The Chief Apostles Give the Right Hand of Fellowship (Galatians 2:6–21)

Having explained how the believers and these zealots of the law received him, Paul now speaks of how the senior Apostles regarded him. As for the most eminent among us, he says, there was no difference between me and them, no disagreement in teaching, no distinction in authority. They added nothing to my teaching or to my authority. On the contrary, clearly perceiving the grace of God both in my selection and in my preaching, they gave me the right hand of fellowship with Barnabas, that is, they fully agreed that I, with them, should preach authoritatively the Gospel among the Gentiles, in the same spirit as I had preached until then, as they learned from my conversations with them—in what spirit I preach it now, in what spirit I preached it also among you (Gal. 2:6–10). The general thought of this section is quite clear in itself; but certain expressions of Saint Paul are rather difficult to interpret.

Gal. 2:6. As for those who were reputed to be important—whatever their importance was, it makes no difference to me; God judges not by appearances. Those of reputation added nothing to my teaching.

“Those reputed to be something”—the same as above: “those of repute”—and below: “those reputed to be pillars.” It is not, according to Augustine, that the Apostle wishes to express that they themselves consider themselves to be something important, but rather that all Christians regard them so. Everyone thinks of them that they are not the same as everyone else, are something special, standing out from the ranks. One could paraphrase these words: the most eminent among us.

“Whatever their importance was.” The Greek text: οποιοι ποτε ησαν — allows for this translation: whatever they were at any time (as people). And this, it seems, will be the most suitable translation, according to the flow of the speech and the purpose of the Apostle. The Apostle expresses his thought about the senior Apostles and sets them above all human distinctions, as they indeed are. Comparing himself afterwards to them, he raises his own authority in the eyes of the Galatians, so as to take from them any pretext for not following his teaching. Another translation: whatever they were (that is, the Apostles) at some time, or whatever they may have been at any time, places in difficulty to explain what “at some time” or “at any time” means—suggesting the thought that they ceased to be eminent. Stopping at this translation, one is involuntarily led to ask: when then—at some time? Some answer: when the Lord was seen on earth and they followed Him everywhere (Blessed Jerome). But after the descent of the Holy Spirit, they became more eminent than before. Others: even before the Lord called them to the Apostolate, when they were sinners (Blessed Augustine), simple people, not learned in the law (Ambrosiaster). But Apostle Paul had no need to lead the thought of the Galatians so far, when it contributes nothing to his purposes. Still others: before the confirmation from above, given through Saint Peter, that the door was opened to the Gentiles to enter the Church of Christ without circumcision. The thought: formerly they thought the law was necessary, but now they have ceased to think so (Ecumenius), in which there is no difference between me and them. This, with this translation, comes close to the flow of Saint Paul’s speech. Let us note, however, that this is an incidental proposition which has no bearing on determining the principal thought of the text. Therefore one need not be overly concerned with determining its precise sense precisely.

“There was no difference to me.” — In my view there was no difference, neither in Apostolic authority, which I have the same as they,—nor in teaching, for they too understand salvation in the Lord just as I do. “He who put understanding of Christian teaching into those unlearned in the law (that is, unlettered fishermen) also, in His good pleasure, granted the same understanding to me, skilled in the law (learned).” (Ambrosiaster)

“God does not show favoritism.” God does not regard what one is, but what one can become with the help of God’s grace. Although I was an unbeliever and persecuted the Church of God; but God, foreseeing that I would remain a faithful worker if He entrust the Gospel to me (see 1 Thess. 2:4), chose me for this ministry and placed me in the ranks of those most eminent. “By the grace of God I am what I am.” (1 Cor. 15:10)

“For those of repute added nothing to me.” That there is no difference with the most renowned is proven by the fact that, after conversing and understanding the whole course of the Apostle Paul’s affairs, they added nothing to him, neither in teaching nor in Apostolic dignity, but only, recognizing both as proceeding from the Lord Himself, received him into fellowship equal to their own. Blessed Jerome writes: “Above he said that he entered into conversation with the senior Apostles and told them everything he had accomplished among the Gentiles. Now he says that they added nothing to that, but, having approved all that was said to them, gave him the right hand of fellowship, confirming that their Gospel and the Gospel of Paul is one and the same.”

This understanding of the text is given by our Slavonic translation, mainly with the words: “There was no difference to me.” But the corresponding Greek expression: ουδεν μοι διαφερει — is also used when one wishes to say: I have no concern about something. Taking this meaning of the phrase here, one must suppose that Saint Paul wished to say: as for the reputed Apostles, I have no concern for them,—namely in the respect that they tolerated circumcision among the Jews, by a certain economy. Our most ancient interpreters understand this phrase thus and in explaining the thought of the text are especially concerned to ward off from Apostle Paul any even shadow of disrespect toward the chief Apostles.

Their line of thought is thus: previously Saint Paul directed all his speech toward proving that circumcision is no longer necessary for salvation. Someone could object to him: but how do the other Apostles, the first, tolerate it? If they tolerate it, why should not you also tolerate it? Those Apostles tolerated circumcision among the Jews only, and that for a time, permitting this condescension as a measure of wisdom, by a certain economy. One could say to Saint Paul: that is why they act so! But, having declared this, he would have weakened the force of that measure, and it would have brought more harm than good instead of benefit. That is why he keeps silent about this, and says only: how they act—I have no concern for that. I am not their judge. God will judge, Who does not regard faces. “God will not be ashamed (will not regard) that they are leaders.” (Ecumenius)

I will quote the very words of certain interpreters. Here are the words of Blessed Theodoret: “Since the Galatians, probably, were saying that the very first of the Apostles keep the law, and the Divine Apostle knew that they were compelled to do this out of condescension to those who believed from the Jews and were still not firm in faith; being placed between two extremes, and on the one hand recognizing it most improper to accuse the Apostles, while on the other hand not wishing to expose their intention so as not to harm the divine economy, he charts a kind of middle course and presents himself in a position as if grieved by what is done and embarrassed to speak of it, and entrusts everything to God’s determination.”

Here are the words of Photius in Ecumenius: “they could have said to Saint Paul: if Peter acts well in condescending to circumcision, why not you? Why do you so strictly condemn what in others you call a wise economy? Let it be here to do the same, do not forbid, and afterwards call it what you wish—economy or dogma. So they would have thought and so they would have spoken to Paul, if he had said that Peter by economy temporarily permits circumcision. Therefore Paul did wisely in keeping silent altogether about economy, but speaking with severity about the very action itself and reproaching as if breakers of the law those who condescend, so that by the severity of his reproach of these he might all the more terrify and correct those who held circumcision with sin (that is, regarding it as necessary for salvation). That is why he is not afraid afterwards to call them hypocrites and as not walking rightly (Gal. 2:13–14), only so as to preserve the purity of the Gospel of Christ.”

Finally, here are the words of Saint Chrysostom: “Since the deeds of the Apostles spoke against him (Apostle Paul) and, looking at them, some naturally could have said: but how do they permit this? — see how wisely he resolves this objection. He does not state the true reason, that is, that the Apostles did this out of condescension and by a special arrangement (economy, dispensation); for this could have harmed his listeners. Those for whom a certain benefit is prepared through this arrangement do not need to know the reason for that or the other arrangement. If, however, the reason for this arrangement is revealed, everything will be destroyed. Therefore only he who makes the arrangement ought to know the reason for his actions; but those for whom a benefit is prepared through this arrangement ought not to know the reason. To present more clearly what I say, I will give an example from this very same matter. The blessed Paul himself, so strongly opposed to circumcision, when he sent Timothy as a teacher to the Jews, first circumcised him and then sent him. He did this so that the listeners would have greater confidence in Timothy; and thus he came to them circumcised, so as to destroy circumcision. And Timothy himself knew the reason for this deed, but did not tell his disciples. For if they learned that he had circumcised himself in order to destroy circumcision, they would not have listened to his preaching for a moment, and all the benefit would have been lost. But now this ignorance brought them the greatest benefit. For, thinking that he did this as a keeper of the law, they willingly and gladly received him and his teaching. And, accepting gradually his teaching and learning the truth, afterwards they themselves abandoned the old ways. Which would not have happened if they had learned the reason from the beginning. For learning it, they would have turned away from him; turning away, they would not have listened to him; and not listening, they would have remained in their former delusion. So that this might not happen, he did not reveal the reason. For the same reason here the Apostle does not reveal the reason for such an arrangement by the Apostles, but leads his speech by another way, saying thus: ‘As for those reputed to be important, whatever their importance was, it makes no difference to me; God judges not by appearances.’ Here he not only does not defend the Apostles, but speaks strongly against these holy ones so as to benefit the weak. His words have this meaning: even if they do permit circumcision, they themselves will have to answer to God; God will not respect their standing because they are regarded as great and chief Apostles. However, he said this not so openly, but with care. For he did not say: if they corrupt the preaching and do not preach as commanded, then they will give account at the last judgment and be punished. He did not say this, but addresses them much more respectfully, saying thus: ‘As for those reputed to be something.’ He did not say again: as they are, but: ‘as they were;’ showing thereby that they also afterwards ceased to preach thus, when the light of the Gospel shone forth everywhere. And again with these very words: ‘whatever they were at some time,’—he also says: and if they did preach thus, they themselves will give account; for they will give account not to men, but to God. And he says this not because he doubted them or did not know their intention; but because, as I said, he judged it more beneficial to speak thus. Then, so that they might not think he is taking the opposite course—condemning them, and thereby give cause for division—he immediately corrects his speech, saying: ‘For those of repute added nothing to me.’ What does this mean? What you ask me about, he says, I do not know; but only this I know clearly, that they did not contradict me, on the contrary, they were of one mind and agreed with me; they taught me nothing new, corrected nothing, and added nothing to what he knew. ‘For those of repute,’ he says, ‘added nothing to me.’ That is, they, having heard my teaching, added nothing to it, corrected nothing, knowing moreover that I came for this very purpose, to communicate my teaching to them by the revelation of the Spirit—came for this very purpose and brought Titus with me, uncircumcised; but they neither said anything to me beyond what I already knew, nor did they circumcise Titus.”

Such is also the thought in Theophylact and Ecumenius. Jerome’s interpretation is similar to this. Which understanding of this place should be accepted? The first is more natural, the second is more authoritative. Let each choose what is more valuable for him. The principal thought of the Apostle—the agreement of his teaching with the teaching of the senior Apostles—is maintained in both understandings.

Gal. 2:7–9. But on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the Gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been entrusted with the Gospel to the circumcised—for He who worked through Peter for the apostolate to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles—and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

In all these verses the principal thought is one: they added nothing, but on the contrary gave him the right hand of fellowship. “They not only added nothing to my preaching, but on the contrary approved it with praise.” (Ecumenius) The other statements: “when they saw,”—that the Gospel to the Gentiles has been entrusted to me; “and recognized the grace,” and so forth—present the reasons why this was done,—because Saint Paul, just as the chief Apostles, was appointed by God for this work and was equally blessed with grace by Him.

“But on the contrary.” — “What does ‘on the contrary’ mean? Some think that by this he wished to say that the Apostles not only did not teach him anything, but rather learned from him. But I will not say this. For what more would they have learned from him? Each of them was perfect. That is not what he meant by the word ‘on the contrary,’—but that they not only did not rebuke him and did not think to accuse him of anything, but even approved and praised him. For the contrary of accusation is approval and praise. But to this some could now object: if they approved, why did they not abolish circumcision? For if they approved, then circumcision ought to have been abolished. But to say that they abolished it—he considered a very presumptuous thing and thought that through this he would provoke open conflict with Apostolic confession. But if he said that they permit circumcision, he saw that he would encounter another objection. If they approved your preaching, his opponents would say, and yet they themselves allowed circumcision, then in that case they themselves would be contradicting themselves. How then to get out of this difficulty? Of course, he could have said that the Apostles permitted circumcision by condescension to the Jews. But, saying this, he would have shaken the whole foundation of their wise arrangement; and therefore he does not say this, leaving it in uncertainty and concealment, having said only: ‘As for those reputed to be something… there was no difference to me.’ As if to say: I do not condemn or accuse these holy ones. They themselves know what they did; for they know that they too must give account to God. My concern is only to prove that they did not reject my teaching, and did not correct it, and did not add anything to it; on the contrary, they approved it and confirmed it by their agreement; I have Titus and Barnabas as witnesses to this.” (Saint Chrysostom)

“You perceive that the Gospel of the uncircumcised has been entrusted to me, just as the Gospel of the circumcision was entrusted to Peter.” “By circumcision and uncircumcision he means not the practice itself, but the peoples distinguished by this difference. He calls the Gentiles uncircumcision and the Jews circumcision” (St. Chrysostom).

In the words: “to me, just as to Peter,” “he shows that he possesses equal honor with the Apostles, and compares himself not with anyone else among them, but with the first-ranked, thereby showing that each of them received equal dignity” (St. Chrysostom).

“The Apostles perceived” that to St. Paul was entrusted the Gospel to the Gentiles. How did they perceive this? They could have perceived it from the accounts of how, upon his conversion, St. Paul was straightaway appointed from on high for this work. For the Lord said to Ananias: “He is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings” (Acts 9:15); and to Paul Himself He later commanded: “Depart; for I will send you far away to the Gentiles” (Acts 22:18, 21); and in the Church of Antioch the Holy Spirit appointed him to be set apart for the work of preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 13:2). Most tangibly, confirmation of this came from the fact that “He Who worked for Peter in the apostolate of the circumcision worked also for him in that to the Gentiles,”—the wonderful signs that accompanied the preaching of St. Paul on his first missionary journey, as he recounted it with Barnabas both on the way to Jerusalem and in Jerusalem itself (Acts 15). In Paphos, on the island of Cyprus, he blinded Elymas the sorcerer, a Jewish false prophet, for his stubborn opposition to the truth, which hindered the Gospel (Acts 13:11); in Lystra he healed a man unable to walk from birth; during his extended stay in Iconium, the Lord confirmed the truth of the word of the Gospel, accomplishing signs and wonders through his hands (Acts 14:3); and upon his return to Antioch he recounted to the Church of Antioch what God had done with him (Acts 14:27). It was manifest that just as all the Apostles “went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the signs that accompanied it” (Mark 16:20), so also St. Paul was not deprived of this cooperation from on high in his preaching. Assured of this, the elder Apostles could not but see that St. Paul was no self-appointed impostor but chosen from on high—and indeed protected from on high. So it must be held that he, both then in Jerusalem at the Council, intentionally related “all that God had done with them, and how He had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles” in his preaching with Barnabas (Acts 15:12), and here also, in the Epistle, intentionally recalls this; for nothing so convinces of the truth as testimony from on high, surely ascertained. The Galatians from this alone could draw the conviction that his preaching in the manner and spirit as he presented it was from God, Who so visibly cooperated with him in all things.

Thus St. Paul, through the supernatural action of God’s grace, was transformed from such a zealot of the Law into one completely released from all bondage by the Law—in conviction of mind, in the feelings of his heart, and in his very works; and in this new state he was appointed to preach the Gospel, completely pure and divorced from any admixture of Judaism, among the nations. Wherefore he is the Apostle to the Gentiles. But as St. Peter is called appointed for preaching only to the Jews—since he says, the Gospel of the uncircumcised has been entrusted to me as to Peter, the Gospel of the circumcision—when the Lord commanded to all Apostles, including St. Peter himself and all the others: “Go and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19)? Here St. Paul takes the state of apostolic activity as it was in the time about which his narrative speaks. The course of the activity of the holy Apostles may be conceived thus. At first all of them labored in Jerusalem. When the Church was firmly established in Jerusalem, they dispersed throughout all the other cities and villages of Palestine. Having founded Churches here as well, they dispersed throughout the whole world, whither God had appointed each. In Jerusalem, for the completion of the ongoing work of converting the Jews and for the guidance in case of doubts of all other Churches, there remained, by common counsel and perhaps by direction from on high, Peter, John, and James (not the son of Zebedee, but the brother of the Lord), the first overseer of the Jerusalem Church. This was how it was at the time of the Council. Peter and those with him were at that time occupied exclusively with the establishment of Churches among the Jews. And St. Paul could say that to him was entrusted the strengthening of faith among the circumcised. Peter is set here as the representative of the rest, first among them. Our eastern interpreters in explaining these passages always say: Peter and those with him—St. Paul only wished to distinguish his own ministry from others. As Peter was the chief actor among the rest, with him alone does he compare himself. Ambrosiaster writes: “He names only Peter and compares himself with him. Just as that one received primacy in establishing the Church from the Jews, so he sets himself forth as chosen to have primacy in establishing Churches from the Gentiles; yet so that Peter also preaches to the Gentiles when needed, and Paul to the Jews. Both of them indeed acted thus. But the full administration of preaching the faith among the Jews is recognized for Peter, and the full administration of preaching it among the Gentiles for Paul. Wherefore he calls himself a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth (2 Tim. 1:11). Each of them received an appointment according to his abilities.”

Blessed Jerome sees in this distribution of apostolic labors a particular wise ordering of divine Providence in the establishment of the Church of Christ on earth. “The One and the same God,” says he through St. Paul, “entrusted to me the Gospel of the uncircumcised and to Peter the Gospel of the circumcision. He sent me to the Gentiles and established him in Judea. Neither were the Gentiles to be subjected to the painful rite of circumcision, which brought no benefit, and compelled to abstain from foods to which they were accustomed; nor could those who believed from among the Jews, being already circumcised, suddenly abandon the customs to which they were accustomed and in which they saw their superiority over the Gentiles. Thus, by divine Providence, one Apostle was given to the circumcised, who would condescend to the shadow of the Law; another to the uncircumcised, who would present the Gospel in the freedom of faith from any admixture of the works of the Law; so that there might be no obstacle from any quarter to faith, and no one might be deprived of faith in Christ on account of circumcision or uncircumcision. It was not that this arrangement determined that Peter, who was taught by a vision not to regard whether one is a Jew or a Gentile, as though forgetting this, should think that besides the grace of the Gospel one must also fulfill the Law; but that he, in condescension not disdaining the observance of the Law, might gradually draw the Jews away from their ancient customs of life. For they could not suddenly be torn away from them. Wherefore it was purposefully mentioned: ‘He Who worked for Peter in the apostolate of the circumcision’—so that no one should think he is reproaching Peter, but that, encountering beforehand such praise, everyone should understand that Peter acts in condescension to the circumcision not without God’s will, precisely to preserve those of the Jews entrusted to him in the faith of Christ and the Gospel. It is given thereby to understand that if that one (Peter) was not in fault in keeping, for a time, what was no longer necessary, in order not to lose those entrusted to him, all the more should he (Paul) act according to the full truth of the Gospel, to preserve what was entrusted to him in the uncircumcision, lest the Gentiles, terrified by the yoke of the Law, be repelled from faith in Christ.”

“And knowing the grace that was given to me,” Grace here means that of which he spoke before—the entrusting to him of the Gospel to the Gentiles and the cooperation from on high of his preaching through the manifestation of signs and wonders. From both together the Apostles could not but see that grace such as that given to them had truly been granted to him from on high.

St. Chrysostom says: “Having shown his oneness of mind with the Apostles, with greater freedom he continues the discourse and does not stop merely at the Apostles, but raises his word even to Christ, to Whom he attributes the grace of Apostleship given to him, and calls the Apostles themselves witnesses of this, saying: ‘and knowing the grace’ He does not say ‘having heard,’ but ‘knowing,’—that is, having been assured from their very deeds. Do you see how he finally showed that his preaching is also pleasing to Christ and the Apostles? For that grace would not have been given to him and would not work in him if such preaching were not pleasing to Christ.”

In virtue of such assurance it remained for the holy Apostles only to give their right hand to St. Paul and to Barnabas, as a sign of complete agreement with him in all things and approval of his manner of action—which they indeed did.

“James and Cephas and John” James is the same mentioned before, the brother of the Lord, who, for the holiness of his life and love for the Lord, was greatly honored in Jerusalem among all and presided over the Church of Jerusalem. He stands first because of this presidency, not as the brother of the Lord. St. Chrysostom remarks at this point: “Where he needed to compare himself, he mentions Peter alone; but where he needed to present a witness, he names three together, and moreover with praise.”

“Reputed to be pillars” Pillars—support, protection, guides of the way. All of this applies to the mentioned Apostles in relation to the faith. “Reputed,” that is, “being pillars of the faith and regarded as such by all” (Ecumenius).

St. Chrysostom remarks: “By the word ‘reputed’ he does not deny that they truly were such, but he adduces the opinion of others and says that those great and illustrious whom everyone everywhere extols, they themselves are witnesses of what I say, that this is pleasing to Christ, that they learned the truth of it from the very deeds and were assured of it from experience itself.” The same from Ambrosiaster: “St. Paul says: The Apostles more famous among others, whom for their steadfastness they call pillars, I affirm as witnesses that to me from God has been granted grace and the gift of having primacy in preaching among the Gentiles, as Peter has primacy in preaching among the circumcised.”

“They gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.” They gave the right hand of fellowship as a sign of partnership and complete agreement, oneness of mind, and unified action. “It shows that his judgment was in agreement with theirs, and their judgment was in agreement with his” (St. Chrysostom) “It did not appear that the elder Apostles disagreed with Paul in anything, so as to deny when he said that he had received perfect knowledge of the Gospel and to wish to add something to him as to one imperfect. But on the contrary, they showed themselves not as reprovers of imperfection but as approvers of perfection” (Blessed Augustine). “To me and Barnabas.” “Just as he mentions the best men among the Apostles with Peter, so he also joins Barnabas to himself, who was united with him by God’s will. But the grace of primacy in preaching to the Gentiles he attributes to himself alone, as to Peter alone (in preaching among the Jews). Thus the Apostles of the circumcised gave the right hand to the Apostles of the Gentiles as proof of common agreement” (Ambrosiaster). “To Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship was given by James, Peter, and John, so that because of the difference in regard to keeping the Jewish customs, no one should think that they also differ in the Gospel itself, and that between the circumcised and uncircumcised there might also be harmonious communion” (Blessed Jerome).

“We to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision.” “Both sides were pleased that these should preach to the Jews, and the others to the Gentiles” (St. Chrysostom). This was by preference, not exclusively. For Paul and Barnabas proclaimed the truth even in Jerusalem itself; and everywhere they first turned their preaching to the Jews, and only then to the Gentiles (Acts 17:1–4; Acts 18:4–9; Acts 19:8–9). And Peter and John labored among the Gentiles after all in Jerusalem and Judea who were able to believe had come to faith, and those who did not believe increasingly became estranged from the believers, adopting a hostile stance toward them.—Blessed Jerome decides thus: “A question arises: what then? If Peter had found some Gentile ready to believe, would he not have brought him to faith? And if Paul had found some from the circumcised in this state, would he not have given him the baptism of Christ? This question is resolved thus: he was appointed primarily for the Jews, and the other for the Gentiles, so that those who were attached to the Law would have someone to follow, and those who were alien to the Law would have a teacher and guide ready for them. In general, both of them had one goal—to gather the Church of Christ from all nations. We read that Peter baptized Cornelius, and Paul often preached Christ in the synagogues of the Jews.”

Gal. 2:10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, which very thing I was also eager to do.

The poor here means those believers among the Jews who were impoverished on account of persecutions, deprivations, and devastations caused by unbelievers to believers. The need to set such a commandment was extreme necessity. Though not all of those who believed were ruined, and there were among them those who were well-off and willing to help, surely the number of the poor and impoverished was so great that the local Christians lacked the means to sustain them. The Gentiles, suffering less devastation from their own than the Jews, were more affluent and without burdening themselves could provide help to the poor Jews—which they gladly did, at the persuasion and direction of St. Paul. By this means, spiritual communion with the center of Christianity, Jerusalem, was also maintained, and the yearning of all Churches toward their mother, the Church of Jerusalem, was preserved. St. Paul speaks of this, perhaps to show that the arrangement he made among them—to set aside weekly, according to each one’s inclination, to help poor believing Jews (1 Cor. 16:1)—was compelled by the commandment laid upon him by the Apostles, and was not some superfluous, willful ordinance personally devised by him.

St. Chrysostom writes: “What do these words mean? In the matter of preaching, he says, we divided the whole world among ourselves; and I took the Gentiles, while they took the Jews, because this was pleasing to God. But in regard to care for the poor from the Jews, I also helped them. Therefore, if there were any disagreement or quarrel among us, they would not have accepted my help. Who are these poor? Many of the believing Jews in Palestine, who lost everything they had and were persecuted everywhere. He points to this in the Epistle to the Hebrews, when he says: ‘You joyfully accepted the plundering of your possessions’ (Heb. 10:34). He points to the same thing in his Epistle to the Thessalonians, when, commending their courage, he says: ‘For you became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea; for you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen just as they did from the Jews’ (1 Thess. 2:14). And everywhere he shows that believers from the Gentiles were not persecuted by those who remained in paganism as much as believers from the Jews were persecuted by their own countrymen. For the Jews are the cruelest of all peoples. Therefore the Apostles were so concerned about believers from the Jews—they were deprived of all comfort in life. For this reason also Apostle Paul writes about them both to the Romans and to the Corinthians, and not only collects money for them but even brings it himself, as he himself says: ‘Now I am going to Jerusalem, serving the saints’ (cf. Rom. 15:25). For they needed daily bread.”

4) The steadfastness of St. Paul in his teaching on freedom from the Law, demonstrated in his resistance to St. Peter, when the latter showed indulgence to Judaizing Christians not at the right time and place (Gal. 2:11–21)

The false teachers told the Galatians that St. Paul himself was not firm in his convictions. He teaches you that it is not at all necessary to keep the Law, but in other places, among the Jews, he himself keeps the Law and subjects others to it (St. Timothy was already circumcised). From this they concluded: why should we listen to him when he acts one way in one place and differently in another? Against this St. Paul answers them by recounting what he did in regard to St. Peter, when the latter, unknowingly, acted incautiously contrary to the good of the Church and the progress of the Gospel. The meaning of this account is as follows: indeed, I become a Jew with Jews and look indulgently on others who act likewise, but only so long as this serves the salvation of many and builds up the good of the faith. But as soon as something harmful to the faith and the Church comes from this, I stand against it with all my strength, regardless of any person. This account has two aspects: a) it is itself very instructive (Gal. 2:11–14); but it is especially significant for understanding the faith through: b) the speech (Gal. 2:15–21) that St. Paul delivered at that time in the presence of Jews and Greeks concerning salvation in Lord Jesus Christ, with complete renunciation of all works of the Law. This speech serves as a transition to the next part and gives the theme that St. Paul then develops and proves with the energy characteristic of him.