Commentary on Galatians 2.2–2.6

Then, so that you may not think he was laying down a law for them in saying this, he added: "I say this by way of concession, not of command." For it was not a primary judgment of his authority, but an indulgence of their lack of self-control; that is why he says, "because of your lack of self-control." If you want to learn Paul's own view, hear what he says: "I wish that all were as I myself am," in self-control. So here too, the apostles permitted it not as upholding the law, but as condescending to Jewish weakness. For if they had been upholding the law, they would not have preached one way to the Jews and another way to the Gentiles. For if the thing had been necessary for the unbelievers, it would plainly have been necessary for all the believers too. But since they laid it down for the Gentiles that they were not to be troubled about these things, they showed that they permitted it to the Jews too by way of condescension. The false brothers, however, did not act so, but in order to make them fall from grace and bring them again under the yoke of slavery. This, then, is the first difference, and a great one. The second is that the apostles did this in Judea, where the law was in force, but the false brothers everywhere; for they had laid hold of all the Galatians. Hence it is clear that the thing was done not for building up but for total overthrow; the apostles permitted it in one way, the false brothers in another. … "… our freedom, which we have in Christ Jesus." Do you see how he revealed their warfare by the very name of spies? For spies go in for no other reason than to learn the state of the enemy and so to prepare for themselves an easy way to ravage and destroy; just as these men were doing then, wishing to bring them under the old slavery. So it is clear from this too that the purpose of the apostles and of these men was not the same, but quite the opposite. For the apostles permitted it in order to lead them out of slavery little by little; but these men were contriving to subject them the more to … and prying into who were uncircumcised; as Paul too showed when he said, "They slipped in to spy out our freedom," showing their hostility not only by the name of spies but also by the manner of … "To whom we did not yield in subjection even for an hour." See the nobility and force of the expression. He did not say "in argument," but "in subjection." For they did this not to teach anything useful, but to subject and enslave. That is why we yielded to the apostles, but no longer to these men. "So that the truth of the gospel might remain with you." That is, so that what we said before we might confirm by deeds: that … all things have become new, and that "if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation," and that "Christ will be of no benefit to those who are circumcised." Confirming this truth, we did not yield even for an hour. Then, since what the apostles did immediately came up against him, and it was likely that some would say, "How then do they enjoin these things?", see how wisely he resolves the objection. He does not state the real cause, namely that the apostles did this for condescension and as a dispensation; for the hearers would have been harmed. For those who are to reap some benefit from a dispensation must be ignorant of its cause; if the reason for what is done were to come to light, the whole would be lost. That is why the one who carries it out must know the cause of what is done, but those who are to gain something from it must not know it. To make what I say clearer, I will use an example from this very subject. This same blessed Paul, who did away with circumcision, when he was about to send Timothy as a teacher to the Jews, first circumcised him and then sent him. He did this so that he might be acceptable to his hearers; he went in with circumcision in order to abolish circumcision. But the reason he himself knew, and Timothy; he did not tell the disciples. For if they had known that he circumcised him for this purpose, to do away with circumcision, they would not have listened to him preaching at all, and the whole gain would have run to waste; but as it was, their ignorance benefited them greatly. For thinking that he did this as a guardian of the law, they received both him and his teaching kindly and gently; and having received it and been instructed little by little, they departed from the old things; which would not have happened if they had known the reason from the start. For had they learned it, they would have turned away from him; having turned away, they would not have listened; and not having listened, they would have remained in their former error. So that this might not happen, he did not reveal the reason. That is why here too he does not state the reason for the dispensation, but conducts his argument in another way, saying: "And from those who seemed to be something (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)." Here he not only does not defend the apostles, but even bears hard on the saints, in order to benefit the weak. What he means is something like this: "Even if they permit circumcision, they themselves will give account to God. For God will not show them partiality because they are great and leaders." But he did not say this so plainly; he said it sparingly. For he did not say, "If they muddy the preaching and preach contrary to what was commanded, they will pay the ultimate penalty and undergo punishment." He said none of this, but seems to touch them more reverently, saying, "And from those who seemed to be something, what they once were." And he did not say "whatever they are," but "were," showing that they themselves had by then ceased to preach in that way, since the preaching had shone out everywhere. And "what they once were" means: "If they preached thus, they will give account; for they will make their defense not to men but to God." [3] He said this not as doubting, nor as ignorant of their position, but, as I said before, thinking it not yet expedient to handle the argument otherwise. Then, so as not to seem to be accusing them as one who took the opposite position, and so to create a suspicion of conflict, he at once added the correction, saying: "For those who seemed to be something added nothing to me." What is this? "What you say," he says, "I do not know; but this I know clearly, that they did not oppose me, but were of one mind and one voice with me"; for this is what "they gave the right hand" shows. For the moment, however, he does not say this, but only that they did not teach, did not correct, did not add anything to what I knew. "For those who seemed to be something," he says, "added nothing to me." That is: "Having learned my position, they added nothing and corrected nothing, though they knew that I had come for this purpose, to consult them; I came by a revelation of the Spirit to consult them, and I had Titus, uncircumcised, with me; yet they neither told me anything beyond what I knew, nor circumcised him." "But on the contrary." What does "on the contrary" mean? Some say he means that not only did they not teach him, but they were taught by him; but I would not say this. For what further were they to learn from him? Each of them was complete. So by "on the contrary" he does not mean this, but that not only did they not rebuke him, but they were so far from finding fault that they even praised him; for the contrary of finding fault is praising. Then, since it was likely that some would object, "If they praised you, why did they not abolish circumcision? If they praised you, they ought to have abolished it": to say that they abolished it he thought very shameless, bringing in an open conflict with what was agreed; while if he admitted the permission of circumcision, he saw that he would necessarily fall into another objection. "For if they praised my preaching," he says, "and yet permitted circumcision, they were contradicting themselves." What, then, is the solution of this? He could have said that they did this out of condescension to the Jews; but by saying this he would have shaken the whole foundation of the dispensation. That is why he does not say it, but leaves it in doubt and suspense, saying, "And from those who seemed to be something … it makes no difference to me"; as if he said: "I do not accuse or slander those saints; they themselves know what they were doing, for they will give account to God. What I am eager to show is that they did not overthrow my position, nor correct it, nor add to it as if it were defective, but praised it and agreed with it; and I have Titus and Barnabas as witnesses of this." That is why he goes on to say: "But when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, just as Peter with that of the circumcision"; meaning by "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" not the things themselves but the nations known by them. He added: "For he who worked through Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision worked through me also for the Gentiles." Just as he calls the Gentiles uncircumcision, so he calls the Jews circumcision. And he shows himself now their equal in honor, and compares himself not with the others but with the leader, showing that each had enjoyed the same dignity. For since he had established the proof of their concord, he now speaks with confidence and freedom, and no longer stops at the apostles only, but carries his argument up to Christ and the grace given him by Christ, and calls the apostles as witnesses of this, saying: "And when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas." He did not say "having heard," but "having perceived," that is, having learned it from the facts themselves, "they gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas." Do you see how little by little he showed that this seemed good both to Christ and to the apostles? For the grace would not have been given or been at work unless such preaching had seemed good to him. And where he had to compare himself, he mentions Peter alone; but where he had to call witnesses, he names the three together, and with praise: "Cephas," he says, "and James and John, who seemed to be pillars." And again he says "who seemed," not to deny it, but taking in the judgment of the others too, and saying: "The great and eminent men, whom all carry about everywhere on their lips, these are witnesses of what is said, that this seems good to Christ too; they learned it from the facts and were convinced by experience itself. That is why they gave the right hand to me, and not to me only but also to Barnabas, so that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision." O excess of understanding, and incontestable proof of concord! For he shows that their concerns are his, and his are theirs. For this seemed good to both: … that they should preach thus to the Jews, and he to the Gentiles; that is why he added, "so that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision." Do you see how here he calls not the thing but the Jews "circumcision"? When he speaks of the thing itself and contrasts it, he sets uncircumcision itself against it, as when he says, "Circumcision is indeed of value if you keep the law; but if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision"; and again, "Neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision." But when he calls the Jews so, and wishes to indicate not the thing but the people, he sets against it not uncircumcision but the Gentiles. For Jews are contrasted with Gentiles, and circumcision with uncircumcision; as when he says above, "For he who worked through Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision worked through me also for the Gentiles"; and here again, "we to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision": he does not mean the thing itself, but calls the people of the Jews so, distinguishing them from the Gentiles. "Only they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." What is it that he says? "In the preaching," he says, "we divided the world, and I took those from the Gentiles and they the Jews, according to God's good pleasure; but to the care of the poor among the Jews I too contributed my part with them." If there had been war and conflict, they would not have accepted this. Who are these poor? Many of the Jews in Palestine who had believed had been deprived of all their possessions and were driven out from everywhere. He shows this in the letter to the Hebrews, saying, "For you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property"; and he shows it in writing to the Thessalonians and proclaiming their courage: "For you became imitators of the churches of God that are in Judea, because you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews." And everywhere he shows that those who believed from among the Greeks were not so warred on by the Greeks who remained as those who believed from among the Jews were persecuted by their own people; for this nation is the harshest of all. That is why he takes great pains that they should enjoy every care, writing both to the Romans and to the Corinthians; and he not only collects money but carries it himself, and says, "But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints." For they lacked even necessary food. Showing this here too, he said: "In this I resolved to help them, and I undertook it, and did not fall short." Having shown by these things his concord and agreement with them, he is compelled at last to mention also the dispute with Peter that took place in Antioch, and says: "But when Peter 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, fearing those of the circumcision." Many who read this passage of the letter superficially think that Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy; but it is not so, it is not so, far from it. For we shall find great wisdom of both Peter and Paul hidden here for the benefit of the hearers. But first it is necessary to speak about Peter's boldness, and how he always leapt ahead of all the disciples. For he received his name from this, from the unbending and unshakable firmness of his faith; and when they were all asked together, he leapt ahead of the others and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," when he was also entrusted with the keys of heaven. On the mountain too he alone is seen speaking; and when Christ spoke of the cross, while the others were silent, he says, "God forbid, Lord!" These words, even if they did not come from a considered judgment, nevertheless came from a fervent love. And everywhere we see him more ardent than the others and leaping forward into dangers. When Christ appeared on the shore, while the others were dragging the boat, he could not bear to come in the boat; and after the resurrection, when the Jews were murderous and raging and seeking to tear them in pieces, he was the first to come forward, and he dared to break silence and say that the one who was crucified had been taken up and is in heaven. It is not the same to open a closed door and make a beginning of a thing, as to speak boldly afterwards. Then he who exposed his own life to so great a populace, how could he ever have played the hypocrite? He who was scourged and bound, and chose not to abate his boldness at all, and that at the beginning of the preaching, in the middle of the capital, where there was such danger, how, after so long a time, in Antioch, where there was no danger, and when he had become much more illustrious, with the testimony of his deeds, could he have feared those of the Jews who had believed? For he who did not fear the Jews themselves, at the beginning and in the capital, how, after so long a time and in a foreign place, would he have feared those who had come over from them? So Paul does not say this against Peter; but from the same mind with which he said, "And from those who seemed to be something, what they once were makes no difference to me," he utters this too. But so that we may not remain further perplexed about these things, we must unfold the cause of what is said. The apostles, as I said before, permitted circumcision in Jerusalem; for it was not possible to tear them away from the law all at once. But when they came to Antioch, they no longer observed anything of the kind, but lived without distinction with those who believed from the Gentiles; and this is what Peter too was doing then. But when those came from Jerusalem who had seen him preaching in that way there, he no longer did this, fearing to wound them, but changed his course, managing two things: not to scandalize those from the Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuke. For if he who had preached with circumcision in Jerusalem had changed in Antioch, he would have seemed to those from the Jews to be doing this out of fear of Paul, and the disciples would have condemned him of great fickleness; and this was going to become no small stumbling block. But in Paul, who knew everything clearly, his change would not have caused such suspicion; for he knew the intention with which these things were done. That is why Paul rebukes and Peter submits, so that when the teacher is rebuked and keeps silent, the disciples may change more easily. For if Paul had exhorted them when nothing of this kind had happened, he would have achieved nothing great; but as it was, taking the occasion for a sharper rebuke, he put greater fear into Peter's disciples. For if Peter, on hearing this, had contradicted him, one might rightly have found fault, as if the dispensation were being overturned; but as it was, when the one rebuked and the other kept silent, great fear came upon those from the Jews. That is why he used vehemence against Peter.

And see how exactly he uses his words, giving the wise to see that the words were not of conflict but of dispensation. "When Peter came to Antioch," he says, "I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." He did not say "by me," but by the others. If he himself had condemned him, he would not have hesitated to say this too. And "I opposed him to his face" was a staged form. For if they had really been fighting, they would not have rebuked each other in front of the disciples; for they would have greatly scandalized them; but as it was, the open conflict was profitable. And just as Paul yielded to them in Jerusalem, so they too yielded in Antioch. What, then, was the condemnation? "For before certain men came from James" (for he was the teacher in Jerusalem) "he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision"; not fearing that he might be in danger (for he who did not fear at the beginning, much less then), but that they might fall away. For Paul himself says to the Galatians, "I fear for you, that I may have labored over you in vain"; and again, "I fear lest, as the serpent deceived Eve, your thoughts be corrupted." The fear of death was nothing to them, but the fear of the loss of their disciples shook their souls violently. "So that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy." Do not be surprised that he calls the thing hypocrisy; for, as I said before, he does not wish to reveal their intention, so that those others may be set right. For since they clung vehemently to the law, he therefore calls what was done hypocrisy and rebukes it sharply, so as to tear up their prejudice by the roots. And Peter, hearing this, plays his part along with him, as if he had sinned, so that through the rebuke given to him … For if Paul had rebuked those from the Jews, they would have been indignant and spat on him, for they had no great opinion of him; but as it was, seeing their teacher rebuked and silent, they could neither despise nor contradict what was said. "But when I saw that they were not walking straight according to the truth of the gospel." Let not this phrase trouble you either; for he does not say this condemning Peter, but frames the phrase as it was expedient for those to hear who were to become better through Peter's rebuke. "I said to Peter before them all." Do you see how he corrects the others? That is why he spoke "before them all," so that they too might hear and fear. What did you say, tell me? "If you, though a Jew … why do you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Yet are you not charging him with something that has not happened? And why do you not turn your words against the hypocrites from among the Jews, rather than toward the Gentiles? And why do you charge Peter alone, when the rest also joined him in the hypocrisy? Let us see, then, what he charges. "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Yet he alone was drawing back. What, then, does Paul wish to establish? To make the rebuke free from suspicion. For if he had said, "You do wrong in keeping the law," those from the Jews would have rebuked him as being insolent toward their teacher; but as it was, by charging him on behalf of his own disciples, I mean those from the Gentiles, he makes his words acceptable in this way; and not only in this way, but also by turning the rebuke away from all the others and laying the whole of it on the apostle. "If you," he says, "being a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew": all but saying outright, "Imitate your teacher, for he too, being a Jew, lives like a Gentile." But he does not speak so, for they would not have accepted the exhortation; under the guise of a rebuke on behalf of the Gentiles he reveals Peter's mind. Again, if he had said, "Why do you compel those from the Jews to live like Jews?", his words would have been harsher; but as it was, not as taking the part of the Jewish disciples but of those from the Gentiles, he corrects the former in this way. For rebukes are best able to be well received when they are not very burdensome. Nor could any of those from the Gentiles accuse Paul of speaking on behalf of the Jews. All this Peter accomplished by keeping silent and accepting the reputation of hypocrisy, in order to free the Jews from real hypocrisy. At first, then, he turned his words on Peter's person, saying, "you, though a Jew"; but going on he makes what he says general, taking himself in too, and saying: "We who are Jews by birth, and not sinners from among the Gentiles." What was said was exhortation, but the form of a rebuke is placed around it because of those from among the Jews.

He does this elsewhere too: seeming to say one thing, he establishes another; as when, writing to the Romans, he says, "But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints." For he did not wish simply to say this and to inform them why he was going to Jerusalem, but to rouse them to zeal for almsgiving. If he had wished only to state the reason, it was enough to say, "I am going to minister to the saints"; but as it is, see how much he joins to it: "For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. They were pleased to do it, and indeed they are in debt to them." And again: "For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material things." See, then, how here too he humbles the pride of the Jews, establishing one thing by means of another. And he uses his words with authority, saying, "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles." What is "Jews by nature"? "Not proselytes, but brought up in the law from our earliest years, we left the way of life in which we were reared and took refuge in faith in Christ." "Knowing that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, we too have believed in Christ." See here too how securely he says everything. "For we left it," he says, "not as evil but as weak." If, then, the law does not provide righteousness, circumcision is superfluous. For now he says only this; but going on, he shows that it is not only superfluous but also dangerous. And this especially must be noted, how at the beginning he says, "A man is not justified by works of the law," but as he goes on he speaks more severely: "But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves were found to be sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin?" "For if faith in him," he says, "is not able to justify, but we must cling to the law again; if, having left the law for Christ's sake, we are not justified by leaving it but condemned, we shall find that the cause of our condemnation is he for whose sake we left the law and went over to him." Do you see to what necessity of absurdity he has reduced the argument, and how strongly he has contended? "For if we ought not to leave the law," he says, "and we left it for Christ's sake, how are we going to be judged?" Why, then, do you say this to Peter and urge it on him, who knew these things more exactly than anyone? Did not God show him that one must not judge an uncircumcised man by circumcision? Did he not, when discussing these things with the Jews, stand up nobly on the strength of that vision? Were not clear decrees on these matters sent from Jerusalem? … So he does not say this to correct Peter; the words had to be directed at him, but it was the disciples he was rebuking. And this is said not only to the Galatians but also to those who suffer the same sickness as they. For even if many are not circumcised now, yet they fast and keep the sabbath with the Jews, they do the same things and thrust themselves out of grace. For if Christ is of no benefit to those who only practice circumcision, when fasting and sabbath are added, and two commandments are kept instead of one, see how the danger has become more serious, and from the time as well. For those did these things at the beginning, while the city and the temple and everything else were still standing; but these, who see the punishment the Jews paid and the destruction of the city, and still observe more, what defense could they have for keeping the law at a time when the Jews themselves, though they earnestly wish it, cannot keep these things? You have put on Christ, you have become a member of the Master, you have been enrolled in the city above, and you still crawl about the law? And how is it possible for you to obtain the kingdom? Hear Paul saying that the gospel is overturned by the observance of the law. And, if you will, learn the manner of it too, and shudder, and flee the pit. Why do you keep the sabbath and fast with them? Plainly because you fear the law and are afraid to leave that letter behind; but you would not have feared to leave the law, unless you had condemned faith as weak and unable to save by itself. For if you fear not to keep the sabbath, it is plain that you fear the law as still in force. And if the law is needed again, it is plainly not a part or a single commandment, but the whole law that is needed; and if the whole, then righteousness through faith has been cast out little by little. For if you keep sabbaths, why not be circumcised too? And if you are circumcised, why not offer sacrifice too? For if it must be kept, the whole law must be kept; and if not the whole, not a part either. And if you shudder for the part, lest you be condemned for transgression, you must fear for the whole as well; but if the whole, when transgressed, does not bring punishment, plainly neither does a part; and if a part does, much more the whole. And if the whole must be kept, we must either disobey Christ, or, in obeying Christ, become transgressors of the law. For if it must be kept, those who do not keep it … and for us the cause of this is Christ; for he himself abolished the law about these things and commanded us to abolish it.