Verse by Verse

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”

11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.”

12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”

of the works (v.10) — Paul assumes that his readers know that complete obedience to the law is impossible (James 2:10-11)

curse (v.10) — failure to fulfill an intended purpose and, therefore, rejected. In mans’ case, rejected from heaven and judged worthy of, and sent to, hell.

it is written (v.10) — Deuteronomy 27:26; Deuteronomy 31;26; Joshua 1:8

cursed (v.10) — same as first usage, but stronger.

This curse is not merely the wrath of God in the form of the final banishment of the sinner from His presence, with all the sorrow and misery which that includes, but represents also a present condition of alienation from God caused by a violation of His law. The word continue is a figurative expression. it speaks of the law as a prescribed district or domain in which one remains or out of which one goes. — Wuest, page 95.

continue (v.10) — stronger form of the word “abide.”

all things (v.10) — the ordinances and the moral precepts to the most comprehensive sense.

book of the law (v.10) — Pentateuch, but also the whole Old Testament.

to do them — The apostle was well aware that the Galatians had not seen what is involved in submission to the Law of Moses; they had not realized that failure to do all, always and everywhere, just as it is written, involves the professed lawkeeper in eternal disaster. Law is unbending, it yields nothing to weakness, its standard is never lowered, not even by a hairbreadth; law makes no compromise, and finds no room for mercy; “a man that hath set at nought Moses’ law dieth without compassion” Hebrews 10:28 — Vine, page 183.

The law doesn’t bring a blessing (v.9) but a curse (v.10).

but (v.11) — Paul moves the argument forward. Even if a man appears to be justified by the law in the sight of other men … No one is justified by the works of the law before God.

just (v.11) — those in a right relationship with God. A legal, not a moral, term.

shall live (v.11) — spiritual life (Habakkuk 2:4; Leviticus 18:5; Romans 10:5)

yet (v.12) — “but” — shows contrast

law is not of faith (v.12) — The two are mutually exclusive and have no point in common.

Even if a man was obedient to the whole law (which is impossible), he still has original sin and so could not be justified before God. That can only be paid by blood (the result of death, which is the wage of sin). That blood was shed by Christ and can only be accessed by faith.

It is the function of the law to condemn, not to justify. Obviously, if everyone did what was right, we would not need law. This is why the Apostle Paul wrote by inspiration: “… the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient” (1 Timothy 1:9).

The function of  law is to put the finger on sin and condemn it. Remember that you do not have to break the whole law to be a law-breaker. “For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10).

That makes sense. How many links must you break in a chain to break the chain? Just one. How many murders do you have to commit to be a murderer? Just one. How many sins do you have to commit to be a sinner? Just one. And we have all committed one, and keep on committing one or more every day. — Stam, pages 157-158.

6 Just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.

8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”

9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

The answer to Paul’s question in verse 5 is so obviously “by faith” that he proceeds in verse 6 with that assumption.

believed God (v.6) — that God could and would fulfill His promise even though it was naturally impossible (Romans 4:19).

accounted (v.6) — reckoned, placed in his account in value as righteousness. Abraham’s faith wasn’t counted as a good work but as evidence that he cast off all dependence on works.

accounted to him (v.6) — not his originally.

for (v.6) = unto (Romans 10:10).

righteousness (v.6) — a condition of rightness the standard of which is God.

those who are of faith (v.7) —  those who seek justification by faith

only those (v.7) — these and no others — not those of natural descent or who adhere to the law

preached the gospel (v.8) — anticipated, without revealing, the gospel

in  you (v.8) — Abraham — it was through his descendants that the redeemer came, and he also began a line of those who are characterized by faith in God.

all nations (v.8) — Jews and Gentiles

It is true that all nations were to be blessed through Israel, Abraham’s multiplied seed (Genesis 22:17-18). It is also true that all nations were to be blessed through Christ, Abraham’s single Seed (Galatians 3:16). But the very first promise made to Abraham was that God would bless all nations through him, and the apostle quotes this promise in an argument that God justifies Gentiles through faith.

The original promise made to Abraham, then, holds out blessing to the world through Abraham himself. How has Abraham himself proved a blessing to all nations? There is only one answer: as God’s great example of FAITH. — Stam, page 150-151.

blessed (v.9) — salvation and all that results

with (v.9) — in fellowship with. Sharing Abraham’s faith, we also share what his faith received.

believing Abraham (v.9) — not because he was circumcised but because he believed.

The occasion for his argument is found in the fact that the Judaizers taught that the natural descendants of Abraham were his children, and thus accepted with God. All of which meant that only the circumcised could be saved. Thus, circumcision was a prerequisite of salvation. This teaching was based on a misapprehension of Genesis 12 and 17. They argued that no one could participate in the blessings of God’s covenant with Abraham, and so in the messianic salvation which was inseparably connected with it, unless he was circumcised. The mistake they made was in failing to distinguish between the purely Jewish and national covenant God made with Abraham, which had to do with the earthly ministry and destiny of the Chosen People as a channel which God would use in bringing salvation to the earth, and that salvation which came through a descendant of Abraham, the Messiah. Circumcision was God’s mark of separation upon the Jew, isolating him in the midst of the Gentile nations, in order that He might use the nation Israel for His own purposes. It had nothing to do with the acceptance of salvation by the Jew. Over against this contention, Paul argues that Abraham was justified by faith, not by circumcision. In Romans 4:9-10, he proves his case conclusively when he shows that Abraham was declared righteous before he was circumcised, which demonstrates that his circumcision had nothing to do with his acceptance of salvation. — Wuest, pages 88-89.

__________

Justification is the act of God removing from the sinner his guilt and the penalty incurred by that guilt, and bestowing a positive righteousness, Christ Jesus Himself in whom the believer stands, not only innocent and uncondemned, but actually righteous in point of law for time and eternity. This is what God did for Abraham when he believed Him. This is what the Judaizers were attempting to merit for themselves by their own good works.  — Wuest, page 92

1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?

2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

4 Have you suffered so many things in vain — if indeed it was in vain?

5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

foolish (v.1) — not naturally stupid, but rather not using the sense they have. A reproach because of where they have allowed themselves to be led. One who does not reflect or use his powers of perception.

bewitched (v.1) — subjected to evil influence by occult practices. Lit. — “the evil eye.” The workings of Satan.

Christ was clearly portrayed (v.1) — by Paul’s preaching

Here, [portrayed] is probably used in a sense, unexampled in the Scriptures but not uncommon in the language of the day, = “proclaimed,” “placarded,” as a magistrate proclaimed the fact that an execution had been carried out, placarding his proclamation in a public place. The apostle carries on his metaphor of the “evil eye”; as a preventative of such mischief it was common to post up charms on the walls of houses, a glance at which was supposed to counteract any evil influence to which a person may have been subjected. “Notwithstanding,” he says in effect, “that the fact that Christ had been crucified was placarded before your very eyes in our preaching, you have allowed yourselves to be “overlooked,” you have been fascinated by the enemies of the Cross of Christ, when you had only to look at Him to escape their malignant influence. — Vine, page 174.

receive the Spirit (v.2) — new birth, salvation (Ephesians 1:13; Romans 8:9). The Galatians were saved, therefore the following verses pertain to Christians.

works of the law (v.2) — obedience to the law

hearing (v.2) = receiving a message and the message itself

faith (v.2) — (Romans 10:17) — The answer to Paul’s question is “by faith.” (Colossians 2:8-10).

foolish (v.3) — not using your sense to the extent that you haven’t noticed the discrepancy.

having begun (v.3) — tense indicates the moment of salvation.

in the Spirit (v.3) — as opposed to “in the flesh”

made perfect (v.3) — completed. A process. Are you perfecting yourselves?

by the flesh (v.3) — by the works of the flesh — rites, ceremonies, obedience to the law

It is preposterous that a process begun in the higher sphere of the Spirit can be completed in the lower sphere of the flesh, that those who received the righteousness of God by faith should seek their own righteousness by works of the law.

suffered so many things (v.4) — Acts 14:1-7

in vain (v.4) — to no purpose, a mistake. They were persecuted by the Jews for their faith. Would they now buckle to the Judaizers?

if indeed it was in vain (v.4) — Paul holds out hope that they will see the truth.

therefore (v.5) — Taking up where verse three leaves off. Verse four is parenthetical.

He who supplies the Spirit (v.5) — God. The tense is continuous.

works miracles (v.5) = powers, supernatural in origin — whether outward miracles were still being performed in Galatia or sign gifts or simply God’s working in believers.

among you (v.5) — within you

does He do it by the works of the law (v.5) — in response to obedience to the law

or by the hearing of faith (v.5) — Again, the answer to Paul’s question is “by faith.”

20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.

I have been (v. 20) — the tense indicates “have been and still am.” A past completed action with continuous results.

Paul explained why and how he was dead to the law. Now (v.20), he explains why and how he lives.

The Judaizers shunned the reproach of the Cross; to them it was a “stumbling block,” (5:11; 6:12; 1 Corinthians 1:23). He [Paul] glorified in it and made it his own (6:14). Nor is it merely that he had “crucified” the grosser elements in his nature (5:24); he himself, his virtues and his vices, all that entered into and made the man, had been nailed to the Cross; henceforth he hoped nothing from the one, feared nothing from the other.

Christ, though He had fully discharged every obligation imposed by the law, endured the extreme penalty prescribed for “transgression and disobedience,” (Hebrews 2:2). When, therefore, a man believes on Christ, he acknowledges the judgment of God against sin to be just, and accepts the death of Christ as the execution of that judgment upon him for his own guilt. In thus believing the man becomes identified with Christ in His death, and since death nullifies all claims and all obligations, is “made dead to the law through the body of Christ,” (Romans 7:4) and ceases, finally, to be under the jurisdiction of the law — Vine, page 169

Christ lives in me (v.20) — by the Spirit (Romans 8:9-10)

the live which I now live (v.20) — by the power of the Spirit joined by association with Christ’s resurrection.

now (v.20) — since Paul’s salvation

in the flesh (v.20) — in his human body. Paul was still Paul, with his will, temperament, thoughts, hopes and fear — and sins. But through faith — and the faithfulness of Christ — he had new life.

I live by faith (v.20) — faithfulness, trustworthiness

Son of God (v.20) — “son” in the sense of eternal relationship and expression of character, not in the sense of deriving existence from.

The Bible refers to the love of God toward the world, but the love of the Son is only mentioned in relationship to believers.

gave Himself for me (v.20) — Christ died for each and He died for all.

set aside  (v.21) — make void, reject, nullify, do away with something established.

grace of God (v.21) — incompatible with works (Romans 11:6)

in vain (v.21) — without purpose or result

Paul was dead to his former life of legal righteousness and confidence in the law. Paul died to the law by dying with Christ who died under its penalty. The law’s demands were satisfied. Paul also died to self and his old life and now lived a Christ-centered life.

¹⁷ But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!

¹⁸ For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

¹⁹ For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.

But if (v.17) — Paul is stating that this is the case.

we (v.17) — Jews who failed to find righteousness by the law so turned to Christ to find it.

sinners (v.17) — those who have “missed the mark”

Jews used the term “sinners” to refer to Gentiles, but in light of the life and death of Christ, they are in the same situation (Romans 3:9).

minister (v.17) = one who renders service. Since Christ revealed that the Jews were also sinners, does He further the interests of sin, or extend the dominion of sin (personified)?

Certainly not! (v.17) — God forbid. Literally “let it not be.”

If we Christians, who have regarded ourselves as justified by faith in Christ, now resort to legal methods, and Jewish rites and ceremonies, in order to be justified, is that not confessing that we are sinners and in need of being saved, and is not Christ then at fault for our present sinful state? Can this be possible? “Is Christ a minister of sin?”

Paul recoils from so monstrous a suggestion. “God forbid,” he cries, using a phrase he commonly employed to express horror and deprecation.

The real “sinner,” the actual transgressor, is the one who turns from Christ to the Law, who tries to add to justification by faith justification by works, who supplants Christ by supplementing Christ, and who offers self-righteousness in place of the righteousness of Christ. “For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor.” Paul here courteously puts himself in the place of Peter or his companions in error. He supposes himself guilty of taking so false a step. If he should go back to law as a means of salvation, then he would convict himself of sin in ever having renounced the law; or if it has been right to renounce the law, then it is wrong to return now to the law. In either case he would be not vaguely a “sinner” in condition, but a real “transgressor” in action. — Erdman, page 53-54.

if I (v.18) — If Paul did what Peter and the Judaizers were, in fact, doing …

build again (v.18) — labor to build in a figurative sense

things (v.18) — the law as a means of justification

destroyed (v.18) — as in the demolition of a building

transgressor (v.18) = one who oversteps a prescribed limit. If Paul attempts again to gain righteousness by the law, the law will once again show that he falls short.

I (v.19) — Paul, or anyone else

died to the law (v.19) — The law condemned Paul and so separated him from any hope of gaining righteousness by it. Sin is the killer (Romans 7:11), but the law brings the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20).

that I might live (v.19) — death was necessary for new life

live (v.19) — justified before God

The law makes us sinners and punishes us for being sinners.

Instead of finding in the law a way of salvation, by the very operation of the law Paul was led to abandon the law, that he might love and serve God. “For I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God.” When Paul realized what the law really demanded, in all its deep meaning and implication, he discovered that he never could secure justification by his endeavor to keep the law. Rather the law passed on him a moral sentence of death. It revealed the reality and the depth of his sin; but it gave him no power to overcome sin. Therefore he turned from the law as a means of salvation, or of acceptance with God. He did so once for all, as truly as though he had died to the law. He could never return to it. He could never again look to it, as the Galatians were looking to it, as a ground of acceptance with God.

His relation to the law was broken as completely as earthly relations are broken by death. Yet his purpose was not that he might act in a way contrary to the law, but that he might truly, “live unto God,” and attain that experience of holiness he had sought for in vain under the yoke of the law. — Erdman, page 54-55.

__________

Faith in Christ was the means whereby Paul’s complete and irreparable break with the law was effected. The Lord Jesus lived under the law, fully obeyed that law, assumed the guilt and penalty which the human race incurred by having violated the law, and in dying under the law satisfied its requirements. Thus He passed out of the realm where law in its legalistic aspect had control over Him. All believers were identified with Christ in His death and also in His resurrection, and thus have passed out of the realm of divine law so far as its legalistic aspect is concerned. — Wuest, page 80-81.

¹⁵ We who are 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 faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

we who are Jews (v.15) — Paul reminded Peter of their shared heritage

Jews (v.15) — originally those of the tribe of Judah, but now, and here, used for the race of Israel as opposed to Gentiles.

by nature (v.15) — by origin, not by conversion

sinners of the Gentiles (v.15) — Paul uses the terminology of the Judaizers who despised Gentiles in order, in the next verses (v.17), to show that the Jews are equally guilty of sin.

The Jews did form a holy nation and had inherited the covenants and promises of God. They had attained a certain sanctity in contrast with sinful Gentiles. Paul reasons from this fact, and he turns against the Judaizers their familiar language. He declares that in spite of all their privileges and regardless of their arrogant pretensions to superior holiness, even Jews, even men like Peter and Paul, had found that they could not be justified by works of the law, and had been compelled to turn to Christ for salvation. If, then, even Jews could not be justified by their attempt at keeping the law, why bind the law upon Gentiles who had been saved, like Jewish believers, by faith in Christ? — Erdman, page 52-53.

knowing (v.16) — understanding the truth of the gospel

a man (v.16) — any human, Jew or Gentile

justified (v.16) — declared to be right, righteous before God.

is not justified (dikaioo) = to show, or declare, to be right (Luke 7:29; 10:29; 1 Corinthians 4:4). In the majority of its New Testament occurrences dikaioo = “to declare a person to be righteous before God.” All doers of the law are justified (Romans 2:13), with this proviso, that if a man “shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10; Galatians 3:10). As a matter of fact, however, no such doers of law have yet been found among men, and “there is no distinction,” i.e., as between Jew and Gentile, “for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God,” i.e., fail to secure the approval of the sole Lawgiver and Judge. Clearly, then, by works of law shall no flesh be justified or accounted righteous, in His sight (Romans 3:22-23), the conclusion here, as in the more extended argument of the Epistle to the Romans. And this the converted Jews had themselves acknowledged when they sought justification through Christ. — Vine, page 165.

works of the law (v.16) — Hebrews 6:1; 9:14. Law is the Mosaic law, but, by extension, any law — so — Nobody, Jew or Gentile, has ever been declared righteous by God based on his obedience to law.

even we (v.16) — Jews

for (v.16) = because — followed by a paraphrase of Psalm 143:2 — Do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for in Your sight no one living is righteous.

no flesh (v.16) — no human, with the emphasis on “no.”

faith in Christ (v.16) — should be “faith of Christ.” The character that makes Him worthy of our faith. Our faith in Christ is effective because of the faith (faithfulness/worthiness) of Christ.

… The life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me (Galatians 2:20).

How believers need to learn this blessed truth! We are kept, while in the flesh, not by “our faith” but by His faithfulness. Our God-given faith is but the channel through which we appreciate and enjoy His never-failing faithfulness.

Our “faith” would be vain were it not for “the faith (fidelity) of the Son of God.” The best of us would utterly fail were it not that “He ever liveth to make intercession for us” (Hebrews 7:25) and “now appears in the presence of God for us” (Hebrews 9:24). — Stam, page 133.

Verses 15-21 are probably part of what Paul said to Peter at Antioch.

¹¹ Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;

¹² for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

¹³ And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

¹⁴ But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

This incident probably occurred shortly after the meeting in Jerusalem mentioned in the previous verses.

Antioch church — Acts 11:19-26

withstood (v.11) — gives the sense that Peter was the aggressor and Paul maintained his position.

to his face (v.11) — openly, as an equal

blamed (v.22) — Peter’s conduct could be seen as wrong to himself and to other observers. The Antioch Gentile Christians would have thought so.

certain men (v.12) — Perhaps those of Acts 15:1. (Perhaps Barnabas was swayed by Peter but then changed his mind and went to Jerusalem with Paul, but it probably refers to another occasion.)

from James (v. 12) — James probably charged the men with the mission.

eat with the Gentiles (v.12) — Eating with Gentiles is not forbidden in the Mosaic law, only by the Pharisees. The food eaten might have been forbidden by the Mosaic law.

withdrew (v.12) — vacillated, inconsistent. A military word suggesting a strategic retreat to shelter, cautious and gradual.

separated (v.12) — indicating that he thought the Gentiles were inferior

circumcision (v.12) — Judaizers

rest of the Jews (v.13) — Probably the believing Jews who had been fellowshipping with the Gentiles in the Antioch church.

played the hypocrite (v.13) — Pretended to act from one motive while actually acting from another. Peter pretended to honor the law but was really afraid of the Judaizers. The word “hypocrisy” was originally used of the role of an actor in a play.

Barnabas (v.13) — this, perhaps, let to his separation from Paul, which would be further support for the position that this took place after the Jerusalem Council.

carried away (13) — influenced

not straightforward (v.14) — didn’t walk a straight path that could be followed by others.

truth of the gospel (v.14) — that salvation is by faith in Christ alone without works of any sort.

before them all (v.14) — perhaps before the entire church at Antioch

being a Jew (v.14) — born and bred

Peter’s decision not to eat with the Gentiles seems like a small issue, but Paul saw it for what it was — a rejection of the gospel of grace.

This incident also emphasizes Paul’s independence from the apostles in Jerusalem.

The issue here seems to be that, in the Jerusalem church, the believers were following a gospel that still included some adherence to the Mosaic law and separation from the Gentiles (Galatians 2:9), but in Antioch, the believers followed Paul’s gospel of grace and unity between Jew and Gentile.

This is the second time that Peter got into trouble over the Gentile question, and there is a significant connection between this incident at Antioch and the previous one at Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the headquarters of the Jewish church; Antioch was the headquarters of the Gentile church. When Peter returned to Jerusalem after ministering to Cornelius, they that were of the circumcision contended with him (Acts 11:2). At Jerusalem he was called to account for eating with the Gentiles (verse 3). At Antioch he was rebuked because he stopped eating with the Gentiles (Galatians 2:12).

At Jerusalem he had rightly defended his action; he had done right by eating with the Gentiles. At Antioch, he had no defense to offer for he was wrong; he should have continued to eat with, and have fellowship with the Gentiles. — Stam, page 119

__________

It is clear that these men [verse 12] were sent by James, men of importance as is shown by the deference with which Peter treated them, and the obsequiousness with which he bowed to their requests. They were not from the ranks of the Judaizers, for James would not send men of that stamp, but Jewish Christians of Jerusalem who like James were still most scrupulous in their obedience to the Mosaic law. James, even after the decision of the council at Jerusalem regarding the relation of the law to Gentile converts to Christianity, still held to the view that the Jewish converts were under the law. James was the occasion of Paul’s lapse when the apostle at his request took upon himself a Jewish vow to show the Jews in Jerusalem that he was still a strict Jew (Acts 21:18-26). Here he was the occasion of Peter’s lapse when he sent this mission to Antioch with the purpose of enforcing the Mosaic law so far as the Jewish Christians were concerned. — Wuest, page 70.

__________

It was bad enough for Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles and the champion of Gentile liberty from the law, to have Peter act as he did. But the hypocrisy of Barnabas was the cruel blow. With the single exception of Paul, Barnabas had been the most effective minister of the gospel in the conversion of the Gentiles. He had been deputed with Paul by the Antioch church to the council at Jerusalem as its representative. He had come back with the news that the position held by Paul and himself with regard to Gentile freedom from circumcision had been sustained by the Jerusalem apostles. Now, his withdrawal from social fellowship with the Gentiles, came with the force of a betrayal to Paul and the church at Antioch. The defection of Barnabas was of a far more serous nature with regard to Gentile freedom than the vacillation of Peter. Barnabas was Paul’s chief colleague in the evangelization of the Gentiles, and now to have him play the hypocrite and deserter, was a bitter blow to the great apostle. This may well have prepared the way for the dissension between them which shortly afterwards led to their separation (Acts 15:39). — Wuest, page 73.

⁶ But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.

⁷ But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter

⁸ (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),

⁹ and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

¹⁰ They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

seemed to be something (v.6) — Paul wasn’t demeaning the leaders, but he was speaking against their reputation with the Judaizers as ultimate authorities.

whatever they were (v.6) = what they once were. At Pentecost and immediately thereafter (up to the rejection of the risen Messiah by the Jews), the twelve did have ultimate authority under Christ.

it makes no difference to me (v.6) — Paul’s commission was from Christ and the twelve had no authority over him.

God shows personal favor to no man (v.6) — God is impartial. The leaders had been with Christ. Paul had warred against the church. But God didn’t favor either or give the twelve a higher place than Paul had.

added nothing (v.6) — the leaders added nothing to Paul’s message or his authority. The emphasis is on “to me.”

on the contrary (v.7) — The leaders not only did not add to Paul in any way, they recognized his own authority and extended fellowship.

when they saw (v.7) — when they heard what Paul had to say

committed to me (v.7) — entrusted to me. Paul’s message and authority was wholly God’s doing.

uncircumcised (v.7) — Gentiles. circumcised (v.7) — Jews

In verse seven, the Greek reads “gospel of the uncircumcised” and “gospel of the circumcised.” Peter’s and Paul’s gospels were to different audiences, but they were also two different gospels.

He who worked (v.8) — God. God makes the individual effective. He worked in Peter with the Jews and in Paul with the Gentiles.

perceived (v.9) — grasped the significance

John (v.9) — This is the only time Paul mentions John in his writings.

pillars (v.9) — Those who bear responsibility. Paul went to the very top of the Jerusalem church.

right hand (v.9) — pledge, public expression of approval

fellowship (v.9) — common interest and hopes

we … Gentiles, they … circumcision (v.9) — Paul still went first to the synagogues, but his message was one of uncircumcision.

only (v.10) — one stipulation, and that not in regard to doctrine

poor (v.10) — poor in material things, especially in Jerusalem and Judea, due to persecution and a great famine in 45 AD (Romans 15:25-27).

eager (v.10) — diligent, willing to exert oneself

 ¹ Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.

² And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.

³ Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

⁴ And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),

⁵ to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

Barnabas = son of prophecy, or son of comfort. This name was given by the apostles. His given name was Joseph. He was a Levite born on Cyprus.

Titus was a Gentile believer. Paul probably took Titus as a test case — an uncircumcised Gentile believer.

But notice that the Holy Spirit had never told the 12 that circumcision and adherence to the law was no longer necessary — further proof of the uniqueness of Paul’s message.

Barnabas (I went … with) was a colleague. Titus (took … with me) was a subordinate (v.1).

revelation (v.2) — divine guidance, and by the request of the church in Antioch.

preach (v.2)  — proclaim as a herald

reputation — thought well of by others — Peter, John, James (v.9)

lest by any means (v.2) — explaining why he went to the leaders before talking to the whole church. Paul sought a meeting with the apostles lest the controversy about the need for Gentiles to follow the law ruin his ministry.

In vain — These words are not to be understood as indicating any misgiving in the apostle’s mind concerning the gospel he preached. They refer to his apprehension of the possibility of non-success in his mission. When “dissension and questioning” arose at Antioch, he had consented to take the judgment of the church at Jerusalem. If then, through any lack of diligence or forethought on his part, a decision adverse to the broader, more liberal gospel were to be given, the work of God among the Gentiles would be set back indefinitely. Hence his precaution that the leaders should be put in possession of all the facts and arguments, so that, if possible, their weighty influence in favor of freedom might be secured before the points in dispute were debated in public. Paul had not come to Jerusalem to obtain sanction for the continuance of his ministry among the Gentiles, indeed, but in view of the efforts that had been made to nullify his labors, to convince the elders and the church there of the validity of the gospel he preached, and to counteract the misrepresentations that had been made. — Vine, page 154

Greek (v.3) — used for any Gentile who spoke Greek

Paul was willing, for the sake of the ministry, to go to Jerusalem and talk with the church leaders, but his conciliatory attitude did not extend to giving up his liberty under grace. He was pressured to have Titus circumcised but refused.

false brethren (v.4) —  non-believers posing as believers who were urging law, or Judaizing Christians with ulterior motives.

secretly (v.4) — privately, not straightforwardly. Spies sent into the church by Jews to establish the law.

to spy out (v.4) — with a view to overthrowing

liberty (v.4) — Christian freedom from the law

However he [Paul] was not sent to check with the twelve or to make sure that he was preaching the same message as they. Rather, the Lord sent him to Jerusalem to communicate to the leaders “that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.” Why did he need to tell them what he had been preaching to the Gentiles, and why this phraseology if his gospel was exactly the same as their gospel? This is not the only place where he used such wording regarding the message which he preached. Three times he called his good news “my gospel” (Romans 2:16; 16:25; 2 Timothy 2:8). Frequently he said, “our gospel,” or “that gospel which I preach unto you” or “that gospel which was preached of me.” His epistles are filled with such phraseology. Why should he put such emphasis on the distinctiveness of his message if it were not distinct and separate from that which the twelve had been preaching? — Stam, page 107.

__________

Paul has been accused of inconsistency because in the case of Titus he refused to observe the Jewish rite which he had administered to his other friend and companion, Timothy (Acts 16:3). The principles involved were, however, quite different. In the case of Titus, Paul was refusing to admit the principle that observance of the Mosaic law was necessary to salvation. This was the doctrine of the Pharisaic legalists who opposed Paul in the Council at Jerusalem and who were represented by the false teachers troubling the Galatian churches.

In the case of Timothy, however, no such principle was at stake. Jewish Christians were not involved. Paul wished to avoid needlessly offending the unconverted Jews among whom he was to work. Paul made a concession to Jewish prejudices merely to avoid needless opposition. He permitted the rite as a matter of racial and social significance, and not as a ground of salvation. It was at most a practical compromise to make his companion more acceptable to the Jews. Furthermore, Titus was a pure Gentile, while Timothy was the son of a Jewess, and the question at issue involved the Christian liberty of Gentiles. — Erdman, page 44

__________

There were three parties in the Jerusalem controversy: Paul and Barnabas who maintained that the Gentile converts were not to be circumcised, the false brethren who demanded that they be circumcised, and the Jerusalem apostles who for the sake of expediency were urged by the false brethren to insist that Paul and Barnabas require circumcision of their Gentile converts. — Wuest, page 60

Paul’s visits to Jerusalem after his conversion

1. Three years after his conversion — Acts 9:26; Galatians 1:18-19

2. To take gifts — Acts 11:30-12:25 (James and Peter were in prison and other apostles were probably scattered.)

3. To confer with leaders — Acts 15; Galatians 2:1

4. His final visit — Acts 21:17

²¹ Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.

²² And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ.

²³ But they were hearing only, “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy.”

²⁴ And they glorified God in me.

These verses cover a period of about 10 years.

Syria and Cilicia — two adjacent provinces, the former situated immediately north of Palestine, with Damascus in the south, and Antioch, the capital, in the north; the latter, the chief town of which was Tarsus, lay northwest again. The order of the names is probably the order of the importance of the provinces, not the order in which the apostle visited them. In Acts 9:30 Luke records that he went from Caesarea to Tarsus, apparently by sea, since both these places are ports. In these provinces he seems to have continued for about ten years, apparently making Tarsus his headquarter (11:25) and laboring in the gospel in the northern parts of Syria, those adjacent to Cilicia, and in Cilicia itself, and founding churches (15:41). The apostle’s purpose, however, is not to define the sphere of his labors during these ten years, but to show that it lay far from Jerusalem and from the possibility of contact with the Twelve. — Vine, page 150-151

were (v.22) — not in original. Supplied by translators. Probably should be “are.”

in Christ (v.22) —  probably a reminder to the Galatians that, contrary to what the Judaizers said, these churches weren’t Jewish, even though made up of Jews, but were something new.

hearing only (v.23) — continuous tense, ongoing

he who formerly persecuted us (v.23) — in Greek “the persecutor”

the faith (v.23) — Paul did preach to Jews that Christ was the Messiah risen from the grave (as did Peter and the 12), the very message that he’d formerly tried to destroy.

destroy = to ravage, to overthrow. Not a completed deed but a continuous action in an attempt to accomplish the end goal.

glorified (v.24) — were glorifying, continuously. They gave the credit for Paul’s change to God, not to Paul. The believers in Judea praised God for Paul’s teaching, the same message the Judaizers said was wrong.

Paul has given us proof after proof that his message was not the same as that which the twelve had been preaching. Yet the believers in Judea were saying “… [he] now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.” Does this mean that Paul was, after all, preaching the same gospel which the twelve had been preaching? Some men have used this verse to seek to prove that this was the case. Paul used the greater part of Chapters One and Two to prove that his message was different, but this does not mean that what the twelve had been preaching was not true. They had preached Christ as the prophesied King, now risen from the dead. Paul had once denied this and had persecuted those who believed it.

Then one day Christ Himself had appeared to Saul, and he saw that He was alive, and Israel’s rightful King. Thereafter, wherever he went, he sought to convince the Jews of that fact. After all, how could they trust Christ as Lord and Savior if they did not know that He was their true Messiah, risen from the dead? And how could they trust Him as the exalted dispenser of the grace that Paul presented, if He were an impostor whose dead body now lay in a Judean grave? Paul confirmed what Peter and the twelve had been preaching. In that sense, and to that degree, he preached the faith which once he had destroyed.

But even though he confirmed the message of the twelve, never once do we find him preaching the good news of the Kingdom — the good news that the Kingdom was about to be established. He never, like Peter, offered the Kingdom and the return of Jesus Christ if the Jews would repent.

The time for that was past. The establishment of the Messianic kingdom is, even yet in our own day, being held in abeyance until a future time; meanwhile, God offers reconciliation to his enemies by grace through faith. — Stam, page 95-96