Commentary on Galatians 1.9–2.1

For so that you may not think the matter came from anger, he shows that he did everything out of zeal, even if not according to knowledge; that he persecuted not out of vainglory or enmity, but "being zealous for the traditions of my fathers." What he means is this: "If I did what I did against the church not for human reasons but out of zeal for God, mistaken but zeal nonetheless, how should I now, when I am running on behalf of the church and have come to know the truth, be doing this out of vainglory? For if, when I was in error, no such passion ruled me, but zeal for God brought me to it, much more, now that I have come to know the truth, should I be free of every such suspicion. For as soon as I passed over to the doctrines of the church, I put off all Jewish prejudice and showed much greater zeal on this side; which is a sign that I changed sincerely and am held by a divine zeal. Otherwise, tell me, what else was it that brought about such a change, and made me exchange honor for insult, ease for dangers, security for hardship? There is nothing else, but only the love of truth." "But when it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood." See what he is eager to show here: that even the time during which he was left to himself, he was left for some ineffable purpose of God's dispensation. For if he had been set apart from his mother's womb to become an apostle and to be called to this ministry, yet was called only then, and obeyed as soon as he was called, it is clear that God for some ineffable reason was putting it off until then. What, then, is this dispensation? Perhaps you are eager to hear from me at once why he did not call him with the Twelve; but so as not to depart from what presses and make my discourse longer, I too beg your love not to learn everything from me, but to search for yourselves as well, and to ask God to reveal it. Something has also been said by us on this subject, when we spoke to you about the change of his name, and why he called him Paul who had been called Saul; if you have forgotten it, you will learn all this by reading that book. For the present, let us keep to the sequence, and see how again he shows that nothing human happened in his case, but that God arranged all his affairs with great providence. "And called me through his grace." God says that he called him because of his worth: "For he is a chosen vessel to me," he said to Ananias, "to carry my name before Gentiles and kings," that is, able to serve and to display a great work. God gives this as the cause of the calling; but Paul himself everywhere says that the whole is of grace and of God's ineffable love for mankind: not because he was fit, "but that in me he might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life." Did you see the excess of humility? "That is why I received mercy," he says, "so that no one may despair, when the worst of all men has enjoyed his love for mankind." For he shows this by saying, "that in me he might display his perfect patience as an example …" "… to reveal his Son in me." Elsewhere Christ says, "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." Do you see that the Father reveals the Son and the Son reveals the Father? So too with glory: the Son glorifies the Father and the Father the Son: "Glorify me," he says, "that I may glorify you"; and, "As I have glorified you." Why did he not say "to reveal his Son to me," but "in me"? To show that he not only heard the things of the faith through words, but was also filled with the Spirit in abundance, the revelation illuminating his soul, and that he had Christ speaking within him. "So that I might preach him among the Gentiles." For not only his believing but also his appointment came from God. "He revealed him to me in this way, not only that I might see him myself, but that I might also make him known to others." And he did not simply say "to others," but "so that I might preach him among the Gentiles," anticipating here already no small point of his defense, taken from the persons of those he taught. For it was not the same thing to preach to Jews and to Gentiles. … "… flesh and blood." Here he hints at the apostles, calling them by their nature. But if he says this of all men, we will not object either. "Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me." If one examines these words by themselves, they seem full of great boasting and far from the apostolic spirit. For to cast one's vote for oneself and take no one as sharer in one's judgment seems to be folly. "For I saw a man," it says, "who seemed wise in his own eyes; but a fool has more hope than he"; and, "Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight"; and he himself again: "Do not be wise in your own estimation." One who had heard so much from others, and urged the same things on others, would not have fallen into this; not Paul only, but not even an ordinary man. But, as I said, this saying, examined bare, can rouse suspicion and offense in some of the hearers; yet if we add the reason for which it was said, they will all applaud and admire the speaker. Let us do this, then. For we must not examine words bare, or many errors will follow; nor torture an expression by itself, but attend to the meaning of the writer. In our own conversations too, if we did not use this method and examine the intention of the speaker, we would incur many enmities and everything would be turned upside down. And why speak of words, when even with deeds, if one does not keep this rule, everything will be thrown into confusion? For physicians too cut and break certain bones, and robbers often do the same. What wretchedness would it be if we could not distinguish a robber from a physician! Again, murderers and martyrs endure the same pains under torture, but the difference between them is great. If we do not keep this rule, we will not be able to know these things, but we will call Elijah a murderer, and Samuel and Phinehas too, and Abraham even a child-killer, if we are to examine deeds bare, without adding the intention of the doers. Let us examine Paul's intention too, then, from which he wrote this; let us see his purpose and what his attitude to the apostles was throughout, and then we shall know from what intention this was said. For neither these words nor the former ones did he utter belittling them or praising himself (how could he, when he anathematized even himself?), but everywhere guarding the security of the gospel. For since those who were ravaging the church said, "We must follow the apostles, who do not forbid these things, not Paul, who forbids them," and from this the Jewish error was creeping in little by little, he is compelled to stand up nobly against this; not wishing to speak ill of the apostles, but wishing to check the folly of those who wrongly exalted themselves. That is why he says, "I did not confer with flesh and blood." Indeed it would have been the height of absurdity for one who had learned from God to consult men afterwards. One who learns from men reasonably takes men as partners again; but one who had been counted worthy of that divine and blessed voice, and had been taught everything by him who holds the treasure of wisdom, why should he afterwards consult men? Such a man would rightly not learn from men but teach men. So he said this not from arrogance, but to show the dignity of his own preaching. "Nor did I go up," he says, "to those who were apostles before me." For since they kept saying this over and over, that those men were before him and were called before him, he says, "I did not go up to them." If it had been necessary to consult them, he who revealed the preaching to him would have commanded this too. What then? Did he not go up there? Indeed he did go up, and not simply, but to learn something from them. When? When in the city of the Antiochenes, in the church that from the beginning showed great zeal, a dispute arose about this very question now before us, and they were asking whether those who believed from the Gentiles must be circumcised, or should not be forced to undergo anything of the kind. Then this same Paul went up, and Silas. How, then, does he say, "I did not go up nor consult"? Because, first, he did not go up of his own accord but was sent by others; and second, he came not to learn but to persuade others. For he himself held from the beginning the view that the apostles later confirmed, that there is no need to be circumcised; but since to them he did not yet seem trustworthy, and they gave more heed to those in Jerusalem, he went up, not to learn anything further himself, but to persuade those who contradicted, when those in Jerusalem too voted for this. So from the beginning he saw what was needed and had need of no teacher; what the apostles were to confirm after much discussion, he held firmly within himself from above before the discussion. Luke shows this, saying that Paul held a long and great debate with them about these things even before coming to Jerusalem. But since the brothers wished to learn about these matters from the apostles as well, he went up for their sake, not his own. And when he says, "I did not go up," one may also say this: that he did not go up at the beginning of his preaching, and when he did go up, he did not go up to learn. For he points out both, saying, "I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood." He did not simply say, "I did not confer," but "immediately." And if he did go up afterwards, it was not to receive anything further. "But I went away into Arabia." See a fervent soul! He was eager to occupy places not yet cultivated but still in a wilder state. For if he had stayed with the apostles, having nothing to learn, the preaching would have been hindered; for they had to spread the word everywhere. That is why this blessed man, fervent in spirit, at once took in hand the teaching of barbarous and wild men, choosing a life of struggle and much toil. [11] And see his humility. Having said, "I went away into Arabia," he added, "and returned again to Damascus." He does not mention his achievements, nor whom he instructed and how many; and yet as soon as he was baptized he showed such zeal as to confound the Jews, and he roused them to such exasperation that both they and the Greeks lay in wait and wished to kill him; which would not have happened if he had not brought a great increase to the believers. For since they were defeated in teaching, they turned at last to murder; which was a clear sign of Paul's victory. But Christ did not allow him to die, keeping him for the preaching. Yet he mentions none of these achievements. So all that he says, he says not from ambition, nor to be thought greater than the apostles, nor because he is stung at being belittled, but because he fears that some harm may come to the preaching from it. For he calls himself "one untimely born," and "first of sinners," and "last of the apostles," and "unworthy of that title"; and this was said by one who had labored more than all of them, which is the very height of humility. For one who knows that he has done nothing good and speaks humbly of himself is honest, not humble; but one who speaks so after so many crowns, he is the one who knows how to be modest. "And I returned again," he says, "to Damascus." And how much is it likely that he did there! For of this city he says that the ethnarch of King Aretas guarded the whole of it, wishing to catch this blessed man in his net; which was the greatest sign that the Jews were hunting him fiercely and with all their strength. But he says nothing of this here; nor would he have set it down there, had he not seen that the occasion then required the account; otherwise he would have kept silent, just as here, saying that he came and went away, he adds nothing more about what happened there. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter." What could be humbler than this soul? After so many and such great achievements, needing nothing from Peter, nor his voice, but being his equal in honor (I will say nothing more for now), he nevertheless goes up to him as to a greater and an elder; and the sole cause of his journey there is to visit Peter. Do you see how he gives them their due honor, and thinks himself not only not better than they, but not even their equal? This is clear from this journey. For just as many of our brothers now travel to holy men, so Paul too then went to Peter in that frame of mind; or rather with much greater humility. For they travel now for their own benefit; but that blessed man went then not to learn anything from him, nor to receive any correction, but only for this, to see him and honor him with his presence. "To visit Peter," he says. He did not say "to see Peter," but "to visit Peter," the word that those use who go to see great and splendid cities. So worthy of great eagerness did he think it even merely to see the man. This is clear from the Acts too. For when he came to Jerusalem, having converted many of the Gentiles and done more than any of the others, having set right Pamphylia, Lycaonia, the nation of the Cilicians and all those in that part of the world and brought them to Christ, he first goes in to James with great humility, as to one greater and more honored. … the opposite of what happens now. "You see, brother," he says, "how many thousands there are among the Jews who have believed …" … and performed all the Jewish rites. For where the gospel was not harmed, he was the humblest of all; but where he saw that some were being wronged by his humility, he no longer used this advantage; for this was no longer humility, but ruin and corruption for the disciples. "And I remained with him fifteen days." To travel for his sake was a mark of great honor; to stay so many days, a mark of friendship and most ardent love. "But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother." See how he has the greater friendship toward Peter: for it was for his sake that he travelled, and with him that he stayed. I say this continually and ask you to keep it in mind, so that when you hear what he seems to have said against Peter, no one may suspect the apostle. For that is why he himself says this, correcting it in advance, so that when he says, "I opposed Peter," no one may think these words come from enmity and rivalry; for he honors the man and loves him more than all. For he says that he went up for the sake of none of the apostles but him alone. "But I saw none of the other apostles," he says, "except James." "I saw him," he says; "I was taught nothing by him." But see with what honor he named him too. For he did not simply say "James," but added the title of honor, "the brother of the Lord"; so free was he from all envy. For if he had only wished to indicate whom he meant, he could have made it plain by another mark too, and said "the son of Clopas," as the evangelist also said. But he did not speak so; since he thought the honors of the apostles his own, he honors that man as if exalting himself. For he did not name him as I said, but how? "The brother of the Lord." And yet he was not the Lord's brother according to the flesh, but was only thought to be so; even so, he did not shrink from giving the man this dignity. And from many other places it is shown that he was disposed toward all the apostles with the sincerity that became him. "In what I am writing to you, look, before God, I am not lying." Did you see how the humility of this holy soul shines out alike in everything? As if contending in a court and about to give account, so eager was he to make his defense. "Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia," after seeing Peter. Again he takes up his argument and the contest before him, not touching Judea, both because he had been sent to the Gentiles and because he would not choose "to build on another's foundation." That is why he did not even see them in a simple meeting; and this is clear from what follows: "For I was … of Judea. They only heard it said: He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." What could be more modest than this soul? When he spoke of what brought accusation on him, such as that he persecuted the church and ravaged it, he set it out with great exaggeration, parading his former life; but what was going to show him in a splendid light he passes over. Though he could have told all his achievements had he wished, he sets down none of them; but passing over a boundless sea in one word and saying, "I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia," and that "they heard that he who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy," he added nothing more. What does he mean by saying "… of Judea"? That you may learn that he was so far from preaching circumcision to them that he was not even known to them by sight. "And they glorified God because of me." See here too the rule of his humility, how exactly he keeps it. He did not say, "They admired me, they praised me, they were astounded at me," but showed that the whole was of grace: "They glorified God," he says, "because of me."

[Gal 2:1–2] "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation." The cause of his first going up, he says, was Peter and visiting him; the cause of the second was the revelation of the Spirit. "And I laid before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles, but privately before those who seemed to be something, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain." What are you saying, Paul? You who at the beginning chose not to consult them, not even after three years, now, after fourteen years have passed, do you consult them, lest somehow you be running in vain? How much better it would have been to do this at the very start rather than after so many years! And why were you running at all, if you were not persuaded that you were not running in vain? Who is so foolish as to preach for so many years without knowing whether he preaches rightly? And what is much more puzzling than this is that he says he went up by revelation. This is more puzzling, as I said, than the former, yet it is enough to give us the solution of that one as well. For if he had gone up of his own accord, even this would hardly make sense; for it was not like that blessed soul to fall into such folly; he is the one who says, "So I run, not aimlessly; so I box …" … how do you say, "lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain"? Hence it is clear that even if he had gone up without a revelation, he would have been acting like a fool; yet what happened would not have been so absurd. But when the grace of the Spirit draws him, who will dare suspect anything of the kind? That is why he himself added "by revelation," so that even before the solution of the question you would not condemn him of any ignorance, knowing that what happened was not a human thing but a divine dispensation that foresaw much both of the present and of the future. What, then, was the cause of this journey? Just as, when he went up earlier from Antioch to Jerusalem, he did not go up for his own sake (he knew clearly that one must follow the doctrines of Christ purely), but because he wished to bring together those who were in conflict, so now too he did not need to learn that he was not running in vain, but went so that those who accused him might be fully convinced. Since they held a higher opinion of Peter and John, and thought that they were at variance with Paul, because he preached without circumcision while they allowed it, and they thought he was acting against the law and running in vain … "the gospel," not so that I might learn something myself, as he says more clearly further on, but so that I might teach those who suspected these things that I am not running in vain. For the Spirit … that he should go up and consult them. That is why, he says, he took … to be witnesses of the preaching. "And I laid before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles," that is, the one without circumcision, "but privately before those who seemed to be something." What does "privately" mean? Surely one who is eager to set right common doctrines sets them out not privately but in common? But Paul was not doing this; for he did not wish to learn something and correct it, but to take away the pretext of those who wished to deceive. But since in Jerusalem … if anyone forbade the use of circumcision; that is why he said, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are of those who have believed; and they have all been told about you that you teach apostasy from the law." Since, then, they were offended, he would not come forward openly and disclose his preaching; but he laid it privately before those who seemed to be something, in the presence of Barnabas and Titus, so that these might be trustworthy witnesses to those who accused him that it did not seem contrary to the apostles either, but that they confirmed such preaching. When he says "those who seemed," he does not say it to deny that they were great; for he says of himself too, "And I think that I too have the Spirit of God," which is the language of one speaking modestly, not denying that he has it. So here too he says "those who seemed," expressing along with his own judgment the common verdict of all. "But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." What is "being a Greek"? "He was from the Greeks," he says, "and uncircumcised. For not only did I preach so, but Titus too acted so, and though he was uncircumcised the apostles did not compel him to be circumcised." This was the greatest proof that they did not condemn what Paul said or did. And what is much greater than this: not even when the opponents were pressing and knew these things were the apostles compelled to order this; which he shows too when he says, "But because of false brothers secretly brought in." Who are these false brothers? For the question here is no small one. If the apostles allowed circumcision there, why do you now call false brothers those who, in line with the apostles' judgment, order this to be done? Because, first, it is not the same to command something to be done and to permit it when it is done. One who commands does it with zeal, as something necessary and of first importance; but one who does not command it himself, but does not hinder one who wishes to do it, permits it not as something that ought to be done but in fulfilling some purpose of the dispensation. For example: Paul wrote to the Corinthians that wives and husbands should come together again