Galatians 2:3Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Or what truth of the Gospel is this, to yield to the hypocrisy of the Jews? Is it truth to observe what you formerly counted as refuse, σκύβαλον, and despised as worthy of condemnation? Is it truth to see something in what is in reality nothing?

Finally, the very sense of this epistle plainly contradicts the idea that the Apostle is summoning the Galatians to circumcision. By the whole structure of his discourse he wishes to show that he despises everything by the grace of Christ.

He is a Hebrew of Hebrews. He once observed the works of the Law and was circumcised on the eighth day according to the law of the Pharisees. Yet by Christ’s grace he despises all.

When he went to Jerusalem, the false brethren, believers in Christ from the circumcised, wanted him to circumcise Titus. Neither Paul nor Titus yielded to force, in order to preserve the truth of the Gospel.

Therefore, if he says that he was compelled by necessity to circumcise Titus, how does he turn the Galatians away from that circumcision from which he could not free Titus in Jerusalem, though Titus was from the Gentiles?

Either we must follow the reading of the Greek codices of the sacred books: “To them we did not submit even for a time.” Then the saying follows coherently: “that the truth of the Gospel might remain unchanged among you.”

Or, if one chooses to trust some Latin copy, we must follow the meaning indicated above. The temporary submission consisted not in circumcising Titus, but in going to Jerusalem.

Thus Paul and Barnabas submitted to the desire to go to Jerusalem when division arose in Antioch over the question of the Law. Their judgment was to be confirmed by a letter from the Apostles.

Then the truth of the Gospel would remain firm among the Galatians. This truth is not in the letter, but in the spirit. It is not in the carnal sense, but in spiritual understanding. It is not in manifest Judaism, but in the hidden (occulto).

One should know that the conjunction “but” (autem) is superfluous in the words, “but because of the false brethren who slipped in.” Even if it is read, there is no corresponding word to complete it.

The order and sense of the passage are as follows: “But not even Titus, though he was of Gentile origin, was compelled to be circumcised.” Immediately after this he adds the reason why he could have been compelled against his will to circumcision.

He says, “Because of the false brethren who slipped in, who slipped in to spy upon our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into bondage.”

Since they frightened us by plots and wished by their number to bring us from the freedom of Christ into bondage to the Law, we did not yield to them even for a time by circumcising Titus.

This was especially so when a certain necessity for the sake of ecclesial peace might have excused us. We did all this so that you would have no occasion to depart from the grace of the Gospel.

Therefore, if in Jerusalem, among the Jews, there were so many threatening false brethren, and if those who were elders resisted them only in part, yet we could not be induced by any force or persuasion to observe circumcision, which we knew had ended.

Why then do you, who are from the Gentiles and live in Galatia, voluntarily pass from grace to the already abolished antiquity of the Law? No force could have been brought against you.

'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.'

The latter could have been expected only from the false brethren, who did not understand the conditions of salvation. About them there is a separate discussion. They demanded not circumcision alone, but observance of the whole Law and all its prescriptions.

Who did not compel him? The Apostles only, or also the Christian community? Since the Apostle has just said that he set forth his teaching both before all and privately before the Apostles, here too it is understood that Titus was compelled by no one.

Neither the Apostles nor the believers forced him, insofar as they judged soundly about the relation of the Mosaic Law to Christianity. Of course, the Apostles were the guiding authorities.

Our ancient interpreters say that the Apostles did not make Titus be circumcised, though some desired it. If some desired it, certainly the false brethren, then others did not desire it.

The matter took place openly. The false brethren would have liked to circumcise him, but the Apostles and the true brethren did not agree to this and left Titus free.

Here one sees the Apostle Paul’s intention to distinguish these false brethren, adherents of the Law, from the assembly of those sound in faith. He makes clear that they were like a faction apart, stubbornly going against everyone.

Blessed Theodoret writes: “Here is the strongest proof that, in the opinion of the Apostles also, those who believed from the Gentiles should not keep the Law. Titus, who was uncircumcised and called from the Greeks, was not commanded to be circumcised, though very many desired the opposite.”

Saint Damascene says that the uncircumcision of Titus “was the strongest proof that the Apostles did not blame Saint Paul because he did not circumcise the Gentiles.”

Ambrosiaster adds: “It is implied: Why then should you Galatians be circumcised, when Titus was not compelled to be circumcised by the chief Apostles, but was received into communion while uncircumcised?”

Other interpreters of ours dwell more on how the Apostles themselves tolerated circumcision in Jerusalem. They all give one answer: it was by a certain economy. That is, it was allowed for a time as a measure of prudence, not as an unchangeable rule.

Oecumenius says that the fact that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised serves as “proof that Peter and those with him do not legislate circumcision, but allow it by condescension to those who believed from the Jews.”

Theophylact says: “The Apostles too allowed circumcision, not as an indispensable law, but according to a certain economy,” that is, as a temporary measure of prudent condescension to the weak.

Chrysostom explains this more fully: “That the Apostles did not compel the uncircumcised Titus to be circumcised very clearly proved that they did not condemn Paul’s teaching or his actions.

Even more, this was proved by the fact that when the opponents learned of it and insisted on circumcision, the Apostles did not command it to be done. He points to this very thing by the words, ‘and because of the false brethren who came in.’

Who these false brethren are requires explanation here. If the Apostles allowed circumcision, why do you call false brethren those who, with the Apostles’ knowledge, commanded this to be done?

First, it is not the same thing to require something to be done and to allow what is being done. The one who requires insists that his demand be fulfilled as necessary and important.

But the one who does not require, and merely does not forbid the person who wishes it, allows an action not as a due and necessary thing, but for some special arrangement.

So here also the Apostles allowed circumcision, but not as defenders of the Law. They did so by condescension to the weakness of the Jews.

If they had defended the Law, they would not have acted one way toward Jews and another toward Gentiles. What had to be done by the Law of Christ for one group would certainly have had to be done for the other.

But if they laid down as law that the Gentiles were not to be compelled to circumcision, they showed that they allowed it to the Jews only by condescension.

The false brethren did this with a different intention. They wished to tear the believers away from grace and again subject them to the yoke of bondage.

This is the first difference, which sets a great wall between the Apostles and the false brethren. The second is that the Apostles did this in Judea, where the Law was still so strong.

The false brethren did this everywhere, because they wished to enslave all the Galatians as well. From this it is clear that they acted not for edification, but for complete destruction.”