But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
certain men came from James - "—if, as seems probably, this encounter took place previous to the Jerusalem Council, then these may be identified with the 'certain men' who 'came down from Judaea,' mentioned in Acts 15:1. The objection to this identification is that, whereas here Barnabas sides with Peter and the Judaizers, in Acts he is represented as opposing them. The difficult, however, is not insurmountable, for Barnabas speedily retraced his steps, and, indeed, accompanied Paul to Jerusalem in the interests of freedom. Moreover, Paul does not state that Barnabas actually associated himself with Peter in his action; the words of verse 13 may mean no more than that he gave him countenance. While it is possible to understand the words as = 'certain sent from James,' it need not in that case be assumed that he had charged them with a mission to divide the church, or to put a stigma of uncleanness on the Gentile believers, or to expostulate with Peter because he had eaten with them. It is quite conceivable that his emissaries may have exceeded their authority, and have taken a course not anticipated by James. On the other hand, it is possible that, out of sympathy with 'the circumcision,' and suspicious of the more liberal gospel of Paul, he may have so charged them. Certainly the language of vv. 1-10 suggests that the arguments of Paul prior to the meetings of the Council had affected a change in the minds of James and his colleagues." (Vine)
he was eating with the Gentiles - "—continuous tense, 'he used to eat.' i.e., 'he took meals with,' as apparently had been his custom since the vision of Acts 10. While there is no direct injunction in the Mosaic Law forbidding the Israelite to eat with the Gentile, a rabbinic deduction to that effect was rigidly observed by the stricter Jews of the sect of the Pharisees." (Vine)
fearing the circumcision party - "This was not Peter's first experience of the opposition of the Judaizers, see Acts 11: 2, 3; it is less explicable that he should have yielded so readily on this occasion." (Vine)
"It was undoubtedly at this point in the history of the Acts of the Apostles that we must place Peter's visit to Antioch and his stern rebuke by Paul. It took place after the council at Jerusalem and before the separation between Paul and Barnabas. The record of this incident is given to us here in Paul's letter to the Galatians. This is the second time that Peter got into trouble over the Gentile question, and there is a significant connection between this incident at Antioch and the previous one at Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the headquarters of the Jewish church; Antioch was the headquarters of the Gentile church. When Peter returned to Jerusalem after ministering to Cornelius, they that were of the circumcision contended with him (Acts 11:2). At Jerusalem he was called to account for eating with the Gentiles (Ver. 3). At Antioch he was rebuked because he stopped eating with the Gentiles (Gal 2:12). At Jerusalem he had rightly defended his action; he had done right by eating with the Gentiles. At Antioch he had no defense to offer for he was wrong; he should have continued to eat with, and have fellowship with the Gentiles. There was naturally a keen interest at Jerusalem concerning the developments among the Gentiles. It was soon after the council at Jerusalem that Peter traveled to Antioch to visit the church there himself. It must have seemed like a further fulfillment of the sheet vision that God had given him when he sat to eat with those Gentiles and enjoyed the fellowship. But then something happened. A report came that certain people from James' party had arrived at Antioch. As soon as the announcement was made, a separation took place among those who had been thus enjoying each other's fellowship." (Stam)
NOTE: Ryrie concludes that this incident is actually an account of what happened in Acts 11, not Acts 15: "Acts 2:1-10 [is] Paul's account of the events recorded in Acts 11 (if the letter was written to the churches in South Galatian) or, less likely, Acts 15 (if written to North Galatia)." (Ryrie)
I said to Cephas before them all - "—probably in a gathering of the church at Antioch. Peter's conduct had been seen by all, and by introducing a caste system into the church it was likely to have far-reaching and mischievous consequences. Hence this public remonstrance, cp. 1 Timothy 5:20." (Vine)
"Was Paul the troublemaker in Antioch? Not at all, for the trouble was more subtle than appears on the surface. God had been breaking down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14), and, of the apostles at Jerusalem, no one knew this better than Peter. He had been shown in a vision that God wanted him to eat and have fellowship with the Gentiles in Cornelius' home, and he had helped Paul's cause in the dispute at the Jerusalem council by reminding the Judaizers of that incident. He had declared that 'God, which knoweth the hearts, bear them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith' (Acts 15:8-9). Peter had known and testified to the oneness of Jewish and Gentiles believers in Christ, but at Antioch he 'withdrew' himself from the Gentiles. He had done it hypocritically for fear of those of James' party. He may have done it with the most kindly attitude, with many apologies and explanations to the Gentiles, but the fact remained that he was causing a division among believers. Nor was this merely a local matter. It was a repudiation of the decision of the council with which he previously had so much to do, and it was a repudiation of God's revealed will. What if Paul had kept silent? Had he not spoken up boldly, a division might well have started in Antioch which would have opened an irreparable breach between the Jewish and Gentile believers The truth that all believers are one Body in Christ could have been negated. Silence in such a case would not have helped to keep the unity of the Spirit, but would have helped to break it. Peter may have excused himself most apologetically, and, though Paul's open rebuke may have seemed harsh and unkind, it was Peter who was causing the division; it was Paul who was endeavoring to restore unity." (Stam)
live like - "—zao. Here the tense is present continuous = habit of life. As a matter of fact at the moment Peter was living 'as do the Jews,' but Paul has in mind what had been Peter's habit before he was influenced by the Judaizers, and what would probably become his habit again when that influence was absent. Thus the use of the present tense adds point to the reproof." (Vine)
not Gentile sinners - "—here, of course, the apostle is taking the Judaizers on their own ground, and in an ironical way reminding them of their claim to moral superiority over 'the uncircumcision.' That Jews also are sinners he shows plainly as his argument develops; see v. 17." (Vine)
is not justified - "—dikaioo, = to show, or declare, to be right, Luke 7:29; 10:29; 1 Corinthians 4:4. In the majority of its New Testament occurrences dikaioo = 'to declare a person to be righteous before God.' All doers of the law are justified, Romans 2:13, with this proviso, that if a man 'shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all,' James 2:10; cp. 3:10 below. As a matter of fact, however, no such doers of law have yet been found among men, and 'there is no distinction,' i.e., as between Jew and Gentile, 'for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God,' i.e., fail to secure the approval of the sole Lawgiver and Judge. Clearly, then, by works of law shall no flesh be justified, or accounted righteous, in His sight, Romans 3:22, 23, 20, marg., the conclusion here, as in the more extended argument of the Epistle to the Romans, ep. also 3:11 below. And this the converted Jews had themselves acknowledged when they sought justification through Christ." (Vine)
by works - "—i.e., by obedience, by abstaining from the things prohibited and by doing the things prescribed, cp. Hebrews 6:1; 9:14, where such works are described as 'dead,' i.e., unproductive." (Vine)
of the law - "—nomos, the absence of the article here shows that the apostle is asserting a principle, 'by obedience to law'; but since speaker and hearers were alike Jews, it is plain that the Mosaic Law is in view. It is, however, the fact that the Mosaic Law is law that is emphasized, and this becomes even more evident where 'law' is set in contrast with 'grace,' as in Romans 6:14, 15, and with 'faith,' as in 3:28. The Mosaic Law itself is readily divisible into two parts, ceremonial and moral, but such a distinction is never explicitly made in Scripture, neither is it ever assumed. And while the ceremony of circumcision was, apparently, the occasion of the present dispute, Paul himself asserts that submission to the ceremony, or rite, carried with it an obligation to do the whole law, 5:3. Hence throughout this Epistle, and indeed through all his writings, the apostle asserts the freedom of the Christ from the Law of Moses in it totality, making no distinction as between ceremonial and moral." (Vine)
is Christ then a servant of sin? - "—i.e., 'did Christ make us sinners when through His gospel He revealed to us our sinful condition, and we learned that all our legal righteousnesses were but as a polluted garment?' Cp. Isaiah 64:6, and Romans 6:13, where 'sin' is personified; so here, 'does Christ further the interests, extend the dominion, of sin?'" (Vine)
what I tore down - "—kataluo, = to loosen down, used of the demolition of a building, Matthew 24:2, of the death of the body, 2 Corinthians 5:1, of the failure of purposes, Acts 5:38, 39, and of the marring of a person's spiritual well-being, Romans 14:20. The Lord Jesus declared that He came 'not to destroy [kataluo] the law,' Matthew 5:17, that is to say, not to lower the standard of divine righteousness, but, on the contrary, in His own life to 'magnify the law and make it honorable,' (Isaiah 42:21. Here a general principle is state; 'those things' = any things, but the particular application in this case, as the context plainly shows, is to the use of the law as a means of justification." (Vine)
NOTE: Stam's take on this is a little different: "Peter, in separating from the Gentile believers, was building again something that he had helped to destroy, something which God Himself had destroyed—'the middle wall of partition' between believing Jews and Gentiles (Eph 2:14). The Jewish believers at Jerusalem, including Peter, had recognized that the Gentile believers were brethren in Christ, but then Peter had actually rebuilt this wall again and separated himself." (Stam)
I died to the law - "—apothnesko; here the essential meaning, separation, is readily discernible. The law by condemning him, even when his efforts to comply with it were most strenuous, cut him off from hope of justification by its means. In the epistle to Romans 'sin' is said to be the slayer, 'sin, finding occasion through the commandment ... slew me,' 7:11; for the law in itself is 'holy, righteous, good,' but man, being unholy, unrighteous and evil, finds himself, because of his inherent sinfulness, not aided by, but in essential and inevitable opposition to, the law. By the law, then, the knowledge that he is a sinner comes to man, 3:20, and the sinner is 'without strength' either to keep the law, 5:6, or to please God, 8:8. Thus, on every hand, 'the commandment, which was unto [i.e., which he supposed would prove to be a means of] life, he found to be unto [i.e., to the effect of revealing to him his actual condition of] death,' 7:10; see also 7:6." (Vine)
that I might live - "—zao, as in v. 14. True, it was God's law that 'slew' him, but a new element is introduced, grace, v. 21, which discovered to him that this death was the necessary preliminary to the obtaining of life directly from the source of like, God Himself. 'Live' is here = 'be justified before.'" (Vine)
I have been crucified with Christ. - "—in the original two words only, 'with-Christ I-have-been-jointly-crucified.' The pronoun is not emphatic, for the apostle is stating something that is true of him, not because he is an apostle, nor because of his spiritual attainments, but because he is a believers, and which is, therefore, true of every believer ... The Judaizers shunned the reproach of the Cross; to them it was a 'stumbling block,' 5:11; 6:12, cp. 1 Corinthians 1:23; he glorified in it and made it his own, cp. 6;14. Nor is it merely that he had 'crucified' the grosser elements in his nature, cp. 5:24; he himself, his virtues and his vices, all that entered into and made the man, had been nailed to the Cross; henceforth he hoped nothing from the one, feared nothing from the other. Christ, though He had fully discharge every obligation imposed by the law, endured the extreme penalty prescribed for 'transgression and disobedience,' Hebrews 2:2. When, therefore, a man believes on Christ, he acknowledges the judgment of God against sin to be just, and accepts the death of Christ as the execution of that judgment upon him for his own guilt. In thus believing the man becomes identified with Christ in His death, and since death nullifies all claims and all obligations, is 'made dead to the law through the body of Christ,' Romans 7:4, and ceases, finally, to be under the jurisdiction of the law." (Vine)
Christ who lives in me - "When Paul 'sought to establish his own righteousness,' Romans 10:3, everything depended upon his vigilance and energy, but when he realized the futility of his best efforts and trusted in another than himself, i.e., in Christ, he became conscious of a new power working in him for righteousness." (Vine)
I live by faith - "—there was no outward change, the new life made no appeal to the senses, because it was received in response to faith and was maintained by the exercise of faith. Faith is, indeed, the characteristic function of the new life." (Vine)
"How believers need to learn this blessed truth! We are kept, while in the flesh, not by 'our faith' but by His faithfulness. Our God-given faith is but the channel through which we appreciate and enjoy His never-failing faithfulness. Our 'faith' would be vain were it not for 'the faith [fidelity] of the Son of God.' The best of us would utterly fail were it not that 'he ever liveth to make intercession for [us]' (Heb 7:25) and 'now appears in the presence of God for us' (Heb 9:24)." (Stam)
certain men came from James - "—if, as seems probably, this encounter took place previous to the Jerusalem Council, then these may be identified with the 'certain men' who 'came down from Judaea,' mentioned in Acts 15:1. The objection to this identification is that, whereas here Barnabas sides with Peter and the Judaizers, in Acts he is represented as opposing them. The difficult, however, is not insurmountable, for Barnabas speedily retraced his steps, and, indeed, accompanied Paul to Jerusalem in the interests of freedom. Moreover, Paul does not state that Barnabas actually associated himself with Peter in his action; the words of verse 13 may mean no more than that he gave him countenance. While it is possible to understand the words as = 'certain sent from James,' it need not in that case be assumed that he had charged them with a mission to divide the church, or to put a stigma of uncleanness on the Gentile believers, or to expostulate with Peter because he had eaten with them. It is quite conceivable that his emissaries may have exceeded their authority, and have taken a course not anticipated by James. On the other hand, it is possible that, out of sympathy with 'the circumcision,' and suspicious of the more liberal gospel of Paul, he may have so charged them. Certainly the language of vv. 1-10 suggests that the arguments of Paul prior to the meetings of the Council had affected a change in the minds of James and his colleagues." (Vine)
he was eating with the Gentiles - "—continuous tense, 'he used to eat.' i.e., 'he took meals with,' as apparently had been his custom since the vision of Acts 10. While there is no direct injunction in the Mosaic Law forbidding the Israelite to eat with the Gentile, a rabbinic deduction to that effect was rigidly observed by the stricter Jews of the sect of the Pharisees." (Vine)
fearing the circumcision party - "This was not Peter's first experience of the opposition of the Judaizers, see Acts 11: 2, 3; it is less explicable that he should have yielded so readily on this occasion." (Vine)
"It was undoubtedly at this point in the history of the Acts of the Apostles that we must place Peter's visit to Antioch and his stern rebuke by Paul. It took place after the council at Jerusalem and before the separation between Paul and Barnabas. The record of this incident is given to us here in Paul's letter to the Galatians. This is the second time that Peter got into trouble over the Gentile question, and there is a significant connection between this incident at Antioch and the previous one at Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the headquarters of the Jewish church; Antioch was the headquarters of the Gentile church. When Peter returned to Jerusalem after ministering to Cornelius, they that were of the circumcision contended with him (Acts 11:2). At Jerusalem he was called to account for eating with the Gentiles (Ver. 3). At Antioch he was rebuked because he stopped eating with the Gentiles (Gal 2:12). At Jerusalem he had rightly defended his action; he had done right by eating with the Gentiles. At Antioch he had no defense to offer for he was wrong; he should have continued to eat with, and have fellowship with the Gentiles. There was naturally a keen interest at Jerusalem concerning the developments among the Gentiles. It was soon after the council at Jerusalem that Peter traveled to Antioch to visit the church there himself. It must have seemed like a further fulfillment of the sheet vision that God had given him when he sat to eat with those Gentiles and enjoyed the fellowship. But then something happened. A report came that certain people from James' party had arrived at Antioch. As soon as the announcement was made, a separation took place among those who had been thus enjoying each other's fellowship." (Stam)
NOTE: Ryrie concludes that this incident is actually an account of what happened in Acts 11, not Acts 15: "Acts 2:1-10 [is] Paul's account of the events recorded in Acts 11 (if the letter was written to the churches in South Galatian) or, less likely, Acts 15 (if written to North Galatia)." (Ryrie)
I said to Cephas before them all - "—probably in a gathering of the church at Antioch. Peter's conduct had been seen by all, and by introducing a caste system into the church it was likely to have far-reaching and mischievous consequences. Hence this public remonstrance, cp. 1 Timothy 5:20." (Vine)
"Was Paul the troublemaker in Antioch? Not at all, for the trouble was more subtle than appears on the surface. God had been breaking down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14), and, of the apostles at Jerusalem, no one knew this better than Peter. He had been shown in a vision that God wanted him to eat and have fellowship with the Gentiles in Cornelius' home, and he had helped Paul's cause in the dispute at the Jerusalem council by reminding the Judaizers of that incident. He had declared that 'God, which knoweth the hearts, bear them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith' (Acts 15:8-9). Peter had known and testified to the oneness of Jewish and Gentiles believers in Christ, but at Antioch he 'withdrew' himself from the Gentiles. He had done it hypocritically for fear of those of James' party. He may have done it with the most kindly attitude, with many apologies and explanations to the Gentiles, but the fact remained that he was causing a division among believers. Nor was this merely a local matter. It was a repudiation of the decision of the council with which he previously had so much to do, and it was a repudiation of God's revealed will. What if Paul had kept silent? Had he not spoken up boldly, a division might well have started in Antioch which would have opened an irreparable breach between the Jewish and Gentile believers The truth that all believers are one Body in Christ could have been negated. Silence in such a case would not have helped to keep the unity of the Spirit, but would have helped to break it. Peter may have excused himself most apologetically, and, though Paul's open rebuke may have seemed harsh and unkind, it was Peter who was causing the division; it was Paul who was endeavoring to restore unity." (Stam)
live like - "—zao. Here the tense is present continuous = habit of life. As a matter of fact at the moment Peter was living 'as do the Jews,' but Paul has in mind what had been Peter's habit before he was influenced by the Judaizers, and what would probably become his habit again when that influence was absent. Thus the use of the present tense adds point to the reproof." (Vine)
not Gentile sinners - "—here, of course, the apostle is taking the Judaizers on their own ground, and in an ironical way reminding them of their claim to moral superiority over 'the uncircumcision.' That Jews also are sinners he shows plainly as his argument develops; see v. 17." (Vine)
is not justified - "—dikaioo, = to show, or declare, to be right, Luke 7:29; 10:29; 1 Corinthians 4:4. In the majority of its New Testament occurrences dikaioo = 'to declare a person to be righteous before God.' All doers of the law are justified, Romans 2:13, with this proviso, that if a man 'shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all,' James 2:10; cp. 3:10 below. As a matter of fact, however, no such doers of law have yet been found among men, and 'there is no distinction,' i.e., as between Jew and Gentile, 'for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God,' i.e., fail to secure the approval of the sole Lawgiver and Judge. Clearly, then, by works of law shall no flesh be justified, or accounted righteous, in His sight, Romans 3:22, 23, 20, marg., the conclusion here, as in the more extended argument of the Epistle to the Romans, ep. also 3:11 below. And this the converted Jews had themselves acknowledged when they sought justification through Christ." (Vine)
by works - "—i.e., by obedience, by abstaining from the things prohibited and by doing the things prescribed, cp. Hebrews 6:1; 9:14, where such works are described as 'dead,' i.e., unproductive." (Vine)
of the law - "—nomos, the absence of the article here shows that the apostle is asserting a principle, 'by obedience to law'; but since speaker and hearers were alike Jews, it is plain that the Mosaic Law is in view. It is, however, the fact that the Mosaic Law is law that is emphasized, and this becomes even more evident where 'law' is set in contrast with 'grace,' as in Romans 6:14, 15, and with 'faith,' as in 3:28. The Mosaic Law itself is readily divisible into two parts, ceremonial and moral, but such a distinction is never explicitly made in Scripture, neither is it ever assumed. And while the ceremony of circumcision was, apparently, the occasion of the present dispute, Paul himself asserts that submission to the ceremony, or rite, carried with it an obligation to do the whole law, 5:3. Hence throughout this Epistle, and indeed through all his writings, the apostle asserts the freedom of the Christ from the Law of Moses in it totality, making no distinction as between ceremonial and moral." (Vine)
is Christ then a servant of sin? - "—i.e., 'did Christ make us sinners when through His gospel He revealed to us our sinful condition, and we learned that all our legal righteousnesses were but as a polluted garment?' Cp. Isaiah 64:6, and Romans 6:13, where 'sin' is personified; so here, 'does Christ further the interests, extend the dominion, of sin?'" (Vine)
what I tore down - "—kataluo, = to loosen down, used of the demolition of a building, Matthew 24:2, of the death of the body, 2 Corinthians 5:1, of the failure of purposes, Acts 5:38, 39, and of the marring of a person's spiritual well-being, Romans 14:20. The Lord Jesus declared that He came 'not to destroy [kataluo] the law,' Matthew 5:17, that is to say, not to lower the standard of divine righteousness, but, on the contrary, in His own life to 'magnify the law and make it honorable,' (Isaiah 42:21. Here a general principle is state; 'those things' = any things, but the particular application in this case, as the context plainly shows, is to the use of the law as a means of justification." (Vine)
NOTE: Stam's take on this is a little different: "Peter, in separating from the Gentile believers, was building again something that he had helped to destroy, something which God Himself had destroyed—'the middle wall of partition' between believing Jews and Gentiles (Eph 2:14). The Jewish believers at Jerusalem, including Peter, had recognized that the Gentile believers were brethren in Christ, but then Peter had actually rebuilt this wall again and separated himself." (Stam)
I died to the law - "—apothnesko; here the essential meaning, separation, is readily discernible. The law by condemning him, even when his efforts to comply with it were most strenuous, cut him off from hope of justification by its means. In the epistle to Romans 'sin' is said to be the slayer, 'sin, finding occasion through the commandment ... slew me,' 7:11; for the law in itself is 'holy, righteous, good,' but man, being unholy, unrighteous and evil, finds himself, because of his inherent sinfulness, not aided by, but in essential and inevitable opposition to, the law. By the law, then, the knowledge that he is a sinner comes to man, 3:20, and the sinner is 'without strength' either to keep the law, 5:6, or to please God, 8:8. Thus, on every hand, 'the commandment, which was unto [i.e., which he supposed would prove to be a means of] life, he found to be unto [i.e., to the effect of revealing to him his actual condition of] death,' 7:10; see also 7:6." (Vine)
that I might live - "—zao, as in v. 14. True, it was God's law that 'slew' him, but a new element is introduced, grace, v. 21, which discovered to him that this death was the necessary preliminary to the obtaining of life directly from the source of like, God Himself. 'Live' is here = 'be justified before.'" (Vine)
I have been crucified with Christ. - "—in the original two words only, 'with-Christ I-have-been-jointly-crucified.' The pronoun is not emphatic, for the apostle is stating something that is true of him, not because he is an apostle, nor because of his spiritual attainments, but because he is a believers, and which is, therefore, true of every believer ... The Judaizers shunned the reproach of the Cross; to them it was a 'stumbling block,' 5:11; 6:12, cp. 1 Corinthians 1:23; he glorified in it and made it his own, cp. 6;14. Nor is it merely that he had 'crucified' the grosser elements in his nature, cp. 5:24; he himself, his virtues and his vices, all that entered into and made the man, had been nailed to the Cross; henceforth he hoped nothing from the one, feared nothing from the other. Christ, though He had fully discharge every obligation imposed by the law, endured the extreme penalty prescribed for 'transgression and disobedience,' Hebrews 2:2. When, therefore, a man believes on Christ, he acknowledges the judgment of God against sin to be just, and accepts the death of Christ as the execution of that judgment upon him for his own guilt. In thus believing the man becomes identified with Christ in His death, and since death nullifies all claims and all obligations, is 'made dead to the law through the body of Christ,' Romans 7:4, and ceases, finally, to be under the jurisdiction of the law." (Vine)
Christ who lives in me - "When Paul 'sought to establish his own righteousness,' Romans 10:3, everything depended upon his vigilance and energy, but when he realized the futility of his best efforts and trusted in another than himself, i.e., in Christ, he became conscious of a new power working in him for righteousness." (Vine)
I live by faith - "—there was no outward change, the new life made no appeal to the senses, because it was received in response to faith and was maintained by the exercise of faith. Faith is, indeed, the characteristic function of the new life." (Vine)
"How believers need to learn this blessed truth! We are kept, while in the flesh, not by 'our faith' but by His faithfulness. Our God-given faith is but the channel through which we appreciate and enjoy His never-failing faithfulness. Our 'faith' would be vain were it not for 'the faith [fidelity] of the Son of God.' The best of us would utterly fail were it not that 'he ever liveth to make intercession for [us]' (Heb 7:25) and 'now appears in the presence of God for us' (Heb 9:24)." (Stam)
No comments:
Post a Comment