Galatians

by Cardinal Albert Vanhoye

  So then, these people were wanting to put the Galatians, who were already under this grace, under the burdens of this law, claiming that the gospel would be of no benefit to them unless they were circumcised and submitted to other carnal observances of Jewish custom.a

  a. Translation by Eric Plumer in Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 125.

  The immediate context indicates what freedom and what enslavement he is referring to, and the section on doctrine that follows will explain it more deeply. Because of the freedom from the †law Christ brings, Gentile believers like Titus are free to maintain their own cultural identity. In Paul’s eyes, to oblige Gentile Christians to become Jews, to submit to the obligations that the law of Moses imposed on Israel, would be slavery, an unacceptable restriction (see Gal 4:9–10; 5:1). Paul makes clear that the freedom he is defending is not open to discussion but is part of life in Christ for Gentile believers. Later he will explain that freedom from the law of Moses belongs to all who believe in Jesus, whether Gentile or Jew (2:19–20; 5:18; see the sidebar, “Paul’s Nuanced View of the Law,” pp. 146–47).

  [2:5]

  Paul records his and Barnabas’s fierce resistance to the maneuver of the false brothers: to them we did not submit even for a moment. One possible approach would have been a temporary concession to circumcise Gentile converts in order to keep the peace, but Paul and Barnabas did not accept any kind of compromise. They remained immovable so that the truth of the gospel might remain intact. For Paul the question was not simply a matter of †ecclesial discipline but of doctrine, because what was at stake was nothing less than “the truth of the †gospel.” This truth consists in the complete efficacy of the redemptive death of Christ and consequently the rejection of any kind of additional means of †justification (see 2:16–21).

  Some translations say “so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you,” implying that the Galatians had already been evangelized when Paul was defending his gospel in Jerusalem. However, the Greek is better rendered for you, indicating that Paul’s stand in Jerusalem was for the sake of the Gentiles he would evangelize in the future, including the Galatians. This explicit reference to the Galatians as beneficiaries of Paul’s struggle confirms what we can surmise—namely, that they were confronting the same issue that had arisen in Jerusalem some years earlier. The decision on this question taken in Jerusalem would thus be illuminating for the Galatians, so Paul is eager to report it.

  The Outcome: Agreement among the Apostles (2:6–10)

  6But from those who were reputed to be important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those of repute made me add nothing. 7On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, 8for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, 9and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10Only, we were to be mindful of the poor, which is the very thing I was eager to do.

  NT: Acts 9:15; 15:6–29; 24:17; 1 Tim 1:11

  [2:6]

  Paul leaves aside the false brothers and returns to those reputed to be important—that is, the recognized leaders (see commentary on 2:2)—to report the outcome of his meeting with them. However, as soon as he mentions them, he unexpectedly adds a parenthetical remark expressing some reserve: what they once were makes no difference to me. What does Paul mean? He expresses indifference to something about the Jerusalem church’s most prominent leaders—James, Peter, and John—and to justify his position, he invokes a principle that is very dear to him: God shows no partiality.7 This principle affirms that God is not impressed with a person’s external appearance, which can so easily influence human judgment—wealth or poverty, physical strength or weakness, beauty or ugliness, noble or common origin, even being part of the chosen people or not. What characteristic of those of repute does Paul have in mind? It cannot apply to their position of authority in the Church, since the argument he is making in support of his †gospel rests on their authority. Quite possibly Paul is expressing indifference toward a cult of personality surrounding those who “once were” the relatives and closest companions of Jesus during his earthly ministry, something that Paul’s opponents were using to make his apostolate seem inferior.

  In any case, the important point is that “those of repute” had not imposed any addition to the gospel Paul laid out to them (see 2:2). Being fully united with other members of the Church did not require converted †Gentiles to adopt the Jewish way of life in any way.8 Not only did this outcome give Paul and the Gentile Christians breathing room, but the meeting in Jerusalem brought about a formal recognition of Paul’s apostolate and an agreement about a division of labor in their future ministry (v. 9).

  [2:7]

  These very positive results occurred when the Jerusalem leaders saw that Paul had been entrusted with the gospel to the Gentiles. How did they see that? Acts explains that when Paul and Barnabas “arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, as well as by the apostles and the presbyters, and they reported what God had done with them” (Acts 15:4) and “the signs and wonders God had worked” (15:12).9 The divine assistance evidenced by miracles given to Paul in his apostolate to the Gentiles and the tremendous fruitfulness of this apostolate clearly demonstrated that Paul was not mistaken when he affirmed he had received his mission from God.

  The Jerusalem leaders’ recognition of the importance of Paul’s mission is expressed in terms that are more than flattering: just as Peter was entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised. Paul’s mission is paralleled to Peter’s! The four Gospels are unanimous in attributing to Peter the first rank among the Twelve, and Acts of the Apostles confirms his unique role.10 Now Paul attains a similar position, and his gospel is set as a parallel to Peter’s. There could not be a more positive response to Paul’s mission.

  Paul cared deeply about this parallel. He mentions it twice (Gal 2:7–8) and then repeats the parallel a third time when describing the agreement reached with “James and Cephas and John” (v. 9). Instead of referring to Peter by his Aramaic name, Cephas, as he does on every other occasion in his letters,11 in verses 7–8 he uses the Greek name Petros twice. It is not clear why Paul does this. Perhaps the oral gospel traditions that were being taught in the churches of Galatia used the Greek form of Peter’s name, and Paul wanted to reinforce his readers’ understanding of what was being said about his apostleship in relation to Peter’s.

  Paul distinguishes two forms of the gospel, one entrusted to himself and one to Peter. For Paul it is the gospel to the uncircumcised. For Peter it was the gospel “to the circumcised.” These expressions that seem odd to us evidently refer to non-Jews and Jews, respectively. The word “gospel” is used, even though the intended distinction is between the two apostles’ diverse fields of mission. Paul’s mission was to evangelize the Gentiles (the term can also mean “the †nations,” vv. 8–9); Peter’s was to evangelize the Jews. This clear distinction between the two missions is a simplification. Paul also evangelized his fellow Jews (see 1 Cor 9:20 and the accounts of Paul’s preaching in synagogues in Acts), while Peter had an important role in initially evangelizing and receiving Gentiles into the Church (see Acts 10).

  The phrases that the NABRE translates as “the gospel to the uncircumcised” and “to the circumcised” could also be rendered “the gospel of the uncircumcised” and “of the circumcised,” suggesting not only two different audiences but also a certain difference in the content of the message. Paul does not specify the points of difference, but the context tells us that Paul did not require Gentile Christians to be circumcised, or to observe the dietary laws or other †ritual regulations found in the †law of Moses (see the sidebar, “Pau
l’s Gospel,” p. 62). His gospel was a gospel of the “freedom that we have in Christ Jesus” (Gal 2:4). Jewish Christians continued to observe the law of Moses (see Acts 21:20), although they did not regard their keeping the law as the foundation of a right relationship with God (Gal 2:15–16; Acts 15:8–11), and they set aside some traditional interpretations as Jesus did,12 especially those that hindered relations with Gentiles (Acts 10:9–29; 1 Cor 9:1, 19–21; see the sidebar, “Did Paul Keep the Law of Moses?,” pp. 174–75).

  [2:8]

  Paul adds a parenthetical clause in verse 8 to make clear that this entrustment of each version of the gospel was not simply an administrative division of labor. Rather, the proof that God had entrusted their respective fields of ministry to Peter and to Paul was God’s own operation in and through them to make their work effective. God had conferred on Paul an ability that corresponded to his mission, a capability that was not merely human. “Who is qualified for this?” Paul asks in 2 Cor 2:16. He answers, “Our qualification comes from God, who has indeed qualified us as ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor 3:5–6). God worked in Peter to make him an apostle to the chosen people, and he worked also in Paul to make him an apostle to the Gentiles.

  [2:9]

  James, Cephas, and John recognized that the fruitfulness of Paul’s mission must be attributed to a grace given to him. Paul often uses the expression “the grace given to me,”13 especially in regard to his apostolic vocation to the Gentiles (see Eph 3:8). At other times he presents his vocation as a “ministry” (diakonia) entrusted to him,14 expressing another aspect of this very rich reality. Referring to his ministry as a †grace indicates Paul is aware that he did not deserve this marvelous gift from God and he feels deeply grateful.

  After the confirmation of Paul’s ministry and the recognition of the grace given to him comes an agreement. Paul emphasizes that the decision came from the men of greatest authority in the Church, who were reputed to be pillars, and that the agreement was not just expressed in speech but was demonstrated by a solemn gesture. Everyone could see that James and Cephas and John gave their right hands to Paul and Barnabas as a sign of partnership (Greek koinōnia). This word is significant because it goes beyond the meaning of agreement and expresses personal bonds of cooperation and solidarity. It reveals that the distinction between the apostolic territories did not mean a separation between the people. Communion among apostles who are engaged in diverse missions guarantees the unity of the Church.

  The order in which “James and Cephas and John” are mentioned has sometimes been used as an argument against the primacy of Peter, because Cephas is listed second rather than first. However, the order of three names does not necessarily signal a hierarchy of position. In 2 Cor 13:13 Christ is named first, then the Father, and then the Holy Spirit, but it does not follow that Christ has preeminence over the Father. Rather James is named first because, as the lead elder of the church of Jerusalem,15 he was the most prominent leader in Jewish Christianity, and his support for Paul’s apostolate made it likely that other leaders of the Jewish-Christian part of the Church would accept it as well. James seems to have had a special apostolate to the Jews. The way that Paul describes the respective missionary responsibilities is not geographical. Paul does not say, “We go to the nations, and they go to the land of Israel.” Instead he says, “We go to the Gentiles, and they go to the circumcised.” “The circumcised” designated all Jews, even those who lived among pagan nations. The Letter of James, in fact, is addressed “To the twelve tribes in the dispersion” (James 1:1), which is in line with this agreement.

  While Peter’s ministry is focused on fellow Jews, this does not mean that he restricts his activities to the land of Israel. He ministers to Jews in the diaspora—and apparently to Gentiles there also. Paul is about to recount that not long afterward Cephas came to Antioch and lived among the Gentile Christians (Gal 2:11–14). In 1 Corinthians, Paul mentions that among the factions in the Corinthian church was the party of Cephas (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22), and he also speaks of Cephas’s journeys (1 Cor 9:5).

  [2:10]

  A stipulation is added to this declaration: to be mindful of the poor. The Christians in Jerusalem were not wealthy. Luke speaks, for example, of the case of the widows for whom “the daily distribution” of necessary items was organized (Acts 6:1). Paul immediately affirms that he shares the Jerusalem leadership’s concern for the poor. He shows that concern years later in the collection he organized “for the poor among the holy ones in Jerusalem” (Rom 15:26; see 1 Cor 8). The collection also serves as a concrete expression of the communion between the Gentile and Jewish Christian churches, something that Paul considers very important (Gal 2:2).

  The theological message of this short passage concerns †ecclesial order and unity. Paul shows the priority he places on unity among various sectors of the Church. His apostolate does not consist solely in proclaiming the truth of the gospel but also in building unity. For that unity to be firm, it must be grounded in the Church’s recognition of the work of the †Lord in all its diversity. Unity does not mean uniformity.

  Reflection and Application (2:6–10)

  Paul tells us that when the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem “saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel” and “recognized the grace bestowed upon me,” they gave him their full support for his mission to the †Gentiles. In other words, James, Peter, and John discerned that God was at work through Paul because of the conversions and miracles, even though to all appearances Paul did not have the same pedigree for ministry that they did as belonging to the Twelve or as Jesus’ “brother.”

  Are our eyes open to seeing God’s grace in the fruitful ministry of our brothers and sisters who do not have the same qualifications we have—whether education, ordination, or some other official role? The New Testament is quite clear that Christ builds up his body through charisms, gifts of the Spirit, given to each of the baptized.16 Sometimes the Lord works through those we least expect, and we, like Peter, John, and James, must humbly acknowledge his hand and give thanks, careful to avoid the sin of those who refused to believe in the ministry of John the Baptist and of Jesus (Matt 21:32).

  This holds true for our brothers and sisters who belong to other churches. According to Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism, “Very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.”17 This reminds us to esteem our separated brothers and sisters and to pray more fervently for unity, so that the sharing of the gifts we have all received may be complete.

  1. This phrase in v. 2 is the same in the RSV as in the NABRE. The NRSV (“acknowledged leaders”) and NJB (“recognised leaders”) catch the nuance better.

  2. Paul expresses a similar fear in 4:11, using the same Greek phrase, writing, “I am afraid on your account that perhaps I have labored for you in vain.” In that context, Paul expresses concern regarding the results of his ministry if the Galatians do not persevere in the truth, in which case Paul would have labored in vain.

  3. See Gal 3:28; Rom 1:16; 2:9–10; 10:12.

  4. The situation of Titus contrasts with that of Paul’s other close coworker, Timothy, whom Paul circumcised because his mother was Jewish and he had been raised Jewish, although his father was a Gentile (Acts 16:1–3; 2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). Presumably, unlike the Gentile Christian Titus, Timothy lived as an observant Jewish Christian, as Paul did (see the sidebar, “Did Paul Keep the Law of Moses?,” pp. 174–75).

  5. Verse 3 has been commented upon in the previous section.

  6. See 2 Cor 11:13, 26 for similar strong language by Paul. The letter from the apostles and elders to the Christians in Syria and Cilicia at the end of the crisis describes these teachers of circumcision only as unauthorized: “We have heard that some of our number [who went out] without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind” (Acts 15:24).

  7. In the Bibl
e, God’s impartiality is an important aspect of his justice toward human beings (see Deut 10:17–18; Sir 35:14–17; Acts 10:34–35; Rom 2:9–11; 1 Cor 1:26–29).

  8. The letter summarizing the conclusions of the Council of Jerusalem mentions four expectations of Gentile Christians—namely, that they “abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage” (Acts 15:29). Rather than requiring Gentile Christians to become Jews, these requirements appear to be based on Mosaic regulations for Gentiles living among the people of Israel (see Lev 17:8–18:30).

  9. Paul expresses himself in a similar way in Rom 15:18–19: “I will not dare to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to lead the Gentiles to obedience by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit [of God], so that from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum I have finished preaching the gospel of Christ.”

  10. See, e.g., Matt 10:2; 16:18–19; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; 22:31–32; John 1:42; 21:15–17; Acts 1:15; 2:14, 37–38; 3:4, 12; 4:8.

  11. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14.

  12. See Matt 5:31–32, 38–41; 15:1–2; Mark 7:1–23; also Matt 12:1–8 and other occasions when Jesus departed from Pharisaic interpretations of the Sabbath.