CHAPTER 2
On the apostles' testimony concerning life in faith.
Galatians 2:1-3 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. I went up by revelation, and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles; but privately to those who seemed to be influential, in case I might be running or had run in vain. Yet not even Titus, who was with me and a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
Regarding the first, Peter stated the cause; regarding the second, the revelation.
" with Barnabas, taking Titus along also ." These Paul was bringing as witnesses of his own preaching.
" I went up by revelation ." And why, for that reason, did he not entrust them at the outset, but only after so many years? Since many, seeing those around Peter permitting circumcision while Paul did not permit it, were scandalized as though there were disagreement in the preaching, the Holy Spirit revealed to him his ascent to Jerusalem, so that those who were being scandalized might be persuaded that there was no disagreement in the preaching, but rather a dispensation in favor of permitting circumcision.
“ and I laid before them the gospel .” This is, I have shared, I have taken counsel with them.
" which I preach ." Apart from circumcision.
" but privately ." Since those of the Jews who had believed in Jerusalem were being offended if anyone forbade circumcision, and Paul's preaching removed it, so that it might keep them from being scandalized, he entrusted the preaching to them privately.
— [PHOTIUS] Why privately? So that, without drawing attention first of all, I might not scandalize those newly converted by circumcision, and therefore absolutely prepare them to fall away from the faith of Christ, and destroy my course, and show my struggle and my zeal to have been in vain. For how is it not vain to run and have run, when, running to save, I again destroy others through thoughtless exactness? How then now, and publicly I am convicted; that it was progress, and that even certain principles dared to shape the administration. Or the "for fear that" may also be said as a question, as a confirmation of the fact that I do not run or have run in vain, but that I acted in all things with safety and foresight. [ end of the excerpt by Photius ] —
" To those who seemed ." The phrase, "to those who seemed," does not deny the existence of the leading men around Peter, but rather, as one might say, to those who are something, to those who are foremost.
" in case I might be running or had run in vain ." For not that I might learn, "in case I might be running or had run in vain," or that I ran (for I knew from the revelation of Christ the exactness of the preaching); but that those who cause rebellion, implying the men around Peter, might learn that I do not run or have run in vain.
" Yet not even Titus, who was with me and a Greek ." He says " who was with me " and " a Greek ," that is, uncircumcised. Therefore, being uncircumcised, he was not compelled by the apostles to be circumcised, which would have been a criticism, nor did they preach circumcision to the men around Peter; yet, out of accommodation to the believing Jews from Israel, they consented to circumcision.
In another way . — [PHOTIUS] Not even Titus , he says, although evidently born of a Greek linage, did the apostles compel to be circumcised, although seeing also the false brothers present. For the “ Yet not even ” must be understood from the preceding section, as in “ Yet not even Titus was compelled .” He says, “ to be circumcised .” Not on account of the unpleasant false brothers. What then? Because we circumcised Timothy, will he make that a reason against the false brothers? We did not circumcise him on their account, God forbid! But in order that he might win those who were being scandalized by reason of weakness. For towards the weak one must yield in order to the gentle treatment of the difficulty; but towards those moved by hatred and wicked purpose, not even the least compromise. For these, not only do they not need a cure, having fastened upon them every remedy of the passion, but they seek to fill their neighbors with their own disease. Therefore, “toward whom we did not even for an hour,” (Gal. 2:5) as the divine Paul declares. [ end of the excerpt by Photius ] —
Galatians 2:4-5 Because of the false brothers who had secretly come in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us, toward whom we did not even for an hour yield in submission, so that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you.
Not because there were false brothers present, that is, pretend Christians, did the apostles compel Titus to be circumcised, which would have been a sign that Peter and his followers did not approve of circumcision. But there were certain false brothers in the appearance of brothers or Christians, preaching circumcision: not like Peter with the others out of accommodation and a certain allowance, but defending the matter as though it were a law. And the apostles tolerated this only with the Jews; those men even imposed circumcision among the Gentiles. For these were the Galatians who were causing disturbance. Nor, therefore, when they were present, he says, those whose work it was to preach circumcision, was Titus compelled to be circumcised.
“ who had secretly come in .” He says the false brethren slipped in secretly, seeking to spy upon our freedom in Christ, that they might again subject us to the yoke of the law and to Judaic observances. For by not submitting to them he calls it freedom. See also how he showed them to be enemies, and entered as spoilers of the faith, first by saying, “who had secretly come in,” indicating their secret and dangerous entrance, and by saying, “ to spy .” For he who spies does so with harm and deceit in mind.
And, " in order to enslave us ," he says. For indeed Peter and the other apostles allowed circumcision in order gradually to avoid the bondage of the law, whereas these imposed it so as to drive others into bondage.
" toward whom we did not even for an hour yield in submission ." Therefore, he says, we did not yield to them in submission, so that the truth of the Gospel preached by me to you might remain unshaken and firm. But what is its truth? "The old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new in Christ." (2 Cor. 5:17) And that for those who are circumcised, Christ will profit nothing.
" in submission ." He did not say, "To teaching," but "in submission," indicating that they seriously sought to submit themselves and to be again enslaved to the law.
Galatians 2:6-8 But as for those who seemed to be something, whoever they were, it makes no difference to me. God shows no partiality toward a person. For those who seemed to be esteemed added nothing to me; on the contrary, knowing that I had been entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision just as Peter had been with the Gospel of the circumcision. For the one who worked through Peter to apostleship of the circumcision also worked through me to the Gentiles.
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. Otherwise he manages the argument so as to counter those about Peter, saying, “they will give an account of what they preach to God”; (Rom. 14:12) and this is because of their weakness.
— [PHOTIUS] " who seemed to be ." From those who seem to be great, those around Peter, whatever they once were, whether pleasing God or not, because of accepting circumcision, I, he says, do not differ. For I know that each will give account to God, and not even God will make them ashamed because they are leaders.
" God shows no partiality to a person ." This, however, has been said, has been defined above. [ end of the excerpt by Photius ] —
" whoever they were ." He also indicates they already having ceased to admit circumcision for reasons of stewardship 1 [οἰκονομικῶς]. For he did not say, "What sort some of them are," but, "whoever they were." But in this respect, he says, what they do is no different from theirs, for having once heard my preaching they neither added to it nor took anything away; and they seem to be such as those around Peter, whom Paul mentions as great and notable.
“ on the contrary .” Not only, he says, did they not correct anything concerning my preaching, but on the contrary, they praised it. And this arrangement is as follows: “ on the contrary, knowing that I had been entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision ,” the rendering with much, they say, “They gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.” (Galatians 2:9) This, then, is to correct the opposite, namely to take the right hand, which was a sign of receiving their proclamation.
“ the Gospel of the uncircumcision .” As in the case of the uncircumcised nations. See how Paul equates himself to Peter. For this one indeed needed favor, so that he might appear credible to the Galatians.
— [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? And why do you bitterly reproach what you call stewardship? Let it act and do not rebuke, and call it whatever is dear to you, whether stewardship, or doctrine and exactness. These things they might also have considered and said to Paul, if he spoke according to economy when he accepted those about Peter undergoing circumcision. For a soul alarmed about something, taking hold of a small and accidental pretext, grows more attached to it and is entangled with it. Therefore Paul very wisely altogether keeps silence about the matter of economy, but sharply attacks the action, and as if censuring those who had conceded it he rebukes them, so that by the severity of his warning concerning that matter he might dismay and correct those who truly were transgressing. Therefore he does not cease to call them, even though they seem guilty, hypocritical, and not rightly walking, so that only the preaching of Christ may be confirmed. Therefore they encouraged one another for the sake of the preaching, and were bound by such a bond that, if it should happen, by each accusing the other the preaching of the word might be strengthened. And so that you may learn this precisely, observe: Paul, through his letters, reproves Peter; and Peter, through his letter, praises Paul, and bears witness that the letters are full of the wisdom and grace of God, and that the unlearned do not understand the hidden mind in them, but rather pervert it and cry out. Moreover, Paul, speaking these things about Peter for the sake of the preaching, far more clearly surpasses and honors him. For what is it but an insult, to seem and not to stand firm, to be under the denunciation of Christ? [ end of the excerpt by Photius ] —
" of the circumcision ," that is, of the Jews.
Galatians 2:9-10 And recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were thought to be pillars, gave to Barnabas and me the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised, only that we should remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do.
" And recognizing the grace ." He presents as witnesses to Peter those about whom the grace was given to him.
" who were thought to be pillars ." They are, Paul says, pillars of the faith, esteemed by all.
"They gave the right hand ." Because the doctrines are common, and because they made us sharers with themselves in the declaration. For this reason they also gave the right hand , indicating that they approve of our preaching, he says, because it is the same as theirs.
" that we should go to the Gentiles ." That we might go to the Gentiles, he says, while they preach among the Jews.
" 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.
On the objection to Peter, concerning salvation by faith and not by the law.
Galatians 2:11-13 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself, fearing those of the circumcision; and the other Jews joined him in his pretense. So even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
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 those who believed from the Gentiles; but when they arrived, so as not to scandalize them, being still weak, he withdrew and ceased to eat with them. The cause of this, as has been said, was the weakness of those people. And that Paul acted openly, but not to oppose Peter privately, was a matter of far-sightedness, so that when the believers from Judea saw their teacher Peter accused openly, they might perceive whatever was not in accord with the uncircumcised and not combative, and know that the observance of the law after faith was no longer necessary but was merely a ploy to entrap Peter. That this was managed therefore, Paul plainly entered into argument with Peter, so that the believers from the circumcision, hearing, would turn from the observance of the law; for if the anger were genuine, he ought to have argued with them privately.
In another way . — [OECUMENIUS] Eusebius Pamphili, in the Ecclesiastical History 2 shows that the Cephas mentioned is not Peter, but a namesake of his, one of the seventy. And the argument is reasonable. For Peter would not again have needed to retreat, who had already defended this matter in Jerusalem and, having persuaded everyone when he ate with Cornelius, had caused some of those of the circumcision to be scandalized, and had also said, "Truly, brothers, I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation the one who fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35) For he was not the one who said these things. But if he had acted therefore contrary to the beginning of his preaching, and had convinced everyone that he had not acted wrongly, the Spirit leading him to this, how would he now, after such a long time, after giving Peter the proof of his own virtue, have again needed such a kind of management? And as for the fact that he was judged, you may also think in this way: "It has happened to me," he says, as a pretext for opposing him face to face and refuting him, nothing else, or that he had been previously judged by the Jews concerning eating with those uncircumcised when he ate with Cornelius. For if he had not been beforehand judged there by those who were scandalized, he would not now have been admonished. And if he had not been admonished, there would have been no need either of a rebuke or of the face-to-face opposition. But what profit is the face-to-face opposition at all?
— [OF THE SAME] Because he made it timely to be spoken before the Jews, that "We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from the Gentiles," (Gal. 2:15) knowing that no one is justified by works of the law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ, and we also believed in Jesus Christ in order that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by works of the law, because these things were said before all, there arose a personal opposition. For if indeed there was any fault, he ought to have reproved and corrected it privately, the Lord saying: "If your brother sins, rebuke him privately." (Matt. 18:15) If he refuses, then bring others and the church. [ end of the excerpt by Oecumenius ] —
" he was clearly in the wrong ." Peter was in the wrong, not by the truth nor by Paul who knew the allowance, away with that! but by those ignorant of the administration and thinking he was acting hypocritically because of the matter: that when the believing Jews were absent he used to eat with the Gentiles, but when they were present he no longer did so. And you know what has been written concerning Cephas.
" 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.
And the phrase " fearing those " does not mean that he feared they might do him harm, but that he feared so as not to, having been scandalized, they might fall away from the faith.
“ joined him in his pretense 3 [συνυπεκρίθησαν].” 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.
Galatians 2:14-17 But when I saw that they were not walking straight according to the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter before them all: "If you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as Jews? We who are Jews by nature and not sinners from the Gentiles, knowing that a person is not justified by works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law. For by works of the law no flesh shall be justified. If, seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, then is Christ a minister of sin? Far be it!"
In what sense has it been said, “joined him in his pretense,” (Gal. 2:13) likewise also, “ not walking straight ,” it was said. For he does not wish to reveal the arrangement.
“ according to the truth of the Gospel .” For the truth of the Gospel is not to circumcise nor to withdraw from those faithful from uncircumcision. “For there is neither Jew nor Greek.” (Gal. 3:28)
" I said to Peter before them all ." You see that for this reason he scolded Peter before all, not to condemn Peter, but so that he might benefit those of the circumcision, as has been said before.
" If you, being a Jew ." But he did not say it openly to the followers of James; "Imitate your teacher living as a Gentile," that is, quietly. For this is constructed from the speech addressed to Peter.
" why do you compel the Gentiles ?" Which, he says, you do not do, nor compel others to do. But why did he not say: Why do you compel those who are of the circumcision to Judaize? since he was speaking because of them, and the sequence of the discourse was such that it could have been said so. Yet he spoke in this way so that he might seem to care for his own disciples, namely those who were of the Gentiles, for fear that the arrangement for which the rebuke existed be revealed.
" 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. But we, being Jews by nature, that is, not converts (for this is what is meant by " not sinners of the Gentiles "), since we have recognized that it is not possible to be saved through works of the law (for there is, he says, great exactitude demanded there), have put our trust in Christ, expecting to be saved through faith in him. These things are fittingly spoken both to Peter and to the Galatians.
" by works of the law ." Because of the resentment felt toward him.
" For by works of the law no flesh shall be justified .” The things necessary to the law, and those taught by nature, are for example, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal,” and the other similar precepts. (Ex. 20:13-15) But matters concerning the Sabbath, and circumcision, and leprosy, and gonorrhea, and sacrifices, and sprinklings, were particular to the law 4 . For nature did not instruct concerning these things. These, then, he calls works of the law . Of these, transgression is sin, and observance is not the accomplishment of perfect righteousness. For these are riddles of other peoples, yet even for the Jews they fitted the occasion. Concerning these the divine Apostle said, “ For by works of the law no flesh shall be justified ."
— " If, seeking to be justified in Christ ." If, then, wishing to be justified through Christ, we have been found sinners by abandoning the law, he says, has Christ therefore become a promoter of sin to you? Do you see how by pushing to an absurd conclusion he exposes the law? If then you hold to the law and wish also to be justified through Christ, you are found sinners in abandoning the law. Has Christ therefore advocated this? By no means. The absurdity has been removed by the refutation of the proposition.
Galatians 2:18-21 For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I consider myself to be a transgressor. For I through the law died to the law, that I might live for God; I have been crucified together with Christ. Yet I live; and no longer I, but Christ 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 up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God. For if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.
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.
" I consider myself a transgressor ." For by once more obeying the law, I show that as a transgressor I first permitted myself, and I believed in Christ.
" Yet I ." I, he says, persuaded by that law itself, made myself dead to the law. For the law announced Christ to me, and to him indeed I am dead (for I no longer live according to that one), but I follow the doctrines of this one.
" through the law died to the law ." Or, I died to the Mosaic law through the law of the Gospel. How then shall I, being dead and lifeless toward it, keep it? Or by its law, and the burdensome observances in it, I have become dead in regard to sin through it. Therefore is the one who killed it worthy of being observed?
“ that I might live for God .” That is, the immortal and ageless life.
" With Christ " I have been crucified together through baptism. The law, therefore, killed what was upon it, but Christ gave life. How then shall I keep the law?
" I no longer live ." Through the following constitution, by which his limbs were paralyzed. "For you have died,” he says, “to the members of you that are on earth." (Col. 3:5)
— " Christ lives in me ." Acting, he says, as master, becoming all things to me himself; and in this he lives in me, that nothing may become from me of those things that do not seem to him.
" I now live in the flesh ." And not only, he says, do I live the spiritual life through Christ, but also the earthly life. How? Being under condemnation because of the law, we were about, he says, to die carnally as in the Flood. But Christ made us to live, having redeemed us from the curse of the law. Therefore not only the spiritual life, but also the earthly life was granted to us through faith in Christ. How then do we return again to the law?
" and gave himself up for me ." He makes it a common property, showing that each one must acknowledge such great grace to Christ, as if he had become man for him alone.
“ I do not nullify the grace .” As those who still observe to the law are now nullifying the grace through Christ. To nullify is to disbelieve, to despise, to mock. Do you see where he led the argument?
“ For if righteousness comes through the law .” For if, he says, the law is able to save and to justify, Christ died in vain. For this reason he delivered up himself, as if the law had no power, so that he might save by his death. If indeed the law were saving, the death of the Lord would be unnecessary.
__________________
Translator notes for Galatians chapter 2.
1. stewardship [οἰκονομικῶς] In Eastern Orthodox theology and the writings of the Church Fathers, the term has a highly specialized meaning related to Divine Oikonomia (God’s plan for salvation).
2. Eusebius Church History 1.12. “This is the account of Clement in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face.”
3. The word συνυπεκρίθησαν is the aorist (3rd person plural) of the verb συνυποκρίνομαι and means that many people pretended together, jointly pretending something to hide their real intentions or beliefs. It denotes a collective hypocritical behavior or pretense, often with the sense of complicity in a false stance.
4. The Sabbath, circumcision, regulations on leprosy and gonorrhea, sacrifices, and ritual sprinklings are classified as ceremonial laws or ordinances of the flesh that were specific to the Mosaic Law (the Old Covenant) and to the nation of Israel. These regulations, described in Leviticus 12-15, Numbers 19, and throughout the Torah, were in place until the "time of reformation"—the coming of Christ.