mh_parser/vol_split/48 - Galatians/Chapter 2.xml

<div2 id="Gal.iii" n="iii" next="Gal.iv" prev="Gal.ii" progress="55.17%" title="Chapter II">
<h2 id="Gal.iii-p0.1">G A L A T I A N S.</h2>
<h3 id="Gal.iii-p0.2">CHAP. II.</h3>
<p class="intro" id="Gal.iii-p1">The apostle, in this chapter, continues the
relation of his past life and conduct, which he had begun in the
former; and, by some further instances of what had passed between
him and the other apostles, makes it appear that he was not
beholden to them either for his knowledge of the gospel or his
authority as an apostle, as his adversaries would insinuate; but,
on the contrary, that he was owned and approved even by them, as
having an equal commission with them to this office. I. He
particularly informs them of another journey which he took to
Jerusalem many years after the former, and how he behaved himself
at that time, <scripRef id="Gal.iii-p1.1" osisRef="Bible:Gal.2.1-Gal.2.10" parsed="|Gal|2|1|2|10" passage="Ga 2:1-10">ver. 1-10</scripRef>.
And, II. Gives them an account of another interview he had with the
apostle Peter at Antioch, and how he was obliged to behave himself
towards him there. From the subject-matter of that conversation, he
proceeds to discourse on the great doctrine of justification by
faith in Christ, without the works of the law, which it was the
main design of this epistle to establish, and which he enlarges
more upon in the two following chapters.</p>
<scripCom id="Gal.iii-p1.2" osisRef="Bible:Gal.2" parsed="|Gal|2|0|0|0" passage="Ga 2" type="Commentary"/>
<scripCom id="Gal.iii-p1.3" osisRef="Bible:Gal.2.1-Gal.2.10" parsed="|Gal|2|1|2|10" passage="Ga 2:1-10" type="Commentary"/><div class="Commentary" id="Bible:Gal.2.1-Gal.2.10">
<h4 id="Gal.iii-p1.4">Paul's Journey to Jerusalem; Paul's Decision
and Fidelity. (<span class="smallcaps" id="Gal.iii-p1.5">a.
d.</span> 56.)</h4>
<p class="passage" id="Gal.iii-p2">1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to
Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with <i>me</i> also.  
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that
gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them
which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had
run, in vain.   3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a
Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:   4 And that because
of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy
out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might
bring us into bondage:   5 To whom we gave place by
subjection, no, not for a hour; that the truth of the gospel might
continue with you.   6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat,
(whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no
man's person:) for they who seemed <i>to be somewhat</i> in
conference added nothing to me:   7 But contrariwise, when
they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto
me, as <i>the gospel</i> of the circumcision <i>was</i> unto Peter;
  8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the
apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward
the Gentiles:)   9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who
seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me,
they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we
<i>should go</i> unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
  10 Only <i>they would</i> that we should remember the poor;
the same which I also was forward to do.</p>
<p class="indent" id="Gal.iii-p3">It should seem, by the account Paul gives
of himself in this chapter, that, from the very first preaching and
planting of Christianity, there was a difference of apprehension
between those Christians who had first been Jews and those who had
first been Gentiles. Many of those who had first been Jews retained
a regard to the ceremonial law, and strove to keep up the
reputation of that; but those who had first been Gentiles had no
regard to the law of Moses, but took pure Christianity as
perfective of natural religion, and resolved to adhere to that.
Peter was the apostle to them; and the ceremonial law, though dead
with Christ, yet not being as yet buried, he connived at the
respect kept up for it. But Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles;
and, though he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, yet he adhered to pure
Christianity. Now in this chapter he tells us what passed between
him and the other apostles, and particularly between him and Peter
hereupon.</p>
<p class="indent" id="Gal.iii-p4">In these verses he informs us of another
journey which he took to Jerusalem, and of what passed between him
and the other apostles there, <scripRef id="Gal.iii-p4.1" osisRef="Bible:Gal.2.1-Gal.2.10" parsed="|Gal|2|1|2|10" passage="Ga 2:1-10"><i>v.</i> 1-10</scripRef>. Here he acquaints us,</p>
<p class="indent" id="Gal.iii-p5">I. With some circumstances relating to this
his journey thither. As particularly, 1. With the time of it: that
it was not till <i>fourteen years</i> after the former (mentioned
<scripRef id="Gal.iii-p5.1" osisRef="Bible:Gal.1.18" parsed="|Gal|1|18|0|0" passage="Ga 1:18"><i>ch.</i> i. 18</scripRef>), or, as
others choose to understand it, from his conversion, or from the
death of Christ. It was an instance of the great goodness of God
that so useful a person was for so many years preserved in his
work. And it was some evidence that he had no dependence upon the
other apostles, but had an equal authority with them, that he had
been so long absent from them, and was all the while employed in
preaching and propagating pure Christianity, without being called
into question by them for it, which it may be thought he would have
been, had he been inferior to them, and his doctrine disapproved by
them. 2. With his companions in it: <i>he went up with Barnabas,
and took with him Titus also.</i> If the journey here spoken of was
the same with that recorded <scripRef id="Gal.iii-p5.2" osisRef="Bible:Acts.15.36-Acts.15.41" parsed="|Acts|15|36|15|41" passage="Ac 15:36-41">Acts
xv.</scripRef> (as many think), then we have a plain reason why
Barnabas went along with him; for he was chosen by the Christians
at Antioch to be his companion and associate in the affair he went
about. But, as it does not appear that Titus was put into the same
commission with him, so the chief reason of his taking him along
with him seems to have been to let those at Jerusalem see that he
was neither ashamed nor afraid to own the doctrine which he had
constantly preached; for though Titus had now become not only a
convert to the Christian faith, but a preacher of it too, yet he
was by birth a Gentile and uncircumcised, and therefore, by making
him his companion, it appeared that their doctrine and practice
were of a piece, and that as he had preached the non-necessity of
circumcision, and observing the law of Moses, so he was ready to
own and converse with those who were uncircumcised. 3. With the
reason of it, which was a divine revelation he had concerning it:
<i>he went up be revelation;</i> not of his own head, much less as
being summoned to appear there, but by special order and direction
from Heaven. It was a privilege with which this apostle was often
favoured to be under a special divine direction in his motions and
undertakings; and, though this is what we have no reason to expect,
yet it should teach us, in every thing of moment we go about, to
endeavour, as far as we are capable, to see our way made plain
before us, and to commit ourselves to the guidance of
Providence.</p>
<p class="indent" id="Gal.iii-p6">II. He gives us an account of his behaviour
while he was at Jerusalem, which was such as made it appear that he
was not in the least inferior to the other apostles, but that both
his authority and qualifications were every way equal to theirs. He
particularly acquaints us,</p>
<p class="indent" id="Gal.iii-p7">1. That <i>he there communicated the gospel
to them, which he preached among the Gentiles, but privately,</i>
&amp;c. Here we may observe both the faithfulness and prudence of
our great apostle. (1.) His faithfulness in giving them a free and
fair account of the doctrine which he had all along preached among
the Gentiles, and was still resolved to preach—that of pure
Christianity, free from all mixtures of Judaism. This he knew was a
doctrine that would be ungrateful to many there, and yet he was not
afraid to own it, but in a free and friendly manner lays it open
before them and leaves them to judge whether or no it was not the
true gospel of Christ. And yet, (2.) He uses prudence and caution
herein, for fear of giving offence. He chooses rather to do it in a
more private than in a public way, and <i>to those that were of
reputation,</i> that is, to the apostles themselves, or to the
chief among the Jewish Christians, rather than more openly and
promiscuously to all, because, when he came to Jerusalem, <i>there
were multitudes that believed, and yet continued zealous for the
law,</i> <scripRef id="Gal.iii-p7.1" osisRef="Bible:Acts.21.20" parsed="|Acts|21|20|0|0" passage="Ac 21:20">Acts xxi. 20</scripRef>. And
the reason of this his caution was <i>lest he should run, or had
run, in vain,</i> lest he should stir up opposition against himself
and thereby either the success of his past labours should be
lessened, or his future usefulness be obstructed; for nothing more
hinders the progress of the gospel than differences of opinion
about the doctrines of it, especially when they occasion quarrels
and contentions among the professors of it, as they too usually do.
It was enough to his purpose to have his doctrine owned by those
who were of greatest authority, whether it was approved by others
or not. And therefore, to avoid offence, he judges it safest to
communicate it privately to them, and not in public to the whole
church. This conduct of the apostle may teach all, and especially
ministers, how much need they have of prudence, and how careful
they should be to use it upon all occasions, as far as is
consistent with their faithfulness.</p>
<p class="indent" id="Gal.iii-p8">2. That in his practice he firmly adhered
to the doctrine which he had preached. Paul was a man of
resolution, and would adhere to his principles; and therefore,
though he had Titus with him, who was a Greek, yet he would not
suffer him to be circumcised, because he would not betray the
doctrine of Christ, as he had preached it to the Gentiles. It does
not appear that the apostles at all insisted upon this; for, though
they connived at the use of circumcision among the Jewish converts,
yet they were not for imposing it upon the Gentiles. But there were
others who did, whom the apostle here calls <i>false brethren,</i>
and concerning whom he informs us that they were <i>unawares
brought in,</i> that is, into the church, or into their company,
and that they came only to <i>spy out their liberty which they had
in Christ Jesus,</i> or to see whether Paul would stand up in
defence of that freedom from the ceremonial law which he had taught
as the doctrine of the gospel, and represented as the privilege of
those who embraced the Christian religion. Their design herein was
<i>to bring them into bondage,</i> which they would have effected
could they have gained the point they aimed at; for, had they
prevailed with Paul and the other apostles to have circumcised
Titus, they would easily have imposed circumcision upon other
Gentiles, and so have brought them under the bondage of the law of
Moses. But Paul, seeing their design, would by no means yield to
them; he would not <i>give place by subjection, no, not for an
hour,</i> not in this one single instance; and the reason of it was
<i>that the truth of the gospel might continue with them</i>—that
the Gentile Christians, and particularly the Galatians, might have
it preserved to them pure and entire, and not corrupted with the
mixtures of Judaism, as it would have been had he yielded in this
matter. Circumcision was at that time a thing indifferent, and what
in some cases might be complied with without sin; and accordingly
we find even Paul himself sometimes giving way to it, as in the
case of Timothy, <scripRef id="Gal.iii-p8.1" osisRef="Bible:Acts.16.3" parsed="|Acts|16|3|0|0" passage="Ac 16:3">Acts xvi.
3</scripRef>. But when it is insisted on as necessary, and his
consenting to it, though only in a single instance, is likely to be
improved as giving countenance to such an imposition, he has too
great a concern for the purity and liberty of the gospel, to submit
to it; he would not yield to those who were for the Mosaic rites
and ceremonies, but would stand fast in the liberty wherewith
Christ hath made us free, which conduct of his may give us occasion
to observe that what under some circumstances may lawfully be
complied with, yet, when that cannot be done without betraying the
truth, or giving up the liberty, of the gospel, it ought to be
refused.</p>
<p class="indent" id="Gal.iii-p9">3. That, though he conversed with the other
apostles, yet he did not receive any addition to his knowledge or
authority from them, <scripRef id="Gal.iii-p9.1" osisRef="Bible:Gal.2.6" parsed="|Gal|2|6|0|0" passage="Ga 2:6"><i>v.</i>
6</scripRef>. By <i>those who seemed to be somewhat</i> he means
the other apostles, particularly James, Peter, and John, whom he
afterwards mentions by name, <scripRef id="Gal.iii-p9.2" osisRef="Bible:Gal.2.9" parsed="|Gal|2|9|0|0" passage="Ga 2:9"><i>v.</i>
9</scripRef>. And concerning these he grants that they were
deservedly had in reputation by all, that they were looked upon
(and justly too) as pillars of the church, who were set not only
for its ornament, but for its support, and that on some accounts
they might seem to have the advantage of him, in that they had seen
Christ in the flesh, which he had not, and were apostles before
him, yea, even while he continued a persecutor. But yet,
<i>whatever they were, it was no matter to him.</i> This was no
prejudice to his being equally an apostle with them; for God does
not accept the persons of men on the account of any such outward
advantages. As he had called them to this office, so he was at
liberty to qualify others for it, and to employ them in it. And it
was evident in this case that he had done so; for <i>in conference
they added nothing to him,</i> they told him nothing but what he
before knew by revelation, nor could they except against the
doctrine which he communicated to them, whence it appeared that he
was not at all inferior to them, but was as much called and
qualified to be an apostle as they themselves were.</p>
<p class="indent" id="Gal.iii-p10">4. That the issue of this conversation was
that the other apostles were fully convinced of his divine mission
and authority, and accordingly acknowledged him as their
fellow-apostle, <scripRef id="Gal.iii-p10.1" osisRef="Bible:Gal.2.7-Gal.2.10" parsed="|Gal|2|7|2|10" passage="Ga 2:7-10"><i>v.</i>
7-10</scripRef>. They were not only satisfied with his doctrine,
but they saw a divine power attending him, both in preaching it and
in working miracles for the confirmation of it: <i>that he who
wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the
circumcision, the same was mighty in him towards the Gentiles.</i>
And hence they justly concluded <i>that the gospel of the
uncircumcision was committed to Paul, as the gospel of the
circumcision was to Peter.</i> And therefore, <i>perceiving the
grace that was given to him</i> (that he was designed to the honour
and office of an apostle as well as themselves) <i>they gave unto
him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship,</i> a symbol whereby
they acknowledged their equality with them, and agreed that
<i>these should go to the heathen, while they continued to preach
to the circumcision,</i> as judging it most agreeable to the mind
of Christ, and most conducive to the interest of Christianity, so
to divide their work. And thus this meeting ended in an entire
harmony and agreement; they approved both Paul's doctrine and
conduct, they were fully satisfied in him, heartily embraced him as
an apostle of Christ, and had nothing further to add, <i>only that
they would remember the poor,</i> which of his own accord <i>he was
very forward to do.</i> The Christians of Judea were at that time
labouring under great wants and difficulties; and the apostles, out
of their compassion to them and concern for them, recommend their
case to Paul, that he should use his interest with the Gentile
churches to procure a supply for them. This was a reasonable
request; <i>for, if the Gentiles were made partakers of their
spiritual things, it was their duty to minister to them in carnal
things,</i> as <scripRef id="Gal.iii-p10.2" osisRef="Bible:Rom.15.27" parsed="|Rom|15|27|0|0" passage="Ro 15:27">Rom. xv. 27</scripRef>.
And he very readily falls in with it, whereby he showed his
charitable and catholic disposition, how ready he was to own the
Jewish converts as brethren, though many of them could scarcely
allow the like favour to the converted Gentiles, and that mere
difference of opinion was no reason with him why he should not
endeavour to relieve and help them. Herein he has given us an
excellent pattern of Christian charity, and has taught us that we
should by no means confine it to those who are just of the same
sentiments with us, but be ready to extend it to all whom we have
reason to look upon as the disciples of Christ.</p>
</div><scripCom id="Gal.iii-p10.3" osisRef="Bible:Gal.2.11-Gal.2.21" parsed="|Gal|2|11|2|21" passage="Ga 2:11-21" type="Commentary"/><div class="Commentary" id="Bible:Gal.2.11-Gal.2.21">
<h4 id="Gal.iii-p10.4">Peter Reproved by Paul. (<span class="smallcaps" id="Gal.iii-p10.5">a.
d.</span> 56.)</h4>
<p class="passage" id="Gal.iii-p11">11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I
withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.   12
For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the
Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated
himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.   13 And
the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas
also was carried away with their dissimulation.   14 But when
I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the
gospel, I said unto Peter before <i>them</i> all, If thou, being a
Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews,
why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?   15
We <i>who are</i> Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
  16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the
law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in
Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ,
and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall
no flesh be justified.   17 But if, while we seek to be
justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, <i>is</i>
therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.   18 For if
I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a
transgressor.   19 For I through the law am dead to the law,
that I might live unto God.   20 I am crucified with Christ:
nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the
life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son
of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.   21 I do not
frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness <i>come</i> by the
law, then Christ is dead in vain.</p>
<p class="indent" id="Gal.iii-p12">I. From the account which Paul gives of
what passed between him and the other apostles at Jerusalem, the
Galatians might easily discern both the falseness of what his
enemies had insinuated against him and their own folly and weakness
in departing from that gospel which he had preached to them. But to
give the greater weight to what he had already said, and more fully
to fortify them against the insinuations of the judaizing teachers,
he acquaints them with another interview which he had with the
apostle Peter at Antioch, and what passed between them there,
<scripRef id="Gal.iii-p12.1" osisRef="Bible:Gal.2.11-Gal.2.14" parsed="|Gal|2|11|2|14" passage="Ga 2:11-14"><i>v.</i> 11-14</scripRef>. Antioch
was one of the chief churches of the Gentile Christians, as
Jerusalem was of those Christians who turned from Judaism to the
faith of Christ. There is no colour of reason for the supposition
that Peter was bishop of Antioch. If he had, surely Paul would not
have withstood him in his own church, as we here find he did; but,
on the contrary, it is here spoken of as an occasional visit which
he made thither. In their other meeting, there had been good
harmony and agreement. Peter and the other apostles had both
acknowledged Paul's commission and approved his doctrine, and they
parted very good friends. But in this Paul finds himself obliged to
oppose Peter, for <i>he was to be blamed,</i> a plain evidence that
he was not inferior to him, and consequently of the weakness of the
pope's pretence to supremacy and infallibility, as the successor of
Peter. Here we may observe,</p>
<p class="indent" id="Gal.iii-p13">1. Peter's fault. When he came among the
Gentile churches, he complied with them, and did eat with them,
though they were not circumcised, agreeably to the instructions
which were given in particular to him (<scripRef id="Gal.iii-p13.1" osisRef="Bible:Acts.10.9-Acts.10.16" parsed="|Acts|10|9|10|16" passage="Ac 10:9-16">Acts x.</scripRef>), when he was warned by the
heavenly vision <i>to call nothing common or unclean.</i> But, when
there came some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, he grew more shy
of the Gentiles, only to humour those of the circumcision and for
fear of giving them offence, which doubtless was to the great grief
and discouragement of the Gentile churches. Then <i>he withdrew,
and separated himself.</i> His fault herein had a bad influence
upon others, for <i>the other Jews also dissembled with him;</i>
though before they might be better disposed, yet now, from his
example, they took on them to scruple eating with the Gentiles, and
pretended they could not in conscience do it, because they were not
circumcised. And (would you think it?) Barnabas himself, one of the
apostles of the Gentiles, and one who had been instrumental in
planting and watering the churches of the Gentiles, <i>was carried
away with their dissimulation.</i> Here note, (1.) The weakness and
inconstancy of the best of men, when left to themselves, and how
apt they are to falter in their duty to God, out of an undue regard
to the pleasing of men. And, (2.) The great force of bad examples,
especially the examples of great men and good men, such as are in
reputation for wisdom and honour.</p>
<p class="indent" id="Gal.iii-p14">2. The rebuke which Paul gave him for his
fault. Notwithstanding Peter's character, yet, when he observes him
thus behaving himself to the great prejudice both of the truth of
the gospel and the peace of the church, he is not afraid to reprove
him for it. Paul adhered resolutely to his principles, when others
faltered in theirs; he was as good a Jew as any of them (for he was
a Hebrew of the Hebrews), but he would magnify his office as the
apostle of the Gentiles, and therefore would not see them
discouraged and trampled upon. <i>When he saw that they walked not
uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel</i>—that they did
not live up to that principle which the gospel taught, and which
they had professed to own and embrace, namely, that by the death of
Christ the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile was taken down,
and the observance of the law of Moses was no longer in force—when
he observed this, as Peter's offence was public, so he publicly
reproved him for it: <i>He said unto him before them all, If thou,
being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do
the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the
Jews?</i> Herein one part of his conduct was a contradiction to the
other; for if he, who was a Jew, could himself sometimes dispense
with the use of the ceremonial law, and live after the manner of
the Gentiles, this showed that he did not look upon the observance
of it as still necessary, even for the Jews themselves; and
therefore that he could not, consistently with his own practice,
impose it upon the Gentile Christians. And yet Paul charges him
with this, yea, represents him as compelling the Gentiles to live
as did the Jews—not by open force and violence, but this was the
tendency of what he did; for it was in effect to signify this, that
the Gentiles must comply with the Jews, or else not be admitted
into Christian communion.</p>
<p class="indent" id="Gal.iii-p15">II. Paul having thus established his
character and office, and sufficiently shown that he was not
inferior to any of the apostles, no, not to Peter himself, from the
account of the reproof he gave him he takes occasion to speak of
that great fundamental doctrine of the gospel—That justification
is only by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law (though
some think that all he says to the end of the chapter is what he
said to Peter at Antioch), which doctrine condemned Peter for his
symbolizing with the Jews. For, if it was the principle of his
religion that the gospel is the instrument of our justification and
not the law, then he did very ill in countenancing those who kept
up the law, and were for mixing it with faith in the business of
our justification. This was the doctrine which Paul had preached
among the Galatians, to which he still adhered, and which it is his
great business in this epistle to mention and confirm. Now
concerning this Paul acquaints us,</p>
<p class="indent" id="Gal.iii-p16">1. With the practice of the Jewish
Christians themselves: "<i>We,</i>" says he, "<i>who are Jews by
nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles</i> (even we who have been
born and bred in the Jewish religion, and not among the impure
Gentiles), <i>knowing that a man is not justified by the works of
the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we ourselves have
believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith
of Christ, and not by the works of the law.</i> And, if we have
thought it necessary to seek justification by the faith of Christ,
why then should we hamper ourselves with the law? What did we
believe in Christ for? Was it not that we might be justified by the
faith of Christ? And, if so, is it not folly to go back to the law,
and to expect to be justified either by the merit of moral works or
the influence of any ceremonial sacrifices or purifications? And if
it would be wrong in us who are Jews by nature to return to the
law, and expect justification by it, would it not be much more so
to require this of the Gentiles, who were never subject to it,
since <i>by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified?</i>"
To give the greater weight to this he adds (<scripRef id="Gal.iii-p16.1" osisRef="Bible:Gal.2.17" parsed="|Gal|2|17|0|0" passage="Ga 2:17"><i>v.</i> 17</scripRef>), "<i>But if, while we seek to be
justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ
the minister of sin?</i> If, while we seek justification by Christ
alone, and teach others to do so, we ourselves are found giving
countenance or indulgence to sin, or rather are accounted sinners
of the Gentiles, and such as it is not fit to have communion with,
unless we also observe the law of Moses, <i>is Christ the minister
of sin?</i> Will it not follow that he is so, if he engage us to
receive a doctrine that gives liberty to sin, or by which we are so
far from being justified that we remain impure sinners, and unfit
to be conversed with?" This, he intimates, would be the
consequence, but he rejects it with abhorrence: "<i>God
forbid,</i>" says he, "that we should entertain such a thought of
Christ, or of his doctrine, that thereby he should direct us into a
way of justification that is defective and ineffectual, and leave
those who embrace it still unjustified, or that would give the
least encouragement to sin and sinners." This would be very
dishonourable to Christ, and it would be very injurious to them
also. "<i>For,</i>" says he (<scripRef id="Gal.iii-p16.2" osisRef="Bible:Gal.2.18" parsed="|Gal|2|18|0|0" passage="Ga 2:18"><i>v.</i>
18</scripRef>), "<i>if I build again the things which I
destroyed</i>—if I (or any other), who have taught that the
observance of the Mosaic law is not necessary to justification,
should now, by word or practice, teach or intimate that it is
necessary—<i>I make myself a transgressor;</i> I own myself to be
still an impure sinner, and to remain under the guilt of sin,
notwithstanding my faith in Christ; or I shall be liable to be
charged with deceit and prevarication, and acting inconsistently
with myself." Thus does the apostle argue for the great doctrine of
justification by faith without the works of the law from the
principles and practice of the Jewish Christians themselves, and
from the consequences that would attend their departure from it,
whence it appeared that Peter and the other Jews were much in the
wrong in refusing to communicate with the Gentile Christians, and
endeavouring to bring them under the bondage of the law.</p>
<p class="indent" id="Gal.iii-p17">2. He acquaints us what his own judgment
and practice were. (1.) That he was dead to the law. Whatever
account others might make of it, yet, for his part, he was dead to
it. He knew that the moral law denounced a curse against all that
continue not in all things written therein, to do them; and
therefore he was dead to it, as to all hope of justification and
salvation that way. And as for the ceremonial law, he also knew
that it was now antiquated and superseded by the coming of Christ,
and therefore, the substance having come, he had no longer any
regard to the shadow. He was thus dead to the law, <i>through the
law itself;</i> it discovered itself to be at an end. By
considering the law itself, he saw that justification was not to be
expected by the works of it (since none could perform a perfect
obedience to it) and that there was now no further need of the
sacrifices and purifications of it, since they were done away in
Christ, and a period was put to them by his offering up himself a
sacrifice for us; and therefore, the more he looked into it the
more he saw that there was no occasion for keeping up that regard
to it which the Jews pleaded for. But, though he was thus <i>dead
to the law,</i> yet he did not look upon himself as <i>with
law.</i> He had renounced all hopes of justification by the works
of it, and was unwilling any longer to continue under the bondage
of it; but he was far from thinking himself discharged from his
duty to God; on the contrary, he was dead to the law, <i>that he
might live unto God.</i> The doctrine of the gospel, which he had
embraced, instead of weakening the bond of duty upon him, did but
the more strengthen and confirm it; and therefore, though he was
dead to the law, yet it was only in order to his living a new and
better life to God (as <scripRef id="Gal.iii-p17.1" osisRef="Bible:Rom.7.4 Bible:Rom.7.6" parsed="|Rom|7|4|0|0;|Rom|7|6|0|0" passage="Ro 7:4,6">Rom. vii. 4,
6</scripRef>), such a life as would be more agreeable and
acceptable to God than his observance of the Mosaic law could now
be, that is, a life of faith in Christ, and, under the influence
thereof, of holiness and righteousness towards God. Agreeably
hereunto he acquaints us, (2.) That, as he was dead to the law, so
he was alive unto God through Jesus Christ (<scripRef id="Gal.iii-p17.2" osisRef="Bible:Gal.2.20" parsed="|Gal|2|20|0|0" passage="Ga 2:20"><i>v.</i> 20</scripRef>): <i>I am crucified with
Christ,</i> &amp;c. And here in his own person he gives us an
excellent description of the mysterious life of a believer. [1.] He
is crucified, and yet he lives; the old man is crucified (<scripRef id="Gal.iii-p17.3" osisRef="Bible:Rom.6.6" parsed="|Rom|6|6|0|0" passage="Ro 6:6">Rom. vi. 6</scripRef>), but the new man is living;
he is dead to the world, and dead to the law, and yet alive to God
and Christ; sin is mortified, and grace quickened. [2.] <i>He
lives, and yet not he.</i> This is strange: <i>I live, and yet not
I;</i> he lives in the exercise of grace; he has the comforts and
the triumphs of grace; and yet that grace is not from himself, but
from another. Believers see themselves living in a state of
dependence. [3.] <i>He is crucified with Christ,</i> and yet
<i>Christ lives in him;</i> this results from his mystical union
with Christ, by means of which he is interested in the death of
Christ, so as by virtue of that to die unto sin; and yet interested
in the life of Christ, so as by virtue of that to live unto God.
[4.] <i>He lives in the flesh,</i> and yet <i>lives by faith;</i>
to outward appearance he lives as other people do, his natural life
is supported as others are; yet he has a higher and nobler
principle that supports and actuates him, that of faith in Christ,
and especially as eyeing the wonders of his love in giving himself
for him. Hence it is that, though he lives in the flesh, yet he
does not live after the flesh. Note, Those who have true faith live
by that faith; and the great thing which faith fastens upon is
Christ's loving us and giving himself for us. The great evidence of
Christ's loving us is his giving himself for us; and this is that
which we are chiefly concerned to mix faith with, in order to our
living to him.</p>
<p class="indent" id="Gal.iii-p18"><i>Lastly,</i> The apostle concludes this
discourse with acquainting us that by the doctrine of justification
by faith in Christ, without the works of the law (which he
asserted, and others opposed), he avoided two great difficulties,
which the contrary opinion was loaded with:—1. <i>That he did not
frustrate the grace of God,</i> which the doctrine of the
justification by the works of the law did; for, as he argues
(<scripRef id="Gal.iii-p18.1" osisRef="Bible:Rom.11.6" parsed="|Rom|11|6|0|0" passage="Ro 11:6">Rom. xi. 6</scripRef>), <i>If it be of
works, it is no more of grace.</i> 2. That he did not frustrate the
death of Christ; whereas, <i>if righteousness come by</i> the law,
then it must follow <i>that Christ has died in vain;</i> for, if we
look for salvation by the law of Moses, then we render the death of
Christ needless: for to what purpose should he be appointed to die,
if we might have been saved without it?</p>
</div></div2>