Galatians 2:6Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Here he not only does not defend the Apostles, but even speaks strongly against these saints, in order to benefit the weak.

His words have this meaning: if they allow circumcision, they themselves will answer to God. God will not respect their persons merely because they are considered great and supreme.

Yet he did not speak so openly, but with caution. Indeed, he did not say: if they harm the preaching and preach not as they were commanded, they will answer at the last judgment and bear heavy punishment.

He said nothing of the kind. Rather, he seems to touch upon them much more respectfully, saying: 'But from those who were of reputation, whatever they once were.'

'But from those who were of reputation, whatever they once were, it makes no difference to me: God shows no partiality.'

Since someone might naturally object and say to him, 'How, then, did the Apostles command circumcision?' he removes this objection, though he does not indicate the true reason.

The true reason was that they acted in this way by a special dispensation and by condescension. They feared that believers from among the Jews might hear that the Apostles allowed circumcision not for the sake of truth, but for good order.

Then these believers might withdraw from them too, as from destroyers of the law. Until then, they held to the Apostles precisely because the Apostles preserved the law.

If they seem to be something, they seem so to fleshly people, but in reality this is not so. If they are good ministers to God, then Christ works in them, not they by themselves.

For if they were something by themselves, they would always have remained so.

Whatever they once were, and they were sinners, as Paul says, this means nothing to him. God does not look upon the face of man, that is, He called all to salvation without any partiality, not reckoning their transgressions.

One should not suppose that Paul said this as a reproach to his predecessors. These spiritual men sought to withstand fleshly people who considered themselves something by their own merits, and not because Christ was in them.

But those who proudly imagine themselves to be something (cf. Gal 6:3) because they keep the old together with the new, as they held this opinion, are no concern of mine. For God does not accept the face of men, that is, those who think that they please Him by observing the law and the circumcision of Abraham.

He says: although the Lord had Peter and John with Him, and although they saw Him transfigured on the mountain, Mt 12 and Mk 9, and although the foundation of the Church was laid upon them, this has no importance for me.

For I am not speaking against those who at that time followed the Lord, but against those who now prefer the Law to grace.

I do not speak evil of my predecessors, nor do I accuse the elders in any respect. I say only that the Lord does not look upon the face of man.

Indeed, He did not look upon Moses, He did not look upon David, and He did not look upon others. Therefore He will also look upon those who seemed to yield to someone for a time, though they themselves agree with me.

Paul speaks of those who, though they may even have had their origin from false apostles, nevertheless became something, that is, they changed and now followed the Gospel.

Therefore, since they formerly came from false apostles, but now are correct in the faith, that is, are something special, Paul says that what they were before, in the past, does not trouble him at all.

For it is enough for me what a man is at the present moment. It is no concern of mine what he was before.

Paul also gives the reason: God does not look upon the face of man, but upon faith and spirit. Whether one is Greek, Jew, or someone else, God does not look at this.

He looks at what one is and whether one holds to the faith and the Gospel.

'God shows no partiality.' He does not look upon the king and his subject, nor upon the master and his servant, nor upon the noble and the simple, but upon faith and good works.

From Him each will receive 'according to what he has done while in the body, whether good or evil,' 2 Cor 5:10.

Again we read in His holy word: 'A strict judgment is upon those who rule, for the least is deserving of mercy, but the mighty will be mightily tested,' or, according to another translation, 'tormented.'

'The Lord of all will not fear any man's person, nor will He stand in awe of greatness; for He made both small and great and cares alike for all. But a strict inquiry awaits those who govern,' Wis 6:5-8.

'But from those who were reputed to be something, whatever they once were makes no difference to me.' The parentheses mark an inserted thought.

After saying that he had set forth his teaching to the renowned Apostles, Saint Paul notes that those of reputation added nothing to him, that is, they added nothing of their own to the teaching he had set forth.

As for how the other Apostles had taught earlier, or what they once were, this is indifferent to Paul. What matters to him is that they did not differ from him in their teaching when he spoke with them.

These words may also be referred to the subsequent time. The Apostle says: I transmit the teaching in the form in which I set it before the renowned Apostles.

'And from those who were of reputation,' that is, from the Apostles James, Cephas, and John, Gal 2:9, to whose example Saint Paul's opponents wrongly and reproachfully kept pointing, 'whatever they once were makes no difference to me.'

That is, nothing special and obligatory for Paul lies in the separate persons of the other Apostles, whether they allowed Jewish customs or not.

Saint Peter and the other Apostles truly tolerated for a time the performance of certain Jewish customs by Judaizers even after their conversion to Christianity. They did so according to various local circumstances and personal considerations of prudence.

Calling the 'foremost' Apostles renowned, Paul speaks of the great respect they then enjoyed from all, and from him as well. In the opinion of His Grace Theophan, he even expresses the thought that no one had yet enjoyed such honor.

By exalting the first Apostles, Peter, James, and John, Paul at the same time exalts the dignity of his own authority. For such great men in no way opposed him. On the contrary, they fully confirmed the correctness of his teaching in general and of the non-obligatory character of circumcision in particular.

In the words, 'it makes no difference to me; God does not accept man's person,' according to Saint John Chrysostom, Paul not only does not defend the Apostles, but even speaks strongly against these saints, in order to benefit the weak.

"Those who seemed to be something" is the same as above, "those of repute," and below, "those reputed to be pillars."

According to Augustine, the Apostle does not mean by this that they themselves considered themselves to be of some importance. He means that all Christians considered them so.

All think of them that they are not the same as all others. They are something special, outstanding from the common rank. These words may be paraphrased as "our most renowned men."

"Whatever they once were." The Greek text, hopoioi pote esan, allows the translation: "whatever sort of men there have ever been."

This seems to be the most suitable translation, according to the course of the discourse and the Apostle's purpose.

The Apostle expresses his thought about the older Apostles and sets them above all human renown, as they truly are.

Then, by comparing himself with them, he raises his own dignity in the eyes of the Galatians, so as to remove from them every pretext for not following his teaching.

Another translation, "whatever they once were," or, "whatever they may ever have been," creates difficulty in explaining what "once were" or "ever were" means.

It suggests the thought that they ceased to be renowned. If one stops at this translation, one involuntarily asks, "When was this 'once'?"

Some answer: when the Lord was visibly on earth and they followed Him everywhere (see blessed Jerome). But after the descent of the Holy Spirit they became more renowned than they had been before.

Others answer: even before their calling by the Lord to the apostleship, when they were sinners (see blessed Augustine), simple men, unlearned in the law (see Ambrosiaster).

But the Apostle Paul had no need to carry the Galatians' thought so far back, especially when it gives nothing for his purposes.

A third answer is: before the assurance from above, given through Saint Peter, that the door into Christ's Church was opened to the Gentiles without circumcision.

The thought would then be that previously they thought the law was necessary, but now they had ceased to think so (see Oecumenius). In this there is no difference between Paul and them.

With this translation, that is closest of all to the course of Saint Paul's discourse.

Let us note, however, that this is a parenthetical clause and has no influence on determining the main thought of the text.

Therefore one need not be too concerned about defining its meaning with absolute precision.

"It makes no difference to me." There is no difference for me, either in apostolic authority, which I have the same as they do, or in teaching.

For they understand salvation in the Lord just as I do.

"He Who placed the understanding of Christian teaching in those unlearned in the law, that is, in untaught fishermen, was also pleased to grant the same understanding to me, one skilled in the law and learned" (Ambrosiaster).

"God accepts no man's person." God does not look at what someone is, but at what he can be with the help of God's grace.

Although I was an unbeliever and persecuted the Church of God, God foresaw that I would remain a faithful worker if the Gospel were entrusted to me (see 1 Thess 2:4).

Therefore He chose me for this ministry and placed me in the rank of those most renowned men. "By the grace of God I am what I am" (cf. 1 Cor 15:10).

"For those of repute added nothing to me." He proves that there is no difference between him and the most notable men by this fact.

After conversing with the Apostle Paul and understanding the whole course of his work, they added nothing to him, either in teaching or in apostolic dignity.

Rather, recognizing that both came from the Lord Himself, they received him into communion equal in honor with themselves.

Blessed Jerome writes, "Above he said that he entered into conversation with the older Apostles and told everything he had accomplished among the Gentiles.

"Now he says that they added nothing to this. Rather, approving everything told to them, they gave the right hands of fellowship and confirmed that their Gospel and Paul's Gospel are one and the same."

Our Slavonic translation gives this understanding of the text, especially by the words, "it makes no difference to me."

Yet the corresponding Greek expression, ouden moi diapherei, is also used when one wishes to say, "I have no concern with something."

If this meaning of the phrase is accepted here, then we must admit that Saint Paul wished to say, "As for the renowned Apostles, I have no concern with them."

This means in relation to the fact that they tolerated circumcision among the Jews, according to a certain economy.

Our most ancient interpreters understand this phrase in that way. In explaining the text, they are especially concerned to remove from the Apostle Paul even the shadow of any disrespect toward the foremost Apostles.

Their course of thought is this: before this, Saint Paul directed his discourse entirely toward proving that circumcision is no longer necessary for salvation.

Someone could object to him: "How is it, then, that the other Apostles, the first ones, tolerate it? If they tolerate it, why should you not tolerate it?"

Those Apostles tolerated circumcision only among the Jews, and then only for a time. They allowed this condescension as a prudent measure, according to a certain economy.

One might say to Saint Paul, "Here is why they act this way." But if he had declared this, he would have weakened the effect of that measure.

Then it would have brought more harm than good.

Therefore he keeps silent about this and says only, "How they act is not my concern. I am not their judge. God will judge, and He does not regard persons."

"God will not be abashed by the fact that they are leaders" (Oecumenius).

I shall cite the very words of several interpreters. These are the words of blessed Theodoret:

"Since the Galatians probably said that the very first of the Apostles keep the law, and the divine Apostle knew they were compelled to do this by condescension toward believers from the Jews who were not yet firm in faith, he stood between two extremes.

"On the one hand, he considered it wholly improper to accuse the Apostles. On the other hand, he did not wish to reveal their intention, lest he harm that divine economy.

"Therefore he opens some middle way for himself. He assumes the appearance of being grieved by what is being done and of hesitating to speak about it, while leaving everything to God's judgment."

These are the words of Photius in Oecumenius:

"They could say to Saint Paul, 'If Peter does well in condescending to circumcision, why not you also?

"'Why do you so strictly condemn what in others you call wise economy? Permit the same thing here also. Do not forbid it, and afterward call it whatever you like, economy or dogma.'

"So they would have thought and so they would have spoken to Paul, if he had said that Peter temporarily allowed circumcision by economy.

"Therefore Paul acted wisely by keeping complete silence about the economy. With strictness he touches only the action itself and rebukes those who condescend as though they were transgressors of the law.

"By the severity of his rebuke toward them, he wished still more to frighten and correct those who held circumcision sinfully, that is, by recognizing it as necessary for salvation.

"Therefore afterward he is not afraid to call them dissemblers and those not walking uprightly (see Gal 2:13-14), if only he may preserve the purity of Christ's Gospel."

Finally, these are the words of Saint Chrysostom:

"Since the actions of the Apostles spoke against him, some, looking at them, could naturally say, 'How, then, do they allow this?' See how wisely he resolves this objection.

"He does not state the true reason, namely, that the Apostles did this by condescension and by a special dispensation, that is, by economy or divine economy.

"For this could have harmed the hearers. Those for whom some benefit is being prepared through a dispensation need not know the reason for that dispensation.

"If the reason for the dispensation is revealed, everything is destroyed.

"Therefore only the one who makes the dispensation must know the reason for his actions. Those for whom benefit is being prepared through that dispensation must not know the reason.

"To present more clearly what I am saying, I shall give an example from this very matter.

"The blessed Paul himself, who rises so strongly against circumcision, circumcised Timothy first when he sent him as a teacher to the Jews, and then sent him.

"He did this so that the hearers would have greater trust in Timothy. Thus Timothy came to them circumcised in order to abolish circumcision.

"Timothy himself knew the reason for this action, but he did not tell it to the disciples.

"If they had learned that he was circumcised in order to abolish circumcision, they would not have listened to his preaching for a moment, and all the benefit would have perished.

"But now this ignorance brought them the greatest benefit. Thinking that he did this as a keeper of the law, they favorably and willingly received him and his teaching.

"Receiving his teaching little by little, and coming to know the truth, they later abandoned the ancient ways themselves.

"This would not have happened if they had learned the reason at the beginning. Having learned it, they would have turned away from him.

"Turning away, they would not have listened to him. Not listening, they would have remained in their former error.

"To prevent this from happening, he did not reveal the reason. For the same reason the Apostle here does not reveal the reason for this dispensation of the Apostles.

"Instead, he leads his discourse by another path, saying, 'But from those who seemed to be something, whatever they once were makes no difference to me. God accepts no man's person.'

"Here he not only does not defend the Apostles, but even speaks strongly against these holy men, in order to benefit the weak.

"His words have this meaning: if they allow circumcision, then they themselves will answer to God. God will not respect their persons because they are considered great and chief.

"Nevertheless, he did not say this so openly, but with caution.

"He did not say, 'If they corrupt the preaching and preach otherwise than was commanded, then they will give an answer at the last judgment and be punished.'

"He did not say this, but touches them much more respectfully, saying, 'from those who seemed to be something.'

"Again, he did not say, 'whatever they are,' but, 'whatever they were,' showing thereby that they later ceased to preach in that way, when the light of the Gospel shone everywhere.

"With these same words, 'whatever they once were,' he also says this: if they ever did preach so, they themselves will give an answer for it.

"For they will not answer to men, but to God.

"He says this not because he doubted them or did not know their intention. Rather, as I have said, he thought it more useful to conduct the discourse in this way.

"Then, lest they think that he follows the opposite path by accusing them, and so give occasion for division, he immediately corrects his discourse.

"He says, 'For those of repute added nothing to me.' What does this mean?

"What you say to me, he says, I do not know. But this alone I clearly know: they did not contradict me.

"On the contrary, they were of one mind and agreed with me. They taught nothing, corrected nothing, and added nothing to what he knew.

"'For,' he says, 'those of repute added nothing to me.' That is, after hearing my teaching, they added nothing to it and corrected nothing.

"They knew that I had come precisely to communicate my teaching to them, according to the revelation of the Spirit. I came for this and also brought Titus with me, uncircumcised.

"But they neither told me anything beyond what I knew, nor did they circumcise Titus."

Theophylact and Oecumenius have the same thought. Jerome's interpretation is also similar.