Imágenes de páginas
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

to be somewhat," (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me, God accepteth no man's person.)"

Here he not only does not defend the Apostles, but even presses hard upon those holy men, for the benefit of the weak. His meaning is this: although they permit circumcision, they shall render an account to God, for God will not accept their persons, because they are great and in station. But he does not speak so plainly, but with caution. He says not, if they vitiate their doctrine, and swerve from the appointed rule of their preaching, they shall be judged with the utmost rigor, and suffer punishment; but he alludes to them more reverently, in the words, "of those who were reputed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were. He says not, "whatsoever they 'are,' "" but "were," showing that they too had thenceforth3 ceased so to preach, the doctrine having extended itself universally. The phrase, "whatsoever they were, implies, that if they so preached they should render account, for they had to justify themselves before God, not before men. This he said, not as doubtful or ignorant of the rectitude of their procedure, but (as I said before) from a sense of the expediency of so forming his discourse. Then, that he may not seem to take the opposite

[ocr errors]

Wherefore, says he, we yielded to the Apostles, but not to these. Ver. 5. That the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.' That we may confirm, says he, by our deeds what we have already declared by words, namely, that the "old things are passed away, behold they are become new; " and that "if any man is in Christ he is a new creature ;" (2 Cor. v: 17.) and that "if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing." (Gal. v: 2.) In maintaining this truth we gave place not even for an hour. Then, as he was directly met by the conduct of the Apostles, and the reason of their enjoining the rite would probably be asked, he proceeds to solve this objection. This he does with great skill, for he does not give the actual reason, which was, that the Apostles acted by way of condescension and in the use of a scheme, (dzovouía) as it were; for otherwise his hearers would have been injured. For those, who are to derive benefit from a scheme should be unacquainted with the design of it; all will be undone, if this appears. Wherefore, he who is to take part in it should know the drift of it; those who are to benefit by it should not. To make my meaning more evident, I will take an example from our present subject. The blessed Paul himself, who meant to abrogate circumcis-side and to accuse them, and so create a suspiion, when he was about to send Timothy to teach the Jews, first circumcised him and so sent him. This he did, that his hearers might the more readily receive him; he began by circumcising, that in the end he might abolish it. But this reason he imparted to Timothy only, and told it not to the disciples. Had they known that the very purpose of his circumcision was the abolition of the rite, they would never have listened to his preaching, and the whole benefit would have been lost. But now their ignorance was of the greatest use to them, for their idea that his conduct proceeded from a regard to the Law, led them to receive both him and his doctrine with kindness and courtesy, and having gradually received him, and become instructed, they abandoned their old customs. Now this would not have happened had they known his reasons from the first; for they would have turned away from him, and being turned away would not have given him a hearing, and not hearing, would have continued in their former error. To prevent this, he did not disclose his reasons; here too he does not explain the occasion of the scheme, (oizovopia) but shapes his discourse differently; thus:

[blocks in formation]

cion of their disagreement, he straightway subjoins this correction: "for those who were reputed to be somewhat, in conference imparted nothing to me." This is his meaning; What you may say, I know not; this I know well, that the Apostles did not oppose me, but our sentiments conspired and accorded. This appears from his expression, "they gave me the right hand of fellowship; " but he does not say this at present, but only that they neither informed or corrected him on any point, nor added to his knowledge.

Ver. 6.

"For those who were reputed to be somewhat, imparted nothing to me: That is to say, when told of my proceedings, they added nothing, they corrected nothing, and though aware that the object of my journey was to communicate with them, that I had come by revelation of the Spirit, and that I had Titus with me who was uncircumcised, they neither circumcised him, nor imparted to me any additional knowledge.

Ver. 7. "But contrariwise."

[Lightfoot says, "The expression is depreciatory here, not indeed of the twelve themselves but of the extravagant and exclusive claims set up for them by the Judaizers." So also Dr. Schaff. "The addition of Ti elvai and önotot betrays a certain irritation in reference to the opponents who would not concede Paul an estimation given to the original Apostles."-Meyer.-G. A.]


["It is entirely in opposition to the context that Chrysostom Theophylact and Jerome refer this to the earlier teaching of the Apostles, making Paul say that whether at an earlier date they had been Judaizers or not was to him a matter of indifference."Meyer.-G. A.]

Ver. 9." And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship."3

[ocr errors]

Some hold his meaning to be, not only that each was the same. After he had established the Apostles did not instruct him, but that they the proof of their unanimity, he takes courage, were instructed by him. But I would not say and proceeds confidently in his argument, not this, for what could they, each of whom was stopping at the Apostles, but advances to Christ himself perfectly instructed, have learnt from Himself, and to the grace which He had conhim? He does not therefore intend this by the ferred upon him, and calls-the Apostles as his expression, "contrariwise," but that so far were witnesses, saying, they from blaming, that they praised him for praise is the contrary of blame. Some would probably here reply: Why did not the Apostles, if they praised your procedure, as the proper consequence abolish circumcision? Now to assert that they did abolish it Paul considered much too bold, and inconsistent with his own admission. On the other hand, to admit that they had sanctioned circumcision, would necessarily expose him to another objection. For it would be said, if the Apostles praised your preaching, yet sanctioned circumcision, they were inconsistent with themselves. What then is the solution? is he to say that they acted thus out of condescension to Judaism? To say this would have shaken the very foundation of the economy. Whereforehe leaves the subject in suspense and uncertainty, by the words, "but of those who were reputed to be somewhat; it maketh no matter to me." Which is in effect to say, I accuse not, nor traduce those holy men; they know what it is they have done; to God must they render their account. What I am desirous to prove is, that they neither reversed nor corrected my procedure, nor added to it as in their opinion defective, but gave it their approbation and assent; and to this Titus and Barnabas bear witness. Then he adds,

Ver. 7. "When they saw that I had been entrusted with the Gospel of the Uncircumcision even as Peter with the Gospel of the Circumcision2,"—

The Circumcision and Uncircumcision; meaning, not the things themselves, but the nations known by these distinctions; wherefore he adds,

Ver. 8. "For He that wrought for Peter unto the Apostleship of the Circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles."

He calls the Gentiles the Uncircumcision and the Jews the Circumcision, and declares his own rank to be equal to that of the Apostles; and, by comparing himself with their Leader not with the others, he shows that the dignity of

[They did virtually abolish circumcision by the decree of the council at Jerusalem as is shown in the account in (Acts xv.) And the failure of the effort to have Titus circumcised shows that the account in Gal. ii has nothing inconsistent with that decree. This as to Gentiles. The question did not concern Jews, who were already circumcised in infancy except in cases like that of Timothy where circumcision had been neglected. His case Paul himself decided without any consultation with others.-G. A.]

"["This passage cannot be worse misunderstood than it has been by Baur according to whom there was a special Gospel of the uncircumcision and a special gospel of the circumcision, one maintaining the necessity of circumcision, the other allowing it to drop."Meyer-G. A.]

He says not when they heard," but when they "perceived," that is, were assured by the facts themselves, "they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship." Observe how he gradually proves that his doctrine was ratified both by Christ and by the Apostles. For grace would neither have been implanted, nor been operative in him, had not his preaching been approved by Christ. Where it was for the purpose of comparison with himself, he mentioned Peter alone; here, when be calls them as witnesses, he names the three together, "Cephas, James, John," and with an encomium, "who were reputed to be pillars." Here again the expression "who were reputed" does not impugn the reality of the fact, but adopts the estimate of others, and implies that these great and distinguished men, whose fame was universal, bare witness that his preaching was ratified by Christ, that they were practically informed and convinced by experience concerning it. "Therefore they gave the right hands of fellowship" to me, and not to me only, but also to Barnabas, "that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the Circumcision.” Here indeed is exceeding prudence as well as an incontrovertible proof of their concord. For it shows that his and their doctrine was interchangeable, and that both approved the same thing, that they should so preach to the Jews, and he to the Gentiles. Wherefore he adds, Ver. 9.

"That we should go unto the Gentiles and they unto the Circumcision."4

Observe that here also he means by "the Circumcision," not the rite, but the Jews; whenever he speaks of the rite, and wishes to contrast it, he adds the word "uncircumcision;" as when he says, "For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law; but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision." (Ro. ii: 25.) And again, "Neither circumcision availeth any

[blocks in formation]

thing, nor uncircumcision." But when it is to the Jews and not to the deed that he gives this name, and wishes to signify the nation, he opposes to it not uncircumcision in its literal sense, but the Gentiles. For the Jews are the contradistinction to the Gentiles, the Circumcision to the Uncircumcision. Thus when he says above, "For He that wrought for Peter into the Apostleship of the Circumcision, wrought for me also unto the Gentiles ;" and again, "We unto the Gentiles and they unto the Circumcision," he means not the rite itself, but the Jewish nation, thus distinguishing them from the Gentiles.

Ver. 10. "Only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do."

This is his meaning: In our preaching we divided the world between us, I took the Gentiles and they the Jews, according to the Divine decree; but to the sustenance of the poor among the Jews I also contributed my share, which, had there been any dissension between us, they would not have accepted. Next, who were these poor persons? Many of the believing Jews in Palestine had been deprived of all their goods, and scattered over the world, as he mentions in the Epistle to the Hebrews1," "For ye took joyfully the spoiling of your possessions ;' and in writing to the Thessalonians, (1 Thes. ii: 14.) he extols their fortitude, "Ye became imitators of the Churches of God which are in Judæa, . . . for ye also suffered the same thing of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews." And he shows throughout that those Greeks who believed were not under persecution from the rest, such as the believing Jews were suffering from their own kindred, for there is no nation of a temper so cruel. Wherefore he exercises much zeal, as appears in the Epistles to the Romans (Ro. xv: 25-27.) and Corinthians (1 Cor. xvi: 1—3.) that these persons should meet with much attention; and Paul not only collects money for them, but himself conveys it, as he says, "But now I go unto Jerusalem ministering unto the saints," (Ro. xv: 25.) for they were without the necessaries of life. And he here shows that in this instance having resolved to assist them, he had undertaken and would not abandon it.

Having by these means declared the unanimity and harmony between the Apostles and himself, he is obliged to proceed to mention his debate with Peter at Antioch.

Ver. 11, 12. "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came

[Hebrews x: 34 [This is interesting as showing that Chrysostom attributed the Epistle to the Hebrews to St. Paul, though most modern critics do not agree with him in that view.—G. A.]

[merged small][ocr errors]

Many, on a superficial reading of this part of the Epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it; 2 we shall discover great wisdom, both of Paul and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their hearers. But first a word must be said about Peter's freedom in speech, and how it was ever his way to outstrip the other disciples. Indeed it was upon one such occasion that he gained his name from the unbending and impregnable character of his faith. For when all were interrogated in common, he stepped before the others and answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Mat. xvi: 16.) This was when the keys of heaven were committed to him. So too, he appears to have been the only speaker on the Mount; (Mat. xvii: 4.) and when Christ spoke of His crucifixion, and the others kept silence, he said, "Be it far from Thee." (Mat. xvi: 22.) These words evince, if not a cautious temper, at least a fervent love; and in all instances we find him more vehement than the others, and rushing forward into danger. So when Christ was seen on the beach, and the others were pushing the boat in, he was too impatient to wait for its coming to land. (John xxi: 7.) And after the Resurrection, when the Jews were murderous and maddened, and sought to tear the Apostles in pieces, he first dared to come forward, and to declare, that the Crucified was taken up into heaven. (Acts ii: 14, 36.) It is a greater thing to open a closed door, and to commence an action, than to be free-spoken afterwards. How could he ever dissemble who had exposed his life to such a populace? He who when scourged and bound would not bate a jot of his courage, and this at the beginning of his mission, and in the heart of the chief city where there was so much danger,-how could he, long afterwards in Antioch, where no danger was at hand, and his character had received lustre from the testimony of his actions, feel any apprehension of the believing Jews? How could he, I say, who at the very first and in their chief city feared not the Jews while Jews, after a long time and in a foreign city, fear those of them who had been converted ? Paul therefore does not speak this against Peter, but with the same meaning in which he said, "for they who were reputed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me." But to remove any doubt on this point, we must unfold the reason of these expressions. The Apostles, as I said before, permitted cir* [ἀλλ' οὐκ ἔστι ταῦτα, οὐκ ἔστιν άπαγε.-G. Α.]


cumcision at Jerusalem, an abrupt severance the discerning, that he uses them in pursuance from the law not being practicable; but when of the plan, (dtxovopias) and not from anger. they come to Antioch, they no longer continued His words are, “When Cephas came to Antithis observance, but lived indiscriminately with och, I resisted him to the face, because he stood the believing Gentiles which thing Peter also condemned; " that is, not by me but by others; was at that time doing. But when some came had he himself condemned him, he would not from Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he have shrunk from saying so. And the words, delivered there, he no longer did so fearing to "I resisted him to the face," imply a scheme perplex them, but he changed his course, with for had their discussion been real, they would two objects secretly in view, both to avoid offend- not have rebuked each other in the presence of ing those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable the disciples, for it would have been a great pretext for rebuking him. For had he, having stumbling block to them. But now this apparallowed circumcision when preaching at Jerusa-ent contest was much to their advantage; as lem, changed his course at Antioch, his conduct would have appeared to those Jews to proceed from fear of Paul, and his disciples would have condemned his excess of pliancy. And this would have created no small offence; but in Paul, who was well acquainted with all the facts, his withdrawal would have raised no such suspicion, as knowing the intention with which he acted. Wherefore Paul rebukes, and Peter submits, that when the master is blamed, yet keeps silence, the disciples may more readily come over. Without this occurrence Paul's exhortation would have had little effect, but the occasion hereby afforded of delivering a severe reproof, impressed Peter's disciples with a more lively fear. Had Peter disputed Paul's sentence, he might justly have been blamed as upsetting the plan, but now that the one reproves and the other keeps silence, the Jewish party are filled with serious alarm; and this is why he used Peter so severely. Observe too Paul's careful choice of expressions, whereby he points out to

1S. Jerome adopts the interpretation given in the text, viz. that S. Peter's dissimulation was no sin, but intended as an opportunity for S. Paul to declare the freedom of the Gentiles from the Jewish Law. On the other hand, S. Austin considers that he acted through wrong motives, and sinned in dissembling. In this opinion he is supported by Tertullian, S. Cyprian S. Cyril, of Alexandria, S. Gregory and Ambrosiaster. (Hieron. in loc, et alibi. August. de Bapt. contr. Donatist. ii. 2. de Mendacio 8. Tertull. de Præs cript. 23. in Marc. iv. 3. v. 3. Cyprian, Ep. ad Quint. 71. Cyril. Alex. in Julian. ix. fin. Gregor. in Ezech. ii. Hom. 6, 9. Ambrosiast, in loc.) S. Austin is influenced in his judgment of the transaction by an anxiety lest disingenuousness and duplicity should receive countenance from the apparent example of an Apostle; S. Chrysostom and S. Jerome by affectionate reverence for the memory of so great a benefactor and so exalted a saint. Vid. Justinian, in loco.

[In earlier life Chrysostom had himself practised such a to induce his friend Basil to be consecrated as a bishop he made on him the (false) impression that he himself had already been consecrated. ] Neander (Life of Chrysostom p. 22.) says: "In the first book of his work on the Priesthood Chrysostom defends the principle that a falsehood is permitted for a good object. An invention which has for its sole object the advantage of another is rather an oizorouía (the word he uses in expounding our passage.) This lax view respecting truth was not peculiar to Chrysostom but was consonant with the prevailing spirit of the Eastern Church. There were a few exceptions however to this view, among whom were John of Lycopolis in Egypt, and Basil of Caesarea who Says του κυρίου διαφορὰν ψεύδους οὐδεμαίν εκφήναντος. Schaff

"scheme," as that which he here attributes to Paul. In order

tle for a purpose.

says (Prolegomena p. 8): "Origen, Jerome and Chrysostom explain the offense of this collision away by turning it into a theatrical and hypocritical farce, shrewdly arranged by the AposIn this respect the modern standard of ethics is far superior to that of the Fathers and more fully accords with the spirit of the New Testament." [We may add that Chrysostom's view gains nothing; for to save one Apostle from the charge of unpremeditated hypocrisy, he makes both guilty of premeditated hypocrisy.-G. A.]

Paul had yielded to the Apostles at Jerusalem, so in turn they yield to him at Antioch. The cause of censure is this, "For before that certain came from James," who was the teacher at Jerusalem, "he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the Circumcision:" his cause of fear was not his own danger, (for if he feared not in the beginning, much less would he do so then,) but their defection. As Paul himself says to the Galatians, “I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain: (Gal. iv: 11.) and again, "I fear lest by any means as the serpent beguiled Eve, so your minds should be corrupted." (2 Cor. xi: 3.) Thus the fear of death they knew not, but the fear lest their disciples should perish, agitated their inmost soul.

[ocr errors]

Ver. 13. "Insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation."

Be not surprised at his giving this proceeding the name of dissimulation, for he is unwilling, as I said before, to disclose the true state of the case, in order to the correction of his disciples.

On account of their vehement attachment to
the Law, he calls the present proceeding "dis-
simulation," and severely rebukes it, in order
effectually to eradicate their prejudice. And
Peter too, hearing this joins in the feint, as if
he had erred, that they might be corrected by
means of the rebuke administered to him. Had
Paul reproved these Jews, they would have
spurned at it with indignation, for they held
him in slight esteem; but now, when they saw
their Teacher silent under rebuke, they were
unable to despise or resist Paul's sentence.
Ver. 14.
"But when I saw that they walked
not uprightly according to the truth of the Gos-

Neither let this phrase disturb you, for in
using it he does not condemn Peter, but so ex-
presses himself for the benefit of those who
were to be reformed by the reproof of Peter.
Ver. 14. "I said unto Cephas before them


Observe his mode of correcting the others;

[ocr errors]

he speaks before them all," that the hearers might be alarmed thereby. And this is what he says,

Ver. 14. "If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"


These words are hortatory, but are couched in the form of a reproof, on account of those Jews. So elsewhere, under cover of one meaning he conveys another; as where he says in his Epistle to the Romans, "But now I go unto Jerusalem, ministering unto the saints." (Rom. xv: 25.) Here his object was not simply to inform them of the motive of his journey to Jerusalem, but to excite them to emulation in the giving of alms. Had he merely wished to explain his motive, it would have sufficed to say, "I go to ministering unto the saints; but now observe what he says in addition; "For it hath been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem. Yea, it hath been their good pleasure and their debtors they are." And again, "For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them, also to minister unto them in carnal things." (Rom. xv: 26, 27.)

[ocr errors]

Observe how he represses the high thoughts of the Jews; preparing for one thing by means of another, and his language is authoritative. "We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles." The phrase, "Jews by nature," implies that we, who are not proselytes, but educated from early youth in the Law, have relinquished our habitual mode of life, and betaken ourselves to the faith which is in Christ.

But it was the Jews and not the Gentiles who were carried away together with Peter; why then does Paul impute what was not done, instead of directing his remarks, not against the Gentiles, but against the dissembling Jews? And why does he accuse Peter alone, when the rest also dissembled together with him? Let us consider the terms of his charge; "If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" for in fact Peter alone had withdrawn himself. His object then is to remove suspicion from his rebuke; had he blamed Peter for observing the Law, the Jews I would have censured him for his boldness towards their Teacher. But now arraigning him in behalf of his own peculiar disciples, I mean the Gentiles, he facilitates thereby the reception of what he has to say; which he also does by abstaining from reproof of the others, and addressing it all to the Apostle. "If thou," he says, "being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews;" which almost amounts to an explicit exhortation to imitate their Teacher, who, himself a Jew, lived after the manner of the Gentiles. This however he says not, for they could not have received such advice, but under color of reproving him in behalf of the Gentiles, he discloses Peter's real Observe here too how cautiously he expresses sentiments. On the other hand, if he had said, himself; he does not say that they had abanWherefore do you compel these Jews to Judaize ?doned the Law as evil, but as weak. If the law his language would have been too severe. But now he effects their correction by appearing to espouse the part, not of the Jewish, but of the Gentile, disciples; for rebukes, which are moderately severe, secure the readiest reception. And none of the Gentiles could object to Paul that he took up the defense of the Jews. The whole difficulty was removed by Peter's submitting in silence to the imputation of dissimulation, in order that he might deliver the Jews from its reality. At first Paul directs his argument to the character which Peter wore, "If thou, being a Jew" but he generalizes as he goes on, and includes himself in the phrase,1 Ver. 15. "We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles."2

1. [For the bearing of this passage upon the Tübingen theory of Baur, "the most important of recent theological controversies" see Lightfoot's Commentary on Galatians, Excursus on St. Paul and the Three, pp. 191 ff, and Fisher's Supernatural Origin of Christianity, pp. 205-ff.-G. A.]

[Schaff says: "The following verses to the end of the chapter are a summary report or dramatic sketch of Paul's address to Peter." So also Meyer who gives four good reasons for this view. So also Schmoller (in Lange) and Ellicott, Others think that vv. 15-21 are addressed to the Galatians.-G. A.]


Ver. 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, save through faith, in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus."

cannot confer righteousness, it follows that circumcision is superfluous; and so far he now proves; but he proceeds to show that it is not only superfluous but dangerous. It deserves especial notice, how at the outset he says that a man is not justified by the works of the Law; but as he proceeds he speaks more strongly;

Ver. 17. "But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners is Christ a minister of sin ?"

If faith in Him, says he, avail not for our justification, but it be necessary again to embrace the Law, and if, having forsaken the Law for Christ's sake, we are not justified but condemned for such abandonment,-then shall we find Him, for whose sake we forsook the Law and went over to faith the author of our condemnation.3 Observe how, he has

["Thus to be justified in Christ, it was necessary to sink to the level of Gentiles, to become 'sinners' in fact. But are we not thus making Christ a minster of sin? Away with the profane thought! No, the guilt is not in abandoning the Law, but in seekThus alone we convict ourselves of ing it again when abandoned. transgression. On the other hand in abandoning the Law we did but follow the promptings of the Law." Lightfoot.-G. A.]

« AnteriorContinuar »