Gálatas 2
Theophylact of Ohrid
Gálatas 2:2
The cause of the first journey was Peter, and of the second — a revelation. And he brought Titus and Barnabas as witnesses of his preaching, that it was pleasing to the apostles. That is, the preaching of the gospel without circumcision. Why then, after so many years, did he set it before them, when he should have done this at the beginning and learned whether he was acting rightly or not? For it would be unreasonable that one who had labored for so many years should after this have need of instruction, unless he had labored in vain. But if he had come with the purpose of receiving instruction regarding his own ministry, this would indeed have been unreasonable. But since he saw that many were scandalized by the fact that Peter permitted circumcision while he did not circumcise, and through this he was subjected to the suspicion of violating the law, he came to Jerusalem by revelation, by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, in order to convince those who were scandalized that there is no disagreement in the preaching, and that those who permit circumcision wisely make a concession, as ones preaching to the circumcised; what is unreasonable about that? For the Holy Spirit moved him to go for the correction of others, and he naturally obeyed. "And privately to those of reputation." Because many were being scandalized, Paul converses "privately," in private with the disciples of Peter, so that no strife would arise and so as to prevent a greater scandal. For very many were being scandalized, and if they had heard that Paul openly rejects circumcision, then there would have been an uproar and everything would have been thrown into confusion. Therefore, he converses in private, having as witnesses Titus and Barnabas, who would be able to declare to all people that the apostles also found nothing contrary in his preaching. And by calling them "those of reputation," he does not reject their significance, but alongside his own he also places the common recognition of all, just as he also said of himself: "I think I also have the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 7:40), not rejecting the existence of this gift in himself, but pointing to the common opinion. So, "those of reputation," that is, the great, the renowned. That is, in order to teach those who are scandalized concerning me that I do not labor in vain, and not in order to learn myself, for how could I learn, when I received from the Father the revelation concerning the Son and His Gospel? — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:3
Uncircumcised Titus, he says, was not compelled to be circumcised. And this serves as the most important proof that the apostles too permitted circumcision not as a law, but according to a certain economy, that is, as a temporary measure of prudent condescension to the weak, for the sake of believers from the circumcision, – and that they could not censure the preaching of Paul, whose disciple was uncircumcised. — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:4
The order of the speech is as follows: even on account of the false brethren who had come in, Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, that is, although my opponents were present, the apostles did not even for their sake compel Titus to be circumcised. But how does he call those who insisted on circumcision false brethren, if the apostles also accepted it? Because the apostles permitted circumcision out of condescension toward those who believed from the circumcision, as a preacher to the Jews; but those others did so as ones who established circumcision on principle and as defenders of the law, so to speak; for this reason he calls them false brethren. And by the expression "who came in secretly" he points to their crafty design, and by the word "to spy out" he gives us to understand that they are enemies. For spies come for no other purpose than precisely to find out everything and to clear the way for destruction and enslavement. This is exactly what they were doing. For they were watching to see who were the uncircumcised, who had freedom in Christ, that is, who were not subject to the law, in order to attack them and compel them to be circumcised, and to subject us again to the slavery of the law, from which Christ set us free. So then, from this it is clear that the apostles permitted what was under the law in order to gradually free people from this slavery, while those others acted so as to fasten this slavery firmly in place. — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:5
He did not say "did not yield" to the word, but did not submit, because they were not doing this to teach us anything, but for subjection and enslavement. Therefore we obey the apostles, but not them. So that, he says, what we preached to you might remain firm and true. What exactly? That the old things have passed away, the law has been abolished, and Christ does not accept the circumcised, and circumcision brings no benefit whatsoever. Thus, in opposition to them, we showed that we also truly proclaimed to you the abolition of the law. Therefore do not depart from this truth. — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:6
Since it was natural for someone to object to him and say: how then did the apostles command circumcision? – he removes this objection, though he does not indicate the true reason, that they acted this way by special dispensation and out of condescension, fearing that the believers from among the Jews, upon hearing that the apostles permitted circumcision not for the sake of truth but for the sake of good order, might also fall away from them as destroyers of the law; for until then they had adhered to them precisely because they preserved the law. Therefore Paul conceals this reason, but presses hard upon the apostles, saying: "it makes no difference to me," that is, I have no concern with those of repute, with the great ones, evidently the apostles – whether they preach circumcision or not, since they themselves will give an answer to God, and although they are great and preeminent, God will not regard their persons, for He is no respecter of persons. And notice: he did not say "what they are," but "what they once were," showing that afterward they too ceased to preach in this way, when the preaching shone forth everywhere. Paul says this not in reproach of the saints, but wishing to benefit his listeners. Whatever they may have been, he says, that is God's affair, but this I know: that they in no way opposed me and added nothing to my preaching, nor corrected it. — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:7
Some interpreted it this way: not only did they add nothing to correct my teaching, but on the contrary, they were even corrected themselves. But this is incorrect. For in what could they have been corrected by him? After all, each of them is perfect. So he says the following: "but on the contrary, they gave me the right hand of fellowship," — then still in the middle: "seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised," and so on in order. And not only did they not correct me, they even praised and agreed that I and Barnabas should go with the gospel to the uncircumcised, that is, to the Gentiles, while they would go to the circumcised, that is, to the Jews. — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:8
Here he also shows himself equal to Peter. For He who entrusted to Peter the work of preaching the gospel to the Hebrews gave the same to me for the Gentiles. And notice how he showed that his preaching was not only pleasing to the apostles, but was also acceptable to God. For concerning the apostles he says that they "recognized the grace." He did not say "heard," but from the very deeds themselves "recognized." For how would God have given me this gift if such preaching were displeasing to Him? — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:9
And again he mentions the three with praise. For "those reputed to be pillars," that is, the great ones whom everyone everywhere names and glorifies — they bear witness concerning me that my preaching is pleasing to Christ. Therefore they also "gave the right hand of fellowship," that is, they agreed, acknowledged us as partners, and showed that they were satisfied with my preaching, as in no way differing from their own word. — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:10
Having divided among themselves, he says, the work of preaching, we remembered the poor without division. For in Jerusalem many of those who had believed were deprived of their possessions by the unbelieving Jews and were in difficulty regarding necessary sustenance. The Greeks did not wage war so fiercely against the believers from among them as the Jews did against the Christians from among the Hebrews. Therefore Paul shows especial zeal in his care for them, as he himself testifies, that "I was eager to carry out precisely." For collecting alms everywhere from his disciples, he himself delivered them to them. — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:11
Many think that here Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy, but this is unjust. For what he seemingly says against Peter was done and spoken with a special purpose. For Peter, being in Jerusalem, permitted circumcision — indeed it was impossible to suddenly draw them away from the law — but having come to Antioch, he ate together with the Gentiles. When certain people from Jerusalem came to Antioch, he began to avoid the Gentiles, so as not to scandalize the Jerusalemites and at the same time to give Paul a fitting occasion for rebuke. Therefore Paul rebukes, and Peter endures it. For in this way the disciples could more easily change their way of thinking, when the teacher is subjected to reproaches and remains silent. Thus, this "opposed him to his face" was only in appearance, since if the struggle had been real, they would not have accused each other in front of the disciples, because they would have subjected them to great scandal. But as it was, the apparent outward opposition served for the correction of the disciples. For Peter does not contradict at all — clearly he agreed with this objection of Paul. He did not say: from me, but simply, from others, who did not know that it was done with good intention, and considered it hypocrisy that in the absence of the Jerusalemites he ate together with the Gentiles, but when they came, he withdrew. And some understood it this way: Peter even before "was blamed," says Paul, because he ate together with Cornelius, therefore now too he withdrew, fearing to be subjected to new reproaches, and when he withdrew, "I opposed him to his face." — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:12
He also points out the reason for this rebuke. James was the brother of the Lord, who taught in Jerusalem as their bishop. It was he who sent certain Jews who had already believed but still adhered to the law, and they went to Antioch. Seeing them and fearing not for his own safety, but lest they, being scandalized, should fall away from the faith, Peter began to withdraw from association with the Gentiles. But some, not knowing this reason, began to condemn him. — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:13
He calls this matter hypocrisy, because he does not wish to reveal Peter's intention, and also for the sake of those strongly attached to the law, in order to uproot their devotion to the law. And by the rest of the Jews he means those from among the Jews in Antioch who had believed, who themselves also kept away from the uncircumcised. — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:14
But do not be troubled by these words — he says this not to condemn Peter, but for the sake of those who could benefit from hearing that even Peter was subjected to rebuke for his attachment to the law. Why then should you hold to it? For it was with this purpose that he rebuked him then before all, so that they would be frightened, hearing that so great a man is subjected to censure and cannot object. Eusebius, however, says that the one subjected to rebuke from Paul was not the great Peter, but some other Cephas, one of the Seventy, and in support of this he points to the impossibility that the one who had already previously defended himself regarding the scandal he had caused by sharing a meal with Cornelius could again be subjected to such rebuke. But we too do not say that Peter was censured by Paul for ignorance of his duty, but that he voluntarily submitted to condemnation so that others too might be corrected. Paul all but cries out to everyone: "Imitate your teacher — for behold, he is a Jew, yet he ate food together with the Gentiles." And notice — he does not accuse him: "You do wrong by observing the Law," but reproaches him on behalf of his own disciples from among the Gentiles, that he compels them to be circumcised and to live according to Jewish customs. For in this form the word could be more readily accepted. — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:15
"By nature," that is, not proselytes, but born of Jewish fathers and raised in the law, yet we abandoned our accustomed way of life and turned to faith in Christ. — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:16
See how simply everything is said. We left the law not because it is not good, but because it is weak and unable to justify. For no one could fulfill its works, difficult and hard to perform, not because of their greatness, but rather because of their pettiness; or otherwise, because it did not sanctify the soul, but only removed bodily impurity. So circumcision is superfluous. And further ahead he will say that it is even dangerous, because it alienates from Christ. — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:17
We sought to obtain justification in Christ, he says, having abandoned the law. How then do you say that it is sinful to abandon the law: for it turns out that Christ led us into such a sin, since for His sake we abandoned everything pertaining to the law. Thus Christ, as you say, not only did not justify us, but even became for us the cause of greater condemnation by having persuaded us to depart from the law. Having driven the argument to absurdity, he no longer had need of confirmation, but contented himself with a simple denial, which is what he ordinarily always did in matters that were generally disputable. — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:18
Notice his wisdom: they were saying that the one who violates the law is a transgressor, but he, on the contrary, shows that the one who observes it is a transgressor, going not only against the faith, but also against the law itself. For the law itself led me to the faith and persuaded me to leave it. Further on he will point this out, but for now he says that the law has ceased, and we have testified to this by the fact that we destroyed it, having departed from it. Therefore, if we were to endeavor to restore it, we would prove to be transgressors, restoring that which was destroyed by God. — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:19
He explains in what manner he abandoned the law, and says: through the law of grace and the Gospel I died to the law of Moses, or I died, he says, to the law through the law; that is, the law itself led me to no longer observe it, having led me to Christ through the Mosaic and prophetic word. Therefore, if I again begin to observe it, I will again violate it. Or in this way: the law commanded that the one who does not fulfill its prescriptions be punished and put to death. And since it could not be fulfilled, by its power I was subjected to death. Therefore let it not command me, as one already dead both in soul, because I sinned, being unable to fulfill the works of the law, and in body, inasmuch as this depended on the condemnation by the law. How then after this shall I still hold to that which put me to death? Lest anyone should say: how then do you live, if you have died? – he says that although the law put me to death while I was living, Christ, having found me dead, made me alive, having been mystically co-crucified with Him and having died with Him through baptism. A twofold miracle: He gave life to one who was dead, and gave life through death. — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:20
By the words "I am crucified with Christ" he indicated baptism, and by the words "it is no longer I who live" – the life after this, through which our body dies. "But Christ lives in me," that is, there is nothing in us that is not pleasing to Christ, but He accomplishes everything in us, governing and ruling. And our will has died, and His lives and governs our life. Therefore, if I live for God a life distinct from life under the law, and have died to the law, then I cannot observe anything from the law. What I have said, I said about the spiritual life, but you will find the sensible life also in me, existing from Christ. For the law being transgressed subjected all to sin and punishment, and nothing prevented, as in the times of the flood, all from perishing as transgressors; but Christ, having appeared, delivered us from condemnation, having justified us by His death. So that even this very thing – the sensible and fleshly life – we have through faith in Christ, – faith that justifies us and delivers us from condemnation. Although He gave Himself for all and loved all, Paul, having reflected on what Christ freed us from and what He bestowed, and having been kindled with love, ascribes what is common to himself, just as the prophets say: "O God, my God." And at the same time he also shows that each person ought to render such gratitude to Christ as if He had died for him alone. But only those who believed in Him benefited from these gifts. So that the one who clings to the law shows that Christ did not die for him. How then are you not afraid of this, but return again to the law, showing the death of the Lord to be useless for you? And note the expression "who gave Himself" — on account of the Arians. — Commentary on Galatians
Gálatas 2:21
After these reasonings, he finally declares: I do not reject the gift of Christ, by which He deemed me worthy, having justified me without works by His death, and I do not resort to the law. For if, he says, the law is able to save and justify, then Christ died entirely in vain. But He, without a doubt, died in order to save us by His death, which the law is powerless to do. And if the law saves, the death of Christ is superfluous. Do you see where such blasphemy leads? — Commentary on Galatians