The Pulpit Commentary — Galatians — Section 116

ing with Jewish believers, when these were explained. It me.y be assumed that it was assailed by '"certain come from James." In this exercise of apostolic superintendence contrast with his own unflinching champion- that gave rise to the tradition, which gained ship of their cause, were here seen vacillation eerly MCeptonce in the Ohuroh (Eusebius, and inconsistency on the p,nt of" Cephas;" 'Hist. Eccl.,' iii. 36), that Peter was the first were, then, any justified in exalting those Bishop of Autioch. His presence there "pillars, James and Cephas," as certain now, while St. Paul wa.s also there found wore disposed to do, for the sake of dis- probably, its analogy, twelve or fourtee~ paraging him f This experience at Antioch years later, in the simultaneous presence of should lead them to regard with snspicion St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome; St. Peter Jewish or Philo-Judaic brethren, who were being there also, we may suppose, in the sett.ing themselves to tamper with the truth discharge of his office as apostle of the cir- of the. gospel. Crooked conduct was. sure cumcision. I withstood him to the faoe to accompany such darkening of the truth, ( 1<aT<1 1rp&,r,.,,rov ah,ji a.v.-,tr.-7111). I seized au as on that occasion was most palpably opportunity at o. meeting of the brethren evinced in the case of even Barnabas, and (ver. 14) of publicly confronting him as au w"s in open encounter before the whole adversary. It seems al:nost suggested that (;hnrch exposed and rebuked. And, espe- their spheres of work at Antioch, which c.ia.lly, there was tbe grand principle that was a very large city, were so far not iden- the LRw of l\Ioses was for the Christian tical thet they were not commonly to be believer annihilated through the crucifixion seen together. The verb a.v.-,,,,. 11 ,,, " set of Christ; which principle he had then myself to oppose him," expressing deter- helJ aloft in the view of the Church, and mined oppugnaucy (2 Tim. iii. 8; J as. iv. 7; lrnre takes occasion to enlarge upon, because l Pet. v. 9), strikes us the more, as coming it was so directly relevant and helpful in so soon after the " gave us the right hands respect to the trouble now springing up of fellowship" of ver. 7. His adopting in Galatia. Bnt when Peter was oome to this mode of recalling his straying brother Antioch (on lie -i\M• K71cpiis [Receptus, n&pos] instead of dealing with him in a more ,is 'Avnox«.av); but when Cephas came to private manner, is indicated with an evi- Antioch. The reading K11,Piis for nfrpos is dently intended pointedness. His course of generally accepted. The time at which this proceeding was both justified and required incident took place is in a measure deter- by the public nature of St. Peter's offence, mined, on the one side, by its being to and by the necessity of promptly exposing all appearance after the visit to Jerusalem and beating back the aggressions which which has been previously spoken of, and, Israelitish bigotry was always so ready to on the other, by the reference to Barnabas make upon the perfectly equal footing pos- in ver. 13 ; that is, we are naturally led sessed by all believers, by virtue simply of to assign it to that time of Paul's, and their relation to Christ. Becanae he was to Barnsbas's united labours at Antioch which be blamed (8n 1<aT<"fVliJ<Tµ.ovos ~v); because is briefly indicated in .Acts xv. 35. It can he stood condemned. The perfect passive hardly have occurred subsequently to the verb is commonly felt to point, not so much rupture between them which St. Luke im- to the censures of bystanders, as to the mediatelv after describes. The manner in glaring wrongness of his conduct viewed which St. Peter's coming to Antioch is in itself (comp. John iii. 18; Rom. xiv. 23). introduced seems to betoken that his coming The rendering to be blamed, corr!)ct so far as thither was not felt to have been at all an it reaches, is inadequate in expressing the extraordiuary circumstance. It is open to sense which St. Paul had of the gravity of us, aud indeed obvious, to conjecture that St. Peter's offence. It is interesting to note the visit was made in the course of one of the clear reference to this verse made in the those journeyings of St. Peter "throughout second century by the Ebionite author of the all parts," of which anr,ther, taking place 'Clementine Homilies,' who (Bishop Light- fourteen years or more previously, is men- foot observes, 'Galatians,' p. 61), writing in tioned in .Acts ix. 33. As the "apostle of a spirit of bitter hostility to St. Paul, who the circumcision," he was, we may reason- is covertly attacked in the perimn of Simon ably suppose, in the habit of traversing, Mague, represents St. Peter as addressing in con,pauy often with his wife (I Cor. ix. 5), Simon thus: " Thou hast confronted and the whole of those districts of Palestine withstood me (lvav.-los a.v0ltrT71Ka.s µ.01). If which were largely inhabited by Jews, and thou hadst not been an adversary, thou extending as far as Antioch itself, in the wouldest not have calwnniated and reviled exercise of apostolic supervision over the my preaching. . . . If thou callest me con- Jewish converts. Quite suppoaably, this demned (,can"(v,.,trµ.ovov), thou o.ccusest God was not his first visit to this city. The who revealed Christ to me"(' Hom.,' xvii. 19). ]engLLened continuance of his stay, which Not only is this a testimony to the authen- !I'ay be inferred from ver. 12, is thus ticity of the Epistle; it betokens also the OH, II, 1-21.] THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 81