Galatians 2:1Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

He took with him circumcised Barnabas and Titus from the Gentiles, who had his foreskin uncircumcised. Thus, by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word would be established, staret (Deut 19:15). But it is one thing to consult with someone, and another to learn from someone. Among those who consult there is equality. Between the one who teaches and the one who is taught there is this difference: the learner is less than the teacher. In the beginning, after his conversion to the faith, he saw the Apostles only in passing, so to speak. But after, as he himself says, seventeen years, he converses with them fully, plane. In humility he strives to learn whether perhaps he has labored in vain, or is laboring in vain. He had recourse to the Apostles who were his predecessors for a twofold reason. On the one hand, he wished to show Paul's humility, although he was already the teacher of the Gentiles throughout the whole world. On the other hand, he wished the Galatians also to know that those who presided over the Churches of Judea did not reject his Gospel. Together with this, he also shows that, for the sake of faith in Christ and the freedom of the Gospel, he dared to bring an uncircumcised man, Titus, to those very people. They knew many things about him: that he broke the Law, rose up against Moses, and almost wholly rejected circumcision. Neither Paul himself, among so great a number of Jews and of his enemies, nor Titus, was forced by any fear to yield to necessity. Such necessity could have been justified by local conditions, by the authority of the elders, by the multitude of Churches from among the Jews who believed in Christ, or by the circumstances of the time, namely, so as not to incur such hatred. Some assert that he went to Jerusalem after fourteen years, precisely at the time when, according to the testimony of Acts, a discussion arose among the believers of Antioch concerning observance or non-observance of the Law. It pleased them to go to Jerusalem and await the decision of the elders. For this purpose Paul and Barnabas themselves were sent. They say that this is what is meant in the Latin copies of the books of Holy Scripture: “And for a time we even agreed to submit to them,” so that the truth of the Gospel might remain firm among you (Gal 2:3). That is, Paul and Barnabas agreed to be sent on a matter which was wholly obvious, but seemed still doubtful. Their purpose was that the grace of the Gospel might be confirmed for believers also by the judgment of the elder Apostles. Then no doubt would remain for anyone concerning the abolition of circumcision. For the Apostles were commanded to remove the yoke of the Law from the Gentiles who believed in Christ. His words, “I communicated to them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who seemed to be of reputation, lest perhaps I should run, or had run, in vain,” can also be understood in this way. He secretly discussed with the Apostles the grace of Gospel freedom and the outworn antiquity of the abolished Law, because of the multitude of believers from the Jews. They were not yet able to hear that Christ is the fulfillment and end of the Law. These were the people who, in the Apostle Paul's absence, spread the rumor that he labored, or had labored, in vain. They said this because he thought that one should not follow the Old Testament Law. Paul did this not because he feared that he had preached a false Gospel for seventeen years. Rather, he wished to show his predecessors that he had not labored, or was not laboring, in vain, as the ignorant supposed.

They informed the Apostles of what they had done and brought letters. These clearly commanded that the yoke of the law not be laid upon the Gentiles, but that they abstain 'from things offered to idols, from fornication, from things strangled, and from blood,' Acts 15:29.

This, I think, is what the divine Apostle recounts.

'And I set before them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately before those of reputation, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.'

He said 'those of reputation,' that is, the renowned. He set it before them privately because many were zealous for the law, as the divine James said.

The Apostle said, 'lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain,' not with respect to himself, but with respect to others. His purpose was that all might know the agreement of the preaching, and that what I preach is pleasing also to the others.

Judging from the circumstances of this journey, as Saint Paul describes it, it was the same journey that Luke describes in Acts, chapter 15. Paul and Barnabas made it by commission of the Church of Antioch.

It was undertaken to resolve the dispute about the circumcision of the Gentiles, that is, the journey to the Apostolic Council.

If Paul says here, Gal 2:2, that he went to Jerusalem by revelation, this concerns his personal motive. Luke speaks of the external occasion for Paul's journey. Paul himself adds that there was also an inward occasion: revelation.

Taking Titus with me also. The Evangelist Luke does not mention Titus's journey to Jerusalem, but he does not exclude it. He says that certain others also went with Paul and Barnabas, Acts 15:2.

'I went with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.' Titus was a disciple of the holy Apostle Paul, converted by him from paganism, and later Bishop of Crete, Tit 1:4; compare 1 Cor 4:15.

'I went up by revelation.' There was also an external occasion, namely the desire of the Christians of Antioch, Acts 15:2.

The holy Apostle Paul deliberately brings forward all such circumstances. Taken together, they could best clarify for the Galatians the purity of his teaching and its agreement with the teaching of the Apostles.

Indeed, at the Jerusalem Council the very question of the chief subject of Paul's preaching was decided: the freedom of the Gentiles from the Law of Moses. It was decided in the sense of Paul's teaching.

He went there in company with Titus, a baptized but uncircumcised Gentile, whom he presented to the Apostles as his disciple. Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, Gal 2:3.

Finally, he went 'by revelation,' that is, by the prompting of the Holy Spirit Himself. And what did he hear there? The confirmation and approval of his preaching.

Saint Paul's words about this journey to Jerusalem are worthy of note. He says: 'I set before them, and privately before those of reputation, the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain,' Gal 2:2.

Was he not certain of the truth of his Gospel? Of course he was fully certain, for he had received it directly from divine revelation.

But he set it forth before the renowned men of Jerusalem not for his own sake, but for the sake of others.

He did not do this in order to learn something in Jerusalem or to receive support for his convictions. He did it so that all who doubted and distrusted the freedom from the Law of Moses preached by him might be convinced with their own eyes.

They would hear with their own ears that this freedom did not contradict the convictions of the most renowned men in Jerusalem and of the Apostles honored as pillars of the Church.

They would also know that the decision and decree of the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem had been made in the sense of the freedom preached by him.

The journey to Jerusalem of which the Apostle speaks here was special. It was made according to a special divine revelation expressed through the Church of Antioch.

It concerned the resolution of the question about observing the ceremonial Law of Moses, especially circumcision. Certain Christian arrivals from Judea had begun teaching this in Antioch, contrary to the Apostle Paul's teaching about freedom from the ceremonial Law of Moses.

Earlier Paul had been the companion of Barnabas, who had believed from among the Jews before Paul. Now, by contrast, Barnabas became Paul's companion, because Paul had gained the greater fruit of preaching among the Gentiles.

Titus was one of them, whom the Apostle received among the believers without circumcision.

Blessed Jerome observes that if the Apostle decided to bring the uncircumcised Titus with him to Jerusalem, he did this for the sake of faith in Christ and evangelical freedom. He also joined to him the circumcised Barnabas, so that 'by two or three witnesses every word may be established,' Deut 19:15.

Besides the common voice of the Church of Antioch, according to Saint John of Damascus, there was also a special prompting of the Holy Spirit to the Apostle Paul. He was to go with witnesses of his preaching and set before the Apostles how he preached the Gospel.

In this way their agreement also would be made manifest, and the scandal would cease.

His Grace Theophan notes that the Apostle spoke privately to the most renowned. From this he concludes that everything was proclaimed to the assembly for its instruction and consolation. But the Apostle left the decision of the question to the Apostles and elders.

'Why privately? Because among the believers not all could bear everything. Prudence required that some things be kept silent. Privately it was easier to discuss the perplexity that was about to arise.'

Yet, according to John Chrysostom, 'this took place before Barnabas and Titus, so that they might be trustworthy witnesses and heralds for him. They could testify that the Apostles did not find his preaching contrary, but confirmed it.'

Meanwhile some thought that all the Apostle Paul's preaching was vain, because he preached the Gospel without observance of circumcision, which the Apostle Peter and John allowed.

To instruct these people the Apostle came to Jerusalem. Now he speaks for the instruction of those like them, and of the Galatians who were being carried away by them.

According to Saint John of Damascus, communion with the uncircumcised Titus was the strongest proof that the Apostles did not condemn Saint Paul for not circumcising the Gentiles.

To this Saint John Chrysostom adds: 'Although the Apostles allowed circumcision, they did so not as defenders of the law, but by condescension to the weakness of the Jews.'

After this stay in Jerusalem, holy Paul and Barnabas, by inspiration from above, went to preach in Cyprus and in the regions of Pamphylia and Lycaonia in Asia Minor. When they returned again to Antioch and remained there no little time with the disciples (Acts 14:28), certain men came there from Judea. They began to teach the Antiochians that, unless they were circumcised according to the custom of Moses, they could not be saved. Holy Paul and Barnabas defended Gospel freedom, but they did not succeed in pacifying the community. It was decided to send Paul and Barnabas, and certain others, to the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem concerning this question (cf. Acts 15:1-2). It is this journey, his third, that holy Paul now mentions in the Epistle to the Galatians. Blessed Theodoret writes: “Paul and Barnabas spent much time in Antioch and caught very many from among the Gentiles, commanding them to live according to the law of grace. But some defenders of the Law came from Judea and attempted to persuade the believers from the Gentiles to love life according to the Law. The great preachers of truth, Barnabas and Paul, rejected the teaching proposed by them. Wishing to assure the assembly of believers that this also pleased the great Apostles, they went to Judea. They informed the Apostles of what they had done and brought back letters. These clearly commanded that the yoke of the Law should not be laid upon the Gentiles, but that they should abstain from things offered to idols, from fornication, from what is strangled, and from blood (cf. Acts 15:29). This, I think, is what the divine Apostle recounts.” Some think that this speaks of holy Paul's second journey to Jerusalem with alms. Others suppose that it speaks of some journey after the Council. The latter opinion cannot be accepted, because after the Council the holy Paul and Barnabas soon went different ways to preach and no longer came together. The first opinion also cannot be accepted, because the time is lacking. The famine was in the year 44, consequently in the eighth or ninth year after holy Paul's conversion. But he went “after fourteen years.” This opinion also cannot be accepted because at that time there was persecution against Christians in Jerusalem from Herod. The Apostle James the son of Zebedee was killed, and holy Peter was in prison (cf. Acts ch. 12). Consequently, at that time it was inconvenient to deliberate in council, and there was no one with whom to do so. Thus both suppositions present difficulties. Meanwhile, comparing the accounts in Acts about the Apostolic Council with what holy Paul says here, one cannot fail to see complete agreement between them. The only difference is that holy Paul speaks more about his own aims, under guidance from above, and about the significance of the Council specifically for his preaching. This was required by the aims of the Epistle. He speaks less about the actual proceedings of the Council and the other details of this matter. Why does holy Paul set forth this count of years? In order to suggest that for so much time he had already preached the Gospel without communication with the elder Apostles. Yet his Gospel proved to agree with their teaching. How could this have happened? Only because his teaching also came from the same Source as theirs, that is, from God. God had revealed His will to men concerning salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. “I went up... with Barnabas, taking Titus with me.” Barnabas was a Cypriot, of the Jews. He believed before holy Paul and at first guided him, but later yielded the primacy to him. Titus was born of Greek pagan parents. He was converted by holy Paul, or definitively established by him in the faith, and baptized without circumcision. Later, because of the gifts given to him, he was accepted by Paul as a companion and co-worker. In Acts it is said only that certain others went with the holy Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem (cf. Acts 15:2), without their names being indicated. Titus was among these certain others. There was no need there to distinguish him especially from the rest. Here, however, holy Paul had a special reason for doing so. He wished to show that, if he decided to bring an uncircumcised man into the midst of people attached to the Law, this meant he stopped before no obstacles in defending Gospel freedom. On the other hand, he in no way thought that he would be reproached for this in Jerusalem by those who rightly understood the matter of faith in Christ. Blessed Jerome writes: “Holy Paul took with himself Barnabas, circumcised, and Titus, uncircumcised, from the Gentiles, so that by two and three witnesses every word might be established (cf. Deut 19:15). By this he also shows that, if he resolved to bring with himself the uncircumcised Titus to those who knew that he abolished circumcision, he did so for the sake of faith in Christ and Gospel freedom.”