Commentary on Galatians 2.1–2.21

“Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also. And I went up by revelation; and I set before them the gospel which I preach among the gentiles, but privately to those who seemed to be something, lest perhaps I should run, or had run, in vain.” Since for a long time his fame was growing among all the Jews, but he was not seen in person (for he was travelling about among the gentiles with his usual constancy to found and strengthen the church), a bad opinion of him arose among the Jews because of the law, as though he disagreed with the preaching of the other apostles; and from this a scruple arose for many, so that the gentiles could be disturbed, lest they be led by him into something other than what the apostles who had been with the Lord handed on. For on this very occasion the Galatians were subverted by the Jews, who said that Peter handed on something other than Paul; hence it came about that, warned by the Lord's revelation, he went up to Jerusalem with witnesses of his preaching, that is, Barnabas and Titus, one from the Jews and the other from the gentiles; so that if any had a stumbling block about him, it might be removed by their testimony, as he opened to them the meaning of his preaching. With the apostles he conferred privately, so that they might know that he did not disagree with the gospel rule, that is, lest they think he was running or had run in vain, as some of the believers from among the Jews supposed. For he could not learn anything from them, since he had been instructed by God; but it was done by God's nod for the sake of concord and peace, so that the scruple or suspicion might be removed from his brothers and fellow apostles, and so that it might benefit the gentiles, who would know that his gospel agreed with the apostles. Besides, they gave the law that those who believed from among the gentiles should not be troubled, but should only keep themselves from these things, that is, from blood and fornication and idolatry (Acts 15:29; 21:25). Now let the sophists of the Greeks, who claim expertise for themselves, who flourish naturally by subtlety of mind, say: what were the things handed to the gentiles to observe? Things they did not know, or things they knew? But how can it be that someone learns what he knows? These things, then, were shown to the gentiles to be unlawful which they thought lawful; and therefore they were certainly not being forbidden murder when they were commanded to keep from blood. But they received what Noah had learned from God, that they should keep themselves from eating blood with the flesh (Gen 9:4). For how could it be that people steeped in the Roman laws, whose authority in keeping commandments is so great, did not know that murder must not be done, since the Roman laws punish adulterers and murderers and false witnesses and thieves and sorcerers and those who commit other evils? Indeed these three commandments are found given by the apostles and elders, of which the Roman laws know nothing, that is, that they should abstain from idolatry, and from blood, as Noah did, and from fornication. The sophists of the Greeks, not understanding these, yet knowing that one must abstain from blood, corrupted the Scripture by adding a fourth commandment, that one must also keep from what is strangled; which, I think, they will now understand by God's nod, because what they added had already been said above.

“But not even Titus, who was with me (that is, at that very time when I was at Jerusalem, he says, Titus, who was with me), was compelled to be circumcised.” When we were among the apostles and those who had believed from among the Jews, no one of them compelled him, that is, Titus, to be circumcised. And it is understood: why should you be circumcised, when Titus was not compelled to be circumcised by the apostles who seemed to be something, but was received uncircumcised?

“But because of false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, so as to bring us into slavery, we yielded in submission for an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.” He says that Titus, because he was a Greek like the Galatians, was not circumcised. By this saying he rebukes those who allowed themselves to be circumcised, though they were Greeks. But lest perhaps it be objected to him that he himself had circumcised Timothy, he now sets out the reasons why he did what he said should not be done, saying: “But because of false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, so as to bring us into slavery, we yielded in submission for an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you” (Acts 16:3). The Greeks on the contrary say: “Not even for an hour did we yield”, and they say this fits the case; for one who forbade it to be done, they say, ought not to say that he had done it, lest he prove it should be done. But the Apostle, a divine man, knowing that this could be objected, himself puts it forward so as to forestall the slanderers, and gives the reasons by which he was compelled to do what he did not wish. “But because of false brothers secretly brought in”, he says. He says “brought in secretly” because they entered with deceit, showing themselves brothers, though they were enemies. “Who slipped in”: that is, who entered with humility, feigning friendship. “To spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, so as to bring us into slavery.” To spy is to enter in such a way as to feign one thing and seek another; so that they could accuse our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus. Freedom in Christ Jesus is this: not to be subject to the law. “So as to bring us into slavery”: that is, they entered with deceit and falsehood for this purpose, to subject our freedom to slavery, forcing us to submit to the law of circumcision. “We yielded in submission for an hour”: that is, for an hour we submitted ourselves to slavery, humbling ourselves to the law; so that, Timothy having been circumcised, the deceit and stumbling of the Jews might cease. For they were ready, as is given to be understood, to stir up a tumult and sedition against him. For there was a reason why they had an opening to make a slander; for Timothy had a Jewish mother but a Greek father; hence it came about that as an infant he had not been circumcised according to the law. But the Apostle, wishing to take him with him, to ordain him bishop, as he did (for all of that place, it says, bore him good testimony, Acts 16:2), suffered the plots of the Jews. For they were watching whether he would take on the uncircumcised son of a Jewish woman, preparing sedition; because, though he spoke against Greeks being circumcised, as the letter from the apostles on this matter had also been given (Acts 15:23 and following), he would not forbid the children of Israel to be circumcised; for the apostles had indicated nothing about them in the same letter; and from its authority the believing Jews raged the more, because that very letter did not forbid Jews to circumcise their sons. “Then”, it says, “taking him, he circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places” (Acts 16:3). But from the gentiles there was no stumbling block; hence Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. He yielded for an hour, then, so that the truth of the gospel might remain among the gentiles, since they do not subject themselves to circumcision. But among the Jews the truth of the gospel was not, because believers circumcised their sons; for in Christ Jesus neither foreskin nor circumcision avails anything, but faith working through love (Gal 5:6). For not only the history but also the letter shows that he yielded. For above he says that Titus, being a Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised; and he adds, saying: “But because of false brothers secretly brought in.” What does this sound like now, except that he yielded for an hour because of the false brothers secretly brought in? If not, how would the words or the sense follow? He certainly denies that Titus was compelled to be circumcised; “but because of false brothers secretly brought in”: what does it sound like, except that he yielded? But if because of the false brothers secretly brought in he did not yield, he did not refrain by his own will; for he indicated he would have yielded, if this is so: but because of the false brothers secretly brought in he did not yield. If, then, yielding was not to be done, why are they called false brothers, by whose favour he did not do what was not to be done? So, if this is so, they did the Apostle a favour, since because of them he did not yield what he was going to yield. Why, then, were they called spies, if they did not want him to do what he was going to do, but because of them he did not do it? But if he was not going to do it, without doubt he did it because of them; for there is no other way. For the letter shows that he yielded, and the history cries out the deed. For how could he deny that he yielded for an hour, when he is proved to have circumcised Timothy because of the Jews, which is to have yielded for an hour, and to have gone up into the temple purified according to the law (Acts 21)? For only one could say he did not yield even for an hour who would never be found to have yielded. For either, being about to yield, he did not yield because of the false brothers; or, not being about to yield, he yielded because of the false brothers. Choose, then, one of the two. False brothers, however, are those who, believing, judaized.

“But from those who are reputed to be something (what they once were makes no difference to me; God does not accept the person of a man).” This indicates that the apostles were formerly simple and unskilled men, of no dignity in the law, but that this did no harm. For who would accuse one whom God excuses? For it is not asked what someone was, but what he is. For past things neither condemn nor vindicate. Yet he wants it understood that he was both skilled in the law and distinguished in life, and therefore also an outstanding minister in the stewardship of the gospel. “For those who are reputed to be something conferred nothing on me.” He says he obtained nothing from the apostles, but from God; for, he says, he who granted the understanding of Christian discipline to the unskilled also deigned to impart the understanding of such reasoning to me, when I was skilled in the law. How, then, could it be that this man should learn from them, whom grace of Christ, finding him skilled, made more skilled?

“But on the contrary, when they had seen that the gospel of the foreskin had been entrusted to me, as that of the circumcision to Peter (for he who worked in Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision worked also in me toward the gentiles).” He names Peter alone and compares him to himself, because he had received the primacy for founding the church; and that he himself was chosen in the same way, so as to have the primacy in founding the churches of the gentiles; yet in such a way that Peter too would preach to the gentiles if there were occasion, and Paul to the Jews. For each is found to have done both; but yet full authority is recognized as given to Peter in preaching to Judaism, and Paul's perfect authority is found in preaching to the gentiles. Hence he also calls himself the teacher of the gentiles in faith and truth (1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11); for each obtained a stewardship according to his strength. For it was more difficult to draw and persuade to his faith those who were far from God than those who were near.

“And when they knew the grace of God that had been given to me, Peter and James and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the gentiles and they to the circumcision; only that we should be mindful of the poor, which very thing I was also eager to do.” He says that the gift he received from God was approved by the apostles who were more distinguished than the others, whom he calls pillars because of their firmness, and who had always been with the Lord in private, worthy to behold his glory on the mountain (Matt 17:2); so that he was worthy to have the primacy in preaching to the gentiles, as Peter also had in preaching to the circumcision. And as he gives Peter companions, outstanding men among the apostles, so he joins Barnabas to himself, who was joined to him by divine judgment; yet the grace of the primacy he claims as granted by God to himself alone, as it was also granted to Peter alone among the apostles (Acts 13:2); so that the apostles of the circumcision held out their right hands to the apostles of the gentiles to show the concord of their fellowship; so that each, knowing that they had obtained from the Lord the spirit of perfection in the stewardship of the gospel, might show that they in no way slighted one another. Yet this alone was agreed among them, in which they had not been instructed by the Lord's command or gift, because it was easy to learn this from the law: that they should command those to whom they preached to be mindful of the poor, so that they might cultivate the mercy by which they had been redeemed by God. He makes known these things, then, that took place between him and the apostles, so that the Galatians might know that what they had received from him is true and approved. “But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was blameworthy.” After the concord of fellowship and the honour of primacy which they paid one another through God's grace, now, a cause of negligence or error intervening, the apostles seem to disagree, not in a personal cause but in their care for the church. “To his face”, he says, “I withstood him.” What is this, except that he contradicted him in his presence? And why was he blameworthy? He added, saying: “because he was blamed”, certainly by the truth of the gospel, which this deed opposed. For which of them would dare to resist Peter, the first apostle, to whom the Lord gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven, unless another such, who, knowing through confidence in his election that he was not unequal, should firmly disapprove what Peter had done without counsel? “For before certain men came from James, he ate with the gentiles; but when they had come, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the other Jews also dissembled with him, so that even Barnabas consented to their dissembling.” All these Jews who consented to the dissembling of Peter and Barnabas were of good faith; but because of the stumbling of those who came from James (for they were zealots for the law, who would venerate both the law and Christ with equal right, which is contrary to the discipline of faith), in their presence they did not mix with the gentiles. For they feared the onslaught of the boldness of those who were zealous for the law. If this alone had been so, it was not blameworthy; but in what the error lay, he shows in what follows. For he himself too certainly yielded to the animosity and boldness of the Jews, fearing lest through this, which was easy to do, a stumbling block might creep in that would be hard to calm; for he both purified himself according to the law under compulsion (Acts 21:26), and circumcised Timothy unwillingly (Acts 16:3).

“But when I saw that they were not walking straightforwardly toward the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of all.” He inveighs against Peter alone so that in him who is first the others might learn. “If you, being a Jew, live like a gentile, how do you compel the gentiles to judaize?” Now he opens the reason for the rebuke; for there would have been no error if, in the presence of the Jews, he had held aloof from the gentiles, fearing a stumbling block; but this is the whole reason for the rebuke, that when the Jews came from James, he not only separated himself from those with whom he had lived like a gentile, but also compelled them to judaize, out of fear of those men; so that the gentiles did not know which of these was true. For they knew that he had lived with them not as a Jew; but afterwards, hearing from him that they must follow the pattern of the Jews, they certainly hesitated as to what was true. For if it was true that they should judaize, they held him a transgressor, because he had lived like a gentile; but if that was better and true, that they should live simply, it was the overturning of the gentiles through his weakness, from whom a good was taken away and a laborious and ineffective thing handed on. But the apostle Paul, when he yielded for an hour, did not also urge this; but he proclaimed that he was doing something superfluous and empty, because of the rage of the Jews. He would not have given way to this thing unless a cause had been present through which the boldness of very many Jews was flaunting itself. For Timothy was the son of a Jewish woman, but of a Greek father (Acts 16:1); hence it came about that as an infant he was not circumcised according to the law. So they lay in wait, watching whether he would take on, uncircumcised, one born a Jew, which they thought unlawful for the Jewish race, seeking an occasion by which to hold him an overturner of the law; for this reason he yielded for an hour to their rage.

“We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from the gentiles. But knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law except through faith in Jesus Christ, we too have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law.” By plain reasoning he shows that they were deceived into keeping the law, in which no one is justified before God; since these very ones who are Jews by nature, wishing to be justified, have left the law and fled to faith in Christ. “Because by the works of the law no flesh is justified.” He says no man is justified by the works of the law; for whoever are righteous have also been justified by faith, like Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and the other saints.

“But if, seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves too are found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? Far from it.” How can Christ, who forgives sins, be a minister of sin? Therefore he says, “far from it.” But if, wishing to be justified through faith in Christ, we serve the law, we profess that we are under sin; for faith takes a man out of the law, so that he may be righteous. So if we give ourselves to the law, we are found sinners; for those who are under the law are under a curse.

“For if I build again the things I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.” It is plain that one who comes to Christ leaves the law; for from a slave he becomes free. But if he returns again to the law, he is his own accuser, because he condemns his own deed. “For I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God.” He says this because through the law of faith he died to the law of Moses; for one who is freed from it dies to the law; and he lives to God, whose servant he becomes, bought by Christ. “I have been crucified with Christ.” That man is crucified with Christ who, following his footsteps, is caught by no desire of the world; so that, living to God, he seems dead to the world. For one who does not do the things of the world, or of error, is dead to the world.

“But I live, no longer I, but Christ who is in me lives.” There is no doubt that Christ lives in one who is freed from death through faith; for while he forgives the sins of one worthy of death, he himself lives in him; for by his protection he has been rescued from death. “And the life I now live in the flesh I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am not ungrateful to the grace of God.” Since the future life has been promised to Christians, one who now lives in this life defended by God's help lives in faith of the promised life. For here he contemplates its image, having as it were a pledge of the future life, which was sought for us by God's nod through Christ's love. He, then, is not ungrateful to Christ who perseveres in faith in him, knowing that he has the benefit of no one but him; and that it amounts to an insult to him if he compares to him another, from whom he could not have had help.

“For if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nothing.” Nothing is so plain; for if man could have been justified through the law, Christ did not need to die. But because the law could not give forgiveness of sins, nor triumph over the second death and despoil the captives it held because of sin, Christ died so as to provide what the law could not; and therefore he did not die for nothing; for his death is the justification of sins.