Commentary on the Epistle to the GalatiansLuther, Martin
ReligionChristian
Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians
Luther, Martin
Bible. Galatians -- Commentaries
Paul admits that he conferred with the apostles concerning his Gospel.
But he denies that the conference benefited or taught him anything. The
fact is he resisted those who wanted to force the practice of the Law
upon the Gentiles. They did not overcome him, he overcame them. “Your
false apostles lie, when they say that I circumcised Timothy, shaved
my head in Cenchrea, and went up to Jerusalem, at the request of the
apostles. I went to Jerusalem at the request of God. What is more, I won
the indorsement of the apostles. My opponents lost out.”
The matter upon which the apostles deliberated in conference was
this: Is the observance of the Law requisite unto justification? Paul
answered: “I have preached faith in Christ to the Gentiles, and not the
Law. If the Jews want to keep the Law and be circumcised, very well, as
long as they do so from a right motive.”
VERSE 2. But privately to them which were of reputation.
This is to say, “I conferred not only with the brethren, but with the
leaders among them.”
VERSE 2. Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Not that Paul himself ever thought he had run in vain. However, many
did think that Paul had preached the Gospel in vain, because he kept the
Gentiles free from the yoke of the Law. The opinion that obedience to
the Law was mandatory unto salvation was gaining ground. Paul meant to
remedy this evil. By this conference he hoped to establish the identity
of his Gospel with that of the other apostles, to stop the talk of his
opponents that he had been running around in vain.
VERSE 3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was
compelled to be circumcised.
The word “compelled” acquaints us with the outcome of the conference.
It was resolved that the Gentiles should not be compelled to be
circumcised.
Paul did not condemn circumcision in itself. Neither by word nor deed
did he ever inveigh against circumcision. But he did protest against
circumcision being made a condition for salvation. He cited the case of
the Fathers. “The fathers were not justified by circumcision. It was to
them a sign and seal of righteousness. They looked upon circumcision as
a confession of their faith.”
The believing Jews, however, could not get it through their heads that
circumcision was not necessary for salvation. They were encouraged in
their wrong attitude by the false apostles. The result was that the
people were up in arms against Paul and his doctrine.
Paul did not condemn circumcision as if it were a sin to receive it.
But he insisted, and the conference upheld him, that circumcision had
no bearing upon salvation and was therefore not to be forced upon the
Gentiles. The conference agreed that the Jews should be permitted to
keep their ancient customs for the time being, so long as they did not
regard those customs as conveying God’s justification of the sinner.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account