Galatians chapter 1
1:1. Paul vehemently denies that his apostleship is due to human agency-he was not commissioned an apostle by
any group (not of men) nor by any mortal individual (neither by man), but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who
raised him from the dead: Unlike the other apostles, Paul received his call from the resurrected, glorified, and
exalted Jesus. This special reference to the Lord's resurrection implicitly confirms Paul's appointment as an apostle.
1:4. Who gave himself for our sins ("Since He gave Himself for our sins"): This confirms the divine desire expressed
in verse 3. In view of Jesus' sacrificing Himself for believers, it is certainly His wish that they may receive "grace"
and "peace." That he might deliver us is more accurately rendered "that He alone might deliver us." The expression
He alone means Jesus rather than anyone else. This strikes the epistle's keynote, for the gospel is an
emancipation from a state of spiritual bondage. And the clause also strikes at the Galatians' theological error of
trying to rescue themselves by their own effort through the law.
1:6, 7. Ye are soon removed from can be translated, "you are so quickly deserting." The Galatians are in the initial
stages of defecting from God to another gospel. The Greek word rendered "another" is heteron which means
"another of a different kind." The Judaizers' gospel is not the same one Paul preached to the renders. In verse 7
the apostle goes on to affirm that their gospel is not another. The Greek word here translated "another" is allo
which means "another of the same kind." So the message of salvation proclaimed by the legalists is vastly different
from the true one.
1:8. This verse shows that the message, not the messenger, is of utmost importance. The Galatian controversy is
not over teachers or personalities, but over truth and error. Even a heavenly angel, if he preaches error, is to be
accursed, that is, eternally condemned.
:10. For explains the harsh language of verses 3-9: If Paul were to persuade men (ie., court their favor) or seek to
please them by preaching a false gospel they want to hear, he should not be a servant of Christ.
1:11, 12. In verses 6-9 Paul implied that his gospel was the only true one; the message he preaches is the
yardstick by which all others are to be measured. The reason for this is that his gospel is human niether in nature
(not after man, v.11) nor in orgin ( I neither recieved it of man, v.12). The apostle's genuine, because he recieved it
directly from the risen Lord (was I taught it...by the revelation of Jesus Christ).
1:13-24. For begins to confirm his assertion of recieving the gospel straight from God and not from men (v. 12).
Neither before (vv. 13, 14) nor after (vv. 15-22) conversion did Paul obtain a knowledge of salvation from any
human source. Prior to conversion he was an enemy of the gospel, interested not in learning it but only in
destroying it. During the 14 years following his conversion he was not with the apostles long enough to have been
adequately instructed by them in the gospel. The point is that he recieved the message of salvation from Christ,
not from man (v. 12).
1:13. My conversation in time past means my former conduct.
1:14. This verse could be translated, " I was progressing in Juudaism ahead of many contemporaries in my nation,
because I was far more zealousfor my ancestral traditions.
1:15, 16. Since Paul's conversion to Christianity was due to God and not man, and since he did not consult with
men subsequent to his conversion, then the apostle could not possibly have received the gospel from any but the
Lord. To reveal his son [to] me: The divine disclosure to man of the person and work of Christ, is the essence of
the gospel.
1:17. Following his Damascus road conversion Paul made no trip to Jerusalem, where the apostles were, but spent
approximately three years in Arabia. It is implied that he conferred with God there. During these three years he was
not taught by men.
1:18. When Paul did frist go to Jerusalem as a Christain, the purpose of his visit was to see Peter . The verb to
see means " to get to know. " Paul's purpose, then, was to become acquainted with Peter, not to beinstructed by
him.
1:21-23. From 2:1 Paul apparently spent about 14 years in the regions of Syria and Cilicia (v. 21). During this
period he preached the faith which once he dstroyed (v. 23). Because of his absence from Jerusalem, he was
unknown by face unto the churches of Judea (v. 22). Throughout this lenthy evangelistic activity in the north, Paul
was too far removed from the apostles in Jerusalem to have received any instruction from them. Had he been a
student of theirs at this time, he would have doubtlessy worked in, and been personally known by, the Judean
churches.
Galatians chapter 2
2:1-21. The argument in 1:11-24 was that Paul's gospel is divine with its origin. The argument in 2:1-21 is that his
gospel is divine with nature. This is proved in two ways: (1) The Pauline gospel was acknowledged by the apostles
to be authentic (vv. 1-10); (2) Paul's rebuke of Peter for his reinstating the law attests the authenticity of the
Pauline gospel (vv. 11-21).
2:1. Paul's second trip to Jerusalem came 14 years after his first visit when he had met Peter (1:18). Two important
figures accompanied him on this occasion- Barnabas and Titus.
2:2. The reason for this second trip was by [because of ] revelation; that is, by prompting him to go, God foresaw
the necessity for this consultation with the apostles. In Jerusalem, Paul communicated (laid before) his gospel to
the apostles. The Greek word rendered "commuinicated" means "to refer something to another party for his
opinion of it." So Paul privately saught the judgment of them which were of reputation (the Jerusalem apostles)
regarding the gospel he had been proclaiming for 14 years. Why did Paul seek the apostles' opinion? He had no
doubt as to the validity of his gospel, for he had received it directly from Christ; so his consultation with John,
James, and Peter was not to ascertain whether his gospel was correct. Rather it was to obtain their approval of the
way he was bringing Gentiles into the church: they were admitted without circumcision on the basis of their faith in
Christ. Apart from the apostles' consent, Paul's ministry among the heathen would be hindered-he would run [labor
].... in vain.
2:3-9. These verses reveal the outcome of Paul's submission of his gospel to the apostles for their opinion. That
they acknowledged his gospel to be genuine and to be the same gospel they preached is seen in three ways: (1)
Circumcision was not required of the uncircumcised Titus (v. 3). Had Paul's gospel been lacking in this respect,
Titus would have been circumcised. (2) The Jerusalem apostles (they who seemed to be somewhat in conference)
added nothing to me (v.6), that is, they found nothing lacking in his gospel so as to require the addition of
something (e.g., circumcision). (3) The apostles gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship (v. 9)., In
antiquity the giving of the right hand was sign of agreement made between peers. The Jerusalem apostles viewed
Paul and Barnabas as partners in the gospel ministry. The apostles would never have done this had they looked
upon Paul's gospel as erroneous.
2:4. Unawares brought in means "smuggled in." These false brethren tried to get Titus circumcised (v. 3). These
unbelievers came in privily (sneaked in) or infiltrated Christian churches. Their purpose was to spy out and
carefully examine the believers' liberty or freedom from the Mosaic Law. The ultimate aim of this spying was to bring
the Christians into bondage by tying them up with all the rules and regulations of Judaism.
2:5. Paul refused to submit to the Judaizers' demands of imposing the law on Christians. To have done so would
have corrupted the pure truth of the gospel.
2:7. The gospel of the uncircumcision: The apostles perceived that Paul had been divinely entrusted with the
gospel to Gentiles, while Peter was entrusted with the gospel to Jews. They had been entrusted with the very same
gospel, but sent to two different peoples.
2:10. The one request the apostles made of Paul was that he would remember [help] the poor. Paul willingly
complied, saying that he was forward [zealous] to do so.
2:12. Them which were of the circumcision: This refers to Jewish Christians from Jerusalem who were troubled
about the Jewish Christians in Antioch, who were taking meals with Gentiles, thus probably eating forbidden foods.
The question in Jerusalem was this: were Gentile Christians obligated to observe the law, of which circumcision is
the sign? The answer was no (vv. 1-10). Peter's action in Antioch of withdrawing from Gentile meals raised another
issue: were Jewish Christians also free from the law?
2:13. Dissembled could be said , "acted hypocritically." The detrimental effect of Peter's action was to influence
other Jewish Christians to seperate themselves from their Gentile bretheren. Even the spiritual giant Barnabas,
who had championed Gentile freedom in verses 1-9, was carried away with their dissimulation (hypocrisy). The
hypocrisy here was the false impression left by their behavior; they really believed it was all right to eat with
Gentiles, but acted as though these convictions were not theirs.
2:14. They walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel: that is, "They were not acting rightly regarding
the truth of the gospel." The gospel teaches that a person is saved by grace, not by law. Therefore he is not
obligated as a Christian to live under the law. Thou... livest after the manner of Gentiles: Peter was living like a
Gentile in that he was mixed freely with the Gentile believers and not observing Jewish customs. He was eating
Gentile foods. Yet Peter compelled the Gentiles to live as do the Jews in seperating himself from them. By refusing
to eat with them he left the Gentile believers no alternative but to either adopt Jewish dietary regulations, or suffer
a split in their church. In short, Peter was forcing them to become Jewish proselytes. Peter's hypocrisy lay not in his
observing Jewish laws, but in making Gentiles keep them.
2:15. Sinners is a derogatory term almost synonymous with Gentiles. Since Gentiles did not live under the law, their
immorality was usually worse than that of the Jews, whose behavior was generally restrained by the law. So in
Jewish opinion Gentiles were, by the nature of the case, sinners.
2:15, 16. Even though Jews are in some respects not outwardly "sinners" like Gentiles, they still know one cannot
be justified by observing the law but only by faith in Christ. Paul therefore affirms that even we [Jews] have believed
in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. To be justified is to be accounted by God as acceptable to Him. This occurs
not...by the works of the law [meritorious works], but by the faith of [in] Jesus Christ (i.e., by relying on Christ's
atoning death).
2:17. The Judaizers' objection to this doctrine of justification by faith alone is this: If a Jew seeks to be justified by
Christ apart from the law he is then outside the law and thus a sinner like the Gentiles. The Judaizers fear that a
Christian outside the law will lead an immoral life since his conduct is no longer restrained by the law. Followed to
its logical conclusion, under this theory Christ is the minister of sin. That is, He promotes sin and encourages His
followers to transgress. But the apostle's exclamation, God forbid, denies this false teaching.
2:18. For confirms the denial that Jesus, by the doctrine of justification alone, would encourage sin, To build again
is to reinstate the things (the demands of the law) which one previously destroyed (i.e., renounced). Paul declares
that I make myself a transgressor id he again puts himself under the law which he formerly abandoned. How? The
law awakens and incites sin in a man (Rom. 7:7-11). So to obligate oneself again to the law is to put oneself under
that legal system which awakens sin. Christ removes the law, thus delivering him from sin.
2:19. For substantiates the declaration that it is the law, not Christ, which promotes sin. To be dead to the law is to
be free from obligation to obey it. This freedom came through the law. The law's intention, by awakening and
revealing man's sin, was to lead him to Christ, who alone could properly deal with sin (3:19-25). The purpose of
being freed from the law is that the Christian might live unto [for] God. For the whole of his earthly Christian life the
believer is to live for God's sake, obeying, serving, and glorifying Him.
2:20. To be crucified with Christ means the believer has been freed from the law (v. 19), and from the ruling power
of sin that was aroused by the law, Nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me is interpreted, "And I no
longer live, but Christ lives in me." Since the believer has been freed from the law and sin, the old sinful life no
longer asserts itself as formerly. Instead, "Christ liveth in me;" that is, Jesus cultivates within the believer (Paul) His
own desires, virtues, character, and power, thus morally transforming him and working through him in others. Paul
lives his current Christian life by the faith of [in] the Son of God, that is, by depending on Him for strength and all
necessities.
2:21. Frustrate (nullify): Paul is pointing out that one would deny the grace of God by accepting Christ's atonement
and then viewing His atonement as having little value, reverting back to the law in order to secure salvation. For
gives the reason Paul does not attempt to nullify God's grace. It is not owing to righteousness [i.e., salvation] by the
law. If that were the case then Christ died needlessly. These words bring Paul's strong rebuke (vv. 14-21) of his
fellow apostle to a close. Peter's return to the law, having believed in Jesus, was like an admission that Christ's
sacrifice was inadequate; his hypocrisy diluted God's grace by attempting to add his works to it. But Peter's evident
silence in receiving Paul's reproof shows that he acknowledged Paul's charge as correct. Peter, then, recognized
Paul's gospel to be genuine.