THE LIBERTY OF SONSHIP (2)
THE LIBERTY OF SONSHIP (2)
JT This chapter indicates how God comes in, when conflict for the truth is being waged. The apostle says that he went up to Jerusalem “according to revelation”, verse 2. The attack was made at Antioch, but God selected His own battle-ground, which is always important in conflict. Chapter 15 of the Acts shows what led up to this journey to Jerusalem. The Judaisers had begun their work at Antioch, but the settlement must be of a universal character, and so Paul and Barnabas go up to Jerusalem, “to the apostles and elders”, it is said. In this being fourteen years after the events of the first chapter, after the previous visit, we have the suggestion that time brings its changes, for good or for ill, amongst us. It was a different Paul that went up this time, a Paul that had now acquired apostolic status with the others; but the principle of conspicuousness had obtained in Jerusalem in the meanwhile, which was not for good. So that there is a suggestion of what time is doing, and the effect it is having; and I think God’s intent was to transfer the conflict to Jerusalem, not only in order that there should be a settlement of universal bearing, but that the qualities should be compared of what was obtaining at Jerusalem, and what was among the nations. Hence, by the presence of Paul and Barnabas and Titus in Jerusalem, the principle of comparison would come into evidence.
EuR Do you distinguish between the conspicuousness of verse 6 of which Paul says, “for to me those who were conspicuous communicated nothing”, and the conspicuousness in verse 9, where he says, “James and Cephas and John, who were conspicuous as being pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship”?
JT The latter allusion is to persons who were “conspicuous as being pillars”, which, of course, is a right thought; but the word “conspicuous”, as entering into this setting, has its own meaning, doubtless bearing on the Judaisers and their arguments; for in advocating Judaism amongst the nations they would not fail to emphasise the qualities of their leaders.
HES Do you mean that one might be conspicuous according to God, or conspicuous as not according to God?
JT One might be conspicuous for reasons not spiritual. Why is a man prominent among us? The mere fact that he is prominent, is not enough.
PL Does the statement in the letter written from Jerusalem as referred to in Acts 15:25: “our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”, suggest that what is conspicuous according to God is now in the ascendancy at Jerusalem in the recognition of those beloved brethren? Does that suggest spoil out of the battle that has been won?
JT Yes; and it would establish their distinction amongst the nations. The letter would convey that these dear men were owned as rightly worthy of the esteem of the saints: “our beloved Barnabas and Paul”.
CSS In the days of Nehemiah it is said that the principal men dwelt beside their brethren in Jerusalem; is that the thought?
JT They were principal men evidently for good reasons. It was a hardship in those days to dwell in Jerusalem, and it was creditable spiritually to dwell there. But in the days of Acts 15, dwelling in Jerusalem implied — at least, in the eyes of the Judaisers — that a certain distinction accrued. The first allusion in verse 6 gives no reason for the conspicuousness of the persons; the apostle says, “But from those who were conspicuous as being somewhat — whatsoever they were, it makes no difference to me: God does not accept man’s person; for to me those who were conspicuous communicated nothing”.
GAvS Would you say that the conspicuousness in verse 6 was connected with a certain measure of fickleness in departing from, or easily following after something different from, what was proper to christianity as expressed in the first five verses of chapter l?
JT Well, I would not go so far as to say there was anything discreditable in their conspicuousness, but there is nothing advanced as to why they were conspicuous; they were not able to communicate anything to Paul. That, of course, is the test as to conspicuousness, whether there is anything to be communicated, what one has got.
Ques Would that be illustrated by Samuel before the brethren in the house of Jesse? Eliab and the others did not contribute anything, but David came in as the one able to contribute. Samuel had to learn natural conspicuousness would not do.
JT Exactly; he was rather taken by the person of Eliab, that is, outward appearance: “Surely Jehovah’s anointed is before him” 1 Samuel 16:6, he says. But then, why “surely”?
MWB The appreciation of Jesus Christ as mentioned in chapter 1 would deliver us from recognising mere position.
JT That is the only kind of Man that can be distinguished according to God, but I may acquire distinction otherwise than by the graces of Christ and by the gifts that He bestows.
PL The thought is seen in the two pillars at the entrance of the house in 1 Kings 7, and also in “a pillar in the temple of my God”, Revelation 3:12.
JT I have no doubt that the end of chapter 1 gives us the two pillars. If heaven were to call attention to two men when Paul went up to see Peter I believe these would be the two. We have the pillars mentioned severally in 1 Kings 7, and their combined height in [p. 313] 2 Chronicles 3. It is what a brother may be by himself, and what two together may be.
LDM Do you think Stephen’s burial in Acts 8 marks an epoch in the assembly’s history? The saints are scattered “except the apostles” Acts 8:1, and then Saul is introduced. The apostles remaining in Jerusalem would have a bearing on what is before us now, as over against the high level brought in by Paul in ministry.
JT Yes; their remaining at Jerusalem implied, as the sequel shows, a stunted state of things. They might have left. The Lord had said that if they were persecuted in one city they should flee to another, which they did not do. No doubt there was a clinging to Jerusalem because of its prestige, and no doubt too they exposed themselves in staying there, but God was with them; He did not forsake them. But the growth at Jerusalem after that period was not what it had been. There was growth, of course, but the soil had lost its richness. God was, as it were, forced to continue there, but the freshness of growth from that point onwards, passes to the Gentile world. I believe Titus represents this. Paul says, “taking Titus also with me”; there were three. Titus was a Greek, and was the representative of Paul’s work, so that the conflict is met by the results from work done. What could they bring forth in Jerusalem to compare with Titus? There were conspicuous men there, and there were men that were conspicuous for a good reason, but then, why should the word “conspicuous” be there at all?
PL Would this conflict in values be seen in the house of Saul growing weaker and weaker, and the house of David stronger and stronger?
JT Just so. There was the thought of going up in the second book of Samuel, and great as was the failure in David at the first attempt to bring up the ark, yet there was growth. There was that in David that could not be matched in the house of Saul. It becomes a question of quality, not merely teaching and [p. 314] the truth developed, but the quality of the result of it. The city as it comes out in Revelation, is the expression of excellence of quality.
Rem What Titus had was not outward in the flesh.
JT Not at all. He was not compelled to be circumcised, the Judaising spirit was not so strong as to insist on that. The word “conspicuous” means that outward appearances had a place, and the whole trend of the attack was to have appearances, “to make a fair shew in the flesh” Galatians 6:12.
EuR Of the overcomer in Philadelphia it says, “him will I make a pillar in the temple of my God” Revelation 3:12. Is that the principle of making of which you were speaking?
JT Quite so, what one would value. If you are that now, it indicates that you value the thought of being a pillar, and I think that is the idea in the recompense to the overcomer, that it is what he values.
PHH Is your thought that the bringing up of Titus would show the value of what Paul laid before them privately? Why does it say that he laid these glad tidings before them privately?
JT By bringing forward what he had, which was so excellent in the way of teaching, he might have forced a certain feeling, and the enemy might take advantage in a suggestion that there was something better with Paul, and so cause a cleavage. It is an allusion to the skill of love, for a cleavage at this juncture would have been a defeat. That is what the enemy sought, to bring about a cleavage between Jerusalem and what God was doing among the nations, and so the apostle uses great skill. We see that principle with Aquila and Priscilla when they took Apollos “to them”; they did not challenge his statements in public. I have no doubt Titus was selected as a particular product of Paul’s ministry, but a comparison of the facts presented in Acts 15 will show that Paul and Barnabas themselves were wonderful samples of the work of God. A serious [p. 315] crisis was on, and they did apparently what they could in Antioch to stem the tide of opposition, but God ordered it that they should go up to Jerusalem. That is in effect how the matter stood, that the battle ground was to be at Jerusalem. No doubt they would have gained the day at Antioch, but the conflict was transferred to Jerusalem; and on the way up, they are not overwhelmed with the battle they would have to wage, though undoubtedly they were quite aware that the opposition would be strong. But it was to be faced in its own sphere; it was ordered that Judaism might have what advantage it might seek. God knew well enough that the materials on the side of the truth were sufficient to be overwhelming; He would make them so; and, hence, the revelation. That is something to be noted; that God, as it were, said, It is not to be here at Antioch, it is to be at Jerusalem. That would mean a great test to Paul, I am sure; it was no simple matter to go up and contend for the truth where the opposers were surrounded by ancient settings to buttress them; but faith depended on God.
FCH Does Acts 12 throw any light on the condition of things in Jerusalem: they were praying in the house, but were not prepared for the voice of Peter?
JT It does. From chapter 7 a stunted condition of things ensued, and that is seen in the house of Mary the mother of John Mark. These three men knew that the conflict would be severe; we may be sure of that, but they go up in buoyancy. It says first of all in Acts 15:2, “A commotion therefore having taken place” — commotion, which is only like so much smoke, is the sure result of an attack — “and no small discussion on the part of Paul and Barnabas against them, they arranged that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others from amongst them, should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question. They therefore, having been set on their way by the assembly, passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, relating the conversion [p. 316] of those of the nations. And they caused great joy to all the brethren”, verses 2, 3. You may be sure that this would greatly disconcert the enemy. They were not occupied with the conflict, but with what God was doing — the surest way to victory.
PL They would take encouragement in passing through those quarters in the way the Lord had been into them. In the district of Tyre and Sidon the Lord secured a choice bit of material for the assembly, in the Syrophenician woman, and a worshipper for the Father in Samaria. Would that be fruit from the gentiles?
JT That is very good — the quality is your point? “O woman, great is thy faith” Matthew 15:28, said the Lord to the Syrophenician; it is the quality. And what the Samaritan woman effects shows her quality. So, on their way up, they related the conversion of the nations, and caused great joy among the brethren. That would indicate that they were not oppressed; that they were not unduly occupied with the conflict, but with what God was doing, and it is what God does that triumphs. Whatever may be on the way, the end as regards Israel and Jacob is, “What hath God wrought!” Numbers 23: 23. That is what we are engaged with. These men go up in this buoyancy, and “being arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the assembly, and the apostles, and the elders, and related all that God had wrought with them”. This is all very auspicious because the assembly is in the forefront here; things are never right if it is not. The assembly received them, that is, the love side; assembly conditions indicated the underlying state of things; whatever was going on at Jerusalem, the assembly was there and received these men.
PL Is it like David in the midst of battle, distributing the spoil in localities where he had been found? On the way up these men are distributing the spoils of divine victory.
JT Carrying into those territories what Christianity [p. 317] really is, the positive side of things. I believe that is the salvation of our position, not meeting things merely by doctrine, but bringing forward what God is doing. The assembly was there, and assembly conditions ensure the recognition of what God is doing. Then, the opposers who take part are “some of those who were of the sect of the Pharisees, who believed” Acts 15:5; it does not say simply that they were Pharisees, but they were of a sect, as if they had never lost that thought, carrying it into the realm of faith outwardly.
HD'AC Was that a sect inside the church — that they carried through into the assembly what they had been outside?
JT Yes, and the Lord had warned the disciples against, the “leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” Matthew 16:6. Then it says, “And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to see about this matter. And much discussion having taken place ...” Peter makes his remarks, and when he had finished, “all the multitude kept silence and listened to Barnabas and Paul relating all the signs and wonders which God had wrought among the nations by them”. That is the atmosphere in which the matter is settled. It is a very important matter in conflict, to keep to what God is doing; maintaining right doctrine always, but keeping to what God is doing; the work of God abides. The presence of Titus, a Greek, in Jerusalem at that time, is an outstanding thought. What will they say about this brother? We can understand how Titus would be invited to the houses of the saints. What will they say about him?
DLH Was not Titus a kind of test at Jerusalem, whether the saints there would recognise the work of God amongst the gentiles?
JT That was the intent, and there was a certain danger in bringing him there, because the enemy might gain the day in insisting that he should be circumcised; but [p. 318] he was not.
DLH He was a sort of object lesson, like the little child the Lord put in the midst.
JT If you had been there, you would have said, What about this young man Titus? Have we anything like him here? A reasonable brother would say, We may as well face this matter, because there is something going on among the gentiles that is at least equal to what we have here. That is to say, the work of God is the last word.
HD'AC There was a private interview held with the apostles, Galatians 2:2.
JT That was out of consideration for them.
HD'AC And in that private interview Paul indicated to them what they needed to know, the gospel of the glory that he preached. He said that they did not communicate anything to him, but were they not greatly enlightened and helped by the way Paul presented things?
JT You would expect that. He says, “I went up according to revelation, and I laid before them the glad tidings which I preach among the nations, but privately ...” He did not take the attitude of teaching, but of laying out the thing. You can understand how he would unfold the truth; he calls it, “the glad tidings which I preach among the nations”. One would love to have heard him!
CAC He would recognise all that was the product of the Lord’s personal service, as seen amongst the apostles, and in a sense, was prepared to submit what he had to the choicest tribunal that was available.
JT There was, as he says, the laying out of the truth: “I laid before them the glad tidings which I preach among the nations”. Then he says, “but neither was Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, compelled to be circumcised” (verse 3); he was evidently the example of the work of God amongst the nations which greatly aided in the matter.
Rem Peter shows himself to be in line with that in what he says, “But we believe that we shall be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same manner as they also”, Acts 15:11.
ASL Bringing Titus up uncircumcised brought matters to a crisis. The question would be raised, Is this man to be circumcised or not?
JT Paul stresses that he was not compelled to be circumcised. Titus was taken up to Jerusalem specially, but they did not compel him to be circumcised. That was a victory. Titus was intended to be a test. Timothy was circumcised on account of the Jews in a certain place, but he did not do that here. If he were considering for compromise, he might have had him circumcised and brought up. It was evidently a deliberate matter and in keeping with the revelation.
FJF Does that mean that the ministry connected with the heavenly system preceded and set aside that which was connected with the earthly Jerusalem?
JT That is what was proceeding. From chapter 7 onwards in the Acts, the gentile is in mind as the field of God’s operations. Jerusalem was really losing its richness as a soil, great and glorious as was the work at Pentecost. In fact, the apostles might legitimately have abandoned the place in the end of chapter 7, but they remained in Jerusalem, and the work went on there, and there were results, although their position was precarious. The prayer meeting in Mary’s house would indicate that, as has been remarked.
WCG Titus was circumcised in heart and spirit without being circumcised in the flesh.
Ques Does the uncompromising stand taken by the apostle indicate the importance of what was at stake the whole truth of the glad tidings?
JT Yes; it was a pitched battle. It is well to have the conflict in mind; the enemy had already taken the initiative in taking it to Antioch. The result might have been more favourable to the truth at Antioch because of the surroundings, but God says, as it were, Difficult [p. 320] as Jerusalem may seem to be, you go there. This is God’s matter. It is well to take that into account in any conflict, that at some particular time God takes a definite hand in it, and selects His own battlefield, however difficult it may seem to be. He said in effect to David, when attacking the Philistines the second time, You go behind them and wait for the sound in the mulberry-trees. But what sound? The sound of marching: that is, God is moving now. That is the point in the “revelation” here, that God is moving, and however great the opposition, faith says, If God is moving, there is only one result and that is victory. It was a very great victory to carry Jerusalem with Paul, for that was the result.
EuR In referring to the assembly conditions at Jerusalem, have you in mind that there was a vessel there in which God could operate in that way? Everything was settled in an open and deliberate way, and would carry the confidence of all universally.
JT That is right.
EJMcB It would remind one of the conflict that Elijah had in 1 Kings 18. He allowed the enemy to choose the conditions, and when their men were gathered together, he showed that the power was with God and not with man.
JT Quite so. Bring them all, he said in effect to Ahab — the prophets of Baal and of the Asherah. Well, they all came; but the battlefield was selected by Elijah, that is, mount Carmel.
PL Would you say that the revelation answers a little to the captain of the Lord’s host appearing to Joshua, and then God chose the field of battle at Jericho?
JT Yes, it was straitly shut up. It was a fortified place. God attacked the world at its strongest point. The Lord says, “Now is the judgment of this world” (John 12: 31) — it was at Jerusalem.
Ques Would you say that the issue at stake was “[p. 321] our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus”, in contrast to the bondage that the Judaisers would again bring these saints into?
JT That is what I thought we might see in this inquiry. This epistle is a sort of charter of our liberties. It is God allowing the truth to be attacked, and in the victory we have as it were a charter which stands. The liberty of christianity perhaps had not been so clearly set out hitherto; in this epistle, embodying what happened at Jerusalem, the great thought of the liberty of christianity was established. The false brethren were “brought in”, it says, and then they “came in surreptitiously to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage; to whom we yielded in subjection not even for an hour, that the truth of the glad tidings might remain with you”. It was the true spirit of a marshal in the conflict; he did not give way at all at any point. The chapter is remarkable in that way; he gives way at no point, one man standing up for the full thought of liberty, the liberty that the Lord Jesus has secured for us, God supporting him. It is a very fine position. Yet he does not underestimate these great persons at Jerusalem; “James and Cephas and John, who were conspicuous as being pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship”. I suppose they proved that they were pillars, that they were able to support and stretch out to all that God was doing.
HES Is not this remarkably like Numbers 31:49; not a single person was lost in the conflict?
JT That is good; as over against the great loss in the wood of Ephraim in the battle against Absalom.
JJ And yet when Peter came to Antioch, the fickleness and the failure was seen again in him, and Barnabas also was carried away. How do you account for that?
JT It is to bring out what we have been remarking as to the decline at Jerusalem, that already things [p. 322] were waning. God had secured a great moral effect in meeting this hostile movement, in the transfer of the conflict from Antioch to Jerusalem; He had carried Jerusalem, to a point at least, with what He was doing among the nations, and was maintaining general unity, which is a great matter.
HMS Is not the apostle’s desire in showing the Galatians that in regard of the attack he speaks of here, he had Jerusalem with him, quite in keeping with the first verse of the epistle: “all the brethren with me”, and do we not have a similar case in the book of Joshua when that great altar was built which might have led all that part of Israel away from the faith, and Phinehas comes with the ten princes, and was able to say, “Thus saith the whole assembly of Jehovah” Joshua 22:16? Here the apostle, in showing the Galatians their folly, reminds them that the brethren were against them.
JT Yes; this is history now. When he wrote the epistle he referred back to what happened at Jerusalem. All that he had to say, all he preached in the way of gospel among the nations, and the product of it representatively, were there in Jerusalem. He laid the whole thing out before the apostles there, and there was Titus, with the result that he secured the right hands of fellowship from those three men who were conspicuous as being pillars; meaning, I suppose, that they were supporting what God was doing.
ELM Do you see the conflict carried on to Antioch in the latter part of the chapter? If the enemy shifts the ground of the conflict from Jerusalem, and it is carried into Antioch, Paul there maintains the same ground also.
JT Yes. The paragraph beginning with verse 11 is a subsequent thing, all pointing to the gradual weakening of things at Jerusalem; but the first part of the chapter shows what God secured, maintaining liberty amongst His people, and in maintaining the truth carrying Jerusalem with it — a great moral victory.
[p. 323] But that did not deal with what was wrong at Jerusalem; while we may acquiesce in what is right, the real root of the matter may not be reached, and it was not reached. God did not intend that Paul should set things right at Jerusalem; it was going on to judgment as a matter of fact; but His work was at Jerusalem, His apostles were there, and they give their right hands of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas — a very great matter. The real difficulty at Jerusalem remained; and that is what the next paragraph shows. It says, “But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be condemned”. There is no privacy about this matter. Earlier he had indicated what he preached to Peter and the others privately, but not so now. It is another matter now.
GAvS Was this, then, a renewal of the attack at the very place where it had begun, in order to stultify what had been come to in Jerusalem?
JT Yes. It would have just set aside the effect of what had been reached at Jerusalem, and the great moral victory gained; the victory that God had achieved in transferring the conflict from Antioch to Jerusalem. Is this to be set aside? Peter came to Antioch; it is not now Judaising teachers, but Peter.
JTS Does this emphasise the importance of the treasuries you were speaking of, so that the truth that has been afforded should be conserved and carried through?
JT That is what you see in Paul. Peter comes to Antioch, and Paul says, “I withstood him to the face, because he was to be condemned: for before that certain came from James, he ate with those of the nations; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision; and the rest of the Jews also played the same dissembling part with him; so that even Barnabas was carried away too by their dissimulation”. Now, after all we have had, we come back to the fickleness that may be found even with the [p. 324] most distinguished brethren. Peter, the greatest of the twelve apostles, is capable of being swayed by certain who came from James, James himself not being there, and then the Jews also playing a dissembling part. It was a terrible matter, each playing his part in the dissimulation. It is very humbling that this should appear in the most distinguished of servants.
ASL Paul was the only one that discerned what was involved, because it was not only a question of eating or not eating with gentiles, but a definite departure from the truth of the gospel. So that serious issues may be at stake and not be discerned.
JT He had discernment, as you say. It was not that Peter was refusing any doctrine of Paul’s, it was Peter’s conduct, and shows how one distinguished brother may come under the influence of another. I am sure that Paul would never have said a word about it, were it not necessary to establish the truth he was dealing with among the nations. The Judaisers would make much of Peter, and other great men at Jerusalem; Paul mentions the greatest of them here, and shows how he is capable of being influenced. It was not that he was deliberate about it, because he was eating with the gentiles first. The capability of a great servant being influenced is what we should notice.
HD'AC Downright hypocrisy is the word used in the original.
JT It must have been a great sorrow to the apostle Paul, because you may be sure that the love between the two men remained. It was not that Peter premeditated this; the facts show the contrary. He was eating outwardly with the gentile believers, according to the letter from Jerusalem, but it is the influence he came under. Peter represents many things. The Spirit of God brings him forward, even in his failures, for our help, and in this he has to suffer for us. Among them is this susceptibility to influence.
NKM What did the apostle mean in writing to the Corinthians, when he says, “All things are lawful to me, but I will not be brought under the power of any”, 1 Corinthians 6: 12? I wondered whether that would fit in with what you are suggesting.
JT It is the sort of virtue which Peter himself insists on in his letter: “in your faith have also virtue”, 2 Peter 1:5. It is that sort of thing, including that one stands against evil influence. Some men are more influential than others, not because of their spirituality, but their general ability and circumstances. James represents a development at Jerusalem, and hence his influence. Certain came from him, it says; and then we have a party, certain ones each playing his part in the dissimulation — a most sorrowful thing.
HD'AC It does not look as if Jerusalem had gained much by the conversation, seeing that James now leads on this line.
JT Quite so, but the great thing was the moral effect of the letter. Jerusalem committed itself to what was going on among the gentiles, and defeated the devil then. His aim was to divide the saints of God, so that the work of God amongst the gentiles would be separated from Jerusalem. God defeated that effort. It is a great matter to defeat the wicked one; but the root at Jerusalem was not really dealt with.
MWB With regard to this moral victory, do you think there can be that sort of thing repeatedly, even in this day? A victory for the truth, and the truth generally admitted, but yet there may be some who have never judged the root of the trouble, and later one sees them carried away? Is there the possibility of that happening today?
JT That is what we may see here. Peter came to Antioch: the effect of that visit ought to have confirmed the letter sent out, and doubtless he intended to confirm it, but he came under influence.
PL His loins were not girded. He speaks in his epistle of the loins of the mind being girded; 1 Peter 1:13.
[p. 326] Thus we would be saved from wrong influence, and the voice from the excellent glory, in the second epistle, would preserve us under right influence.
JT Exactly. He leaves us, we may say, with that word — “the excellent glory” 2 Peter 1:17. But he is not under the influence of it here, he is under the influence of Jerusalem, which, as is said in this epistle, is “in bondage with her children”. The second part of the chapter is over against the first part. In the first part the apostle deals privately with Peter and the others, but now he says, “I withstood him to the face, because he was to be condemned”. Peter is retrogressing, and hence it is not a question of private conference now, but open rebuke, which is “better than secret love”, Proverbs 27:5.
MWB The truth had been decided on and had become law and statute, so to speak, and he was going back.
JT It was like doing violence to the constitution of the country, like a man disregarding the Magna Charta. The letter from Jerusalem was a great landmark consolidating the work of God among the Jews and the gentiles, but now, Peter is doing violence to that; so it is no longer a question of considering for him, but the truth and the liberty of the saints.
JJ It was a denial of grace.
JT That is what the apostle goes on to; he comes back now to the question of himself. He has dealt with Peter, and he goes on to restate the doctrines, and to show that Peter was building again the things he had destroyed. The letter written from Jerusalem set up a principle; it destroyed the thought of circumcision as applied to the gentiles, but now Peter is building that up again. Paul goes on to himself and says, “I am crucified with Christ”.
ASL In what way was the “truth of the glad tidings” being compromised by Peter’s action?
JT It was re-introducing the law which had made a difference between Jew and gentile. The middle wall [p. 327] had been broken down, God having reconciled “both in one body to God by the cross”, and Peter was doing away with that — a terrible evil. An ordinary believer might not have seen anything in what happened, but the discerning eye of Paul saw that the whole truth of christianity was involved. The word “truth” is more than doctrine really; it is the thing itself in its full liberating power.
WCG Does the apostle disclose the secret of his spiritual strength in verses 19 and 20?
JT Yes: “For I, through law, have died to law, that I may live to God. I am crucified with Christ, and no longer live, I, but Christ lives in me; but in that I now live in flesh, I live by faith, the faith of the Son of God, who has loved me and given himself for me”.
HMS Does it show us that the apostle Peter had not yet thoroughly learned the lesson he thought he had learned in Acts 10?
JT It is rather that he came under influence. I do not think Peter at heart gave up the truth, but he came under influence for the moment. Paul says, “I said to Peter before all”. I have no doubt Peter listened. Then he proceeds to show how things were worked out in himself, which is another great thing. One might say to Paul: You have been telling us a good deal, giving nice addresses, and have stood on doctrinal lines, you have succeeded in withstanding Peter to the face, but how have things been worked out in your own soul? That is how, as in service, we should challenge ourselves.
HD'AC It was not the first time Peter had acted in this kind of way; the Lord had exposed him before all, in John 21. He had said he did not know the Man, but he did, and loved Him too, but under the influence of people he acts the hypocrite.
JT We see at the end of the chapter what one may accomplish by the power of God in ministry resulting from what has been worked out in one’s own soul. He certainly left no ground for Peter to stand on,
[p. 328] and I have no doubt Peter gained by his remarks. But now, how was this worked out, how had he reached it himself? I do not know anything more effective in a way, than that a preacher can tell how the truth has come about in his own soul. That is what Paul is able to do above all others; he is able to tell us in Romans how things were worked out in his own soul; and so here, he says, “I, through law, have died to law, that I may live to God”. No one ever used the law more lawfully and effectively than he, and he used it against himself, so that he died by it, which was a very great result. Then he says, “I am crucified with Christ, and no longer live, I, but Christ lives in me; but in that I now live in flesh, I live by faith, the faith of the Son of God, who has loved me and given himself for me”. Perhaps there is nothing in Paul’s whole ministry that has so much power as that word: “I live by faith, the faith of the Son of God, who has loved me and given himself for me”. I believe he grasped it in his soul. The Son of God as He is; that is the thought. I am to live by the faith of the Son of God. It implies what He is today.
GAvS Are those two verses the explanation of how he was able to stand up and face the situation in Antioch?
JT Yes, the way he used the law against himself. It is how I am using it against myself, and with what effect, and now I have to grasp the thought of the Son of God where He is. It is the faith of Him now; Paul will not say this in heaven; he will be like Him there; but here, it is the “faith of the Son of God”.
JJ Would Mark be another product of the victory in the way he begins his gospel? “Beginning of the glad tidings” Mark 1:1. He had once deflected, but had come back under Paul’s influence, and would be greatly affected by the way he speaks here.
JT He wrote his gospel in the light of the Son [p. 329] of God.
FJF Would these last verses show what he had learned in his sojourn in Arabia?
JT Yes, the use he made of the law there, although it cannot be confined to Arabia. No one ever made better use of the law.
CSS Was the final victory seen in that Peter could acknowledge what Paul said as scripture; 2 Peter 3:15?
JT Quite so. There is no doubt the affections between the two men remained, and Peter fully owns Paul’s doctrine, also calling him “our beloved brother Paul”.