DEFENSE OF HIS APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY Among the proofs which St. Paul gives concerning his apostolic authority are his meetings with the apostles. Now he speaks about two other meetings. 1. Second meeting with St. Peter [2:1-10] 2. Third meeting with St. Peter [2:11-21]: 1. Second meeting with St. Peter God prompted St. Paul to visit the Jerusalem leaders again some fourteen years after his conversion1, or perhaps after his first visit. Some scholars see that this visit is taken to be identical with the famine relief visit of Acts 11:29-302. This visit was different from the previous one in several respects: I. St. Paul was accompanied by Barnabas (the Jew) and Titus (the Gentile) [1], to declare his love to all believers, whatever was their origin, and that they might credibly testify to his accusers, that the apostles found no discrepancy in his preaching, but confirmed it. II. St. Chrysostom says that while the first trip was undertaken due to the apostle’s desire to visit Peter, this one arose from a revelation of the Spirit. Why after fourteen years would he confer with the apostles, lest by any means he would be running or had run, in vain? If he had gone up without a , he would have committed an act of folly... I went up, he says, and communicated unto them my gospel, not that I might learn aught myself, but that I might convince these suspicious persons that I do not run in vain. The Spirit foreseeing this contention had provided that he should go up and make this communication3. St. John Chrysostom III. The meeting was not with Cephas only, but the other reputed... pillars of the Church. This meeting was not held publicly but privately [2], why? All at Jerusalem were offended, if the law was transgressed, or the use of circumcision forbidden; as James says, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews which have believed; and they are informed of you, that you teach to forsake the law” (Acts 21:20). Since then they were offended he did not condescend to come forward publicly and declare what his preaching was, but he conferred privately with those who were of reputation...4 St. John Chrysostom VI. He refers to the purpose and outcome of this visit. Its purpose was to lay before the pillar apostles the gospel which he had for seventeen years been preaching to the Gentiles. He had no doubts about his teachings, but for the benefit of his converts he desired to win support from the leaders so that they would not be lost by the Judaizers 1 A New Catholic Commentary, p. 1176. 2 See St. Chrysostom: Hom. in Acts 25:2. PG 60:193. 3 Chapter 2. 4 Chapter 2. 2 (false brethren [4]). So great had been his desire to be approved and supported by those whom you wish on all occasions to be understood by as in alliance with Judaism1. Tertullian Here arises a very important question, Who were these false brethren? If the apostles permitted circumcision at Jerusalem, why are those who enjoined it, in accordance with the apostolic sentence, to be called false brethren? First, because there is a difference between commanding an act to be done, and allowing it after it is done...(The apostles) showed that they permitted it by way of condescension to the Jews. Whereas the purpose of the false brethren was to cast them out of grace, and reduce them under the yoke of slavery again. The second is, that the apostles so acted in Judaea, where the law was in force, but the false brethren were everywhere, and all the Galatians were influenced by them. Whence it appears that their intention was not to build up, but entirely to pull down the gospel... He points out their hostility by calling them spies [4]; the sole object of a spy is to obtain for himself facilities of devastation and destruction, by becoming acquainted with his adversary’s position. And this is what those did, who wished to bring the disciples back to their old servitude. Hence too appears how very contrary their purpose was to that of the apostles; the latter made concessions that they might gradually extricate them from their servitude, but the former plotted to subject them to one more severe2. St. John Chrysostom St. Paul insists on not being subject to the false brethren, as he says, “To whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no not for an hour” [5]. Observe the force and emphasis of the phrase; he says not, “by argument,” but, “by subjection,” for their object was not to teach good doctrines, but to subjugate and enslave them. Wherefore, says he, we yielded to the apostles [6], but not to these... “But from those who were reputed to be somewhat, (whatever they were, it makes no matter to me, God accepts no man’s person)” [6]. Here he not only does not defend the apostles, but even presses hard upon those holy men, for the benefit of the weak... “They imparted nothing to me” [6]... the apostles did not oppose me, but our sentiments conspired and accorded. This appears from his expression, “they gave me the right hand of fellowship “ [9]3. St. John Chrysostom The outcome of this meeting was not only that nothing was added to his gospel, but they had an agreement to divide the mission field into work with Jews and work with Gentiles. St. Paul would henceforth preach mainly in the dispersion, that is, to Gentiles (and Jews) living outside of Palestine. St. Peter and his co-workers would continue to focus their evangelizing activity in Palestine (Jerusalem) [7-9]. Notice once again how careful St. Paul has been to present himself as an apostle completely “equal” with St. 1 Against Marcion, 5:3. 2 Chapter 2. 3 Chapter 2. 3 Peter1, and that nothing was said about two gospels; there were two ministries of the one true gospel, which declared the unity of the church and the oneness in Christ of both Jews and Gentiles, based on the oneness of faith. Many commentators have regarded Acts 15:1-29 as a parallel, complementary account of the Jerusalem consultation or conference. St. Paul mentions to Titus, uncircumcised Gentile, not even the pillars of the Church “compelled” him to be circumcised [3-5]. Some interpreters hold that the emphasis here is on the word “compelled” and that Titus did in fact voluntarily agree to circumcision out of conversation for Paul’s total relationship with Jerusalem2. Titus has become a living witness to the approval accorded Paul’s gospel by the pillars of the church. According to St. Augustine the right hand of fellowship given to St. Paul means [a sign of harmony, a sign of agreement, that what they had learnt from him differed in no respect from them3.] St. Paul refers to his taking care of the poor Jews [10]. In preaching the world was divided between them, as he took the Gentiles and they the Jews, but to the sustenance of the poor among the Jews he also contributed his share (Rom. 15:25). 2. Third meeting with St. Peter It was after 50 A.D., before writing this epistle. St. Peter came to Antioch, a center of Gentile Christian activity, and mingled freely with all believers, converts from paganism as well as from Judaism. But when a (Judaizer) group arrived from Jerusalem, Peter began to withdraw from fellowship and meal sharing. St. Paul noticed that many of the Jewish Christians began to follow St. Peter’s example, therefore he faced him as an apostolic equal and rebuked him publicly. St. Paul cites his words to St. Peter [15-16], when he rebuked him, to emphasize the fact of their mutual agreement concerning justification by grace apart from observance of the Mosaic law4, and also to show that St. Peter’s conduct was not based on a fundamental change of mind about the nature and implications of the gospel, but on his acceding hypocritically to the representations of certain men. Paul’s intention in Galatians is not historical but hortatory5. Tertullian6, SS. Augustine, Cyprian, Ambrose and Cyril of Alexandria see that St. Peter in his weakness did that, while SS. Jerome and John Chrysostom see that he did that to give a chance to St. Paul the apostle of the Gentiles to explain the Justification by faith without observing the works of the Law. Many, on a superficial reading of this part of the epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But this is not so, indeed it is not , far from it; we shall discover great wisdom, both of Paul and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their hearers... The apostles, as I said before, permitted at Jerusalem, an abrupt severance from the law not being practicable; but when they came to Antioch, they no longer continued 1 Collegeville Bible Comm., p. 1072-3. 2 V. P. Furnish, p. 282. 3 Sermons on New Testament Lessons, 51:1. 4 Unger’s Bible Handbook, 1967, p.661. 5 V. P. Furnish, p. 285. 6 Against Marcion, 5: 3. 4 this observance, but lived indiscriminately with the believing Gentiles which thing Peter also was at that time doing. But when some came from Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer did so fearing to perplex them, but he changed his course, with two objects secretly in view, both to avoid offending those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him. For had he, having allowed circumcision when preaching at Jerusalem, changed his course at Antioch, his conduct would have appeared to those Jews to proceed from fear of Paul, and his disciples would have condemned his excess of pliancy. And this would have created no small offense; but in Paul, who was well acquainted with all the facts, his withdrawal would have raised no such suspicion, as knowing the intention with which he acted. Wherefore Paul rebukes, and Peter submits, that when the master is blamed, yet keeps silence, the disciples may more readily come over... As Paul had yielded to the apostles at Jerusalem, so in turn they yielded to him at Antioch. Paul’s object is not to correct Peter, but his rebuke was intentionally addressed to him, though it was pointed at the disciples; and not at the Galatians alone, but also at others who labor under the same error with them1. St. John Chrysostom Perhaps the words of warning and instruction addressed to St. Peter have been mentioned here for the benefit of the Galatians. St. Paul describes himself as a Jew by birth [15] and then proceeds to affirm that this Jewish heritage is not itself the way of justification (cf. Phil. 2:3-11). To Jews, Gentiles were sinners because they did not share in the Jewish national heritage of law and covenant, But for Paul -Jews as well as Gentiles -are sinners (Rom. 3:22-23). There fore all are equally dependent on God’s grace, received through faith (Rom. 3:24-25)2. For St. Paul, sin in its most radical dimension is pride and boasting, to which both Jews (Rom. 2:17, 23) and Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:19-31) are in bondage. The essential aspects of the new life are expressed in verses 19-21: 1. “For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God” [19]. The Christian dies to the law as he shares in Christ’s crucifixion-resurrection [20], by which I attain the new life, the risen life, and thus the judgment of the law has been stripped of its power. It may be understood in another sense: the law commands all its percepts to be performed, and punishes the transgressor; therefore we are all dead to it, for no man has fulfilled it . Here observe... he says not, “the law is dead to me,” but “I am dead to the law ;” the meaning of which is, that, as it is impossible for a dead corpse to obey the commandments of the law, so also is it for me who have perished by its curse, for by its word am I slain. Having said, “I died,” lest it should be objected, how then you are alive? he adds the cause of his living, and shows that when alive the law slew him, but that when dead Christ through death restored him to life3. 1 Chapter 2. 2 V. P. Furnish, p. 286. 3 Chapter 2. 5 St. John Chrysostom “For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God” [19], that is, by the spiritual law he is dead to the carnal interpretation of the law. And we, by the law of our Lord Jesus, are dead to this law which sanctions such perfidious decrees1. St. Ambrose 2. “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me” [20]. Our Lord was crucified, not because He was a sinner, but to redeem sinners by His love. We, the members of His Body, have to share with Him His practical love by: * our crucifixion with Him [20]. * our flesh is crucified [5:24]. * the world is crucified to us [6:14]. * we are crucified unto the world [6:14] Through this crucifixion I accept Him as my resurrection and life, saying that I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not me, but Christ in me (Col. 3:4). “I am crucified with Christ” [20]. St. John Chrysostom says that in these words he alludes to Baptism. By participation in Christ’s crucifixion and death one dies to the old self and is freed from the tyranny of the past, the world, and one’s own ego. And by participation in Christ’s resurrection one lives to God and is freed for a life of responsible and grateful obedience. “With Christ I was and am co-crucified”: the perfect tense in Greek indicates that the state acquired by a man on the day of his justification by baptism still endures2. “I am crucified with Christ, yet I live; nevertheless not I, but Christ lives in me.” Now our life, my brethren, truly consists in our denying all bodily things, and continuing steadfastly in those only of our Savior. For that is the true life, which a man lives in Christ; for although they are dead to the world, yet they dwell as it were in heaven, minding those things which are above, as he who was a lover of such a habitation said, “While we walk on earth, our dwelling is in heaven3.” St. Athanasius of Alexandria The expression “I live, yet no longer I,” was the voice of one denying himself, as of one who had laid aside his own life and taken on himself the Christ, in order that He might live in him as Righteousness, and as Wisdom, and as Sanctification, and as our Peace (1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 2:14) and as the power of God, who works all things in him4. Origen Origen states that Christ lives in us [20], therefore, when He was crucified He said to His mother concerning St. John, “Woman, behold your son,” for every one who is perfect lives no longer but Christ lives in him5. 1 Sermon against Auxentius, 24. 2 Cf. A New Catholic Commentary, p. 1178. 3 Paschal letters 5:4; 7:3. 4 Comm. on Matt. book 12:25. 5 Comm. on John , Book 1:6. 6 3. The new life is lived in the flesh [20], i.e., in the world. St. Paul nowhere suggests that the Christian life requires withdrawal from the world. But it is by faith, for thus one participates in Christ’s crucifixion-resurrection, dies to the old self, and lives to God in Christ. 4. St. Paul defines the object and content of this faith as the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me. The crucifixion is the decisive act of self-giving love (1:4). The benefits of Christ’s passion are said to be received by faith, which each believer receives in grateful obedience to the commandment of love (5:6, 13-25; John 15:9-13). Love is total, unconditional surrender to God’s will, the complete giving of oneself to others, as the instance of God’s own sacrificial love on the cross effectively reveals. THE ARGUMENTS OF ST. PAUL IN WORDS: * the Jews saw that they are not sinners like the Gentiles [15]. They were in need of the works of the law to discover that they were sinners and in need of the Savior of sinners, while the Gentiles who do not deny that they are sinners are not in need of the law. * As the Jews believed in Christ the Savior of sinners, they confessed that they were sinners. In seeking the works of the law after their belief, this meant that Christ could not justify them, therefore they returned to the law to justify them. They come to the law as sinners, and Christ is the minister of sin [18]; God forbid! In other words, they declare that they discover that they are sinners through Christ, and are in need of the law to justify them. It is worthy to note that St. Paul does not reject the Jewish tradition as a whole. Not only does he quote even in this epistle from the Jewish tradition, but also uses these quotations in confirming that not only the Gentiles but also the Jews must be justified by faith. He used them against the Judaizers themselves1, as we will see in chapters 3 and 4. ST. PAUL AND CHURCH LIFE As we have seen St. Paul, for the advantages of his hearers, confirms that he was not a disciple of any of the apostles but he was equal to them. This does not mean that he had an individual attitude. He was called by Christ Himself, but the Lord directed him to Ananias not only to be baptized but also to learn (Acts 9:6). God enlightened his mind and his heart, and revealed to him His mysteries for the new way: preaching among the Gentiles. Even in this he also communicated with the apostles not due to doubt, but to strengthen his ministry and to defend himself from false brethren. When Christ in His own Person called and addressed Paul, although He might have opened out to him at once the way of perfection, yet He chose rather to direct him to Ananias and commanded him to learn the way of truth from him (Acts 9:6)... He says, “And I ... communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain” [2]. Who then is so self-sufficient and blind as to dare to trust in his own judgment and discretion when the chosen vessel confesses that he had need of a conference with his fellow apostles. Whence we clearly see that the Lord does not Himself show the way of perfection to anyone who having the opportunity of learning 1 Collegeville Bible Comm., p. 1075. 7 despises the teaching and training of the elders, paying no need to that saying, “Ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you” (Deut. 32:7)1. Abbot Moses 1 Cassian, Conferences, 2: 15.
Welcome