CHAPTER II.] COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS. Some hold his meaning to be, not only that the Apostles did not instruct him, but that they were instructed by him. But I would not say this, for what could they, each ofwhom was himself perfectly instructed, have learnt from him ? He does not therefore intend this by the expression, " contrariwise," but that so far were they from blaming, that they praised him : for praise is the contrary of blame. Some would probably here reply : Why did not the Apostles, if they praised your procedure, as the proper consequence abolish circumcision ? L Now to assert that they did abolish it Paul considered much too bold, and inconsistent with his own admission. On the other hand, to admit that they had sanctioned circumcision, would neces sarily expose him to another objection. For it would be said, if the Apostles praised your preaching, yet sanctioned circumcision, they were inconsistent with themselves. What then is the solution ? is he to say that they acted thus out of condescension to Judaism? To say this would have shaken the very foundation of the economy. Whereforehe leaves the subject in sus pense and uncertainty, by the words, "but of those who were reputed to be somewhat; it maketh no matter to me." Which is in effect to say, I accuse not, nor traduce those holy men ; they know what it is they have done ; to God must they render their account. What I am desirous to prove is, that they neither reversed nor corrected my procedure, nor added to it as in their opinion defective, but gave it their approbation and assent ; and to this Titus and Barnabas bear witness. Then he adds, Ver. 7. "When they saw that I had been entrusted with the Gospel of the Uncircum- cision even as Peter with the Gospel of the Cir cumcision2 ," The Circumcision and Uncircumcision ; meaning, not the things themselves, but the nations known by these distinctions : wherefore he adds, Ver. 8. " For He that wrought for Peter unto the Apostleship of the Circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles." He calls the Gentiles the Uncircumcisionand the Jews the Circumcision, and declares hisown rank to be equal to that of the Apostles ; and, by comparing himself with their Leader not with the others, he shows that the dignity of 1 .[They did virtually abolish circumcision by the decree of the council at Jerusalem as is shown in the account in (Acts xv. ) And the failure of the effort to have Titus circumcised shows that the account in Gal. ii has nothing inconsistent with that decree. This as to Gentiles. The question did noi concern Jews, who were already circumcised in infancy except in cases like that ofTim othy where circumcision had been neglected. His case Paul him self decided without any consultation with others. G. A.] 3 P This passage cannot be worse misunderstood than it has been by Jiaur according to whom therewasa special Gospel ofthe Uncirc umcision and a special gospel of the circumcision, onemaintaining the necessity of circumcision, the other allowing it to drop." Meyer. G. A.] each was the same. After he had established the proof of their unanimity, he takes courage,and proceeds confidently in his argument, not stopping at the Apostles, but advances to Christ Himself, and to the grace which He had con ferred upon him, and calls-the Apostles as his witnesses, saying, Ver. 9. " And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellow ship." 3 He says not when they " heard," but when they "perceived," that is, were assured by the facts themselves, " they gave to me and Bar nabas the right hands of fellowship." Observe how he gradually proves that his doctrine was ratified both by Christ and by the Apostles. For grace would neither have been implanted, nor been operative in him, had not his preaching been approved by Christ. Where it was for the purpose of comparison with himself, he men tioned Peter alone ; here, when be calls them as witnesses, he names the three together, " Cephas,James, John," and with an encomium, " who were reputed to be pillars." Here again the expression " who were reputed " does not impugn the reality of the fact, but adopts the estimate of others, and implies that these great and distinguished men, whose fame was uni versal, bare witness that his preaching was rati fied by Christ, that they were practically informed and convinced by experience concern ing it. "Therefore they gave the right hands of fellowship" to me, and not to me only, but also to Barnabas, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the Circumcision." Here indeed is exceeding prudence as well as an incontrovertible proof of their concord. For it shows that his and their doctrine was inter changeable, and that both approved the same thing, that they should so preach to the Jews, and he to the Gentiles. Wherefore he adds, Ver. 9. " That we should go unto the Gen tiles and they unto the Circumcision."4 Observe that here also he means by the Circumcision," not the rite, but the Jews; whenever he speaks of the rite, and wishes to contrast it, he adds the word "Uncircumcision;" as when he says, "For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law ; but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circum cision is become Uncircumcision." (Ro. ii : 25.) And again, " Neither circumcision availeth any M"If there had been a real conflict in doctrine, the Apostles would not have given Paul their hand, and Paul would have refused them his." G.A.] 4 [" There was no difference of doctrine or gospel, but only a division of territory, and how little Paul considered his apostolic call to the Gentiles as excluding the conversion of the Jews from his operations may be seen from such passages as i Cor. ix : 20 ; Ro. i : 16 ; ix : i ; xi : 14." Meyer. G. A.]