Chapter Two

The Apostle Paul is acknowledged at the Jerusalem council as acting completely correctly as a preacher of the gospel (1-10). The Apostle Paul himself rebukes the Apostle Peter in Antioch (11-21)

Gal 2:1-10. In proof that the Apostle Paul was always recognized in the Church as a true Apostle of Christ, in no way inferior to the twelve Apostles, Paul recalls what happened fourteen years after his first visit to Jerusalem (Gal 1:18). In this second visit to Jerusalem he laid before the entire Jerusalem church and especially before the Apostles his gospel, and no one found it necessary to correct him in anything about the Apostle’s understanding of the essence and task of Christianity. The Apostles extended their hands to Paul and recognized in him the primary right to preach to the gentiles.

Galatians 2:1. Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. The Apostle evidently begins counting the fourteen years from his first visit to Jerusalem, because he uses the word “again,” which brings the reader’s thought back to his first visit to Jerusalem. But which of the three following journeys, which took place after the first, does the Apostle have in mind in the present case? Such journeys had been three before he wrote the epistle to the Galatians (see Acts 11, Acts 15 and Acts 18). In recent times the view became established that the Apostle has in mind the journey mentioned in Acts 15, namely the journey to the so-called Apostolic Council. In favor of such a supposition speaks the agreement of individual moments of the account of Paul’s stay at this time in Jerusalem, as they are presented here and in the book of Acts (for details see Fr. Galakhov p. 139)... — “Taking Titus along with me.” Titus was received into the Church of Christ as an uncircumcised person, and the Apostle intentionally takes him along to the very center of Jewish Christianity in order to demonstrate in practice how he understands Christianity, to show that he teaches freedom from the law and circumcision. — The relationship in which Barnabas stood to Paul on this occasion—whether as his helper or as an equal figure—this passage does not clarify. We can only say that the expression “with (μετά) Barnabas” does not suggest that Barnabas held a prominent position in the Antioch delegation (cf. Acts 15:2).

Galatians 2:2. I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only to those of repute) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain. The Apostle does not want here to write a history of the Jerusalem Council, but only to say something about his personal relationship to the chief Apostles and to the Jewish Christians of Palestine. Therefore, he does not speak of the occasion and purpose of his journey to Jerusalem at this time, as he did in Gal 1:18. He says only that he set out on this occasion “in response to a revelation,”—perhaps a revelation that came to him or to one of the Christians of the Antioch church, but in any case not according to his own judgment. He did not find it necessary to go to Jerusalem, but obeyed the “revelation,” and in doing so took the opportunity before the Jerusalem church to declare the character of his preaching. — “I laid before them” — more precisely: before them, that is, before the Christians there (cf. Gal 1:23). — “Those of repute.” Privately (κατ ιδίαν) the Apostle laid his gospel before the most respected representatives of the Church (τ. δοκοῦσιν—a term that was evidently in use at that time among Jewish Christians generally and among Paul’s Judaizing opponents in particular). For Paul’s enemies tried to lower him before the most prominent representatives of Christianity and even said that these representatives disapproved of Paul’s activity. Therefore the Apostle wanted to take from his enemies any occasion to claim some supposedly negative attitude toward him from the representatives of Christianity. — “Those of repute.” According to the better reading, this expression refers to the word “repute.” — “In order to make sure I was not running, or had not run, in vain?” The Apostle by these words is not expressing any uncertainty about the truth of his preaching or even about its success. He was fully convinced of the former, and the circumstances of that time sufficiently convinced him of the latter (cf. Gal 1:22-24). It is natural, therefore, to understand the expression under consideration as an indirect question: “I thus wanted to ask them: am I not laboring in vain or have I not labored in vain? And they, of course, answered me: no, not in vain, not without success.” This is how we can convey the meaning of the expression under consideration. If the Apostle wished to receive from the chief Apostles an answer in this spirit, this shows that his enemies, who were present in Jerusalem at that time, spoke of Paul’s work differently: they apparently represented his work as having no success and as downright insignificant.

Galatians 2:3. But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. The slanderous talk of Paul’s enemies about the insignificance of Paul’s work had no effect on the Jerusalem representatives of Christianity. They did not compel Titus, any more than other Greeks and non-Jews present in Jerusalem at that time (as the expression ουδέ Τίτος indicates) to accept circumcision, although an attempt to do so was evidently made by the Judaizers with regard to all Christian converts from the gentiles. The Apostle, that is, removed from Jerusalem with Titus uncircumcised, just as he had brought him there, and this was again proof of his correctness as a preacher of the gospel among the gentiles—correctness acknowledged by those whom only Paul valued, namely the Apostles from the twelve.

Galatians 2:4. But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us— Galatians 2:5. we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you. Regarding those whom the Apostle calls “false believers secretly brought in” (τούς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους; the article τούς shows that Paul has in mind a group of people known to the readers of the epistle), the Apostle evidently considers them false Christians (“false believers”—false Christians, because the word “brother” in the language of the Apostle Paul means “Christian”). These people, pretending to be Christians (cf. the expression “false apostles” in 2 Cor 11:26 or “false prophets” in Matt 7:15), entered deceptively (properly: were through carelessness admitted to the Church, as the passive participle παρείσακτοι indicates). — “Who slipped in” (οίτινες παρεισῆλθον). Here is already indicated what was done by these very “false believers.” They crept in where Paul and Barnabas were acting as legitimate leaders (“the freedom we have in Christ”—to enslave “us”). This was mainly the church of Antioch and the churches of Syria and Cilicia dependent on it (Gal 1:21 and Acts 15:1), in which the Apostle understands himself and Barnabas, as well as the other Jewish Christians of Antioch (cf. Gal 2:13). The issue here is about the “freedom” of the Jewish Christians, which they had as Christians (“in Christ”)—freedom from the obligation to observe the Law of Moses. The “false believers” argued that everyone bearing the mark of circumcision is necessarily obligated through it to observe the entire Law of Moses, even if this circumcised person already belonged to Christians. The Apostle did not give in even for the shortest time (“not for a moment”) to the demands these people made on him with regard to the uncircumcised Titus and other Christians who had come with the Apostle, whom the “false believers” wanted to force, as if they were of Jewish birth, to observe the Law of Moses. — “So that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you.” The Galatians, as Christians from the gentiles, might have become confused about the truthfulness of the gospel proclaimed to them by Paul if they had been told that the Apostle had made some concession from his program, even for a short time. The Apostle therefore made no concession on that occasion, although at other times he did make various concessions (for example, he accepted initiation as a Nazirite). — It should be noted that the Russian translation of verses 4-5 is rather far from the Greek text, even from the accepted text we use (the Slavonic is much better in this case, as it precisely reproduces the words of the Greek). The expression διά δε τ. παρεισάκτους ψευδ. cannot be translated with the dative: “false believers secretly brought in,” and then one cannot leave untranslated the pronoun οῖς standing at the beginning of verse 5. It is better to consider the period of verses 4-5 simply incomplete (anacoluthon), examples of which are not rare in the epistles of the Apostle Paul. However, some commentators, on the basis of many ancient manuscripts and translations of the epistle to the Galatians, consider the first words of verse 5 interpolations and render both verses as: “because of the false believers... we gave in for a moment out of deference (befitting us).” Thus, for example, Zahn translates it. In such a translation the Apostle’s thought becomes quite clear. He intimates that “false believers” entered the church of Antioch and created confusion in minds. It was necessary to put an end to such confusion, and the Apostle found no better way to do this than to go to Jerusalem and declare his program to the most prominent representatives of Christianity, upon whom the false believers in Antioch relied as supporters of their view on the Law of Moses. In Jerusalem, thus, the struggle between Paul and the Judaizers had to be decided and at the same time access to their influence on the churches founded by Paul would be cut off. But it is clear that this journey to Jerusalem was for Paul a certain concession—he himself did not find it necessary at all to explain his gospel before the chief Apostles—though a concession and a temporary one (“not for a moment”)... Of course, the acceptance of such an interpretation is conditioned upon agreement with the position of Zahn that reading verse 5 without οῖς ουδέ is completely consistent with ancient readings. But the fact is that this cannot be said, and he himself points out that the Sinai and Vatican texts have these two words. They are also found in many other texts, so that Zahn’s claim that the reading he proposes is the most authenticated is not consistent with reality.

Galatians 2:6. And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me. Paul’s enemies could have said: “Yet Paul found it necessary to shore up his authority with the authority of the chief Apostles—which means he acknowledges himself as dependent on them.” In view of the possibility of such distortions of his journey to Jerusalem the Apostle in a series of fragmentary statements expresses the idea that the respected representatives of the Jerusalem church, however highly they may stand in the opinion of the believers, are in no way superior to him in position as Apostles and preachers of the gospel (ποτε, translated in Russian as “whenever,” is properly a particle standing in close connection with the word οποῖοί, “whatever”). — “God shows no partiality,” that is, toward the external position of a person. Consequently, even if the chief Apostles enjoyed greater authority among Jewish Christians than Paul, this does not yet prove that Paul actually stood below them before God. But, moreover, these chief Apostles turned out to be not at all in opposition to Paul’s gospel: they found no need to add anything to his preaching. — However, Zahn, following the Blessed Theodoret and other ancient commentators, sees a different meaning here. He draws attention to the verb προσανέθεντο, translated in Russian imprecisely as “impose more, add.” This verb, according to him, can only have the meaning of parallel expressions ανεθέμην (Gal 2:2) and προσανεθέμην (Gal 1:16), that is, “to lay before for consideration, to consult about something.” From this the meaning of the verse becomes: “By calling other Apostles reputed, I do not at all want to make use of their word as particularly authoritative and beneficial for me personally. The Judaizers are guilty of such seeking, not I. As God does not pay attention to external position, that is, the external standing of a person, but only to his inner qualities, so must a person act, so do I act. Moreover, I am not called to judge the worth of the chief Apostles (perhaps Paul’s enemies suggested to him that the chief Apostles view the Law of Moses differently than he does. — Chrysostom and others): after all, I laid before them, not they before me, my gospel for examination. Whoever examines someone’s matter can certainly pay attention to the external circumstances of the person who petitions for examination of his matter. But I, Paul, was not at all in the position of judging the Apostles and therefore did not pay and do not pay attention to the external honor with which they are held and were held among Christians.” — Such an interpretation appears quite plausible.

Galatians 2:7. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised Galatians 2:8. (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles); Galatians 2:9. and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Galatians 2:10. They asked only that we should remember the poor, which is actually what I was eager to do. So Paul did not express any judgment about the activities and views of the chief Apostles regarding the work of preaching the gospel. On the contrary, it was they themselves who had to examine the manner of Paul’s action, and they did indeed examine it (Zahn’s interpretation). There they saw that the Apostle Paul had truly received from Christ the authority to preach among the uncircumcised, just as Peter was entrusted to bear the gospel (ευαγγέλιον, translated in Russian not precisely as “gospel” — the word ευαγγέλιον means not the very process of preaching, but the message proclaimed by Christ or the teaching about the salvation of all people, cf. Gal 1:7) chiefly to the circumcised. The chief Apostles based their conclusion on the consideration that Paul could not have done the miracles (cf. 2 Cor 12:12; Acts 15:12) among the gentiles without a special commission from God and Christ, just as the Apostle Peter did. — From among these prominent representatives of Christianity Paul especially mentions “James” (by which, of course, one should understand the mentioned in Gal 1:19 verse brother of the Lord—otherwise the Apostle would precisely have determined which James he meant here), “Cephas” (so Paul calls Peter, evidently because the Judaizers constantly named him so) and “John,” because these three were regarded as “pillars” or representatives of the Church in Palestine. These “pillars,” learning of the “grace” (χάριν), that is, the successes of Paul’s activity (his recognition of blessed calling was already mentioned above—in verse 7), extended to him and Barnabas, as preachers of the gospel among the gentiles, the right hand of fellowship and in this way solemnly confirmed (the matter probably took place in a solemn assembly of Jerusalem Christians) the right of Paul and Barnabas to appear everywhere as missionaries among the gentiles. They took as their principal task the spreading of the gospel among the Jews. Thus a division of the sphere of activity between the Apostles was accomplished, but of course only in a geographical sense, since the Apostle Paul himself was not deprived of the right to work among the Jews and the other Apostles did not refuse to come forward with a word of instruction among Christians from the gentiles. But in order that with this division of spheres the sense of unity among the Apostles and the churches guided by them would be preserved, the Apostles asked Paul to help from the resources of the wealthier churches that had formed from converted gentiles the more needy members of the Jerusalem church. The Apostle says that he made an effort to fulfill this condition, and speaks only of himself, not of Barnabas, since Barnabas separated from Paul soon after this journey to Jerusalem (Acts 15:39). Gal 2:11-21. So the independence of the Apostle was openly recognized in the very center of Jewish Christianity—in Jerusalem. The goal that the Apostle Paul and Barnabas had in setting out to Jerusalem was fully achieved, and the enemies of Christian freedom were put to shame; the authority of Paul as a true Apostle of Christ stood high. But that was not all. There was an occasion when Paul himself came forward as an exhorter with regard to the Apostle Peter; this was when Peter, together with some Christians from the Jews, being in Antioch and at first eating food together with Christians from the gentiles, then, by the arrival in Antioch of “some from James,” stopped this communion, fearing the circumcised. Paul then explained openly before all the impropriety of such conduct and was heard by Peter without any objections from him.

Galatians 2:11. But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. It is unknown when this incident occurred—before the council or after it. It is probable only that it was before the council, first, because hardly would the Apostle Peter, after that division of spheres of activity between Paul and the other Apostles that took place at the council, have decided soon after to bring confusion by his unexpected appearance in Antioch, which at that time was almost a permanent place of residence for the Apostle Paul. Second, hardly would the Apostle Peter after those principled discussions in which he took a very active part (Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15:7-14) have held to such a wavering tactic regarding the question of communion with Christians from the gentiles, as he held in Antioch. Probably he came to Antioch before the council, as to a church that stood in close relation to the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:18-21). — “To his face,” that is, directly and in the presence of several witnesses (κατά πρόσωπον cf. Luke 2:31; Acts 3:13). — “He stood condemned,” — that is, already, even before the Apostle Paul rebuked him, was condemned by his own actions (κατεγνωσμένος ῆν, cf. John 3:18).

Galatians 2:12. For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. Galatians 2:13. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. The Apostle Peter during his stay in Antioch ate without hesitation food together with Christians from the gentiles—evidently such food as was forbidden by the Law of Moses to a Jew. He was clearly acting as God himself instructed him to act (Acts 10:1-11), of course, in Jerusalem, among his fellow countrymen, living according to Jewish customs (cf. Acts 21:20-26). But when people came from James, that is, stood in very close relationship to this strict zealot for the Law of Moses, who later at the council clearly stated the idea that observance of the Mosaic laws regarding food is obligatory for Christians from the Jews (Acts 15:21 and Acts 21:20), the Apostle Peter, in order not to offend these Jerusalem guests, decided to stop for some time his communion in eating with Christians from the gentiles. He was even afraid of these “circumcised ones,” who came from James and were evidently very reactionary in their outlook and could spread rumors about the Apostle Peter as a liberal preacher. — “The other Jews,” that is, Christians from the Jews living in Antioch, followed the example of the Apostle Peter and began to “practice hypocrisy,” that is, to assume the appearance of strict observers of the Law of Moses, which they were not actually. Even Paul’s fellow worker, Barnabas, fell into this same hypocrisy.

Galatians 2:14. But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? Paul at that time was not yet a renowned Apostle of the Gentiles, but only a simple teacher of the faith in Antioch, perhaps even the last among them (see Acts 13:1). But he among all the teachers displayed the greatest strength of will, the highest courage (regarding convictions the other teachers agreed with him), namely in coming forward with open rebuke against the Apostle Peter (some ancient Fathers and teachers of the Church thought that this coming forward, as well as Peter’s act itself, were the result of prior agreement between the Apostles, but the Blessed Augustine in his correspondence with the Blessed Jerome clearly proved that no such agreement between the Apostles could have taken place and that Peter erred, while Paul came forward completely unexpectedly for Peter as his rebuker). — “Not acting consistently” — more precisely: “not walking straight, proceeding with a faltering step with regard to the truth of the gospel.” — “Before them all.” The offense caused by Peter openly—probably he brought his Jewish food to the love feast—had to be cured also publicly, before all. Paul turns to Peter as the chief cause of the confusion that occurred in Antioch. — “Live,” that is, normally conduct yourself differently than now, in the presence of outsiders, and, of course, you will conduct yourself so freely also in the future (that is why the present tense ζῆς is used). — “Compel the Gentiles.” Christians from the gentiles, seeing that the “renowned” Apostle of Christ refused to continue close communion with them, had no other choice, in fact, than to accept Jewish laws regarding food and thus say goodbye to their Christian freedom. The compulsion that Peter was exerting on Christians from the gentiles was thus moral, and the Apostle himself had no intention of exerting such pressure on these Christians. However, from his behavior these Christians could quite rightly conclude that the Apostles of Christ considered them unclean and unequal members of the Church of Christ. — That Peter could act so recklessly should not surprise us. Although he was an Apostle of Christ, he was not infallible in his actions, only in his teaching. “Like the prophets of the Old Testament, so also the Apostles, acting under the influence of the Holy Spirit, did not lose human consciousness and will... In ordinary matters the Apostles were not free from errors. Examples of such errors and not absolutely perfect behavior are found in the life of the Apostle Paul (Acts 23:3-5)... In this case the Apostle Peter appeared to be as inconstant a man as he was at his threefold denial of the Lord. There and here, at the critical moment, firmness of character forsook him, yielding to causeless fear, under the influence of which he acted in fact against his most holy convictions, did what he did not want, with which he agreed, which he preached infallibly” (Fr. Galakhov, pp. 171-172).

Galatians 2:15. We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; Galatians 2:16. yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. Some commentators (for example, Zahn) believe that from here begins a new speech by the Apostle Paul, addressed to Christians from the Jews. But the Apostle makes no slightest hint that he has finished his conversation with Peter. If verses 17 and following seem not quite fitting for Peter, we can suppose that Paul here somewhat expands his address and has in mind even the Judaizers. So, continuing his speech, the Apostle says that he himself, as well as the Apostle Peter and other Christians from the Jews, despite their advantage over the gentiles, whom the Apostle here still, from the old Jewish theocratic viewpoint, calls “sinners” (cf. Luke 18:32), are fully convinced that one can be justified only through faith in Christ, not through the works demanded by the Law of Moses (see Rom 3:20). Therefore, the Apostle adds, we and came to believe in Christ.

Galatians 2:17. But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! Galatians 2:18. For if I rebuild what I tore down, I demonstrate that I am a lawbreaker. The conduct of the Apostle Peter and other Christians from the Jews present in Antioch at that time went against this universal church conviction and even offended Christ. Indeed, if we Jews seek justification in Christ and do not find it, and feel ourselves even in the Christian state to be sinners just like the gentiles, because we supposedly do not fulfill the requirements of the Law of Moses, then it turns out that Christ brought us to such a state, that all his service to humanity was actually harmful for people—in this case for Jews—that he is a “servant of sin!” But can such a supposition be permitted? Under no circumstances. The reasoning of those who support the observance of the law even in Christianity is completely illogical. It is not Christ who appears in this case as a transgressor, but the one who rebuilds what he himself tore down, as if regretting what happened and acknowledging that he acted wrongly.

Galatians 2:19. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; Galatians 2:20. and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. In contrast to such an inconsistent manner of action of the Judaizers and in part even of the Apostle Peter himself, who temporarily inclined to their side, the Apostle Paul considers himself “dead to the law,” that is, not obliged to observe it. And he says that the “law” itself brought him to such a break with it (for details on this see the epistle to Rom 7:4). Now the Apostle “lives for God,” that is, just as before he devoted his entire life to the law, hoping through its observance to be justified, so now he lives directly for God, from whom the law only separated a person (cf. Gal 3:10). The Apostle was “crucified with Christ” (cf. Rom 6:6), and he no longer feels the old dominance of his human “I.” On the contrary, in him “Christ lives.” — Christ has become in him the sole moving and guiding force of Paul’s thoughts, feelings, and will, or the principle. But, of course, the Apostle still “lives in the flesh,” his life even after his conversion to Christ has not become in all respects a life of Christ, has not fully become like the life of Christ. However, this does not trouble the Apostle. All the same he knows that this is “life by faith in Christ as the Son of God,” who gave himself, out of love for Paul or for humanity in general, to death. From this it follows that in the future, through the help of Christ, the Apostle’s life will become fully like the life of Christ, who will continually give him strength to achieve possible perfection.

Galatians 2:21. I do not nullify the grace of God; but if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. Yes, the Apostle does not reject the grace of God revealed in Christ—he wants to use it to the end for his own improvement. He does not want to follow those who, as if considering this grace insufficient, turn again to the fulfillment of the works of the law. For if one seeks other means of justification in the law, this means admitting the thought that Christ suffered and died in vain, that he cannot provide justification... This is the absurd conclusion to which the reasoning of those leads who consider the observance of the requirements of the Law of Moses necessary even in Christianity. — The Apostle Paul does not say what consequences his coming forward against Peter had. But from the fact that he does not cite any objection from Peter, one can conclude that Peter fully understood the impropriety of his action. There is no foundation whatever for the rationalist supposition that this collision served as a cause of a break between Peter and Paul. The very fact that Peter sided with the Apostle Paul at the Apostolic Council (Gal 2:9) speaks against such a supposition, and then against this testifies also Peter’s assessment of Paul in the second epistle of Peter (2 Pet 3:15).