Galatians Chapter 2.

GALATIANS CHAPTER 2.

Paul was independently called to be an apostle.  The Gospel was delivered to him by revelation of Jesus Christ.  His apostleship was independent of the apostles at Jerusalem.

           

In chapter 2 we suggest the following outline:

1/   2:1-10.  The apostles at Jerusalem come to recognize Paul's apostolic calling.

a.   Paul again visits Jerusalem and makes known to the apostles the Gospel he preached among the Gentiles. 2:1-2.

b.   Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. 2:3.

c.   Paul and his company resisted the interlopers who sought to destroy their Christian liberty. 2:4,5. 

d.   The leading Churchmen at Jerusalem recognized Paul's mission to the nations.  2:6-9.

e.   They suggested only one thing, that Paul remember the poor at Jerusalem.      2:10.

2/   2:11-21.  Paul's authority as an apostle was vindicated by the dispute at Antioch.

a.   Paul as an equal, reproves Peter. 2:11-14.

b.   The occasion Paul uses to express his teaching.  2:15-21 :

2:1.  It is not wholly certain whether the fourteen years are to be reckoned from his conversion or from the three years making in all seventeen years.  Ridderbos thinks the word `again' need not mean "the second time".  The Council at Jerusalem would be Paul's third visit according to Acts.  But if `again' need not mean a second time this would remove one difficulty in identifying Galatians 2 with Acts 15.  But we cannot be wholly sure that Galatians 2 is to be identified with the visit of Acts 15.

           

The apostle now enters upon the Second Section of the first part of the Epistle.  Firstly, having declared that he had received his apostleship from God alone through Jesus Christ, he now goes on to show that the apostles which were at Jerusalem, fully recognized the validity and authenticity of Paul's apostleship. 2:1-10. It is important to see the relationship of these two things in the autobiographical section.

           

Paul declares how after fourteen years he went up to Jerusalem again.  He doesn't write this now to correct the impression he has made of his independence of the apostles there.  He does not mean that eventually he went up to Jerusalem to have his apostleship confirmed by the ecclesiastical authorities in that city.  Neither did he receive an official dedication of his personal calling.  On the contrary, Paul is not now smoothing out the idea of his independence of the other apostles, but the account of his journey to Jerusalem actually confirmed and strengthened his independence.  For when he arrived at Jerusalem he was required to go through no form of dedication and he received no official consecration.  But the leaders readily recognized his apostleship.  Paul indicates certain things about this journey to Jerusalem:

           

a.  In consequence to a revelation Paul was accompanied by Barnabas and Titus, and they went to Jerusalem that he might sound out his Gospel before the apostles. 2:1-2. In 2:1 `dia' with the genitive marks the number of years passed between the two events that are under consideration.  B.D.F. translates `dia' as "after."  See page 119 (223.(1)).  It was at the end of fourteen years.  The `palin' (again) must imply the fourteen years are from his first visit rather than from his conversion.  Duncan seems to rightly imply that Paul would not have gone to Jerusalem had he not received instruction from a revelation.

b.  Paul went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas.  It does not read:  "Barnabas with Saul."  The Epistle is in agreement with Acts in ascribing to Paul the leading role on the occasion of their visit to Jerusalem.  See Acts 15:2.  Though Barnabas is named first in verse 12.

           

Bonnard like Ridderbos, Duncan, Burton, all take the three years to precede the fourteen.  Burton tells us that `epeita' is primarily a particle of chronological succession.  The entire period of seventeen years commenced with Paul's conversion.  During these seventeen years a development of tremendous importance had arisen.  It was the rise of pagan-Christianity.  This had its origins and centre at Antioch.  Not that every Christian Community was composed of Christians of pagan origins.  However, the presence of some of these converts were at Antioch.  Not that all the communities were composed of Christians who had previously been pagans, but the presence of some converts at Antioch as well as in other places, who were uncircumcised, must have presented a problem for the young Churches.  It is this problem that the Epistle to the Galatians is occupied.  For the Epistle is a solution to this tremendous problem.  In this Epistle we observe the early Church confronted with a new situation and in the Epistle we observe how the Church solves the situation.

           

When Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem, they took Titus with them, an excellent Gentile Christian.  He was probably taken as a test case.  Would they refuse fellowship to such an excellent Gentile Christian because of circumcision?

           

What determined that Paul should go to Jerusalem was not that the Church commanded him, nor that the apostles commanded him, but that he was given a revelation that he should go.

           

2:2.  Paul now begins to tell us why he went up to Jerusalem. His reason for this journey was not because the Church at Jerusalem had commanded him to come, nor because he felt his need to learn more of the Gospel message.  Paul affirms that he went up to Jerusalem after having received a revelation that he should go.  When they arrived at Jerusalem it is Paul who takes the initiative and he laid before them the Gospel that they preached to the pagans.  The Present tense `kerusso' suggests that the Gospel he preached at the time of writing was that which he preached at an earlier date.  It was the same Gospel that Paul had always preached, and that he continued to preach at the time he wrote.

           

He had a private interview with those who were of repute.  A mass meeting could contain elements that would not listen to reason.  Emotional elements could be roused.  He did this because he was concerned that they before whom he would lay his Gospel, may be able to consider it apart from unruly and emotional elements.  He says: "lest by any means I should be running or had run in vain."   Paul realized that an adverse decision would mean not only the failure of his mission to Jerusalem, but it could have an adverse effect upon his work among the Gentiles.  It does not mean that he had any doubt about the truth of the Gospel he preached, nor any doubt the rightness of the mission to the Gentiles.  As Paul went up to Jerusalem, two factors would occupy his mind: To preserve the truth of the Gospel that he had continued to preach from the time of  his conversion.  To maintain the unity of the Church and at the same time preserve the liberty they had in the Gentile Churches.

           

2:3.  Titus was a Greek.  No doubt they took Titus because, if he was not compelled to be circumcised, then it would set forth the position of the apostles at Jerusalem in a dramatic manner.  Bengel, Meyer, Alford, Lightfoot, Ramsay, Burton, Stamm and Guthrie do not believe that Paul yielded to have Titus circumcised.  Had he done so, it would have undermined his position.  On the other hand, Duncan thinks Paul conceded on this point.  Duncan's arguments are worth reading, but I think he is wrong here.

           

But verse 4 suggests that some pressure was brought upon Titus to be circumcised, but Paul and Barnabas refused to give way.  And probably as the N.E.B. suggests, this was suggested by the leaders as a concession to certain sham-Christians, but Paul tells us in verse 4: "not for a moment did I yield to their dictation."

           

2:2.  The N.E.B. describes the Judaizers as sham-Christians, interlopers, who had stolen in to spy upon the liberty we enjoy in the "fellowship of Christ Jesus."  Like spies entering into the land to survey it that conquering armies may enter in to overthrow and subdue it eventually. 

            The phrase, "in Christ Jesus" must mean "in the fellowship of the church."  The Galatian epistle has been described as the "Christian declaration of independence" from the mother faith, Judaism.

           

2:6-9.  Those who were reputed to be leaders at Jerusalem, when they saw that Paul had been chosen and commissioned to proclaim the gospel to the uncircumcised, that is, to the Gentiles, just as God had wrought through Peter's apostleship to the circumcised, they then gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.  The people at Jerusalem who would cause trouble for Paul were not the apostolic leaders in the church but spies who had made a sham profession  of Christianity, hoping to gain power and influence in the church.  They had come in stealthily.  The verb `pareiserchomai' means "to come in alongside" or "to slip in," "to sneak in."

           

`Kataskopeo', "to spy out."  It is used of a hostile intent, with the purpose to destroy, so "to spy out," "to lie in wait for."  Their intention was to enslave the Galatian Christians.  They were foes to resist and not for a moment did Paul yield to their dictation.  But the men of significance in the church at Jerusalem gave their wholehearted fellowship to Paul and Barnabas. They fully recognized Paul's apostleship.  They did not regard him as inferior to themselves.  But just as was given to Peter, the noted men among themselves, the apostleship to the Jews, so also there had been given to Paul, the apostleship to the Gentiles. 

           

But the use of the designation `circumcision' and `uncircumcision' suggests the Gospel was for both groups.  There was but one Gospel whether preached to `circumcision' or to the `uncircumcised'.  The Judaizers may have claimed that the apostles at Jerusalem had insisted that Paul should modify his Gospel.  At least Duncan thinks so.  But Paul insists that the division of labour was of Divine origin.  And he insists they perceived the grace that God gave to Paul, and that God had worked in him mightily to the Gentiles.  This was a divine arrangement and the leaders of the church at Jerusalem readily recognized it.

           

At the close of verse 6 Paul writes, "they imparted nothing to me."  That is, they gave him no further instruction but recognized him as a partner.

           

2:10.  They make only one request of Paul, that is, that he should remember the poor.  Paul's great effort in later times to rouse the churches of Macedonia and Achaia proved his desire to do this.

           

2:11-14.  The dispute with Peter:  It is not easy to fix a date for this incident at Antioch.  If it took place after the council at Jerusalem, then it was probably not very long afterwards as Barnabas was still to be found at Antioch.  See Acts 15:37.  Both Peter and Barnabas displayed inconsistency.  Peter had had the `Vision of the Sheet' in Acts 10 and he had spoken for the Gentile freedom in Acts 15.  Barnabas also had been an advocate for Gentile freedom.

           

We are not told what had brought Peter to Antioch.  But he fell into grave inconsistency.  This was not the only occasion of inconsistency on Peter's part.  When Peter first arrived at Antioch he would eat with the Gentiles.  But when some came from James he withdrew as he feared those who were zealous for the rite of circumcision.  This was to make a rift in the Church.  Paul quickly perceived the danger and so he withstood, that is, he opposed or resisted Peter.  Therefore Paul stood up to maintain the unity and equality of Gentile believers with Jewish believers.  Paul sought to safeguard the liberty and the practice of equality which already existed.

           

Full equality and liberty had been won for all believers at Antioch.  There was complete intercommunion between Jewish and Gentile Christians at Antioch.  The words in verse 11, "I opposed him to his face," seem to suggest that Paul confronted Peter publicly.   This was no doubt during a meeting of the whole church.  There was no doubt that Peter was guilty of a grave act of unbrotherliness.  In the following verses it becomes obvious what this was. That Paul should resist Peter in this manner demonstrates his apostleship was of equal rank to that of Peter's.  Paul's apostleship was not of inferior rank to the Twelve.  It was not derived form theirs.  Neither did he take orders from them.  The equality of Jew and Gentile believers had not long been established.  It was a newly acquired freeness and unity and Paul perceived it could easily be lost.  Therefore he takes stern measures to safeguard it.

           

2:12  Paul discerned that Peter was at fault.  When Peter first came to Antioch he ate with the new converts from paganism.  The tense of the verb - the Imperfect - suggests that he was in the habit of eating with Gentile believers.  This is well brought out in the N.E.B.  "He was taking his meals with Gentile Christians."  This was his regular practice.  In the matter of daily meals Peter had not refused invitations that were given him by pagan Christians.

           

The verb would include every type of meal that they could share in common and would include the `Lord's Supper'.  In early days Christians would meet on the evening of the first day of the week to eat a common meal known as the `Agape' or `Love Feast', and this would be concluded with what we call the `Eucharist'.

           

When some Christians came from James Peter was intimidated and he made a complete change of front.  This right about turn must have occurred at a community meal of the Church.  At some such meal the rupture took place.

           

It as not until men came from James that conditions deteriorated.  Who the men were that came from James we do not know.  Nor do we know why they came.  Did they come to demand that all Christians should be compelled to keep the Law?  On the other hand, did they come for personal reasons such as business?  Or have we an early case of ecclesiastical visitation?   James would seem to personify Jerusalem.  The Judaizers came from James, that is Judaism.

           

Now for whatever reasons they came, their arrival caused Peter to make a complete about turn.  Peter may not have broken all contact with pagan Christians but he no longer came to the communal meal, or the `Agape".  But now that fraternal communion was severed or broken up.

           

The Judaizers would not welcome the pagan Christians as they were uncircumcised.  The Judaizers did not regard the faith in Christ was enough.  They insisted that the disciples should be circumcised and keep the Law.  Therefore `faith in Christ' was not enough. Something more was required.  They would add circumcision and the Law as necessary. Therefore Paul must take them back to the basic event of their Christian experience.  They were justified by faith in Christ.  All who were justified by faith in Christ could have fellowship with one another.  No further qualification was required nor could be required.

           

Paul faces Peter for he acted inconsistently and he takes Peter back to he principle  by which they were justified.  Justification by faith is basic to Christian fellowship.  That was the principle on which they were to have fellowship together.  All alike are sinners, but when justified by faith, all are on the same basis.

           

Peter feared the circumcision, that is, those Jews who had come from James.  These continued to be loyal to their Jewish ritual and ordinances.  Peter's fearfulness is unusual, in fact it was remarkable and indicated a lack of personal convictions on his part.  He had neither conviction nor conscience about that which was the greater problem of the Church at that time.  This was the great struggle in the Church.  There was powerful influences in the Church that contended with the abandonment of Jewish legal requirements and insisted that even Christians converted from paganism should observe the Law.  This was necessary for salvation.

           

Peter could not have expected to find in the Church any supporters for the more liberal view.  Had he realized the more evangelical view had supporters he may have mustered up more personal courage to resist the Judaizers.  His hesitation and weakness were deplorable.  As John Bligh, the Catholic Commentator, sums up the situation: Paul implies, "Peter did not correct me at Jerusalem, I corrected him at Antioch."  (pg.175).

           

Peter evidently did not sufficiently realise that the inter-communion of Jews and Gentiles was fully established at Antioch and that to destroy the practice would be disastrous to the Christian movement.  The problem of Jews and Gentiles having communion together had been already solved at Antioch.

           

Peter obviously did not think that Paul would have either the courage nor the ability to resist the men (emissaries) who came from James.  For though the practice of intercommunion was established at Antioch, yet the doctrine of Christian liberty had not been elaborated nor developed to the stage that it was able to resist or remove every form of doubt that arose from various problems.  Circumcision was a very ancient rite and Jews believed that in the coming universal Kingdom all nations would keep the Law.

           

2:13.  The statement "the rest of the Jews." RSV. means the Jewish Christians at Antioch.  They all followed the poor example of Peter and even Barnabas was carried away with, or by their insincerity.

           

In this chapter Paul divides Christians into two divisions, and he makes the division according to what they were before their conversion.  The uncircumcision were Christians who were pagans before their conversion to Christ.  The circumcision in verse 7 are Jews, but in verse 13 the circumcision were the Jewish Christians who came from Jerusalem.  In this crisis it was the pre-Christian origin of the diverse groups which posed the great problems for the Church.

           

The weak example of Peter had induced the rest of the Jewish Christians at Antioch to side with him and to abandon the community meal of the Church.  Peter and those who followed him had no excuse for their conduct, because it was not a question of inward conviction. Their action arose from fear of an outward influence of the circumcision party from Jerusalem.

           

Paul noticed that the Jews at Antioch acted insincerely in following Peter.  They acted insincerely, that is, with hypocrisy.  Though actually in the New Testament hypocrisy means more than insincerity.  For the hypocrite is himself the victim of his sham and deception.  The scribes and the Pharisees in the Gospels were sincerely deceived as to their own behaviour.  In a sense they were victims of their own sham.  Paul was challenged to take a stand, when even Barnabas was persuaded by the behaviour of Peter.  Paul owed a great deal to Barnabas.

           

2:14.  It is Cephas that Paul challenges and charged with inconsistency.  Paul reproaches Peter in this verse for his unfaithfulness to the truth of the Gospel.  And Paul goes back to the basic or first principles of the Gospel.  For the sake of the Galatians he expands the issue to some measure and shows how Peter's behaviour denied the truth of the Gospel.  Peter's conduct was not consistent with the Gospel, as it was tantamount to the denial of the truth of justification by faith.  So actually Peter's behaviour involved an error of doctrine.  Since Peter knew the Gospel he was to be blamed for not acting consistently with the Gospel.  Paul did not hesitate to rebuke Peter in public.  And in rebuking Peter he contrasts his behaviour with his past conduct.  See 2:15-17. 

           

When Peter went to Antioch he did not observe the Jewish code with reference to social intercourse with Gentiles.  Yet now he was attempting to force Gentiles to live as Jews.  At the one time he had not followed the Jewish custom of living.  Therefore it was sheer inconsistency on his part to now demand that Gentiles should live as the Jews.  Peter's inconsistency arose from his fear of the circumcision party.

           

Paul writes, "I said to Cephas before them all."  Paul rebukes Peter before them all.  But in doing so, he addresses the whole, not only the Jewish Christians.  Peter was following a separatist action which implied there could be no fellowship with Gentile Christians unless they adopted and followed Jewish customs.

           

2:15-21.  These verses may not have been addressed to Peter, but may be Paul's reflection on the incident for the sake of the Galatians.   The position of the circumcision party and the line followed by Peter meant that in order to have full fellowship with Jewish Christians, one must also become a proselyte to Judaism.  However, verse 15-20 provides us with the thesis of the Epistle.  Not that they commence the doctrine section of the Epistle, but they provide a summary of the thesis of the Epistle. In these verses Paul defends his own autobiographical account as contributing to the thesis of the Epistle. 

           

Paul has given a considerable amount of autobiographical material and now he summarizes its significance theologically.  He speaks in the first person as he frequently does.  This gives a certain emphasis.  Paul perceived that their conduct did not square with the truth of the Gospel. NEB. Their conduct was crooked.  They did not walk straightly.  Their witness for the truth of the Gospel was marred by their inconsistency.

           

2:15.  "We ourselves."  That is, such as Paul, Peter, Barnabas and all Christians of Jewish origin.  "By nature," that is, "by birth," RSV; NEB.

           

The Jews were the people through whom came the Law and the Promises and they had never been without some knowledge of God. However they lived wholly for themselves as the pagans did.  The pagans did not have a status as being a chosen people and so were classed as sinners by Jews. This does not mean that Paul could not affirm that all men were sinners, but Paul recognizes the historical privileges of the Jews.  However these privileges would not exempt Jews from condemnation of the Law.  But every Jew was deeply conscious of his birthright and the richness of the inheritance that he enjoyed.  They were so proud of their birth-privileges.

           

2:16.  "Yet knowing."  The `but' of the NEB is good, "but we know."  The apostle places the truth of justification by faith against the historical privileges of the Jews as they are expressed in 2:15.  They who are justified by faith in Christ have come to know the vanity of the supposed privileges of the Jews.  Unfortunately the vanity of Jewish privileges was not fully recognized by all Christians.

           

How did Paul come to know the vanity or worthlessness of Jewish privileges?  Paul had come to know that a man is not justified by the works of law.  How did he come to know this?  It was because of the impact that Jesus Christ had made upon him.  The knowledge of Christ crucified and raised, had given to Paul and his fellow-Christians the knowledge of the vanity of Jewish ritual observances.  He had to come to see that a man could not be justified by works of the law.  For to believe in Jesus Christ, is to cease to believe that man can be justified by the works of the law.

   

 2:17. This verse presents the classical Jewish objection. (Rom.6:15).  Some have argued that the meaning here, is "if a man is justified without works of the law, then let us sin, so that the grace of Christ may abound even more."  But the words mean something quite different.  The meaning rather is; "if we seek to be justified by Christ, are we Jewish Christians also found sinners?"  

           

"Does Jesus Christ then minister sin?  That is impossible."  In detaching them from the legal observances Christ must have made them sinners.  This was not so.  Or it may mean Christ had made them to realise their sinfulness. The Judaizers suggested that all who ignore the ceremonial requirements of the Law were sinners, just as they usually describe the Gentiles who ignored the Law.  Paul rebukes this opposition by asserting, by implying that all who seek to be justified by faith in Christ, thereby place themselves in the category of sinners.  But if justification by faith in Christ leads men to sin, then surely there is something wrong with their conception of justification.  Christ is not the agent to increase sin.  Paul repudiates this idea. The Judaizers argued that all who ignored the Law as Gentiles were in the habit of doing, were sinners.  If the Jews also began to neglect the law, they too would be sinners.

           

In 2:16,17, John Bligh, the Catholic Expositor, regards justified as "made just."  According to Bligh it means more than to be forgiven, but a just man is one who loves God's will, and wants to do it, and who has the strength to do it.  (pg.201). Bligh admits the verb "to justify" often occurs in judicial contexts where it means "to acquit."  And he thinks Paul sometimes uses it in this sense, (Rom.8:33-34).  But Bligh denies this in Gal.2:16-17.  But Stamm writes:  "Hence to be justified" in the Pauline sense means that the sinner is "acquitted" or "accepted," "set right" with God. It is true that in Paul's Epistles that faith in Christ is inseparable from right living, but this living was the fruit of the Spirit and not a merit that could gain acceptance before God.  The great truth of "Justification by Faith" is Paul's answer and corrective to the exclusive shams of Judaism.  As it is also to all the pretentious claims of Exclusive Brethren.

           

2:18.  Paul affirms that Jesus Christ has not made him a sinner, that is, a transgressor of the Law in detaching him from works of the Law.  Paul would now prove who is the real transgressor - it is he who, after having renounced the righteousness in the Law, is seeking this righteousness again. (Peter did this in his right about turn or defection).  On this basis we can understand this verse in two ways.  Why does he who reverts to legal righteousness show himself to be a transgressor?    It may be:

1/   Because he now recognizes that he was led astray in leaving the Law, and by doing so is a transgressor.

2/   Or that he re-establishes the authority of the commandments that he knows he cannot  fully keep.

           

The second interpretation is most in agreement with the text.  Paul would show to Peter and the Galatians that abandoning the adventure of faith in Christ - far from assuring them of their salvation on the basis of the Law - actually signified their own condemnation in giving themselves over to such an inexorable judge.  It is not Jesus Christ who is the minister of sin.  The real transgressor is the Judaizer.  The "if" (ei) is not strictly hypothetical, but makes an allusion to the behaviour of Peter and the other Judaizers. 

           

The first person of the verb is literary as was the "we" of 2:15.  Paul is not actually writing of what he did or could do personally, but is contemplating that which the Judaizers and the Galatians were on the point of doing.  For after having abolished the Law as a means of justification, they would now re-establish it.  The verse compares the Christian salvation or life to an edifice constructed with bad material, law and works, and compares it with good material, the Grace of God and Faith. In re-establishing the Law they revealed themselves to be transgressors.  The verb `sunis tano' has this double sense, reveal or constitute.

           

2:19. "I have crucified," expresses the perfect tense, but, "I am crucified," AV, does not.  The personal pronoun `I' is probably literal.  Paul is not relating his own experience in the opposition to that of Peter and the Judaizers.  But he describes his salvation such as he comprehended it with those who like Paul and his pagan Christian companions, were opposed to the reinstatement of legalism.  He could not think that the Law and Jewish ordinances should be re-established.  In verse 19 we have the answer to the question raised indirectly in verse 17.

           

There are three principle interpretations to our verse :-

1/   The verse summarises the history of salvation in recalling that the Law, i.e. the O.T. in announcing Christ has put an end to itself and to its own reign.  When Christ came the believer is then dead to the Law in that he has no more to do with Law Justification.  It is now no longer life under the Law, but he lives for God through faith in Christ.  This fits in well with the general tone of the Epistle, for Paul asserts that the period of the Law has been completed.  But his interpretation does not suit the immediate context which treats of the usage which Peter and the Judaizers sought to make of the Law.

           

2/   This interpretation sees two opposing laws in this verse.  There is the Old Covenant which is opposed to that of Christ.  It is through the Law of Christ that we have died to, and been detached from the law of works.  Lagrange sees in this new law an allusion to the Sermon on the Mount.  The thought of the apostle then would be that the more spiritual law of the Sermon on the Mount, has freed believers from the legal ritual of the Old Covenant.  But there can be no doubt that Paul would have been more precise had he meant the Law of Christ, or the Sermon on the Mount.

3/   According to Romans 6 and 7 we have died with Christ to the Law.  It is not that the Law itself has caused me to die, but in that it makes me to know the experience of Sin.  It is not that the Law itself can save me or to make men to renounce the Services of Sin.  It is not the Law, but Jesus Christ who has made us die to the Law.  We died with Christ, having been crucified with him.  The condemnation of death signified in the Cross of Christ and applied to the believer at Baptism has freed the believer from the jurisdiction of the Law.  It was God's design, as signified by `ina', in order that we should serve God in the Reconciliation and Liberty of the Spirit.  It is not directly and psychologically that the Law has made us die.  But it has made us to die because it first made Jesus Christ to die for us.

           

Paul then explains the idea of death to the Law by the Crucifixion with Christ (2:19b).  This idea of Crucifixion with Christ returns or goes back to the event of the Cross.  For there the verdict of death was pronounced on the whole of humanity.  The `Baptism' in Rom.6 was a judicial application to the believer of the general verdict executed in the Cross.

           

2:20.  This verse continues to answer the objection of verse 17.  Has not Christ become the minister of Sin?  Never, not on any account, because:-

1/   The true transgressor of the Law is not the Pauline Christian, but those who return to legal observances (2:18).

2/  The Law has not any further power over the Christian because he has died to the Law with Christ (2:19).

3/   It is not the man amenable or justifiable to the Law who lives according to Pauline Christianity, but Christ who takes his place and who lives in the Christian.

4/   Certainly the Christian is still a sinner, but the Christian lives by faith in Christ who died for him.  But the Christian is no more amenable or accountable to the Law and so the       Christian is not a transgressor.  The conclusion is clear: Jesus Christ is not then in Service of Sin.

           

2:20.  "It is no longer I who live."  This is the literary use of the first person.  Paul is not describing his individual experience but the general Christian state as he understands it.  It is wrong to find in this verse praise and condemnation of an exceptional spiritual experience such as one might find in the mysteries.  The first `de' is not adversative:  the first words of the verse explain and develops the idea of verse 19, "I died."  "I am Crucified with Christ," "is no more me that lives."  It is very important to give to the word "live" in this verse its Pauline emphasis.

           

It is the concrete and personal life of man before God; the principle character of this life is that it is raised, released, recovered and retrieved from the judgment of God.  The life is not considered in its biological, psychological, Spiritual aspects, but a concrete human existence, total and historical under the notice of God.  Paul can affirm and assert that in the Christian it is no more the man who lives.   There are two reasons for this :-

1/   Because this man has not founded his hope or his boasting in himself or in the Law, that is,   in himself.

2/   Because when the believing man no longer sees his pride and legality, but he sees himself as a man for whom Jesus Christ has died.  This man has the assurance of life in Christ and Jesus Christ has given him this assurance of life, the possibility of a new existence before God.

           

The second `de', is loosely adversative or restrictive.  It affirms the personal identity and historicity between the man under the Law and the man under Grace.  The identity between the man over whom the Law once reigned and the man over whom now reigns Jesus Christ. 

           

This identity, described by the word "Flesh," which Paul uses to designate our concrete human existence, is disqualified by sin.  The "I" (ego) of the man has not been evaporated or magically deified at the moment he became a Christian.  It is always the same man - a sinner, but living by faith - the faith of Christ which alone gives him consistency, stability, firmness, credit and consideration before God and reality in his own eyes.  He no longer looks upon his own sin and neither does he look to his good works but only to Christ who gave Himself for him.  This is why and how it can be very true that it is the same man, the same flesh, and yet also be true that he is a completely new man. 

Now having given the general interpretation of the verse, we can now be more precise as to certain points.

           

The word `ouketi', "no more," "no longer," is temporal.  The man's life is divided into two parts, the time or period when he lived "in himself" and "in the Law."   And, the time that was new, inaugurated by the Cross, when he came to live in Christ and Christ in him. 

Note the preposition occurs three times in this verse, and it overflows the locative sense.  `En emoi' Christ dwells before God.  `En sarki' that is, in myself and by myself.

           

The Christian is not a puppet through whom Jesus Christ dwells.  But he lives by himself and in himself.  But he seeks to find reason for being and for existence in Jesus Christ. The Christian life is altogether personal, and founded on Jesus Christ.

           

`En pistei' means "by faith."   It is not that this faith itself earns or qualifies for the new life, but it is the movement of the man who turns to Christ and listens to and obeys him.

           

`Nun'-"now," is loosely restrictive.  The life of the Christian has been absorbed into Jesus Christ, for the moment (nun) he lives in the flesh of sin.  The now (nun) then describes the period of time of the faith that was opened by Jesus Christ and is no longer the period or time of the Law. In the Greek Text Christ is placed at the very commencement of this passage. 

           

Paul begins to explain how the life unto God became a possibility to him.  Christ is not the minister of sin, rather He makes possible a life unto God.  This life to God is by faith in Christ.  "With Christ I have been co-crucified."

           

`Sunestauromai' perfect tense.  Paul writes of something which took place and has not lost its power since.  This thing that has happened somewhere else in the past does not refer to Paul's subjective experience, but to the death of Christ.  The believers, by virtue of their corporate belonging to Him, were included in that dying.

           

This new life is now specifically described: "and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me."  This is not a psychological or biological utterance.  Paul is still living in a certain sense.  The utterance says something about the existential determination of life.  This determination is so over-whelming that Paul can say: "Christ lives in me."  As liberated from the Law, his life can be a life unto God.  And seen from his side, that life is a life of faith, a consciously Christ-oriented life.  The aorist `love' - `gave', point to the historical fact of Christ's loving self-sacrifice.

           

2:20.  "I have been crucified."  The perfect tense.  Paul is thinking of that specific completed event which marked his identification with Christ, and which had an enduring result upon his life.  Paul conceives that he had a part in Christ's experience on the Cross.  "It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me."  Paul's sequence of argument is clear.  "I live," as, "Christ living in me."  In one sense the apostle has ceased to have his own independent experiences.  He has become so identified with Christ that what Christ does, he does.  For Paul thinks of himself as having become so closely identified with Christ, that Christ dominates his whole experience.  Faith is the sphere in which he lives.

           

2:21.  The verse is probably not the final answer to the problem of verse 17, but is a summary and conclusion of Paul's  intervention at Antioch (see verses 11-14), and also of the teaching he has drawn from the incident for the Galatians at Antioch, and the reason why he had written so definitely to the Galatians, in order that the Grace of God may continue and be maintained in the Church.  Paul did not set aside or annul or reject the Grace of God as was done by the Judaizers.  No one could reproach Paul for annulling the Grace of God, but he summarizes his fundamental purpose.  He shows how that grace is the whole or entire redemptive work of God which He has accomplished in Christ.

           

If (hypothetically) righteousness can be acquired by means of the Law, then the death of Christ was "without cause."  This is the meaning, and not gratuitously or without effect.  If there was any possibility of Salvation by the Law, then we do not understand the necessity of the Cross.  The Cross excludes the Law as a means of justification, and to go back to the Law annulled the whole work of Christ.

           

The repetition of the word faith, serves to emphasize its cardinal importance in Paul's theology.  It is entrusting oneself to Jesus Christ.

           

2:21. `Dorean'.  "As a gift."  Undeservedly, without reason, in vain, to no purpose.