Chapter 2:11-17. (Continued from page 292.)

We have seen that the apostles of the circumcision had recognized, or expressed their hearty fellowship with, Paul's ministry as the apostle of the uncircumcision. It was incumbent upon him therefore that he should resist any attempt to undermine the true character of the grace of which he was the messenger. If such attempts developed among the believers, even if the apostles of the circumcision themselves should become implicated in practice not according to the truth of the gospel, it became him to withstand them.

Paul had been appointed by God to defend the gospel (Phil, i:17). As a faithful steward, he was to protect it against worldly wisdom, from admixture with human philosophies, and to maintain a walk and practice according to godliness. It was his prerogative and duty to withstand and rebuke any practice not according to the truth of the gospel.

It is evident the apostle is reminding the Galatian saints of this in chapter 2:11-17. They had been enticed into a practice which was not after godliness, but contrary to the truth of the gospel, and he would have them realize that his rebuke was by the authority of God. He desires also to deliver them from the troublers who had influenced them-who came under a judgment which he had authority to declare, and from which he would save the Galatians.

Earnest in his purpose to do this, he appeals to the fact that he had already had occasion to use the authority the Lord had given him to withstand and rebuke the very practice they had been influenced to turn to. Under Judaizing influences, they had yielded to the demands that had been pressed upon them, that Gentile believers must be circumcised before they could be allowed full Christian fellowship.

And this practice of denying to uncircumcised Gentiles, although believers, participation in all the privileges of Christian fellowship, seems to have developed very rapidly after the conference at Jerusalem. Paul's account of it we have already looked at. After that conference, he and Barnabas returned to Antioch, where for some time they continued as formerly to teach and preach the word of the Lord; many others also joining them in the work (Acts 15:35). While thus employed Peter visited Antioch. It is clear that at first he did not hesitate to mingle with and to recognize the uncircumcised Gentile believers as entitled to full Christian fellowship. Later, "certain came down from James." It may perhaps be going too far to say that James-the very apostle whom the Spirit of God used at the Jerusalem conference to express the will of God as to the Gentile believers-had so soon weakened and made concessions to those who were insistent on Judaizing Christianity; yet the fact that Paul says, "Certain came from James" (ver. 12), suggests the possibility that to some extent he had yielded to a movement that manifestly was gathering strength.

It is evident that Peter weakened before men come from James. He well knew the natural prejudices
of the circumcision. He yielded to what he realized was a strong Jewish sentiment and opinion. Through weakness, he dissembled. While not giving up the truth of the gospel, either his own or Paul's, he undertook to conciliate the well-developed Jewish sentiment. He sought to make it appear to those who were of the circumcision that he shared in their thoughts in not allowing Gentile converts equal privilege of full Christian fellowship. He was willing to hide his real sentiments as to the truth he held from God behind a practice in conformity with the Judaizers. It was not uprightness, but dissimulation. It was not faithfulness to the truth as he himself had preached it, and as, no doubt, he really held it in his heart.

Through Peter's dissembling, the other Jews were emboldened to submit to the growing influence of the men from James. Even Barnabas, seeing the extent to which the movement was spreading, gave in to it, thus lending his influence on the side of the Judaizers.

Now Paul, seeing the real significance of all this, and how thoroughly wanting in uprightness it was, boldly withstood the movement. He felt the responsibility of the deposit of truth entrusted to him. His apostleship gave him the prerogative of declaring the mind and will of God. As set by God for the defense of the gospel, he must rebuke the inconsistent practice-a practice not according to the truth of the gospel. The fact that one of the twelve apostles was involved in the Judaizing movement did not exempt him from the rebuke of Paul.

Paul then used the rod of his authority by openly and publicly withstanding Peter. He unmasked the
dissimulation, exposing its inconsistency with the truth as known and held by Peter. The rebuke thus administered by Paul stood. Peter, though one of the twelve, had to submit to it. Truth must stand, even against an apostle, if he violates it.

The condition of affairs in Galatia was such, at the time the apostle was writing this epistle, that they needed forceful words, and the apostle's courage in the use of the rod of correction is marked. So he narrates the circumstances of the failure, and the rebuke administered to the most distinguished of the Twelve. And as the arguments he had used to convict Peter applied with full force to the case of the Galatians, he also tells them what those arguments were. Let us now consider them.

First, if Peter associated with uncircumcised Gentiles on terms of equality, on the principle that "circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing "-a course of conduct which Peter himself had followed, as well known to all, it was a great wrong to take part in a movement whose object was to compel the Gentiles to Judaize. If he allowed, as his practice hitherto showed, that Gentile believers, though uncircumcised, were entitled to full Christian fellowship, then, consistently, he should not now link himself with a movement that was being carried on with a view to make circumcision the condition of equal fellowship. If it is of God that Gentile believers are of the household of faith, then to deny them practical participation in the privileges of His house is a glaring wrong.

The apostle thus is convicting the Galatians of their serious error in yielding, as Peter had done, to the claims and demands of the Judaizers. If compelling the Gentiles to be circumcised was on Peter's part inconsistent and, so, wrong, how plain a violation of the truth of the gospel it was for Gentile believers themselves to aid a movement which denied them the full blessing which the grace of God had brought them into! But let us follow the apostle's arguments with Peter further.

Secondly, he goes on to say:The believing Jews themselves know that no man, Jew or Gentile, is justified by works of law; that justification is by the faith which lays hold on Jesus Christ. This is one of the great lessons which God had taught by the law. In giving the law to the children of Israel, God set them at the task of working out a righteousness of their own. They did not succeed in doing it, as all knew. God Himself has declared the results of their seeking to make out a righteousness of their own. He proclaims their failure to be a clear and fair demonstration of the fact that no man-not merely the Jew, but the Gentile also-can establish his own righteousness in the presence of God. Now this, as plainly taught in the Old Testament Scriptures, was a part of the faith of God's true children. Those who, like Abraham, believed the testimony of God, knew that no man is justified by works of law. To this knowledge, which is the possession of faith, Paul here appeals in reasoning with Peter. Having done so, he goes on to say, Even we Jews have given up seeking justification by law-works. As those who have learned the lesson the law teaches, we have sought and found justification in the way the law has shown to be the only possible way. It has abundantly pointed out, in type and prophecy, that justification must be by Jesus Christ, to whom all the sacrifices in the law pointed. He tells Peter here that, as knowing all this, "we Jews" have believed in Jesus Christ, the One to whom the law has led us in order to be justified.

The plain force of the argument is:If we Jews are not justified by law-works, we have no ground to press it upon Gentiles. If we are justified by the faith that lays hold of Christ, how can we object to a Gentile being justified in the same way ? Is it right to hold and teach the doctrine (forced upon us by the law itself) that justification is not by law-works, but by faith in Christ, and then turn and say to the Gentiles, You must, by keeping the law, work out a righteousness of your own ?

It Peter's preaching had been in agreement with the lesson taught by the law. The gospel he preached was consistent with the law's declaration that "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified;" but his joining in with those who would deny to the believing Gentiles full Christian fellowship unless they accepted circumcision and the yoke of the law, was contrary to his doctrine. Before certain came from James he had acted consistently with the gospel he had preached; but after their arrival he weakly yielded to the Judaizing influence. It was double-mindedness. It was throwing the weight of his influence against the truth revealed of God. He thus rightly came under rebuke.

Thirdly, there was yet another argument used by Paul in his public exposure of Peter's blameworthy course. He says, in verse 17, Your present course implies that we Jews have sinned in seeking justification through Christ; but if it be so that we have sinned, then our sin is chargeable to Christ. It is through Christ we have ceased to go about to establish our own righteousness. Does not, then, your present course imply that Christ is the minister of sin ? Does it not involve believing that Christ has wrongly brought to an end the order of things under which we were specifically required to work out a righteousness of our own ?-in establishing another order of things under which righteousness is imputed to those who believe in Christ ?

The epistle concludes his appeal to Peter by saying, "God forbid!" or, rather, Far away be such a revolting thought! C. Crain

(To be continued.)