Chapter 2 Galatians: *This may need to be trimmed or summarized.
Gal 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus
with me also. (KJV)
2:1 Then after a period of fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem, [this time] with
Barnabas, taking Titus along also. (Amplified Version)
A. So Paul no doubt had been ministering in Syria and Cilicia, the area around Tarsus, his home city, his hometown, and there had been Gentiles that he had brought to the faith of Jesus Christ, Titus being one of them. Now Barnabas, one of the brethren in the church there in Jerusalem decided to go to Tarsus because there was a work of God being accomplished in Antioch and he, there were a lot of Gentiles being saved and having heard of Paul, he decided to go get Paul to help in the church in Antioch. And so he went to Tarsus, searched out Paul and invited Paul to come back and to become a minister there at Antioch. And he brought Paul to Jerusalem in order to sort of mend things with the apostles, to show them the truth of Paul’s faith. (Chuck Smith)
B. Fourteen years after.—From what date is this fourteen years to be reckoned? The phrase “I went up again” seems to be decisive in favor of reckoning it from the visit to Jerusalem just mentioned. We should therefore have to add the three years of Galatians 1:18, in order to reach the date of the Apostle’s conversion.
Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
2:2 I went up [to Jerusalem] because of a [divine] revelation, and I put before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles. But I did so in private before those of reputation, for fear that I might be running or had run [the course of my ministry] in vain.
A. In the passage Paul has proved the independence of his gospel; here he is concerned to prove that this independence is not anarchy and that his gospel is not something schismatic and sectarian, but no other than the faith to the Church. (William Barclay)
B. Not by any command from the apostles, nor to receive instructions in my work from them; but by revelation — From God, directing me to go. The apostle does not say to whom the revelation was made: it might be made to Paul himself, or to some of the prophets then residing at Antioch. But this circumstance, that he went in consequence of a revelation, shows evidently that the occasion of the journey was of great importance. It was, therefore, as has been observed above, very probably the journey which, at the desire of the church at Antioch, Paul and Barnabas undertook for the purpose of consulting the apostles and elders in Jerusalem concerning the circumcision of the converted proselytes, of which we have an account Acts 15., (Joseph Benson)
C. He did not go up to receive instructions from the apostles there in regard to his own work, or to be confirmed by them in his apostolic office, but he went to submit an important question pertaining to the church at large. (Albert Barnes)
Gal 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
2:3 But [all went well, for] not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled [as some had anticipated] to be circumcised, despite the fact that he was a Greek.
A. It seems likely that the leaders of the Church urged Paul, for the sake of peace, to give in, in
the case of Titus. But he stood like a rock. He knew that to yield would be to accept the slavery of the law and to turn his back on the freedom which is in Christ. (Barclay)
B. This, St. Paul intimates, was a crucial case. Titus was a Gentile pure; not (like Timothy) having one parent of Jewish extraction and therefore capable of being identified with the Jewish people, but Gentile-born of both parents. The clause, ’"who was with me," after verse 1, was quite unnecessary for mere definition; in fact, it is not added for definition, but to mark the close association with an uncircumcised Gentile which the apostle openly displayed at Jerusalem. He took him with him, we may suppose, when he came before the Church at its public assemblies; when he appeared before the select meeting of the apostles and elders; when he joined the brethren in the agapae and the Lord’s Supper—occasions of fraternal communion, in which the presence of a "dog," "an uncircumcised Greek," would be tenfold obnoxious. We cannot, by the way, but marvel at St. Paul’s great courage in thus acting. Not only was this paraded fellowship with Titus sure to give deep offence to the vast majority of his Christian brethren, but it might also well expose him to serious personal risks among the highly inflammable populace of the city. At Jerusalem his "soul was among lions." The two clauses, "who was with me, being a Greek," illustrate the "not even." Openly displayed as was Titus’s companionship with St. Paul before the eyes of all the Jews, both believers and unbelievers, and Gentile as he was known to be, yet not even in his case was circumcision persistently insisted upon. (Pulpit Comm.)
Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out
our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
2:4 My concern was because of the false brothers [those people masquerading as Christians] who had been secretly smuggled in [to the community of believers]. They had slipped in to spy on the freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us back into bondage [under the Law of Moses].
A. The Judaizing brethren got introduced into the assembly of the apostles, in order to find out what was implied in the liberty of the Gospel, that they might know the better how to oppose St. Paul and his fellows in their preaching Christ to the Gentiles, and admitting them into the Church without obliging them to observe circumcision and keep the law. The apostle saw that while such men were in the assembly it was better not to mention his mission among the Gentiles, lest, by means of those false brethren, occasion should be given to altercations and disputes; therefore he took the opportunity, by private conferences, to set the whole matter, relative to his work among the Gentiles, before the chief of the apostles. (Adam Clarke)
B. The designation, "false brethren," after the analogy of "false apostles," "false prophets" were those who were not really brethren in Christ, but had superinduced the profession of such over a state of mind radically incompatible with it; not children of God through faith in Christ Jesus," but only simulating faith in Christ; outwardly "baptized into Christ," but not inwardly, and therefore not really. (Pulpit Comm.)
Gal 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
2:5 But we did not yield to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel would continue to remain with you [in its purity].
A. From the beginning the real leaders of the Church accepted his position; but there were others who were out to tame his fiery spirit. There were those, who, as we have seen, accepted Christianity but believed that God never gave any privilege to a man who was not a Jew: and that, therefore, man could become a Christian, he must be circumcised and take the whole law upon him. (Barclay)
B. Paul's problem was that he could not say too little or he might seem to be abandoning his principles; and he could not say too much, or it might seem that he was at open variance with the leaders of the Church. The result was that, his sentences are broken and disjointed. reflecting his anxiety. (William Barclay)
C. We refused to yield to any of their demands. See Act_15:5. Paul sternly opposed their demands in order to preserve the truth of the gospel among the Gentiles. The motive of his firmness was to make the future safe. Had he yielded a jot, advantage would have been taken of it. (B. W. Johnson)
D. So fully satisfied was he with his Divine call, and that he had in preaching among the Gentiles acted in strict conformity to it, that he did not submit in the least to the opinion of those Judaizing teachers; and therefore he continued to insist on the exemption of the Gentiles from the necessity of submitting to Jewish rites; that the truth of the Gospel - this grand doctrine, that the Gentiles are admitted by the Gospel of Christ to be fellow-heirs with the Jews, might continue; and thus the same doctrine is continued with you Gentiles. (Adam Clarke)
Gal 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
2:6 But from those who were of high reputation (whatever they were--in terms of individual importance--makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality--He is not impressed with the positions that people hold nor does He recognize distinctions such as fame or power)--well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me [that is, they had nothing to add to my gospel message nor did they impose any new requirements on me].
A. But of these who seemed to be somewhat
1. The writer is about to introduce, which he does in the next five verses (6-10), a fresh illustration of the independent position, which in point both of doctrine and of ministerial footing he held in relation to the first apostles and to the heads of the Jerusalemite Church, and at the same time of the full recognition which in both respects these had accorded to him. The construction of this sentence, as it proceeds, is interrupted and changed. When St. Paul wrote, from those who were reputed to be somewhat, he would seem to have meant to add, "I received nothing fresh either in knowledge of the gospel or in authority as Christ’s minister," or some-tiring to that effect; but in his indignant parenthesis asserting his independence with respect to those whom his gainsayers in Galatia would seem to have pronounced his superiors, both in knowledge and in office, he loses sight of the beginning of the sentence, and begins it afresh in another form with the words, for they who were of repute, etc. Reputed to be somewhat; that is, thought highly of. (Pulpit Comm.)
2. Paul knew that in his day, there were leaders of high reputation – “famous” Christians, if you will. But they did not overly impress or intimidate Paul; (David Guzik)
B. it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:
But there is no difference between those who were of acknowledged reputation and myself; God accepts no man's person; but, in the conferences which I held with them, they added nothing to me - gave me no new light; did not attempt to impose on me any obligation, because they saw that God had appointed me my work, and that his counsel was with me. (Adam Clarke)
C. added nothing to me:
The "for" appears related to the foregoing clause. That God does not respect man for his person was evidenced by the fact that Paul’s knowledge of the gospel was already so complete and his work was so honored by God, that those whose person seemed to many so markedly superior to his, found that all they had to do was to frankly recognize his teaching as already adequate and complete, and his work as standing on a perfectly equal footing with their own. (Pulpit Comm.)
Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
2:7 But on the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised (Gentiles), just as Peter had been [entrusted to proclaim the gospel] to the circumcised (Jews);
A. It is to be carefully noted that it is not a question of two different gospels being preached; it is a question of the same gospel being brought to two different spheres by different people specially qualified to do so. (William Barclay)
B. So far from adding any new light to ME, THEY gave in THEIR adhesion to the new path on which Barnabas and I, by independent revelation, had entered. So far from censuring, they gave a hearty approval to my independent course, namely, the innovation of preaching the Gospel without circumcision to the Gentiles.
C. When they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, and perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter. (Chuck Smith)
D. And this is great, this is a real problem that existed in the early church and this is how it was resolved. Recognizing that we each have our ministries but they are different. God has called you to the circumcision, great, go for it, Peter. God has called me to the Gentiles, great, I’ll go for it. We’re dealing with different kinds of people who need a different emphasis and message. (Chuck Smith)
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
2:8 (for He who worked effectively for Peter and empowered him in his ministry to the Jews also worked effectively for me and empowered me in my ministry to the Gentiles).
A. God wrought on Peter’s behalf for apostleship of the circumcision; that is, towards, in furtherance of, his work as their apostle, by constituting him their apostle, by making his ministry effectual in turning their hearts to Christ, and by miracles wrought by his hands, including the impartation through him of miraculous gifts to his converts; for such were "the signs of the apostle" (Pulpit Comm.)
B. For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
2:9 And recognizing the grace [that God had] bestowed on me, James and Cephas (Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars [of the Jerusalem church], gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we could go to the Gentiles [with their blessing] and they to the circumcised (Jews).
James—placed first in the oldest manuscripts, even before Peter, as being bishop of Jerusalem, and so presiding at the council (Acts 15:1-29). He was called "the Just," from his strict adherence to the law, and so was especially popular among the Jewish party though he did not fall into their extremes; whereas Peter was somewhat estranged from them through his intercourse with the Gentile Christians. To each apostle was assigned the sphere best suited to his temperament: to James, who was tenacious of the law, the Jerusalem Jews; to Peter, who had opened the door to the Gentiles but who was Judaically disposed, the Jews of the dispersion; to Paul, who, by the miraculous and overwhelming suddenness of his conversion, had the whole current of his early Jewish prejudices turned into an utterly opposite direction, the Gentiles. Not separately and individually, but collectively the apostles together represented Christ, the One Head, in the apostleship. (JFB)
Gal 2:10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
2:10 They asked only [one thing], that we remember the poor, the very thing I was also eager to do.
A. Paul certainly did remember the poor in Jerusalem. He put a lot of effort towards gathering a contribution among the Gentile churches for the sake of the saints in Jerusalem. (David Guzik)
B. Paul had already been the means of bringing contributions from the wealthier churches of Antioch to Jerusalem (Acts 11:29-30).
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
2:11 Now when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him face to face [about his conduct there], because he stood condemned [by his own actions]. (See below)
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
2:12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat [his meals] with the Gentiles; but when the men [from Jerusalem] arrived, he began to withdraw and separate himself [from the Gentile believers], because he was afraid of those from the circumcision. (See below)
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
2:13 The rest of the Jews joined him in this hypocrisy [ignoring their knowledge that Jewish and Gentile Christians were united, under the new covenant, into one faith], with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
A. The next phase in this question was at Antioch. On his coming thither Peter was guilty of a great inconsistency. He began by eating freely with the Gentile converts, but the arrival of a party of the stricter Jews from Jerusalem was enough to make him alter his practice. He gradually withdrew and held aloof, and a number of others, including even Barnabas, followed his example. This conduct of his I openly reproved, asking him why it was that at one moment he himself did not hesitate to adopt the custom of the Gentiles, while at another he insisted upon their conforming to those of the Jews.
B. Barnabas also—"Even Barnabas": one least likely to be led into such an error, being with Paul in first preaching to the idolatrous Gentiles: showing the power of bad example and numbers. In Antioch, the capital of Gentile Christianity and the central point of Christian missions, the controversy first arose, and in the same spot it now broke out afresh; and here Paul had first to encounter the party that afterwards persecuted him in every scene of his labors. (JFB)
C. A Church ceases to be Christian if it contains class distinctions. In the presence of God a man is neither Jew nor Gentile, noble nor base, rich nor poor. (William Barclay)
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
2:14 But when I saw that they were not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I told Cephas (Peter) in front of everyone, “If you, being a Jew, live [as you have been living] like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how is it that you are [now virtually] forcing the Gentiles to live like Jews [if they want to eat with you]?”
If thou, &c.—"If thou, although being a Jew (and therefore one who might seem to be more bound to the law than the Gentiles), livest (habitually, without scruple and from conviction, Ac 15:10, 11) as a Gentile (freely eating of every food, and living in other respects also as if legal ordinances in no way justify, Ga 2:12), and not as a Jew, how (so the oldest manuscripts read, for 'why') is it that thou art compelling (virtually, by thine example) the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (literally, to Judaize, that is, to keep the ceremonial customs of the Jews: What had been formerly obedience to the law, is now mere Judaism). The high authority of Peter would constrain the Gentile Christians to regard Judaizing as necessary to all, since Jewish Christians could not consort with Gentile converts in communion without it. (JFB)
Gal 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
2:15 [I went on to say] “We are Jews by birth and not sinners from among the Gentiles;
(15-21) The section which follows is, in form at least, still a continuation of the rebuke addressed to St. Peter; but the Apostle soon drifts away from this, and begins imperceptibly a comment upon his own words, which is addressed directly to the Galatians. We are thus led, without any real break, from the historical and personal to the doctrinal portion of the Epistle. (Ellicott)
A. Jews by Nature:
1.because we were Jews by birth.
2. 15, 16. Connect these verses together, and read with most of the oldest manuscripts "But" in the beginning of Ga 2:16: "We (I and thou, Peter) by nature (not by proselytism), Jews, and not sinners as (Jewish language termed the Gentiles) from among the Gentiles, YET (literally, 'BUT') knowing that … even we (resuming the 'we' of Ga 2:15, 'we also,' as well as the Gentile sinners; casting away trust in the law), have believed," &c. (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown = JFB)
B. Not sinners?
1.The Jews regarded all Gentiles as “sinners” in contrast with themselves.
2.When the Jew used the word sinners of Gentiles he was not thinking of moral qualities;
he was thinking of the observance of the law. (W.B.)
3. Paul here quotes from his words to Peter when he withstood him at Antioch to show the Galatians that, whatever the legalists may have pretended, Peter and he were in perfect accord doctrinally. Paul appealed to the common belief of Peter and himself as a rebuke of Peter’s inconsistent practice. (C. I. Scofield)
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
2:16 yet we know that a man is not justified [and placed in right standing with God] by works of the Law, but [only] through faith in [God’s beloved Son,] Christ Jesus. And even we [as Jews] have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law. By observing the Law no one will ever be justified [declared free of the guilt of sin and its penalty].
A. Not justified by works
So Paul said, Even we who have kept the law can only be justified through faith. By the works of the law, no one can be justified. Your obedience to the law of God would not save you. Let us say that you could keep the law of God. Written and traditional, oral. It would not save you. This is one of the problems of the Jewish people today. This is exactly what they are trusting in for their salvation, their own imperfect works of the law. (Chuck Smith)
B. By the faith of Jesus Christ.—The preposition “by” occurs five times in this verse. In every case except the present it is represented by the same word in Greek. There is, however, no substantial difference of meaning; the only difference is that in the other cases stress is laid rather upon the cause, here rather upon the means. “Faith of Jesus Christ” means, as we are more accustomed to say, “faith in Jesus Christ.”
C. By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.—This is a quotation for which no exact equivalent is to be found in the Old Testament. The nearest appears to be Psalm 143:2 : “In thy sight shall no man living be justified.” This, as written under the dispensation of the Law, naturally applied to that dispensation, so that the Apostle was justified in adding “by the works of the Law.” The same quotation, in the same words, is made in Romans 3:20. “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”
Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
2:17. But if, while we seek to be justified in Christ [by faith], we ourselves are found to be sinners, does that make Christ an advocate or promoter of our sin? Certainly not!
A. But if while we seek to be justified (To show to be righteous, declare righteous)
If, while we acknowledge that we must be justified by faith in Christ, we ourselves are found sinners, enjoining the necessity of observing the rites and ceremonies of the law, which never could and never can justify, and yet, by submitting to circumcision, we lay ourselves under the necessity of fulfilling the law, which is impossible, we thus constitute ourselves sinners; is, therefore, Christ the minister of sin? Christ, who has taught us to renounce the law, and expect justification through his death? God forbid! that we should either act so, or think so.
(Adam Clarke) Romans 3:28 “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”
B. We ourselves also are found sinners
The word "found" hints a certain measure of surprise. Peter was behaving now as if to his painful surprise he had found himself to have been previously acting in a most guilty manner. The word "sinners" appears to denote more than the state of ceremonial uncleanness incurred by violating the prescriptions of Levitical purity; indeed, it meant more even as used by thorough-going ceremonialists (as in Php_3:15); it points to the gross outrage which would in the case supposed have been put upon the majesty of God’s Law. In the next verse "transgressor" is used as a convertible term. "Ourselves also"—as truly as any Gentile of them all. There is a touch of sarcasm in the clause, having a covert reference to Peter having turned his back upon his Gentile brethren as unfit for him to associate with; (Pulpit Comm.)
Philippians 3:9 “And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:”
C. is therefore Christ the minister of sin?
The inference here is so shocking that the apostle is unwilling to put it forward except as a question that might fairly be asked upon such premises. This gives the sentence a less repulsive tone than the reading, which without an interrogative puts it thus
D. God forbid
Abhorred be the thought!" we both say; but since it cannot without horrid impiety be said that Christ was a minister to us of sin and not of righteousness, it follows of necessity that we did not sin against God when we set the works of the Law aside and sought righteousness in Christ alone without any respect had to them.
Gal 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
2:18 For if I [or anyone else should] rebuild [through word or by practice] what I once tore down [the belief that observing the Law is essential for salvation], I prove myself to be a transgressor.
A. Paul speaks out of the depths of personal experience. For him to re-erect the whole fabric of the law would have been spiritual suicide. (Barclay)
1.He had tried the Law with all the intensity of his hot heart to put himself right with God by a life that sought to obey every single item of the law. He had found that such an attempt produced nothing but a deeper and deeper sense that all he could do could never put him right with God. (Barclay)
2.It was not until Paul offered himself up hoping for mercy when face to face with Christ that he found the way to God. All the Law had done was to show him helpless. Why would he want to go back to the Law? (Barclay)
B. Transgressor (Violators)
Gal 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
2:19 For through the Law I died to the Law and its demands on me [because salvation is provided through the death and resurrection of Christ], so that I might [from now on] live to God.
A. Through the law am dead to the law.—In what sense can this be said? The Apostle himself had got rid of his obligations to the Law—not, however, by simply evading them from the first, but by passing through a period of subjection to them. The road to freedom from the Law lay through the Law. The Law, on its prophetic side, pointed to Christ. (Ellicott)
B. That I might live unto God.—We might not unnaturally expect here “unto Christ,” instead of “unto God.” But the Christian lives unto Christ in order that he may live unto God. The ultimate object of the Christian scheme is that he may be presented righteous before God. By the Law he could not obtain this righteousness. It is obtained in Christ. (Ellicott)
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
2:20 I have been crucified with Christ [that is, in Him I have shared His crucifixion]; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body I live by faith [by adhering to, relying on, and completely trusting] in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
A. I am crucified with Christ - The death of Christ on the cross has showed me that there is no hope of salvation by the law; I am therefore as truly dead to all expectation of justification by the law, as Christ was dead when he gave up the ghost upon the cross. Through him alone I live - enjoy a present life, and have a prospect of future glory.
B. Yet not I-- It is not of my natural life I speak, nor of any spiritual things which I myself have procured; but Christ liveth in me. God made man to be a habitation of his own Spirit: the law cannot live in me so as to give me a Divine life; it does not animate, but kill; but Christ lives in me; he is the soul of my soul; so that I now live to God. But this life I have by the faith of the Son of God - by believing on Christ as a sacrifice for sin; for he loved me, and because he did so he gave himself for me - made himself a sacrifice unto death, that I might be saved from the bitter pains of death eternal.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
2:21 I do not ignore or nullify the [gracious gift of the] grace of God [His amazing, unmerited favor], for if righteousness comes through [observing] the Law, then Christ died needlessly. [His suffering and death would have had no purpose whatsoever.]”
A. I do not reject the grace of God. As I should be doing, it; instead of resting with "glorified" (1 Peter 1:8) satisfaction in the fatherly love and complacency with which God regards me in Christ
B. Then did Christ for nought die. This one reason is decisive. The sole reason why the Son of God came into the world to suffer death was to do away our sins and make us righteous with God. But if sin can be purged by the purifications of the Law, and cleanness before God is procurable by Levitical ceremonies, then there was no need for this; then the Crucifixion, for this one end ordained and from the beginning of time prepared for by the Father, and fur this one end, of his own free choice gone forward to, brought about, and undergone by Christ himself, was a simply superfluous sacrifice. We might have been saved, nay, have perchance saved ourselves, without it.
