The Pulpit Commentary — Galatians — Section 119

producing repugnBoce to Gentiles as babit- to live as do the J'ews1 (,..(;; 1 [Reeeptus, •rl] unlly using uoclenn meats, be brought with '7"4 (Ov71 lr.va-y1t&(m 'Iou5at(,w ;). In place of bitn when crossing Oornelius's thresbolcl; ,,.;, why, recent editions read ,...;,, how, nod thnt it is quite supposable that, io w~ich ~s a more emphatic i~tcrrogatory "eating with Gentiles" while his visit to with a tmge of wonderment; as if it were, Cornelius coutinnecl, be hncl hacl oo occasion '' How is it possible that--?" (so J Cor. to break thrnugh I hose barriers of restriction xv. 12). The verb "Juclaize" nccurs in which the Law of itself imposed. But, on the Septuag!ntof Esth. viii. 17, "And many the other baud, it is also quite supposable of the Gentiles bad themselves circumcised thBt the 1mswer made to him in the vision and Judaized (iovB&,(ov) by rcaAon of bad, if not at unce, e.t least later, led him'on their fear of the Jews." It is plainly equi- to the further conviction that God had now valent to louBai,c/;,r (~v. Compellest, i.P-. ninde all kinds of meat lawful for a Chris- settest thyself to compel. The " compul- tian's use, although, when consorting, as in sion" applied by Cephas was a moral com- the me.in be had to do, with Jews, he would pulsion; he was, in effect, withholding from still bow to the Levitical restrir.tions. The them Christian fellowship, unless they Petrine Gospel of St. Mark e.ppenrs, accord- Judaized. Put into words, hie conduct said ing to the now by m11ny accepted reading this: "If you will Judaize, I will bold fellow- of 1taOap/(o,v in the text of vii. 19, to have ship with you; if you will not, you are not stated that Christ in teaching, " W he.teoever qualified for full fraternal recognition from from without goeth into the man, it cannot me." The withholding of Christian frater- defile him," he.cl said this, "making all nization, short of formal Oh nrch excomm uni- meats clean." There is no question that in ce.tion such RB 1 Cor. v. 3-5, is e. powerful St. Paul's own view e.t that epoch of bis engine of Christian influence, the use of ministry when he wrote this Epistle, "no- which is distinctly authorized and even thing," to use his own words, "is unclean commanded in Scripture (Rom. xvi. 17 ; of itself" (Rom-. xiv., 14; 1 Cor. x. 28, 25) ; 1 Cor. v. 11 ; 2 These. iii. 6, 14; 2 Tim. and we have no reason to doubt that he Iii. 5; Titus iii. 10; 2 John l 0), and may on had "been in. the Lord Jesus persuaded" of occasion be employed by private Christians this long before,-e.t the very outset pro- on their own responsibility. But its nse, bably of bis ministry. It is, therefore, not when not clearly justified, is not only a unlikely that this same persuasio:n of the cruelty to our brethren, but an outrage upon real indift'erency of all kinds of meat hBd what St. Paul here calls the truth of tbe been by Obrist instilled into St. Peter's gospel. It is at our peril that we grieve, mind as well. But if it were thus in re- by a cold or unbrotherly bearing towards spect to the use of meats, it would be thus him, one whom we have reason to believe also in reference to all other kinds of pnrely God has "received" (Rom. xiv. 3; xv. 7). ceremonial restriction. Very shortly before If God in Christ owns and loves him as a these occurrences at Antioch, St. Peter had son, we ought to fraukly own and love him at Jernealem openly and strongly expressed e.s e. brother. the feeling which he experienced, how in- Ver. 15.-We who are J'ews by nature tolerably galling were the restraints imposed (;,µ..,s <f>6<T,. 'IovBai'o,); we being Jews by nature; by the Levitioal, not to say by the rabbini- or, we are Jews by nature. In point of con- clll, oeremonie.lism; "a yoke," .he said, struction, it may be observed that, after "which neither our fathers nor we were able ,16&-ru in the next verse, recent editors con- to bee.r"-language which seems to betoken our in inserting Be. With this correction of o. mind which had spiritually been set e.t the text, we mny either make this fifteenth liberty from the yoke. On the whole, the verse o. separate sentence, by supplying inference naturally suggested by St. Paul's luµ.ev, "we are Jews by nature," etc., and words, "Thou livest e.e do the Gentiles, and begin tho next verse with the words, " but not as do the Jews," commends itself as the yet, knowing that . . . even we believetl," true one; namely this-that St. Petor, not ete. ; or we may supply in this verse" being," on that oconsion only, but also on others, and, conjoining it with ·• knowing," take the when thrown into contact with masses of two verses as forming one sentence; thus: Gentile oonvorts, wo.s wont to assert. his " We Leing Jews . . . yet knowing that . . . Christian liberty ; tho.t, like e.s St. Paul did, even wo believed," etc. For I he general so did he: while, on the one hand, to the sense, it i~ quite imme.terinl which mode of Jews he became aeo Jew, to them unrler the construing we adopt. The Revisers have Law as under the Law, thnt he might gain preferred the latter. The former mukes the the Jows, gain them that were under the passage run more smoothly; but this, in con- Law, so o.lso, on the other, to them that struing St. Paul's writings, is by no means I\ were without Law he became as without consideration of weight. "We,'' that is, Law, that he might gain also them (1 Cor. ix. "I Pnul, and tho11 Cephas," rather than 20, 21). Why oompellest thou the Gentiles "I Paul, and thou Cephus, with those wbo  84 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [ Cll, II, 1-21, ---------------------------- Rre acting with thee; " for we read before, justified by the worka of the Law (llT1 ob "I said unto Cephas," not" unto Cephas and li1Ka1ouTa1 1'v6p..,..-es ii ¥p-ywv 11&µov); or, by the rest of the Jews." "By nature;" because wo,·ks of Law; or, by works qfthe Law. That we were Jews by birt.h. But the two ex- is, works prescribed by the Law of Moses. pret!~ions, "by nature" and "by birth." are The verb li,1Cawu-ra, is in the present tense, not convertible terms, as is evident from because the apostle is stating a geneml eh. iv. 8 and Rom. ii. 14; the former co,eni principle. The sentence, Ob li1Kaioi,.,.a1 I{ wid"r ground than the latter. The pre- lp-ywv v&µov, if regnrd be had to the exact rogatives 11.ttnching to the natural position sense of the proposition l!, may be supposed of a born Jew were higher than those which to mean " does not d,erive righteousness appertained to a circumcised proselyte. from works of the Law;" does not get to be This is why be adds," by nature." "Jews;" justly regarded as holy, pure from guil~ a term of honourable distinction, closely by apprornble, in consequence of any things dons its etymology connected in 1he mind of a in obedience to God's positive Law. The Hebrew with the notion of "praise" ( comp. precise meaning and bearing of the aphorism Gen. ix. 8; Rom. ii. 29); a term, there- will appear presently. But by the faith fore, of theocratic vaunting (Rom. ii. 17). of J'esus Christ (lav µ.¾, 11,a ..-lcruws 'I11crou And not sin.ners of the Gentiles (Kal oiiK •! Xp,cr-roii); but only through faith c,f Jesus J6vwv a.µ.ap-rw>..o{); and not of the Gentiles Christ. 'E,b, µ.~, like ,1 µ~, properly means sinner-11. The word "sinners" must be here "except," "save; " hut St. Paul would have taken, not in that purely moral acceptation betrayed his own position if he had allowed in which all are" sinners," but in that mixed that " works of the Law" could ever have sense in which moral disapproval was largely any part whatever in procuring justification. tinged with the bigoted disdain which the 'Eav µ.'/'i inust, therefore, be understood here theocratic Israelite felt for "the uncircum- in that partially ezcepti-De sense remarked ci.l!ed;" the Levitically purist Jew for them upon in the note on eh. i. 7 as freqnently who, hanng no" Law" (cvoµ.o,), wallowed in attaching to ,l µ.f/, that is, it means " but every kind of ceremonial pollution, "un- only." '.rhe apostle plainly intends to make clean," "dogs" ( oomp. Matt. xv. 37; Phil. the categorical affirmation that no man gains iii. 2; Acts ii. 23). All a notion correlative jllStification eave through faith in Christ; to that of "Jews," the word is used by our ob lilKa.lOVTIZI 1'v8pw,ros El µ.¾, 11,a ..-IO'TEWS 'l17crou Lord himself when he spoke of his being de- Xp10'Toii. The variation of the proposition, livered into the hands of "sinners" (Matt. o,a in this clause for /,c in the preceding xxvi. 45; comp. Matt. xx. 19). As corre- clause, we find age.in in Phil. iii. 9, "Not lative to that of persons fit for the society of having a righteousness which is mine own, the righteous and Levitieally holy, it is used that which is ('" 11&µ011) of the Law [i.e. by Christ and the evangelists in the phras1,, derived from the Law], but that which is "publicans and sinners," in which it is (o,a .,.,crT<ws)through faith of Christ." That nearly equivalent to "outcasts." So the no real difference is here intended in the apostle uses it here. With an ironical sense is shown by the use immediately afk~ mimesis of the tone of language which e. of iK in the clause, Yva li11Ca.1w8wµ.•v IK ,r[O'TEQ>S self-righteous legalist loved to employ, he Xp1crToii. For the apostle's present argu- means in effect, " not come from among ment it is immaterial whether we ar1a Gentiles, sinful oufoasts." :May not the said to gain righteousness through faith or apostle be imagined to have quite lately from it. As Bishop Lightfoot, however, heard such phrases from the lips of some observes, " Faith is, strictly speaking, only of those Pharisee - minded Christians to the means, not the source of justification. whom Cephas was unhappily now truckling? The one proposition (11,a) excludes this latter For the right appreciation of the train of notion, while the other ('11e) might imply it. thought which the apostle is now pursuing, Besides these, we meet also with brl 1rlcrTE, it is import.ant to observe that both Cephas (Phil. iii. 9), but never 11,a .,./cr-rw, 'propter and Paul had reason to regard themselves fidem,' which would involve [or, might per- as having been, before they were justified, haps suggest] a doctrinal error. Compare the einnere in another sense of the deepest dye. careful language in the Latin of our Article St. Paul felt to the very end of his days tbat XL, • per fidem, non propter opera.' " The he had once been, and that therefore in genitive 'l17croi, Xp,crToii after .,.[,,T,ws is himself he still was, a chief of sinners paralleled by tx•TE 1rlO'T<11 e,oii ia Mark xi. (i,.µ.a.p,,-,.,-;...o~s, wv .,.p6n-6s .iµ., <-yw); and surely 22, and by .,.(O'T<"'s avToii in Eph. iii. 12. the wickedness into which Cephas precipi- Possibly the genitive was preferred here to tated himself on the morning of his Lord's saying ,is 'l710'oiiv Xp,crT&v, as verbally pre- plM!eion must have left ever a.ft.er in hia mind senting the sharper autitheeie to lp-yw11 t.oo a similar consciousness. v&µ.ov. Even we (Kai 71µ.,,s); just e.s any Ver.16.-Xnowing (dlio-ru Ii,: see note on sinful outcast of a Gentile would have to do. ,-er. l5); 11et k1\fn/Jin9. Th~t a. 11111,11 ill ~ot Jiavo beli11ve4 in ;J'e&UI! Christ (Eis ~plO'Tbv c,a, n. 1-21.] 'l'lIE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.