. This error was
fundamental. Paul therefore attacks it with unsparing severity, with
which, however, he mingles a wonderful tenderness of spirit. His
argument is for substance the same as that in the epistle to the Romans,
only that it takes from necessity a more controversial form, and is
carried out with more warmth and vehemence of expression. It is a divine
model of the way in which fundamental error should be dealt with.

18. The epistle naturally falls into three divisions. The _first_ is
mainly _historic_. Chaps. 1, 2. The false teachers had disparaged Paul's
apostolical standing, on the ground, apparently, that he was not one of
the original twelve, and had not been called immediately by Christ to
the apostleship, but had received his gospel from men. It would seem
also that they labored to make it appear that Paul's doctrine respecting
circumcision and the Mosaic law was contrary to that of Peter and the
other apostles of the circumcision. Paul accordingly devotes these two
introductory chapters to a vindication of his full apostolic standing.
He shows that his apostleship is "not of man neither by man, but by
Jesus Christ and God the Father" (chap. 1:1); that the gospel which he
preaches he neither received of man, nor was taught by man but by the
revelation of Jesus Christ (verses 11, 12); that, accordingly, upon his
call to the apostleship, he went not up to Jerusalem to receive
instruction from those who were apostles before him, but into Arabia,
whence he returned to Damascus (verses 15-17); that after three years he
made a brief visit of fifteen days to Peter, where he also saw James,
but had no personal acquaintance with the churches in Judea (verses
20-24); that fourteen years afterwards he went up to Jerusalem by
revelation, not to be instructed by the apostles there, but to confer
with them respecting "the gospel of the uncircumcision" which was
committed to him, and that he obtained the full recognition of "James,
Cephas, and John, who were reckoned as pillars" (chap. 2:1-10); and that
afterwards, when Peter was come to Antioch he withstood him to the face
on this very question of circumcision, because, through fear of his
Jewish brethren, he had dissembled and drawn others into dissimulation,
adding also the substance of the rebuke administered by him to Peter,
which contains an argument (drawn in part from Peter's own practice)
against compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews (verses 11-21).