Chapter 2

Theophylact of Ohrid, Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians — Chapter Two

¹ Chapter Two. Then, fourteen years later, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation. The occasion of the former going up was Peter; but of the second, the revelation. He took Titus and Barnabas along as witnesses of his own preaching, namely that it seemed acceptable to the apostles.

² And I communicated to them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles. That is, the one without circumcision. But why, after so many years, did he communicate it to them, when he ought to have done this from the beginning, and then learned well whether or not he was running rightly? For it would be senseless that, after running for so many years, he should then need to learn whether he had perhaps run in vain. Yet if he went up in order to learn for himself about his own course, then what was being done was truly without reason. But since he saw that many were being made to stumble—on the ground that Peter accepted circumcision, whereas he himself did not circumcise, and for this reason was suspected of transgressing the law—he went up by revelation, the Spirit prompting him, so that those who were stumbling might be persuaded that there was no disagreement in the preaching, but that those who conceded circumcision conceded it by way of dispensation, since they were preaching to the circumcised. How, then, was what was done without reason? For the Spirit moved him to go up for the setting right of others, and he, with good reason, obeyed.

³ But privately to those who were of repute. Because those who were stumbling were many, Paul speaks privately with Peter’s company, lest a faction arise and the offense be raised to something greater. For those who were stumbling were tens of thousands; and had they heard in public that Paul abolishes circumcision, they would likely have raised an uproar and thrown everything into confusion. For this reason, then, he speaks privately, having Titus and Barnabas as witnesses, who declared to all men that not even the apostles thought it right to preach anything contrary. And in saying “those of repute,” he does not deny that they were such, but together with his own vote he sets down the common vote of all; just as he also said of himself, that he too thinks he has the Spirit of God—not as denying that he has it, but introducing the common estimate. Those of repute, then, means the great, the renowned.

⁴ Lest somehow I should be running, or had run, in vain. That is, In order that I might teach those who were stumbling over me that I do not run in vain—not so that I myself might learn; for I am the very one who had the Son and his Gospel revealed to me by the Father.

⁵ But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. Titus, being uncircumcised, he says, was not compelled to be circumcised. And this is the greatest proof that not even the apostles accepted circumcision as a matter of principle, but by way of dispensation, on account of the believers from the circumcision; and that Paul’s preaching had nothing to be blamed in it, since his disciple was uncircumcised.

⁶ And it was because of the false brethren brought in secretly, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage. The construction of the sentence is this: Titus was not compelled to be circumcised even because of the false brethren brought in secretly—that is, Although those who opposed me were present, nevertheless the apostles did not, even on their account, compel Titus to be circumcised. But how does he call these men “false brethren” for introducing circumcision, if indeed the apostles too accepted it? Because the apostles, accommodating themselves to the believers from the circumcision, accepted circumcision inasmuch as they were preaching to Jews; but these men acted as legislating circumcision on principle, and as champions of the law. For this reason, then, he calls them false brethren. Moreover, by saying slipped in, he makes plain their secret plotting; and by to spy out, he hints that they were enemies. For spies slip in for no other purpose than to learn everything thoroughly, and to prepare an easy way for themselves to ravage and to enslave—which is just what these men were doing. For they were looking around to see who were uncircumcised, having the freedom that is in Christ—that is, not being subject to the law—so that they might lay hold of them and force them to be circumcised, and might bring us back again under the bondage of the law, from which Christ set us free. And from this too it is plain that the apostles conceded the things of the law in order that, little by little, they might withdraw men from bondage; but these men were contriving in order to strengthen the bondage.

⁷ To whom we did not yield in subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you. He did not say, “In speech,” but, In subjection. For they were doing these things not in order to teach us anything, but in order to subject and enslave us. For this reason we yielded to the apostles, but to these men no longer. That what we preached to you, he says, may remain firm and true. What things? That the old things have passed away, and that the law has been abolished, and that Christ does not accept those who are circumcised, nor does it profit them anything. Having withstood those men, then, we showed that what we preached to you concerning the inactivity of the law is also true. Do not, therefore, fall away from this truth.

⁸ But from those who were reputed to be something—whatever they once were, it makes no difference to me; God accepts no man’s person. Since it was likely that someone would object to him and say, How then did the apostles command men to be circumcised? he resolves this objection. And the true reason he does not state—namely, that they did this by way of dispensation and accommodation—lest the believers from among the Jews, hearing that even the apostles allow circumcision not truly but by dispensation, should fall away from them as well, on the ground that they too were abolishing the law; for up to that point they held to them precisely because they thought they were keeping the law. This reason, then, Paul conceals. But he bears down hard upon the apostles, saying that It makes no difference to me—that is, I have no concern about those who are reputed to be something, that is, the great apostles, whether they preached circumcision or not; for they themselves will give account to God; and not because they are great and chief will God be put to shame before their persons, for he is no respecter of persons. And observe: he did not say, Whatever they now are, but, Whatever they once were, showing that they too had by then ceased to preach in that manner, once the preaching had shone forth everywhere. And Paul says these things not to disparage the saints, but wishing to profit those who hear.

⁹ For those who were of repute added nothing to me. Whatever sort they were, he says, will be God’s concern; but this I know, that they in no way opposed me, nor added anything to my preaching, nor corrected it.

¹⁰ But on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, just as Peter with that of the circumcision (for he who worked in Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision worked also in me unto the Gentiles), and when they came to know the grace of God that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision. Some have interpreted it thus: So they not only corrected nothing of mine, but on the contrary, they themselves were even corrected. But this is not so. For what were they likely to be corrected in by him? For each of them was fully equipped. This, then, is what he says: But on the contrary, they gave me the right hands of fellowship; then the rest comes in parenthetically: When they saw that I had been entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, and so forth. For so far were they from correcting me that they even praised me, and agreed that I and Barnabas should preach the Gospel to the uncircumcision, that is, to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision, that is, to the Jews. For by “circumcision” and “uncircumcision” he does not mean the things themselves, but the uncircumcised and the circumcised. And here he shows himself to be of equal honor with Peter. For he who gave to that man the working of the Gospel toward the Hebrews gave this also to me toward the Gentiles. And observe how he showed that not only did his preaching please the apostles, but it also seemed good to God. For the apostles, he says, came to know the grace of God. He did not say, Heard, but, From the very facts they came to know. For how would God have given me the grace, unless such preaching were acceptable to him? Again he made mention of the three with praises. For those who were reputed to be pillars—that is, the great ones, whom all everywhere carry about and glorify—these bear witness to me that my preaching pleases Christ as well. Therefore they also gave the right hands, that is, They agreed, and made us partners, and showed that they are pleased with my preaching, as differing in nothing from their own word.

¹¹ Only that we should remember the poor; which very thing I also was eager to do. The preaching, he says, we divided; but the poor we held in common, undivided. For in Jerusalem there were many of those who had believed who had been plundered of their possessions by the unbelieving Jews, and were in want of the necessary food. For the Greeks did not war against the believers from among themselves as the Jews did against the Christians from among the Hebrews. Therefore Paul makes great effort in the care of them, as he himself confesses, that I was eager to do this very thing. For gathering from the disciples everywhere, he himself conveyed it to them.

¹² But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face. Many suppose that Paul is here charging Peter with hypocrisy; but that is not so. For whatever he seems to say against Peter was done and said by way of dispensation. For Peter, while he was in Jerusalem, conceded circumcision—for it was not possible to draw men away from the law all at once; but when he came to Antioch, he used to eat together with the Gentiles. Yet when certain men from Jerusalem came to Antioch, he withdrew himself from the Gentiles, so as not to give offense to those from Jerusalem, and at the same time so as to give Paul a reasonable occasion for the rebuke. For this reason Paul reproves and Peter bears it; for thus the disciples were more easily going to be brought over, when the teacher was being censured and kept silent. So then, the withstanding “to his face” was a thing arranged; since, if there had truly been a quarrel over the truth, they would not have rebuked each other in the presence of the disciples, for they would have given them great offense. Rather, the quarrel arranged in the open was a setting right of the disciples; for Peter does not even gainsay anything—evidently because he accepts Paul’s opposition.

¹³ Because he was to be blamed. He did not say, By me, but simply, by others—those who were ignorant of what was being dispensed, and supposed it to be hypocrisy: that while those from Jerusalem were absent he ate with the Gentiles, but when they were present he withdrew. But some have understood it thus: that he had already been blamed beforehand, he says, for eating together with Cornelius, and for this reason now too he withdrew, fearing lest they should blame him again; so that in the very thing for which he withdrew, I withstood him.

¹⁴ For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision. He states also the cause of the blame. This James was the brother of the Lord, who also taught in Jerusalem as their bishop. From him, then, certain men were sent who had believed from among the Jews, yet still clung to the law, and they went off to Antioch. When Peter saw them and was afraid—not lest he himself be endangered, but lest they, being made to stumble, should leap away from the faith—he withdrew himself from associating with the Gentiles. So certain men, being ignorant of the cause, blamed him.

¹⁵ And the rest of the Jews also dissembled with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their dissembling. He calls the matter “dissembling.” For he does not wish to disclose Peter’s purpose; and at the same time, on account of those who held vehemently to the law, he named this “dissembling,” in order to root out their disposition toward the law. And by “the rest of the Jews” he means those in Antioch who had believed from among the Jews, who themselves also withdrew from the uncircumcised.

¹⁶ But when I saw that they were not walking uprightly toward the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter before them all. Let neither this expression trouble you; for he says these things not as condemning Peter, but for the sake of those who were going to be profited by hearing that even Peter was rebuked, as one clinging to the law: and what, then, are you doing any longer? For this is the very reason that even then he rebukes him before them all, so that those men, hearing it, might be afraid, since so great a pillar was being rebuked and had nothing to say in reply. But Eusebius says that it was not the great Peter who was rebuked by Paul, but a certain other Cephas, one of the seventy; and he thinks to establish this by saying that it is not likely that the man who had made his defense at the beginning—when, having eaten with Cornelius, he gave offense to some—should again stand in need of such a rebuke. But, O most learned one, neither do we say that Peter was rebuked by Paul as one ignorant of his duty, but as one able to endure the rebuke, that others might be set right.

¹⁷ If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as Jews? Paul all but cries aloud to everyone: Imitate your teacher. For behold, he too, though a Jew, nevertheless ate together with the Gentiles. And observe how he does not charge Peter that You do wrong in keeping the law, but rather reproves him on behalf of his own Gentile disciples, as one compelling them to be circumcised and to live as Jews. For in this way his word was going to seem more readily acceptable.

¹⁸ We are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles. “By nature”—that is, not proselytes, but born of Jewish fathers and reared in the law; yet we forsook the manner of life in which we were reared and took refuge in the faith in Christ.

¹⁹ Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ; we also have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Observe how he speaks everything with caution.[1] For we let the law go not as something evil, but as weak and unable to justify. For no one could fulfill its works, which were burdensome and hard to accomplish—not because of their greatness, but rather because of their pettiness; and besides, because the law did not sanctify the soul, but cleansed bodily defilements. Superfluous, then, is circumcision. And as he goes on he will say that it is even dangerous, estranging one from Christ.

²⁰ But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? We sought, he says, to be justified in Christ, having forsaken the law; but, as you say, it is a sin to forsake the law; so then Christ thrust us into this sin, for it was because of him that we forsook all the legal observances. So that Christ not only did not justify us, as you say, but even became to us the cause of greater condemnation, by persuading us to forsake the law.

²¹ God forbid. Having led the argument to an absurdity, he then had no further need of demonstration, but was content with the denial—which is what one should do, as is customary in the case of things that are altogether to be rejected.

²² For if I build again the very things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor. Observe the wisdom of it. Those men were saying that he who annuls the law is a transgressor; but he shows the contrary, that he who keeps it is a transgressor—transgressing not only the faith but also the law itself. For the law itself led me to the faith and persuaded me to forsake it. As he goes on he will show this; but for the present he says that the law has ceased, and this we acknowledged by the very acts by which we annulled it, departing from it. If, therefore, we contend to set it up again, we become transgressors, setting up the things that have been annulled by God.

²³ For I through the law died to the law. He establishes how he annulled the law, and says: Through the law of grace and of the Gospel I died to the Mosaic law; or, I died, he says, to the law through the law—that is, The law itself led me to attend to it no longer, having guided me to Christ, both through the words of Moses and through those of the prophets. If, therefore, I attend to it again, I also transgress it. Or thus as well: The law commanded that whoever did not do the things written should be punished and put to death. Therefore, since, so far as the law was concerned, it was impossible for these to be fulfilled, I have been put to death. Let it not, then, lay commands upon me—upon one who, so far as the law’s requirements go, is dead—both a spiritual death, because I was sinning, being unable to fulfill the things of the law, and a bodily death, so far as concerns the law’s condemnation. How then shall I still attend to that which killed me?

²⁴ That I might live to God, I have been crucified with Christ. Lest anyone say, How then do you live, since you have died? he says that the law killed me while I was living; but Christ, taking me when dead, made me alive, since I was crucified with him in a spiritual sense and died together with him through baptism. And the wonder is twofold: both that he made the dead alive, and that he did so through death.

²⁵ And I live, yet no longer I, but Christ lives in me. By saying, I have been crucified with Christ, he hinted at baptism; but by saying, And I live, yet no longer I, he hinted at the manner of life that follows, by which our members are put to death. But Christ lives in me—that is, There is nothing in us that Christ does not will, but he is the one who does all things in us, and rules, and is master. And our own will is dead, while his lives and governs our life. If, then, I live to God another life beside the one in the law, and have been put to death to the law, neither am I able to keep the things of the law.

²⁶ And the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God. What I have said, I said concerning the spiritual life; but he will find that this perceptible life itself is also mine from Christ. For the law, when transgressed, made all men subject to sin and punishment, and nothing hindered all from perishing, as in the flood, as transgressors; but Christ, when he came, snatched us out of the condemnation, having justified us by his own death. So that this very thing too—the living perceptibly and in the flesh—we have through the faith in Christ, which justifies us and snatches us out of the condemnation.

²⁷ Who loved me and gave himself for me. And indeed he gave himself for all, and loved all; but Paul, considering from how much Christ delivered us and what he bestowed, and being set on fire with love, makes what is common his own—as the prophets also do: My God, my God;[2] and at the same time showing that each one ought to acknowledge as great a debt of gratitude to Christ as if Christ had died for him alone. And those who have profited by the benefit are those alone who have believed in him. So that he who attends to the law shows that Christ did not die for him. And how is it that you do not shudder at this, but run back to the law, showing the death of the Master to be useless? And note also the phrase, “having given himself,” against the Arians.

²⁸ I do not set aside the grace of God. Since he has set down the arguments drawn from reasoning, he then declares: I do not shake off the gift of Christ which he bestowed on me, having justified me apart from works by his death, nor do I run back to the law.

²⁹ For if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain. For if the law, he says, has power to save and to justify, then Christ died to no purpose. For he died precisely for this reason, that he himself might save through his death, since the law had no power; so that if the law saves, the death of Christ is superfluous. Do you see to what point the blasphemy advances?