Galatians 2:19

For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. Here Paul seems to pass from his exact words to Peter, to the general purport of his argument. However, his direct address to the Galatians seems not to be resumed until Galatians 3:1, "O foolish Galatians," etc. FOR - But I am not a "transgressor" by forsaking the law. "God forbid" such premises as would make "Christ the minister of sin" (Galatians 2:17). "For," etc. Christ, so far from being the minister of sin and death, is righteousness and life in me. I-here emphatic. Paul himself, not Peter, as in the "I," Galatians 2:18, enforcing the argument by his personal experience....

19._For I through the law_. Now follows the direct reply, that we must not ascribe to Christ that work which properly belongs to the law. It was not necessary that Christ should destroy the righteousness of the law, for the law itself slays its disciples. As if he had said, “You deceive wretched men by the false notion, that they must live by the law; and, under that pretext, you keep them in the law. And yet you bring it as a charge against the Gospel, that it annihilates the righteousness which we have by the law. But it is the law which forces us to die to itself; for it threatens our destruction, leaves us nothing but despair, and thus drives us away from trusting to the law.” This passage will be better understood by comparing it with Romans 7:0. There Paul describes beautifully, that no man lives to the law, but he to whom the law is dead, that is, has lost all power and ef

15-19 Paul, having thus shown he was not inferior to any apostle, not to Peter himself, speaks of the great foundation doctrine of the gospel. For what did we believe in Christ? Was it not that we might be justified by the faith of Christ? If so, is it not foolish to go back to the law, and to expect to be justified by the merit of moral works, or sacrifices, or ceremonies? The occasion of this declaration doubtless arose from the ceremonial law; but the argument is quite as strong against all dependence upon the works of the moral law, as respects justification. To give the greater weight to this, it is added, But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ the minister of sin? This would be very dishonourable to Christ, and also very hurtful to them. By considering the law itself, he saw that justification was not to be expected by the w...

Verse 19. _FOR I THROUGH THE LAW AM DEAD TO THE LAW_] In consequence of properly considering the _nature_ and _requisitions_ of the law, _I am dead_ to all hope and expectation of help or salvation from _the law_, and have been obliged to take refuge in the Gospel of Christ. Or, probably the word νομος, LAW, is here put for a _system of doctrine_; as if he had said, _I through the_ _Gospel am dead to the law_. The law itself is consigned to death, and another, the Gospel of Christ, is substituted in its stead. The _law_ condemns to death, and I have embraced the _Gospel_ that I might be saved from _death_, and _live unto God_....

FOR I THROUGH THE LAW - On this passage the commentators are by no means agreed. It is agreed that in the phrase “am dead to the law,” the Law of Moses is referred to, and that the meaning is, that Paul had become dead to that as a ground or means of justification. He acted as though it were not; or it ceased to have influence over him. A dead man is insensible to all around him. He hears nothing; sees nothing; and nothing affects him. So when we are said to be dead to anything, the meaning is, that it does not have an influence over us. In this sense Paul was dead to the Law of Moses. He ceased to observe it as a ground of justification. It ceased to be the grand aim and purpose of his life, as it had been formerly, to obey it. He had higher purposes than that, and truly lived to God; see the note at Romans 6:2. But on the meaning of the phrase “through the law” ...

EXPOSITION In the preceding chapter, St. Paul has been concerned to make clear the position that neither the gospel which he preached nor the commission which he held was derived from the older apostles- the history of the first years of his ministry showed this. The apostle is now addressing himself to a different subject; he wishes to show that his gospel, though not derived from the older apostles, had, however, while recognized as standing on an independent footing, received the sanction of their approval. This being his object, he had no occasion to refer in any way to visits which he may have made to Jerusalem between the one mentioned in Galatians 1:18 and the one here referred to. The tenor of his argument, therefore, so far, does not of itself determine whether this visit was either the one mentioned in...

FOR I THROUGH THE LAW AM DEAD TO THE LAW,.... The apostle further replies to the objection against the doctrine of justification, being a licentious one, from the end of his, and other believers, being dead to the law: he owns he was dead unto it, not in such sense as not to regard it as a rule of walk and conversation, but so as not to seek for life and righteousness by it, nor to fear its accusations, charges, menaces, curses, and condemnation: he was dead to the moral law as in the hands of Moses, but not as in the hands of Christ; and he was dead to it as a covenant of works, though not as a rule of action, and to the ceremonial law, even as to the observance of it, and much more as necessary to justification and salvation: and so he became "through the law"; that is, either through the law or doctrine of Christ; for the Hebrew word תורה, to which νομος answers, signifies properly do...

Galatians 2:1. _Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation,-_ He was sent by the church at Antioch, but the church there was guided by revelation, so that Paul is correct in saying, «I went up by revelation,» Galatians 2:2. _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. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 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:_ There were always some among the J

CHAPTER 2 _ 1. How Jerusalem had Confirmed the Gospel Paul Preached. (Galatians 2:1)_ 2. Peter's Failure; Paul's Rebuke and Testimony. (Galatians 2:11) Fourteen years passed by before he ever saw Jerusalem again. What wonderful years of service these years were! The great servant of Christ had preached the divine message in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. The day of Christ will reveal the blessed results of these years. Acts 15:1 must be read to see why Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem. The same false teachers had visited the great Gentile center, Antioch, and taught “except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” Then Paul and Barnabas were appointed to

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 o