Galatians 2:7Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

On the other hand, he saw that openly admitting circumcision as necessary would meet another objection. "If they approved your preaching," they would say, "while they themselves permitted circumcision, then they contradicted themselves." How, then, is this difficulty to be resolved? He could, of course, have said that they permitted this by condescension toward the Jews. But by saying this he would have shaken the whole foundation of their wise dispensation. Therefore he does not say it, but leaves the matter uncertain and undecided. He says only, "And from those who seemed to be something, whatever they were, it makes no difference to me." It is as though he said, "I do not condemn or slander these holy men. They themselves know what they did, since they must give account to God. My concern is only to prove that they did not reject my teaching, correct it, or add anything to it as though something were lacking. On the contrary, they approved it and confirmed it by their agreement. I have Titus and Barnabas as witnesses of this." Therefore he goes on to say, "Seeing that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been entrusted to me, as the gospel for the circumcised had been to Peter." By circumcision and uncircumcision he means not the act itself, but the peoples distinguished from one another by it.

"And when they knew the grace given to me, Peter and James and John, who were considered pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.

"They did this so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised."

Here there is a transposition of words, uperbaton est. With much that was said in the middle omitted, this passage can be read briefly in this way: "Those who were distinguished, qui videbantur, communicated nothing to me.

"On the contrary, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship."

Perhaps, however, Paul, without praising himself, secretly gives this meaning: "Those who seemed to be something outstanding joined nothing to me. On the contrary, something was communicated by me to them, though they were firmer in the grace of the Gospel."

Taken together, what he said means the following: "One and the Same entrusted to me the Gospel for the uncircumcised, and to Peter the Gospel for the circumcised.

"He sent me to the Gentiles and appointed Peter in Judea.

"The Gentiles, already grown, were not to suffer pain from useless circumcision, nor were they to abstain from foods to which they had always been accustomed and which God created for use.

"Nor were those who believed from the Jews and were circumcised, by habit as by a second nature, to think they had something more than the other nations.

"Yet neither were they to begin lightly despising what had once been their glory.

"Therefore God's Providence granted one Apostle to the circumcised, who appeared to rely on the law.

"For those remaining in uncircumcision He granted another Apostle, who regarded the grace of the Gospel not as slavery, but as free faith.

"This was so that no obstacle to faith would arise under any pretext, and neither the circumcised nor the uncircumcised would be held back from faith in Christ."

We are not saying that Peter had forgotten his first instructions or considered it necessary to observe the prescriptions of the law in addition to the grace of the Gospel.

For in Acts Peter himself testified that no man is unclean.

He taught that in the vessel he saw descending from heaven, held by its four corners, there was no distinction among men, whether they were Jews or Gentiles (Acts 10:11-15; Acts 11:5-9).

Rather, we mean that even he, showing himself as one who observed the law, only gradually drew the Jews away from their former way of life.

They could not suddenly regard with contempt, as useless refuse, their many labors in keeping the law and the careful conduct of their former life according to its prescriptions.

From this we know exactly why Peter, James, and John gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas.

It was so that the Gospel of Christ would not be considered different because of a different observance of the law.

It was also so that the community of the circumcised and those with foreskin would be considered one and the same.

He constructed the discourse skillfully, pulchre, saying, "He Who worked in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised."

This was so that no one would think he was speaking evil of Peter.

Having first offered praise to Peter, he wishes to make clear that Peter partly allowed circumcision in order to gain those from the Jews who especially trusted him.

He also did this to preserve them in faith in Christ and the Gospel.

At the same time he implies that if Peter is innocent in observing for a time what need not be observed, doing this so as not to lose those entrusted to him, then Paul must do still more for the truth of the Gospel.

For what was entrusted to him consists of the uncircumcised.

The Gentiles must not withdraw from faith in Christ, which they so readily accepted, because they are frightened by the weight and difficulties of the law, a Christi fide et credulitate.

Here a hidden question appears. What then? If Peter found someone among the Gentiles, would he not lead them to faith?

Or, if Paul found some among the circumcised, would he not call them to Christ's baptism?

These questions are resolved in this way. We must recognize one principal commandment given concerning Jews and Gentiles.

Those who defended the law were to have someone whom they could follow. Those who preferred grace to the law were not to lack a teacher and leader.

In general, their appointment was to gather the Church for Christ from all nations.

Indeed, we read that the Gentile Cornelius was baptized by Saint Peter, and that Paul very often preached Christ in the synagogues of the Jews.

Peter and James and John were considered pillars (Acts 10; 13; 17).

Above, we read three times what the Apostle said: "And separately with those who seemed distinguished," "and from those who seemed to be something," and, "For those who seemed to be something communicated nothing to me."

Therefore I carefully examined what his words "seemed," videbantur, mean. But now he has freed me from every difficulty by adding the words, "who seemed," that is, were considered, "pillars."

Therefore the Apostles are pillars of the Church, and especially Peter, James, and John. Of these, two were counted worthy to ascend the mountain with the Lord.

One of these latter speaks in the Apocalypse in the person of the Savior: "He who overcomes, I will make a pillar in the temple of My God" (Rev 3:12).

In this way he teaches that one who overcomes the enemy can become a pillar of the Church.

In the Epistle to Timothy, Paul writes, "That you may know how one ought to live in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, and also, autem, the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

By these and other words we are taught that the Apostles, all believers, and the Church herself are called a pillar in the Scriptures.

There is no difference between words spoken of the body and of the members, since the body is divided into members, and the members belong to the body.

Therefore Peter, James, and John, who were honored as pillars, gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.

But they did not give it to Titus, who was with them, because he had not yet reached such a degree that the important commerce, mercimonia, of Christ could be entrusted to him on equal terms with the elders.

Nor had he reached the point where he too would occupy the same place of activity that Barnabas and Paul occupied.

It was only a measure of condescension to long-established habits, and was permitted only for a time. Therefore he chooses a middle path in answering his objectors. He does not in any way declare that the apostles acted mistakenly or wrongly. Rather, he turns his objectors away from every judgment of apostolic actions. St. Paul declares that each person will answer before God for himself and for his deeds. Consequently, those who seemed to be something will also give account. For him, Paul, their manner of acting is not binding. Only the truth acknowledged by all is universally binding at every time. "God shows no partiality," St. Paul adds to this. That Paul says this not as a reproach or accusation against the apostles, but solely to express his independence and equal standing among them, is clear from his further words. He also means that his opponents do not understand the true meaning of apostolic actions. "Those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. On the contrary," and so forth (Gal 2:7-8). "What you tell me, as though they prized Jewish ritual, I do not know," he says. "But this alone I know clearly: they did not contradict me. On the contrary, after hearing my teaching, they added nothing to it and corrected nothing. They did not even circumcise Titus" (St. Chrysostom).

Thus no obstacle to faith would arise from either side, and no one would be deprived of faith in Christ because of circumcision or uncircumcision." "One was appointed chiefly for the Jews, and the other for the Gentiles." Concerning the mention of the three apostles, St. John Chrysostom observes, "Where Paul needed to compare himself, he mentions Peter alone. But where he had to present testimony, he names the three together, and with praise." To this Bishop Theophan adds, "James stands first because of his presidency in the Church of Jerusalem, and not merely as the brother of the Lord. For his holiness of life and love for the Lord, he was held in greater honor than all in Jerusalem. The Apostle expresses this by calling him, together with Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, that is, honored pillars, supports, and guides of the true way."

But I will not say this. For what would they still have had to learn from him? Each of them was perfect.

He did not mean this by the word 'contrary.' Rather, he meant that they not only did not rebuke him and did not think of accusing him in anything, but even approved and praised him.

For the contrary of accusation is approval and praise.

Against this, some could now say: if they approved, why did they not abolish circumcision? For if they approved, they ought to have abolished it.

But he considered it very immodest to say that they abolished it, and he thought that by this he would provoke open warfare against the apostolic confession.

If he had said that they allowed circumcision, he saw that he would meet another objection. Opponents would say: if they approved your preaching and themselves permitted circumcision, then they contradicted themselves.

How, then, is one to get out of this difficulty? Certainly he could have said that the Apostles permitted circumcision by condescension to the Jews.

But by saying this, he would have shaken the whole foundation of their wise dispensation. Therefore he does not say it, leaving it in doubt and hidden.

He says only: 'from those who were reputed to be something... it makes no difference to me.' It is as though he said: I neither condemn nor slander these saints.

They themselves know what they were doing, for they know that they too must give account to God. My concern is only to prove that they did not reject my teaching, did not correct it, and added nothing to it.

On the contrary, they approved it and confirmed it by their agreement. I have Titus and Barnabas as witnesses of this, says Saint Chrysostom.

'When they understood that the Gospel of the uncircumcision had been entrusted to me, just as that of the circumcision to Peter.'

'By circumcision and uncircumcision he does not mean the act itself, but the peoples distinguished by these terms. By uncircumcision he means the Gentiles, and by circumcision the Jews,' says Saint Chrysostom.

By the words 'to me, as to Peter,' he shows that he has equal honor with the Apostles. He compares himself not with some other one of them, but with the chief Apostle.

By this he shows that each of them received equal dignity, says Saint Chrysostom.