Chapter 2
Review
Outline of Galatians:
I.
Salutation (1:1-5)
II.
The problem in Galatia: another Gospel from false teachers
(1:6-9)
III.
Defense of Paul’s apostleship (1:10 – 2:14)
IV.
Paul’s defense of the Gospel (2:15 – 6:10)
V.
Conclusion (6:11-18)
(New Geneva Study Bible)
Chapter 2 Outline:
(Matthew
Henry’s Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible)
The aspects
that are addressed by the chapter are the same as the ones addressed by the
entire book; that is, Paul’s apostleship and the true Gospel. We mentioned that the chapter could be
divided in two. The first half is of a
historical nature; it is the account of one of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem. The account is meant to enforce the
authenticity of Paul’s apostleship. The
second half is the introduction to Paul exhaustive argument for the true nature
of salvation – by faith, through grace, and apart from works.
2. What do we learn about Paul’s standing as an apostle?
There are a
few places in the first half of the chapter where we see very clearly shown
that Paul’s apostleship was of the same nature and by the same authority as
that of the disciples.
In verse 2 Paul
says that he communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the
Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation. First of all, we
have to notice that the disciples did not criticize Paul for failing to ask
permission from them to preach the Gospel.
They certainly understood that authority for the office of an apostle
came from the Lord Himself. Another
thing we can notice is that Paul says that he communicated to them (in
Greek, set forth in words) that Gospel which he preached among
the Gentiles. We can see that the
message presented by Paul was the same as the one he had preached. He did not customize it for the ears of the
apostles as the agitators had accused him of doing for the Gentiles.
Also, from the verse, we
understand that this is a one-way communication; in other words, Paul was not
instructed what the Gospel message was by the disciples, but rather he
presented the message that he had been given by the Lord Himself and the
disciples did not find fault with it.
Paul also says that he did this privately and only with those of
reputation. While at the end of chapter 1 he only hints at why he only met
with Peter and James, here he says it plainly.
He adds that he did that so that he might not run in vain. What would this mean? Even though Paul was
not looking for authorization from the apostles, he still realized that if he
had been opposed by these prominent men, his ministry would have suffered. So, he takes the wise course of action and
presents the message he is preaching to those of reputation thus gaining
their support.
In verses 6-10 we are
told about the agreement that was established between Paul and the rest of the
apostles. Paul re-emphasizes that there was nothing new or unknown to him that
the other apostles could add to his teachings. (Once again, he is not being
arrogant; he is stating a fact meant to show the Galatians that the message of
the Gospel that they had heard was the same as the one preached by the
apostles.)
Also, we see once again implied
that the apostles did not give him authorization to preach but rather confirmed
that their message was the same. Paul
mentions in parenthesis, for clarity, that He who worked effectively in
Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me
toward the Gentiles; same source of teaching, same authority. The other apostles extended Paul and Barnabas
the right had of fellowship, by this stating that their ministry was in harmony
with theirs. Paul and the other
apostles agreed that they would share the workload – Paul would preach to the
uncircumcised while the other apostles would preach to the circumcised.
In verses 3-5, Paul
talks about Titus his traveling companion who was a Greek – a Gentile. He tells the Galatians that there was no
pressure from the disciples for Titus to be circumcised as something necessary
for his being a Christian. In other
words, Paul is telling the Galatians: “If circumcision was necessary for one’s
salvation, do you not think that the Lord’s own disciples would have insisted
to have Titus circumcised?”
Paul says in verse 4 that Titus
was not circumcised precisely because of false brethren. What does this mean? These false brethren
would have most likely been delighted with Paul’s doing a 180 on the issue and
circumcising Titus. Their accusations
would have then been true – that Paul customized the message of the Gospel for
the Gentiles by taking out circumcision.
Paul’s resistance to circumcising Titus is different from his agreeing
to circumcise Timothy for the sake of the Jews and of the weak in the
faith. In Titus’ case, Paul realized
that had he circumcised Titus his message and standing as a preacher of the
Word would have been undermined. In
Timothy’s case, however, who was half Jewish (his mother was Jewish, his father
Greek), Paul agreed to circumcise him because of the Jews that they were
preaching the Gospel to. The Jews would
not have had contact with a Gentile (and in Acts 16:3 we read that they all
knew that his father was Greek). In
Titus’ case, we read in verse 5, Paul showed no willingness to accommodate the
weaker brothers in this aspect of circumcision. His relenting would have given the false brothers a victory in
their attempts to, as Paul puts it, put us into bondage (to the
Law). By his refusing to circumcise
Titus, a Greek, Paul emphasizes again the fundamental truth of our liberty in
Christ: not liberty to disobey or to sin, but rather liberty from the
ceremonial part of the Law.
He chose it because this episode
provides a great springboard into the subject and because it also underlines
his authority as an apostle. It
provides a great springboard into his argument against adding to the Gospel
because it involves prominent Jewish Christians. It underlines his authority as an apostle
because in verses 11 Paul says he withstood him (Peter). Why is this significant? It is significant
given the cultural rules of the day.
Only people who were on an equal footing could reproof each other. It was not acceptable for someone of lower
rank in a hierarchy to criticize his superior.
The fact that Paul does it does not show lack of respect but rather it
is meant to emphasize Paul’s equal status as regarding the apostleship.
In the first part of his speech
before Peter and the brothers, Paul makes an argument from the greater to the
lesser. First, he makes the obvious
point regarding Peter’s hypocrisy. He
points out that Peter, by his behavior, was showing that he was expecting the
Gentile believers to act like Jews, this while he himself was acting like a
Gentile (that is, he was not keeping the ceremonial laws – in this case, the
dietary laws). The argument from the
greater to the lesser follows this.
“The greater” in the argument are the Jewish Christians who knew both
the law and message of the Gospel (not that they are necessarily
opposites). “The lesser” are the
Gentile believers who were not versed in the law. We can paraphrase these verses to say: If
we who are Jewish, aware of the Law and taught from infancy to obey it,
realized that justification cannot come by the law but turned to Christ for it,
how can we expect the Gentiles to turn to the law for the justification that we
know it cannot give? The conclusion
of this paragraph for by law no flesh shall be justified. Paul’s intent is to get the Galatians to
think along the lines of If they, as Jews, forsook the law and embraced Christ
for salvation, what are we doing letting go of Christ to embrace the law?
Verses 17, 18 are a bit strange
and I have to admit I had to look in a couple of commentaries to find a good
explanation for them. There seems to be
agreement in the commentaries that here Paul turns his speech from Peter and
the other brothers in Antioch to the Galatians.
Verse 17 could have two meanings
not completely unrelated. One is given
by Chrysostom one of the early theologians of the Christian Church (Ioan Gura
de Aur, in Romanian). He says: "If, while we seek to be justified by
Christ, we are not yet perfectly righteous, but still unholy, and if,
consequently, Christ is not sufficient for our righteousness, it follows that
Christ is the minister of the doctrine which leaves men in sin." To this, Paul answer comes categorically: Certainly
not! Another explanation from John
Calvin says that Paul could have meant that the Gospel that he was preaching,
by the fact that it did not require obedience to the law, did not abolish the
law; in other words, his Gospel was not a license for sin, because it did not
require obedience to the ceremonial acts of the law. The first explanation
seems to be more in tune with the message of the entire chapter.
In verse 18, Paul uses the word destroy.
According to my study Bible, the
word used here in Greek means to demolish an edifice. What is Paul talking about
demolishing? What he had been
demolishing is the wall between Gentiles and Jews; the wall constituted by the
law. He is showing that this wall of
separation was made void by the Gospel.
Before the Gospel, there is neither Jew nor Gentile. Rebuilding this wall, that is, restoring the
law in its ceremonial aspect, is a denial of the Gospel and makes the one
restoring it a transgressor.
In verse 19, Paul says that through
the law [he] died to the law that [he] might live for God. How
is it possible that through the law he died to the law? The answer lies in the fact that Christ
fulfilled the Law perfectly, thus earning, in the true sense of the word,
righteousness. Through his
obeying the law perfectly, we are also deemed righteous and we become dead
(unaccountable) to the law (which Christ fulfilled for us). So, indeed through obedience to law, we are
freed from the requirements of law (for salvation, that is).
Paul explains further in verse
20. He shows the intimate union between
Christ and his redeemed children. By
God’s grace and perfect design, we were crucified with Christ, in order for His
death and his resurrection to be efficacious for us. Though not physically, we were crucified with Christ. He
represented us on the cross. Paul goes on to add that this union did not
terminate with Christ’s resurrection but rather it is very actual, it is
present in the believer’s life. Christ
lives in us, according to His promise.
It is important to understand that Christ’s living in us through His
Spirit does not mean that one’s individuality is suppressed. Our actions do not become divine, given
Christ’s presence. Let us not forget
that though we are dead to sin, our sinful nature is still with us and until we
get to glory, that will be the case.
However, Christ’s living in us through His Holy Spirit is the source of
sanctification and the force behind our mortifying our sinful nature.
We, with Paul, must stand amazed
at the privilege of this union between Christ and His children. God Himself, who, as we read in Psalm 113:6
[…] humbles Himself to behold the things that are in the heavens and in the
earth, chose to redeem, indwell, and sanctify sinful creatures. The realization of this great truth should
lead us to humility and, at the same time, elation!
Thanks be to God!
Sorin Voicu-Comendant
Soli Deo Gloria!