or system of "faith salvation" vs the law, the second appearance of the phrase seems subjective and speaking of conversion to trusting in Jesus’ teaching.

The aorist of the verb points to the time of first making Christ the object of trust. - PC

Christ Jesus -- The changed order, in which our Lord’s proper name and his official designation appear in this clause compared with the preceding, and which, somewhat strangely, is ignored in our Authorized Version, does not seem to have any real significance; such variation frequently occurs in St. Paul, as e.g. 1 Timothy 1:15-16; 2 Timothy 1:8 and 2 Timothy 1:10; Ephesians 1:1-2. - PC

that we might be -- This implies that justification is the result of trusting (commitment) obedient faith in Jesus Christ.

justified by faith in Christ -- This is put in contrast with seeking justification through the law of Moses.

by works of the law no flesh [no one] shall be justified -- No one can find justification by depending on the law of Moses, neither Jew nor Greek. For no one can keep it faithfully, error free. Acts 13:39; Hebrews 10:1-14. Romans 4:25; James 2:21.

no one -- Paul applies the universal truth of Psalms 143:2 to the specific point at issue: not even those who strive to be righteous by observing the law’s commands attain their goal (Romans 9:31). - NIVZSB

But it -- “If” introduces a FIRST CLASS CONDITIONAL SENTENCE, assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his literary purposes. Paul and his companions are assumed to be sinners (cf. Romans 3:9-18). - Utley

Paul then argues—refuting opposing arguments in advance—that righteousness by faith does not lead to sinful living. He uses the objection of an imaginary interlocutor to make his point, as was standard in ancient diatribe. - Craig S. Keener, IBPBBCNT

we ... found sinners -- i.e. in the views of those who have reverted to the law.

If while seeking justification by Christ we are found sinners eating with Gentiles, what then?

If the Judaizers’ doctrine was correct, then Paul, Peter, Barnabas, and the other Jewish believers fell back into the category of sinners because they had been eating and fellowshiping with Gentiles, who according to the Judaizers were unclean. - MSB

minister of sin -- Peter was saying by his actions that Jesus was wrong somewhere because He had given Peter an inconsistent doctrine if Acts 10 showed it was all right to eat with Gentiles, and if and Peter’s actions at Antioch in rejecting to eat with Gentile was true.

Is therefore Christ the minister of sin? -- Is the cause of sin to be traced to Christ? Is Christ inconsistent in this doctrine of eating with Gentiles?

If the Judaizers were right, then Christ was wrong and had been teaching people to sin because He taught that food could not contaminate a person (Mark 7:19; cf. Acts 10:13-15). He also declared that all who belong to Him are one with Him and therefore each other (John 17:21-23). - MSB

If Jewish believers in Christ use their faith as an excuse for breaking the law by eating with Gentiles, then faith in Christ is an excuse for sin, and Christ promotes sin. - NIVZSB

God forbid -- It is not so.

This thought is utterly objectionable and causes Paul to use the strongest Greek negative (“certainly not”; cf. Galatians 3:21; Romans 6:1-2; Romans 7:13). - MSB

For if I -- Paul, seems to be softening the blow upon Peter by saying "if I or anyone" try to rebuild the necessity of keeping the Law, which all the apostles were teaching had been fulfilled and nailed to the cross, we are becoming transgressor of the truth.

make myself a transgressor -- Paul seems now to be gently saying, "Peter you had destroyed the law by the revelations given you in Acts 10 and 11, who is now the transgressor or sinner? (by repudiating what you earlier taught.) You are Peter!"

rebuild -- By preaching submittance to the law again.

which I destroyed -- "tore down". Paul preached a gospel that did not require Gentiles to observe the Mosaical law. If his words or actions suggested that law observance was necessary for salvation, he would be contradicting Christ’s gospel.

Vs. 19-20 Romans 7:1-6; Colossians 2:14;

died to the law -- When a person is convicted of a capital crime and executed, the law has no further claim on him. So it is with the Christian who has died in Christ (who paid the penalty for his sins in full) and rises to new life in Him— justice has been satisfied and he is forever free from any further penalty. MSB

Christians have died to the Mosaical law through Christ’s death when they were baptized into His death, burial, and resurrection. Romans 7:1-6; Colossians 2:14; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15;

Here Paul’s focus is on a legal aspect. (Utley)

for in coming to God in Christ he died to the law so completely that he could not possibly return to it. The law cannot bring life, for no one has ever fulfilled it. Law brings death, for by it all stand condemned. - EBCNT

I died ... that I might live -- The twin theological aspects of a Jews’s position in Christ. (Utley)

G 2:20

v. 20 -- Paul says -- I am not operating on my fleshly power.

crucified with -- Romans 7:1-6. (Perfect tense, past action with continuing lingering results.) co-crucified. In the Greek sentence, “with Christ” is placed first for emphasis.

the life ... I live in the flesh -- Paul says his former life was put to death, Ephesians 4:22. Being put to death to the law, he is thus free to live a different life.

The concept of having died with Christ and made alive to God is ephasized over and over. The result is: 1) we are now responsible to walk as He walked (cf. 1 John 1:7); 2) and to walk worthy of our called (Ephesians 4:1; Ephesians 5:2).

Christ lives in me -- How? Ephesians 3:7. (Also see note on Ephesians 3:17). In Christ one lives a new life in harmony with what Christ preached, the gospel. (Galatians 3:2; Galatians 4:6; Galatians 5:16-18, Galatians 5:22-25).

faith -- Justified by faith -- Trusting in the Son of God, not my fleshly life!

faith in the Son of God -- Paul’s title for Jesus anticipates the parallels he will draw between slavery and the law, as well as sonship and promise (Galatians 4:4-7). Faith in the Son of God transforms a person from a slave to a child of God. - FSB

who loved me -- The manifestation of Christ’s love for the believer [is known, or revealed] through His sacrificial death on the cross (John 10:17-18; Romans 5:6-8; Ephesians 5:25-30). - MSB

gave Himself for me -- "for" = "huper", in behalf of. Paul has the closest personal feeling toward Christ. “He appropriates to himself ... the love which belongs equally to the whole world. For Christ is indeed the personal friend of each man individually” (Lightfoot). [John 15:13-14]

set aside -- make void, nullify, frustrate, treat as meaningless. The word rendered “frustrate” (ἀθετῶ athetō) means properly to displace, abrogate, abolish; then to make void, to render null; Mark 7:9; Luke 7:30; 1 Corinthians 1:19.

The sense is, that Paul would not take any measures or pursue any course that would render that vain or inefficacious. Neither by his own life, by a course of conduct which would show that it had no influence over the heart and conduct, nor by the observance of Jewish rites and customs, would he do anything to render that inefficacious. - BN

the grace of God -- The phrase “the grace of God,” here refers to the favor of God manifested in the plan of salvation by the gospel, and is another name for the gospel.

for -- = "gar".

if righteousness come by the law -- If justification can be secured by the observance of any law - ceremonial or moral - then there was no need of the death of Christ as an atonement.

If man could be saved by any other means than the gospel, then man doesn’t need it, and Christ died in vain.