Galatians 2:11-21

Excitement and consequent confusion rise higher still. In one sense, these verses record a climax; Paul is not merely Peter's equal he had exposed him once when Peter was plainly in the wrong. There is no ground for doubting that the order of time is followed. After the Jerusalem compact, Peter finds himself at Antioch (on a missionary tour? cf. 1 Corinthians 9:5). If Titus had been an outsider at Jerusalem, the tables are now turned, and Peter is the outsider. Following the dictates of his generous and impulsive heart, he comes inside. (One could not share communion in an apostolic church without joining in a solid meal.) But a deputation from James arrived, and found such conduct questionable. This was not a separation of spheres! Peter went round again, carried off with him all Jewish Christians except Paul, even Barnabas, and consequently put severe moral pressure on the Gentiles to conform to Judaism. Paul appealed to Peter's own principles. Jewish Christians, whatever their temptation to despise Gentile sinners, had come to Christ for salvation as sinners themselves (not unlike the speech of Peter, Acts 15:7).

Galatians 2:16. save through faith: Greek idiom, with its laxer logic, does not imply that works do something towards saving; the Revisers might have remembered English idiom! Follow mg.

At some indefinite point Paul's language glides from recapitulating what he had said to Peter into arguing with possible critics in Galatia. He quotes (with modifications in language, repeated again Romans 3:20) Psalms 143:2. An objector may say, Then Christ encourages sin. Full-blown, the objection stands (Romans 6:1): It doesn-' t matter how we live henceforth! The thought is here in the bud. Already Paul repudiates it with horror. No! if he were to go back to the Law he would be stamping himself as a sinner in the worse degree. (Law always condemns; and apart from law there is no full guilt; Romans 5:13.) The Law had done its right work with him in driving him to despair (cf. Romans 7). He had mystically shared Christ's crucifixion and Christ's risen life; he had recognised Christ's unspeakable love. How could he set aside such grace? You do that, if you seek to be saved by law! Were such salvation possible, Christ's death was gratuitous.

How did things end at Antioch? If communion had been renewed, would not Paul say so? Probably Peter slipped away dejectedly. And, when Paul left once more on missionary work, he had lost for life the company of Barnabas (Acts 15:37 ff.; these verses doubtless state part of the truth as to the cause of the quarrel). Yet Paul, in after years, speaks well of Barnabas (1 Corinthians 9:6) and of Mark (Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24; 2 Timothy 4:11). We can see, too, that he believes Peter's principles were on his side. Perhaps the strongest evidence that he felt victorious is his circumcising Timothy. That is the behaviour of one who could afford to be generous. It must have been an unwelcome surprise to hear of Judaizers in Galatia, and in spite of Lake, pp. 219 ff.! at Corinth.