Galatians 2 · The Lantern

The Council at Jerusalem

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, having taken Titus with me also.

But that Paul acceded to [the request of] those who summoned him to the apostles, on account of the question [which had been raised], and went up to them, with Barnabas, to Jerusalem, not without reason, but that the liberty of the Gentiles might be confirmed by them, he does himself say, in the Epistle to the Galatians: "Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem…

(Chapter 2 - Verses 1, 2) Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. I went up by revelation, and I discussed with them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles, but privately with those who seemed to be influential, so that I might not be running in vain or have run in vain.

After commending the authority of the Gospel teaching according to itself in the preceding chapter, the Apostle now in this chapter commends it on the part both of the other apostles and of himself.

And I went up according to a revelation, and I set before them the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles — but privately to those esteemed — lest perhaps I be running or had run in vain.

I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles.

Who could be so presumptuous and blind as to dare to trust his own judgment and discretion, when the vessel of election bears witness that he needs the partnership of his coapostles?

He gives his motive when he says, "according to a revelation from God," i.e., because God revealed and commanded him to go up to Jerusalem. From this can be gathered that all the acts and movements of the apostles were according to an instinct of the Holy Spirit: "The clouds spread their light which go round about" (Job 37:11).

But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised;

So great had been his desire to be approved and supported by those whom you wish on all occasions to be understood as in alliance with Judaism!

It was because of the intrigues of false brethren that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. It was not possible to require circumcision of him. Those who had crept in to spy on their liberty had a vehement expectation and desire for the circumcision of Titus. They wanted, with Paul's testimony and consent, to preach circumcision as necessary to salvation.

Then when he says, "But neither Titus who was with me," he shows what resulted from the discussion held with the apostles. And he mentions three results: That he did not depart from his opinion; That nothing was added to his teaching (v. 6); Thirdly, that his teaching was approved (v. 7).

and that because of the false brothers brought in secretly, who came in by stealth to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us —

to whom we did not yield in submission even for an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

"Not even for a short while," [he says,] "would we endure their arrogant opinions, but we preferred the truth of the gospel before all things." … He says this about those who obeyed the law by custom.

He says therefore: I say that I did not permit him to be circumcised by them, "to whom we yielded not by subjection, no, not for an hour," i.e., that the Gentiles be subject to the Law; and this "because of false brethren, unawares brought in" by the devil or by the Pharisees: false brethren, because they pretended to be friends: "In perils from false brethren" (2 Cor 11:26).

But of those esteemed to be something — whatever they formerly were makes no difference to me; God does not take account of a man’s face — for those esteemed added nothing to me;

[He means] those who have sprung from those same pseudoapostles but nonetheless "are something," that is, have undergone change and now follow the gospel. Even if they have sprung from these phonies they are now whole, for that is what it is truly to be something.

If Paul explicitly said that they tolerated circumcision for reasons of convenience, the believing Jews who rejoiced in circumcision would have departed from them, because they did not accept circumcision in truth, but out of convenience and arrogance. Therefore Paul does not now reveal the usefulness.

Having shown that the Apostle did not depart from his opinion on any point in the conference mentioned above, he now shows that nothing was added to his teaching by the other apostles. About this he does two things: First, he describes the status of the apostles who were unable to add anything; Secondly, he proves his proposition (v.

but on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, just as Peter with that of the circumcision —

for the one who worked in Peter for apostleship of the circumcision worked also in me toward the Gentiles —

With regard to those (the Marcionites) who allege that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, let Paul himself convict them, when he says, that one and the same God wrought in Peter for the apostolate of the circumcision, and in himself for the Gentiles.

[PHOTIUS] "just as Peter." If Paul said that those around Peter practice circumcision for reasons of convenience, he would seem even to allow this himself, and therefore by cooperating all the more he would have been shown to be for those with whom he had a quarrel. He says, For if Peter does well by permitting it, why should you not as well?

But because someone might say: What evidence have you that the commission to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles was given you, he interjects that it was through certain works of Christ.

and having known the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, those esteemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of partnership, so that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision;

Now they certainly would not have been surprised at his having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching were of something contrary; nor, moreover, would they have "glorified the Lord," because Paul had presented himself as an adversary to Him They accordingly even gave him "the right hand of fellowship," as a sign of their agreement with him, and arranged amo…

"And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship." He says not when they "heard," but when they "perceived," that is, were assured by the facts themselves, "they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship." Observe how he gradually proves th…

But because one's appointment and authority to preach are not enough, unless he carries it out through good understanding and discreet eloquence and commends it by a good life, he adds how he used his authority or the effect of his office, saying, "And, when they had known the grace of God that was given to me, James and Cephas and John...

only that we should remember the poor — the very thing I was also eager to do.

Their agreement, also, "to remember the poor" was in complete conformity with the law of the Creator, which cherished the poor and needy, as has been shown in our observations on your Gospel.

"only that we should remember the poor." The preaching, he says, passing round, we hold the poor in common. These, however, were those seized from among their own tribesmen who did not believe, because of their faith in Christ.

But they added the condition that we should be mindful of the poor of Christ, i.e., of those who had sold all their goods and laid the price at the feet of the apostles and became poor for the sake of Christ. "Which same thing," indeed, "also I was careful to do," being no less moved than those commanding me, as is plain in Romans (Ch. 15), 1 Corinthians (Ch.

Paul Confronts Cephas

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

WHY DID THE APOSTLE PAUL REBUKE HIS FELLOW APOSTLE PETER BECAUSE, FEARING THOSE WHO WERE OF THE CIRCUMCISION, HE WITHDREW HIMSELF FROM THE GENTILES (Gal. 2:11, 14), WHEN PAUL HIMSELF, ALSO FEARING THOSE WHO WERE OF THE CIRCUMCISION, TOOK TIMOTHY AND CIRCUMCISED HIM, SOMETHING HE WAS FORBIDDING TO BE DONE (Acts 16:3)? — Is he therefore to be rebuked as well?

There was no dispute or condemnation in Paul's opposing Peter, but a matter of far-sightedness. For since, through accommodation, those around Peter in Jerusalem tolerated circumcision, wishing gradually to lead the Gentile converts from the Jews to completion, when Peter came to Antioch, while none of the Jews there were yet believers, he used to eat without distinction with t…

The Apostle showed above that he received nothing useful from the discussion held with the apostles; now he shows that he benefitted them: First, he shows how he helped Peter by correcting him; Secondly, he tells what he said (v. 12).

For before certain ones came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came, he was drawing back and separating himself, being afraid of those of the circumcision.

But they themselves, while knowing the same God, continued in the ancient observances; so that even Peter, fearing also lest he might incur their reproof, although formerly eating with the Gentiles, because of the vision, and of the Spirit who had rested upon them, yet, when certain persons came from James, withdrew himself, and did not eat with them.

"from James." James, who is called the brother of Christ, served as bishop of Jerusalem. From him therefore those sent forth came who had believed from among the Jews, still observing the law. "he began to draw back and separate himself." From the association with the Gentiles, of course.

Then when he says, "For, before that some came from James," he manifests what he has said. First, that he said he was to be blamed; Secondly, that he rebuked Peter (v. 14). As to the first he does three things: First, he shows what Peter's opinion was; Secondly, what he did (v. 11); Thirdly, what resulted from it (v. 13).

And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

Well, but Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he rebukes even apostles ) for "not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel," as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ), labours very hard to destroy the character of those Gospels which are published as genuine and under the name of apostles, in order, fo…

"joined him in his pretense." He calls the thing itself a pretense, so that the hidden arrangement would no longer benefit those who believed because of circumcision. "and the other Jews." For there were also other believers from the circumcision in Antioch, who themselves, he says, separated themselves from those of uncircumcision because of those who had come from James.

What resulted from this dissimulation he mentions when he says that "to his dissimulation," i.e., Peter's, "the rest of the Jews consented" who were at Antioch, discriminating between food and separating themselves from the Gentiles, although prior to this act of dissimulation they would not have done this.

But when I saw that they are not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before all: “If you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how do you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

"But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel." Neither let this phrase disturb you, for in using it he does not condemn Peter, but so expresses himself for the benefit of those who were to be reformed by the reproof of Peter.

He says this so that Hebrews no less than Gentiles may be compelled to accept the grace of faith, not the impositions of the law, which no one could fulfill.

Then when he says, "But, when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all...," he explains what he had said concerning the rebuke with which he rebuked Peter. As to this he does three things: First, he gives the reason for the rebuke; Secondly, the manner of rebuking; Thirdly, the words of the rebuke.

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not sinners of the Gentiles;

THE APOSTLE SAYS, "WE ARE JEWS BY NATURE." (Gal. 2:15) THEREFORE HE SHOWS THAT JEWS ARE BORN FROM JEWS. INDEED, THOSE WHO WERE BORN IN THE DESERT, THOUGH NOT CIRCUMCISED, WERE JEWS. CIRCUMCISION, THEREFORE, DOES NOT MAKE SOMEONE A JEW, BUT BIRTH BROUGHT FORTH UNDER THE DEVOTION TO GOD THE CREATOR.

"We who are Jews by nature." Instead of "from above and from ancestors." "knowing that a person is not justified." Having fulfilled what accords with Peter's opposition, he now turns to the subject at hand, slightly criticizing circumcision, and asserting that the law cannot be held as able to save. And these things, he says, are according to Peter.

Having manifested the truth of the apostolic doctrine preached by him because of the authority of the other apostles, he now shows the same thing from their manner of life and example. About this he does two things: First, he proves his proposition from the manner of life of the apostles; Secondly, he raises an objection posed by his adversaries (v. 17).

but knowing that a man is not justified by works of law except through faith of Jesus Christ, even we believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith of Christ and not by works of law — since by works of law no flesh will be justified.

For he remembered that the time was come of which the Psalm spake, "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast off their yoke from us; " since the time when "the nations became tumultuous, and the people imagined vain counsels; "when "the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ," in order that thenceforward man…

The necessary commandments of the law were taught even by nature. That is, "You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor, honor your father and mother, and the rest of this kind." But the commandments about the sabbath and circumcision and lepers and menstruation and sacrifice were peculiar to th…

Then when he says, "But knowing that man is not justified by the works..." he sets forth the apostles' manner of life, which consists not in the works of the Law but in the faith of Christ. About this he does two things: First, he gives the reason for the apostles' manner of life; Secondly, he sets forth their manner of life (v.

But if, seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? Never would it be!

For the Lord has sworn by His glory, in regard to His elect, that if any one of them sin after a certain day which has been fixed, he shall not be saved. For the repentance of the righteous has limits.

Paul says in effect: "We have forsaken the law and come over to Christ, expecting to enjoy righteousness through faith in him. But suppose that this itself is counted as a transgression. The fault would then pertain to Christ the Lord himself. For it was he who gave us the New Testament. Far be it from us to tolerate such blasphemy!"

After proving by the apostles' manner of life that the works of the Law ought not to be observed, the Apostle raises a question to the contrary. About this he does three things: First, he raises the question; Secondly, he solves it (v. 17): "God forbid"; Thirdly, he explains his solution (v. 19). The first point can be developed in two ways according to a Gloss.

For if I build again these things that I tore down, I prove myself a transgressor.

How should (the Church) fear to suffer a fraudulent loss of him whom she had already lost on his ereption, and whom, after condemnation, she could not have held? Lastly, to what will it be becoming for a judge to grant indulgence? to that which by a formal pronouncement he has decisively settled, or to that which by an interlocutory sentence he has left in suspense?

We have nullified the law by allowing it, and have run to Christ. If then we seek to establish it again, we make ourselves transgressors in that we attempt to set up again what was dissolved by us. But observe his sense: those men thought themselves transgressors because they did not keep the law; he shows that they are transgressors because they hold to it.

Notice his wisdom: they were saying that the one who violates the law is a transgressor, but he, on the contrary, shows that the one who observes it is a transgressor, going not only against the faith, but also against the law itself. For the law itself led me to the faith and persuaded me to leave it.

For I through law died to law, so that I might live to God.

"Purify out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump," cries the apostle to us. And again in anger at such people he directs that we should "have no fellowship with anyone called a brother if he is a fornicator or covetous man or idolater or reviler or drunkard or robber; with such a man one ought not even to eat." "For I through the law am dead to the law," he says, "that I…

(Verse 19) For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. To die to the law, is to die to the law as a rule of justification. Who dies to the law, lives to God. Before his conversion, the apostle found experience answer to the word of the Lord. The commandment, which was ordained to life, he found to be unto death.

Here the Apostle amplifies the solution given above. First, he explains the solution. Secondly, he concludes to his principal proposition (v. 21). It should be noted that the Apostle proceeds in a very thorough manner, leaving no doubt unexamined. Hence his words, although they seem involved, nevertheless, if they are carefully considered, say nothing without a purpose.

I have been crucified with Christ. And I no longer live, but Christ lives in me; and that which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me.

I no longer wish to live after the manner of men, and my desire shall be fulfilled if ye consent. "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet no longer I, since Christ liveth in me." I entreat you in this brief letter: do not refuse me; believe me that I love Jesus, who was delivered [to death] for my sake.

We will set these matters in order, one after the other, and we will show where it is meet that the disciple should begin, and how he should advance and ascend all the grades of the Christian life and conduct, until he arriveth at the topmost step of love, from whence he shall ascend to the grade of perfection.

Then when he says, "with Christ I am nailed to the cross," he amplifies what he said. Now he had said that he died to the Law and lives unto God.

I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness is through law, then Christ died for nothing.

The law could not give remission of sins, nor triumph over the second death nor free from captivity those who were bound because of sin. The reason for Christ's death was to provide those things that the law could not. He did not die in vain, for his death is the justification of sinners.

I have been freed through the grace, he says. Therefore, I do not turn back to the Law, nor do I revile the grace as being impotent to vivify. "For if righteousness is through the Law, the Christ has died in vain." Christ died for us, he says, that he might raise us up, justifying us and removing sin from our midst.

Then when he says, "I cast not away the grace of God," he draws the principal conclusion. First, he draws the conclusion; secondly, he explains it.

Galatians2

The Council at Jerusalem

Paul Confronts Cephas