Защитительная часть (Гал. 1:11 – 24; Гал. 2:1 – 21)

False teachers, in order to have better success among the Galatians, humiliated Saint Paul in their eyes, saying that he did not see the Lord Himself, but learned the Gospel from the other Apostles, and then retreated from them and, having drawn up his own teaching about the uselessness of the Law of Moses, began to teach in disagreement with them; In order to cover up his different teachings, when he is with other Apostles together, he speaks and acts like them, that is, he condescends to the works of the law. Saint Paul first turns his speech against such wrong suggestions; for otherwise the prejudices against him revived in the souls of the Galatians would have prevented them from accepting those proofs of the truth of the Gospel teaching, which he intended to offer them on the basis of the Divine Scripture and the rationally understood conditions for the salvation of fallen man. He says: 1) that the Gospel that I preach was not received by me from men and I did not invent it myself, but was taught it by the Lord Himself (Gal. 1: 11 - 16); 2) that I could not learn this Gospel from other Apostles, or believers in general, as you can see from the circumstances of my life (Gal. 1: 17 – 24); 3) that I teach not at all differently from the other Apostles; on the contrary, they gave me and Barnabas their right hands for precisely this teaching (Gal. 2: 1 – 10); 4) that I am not at all applied to others; on the contrary, I directly went against Peter himself when I saw that he was acting completely inconsistent with the Gospel (Gal. 2:11-21). With these evidences, Saint Paul dispelled false suggestions about himself and restored his dignity as a true teacher. His goal is not to defend himself, but to restore in the hearts of the Galatians the conviction that the Gospel preached to them is from above, and therefore cannot be immutably true and changeable. Saint Chrysostom, as has already been noted, believes that Saint Paul then relates the circumstances of his life in order to prove that he is preaching the truth. “He could,” the Holy Father continues, “and borrow evidence from another source to confirm the truth of his preaching, such as from signs... wonders... but he arranges his word in a different way.” 1) About the direct revelation of the gospel to Saint Paul by the Lord Himself (Gal. 1: 11-16) This truth is instilled by Saint Paul: a) with his Apostolic authority I “say” ... (Gal. 1, 11 - 12) and confirms: b) by his sudden change from persecutor to defender ( Gal. 1, 13 - 16). This is how Saint Chrysostom looks at this: “see how he proves from both the higher and the lower that he was a disciple of Jesus Christ, who Himself, without human intervention, deigned to open to him the understanding of everything. How would you prove to unbelievers that God Himself revealed to you these ineffable mysteries without human intervention? This proves, he says, my previous way of life and thoughts and the sudden change. For if God had not revealed these secrets to me, I could not have changed so suddenly and quickly. For people who are students, when they firmly and ardently hold to their contrary opinions, it takes a lot of time and effort to change their faith in them. Therefore, who so suddenly changed and, having been at the very height of madness, came to such a sincere consciousness; It is clear that by God's revelation and instruction he suddenly returned to sanity. This made him mention his former life and conversion, and call them to witness those who were with him.” a) He proves it with his authority (Gal. 1:11-12) Gal.1:11–12. I tell you, brethren, the good news preached from Me is not carried according to man. I did not receive it from man, nor did I learn it, but through the appearance of Jesus Christ. With these words, the Apostle “opens the beginning of the Epistle itself and says that he learned the Gospel from the Son of God through revelation, when after the resurrection He was already in heaven, and that what he learned corresponds to the greatness of Him from whom he learned” (Ambrosiastes). “I will say” is a solemn confirmation of the truth of one’s word. Here it is made clear that what has to be said is beyond doubt, that he vouches for it with all his authority. Saint Paul usually speaks like this, and he uses this turn of phrase especially in important cases, as, for example, in the Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15, 1 ff.), where he briefly expresses the essential points of the Gospel. It is enough for us to hear such a word from the lips of the Apostles in order to believe that their teaching is definitely all from above. For they were bearers of complete truth and they sacrificed themselves completely to it. Blessed Jerome gives exactly this guidance: “The question is, is the Gospel accepted by the Churches of the whole world God’s or man’s? We answer that when those who say about themselves: “You seek temptation, Christ speaking in me” (2 Cor. 13:3) and: “I live as no one, but Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20), when such people speak, it is not they who speak, but the Lord Himself who speaks in them. So, when Paul and Peter speak, they betray God’s gospel, not man’s.” "Brotherhood". Although he did not praise them and knew that they had opened their ears to the speeches of the false brethren; however, he still considers them to be in communion with himself and writes as to the brethren about Christ, of course in the hope of correction and as an encouragement for this. Error does not make the erring person cut off from the society of those who contain the truth, but persistence in it does. “The good news preached from Me” is not the way I preached it everywhere, but the way I preached it to you, in the form, sense and meaning in which I conveyed it to you and how you received it; just as I said above (Gal. 1:8-9): with the good news, received. The Apostle’s gaze is limited to the Galatians alone, and they are disposed to focus all their attention on what they were taught. For us it is everything is one, as if the Apostle said: the gospel that I preach; for he preached the same gospel everywhere. “As if there is a burden on a person.” If you look at it abstractly, having only the content in mind, you cannot help but conclude that it is not a matter of human wisdom. This expression is similar to how we say: humanly, angelically, divinely. Every class of beings has its own range of properties, powers and actions, means and ends, realities and possibilities. Judging by them, it is possible to determine in advance whether something fits into a known class or not. This is what Saint Paul now says - that the Gospel, which he announced, is not from the circle of human affairs, is beyond the power of man, and it cannot be expected that man could invent it with his own mind. “It was not compiled according to human conclusions” (Blessed Theodoret). “It is not according to man, for it is according to God, that is, according to God’s revelation” (Ecumenius). “Neither did I receive it from man, nor did I learn it.” After: “it is not according to man” - it would be expected: but it is according to God or according to the revelation of Jesus Christ. But Saint Paul had a special urge to demonstrate before the Galatians that his Gospel is not only not human, but, being Divine, did not reach him through man, but was received by him personally from the Lord Himself. Without this certification, the Galatians could still be confused that Saint Paul accepted the Gospel from others, interpreted it in his own way and taught it in disagreement with how the Lord Himself taught the first Apostles (Saint Damascus, Ecumenius). To refute this, they would have to check what the eyewitnesses of the Word taught. But when Saint Paul certified that he received the Gospel not from man, but directly from the Lord, then the thoughts of the Galatians had to take a different turn. It became obvious that if the Lord commanded to teach this way, then Saint Paul could not preach the gospel any other way. Whatever they now say about the first Apostles, it was clear to the Galatians that Paul’s word is God’s word, that there is no need to check with those living so far from them, for the Lord is the same everywhere, and they hear the truth as if directly from the Lord Himself. In the words: “priyah” - and: “having learned” - others see the same thought, others see an indication of different degrees of comprehension and assimilation of the Gospel: in: “priyah” - initial learning, acceptance of the truth in general outlines; c: “having learned” – deepening into the circle of revealed truths, their full study. So Blessed Jerome: “between: “accept” - and: “learn” - there is such a difference that the Gospel is accepted by the one to whom it is instilled for the first time, who is brought only to faith in it; the one who knows all its secrets learns.” Others see in: “having learned” - a personal study of the revealed Gospel - and extend it to the point that in: “having learned” - they see the opposite of “having received”. We have two human sources of knowledge: we receive some from others, and we reach the other with our own thoughts. St. Paul denies both sources for his Gospel. He says, as it were: I did not accept it ready-made from a man and did not invent it myself; in which case: “having learned less” will be the same as: he did not invent it himself. The last thought is very important in that it rejects the fortune-telling of those who believe that the teaching of St. Paul is his personal view of the Gospel. Here he certifies that his Gospel in its entirety is from above, nothing was brought here from personal considerations, although, of course, they cannot be rejected in further applications of revealed truths, although these also took place in his blessed mind, not without the direction and guardianship of the Spirit of God. It seems to others that in the phrase: “neither” one hears: for I did not receive it from a man; that is: I too am like the other Apostles. But the flow of speech does not justify this; although the thought is not far from the intention with which Saint Paul speaks those words. “But by the appearance of Jesus Christ,” that is, I received the Gospel directly from the Lord Himself. Our Slavic translation focuses on the appearance of the Lord to Saint Paul on his way to Damascus and makes it clear that at that moment he comprehended the power of the Gospel, although at the same time he heard only: “I am Jesus: it is difficult for you to fight against the pricks” - and: “go to Damascus, there you will be told what you must do” (Acts 9: 5 - 6). So Blessed Jerome: “Here he points to that phenomenon (revelation) when, going to Damascus, he was honored to hear the voice of Christ on the way and when, having become blind, he saw the true Light of the world.” And Theodoret: “very wisely (St. Paul) used the word: “appearance”; because the Lord Christ then ascended into heaven and was no longer visible to everyone equally; and appeared to him on the way and made him worthy of the ministry of preaching.” But meanwhile, one cannot help but see that only the seed of the Gospel was laid here, which was destined to develop into a whole tree of New Testament truths. Although for a Jew, especially a scientist, a lot has already been said by the fact that Jesus Christ is exactly what they preach about Him - the promised Savior of the world to Israel. At the same time, all those features in which the person of the Messiah and His Kingdom are presented in the Old Testament should have been imagined. But it is obvious that this alone was not enough for a complete knowledge of the Gospel. There are many truths in the New Testament teaching that cannot be learned from the Old Testament Scripture alone. It was necessary to be taught from someone. Saint Paul says that he was taught this from the Lord Himself. If the appearance before Damascus could not teach him everything, and Saint Paul learned nothing from people, then it must be admitted that the Lord’s appearances to Paul continued afterward, and at the same time all the secrets of the Gospel were revealed to him. Why here by appearance we must understand revelation in general? The Apostle does not indicate when and how these revelations happened to him; but that they were, he refers to this more than once in his Epistles. So, for example, about the second coming of Christ and what will happen then to the living and the dead, he speaks to the Thessalonians “by the word of the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:15), of course, in the sense that he heard this word from the Lord Himself; He also spoke about the Last Supper as he himself “received” “from the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:23); judging by this, and where he, before expounding the essence of the Gospel, said: “he even gave it up,” one must understand that he received this from the Lord (1 Cor. 15:3). And that rapture to the third heaven, of which he, remembering in the Epistle to the Corinthians, written a year after the Epistle to the Galatians, says that it was before fourteen years (see: 2 Cor. 12:2), had already happened when Saint Paul wrote this Epistle, and generally falls in the first years after his conversion to the Lord. All such indications oblige us to recognize that the entire Gospel, in its entirety, was revealed to Saint Paul directly by the Lord Himself and that, therefore, he is a complete direct disciple of the Lord, like all the chief Apostles. He seems to say: “The same one revealed the Gospel to me, Who taught the rest of the Apostles with Peter” (Blessed Theophylact). He speaks about this in order “to contrast this with the slander of his opponents, making it known that in this he is no lower than the other Apostles. For just as they received the teaching from the Lord Himself, so he also had Him as a teacher” (Blessed Theodoret). b) Confirms this by his sudden change (Gal. 1: 13–16) And this one Apostolic word of Saint Paul was enough to confirm that he received the Gospel from above. But he is not content with this, but provides the most tangible proof of this in his change. He seems to be saying to them: look what I was like before and what I suddenly became later, and you will see the finger of God in the turn of my life. That there was the finger of God acting in him and helping him, he could prove this both by the appearances of the Lord to him and by the signs that accompanied his preaching; but he does not do this, because here human weakness would require verification, but exposes what was tangibly obvious to everyone, his transformation from a Jew into a Christian. That he persecuted the Church and destroyed it was known to everyone. Yet everyone now saw that this persecutor and destroyer of the Church was protecting and building her. What followed from this? One should have marveled, as those who believed in Judea did, and glorify God (Gal. 1:23-24); but at the same time recognize that the work of St. Paul and his preaching come from God, and therefore listen to his words and obey his orders. It should be noted that such thoughts are only suggested by the words of St. Paul; they evoke such a conviction and, of course, they were uttered by him not without a secret intention, so that they would inspire this conviction. The literal flow of speech also inspires another confirmation that the teaching of St. Paul is not human, precisely this way: before my conversion, I persecuted the Gospel, therefore, I had no desire to know it, and did not consider it necessary; After his conversion, he did not enter into intercourse with any of those who believed in him - with the goal of learning from him. Judge for yourself after this, how much probability is there in the speeches you heard that I learned the Gospel from people? The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church focus more on the first, as if not noticing the second. For they tried to clarify the spirit of Scripture rather than the letter. Gal.1:13–14. You have heard of my life sometimes in Judaism, as if they were persecuting the Church of God in great numbers, and destroying it: and they succeeded in Judaism more than many of my peers in my generation, excessively zealous of my fatherly traditions. "Hear." Apparently, the Apostle himself did not talk about his former life, but the rumor reached them. “That the Only Begotten Son of God Himself deigned to call me with His voice from heaven, you do not know this; for how can you know if you have not been with me? And that I was a persecutor, you know very well; for the rumor of my cruelty reached you, despite the great distance between Palestine and Galatia. Such a rumor about me would not have spread so far if my cruelty had not been too great and unbearable for everyone” (St. Chrysostom). “My life is in Judaism sometimes. Life" - not in general how he behaved, but what his attitude towards the Church of Christ was; in “Judaism” - when he adhered to the Jewish law, he was a Jew by faith; “sometimes” – once, presumably quite a long time ago. More than twenty years had already passed since Saint Paul was converted, before he wrote this Epistle. “For they persecuted the Church of God in great numbers and destroyed it. “A lot”, καθ υπερβολην, - beyond measure, more than it should be. In this word one can hear the consciousness of one’s previous wrongness and unreasonable youthful passion. He did not see this excess then; Now, looking back, he sees that he acted out of blind jealousy. I thought that I was defending the cause of God; but it turned out that he was going against God. “They persecuted many times” - this was not just one of the light persecutors, but one whose cruelty there was no measure (Blessed Jerome). "Church of God". “He did not say: the Church of Christ, as he formerly thought when he despised Christ (respecting Him as a man), but, as he now believes, “the Church of God,” showing thereby either that Christ is God, or that the Church is the Church of the same God who once gave the law” (Blessed Jerome). - “And destroy you.” Like a building being destroyed, stone by stone being thrown off; so he sought to ruin the Church, crowding and leading to beating one after another professing the faith of Christ. They destroy the Church of God internally, damaging its dogmas and statutes, as false teachers and heresy leaders do; they destroy it outwardly when they destroy the believers. St. Paul ruined her in this last manner. The Church would not exist when there were no more professing the name of Christ. “Saint Paul did not persecute the Church like others, but excessively; not content even with excessive persecution, but like some robber, he raided it and devastated it” (Blessed Jerome). “Do you see with what power he expresses every word and is not ashamed? For he not only persecuted, but persecuted with all cruelty, and not only persecuted, but also destroyed, that is, he tried to destroy, ruin, overthrow and destroy the Church of God. For this is what the destroyer does” (Saint Chrysostom). “And they succeeded in Judaism more than many of my peers.” Saint Paul begins to explain the spirit in which he persecuted the Church. You can be driven by a predatory, man-destroying nature; it was possible to persecute in order to please the high priests and other Jewish authorities, in the hope of later taking a prominent place among them. St. Paul had nothing of the kind. I, he says, persecuted the Church out of love for the fatherly faith, without any external calculations. He was sure that this was the will of God, so that he would always adhere to Judaism, and, zealous for it, he breathed zeal for God, although he was mistaken. And for the Galatians it was important to know not so much that he persecuted the Church, but that he had his heart set on the law. Having said that he was so devoted to the law, Saint Paul left them with the thought: such a lover of the law abandoned him - this cannot be for nothing. “Succeeding in Judaism.” – This is not what it used to be: “living in Judaism.” There only external belonging to Judaism is indicated, but here the internal attitude towards it is indicated. “Jewishness” is the faith, morals and customs of all the families that distinguished the Jews. “Progress” in him, of course, consisted in studying all this, in following and devotion to it, in shaping himself according to Jewish principles, so that it was obvious to everyone that he was a real Jew both in soul and body. Seeing him like this, others undoubtedly treated him with honor, having great hopes for him. In this regard, he will succeed: he has gone uphill, he has already become one of the leaders in whom the authorities themselves trusted a lot. “More than many others my age.” I was not one of the rank and file among our younger generation; exceeded many, or all; It’s like this: there were many of my peers, but I surpassed them all both in my knowledge of Judaism and in my zeal for it. Perhaps St. Paul wanted to express something more than this. At all times, the younger generation is zealous about what is native, about what is considered the difference of the fatherland and colors it. Saint Paul puts himself among them and assures that he was more zealous for Judaism than all the zealots; He compares himself not with the indifferent and sluggish, but with the living and active, and says that he surpassed all such people. This was precisely what was important for him to put before the Galatians, so that his alienation from Judaism would appear most striking and his change would more decisively indicate the participation of supernatural power in it. “In my generation” - not a Pharisee sect, of course, but the Jewish nation - among the Jews in general. “I am excessively zealous of my fatherly traditions. Excess” is not what it used to be “in abundance.” There it means excessiveness, but here it only means superiority over others. In Greek there: καθ υπερβολεν; a here: περισσοτερως. Not only did he not succeed more than anyone else in Judaism, but he also surpassed everyone else in his zeal for it. He succeeded only more than his peers; about jealousy, he makes a hint that he was more jealous than anyone not only of his peers, but also of those older than him. From the Acts of the Apostles it is clearly clear that he was the mover and instigator of persecution. “Patristic traditions” embrace Saint Paul’s entire set of views, rules of life, morals and customs that at that time constituted Judaism, all of Judaism, as it had formed before his time and was transmitted from elders to younger ones. But at the same time, it is clear that in this formation the leader and determinant was not so much Scripture as old tradition: therefore, of course, Judaism is distorted, in which the main concept of Judaism is distorted - namely, that Judaism is an eternal and unchanging religion, obligatory for everyone - and a lot of extremely embarrassing, but useless things were introduced into life, which, however, was considered a condition for pleasing God and salvation. Blessed Jerome writes: “St. Paul acted wisely, introducing into his narrative an indication that he worked not so much for the law of God as for the traditions of his fathers, according to which they taught the doctrines and commandments of men (Matthew 15; Mark 7) and rejected the law of God in order to defend their traditions. In the same sense, he said above that he succeeded not in the law, but in Judaism.” Blessed Augustine has the same idea: “if Paul, a zealot of his fatherly traditions, persecuted the Church of God, then it is obvious that his fatherly traditions are contrary to the Church of God. But the law cannot be such. It was not his fault that a persecution against the Church arose among the Jews. The carnal Jews are guilty of this, for they understood carnally what they accepted as spiritual and, moreover, added much of their own to it, ruining, as the Lord says, the commandment of God because of their traditions (Matthew 15:3).” The Holy Fathers, seeing what impression this simple legend must have made in the souls of the Galatians, make various suggestions in this regard, in accordance with the purpose that Saint Paul had in remembering his former life and his conversion. He persecuted the faith, and now he spreads it; He was wholeheartedly devoted to Judaism with great hopes for himself, but now he has turned away from it, being subjected to all kinds of deprivations. This kind of turn in life is unthinkable without admonition from above. Jerome writes: “It is amazing that not just one of the easy persecutors, but one who surpassed others in persecution, turned to faith.” The ecumenius continues: “since the Galatians did not know about the revelation that had come to him from Christ, the Apostle wants, by indicating that he had previously been a persecutor and then suddenly changed, to inspire them that if there had not been some Divine revelation to him, he would not have changed so quickly; so that they, having become convinced through this that he is Christ’s disciple, will no longer despise him.” Saint Damascus, having deduced the same thought from the sudden change of Saint Paul, adds: “and something else is suggested in secret, namely, that one should no longer adhere to the works of the law: for if he who showed such zeal for the law left him and switched to the path of salvation by faith; it is clear that he left him out of the conviction that he could not lead to perfection. If such a zealot for the law leaves him; especially those who have directly resorted to faith should not follow this weak law.” Ambrosiast holds the same thought: “I, he says, was most jealous of the law; but when, by revelation, he learned that he had already lost his strength, he completely surrendered to faith and grace. From this it followed: if this Israeli, a disciple of the famous Gamaliel, who was in relations with all the best among the Jews, left the law; Shouldn’t those who were outlaws also subject themselves to the law? If this one rejoices that he has come out from under the yoke of work, why should they bind their freedom with the bonds of the law?” Ecumenius again, understanding Paul’s success in Judaism in everyday terms, that is, that he became more and more honorable in the eyes of the Jews, says on behalf of Saint Paul: “What is the reason that I suddenly raised a war against those who revered and loved me? Nothing else but the appearance of Christ.” Saint Chrysostom directs everything primarily to show in Saint Paul a detached, alien to all earthly calculations, zeal for God and love for the truth. Here are his thoughts on verse 14: “so that you would not think that he acted this way (that is, persecuted the Church) in anger and malice, he adds that he did all this “out of jealousy,” although in ignorance, and did not persecute out of vanity and not out of enmity, “but he was zealous for his fatherly traditions.” These words mean the following: if what I did against the Church was not done for man, but out of Divine zeal, although erroneous, however, out of zeal: then how now, having striven for the Church and having learned the truth, can I do all this out of vanity? For if during my delusion such a passion did not possess me, but zeal for God prompted me to act in the way I did at that time: especially since I came to know the truth, it is unfair to suspect vanity in me. For as soon as I turned to the dogmas of the Church of Christ and renounced all Jewish errors, I showed even greater zeal here than there; and this proves that I have truly changed and am embraced by Divine jealousy. If not this, tell me, what else disposed me to such a change that I exchanged honor for reproach, peace for danger, safety for suffering? Nothing else but love for the truth.” Gal.1:15 – 16. When God was pleased, having chosen me from my mother’s womb and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach His gospel to the nations, except for those who were not joined to flesh and blood. What he only hinted at in previous words, that is, that his change was brought about in him by the power of God, he now remembers this as a completed event, namely that God actually revealed His Son in him and thus brought about such a revolution in him that after this he left everything human and earthly and devoted himself entirely to the service of the Gospel truth. He strengthens the significance of this event by indicating that it was foreseen and predetermined and in time happened the way it happened because God was so pleased; so that everything in him is from God, and he is truly an Apostle of the Languages, appointed by God Himself, who must be heeded and obeyed as the messenger of God. Although he expresses all this as if in passing, hastening to quickly express the thought that is contained in the words: “About flesh and blood were not attached, not a breath... to the Apostle"; nevertheless, the truths that are inspired by his words are significant not only for the Galatians, but for all of us, for with the bright light of God’s providence they illuminate the events and life of each of us, pointing out in eternity the source of what happens in time. "Whenever God Wills." When he favored - and before that, didn’t he favor? If he chose matter from the womb, then he favored it from the time he chose it. But that gracious election is eternal; in time, God carries out His eternal plans by deed when the time comes. With God there is a time for every thing. There was a time for the coming of the Lord to earth through the incarnation (Gal. 4:4); there will be a time for His second coming; There is a time for every phenomenon in social life and in the life of every person. This was also the opportune moment for the conversion of St. Paul. Divine providence did not miss him. Saint Paul, upon conversion and enlightenment by the Spirit, understood this and now confesses it before everyone. “Let us note,” says Saint Chrysostom, “how he recognizes everything that happened to him not as a human act, but attributes it to God, who arranges everything for him according to a special providence.” But Paul’s God and ours are God. Therefore, this is a lesson for us to look at the events of our lives in the light of faith in God’s good providence. But the question is: “if he was chosen from his mother’s womb, then how was he a persecutor?” (Saint Damascus). “If he was chosen from his mother’s womb, and called afterwards, then, of course, for some good reason, during this period of time he was left to himself” (Ecumenius). “See how he tries to show here that the very time during which he remained in error was dependent on some unknown discretion of God. For, if from his mother’s womb he was chosen to be an Apostle and called to this service, and was called afterwards and, being called, obeyed the Caller: it is clear that God, for some unknown reason, has hitherto delayed calling him. What was God’s vision here?” (Saint Chrysostom). “So that its sudden change will serve to confirm the truth of the Gospel to many” (Ecumenius). “Paul himself decides this in another place, saying: “Let all longsuffering show in me first, as an example to those who would believe in Him for eternal life” (1 Tim. 1:16)” (St. Damascus). “Having chosen me from my mother’s womb.” He confesses that before he was born, when only the foundations of his existence were still laid down, he was already chosen. God foresaw Saint Paul's suitability for the Apostleship and chose him for this ministry; as before, seeing the suitability of Jeremiah, he chose him as a Prophet before his birth: “before I created you in the womb, having known you, and before I brought you out of the falsehood, sanctified you, I appointed you a Prophet among the tongues” (Jer. 1:5). There are thinkers who take this and similar passages to confirm their false teaching about the eternal election of God, without considering what this or that person has to be, according to his natural gifts and free will. Others think this way not only about election to some special service, but also about election to salvation in general - so that then these chosen ones, not by the free choice of their will, but by the outpouring of special grace on them, in addition to the direction of their freedom, become what they were elected to - those - Apostles, Prophets, etc., and these - saved. But if it were so, all people would be saved: for God wants everyone to be saved, and since he wants - the same thing that he chose - then everyone would be saved if the will of man, or his free will and election, did not participate in this. But just as it is impossible to save him without the will of a person, although God wants everyone to be saved, not everyone is saved; for not everyone wants to be saved. Their corrupted will resists the will of God, not wanting to submit to the conditions of salvation; they perish, despite the fact that God does not want them to perish. Regarding the election of Saint Paul, Theophylact says that “God chose him not by lot, but by foreknowledge that he was worthy.” Ambrosiastes explains this same idea in more detail: “Paul trusted in the law, not knowing that the time of serving him had already passed, and with all his ardor he strove to resist the Gospel of Christ, thinking that by acting in this way he was acting in accordance with the will of God; God, seeing that he had good zeal, but that he lacked knowledge (truth), was pleased to call him into His grace, knowing that he was fit to preach the Gospel of His Son among the Gentiles: for if in a lesser matter he was so zealous and faithful out of conscience, and not out of pleasing any of the people; will he not be all the more firm in proclaiming the grace of God in Christ Jesus, in the hope of the promised reward? So, according to the foreknowledge of God, he was chosen from his mother’s womb, that is, before he was born and as soon as he was born. God knew that he would be good, as He said to Jeremiah the Prophet: “I knew you, before I could bring you out of your lies” (Jer. 1:5), and, knowing what he would be like, he called him.” Blessed Jerome turns his thoughts to election in general, and, having denounced those who think that election and non-election depend on the difference between good and evil natures, as the Manichaeans thought, he says: “according to the foreknowledge of God, it happens that whom He knows will be good, He chooses, and whom He foresees will not be good, He does not choose. And there is no untruth with God in this. We humans judge only by what is, and He, before Whom the future exists as the present, pronounces judgment according to the end He foresees.” “And having called by His grace.” Chosen to grief, called here to the bottom. That heavenly decree is fulfilled in time by calling. God foretold about him before the ages and then called him at the time that pleased Him. Paul burned with love for the truth, but he did not see it in what it is. The Lord appeared to him and showed this truth. A sincere lover of truth, from that moment he turned to it wholeheartedly. The calling that was on the way to Damascus was a calling only to faith and grace, to salvation; the call to the Apostleship followed later, although it was still intended here, as can be seen from the words of the Lord Ananias (Acts 9:15). Vocation is a matter of grace, inclination to a vocation is a matter of freedom. The called one is the one who followed the calling and submitted his freedom to the calling voice. Therefore, in calling, or turning to faith, there is a part of freedom, just as in election there is a part of foreknowledge of the inclination of freedom. But just as free will alone is not strong enough to convert without grace, Saint Paul attributes the whole matter of conversion and calling to grace, just as Saint Peter confesses that the calling of everyone is accomplished by glory and virtue, that is, by the gracious power of God (2 Pet. 1:3). Saint Chrysostom writes here: “God says that He called Paul for his goodness; for “I am the chosen vessel,” said Ananias, “to carry My name before nations and kings” (Acts 9:15); that is, he is capable of this service, of accomplishing this great work; This is God's reason for calling him. The Apostle himself everywhere attributes everything to the grace and unspeakable love of God, so saying: “but he received mercy,” and not because he is capable or worthy of it; “But let all longsuffering show in me first, for the example of those who want to believe in Him for eternal life” (1 Tim. 1:16). Do you see the height of his humility? For this reason, he says, I have been pardoned, so that no one will despair when the worst of all people is honored with God’s love for mankind. For this he wanted to say in words: “Let long-suffering show itself in me.” As if he said: “The Lord called me unworthy and unworthy by grace alone” (Ecumenius). "Make known your Son in me." This is the third moment! In those who were chosen before time, and then called in time, God was pleased to reveal His Son. This is the threshold to initiation into the Apostleship; for he says: “reveal... let me preach” Him. The one who preaches the gospel must clearly contemplate all the mysteries of the gospel. This is what St. Paul expresses with the words: “reveal your Son in me.” What he understands is not an external phenomenon: to me, but an internal one: in me. In the sanctuary of his soul the Son of God was revealed to him. With inner illumination, Saint Paul saw that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation. There was a moment when the whole essence of the Gospel and the whole image of salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ was imagined in his mind. One external phenomenon without this internal illumination would not produce an effect. “Why,” asks Saint Chrysostom, “didn’t he say: “reveal your Son to me,” but: “in me?” And he answers: “in order to show that he not only learned everything he needed about faith through the word, but also through the fact that he was filled with the Holy Spirit when revelation illuminated his soul, and that he had Christ in him speaking.” Ecumenius says this: “in me,” he says, wanting to show that he knew Him not only with words, but with his mind and heart, that the knowledge of Him came into life in his inner man,” or, as Theophylact, “was imprinted in his inner man.” “Let me preach His gospel.” This completes the formation of St. Paul into an Apostle. Called and illuminated by the inner knowledge of the Gospel, there is a ready Apostle. It is not in vain that grace is poured out so abundantly, but let it go and bear fruit, let it go “to bear the name of the Lord before nations and kings” (Acts 9:15). There was a special act of Divine consecration of St. Paul as an Apostle, although he himself does not speak about this definitely. Ecumenius writes: “Yes, I preach the good news.” You see that the Father who chose Him and revealed His Son in him, Himself ordained him to be a preacher and an Apostle.” He took this idea from Saint Chrysostom, who says: “not only his faith, but also his dedication to the title of Apostle was from God. For with this, He says, He revealed Himself to me, so that I would not only know Him, but also announce Him to others - “to the nations.” “In the heathen” - among the pagans, which hinted that, meaning mainly the pagans, he could not ignore the Jews living among them. Acts shows that he did just that. Almost everywhere he preached first to the Jews, and then, when they turned out to be unfavorable to him and the Gospel, he moved on to the pagans and dealt with them alone. “Abiye does not belong to flesh and blood.” These words, due to the uncertainty of the meaning of the phrase: “flesh and blood,” have given rise to different interpretations. “Flesh and blood” means human nature with everything that is bad and good in it, otherwise, everything human. Taking this meaning, we get the following thought: as soon as I was called and illuminated by the knowledge of the Son of God, I immediately left everything human, human thoughts, hopes, fears, orders, changed completely, completely entered into the spirit of new life in Christ Jesus and dedicated myself entirely to serving Him. If we take the previous speech of the Apostle, a little higher, it will turn out: I persecuted Christianity, and then suddenly became devoted to it with all my soul, sacrificing to it everything that I could have in life, according to human calculations. It seems like this is what Ecumenius says: “he did not immediately indulge in peace and complacency, or, as if he had done something great, in idleness and carelessness, but embarked on the difficult path of preaching the Gospel.” Paying attention to what St. Paul says above about his devotion to Judaism and the traditions of the fathers, which are in the nature of carnal, material service to God, one can come to the conclusion whether this is what he means by “flesh and blood.” And isn’t that what he wants to express in these words: as soon as I knew Christ Jesus the Lord and salvation in Him, I immediately left the carnal ministry of the Jews in all its composition, left it completely, and never returned to it? If we take “flesh and blood” to mean a person, then, judging by what kind of person we mean, we will get a meaning corresponding to that. Ecumenium, in addition to what was said above, also means: flesh and blood - home, relatives, fatherland. “I did not prefer, he says, to see my relatives, or my home, or my friends, or my fatherland, but I left everything (for in this I do not lag behind Peter and John), and immediately rushed to preach.” Others by “flesh and blood” mean man in general, thus: having received the revelation of the Gospel from above, I no longer turned to any person for help in the matter of knowing it, considering it both unnecessary and indecent. So many different opinions! Our holy interpreters, understanding these words in the meaning of a person, see in them, however, a definite indication of the Apostles, thus: having been taught by God himself, I no longer turned for teaching to the Apostles as to people. In this case, the words: “Abiy was not attached to flesh and blood” must be read inseparably with the following: “I did not sigh in Jerusalem to the first Apostles” - and see in them the same thought, considering the latter an explanation of the former. Saint Chrysostom writes: “here, that is, in the words: “not attached to flesh and blood,” he points to the Apostles, calling them by nature.” And a little lower: “for it would be extremely unfair and incongruous if the one who learned from God Himself began to consult with men. He who is taught by people very rightly and then again resorts to the advice of people; but he who has been worthy of this Divine and longed-for voice and who has learned everything from Him who owns the very treasure of wisdom, why will he consult with people? Such a person should not learn from people, but teach people.” Theodoret does the same: “having been worthy of this calling, I did not immediately go to Jerusalem, but was content with the grace given to me by God; for it would be extremely indecent for someone who has received a teaching from God to enter into discussions about it with people.” Saint Damascus: “How would he address people, having been worthy to be taught from above?” Theophylact has the same idea. Such a unanimous judgment of all our interpreters obliges us to dwell on it. This should be done all the more willingly because, having fought off it, one inevitably wanders among many assumptions, not knowing which one to stop at. 2) Saint Paul could not learn the Gospel from others (Gal. 1: 17–24) When he received a revelation from above, it naturally followed that he did not learn it from others, or that he should not have learned it from others. But Saint Paul speaks about this with this and in such a way that everything comes out to the same conclusion - that is, that his teaching is from God. He says here: the circumstances of my life show that I did not learn the Gospel either: a) from the holy Apostles (Gal. 1, 17 - 20); nor: b) other Christians (Gal.1:21-24). But from a simple story about this, he came out of the first one: I, having not yet seen the Apostles, began to preach the Gospel in Arabia and Damascus; but when he later arrived in Jerusalem, he was in communication with Peter and James. This means that my teaching agrees with them. Why? Because it comes from the same source. If their gospel is from God, then so is mine. From the second: believers of other Churches did not see me, but when they learned that I preached the faith, they glorified God. How would they praise God if my teaching were not the same as their faith? a) Neither from the Apostles (Gal.1, 17-20) That Saint Paul did not turn to the other Apostles for teaching, he already said with the words: he did not join flesh to blood. But those words can also be understood as an expression of the completeness of his conversion with complete detachment from everything human. Why then he speaks more decisively. Gal.1:17. I did not sigh for Jerusalem to my chief apostles: but I went to Arabia, and again returned to Damascus. “I did not go to Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles regarding preaching, being content with Divine revelation” (Ecumenius). He didn’t go immediately when he was converted, but walked afterwards. “The first Apostles” here are understood in terms of time - who were called to the Apostleship before him and began to apostle. Saint Paul leads this entire speech to reveal through the history of his life that he did not borrow anything from the elder Apostles, that he was called to follow Christ, and was taught the faith, and was sent to preach directly by the Lord Himself. Why does he put himself in line with them, saying: “to the first ones, I am an Apostle.” From which it came out that “and he is the same Apostle as they are,” the only difference being that they forestalled him in time. If he is the same Apostle as they are, then one must listen to him, just like them, and not in any way alter the Gospel preached by him. So Ambrosiast: “The Apostle wants to say that after he was chosen by God, there was no need for him to go to the senior Apostles in order, that is, to learn anything from them; because God revealed to him through His Son how and what should be taught. And this is said in order to show that it should contain nothing else than what he teaches - and not to believe people, but to God, from Whom he was taught. From which it follows that those who lead them to the law are false teachers: for what they taught was not handed down from God.” Saint Chrysostom focuses on the moral side of this act, but comes to the same conclusion. “If anyone considers these words separately, they may think that they are filled with great pride and are far from agreeing with the spirit of the Apostles; for determining something for oneself and not revealing one’s thoughts to others can be mistaken for pride. For it is said: “When I saw a man who did not know for myself, I was wise, but to have foolish hope than he” (Prov. 26:12) - and: “Woe to those who are wise in themselves and understanding before themselves” (Is. 5:21). And Paul himself says: “Do not be wise about yourself” (Rom. 12:16). But whoever heard these and similar instructions from others and himself taught the same to others, could he really fall into such conceit - not only Paul, but any of the people? Why did he do and say this? Not to humiliate the Apostles and not to praise himself, but, protecting the safety of the Gospel everywhere and wanting to show the importance and dignity of his sermon (that is, that he received it directly from the Lord Himself), he says: “I did not sigh for them.” For if it were necessary to consult, then the One who revealed the word of the sermon to him would have commanded him to do this too. So what? he didn't go there? I went, but not to learn anything, not to get anything.” “But I went to Arabia.” Arabia is a country adjacent to the Damascus region, which had its own civil structure. At that time, the local prince Arefa owned Damascus (2 Cor. 11:32) Since this possession was accidental and fragile, Saint Paul hastened to take advantage of this circumstance and quickly offer the Gospel to the local residents, while this temporary autocracy made entry there free “Look, what a fiery soul! - says Saint Chrysostom - He tried to occupy countries that had not yet been cultivated and remained in a wild state. If he had delayed from the Apostles, having nothing to learn from them, then the work of preaching would have stopped. And they had to teach the word everywhere. Therefore, this blessed one, fiery in spirit, immediately went to teach people who were not yet taught and wild, choosing a difficult and dangerous life.” This is what all our interpreters understand, that Saint Paul went to Arabia preaching the Gospel. Some of the new heterodox commentators speculate that Saint Paul did not go to Arabia to preach to people, but to the deserts there, in order to think in solitude about the system of Christian doctrine according to the principles that he received from the Lord and could hear from believers in Damascus. The guess is completely arbitrary, favorable only to that superstition that admits that the teaching that Saint Paul taught is his personal view of Christianity, which he reached through independent development and personal deepening into the work of salvation. When he himself says about himself that neither others taught him the Gospel, nor did he reach it himself, but directly received it from the Lord Himself, then why make such assumptions? Besides, what a convenient place for the development of any teaching - deserts? it can promote detachment from everything, but it does not provide teaching. For this you need communication with others, interviews, books. St. Paul does not say why he went to Arabia. But this very silence should lead us to precisely the thought that he went to preach. For he did not talk about why he returned to Damascus and what he did there. In the Acts, Saint Luke says that he preached Jesus in Damascus, as this is the Son of God (see Acts 9:20). Since he does not in any way shade his legend about Arabia from the legend about Damascus, it is more natural to come to the idea that he preached there, as in Damascus, than to allow those dreamy assumptions. Saint Chrysostom says: “Having said: “I went to Arabia,” he added: “And again we returned to Damascus.” He doesn’t say a word about his exploits, or who he taught and how many. Likewise, in Damascus he showed such jealousy that he aroused hatred towards himself, and yet he says nothing about these exploits of his. But as here he does not say anything about this (although it happened); so there too, saying that he came (to Arabia) and left, he does not mention anything about what was there (although it was).” How can this legend be reconciled with the book of Acts, which does not speak of St. Paul’s journey to Arabia? This is easily agreed upon if we place the walk into Arabia between the 19th and 20th verses of the 9th chapter of Acts. After baptism, having spent “certain days” with the believers and, perhaps, preaching a few times, he departed for Arabia; Upon his return from there, he preached more intensely in Damascus, until the completion of his third birthday, until the hostility of the unbelievers forced him to leave. So Blessed Jerome: “immediately after baptism, having spent the “days of a certain day” in Damascus and, to the amazement of everyone, having preached in the synagogues several times that Jesus is the Christ, he went to Arabia. Returning from Arabia to Damascus, he stayed here for up to three years, which in Scripture are indicated by the words: “many days” (Acts 9:23). After this, having learned about the plot against him, he withdrew from Damascus.” Saint Luke does not remember this circumstance in Acts, perhaps because Saint Paul did not tell him about it, and he did not hear from others and did not see the Epistle to the Galatians, written before the book of Acts. Gal.1:18. Then he flew three by three to Jerusalem to spy for Peter, and stayed with him for fifteen days. “Three letech” – since when? Since the return from Arabia to Damascus or since the time of conversion? Since the time of treatment. Here the new life of the Apostle began; To this moment, of course, Saint Paul attributed everything. And the flow of speech leads to the same conclusion: immediately after my conversion, he says, I did not go to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:17); but he went there only three years later (Gal. 1:18), apparently starting from the same appeal. This together makes it clear: so much time has passed, and I did not bother, did not consider it extremely necessary to go to where the source of Christian truth is for everyone, and yet I preached this truth. Where did I get it from? From there, from where and there - in Jerusalem. That’s why he says that he went there not to learn, but to “keep an eye on Peter”—to see his face, to get to know him personally. Greek: ιςορησαι – used about observations of travelers. Consequently, he went then to actually find out who Peter was, about whom it was known everywhere that he was the first Apostle. - “Not in order to learn from him, because he himself had the same teacher of the Gospel, but in order to give honor to the first Apostle” (Blessed Jerome). “Who else could be more humble than such a man,” writes Saint Chrysostom, “who, after so great and so many deeds, having no need for Peter, nor his voice, but being equal to him (I won’t say anything more now), however, comes to him, as if to a greater and older one, and considers the reason for the journey only to see Peter? Do you see how he gives due honor to the other Apostles and not only does not consider himself the best of all, but does not even consider himself equal to them? The journey he took also shows this. For just as now many of our brethren go to holy men, so Paul, out of the same disposition, then went to Peter, or with even greater humility. For now they travel for profit; and this blessed one traveled not to learn anything, and not to correct any of his mistakes, but only to see Peter and honor him with his presence. “To spy” (ιςορησαι), he said, Petra; did not say: to see (ιδειν) Peter, but: “to spy Peter,” as people usually say when viewing great and noble cities. So he considered that one thing worthy of special care was to see this husband.” “And he remained with him fifty days.” Saint Chrysostom writes in these words: “the journey undertaken for Peter proves Paul’s great respect for him; and his stay with him for so many days shows their friendly disposition and sincere love for each other. Do you see how great a favor he has for Peter? He undertook a journey for him and stayed with him. I remember this so often, wanting you to keep this in mind, so that when you subsequently hear the words spoken apparently against Peter, you will not suspect the Apostle of anything. As a warning against this, he himself speaks of visiting Peter, so that when he says: “I resisted him at his face” (Gal. 2:11), no one would think that these words were the fruit of enmity and selfish strife. For he reveres this man and loves him more than anyone else, and he came to Jerusalem not for any other of the Apostles, but only for him.” The thought of Ambrosiastes is similar to this: “he remained with him for fifteen days, as a fellow apostle with one accord with him. He declares this in order to show that he agrees with the Apostles in everything and does not disagree with them in anything, as the false apostles whispered to him, in order to dishonor him in the pagan churches and the more convenient it is to sow his evil in simple souls, since their teaching agrees with the teaching of the elder Apostles (and Paul does not agree).” Here Saint Paul says about himself that he went to Jerusalem of his own accord to see Peter; and in Acts it is related that he was forced to leave Damascus by the slander of those who were irritated against him for preaching about Christ the Savior of the Jews and even the pagans (2 Cor. 11:32), who conspired to kill him (Acts 9:23-25); and that, having come to Jerusalem, he tried to get closer to the believers, and they shunned him, not knowing that he had turned to Christ, and after Barnabas brought him to the Apostles and told them how the Lord had appeared to him on the way and how in Damascus he had bolded in the name of Jesus, he could freely enter into communication with everyone and with the Apostles, he went from house to house, bold in the name of the Lord Jesus ( Acts 9, 27 – 29). This story of St. Luke in Acts contains the external history of St. Paul, and St. Paul himself indicates what his goals were under certain circumstances. His desire to see Saint Peter could have been revived before the Damascenes' uprising against him, and this latter only gave reason for its fulfillment or accelerated it. He was forced to leave Damascus, and went to Jerusalem because he wanted to see Saint Peter. Further, having come to Jerusalem, he did not immediately approach Peter himself, but was led to him by Barnabas, and from that time he stayed with him for fifteen days, and together with him and the other Apostles he preached the Gospel throughout Jerusalem. Saint Paul does not mention all this in his Epistle because he generally gives a brief outline of his life; for his purpose, he considered it sufficient to remember only his stay with St. Peter, which meant their friendly disposition and sincere love for each other, according to St. Chrysostom. Gal.1:19. The Apostle did not see anyone else except James, the brother of the Lord. How does it say in Acts that he was brought by Barnabas to the Apostles and walked and preached with them? In Acts, the word “Apostles” does not mean those of the twelve, but in general teaching persons who were sent by the senior Apostles to teach in Jerusalem and the surrounding area. These could have been, besides Barnabas, Silas, Judas, or Barsabas, who were later sent to Antioch with the Apostolic Letter and called Prophets (Acts 15:32), and others like them. In the Epistle, Saint Paul says that he saw none of the real Apostles except Peter and James, the brother of the Lord. But again, the so-called brothers of the Lord were not among the twelve, as is clear from the Gospel stories (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31; Mark 6:3, etc.). For the first time they are indicated in the host of believers after the Ascension of the Lord (Acts 1:13-14), and then among the preachers of the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:5). How does Saint Paul here give a hint that James, the brother of the Lord, was an Apostle, for he says: “I have not seen another of the Apostles except James the brother of the Lord”? But these words can be stated this way: I have not seen any other of the Apostles besides Peter, but I have seen another of the famous ones, namely James, the brother of the Lord. Or so it should be understood that Jacob, for the sake of his holiness and dignity as the primate of the Jerusalem Church, was revered along with the other Apostles and bore the name of Apostle. Why is it named so by Saint Paul? Blessed Jerome writes about Saint James: “he was the first primate of that Church, which was the first to be gathered in Jerusalem from believers - he was, that is, the first bishop of Jerusalem; he bore the name of the righteous and was so holy and revered by the people that some, before others, hastened to touch the hem of his robe. That Saint Paul, besides these, did not see any of the Apostles, is not because he did not want to see them, but because they diverged from the preaching of the Gospel.” Saint Chrysostom draws attention to the other side: “Notice,” he says, “with what reverence he named this too; for he did not simply say: “Jacob,” but added his honorary name. So he was far from any envy! For if he only wanted to indicate who he was talking about, he could have done this by using another sign; for example, he could say: the son of Cleopas, as the Evangelist said. But he didn't say that; but since he considered the honorary names of the Apostles to be his own names, then, as if honoring himself, he also dignifies him. For he did not call him as I said, but how? Brother of the Lord, although, however, he was not the brother of the Lord in the flesh, but he was revered as such. However, this did not stop the Apostle from recognizing the dignity of this man. He shows in many other places that he was disposed toward all the Apostles as sincerely as was fitting for him.” Non-Orthodox people talk a lot about how Jacob is the brother of the Lord, and at the same time they are not ashamed to utter blasphemous speeches about the Ever-Virgin Mary, the most blessed Mother of the Lord, thereby subjecting themselves to the anathematism pronounced on them by the Third Ecumenical Council. All of antiquity considered this brotherhood either a brotherhood of cousins, or a brotherhood of Joseph's betrothed, and only legitimate. Ambrosiastes says that “Jacob is the son of Joseph by his former wife”; Augustine that he is “the brother of the Lord either because he was one of the sons of Joseph by another wife, or because he was one of the children of Mary, the sister of His Mother.” Saint Chrysostom, as seen above, adheres to the latter explanation, as well as Theophylact and Theodoret, who writes: “James was called the brother of the Lord, but was not His own brother. He was not even the son of Joseph, born from his first marriage, as others assumed, but the son of Cleopas and the cousin of the Lord; because matter had a sister to the Mother of the Lord.” Accepting this opinion, we must also assume that Cleopas is not the same person as Alpheus, so as not to confuse the so-called brothers of the Lord with the Apostles of the twelve who bear the same name. Gal.1:20. And even as I write to you, behold, before God, I do not lie. What do you mean by “even as I write”? Everything that Saint Paul has said about himself so far, especially what he said about his conversion, about the revelation of the Gospel to him and about the fact that he did not learn it from any of the Apostles, and yet he agrees with them in everything, being in agreement with the Apostle Peter. From all this it turned out that he was a true Apostle of God. When he announced the Gospel to the Galatians, he did not tell them about it; for he appeared before them as God's messenger, and was fully received into his mission from above by faith (Gal. 4:14-15). Why was there no need to talk then about such events, from which it is clear that he was sent from above. Now, when the false teachers instilled doubts in the Galatians, he makes clear to them through his history that there is no reason to doubt his Apostleship. And what has already been said was enough to confirm this truth; but, in order to erase every trace of doubt and protect them from hesitation in the future, he affirms his word with an oath: “Behold, before God, I lie not.” This is the same as in other places: “God is my witness” (Rom. 1:9); “I call God as a witness against my soul” (2 Cor. 1, 23); “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knows that I do not lie” (2 Cor. 11:31). It is clear that Saint Paul often had to fight the distrust of him even among those who had already believed. Saint Chrysostom marvels on this occasion at the humility of Saint Paul: “Do you see the humility of this soul, shining everywhere equally? For he, as if standing at the judgment seat and preparing to be tortured, was so concerned about protecting himself.” Blessed Jerome first sets out the thought of the text: “What I write to you is true; God is my witness that I do not cover up any lies with words.” And then he makes a general point: “This can be applied not only to what he now writes to the Galatians, but in general to all of his Epistles; everything written by him is not false; his heart and words do not disagree.” b) Not from others (Gal.1:21–24) Having explained that he had not seen the Apostles, and yet found himself in no disagreement with them in the teaching that he had been preaching for three years, from which it turned out that his teaching was from the same source as the teaching of those, Saint Paul now briefly explains that he did not have relations with other believers, that, therefore, from them he could not hear anything about the faith, while they, hearing about his exploits in spreading faith, glorified God; from which it also came out that his teaching was in agreement with the teaching of the Ecumenical Churches planted by the Apostles in Jewish cities and villages, and, therefore, was from the same source. Gal.1:21. Then he came to the countries of Syria and Cilicia. That is, in addition to Judea and Palestine, where the Churches were planted by the Apostles and where, probably, at that very time, the planters of the faith who saw the Lord continued to operate. It became, “he did not meet the Apostles even by chance” (St. Chrysostom). And he had no contact with other believers, among whom there could be strong experts in the faith. Everything suggests that his teaching is not dependent on any of the people, and yet in accordance with the Apostolic, which is from the Lord. It goes without saying what followed from here. In the Acts it is written that Saint Paul, living in Jerusalem, was bold in the name of the Lord Jesus and fought with the Greeks, that is, with the Jews who lived among the pagans and who happened to be now in Jerusalem, who were irritated against him and sought to kill him. This forced him to leave Jerusalem, and the believers, for safety, escorted him to Caesarea, from where he went to Tarsus, his birthplace (Acts 9:29-30). The path lay through Syria. Saint Paul may have just crossed Syria at this time, but he probably preached in Cilicia. It was difficult for him to resist proclaiming the gospel at the place of his birth, which filled his heart with inexhaustible joy about salvation. That he actually preached here and even founded Churches can be concluded from the fact that, later, on his second journey, Syria and Cilicia, he established the Churches (Acts 15:41). How would he have established them if he had not planted them first? Why does Saint Chrysostom write: “after meeting with Peter, he again begins the word of the sermon and the feat ahead, without touching the Jews, both because he was sent to the pagans, and because he did not want to build on someone else’s foundation.” The same goes for Jerome: “he went to Cilicia, wanting to attract her to faith in Christ, preaching to her the call to repentance.” Gal.1–23. We do not know the face of the churches of the Jews, even about Christ: just hearing the sound, as if sometimes persecuting us, now preaches the gospel of faith, even sometimes destroying it. Jewish churches are those that, besides Jerusalem, were planted in Judea. “Those who believed in Christ were not in Jerusalem alone, there were many of them throughout Judea, so that entire Churches were formed from them” (Blessed Augustine). It must be assumed that the holy Apostles, before they dispersed to different countries, called the Jews living in Palestine to faith, and, having planted churches here and established them, they turned to other nations. These Churches did not know Saint Paul by sight, but only heard about his conversion and exploits in preaching the Gospel. The rumor also reached them from Christians, who said: our persecutor is now preaching the gospel of our faith; which they themselves repeated later. This filled them with joy and excited them to praise God! What should the Galatians conclude from these words? First of all, they had to think: how did our new teachers say about St. Paul that he allowed circumcision among the Jews, when he had not even seen the Christians there? So Saint Chrysostom: “What did he want to say with the words: “We do not know beh the churches of the Jews”? The fact that he was so far from preaching circumcision to them that he was not even familiar to them by sight.” The same is true of Ecumenius: “not only, he says, did I not teach those who believed from circumcision that they should be circumcised (for they slandered him that he permitted circumcision for the believing Jews), not only, he says, did I not teach so, but they did not even see my face.” And it was suggested by this that Saint Paul, who could not learn faith from the elder Apostles, did not hear anything about it from other believers. So Photius from Ecumenius: “I did not study with Peter, but only saw him; I did not study with Jacob and only saw him; I did not study with anyone else inferior to them, not so noble. Was it possible for me to learn from those who had not even seen my face? But if they rejoiced that the one who persecuted the faith began to preach it, did this not mean that the faith preached by him was the same as the faith of those who rejoiced at this gospel? Gal.1:24. And I praise God for me. They saw in his conversion the finger of God, an obvious confirmation of the truth of the Gospel, a sign of God’s blessing to faith, and they became more confirmed in the faith, and, rejoicing in this, they glorified God, who accomplished this. “Having learned of the sudden change that the wolf was doing what is characteristic of shepherds, they turned what happened to me into an occasion for glorifying God” (Blessed Theodoret). “He did not say: they marveled at me, they praised me, they were amazed at me, but he showed that all this was a work of grace: “and glorify”, he says, “about me God” (St. Chrysostom). “I glorify God for me, not such and such a teacher, but God Himself. For He Himself revealed and taught me the sermons” (Ecumenius). Saint Paul speaks about this, making it clear that the Jewish believers are not against him, they have the same spirit, the same principles, and that, consequently, those false teachers, disagreeing with him, disagree with all believers. “The believers, he says, of the Jews, whom he had previously persecuted, rejoiced and thanked God that He had made him from a persecutor a defender of the faith, making it clear to the Galatians that they were deceived and that under the name of Christians they would be the same as the Jews if they began to circumcise their flesh; for the law of Christ requires something different than Judaism: there circumcision of the flesh, here of the heart; there they serve God with the elements, here with the spirit” (Ambrosiastes). 3) About the agreement of the teaching of St. Paul with the teaching of the other Apostles, WHICH was SOLEMNLY APPROVED at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (Gal. 2: 1-10). Until now, Saint Paul had proven that he received the Gospel not from any other person, but directly from God Himself and that, consequently, he is a real Apostle. Now he wants to show that the other Apostles recognized him as such and his teaching is immutably true. He was led to demonstrate this by the course of speech and inevitably had to do so. Ahead is the idea that Saint Paul knew and understood the Gospel he preached independently of the Apostles or any of the people. They could object to him: so you have a special teaching, not the same as those of those Apostles who saw and heard the Lord. By teaching differently from them, you are preaching your own teaching, not the Lord’s; you invented it yourself. Saint Paul now speaks against this: I went to Jerusalem to the elder Apostles, and they approved of my teaching as being in agreement with theirs. If, therefore, their teaching is God’s, then mine is the same. In telling this circumstance, Saint Paul indicates: a) the motivation and purpose of his journey to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1-2); b) the way he was received by the Christians there (Gal. 2: 3 – 5); c) and how the senior Apostles treated him is the main subject of this section (Gal. 2:6-10). a) The motive and purpose of going to Jerusalem (Gal. 2: 1-2) Saint Paul was prompted to go to Jerusalem by a call from above; What he had in mind was to offer this to the senior Apostles, as he teaches, so as not to be mother-in-law in vain. Гал.2:1–2 . Then, after fourteen years, I sighed again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and I took Titus with me. I sighed at the revelation, and offered them the gospel, which I preach in public, but in private to imaginary ones, so that I do not flow in vain, or flow. After his first stay in Jerusalem, three years after his conversion, Saint Paul retired to Cilicia. From there, Saint Barnabas summoned him to Antioch so that the two of them could more successfully build the Church there. In 44 there was a famine under Claudius Caesar. The Prophet Agabus, who came from Jerusalem to Antioch, disposed the Antiochians to send aid to the brethren living in Jerusalem. They collected “everyone who had as much as they had,” and sent alms to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul (Acts 11:28-30). Saint Paul does not remember this second trip to Jerusalem; missed it for the sake of the fact that it does not represent anything great for the purposes of his Message. After this stay in Jerusalem, Saint Paul and Barnabas, by inspiration from above, went to preach in Cyprus and the countries of Pamphylia and Lycaonia in Asia Minor. When they returned again to Antioch and stayed here for “not a little time with the disciples” (Acts 14:28), “the Nets came from Judea” and began to teach the Antiochians that if they were not circumcised according to the custom of Moses, they could not be saved. Saint Paul and Barnabas defended the freedom of the Gospel, but did not manage to pacify society. It was decided to send Paul and Barnabas and some others “to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this question” (Acts 15: 1–2). Saint Paul now remembers this walk, his third, in his Epistle to the Galatians. Blessed Theodoret writes: “Paul and Barnabas spent a lot of time in Antioch and captured very many of the pagans, commanding them to live according to the law of grace. But some of the defenders of the law, coming from Judea, tried to persuade the Gentile believers to love living according to the law. The great preachers of truth, Barnabas and Paul, rejected the teaching they proposed. Wanting to assure the assembly of believers that this was what was desired by the great Apostles, they went to Judea, notified the Apostles of what they had done and brought messages that clearly commanded not to impose a legal yoke on the pagans, “but to rob themselves of those sacrificed to idols and fornication and those strangled and bloodshed” (Acts 15:29). This, I think, is what the Divine Apostle is telling.” Others think that this refers to the second journey of St. Paul to Jerusalem with alms; others believe that this refers to some kind of movement after the Council. The latter opinion cannot be accepted, because after the Council, soon Saints Paul and Barnabas took different paths to preach and did not meet again. It is impossible to accept the first one, because there is not enough time. The famine occurred in the year 44, therefore, according to the conversion of St. Paul, in the eighth or ninth year; and he walked “fourteen years.” And therefore it is still impossible to accept this opinion that at that time there was a persecution of Christians in Jerusalem from Herod: the Apostle James Zebedee was killed; Saint Peter was in prison (Acts 12). Consequently, at this time it was inconvenient to reason collectively, and with no one. So both of these assumptions present inconveniences, while, comparing the stories of the Acts about the Apostolic Council with what St. Paul says here, one cannot help but see the perfect agreement of both. The only difference is that Saint Paul speaks more about his goals, according to guidance from above, and about the significance of the Council for its preaching, as required by the goals of the Epistle, than about the very production of the Council and other details of this matter. Why does St. Paul set out this count of years? Then, to impress upon him that he had already been preaching the Gospel for so long, without communicating with the elder Apostles, and yet it turned out to be in agreement with their teaching. How could this be done? Not otherwise than because his teaching came from the same Source from which the teaching of those, that is, from God, who revealed His will to people about salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. “I sigh... with Barnabas, I sing with Titus.” Barnabas of Cyprus, from the Jews, who believed before Saint Paul and at first led him, and then yielded primacy to him; Titus, from pagan Greek parents, was converted or confirmed to the faith finally by Saint Paul and baptized without circumcision and then, according to the gifts given to him, accepted by him as a companion and collaborator. The Acts only says that certain others went to Jerusalem with Saints Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:2), without indicating their names. Among these some was Titus. But there was no need to distinguish it from Others; and here Saint Paul had a special motivation for this: he wanted to show that if he decided to introduce the uncircumcised among those committed to the law, this meant that he did not stop at any obstacles in defending the freedom of the Gospel; on the other hand, he never thought that he would be reproached for this in Jerusalem by those who properly understood the work of the faith of Christ. Blessed Jerome writes: “Saint Paul took with him Barnabas the circumcised and Titus the uncircumcised, from the Gentiles, “so that every word might stand before two and three witnesses” (Deut. 19:15). By this he shows that if he decided to bring uncircumcised Titus with him to those who knew that he was abolishing circumcision, then he did this for the sake of the faith of Christ and the freedom of the Gospel.” “I sighed by revelation,” that is, by inspiration, instruction, command from above. “The reason for the first ascent to Jerusalem is Peter and his meeting with him, and the reason for the second is the revelation of the Spirit” (St. Chrysostom). “He says this in order to reassure those who would begin to wonder why he finally went where he had not gone for so long. By saying: “by revelation,” he made it clear that this was the will of God” (Blessed Augustine). “I added: “by revelation,” so that you would not condemn him in foolishness, seeing that what he did was not a human work, but a work of Divine providence, pre-arranging both the present and the future” (St. Chrysostom). What the Acts says that Saint Paul and Barnabas were sent to the Antiochian Church does not contradict this. This is the external course of events, and this is the innermost, determined by instructions from above. This last one is also appropriate. This revelation was known only to the Apostle Paul and was either before the decision of the Antiochian society, or during it. Saint Luke did not know this incident and did not mention it in the Acts. What was the revelation to St. Paul about this, what marvelous was it when his whole life was controlled by signals from above? By the appearance of the Lord he is converted (Acts 9:3); The Lord appeared to him in the church and ordered him to leave Jerusalem, during his first time there (Acts 22:17-18); another time he was caught up to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:1ff); The Spirit of God forbade him to go to Asia or Bithynia, and a night vision directed him to Macedonia (Acts 16:6-9); in Corinth, the Lord in a night vision inspires him: do not be afraid; I'm with you; there are many people here for Me (Acts 18:9-10); the same thing again in Jerusalem, when they seized him and put him in bonds (Acts 23:11). It can be assumed that not everyone has yet noticed the instructions from above that guide him. In the present case, the importance of the matter seemed to require a special inspiration from above. The time has come to solemnly define and express the relationship of the Old Testament order to Christianity, grace to the law. Seven or eight years before this, it had already been impressively revealed to Saint Peter that uncircumcision does not block the entry of God’s grace into the souls of believers. On this occasion there was a movement in Jerusalem among the adherents of the law. Saint Peter assured them that this is the will of God, that the uncircumcised should be accepted into the Church, for the sake of faith alone, without circumcision. From that time on, this conviction began to spread more and more. But there were many who remained hesitant. Meanwhile, the success of the Gospel among the pagans expanded through the preaching of Saint Paul with Barnabas. The rumor about this kept everyone's attention on the same subject and irritated some, calmed and consoled others. The time has come to solemnly define and declare that the ancient law is not an instrument of grace and not a condition for receiving it, that it descends in a different, new way. During his preaching, Saint Paul already had enough experiences that confirmed the uselessness of the law for the children of grace. The story of this was supposed to incline everyone's voice to this particular side. And here is the command from the Lord to Saint Paul to go to Jerusalem with this question. Saint Damascus writes: “in the beginning, when Saint Paul first accepted the Gospel, he did not go to Jerusalem and did not offer it to the Apostles. He himself had no need for this, having been taught by Christ the Lord Himself. When quite some time had passed and he had been preaching the Gospel among the pagans for a long time, without obliging them to be circumcised, some were tempted when they saw that Peter and those with him did not abolish circumcision, but this one did. Why did the Holy Spirit, wanting to stop this temptation, commanded him to go with the witnesses of his preaching and offer it to the Apostles as he preached the Gospel, so that their agreement with him would be revealed and thus the temptation would cease.” The ecumenius, having expressed the same thought, added: “so that it may be revealed that there is no disagreement in the preaching, but that those (Peter and those with him) condescend to circumcision for a certain economy (allowing it as a measure of prudence).” Ambrosiastes has the same speech: “while the fame of the successes of Saint Paul’s preaching grew, the opinion spread among the Jewish believers who had not yet renounced the law that he taught in disagreement with the other Apostles. By this many were tempted, so that even among the pagans there could be troubled thoughts as to whether Saint Paul was introducing among them some other teaching than that taught by the other Apostles who were with the Lord. That is why Paul was inspired from above to go to Jerusalem with witnesses to his preaching - Barnabas and Titus, one from the Jews, the other from the pagans, so that if anyone later began to be tempted, he would be calmed by their testimony (that is, about the agreement with Paul and the other Apostles). He announced to everyone how he taught and with what success, so that they would know that he did not deviate from the rule of the Gospel. He did this for the sake of harmony and peace, at the inspiration of God, in order to ward off suspicion of disagreement with them and so that it would serve the benefit of the pagans, letting them know that his Gospel was in agreement with the Apostles.” «И предложих им» . From Greek: as if he laid it on them, or as if he gave the whole matter to their judgment. Jerome says: “ανεθεμην - expresses when we tell another what we ourselves know, as if we put it in his heart and mind. But it is another thing to communicate something, another thing to learn something. There is equality between those who communicate (thoughts to each other), and between the learner and the learner, the one who learns is the least.” I offered it to "them". To: "them"? If we take the speech higher, it will be: To the Apostles. Upon conversion, I did not immediately go, he says, to the senior Apostles; Three years later he went to see Peter and, besides him, saw only Jacob; then, fourteen years later, he went and offered it to them. With this word, the thought stops at the Apostles. And in the Acts it is said that the Antiochian society sent Saints Paul and Barnabas to the Apostles and Elders (Acts 15:2). If we pay more attention to the following words: “in private to the imaginary”; then it will mean the same thing to them: to all the Christians there, and the Apostles, and the elders, and all the believers, he spoke openly before everyone about his preaching and the grace of God revealed among the pagans. From the Acts it is clear that Saint Paul and Barnabas, both on the way and in Jerusalem, told everyone what God had revealed through them among the pagans (Acts 15:3-4); They later did the same at the Council itself (Acts 15:12). But in vain do heterodoxists hope to prove by this that in the primal Church matters of faith were decided by society. Обществу все было по ведаемо для его научения, утешения и утверждения в вере; The solution to the question belonged to the Apostles and Elders, after discussing it in detail in private. Общество должно было принять это решение как закон для себя. “The gospel, which I preach to the Gentiles,” is precisely about salvation by faith without the works of the law. All the justificatory and purifying rites of the Old Testament were replaced by faith in the grace given through the sacraments of Christ Jesus our Lord. This is what Saint Paul taught and established throughout the Churches, gathered primarily from the pagans. He says: “I preach,” so that to mean the once and forever established image of the Gospel preaching, its unchanging catechism, says, “by revelation and proposed.” This was, of course, for the purposes of Providence; “Alone, imaginary.” Imaginary ones are the same as in verse 6, “those who pretend to be”, and in verse 9, “the pillars of imaginary things” - which, that is, are in high regard among Christians. This is not a derogatory expression, but an honorable one. Greek: δοκουσι, - apparent, shown, standing in full view of everyone, whom everyone looks at as the surest pointers of the true path to salvation. Theodoret says: “he said: “imaginary,” that is, famous.” Saint Chrysostom writes: “When he says: “to the imaginary”, he does not say in order to deprive them of the respect due to them, for he also says about himself: “I imagine that I also have the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 7:40), which simply means a person who moderates his dignity and does not deny in himself what he has. So here, when he says: “imaginary,” he speaks according to the general opinion about them and his own.” Saint Paul expounded his Gospel to them privately. Why alone? Because among the believers, not everyone could bear everything. Prudence demanded otherwise and to remain silent for the time being. And also because in private it was more convenient to discuss the perplexity that had arisen or the unclear aspects of the subject. In every possible way this meant that Saint Paul and the first Apostles were in the closest and most mutually trusting relationships - which was important to indicate for the purposes of his Epistle. Blessed Augustine says: “that Saint Paul especially expounded the Gospel to those who were greatest in the Church, after he had expounded it to everyone, this was not done because there, to everyone, it was said that it was not true, and here, to a few, it was true; but because there he had already kept silent about something else, which infants in faith could not yet bear, to whom, even among the Corinthians, he gave, as he himself says, milk, and not solid food (1 Cor. 3:2). You should never tell a lie; but sometimes it is useful to keep silent about something true.” Blessed Jerome has the same thought. Saint Chrysostom writes: “why “alone”? Whoever wants to correct general dogmas does not express them in private, but before everyone. But that’s not what Paul did. For he did not learn anything or correct what he wanted, but take away the reason for deception from those who wanted to deceive others. For when in Jerusalem everyone was offended, if anyone allowed a deviation from the law and forbade the use of circumcision (that is why Jacob said: “Have you seen, brother, how many of these Jews believed? And these were informed about you, that you taught a deviation from the law” (Acts. 21, 20); when I say: they were tempted, that is why he did not dare to openly present his sermon in front of everyone, but suggested “in private, to the imaginary,” in the presence of Barnabas and Titus, that they should be reliable witnesses before his accusers, because the Apostles did not find his preaching objectionable, on the contrary, they confirmed it.” “Don’t let me flow in vain, or tekokh.” These very words show that Saint Paul enters into communication with the senior Apostles in order to make sure for himself whether he is acting correctly. But in someone who has been taught the Gospel from above, directly from the Lord Himself, such a wavering conviction in the faithfulness of the Gospel cannot be assumed, especially given the circumstance that he came to Jerusalem to present his Gospel by revelation. Therefore, we must assume that the Apostle acted this way not for his own conviction, whether it is in vain, but to convince others of this, one might say, everyone else except himself. Saint Chrysostom very strongly exposes the inappropriateness of such bewilderment in Saint Paul: “What are you saying, Paul? Having not decided to offer at first or after three years, how can you ask after fourteen years whether you are running away in vain? How much better would it have been to do this right away at the very beginning, rather than after so many years? Why did you struggle? Who would be so unreasonable that, after preaching for so many years, he did not know whether he was preaching well?.. So it is impossible to agree that this blessed soul should be in such uncertainty about its actions. Doesn’t he himself say: “This is how I flow, not because I am unknown; This is how I struggle, not like the air that beats” (1 Cor. 9:26)? And if “it’s not unknown,” then how could he say about himself: “let me not flow in vain, or flow”? Somewhat higher (under the 17th verse of the 1st chapter), Saint Chrysostom says about the ascent to Jerusalem itself that it was undertaken by Saint Paul not for himself, but for others: “he did not come there to study, but to convince others. For he himself from the very beginning held the same opinion that the Apostles later affirmed, that is, that one should not be circumcised. since others had hitherto considered him unworthy of trust and wanted more to believe those in Jerusalem, he went there not to learn anything more, but to convince his opponents that those in Jerusalem agreed with him on this. So from the very beginning he saw what needed to be done and had no need for a teacher; so that in what the Apostles confirmed after a long discussion, he was unshakably confirmed from above even before their reasoning. Luke, announcing this, said that Paul had argued for a long time about this subject to the contrary even before his journey to Jerusalem (Acts 15:2).” For whom exactly was this done? Some speak for the opponents of Saint Paul, some for believers in general, some for the Churches founded by Saint Paul, some for the work of preaching him in general. The opponents of St. Paul taught that without keeping the old law there is no salvation and that whoever teaches otherwise labors in vain, does not act according to God’s plan, and does not build on a solid foundation. From this it turned out that Saint Paul, who did not oblige him to circumcision and other Jewish rites, was running away in vain. In confirmation of this, they pointed to the other Apostles, saying that those who act according to the mind of God, the direct disciples of the Lord, do not resist observing the law and therefore do not flow in vain, but this one flows in vain. Saint Paul, having now set forth, before everyone and in private, the gospel that he preaches, and having evoked general consent and the solemn approval of his teaching, declared at the Council, destroyed the foundation on which his opponents asserted themselves, and stopped their mouths. Now it has become clear to everyone that if he agrees with the Apostles in everything, then he also acts according to the mind of God, builds on a solid foundation, like others, and, therefore, does not flow in vain. He says, as it were: so that my enemies have no reason to say that I am flowing in vain, and so that others, listening to their slander against me, as if I preach different things from the Apostles, do not succumb to their suggestions that I am flowing in vain. Blessed Jerome notes that adherents of the law “spread the idea that those who think that they should not follow the old law are in vain.” These were the detractors of St. Paul, about whom St. Chrysostom believes that they “respected Peter and John more and thought that he (St. Paul) did not agree with them, since he preached the Gospel without circumcision, and they tolerated it, and therefore believed that he was acting against the law and struggling in vain. Therefore, he says, I sighed and offered them the gospel, not in order to learn something from them myself, but in order to convince those that I am not flowing in vain.” After this, everyone who would have been tempted by the detractors of St. Paul was protected from the danger of being deceived by them, being convinced that the teaching of St. Paul was universal to all the heralds of the saving truth of the teaching sent from God. The preaching of Saint Paul received through this solid foundation, and there was no longer any danger that he would go in vain, that is, that anyone would hope for success in tearing away from him those who followed his teaching and thereby making his work in vain. Others paraphrase it like this: “let me not flow in vain,” so that my labor does not go in vain or so that nothing is wasted from my labor. The thought is assumed: you convert someone, and these will come and explain that there is definitely a teaching given from above on earth, but it is taught in its present form only by the senior Apostles, and this one does not agree with them - they will interpret this and tear away from the truth those who have already accepted it: my work becomes in vain. So that this does not happen either to those who have already believed, or to those who are about to believe, I now, by the inspiration of God, enlist the general approval of the gospel that I preach, so that the lips of false teachers may be stopped and the only truth of God about Christ Jesus our Lord may triumph b) How was he received by Christians there? (Gal.2, 3–5) Having said why and why he was in Jerusalem and what he did there, Paul now says how he was received by the Christians there. All fraternally accepted us, he says, as we were, having thrown off all bondage by the Jewish injunctions, as they proved by communicating with Titus the uncircumcised (Gal. 2:3). False brethren, zealots of the law, came up to shake us, but did not succeed (Gal. 2:4), so that the freedom of the Gospel was defended by us in the face of everyone (Gal. 2:5) Gal.2:3. But neither Titus, who was Greek with me, needed to be circumcised. Titus, a pagan believer, uncircumcised, was with me everywhere among the Jewish Christians and, despite his uncircumcision, was accepted into fellowship by everyone. The local society did not present any difficulty in communicating with Titus, and they proved their conviction more powerfully than any words that circumcision and uncircumcision do not make any difference between those who believe in the Lord. “Not necessary” - or was not forced at all, that is, there was no mention of it; or was not forced, although he was convinced and forced. The latter could only be expected from false brethren who did not understand the conditions of salvation, which are specially discussed; they did not demand circumcision alone, but observance of the whole law and all regulations. Who did not force - the Apostles only or the Christian society? Since the Apostle says ahead that he expounded his teaching both before everyone and privately to the Apostles; then here too it goes without saying that Titus was not forced by anyone, neither the Apostles, nor the believers, who sensibly judged the relationship of the Law of Moses to Christianity, although, of course, the Apostles were the leaders. Our ancient interpreters say that the Apostles did not force Titus to be circumcised, although others desired it. If some wanted, of course, false brethren, then others did not want. The matter took place openly. The false brethren would like to circumcise, but the Apostles and true brethren did not agree to this and left Titus free. One can see here the intention of the Apostle Paul to single out these false brethren, adherents of the law, from the host of healthy believers, making it clear that they were like some kind of mansions, stubbornly walking in defiance of everyone. Blessed Theodoret writes: “This is the strongest proof that even in the opinion of the Apostles, those who believed among the pagans should not keep the law, for Titus, who was uncircumcised and called from the Greeks, was not ordered to be circumcised, although very many wished the contrary.” St. Damascus says that Titus' uncircumcision "was the strongest proof that the Apostles did not condemn St. Paul for not circumcising the Gentiles." Ambrosiastes adds: “and it is implied: why should you (the Galatians) be circumcised, when Titus was not forced to be circumcised by the chief Apostles, but was accepted into fellowship uncircumcised?” Our other interpreters dwell more on how the Apostles themselves endured circumcision in Jerusalem? Everyone has the same answer to this: it was due to some kind of economy, that is, it was allowed for a time as a measure of prudence, and not as a rule that is unchangeable. Ecumenius says that Titus’s refusal to be circumcised serves as “proof that Peter and his own do not legislate circumcision, but, out of condescension towards those who believed among the Jews, allows it.” Theophylact: “that the Apostles allowed circumcision not as an urgent law, but for a certain economy (that is, as a temporary measure of prudent leniency towards the weak).” Saint Chrysostom explains this at greater length: “that the Apostles did not force the uncircumcised Titus to be circumcised, this very clearly proved that they did not condemn the teachings of Pavlov or his deeds; and this was even more proven by the fact that even then, when the opponents, having learned about this, insisted on circumcision, the Apostles did not command this to be done; which is what he points to with the words: “and for the false brethren who came.” Who these false brethren are, this requires explanation here. If the Apostles allowed circumcision, why do you call those who, with the knowledge of the Apostles, commanded this to be done, false brethren? Firstly, it is not the same thing to demand that something be done and to allow it to be done. He who demands, insists that his demand, as necessary and important, be fulfilled; but he who does not demand, but only does not forbid the one who wishes, allows a certain action not as due and necessary, but according to some special order. So here the Apostles, although they allowed circumcision, not as defenders of the law, but out of condescension towards the weakness of the Jews. And if they defended the law, they would not have acted this way towards the Jews, and differently towards the pagans; for what one had to do according to the law of Christ, the same, of course, had to be done by others. But if they decreed by law that pagans should not be forced to circumcise, they showed that the Jews were allowed it only out of leniency. The false brethren did this not with that intention, but to tear the believers away from grace and again subject them to the yoke of work. And this is the first difference that establishes the great mediastinum between the Apostles and the false brethren. The second is that the Apostles did this in Judea, where the law was still so strong; and the false brethren did this everywhere, for they wanted to enslave all the Galatians. Hence it is clear that the latter did this not for creation, but for complete ruin.” Gal.2:4 – 5. And for the false brethren who have come, who have come to spy on our freedom, even the imams of Christ Jesus, may they enslave us: to whom we have not yet obeyed in submission; may the truth of the gospel abide in you. All our ancient interpreters do not separate the word: “and for the false brethren who came” from the previous verse and combine the speech like this: Titus did not need to be circumcised, even for the false brethren who came. So is Saint Chrysostom, as can be seen from the previous extract. So blessed Theodoret, despite the fact that in Greek it is not: “and for those who came,” but: “for the false brethren who came.” “The conjunction “but,” he says, “is unnecessary in the composition of the speech. For the meaning of these sayings is this and Titus, although he was a Hellenic, was not forced to be circumcised for the sake of the false brothers who came.” So Saint Damascus: “The apostles did not force the uncircumcised Titus to be circumcised, although the false brothers who came spied on him and forced him to circumcise.” Photius in Ecumenium: “even seeing the false brothers present.” Ecumenius himself: “not even for the sake of the false brothers who came.” And Theophylact the same. And from the Latin teachers, Blessed Augustine writes: “Titus was not forced to be circumcised because of the false brethren who came; that is, it was impossible to extort his consent to circumcision, although those who came to see our freedom really wanted Titus to be circumcised, so that they could then preach that circumcision is necessary for salvation, with the consent and testimony of even the Apostle Paul himself.” Thus, all antiquity is for this kind of combination of speech; and we should not separate from them. Our Slavic translation does not deviate from them. New heterodox interpreters believe that this is where Saint Paul’s special speech begins, which is what the particle “zhe”, which Blessed Theodoret mentions, forces them to do. The reading is exactly the same; but the flow of speech becomes confused. For: “for the false brethren who have come,” such and such, “to whom we will submit in no time...”. comes out discordant. To give structure to their speech, they make various assumptions, sometimes very inconvenient ones. Who were the false brethren? They were brethren, that is, those who believed in the Lord and were baptized, but false brethren, that is, they held to false principles, believing that with faith in the Lord it is necessary to keep the old law in order to be saved. At the same time, the faith about the Face of the Savior could not be true in them, and then the entire moral system. Consequently, on the outside they were Christians, but on the inside they did not have a Christian mood. There were many who kept the law among the believing Jews - in Jerusalem, one might say, all of them. But among them, some adhered to it out of habit only, not considering its fulfillment as a necessary condition for salvation, while others adhered to it in this very sense, thinking that it was impossible to be saved without it. And among these, some, having formed such convictions, lived quietly for themselves, others acted as active fighters for the truth and were jealous to convey their convictions to everyone. Those who came to Antioch and raised a dispute there were from among them. From among them were these who now sneaked up to Saint Paul with his companions to spy on how they lived, whether they lived like Jews. “For the false brethren who came,” παρεισακτους, - who came, secretly introduced; “like the prinidosha”, παρεισηλθον, - as if they had sneaked in. This, of course, is not to Christian society, but to the house where the Apostle Paul was with his family. They entered the Church of Christ by faith in the Lord, and they had no thought about how they should treat the law; they were confident that the law would remain in force and that by accepting faith in Christ they would become true Jews, complete in all the prophetic promises. Having seen, after the baptism of Cornelius, that the Christians had taken a road on which the law among them could not maintain the strength that they had given it, and yet not wanting to return again to Judaism, they decided to defend the law with faith and began to act in this spirit. Despite the fact that they were tolerated in the Church for a long time: they were not excommunicated, in the hope of reasoning and correction. “Privnidosha to spy.” Already the “privnidosha” shows something unkind in them, as if they had sneaked in secretly, under the guise of brotherhood. A: “to spy” - further exposes their bad intentions, as if to spy on what is being done and said there, in order to then use it against them. Ambrosiastes writes: “they came up with deceit, showing themselves to be brothers when they were enemies... they entered with humility, pretending to be friends.” It’s the same with Ecumenius: “look how he exposes them as enemies who came to harm the faith - firstly, by saying: “Privnidosha” - they sneaked in secretly, maliciously; secondly, by what he says: “to spy”; for the spy spies with the intention of harming and doing evil.” Saint Chrysostom is more expansive: “Do you see how he expressed their hostility by the name of spies? For the spies enter only in order to, having spied the deeds of their opponents, prepare for themselves the most convenient means of defeating and overthrowing them; That’s what the false brothers did then, wanting to enslave them to the Old Testament slavery. Why, from here it is clear that the intention of the Apostles and the false brethren was not the same, but very different and opposite. For the Apostles condescended to lead them out of slavery little by little; and those, on the contrary, arranged this in order to subject them to even greater slavery. Therefore, they carefully spied and observed who was circumcised, pointing to which Paul said: “The spies were attracted to our freedom,” signifying their treachery not only by the name of spies, but also by the fact that they came secretly and as thieves.” “To see our freedom... in Christ Jesus.” Our Lord Jesus Christ, by His death on the cross, which replaced all the sacrifices and rites of the Old Testament, propitiatory, justificatory and sanctifying, and by the grace of the Holy Spirit, renewing our nature in the sacraments, freed those who believe in Him from the yoke of the prescriptions of the Law of Moses, making them unnecessary. Those who approached the Lord with faith, through the very fact that they approached Him, received everything that the old law promised transformatively, and, therefore, became, by the very essence of the spiritual state in which faith placed them, free from it. The Apostle points with this expression both to the freedom that all believers should have, and to the freedom that he and his own actually have, having thrown off all the bonds of the law. In Jerusalem, even those who sensibly understood the power of faith in the Lord adhered to the legal statutes out of habit. Saint Paul, as soon as he believed, abandoned the law to which he was so devoted. In the same freedom he raised all believers according to his gospel, not only pagans, but also Jews. The people of Jerusalem could not see this freedom anywhere else, as in Paul and those who were with him. They appeared in Jerusalem as representatives of the order of life renewed in Christ Jesus, pure from all admixture of Judaism and, especially, paganism. Why could be a subject of curiosity for everyone. Everyone was curious to see how they lived and were saved, not adhering to the orders that were then in use and considered an essential property of a pious Jew. But it was not just curiosity that attracted the false brothers there. They had a hidden thought, which St. Paul indicates with the words: “let us be enslaved.” They sneaked to Saint Paul secretly, and sneaked in in order to spy on the freedom of him and those who were with him; but at the same time they had something in mind so as not to limit themselves to one observation. Zeal for the law drew them there so that, noticing disobedience to the law, they would make efforts to return those who had freed themselves from it back under its yoke. The words of St. Paul suggest that they did this kind of assassination attempt. But how could they do this? Of course, there was no power in their hands for this. This could be assumed if they acted on behalf of the Apostles; but in the course of the whole matter it is clear that they had already separated from the Apostles and acted independently of them. By presence alone? Perhaps they were important persons among the Jews, and their number was not small. With both, they could weigh heavily on the Apostle Paul and those who were with him, and shake their firmness, either with respect, or with fear of discord, or with some kind of fear. But they spoke more directly and tried to convince. Their jealousy could not allow them to remain silent. It is clear that there was considerable pressure on their part. But they didn’t manage to do anything. It was not without effort, however, that the Apostle did not succeed; why it was memorable, as can be concluded from the following words. “In no time will we obey into submission.” As we say: they didn’t give in for a minute or a hair. Consequently, there was a struggle: some attacked, others defended. – In Greek: ειξαμεν τη υποταγη – did not yield to submission. Thought: either they did not yield with obedience, obediently, without crossing, or they did not yield in obedience to the law, and in general and in particular, they did not agree to return to any of the works of the law, neither greater, like circumcision, nor lesser, such as, for example, the statutes about food, ablutions, and so on. The Slavic translation maintains the last thought; The Russian translation, in order to express the same idea more clearly, used a paraphrase: they did not yield and did not submit. They had the idea not only to argue, but to subordinate it to the law. “Notice the height and expressiveness of these words,” says Saint Chrysostom. – He did not say: “the word” (not obeying), but: “submission” (that is, their effort to conquer). For they did this not in order to teach anything useful, but in order to subjugate and enslave.” – Saint Damascus: “They did not give in to them for a minute, that is, to those who came, so as not to be found saying one thing and doing another.” “Let the truth of the gospel abide in you,” that is, may the truth of salvation in the One Lord Jesus Christ, or Christianity in general, in its entire structure, remain pure, unalloyed among you who have believed from among the pagans: for among the Jews, many connections prevent it from appearing as such, with which prudence forced the highest directors of the cause of Christ to be aligned. Had Saint Paul given in here and agreed to accept at least something from Judaism, this admixture would have gone throughout the Church from the pagans and the truth of the gospel and would not have remained on earth at all as it should have been. “In you” - the speech refers to the Galatians, since they are Gentile believers. In this case, he looks at them as representatives of linguistic Christians and in their person speaks of all such. Saint Chrysostom says: “so that what we taught in words can be confirmed in deeds, that is, that “an ancient thing passed by, and it was all new; and: “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17); and that “Christ profiteth nothing for them that are circumcised” (Gal. 5:2), - affirming this truth, we did not yield to them for an hour.” Theophylact adds: “May what we preached to you remain firm and immutably true. By opposing them, we showed that we truly proclaimed to you the abolition of the law. Do not deviate from this truth." Blessed Jerome directs his interpretation to the purposes of the Epistle and draws from the words of the Apostle a strong lesson to the Galatians: “among such a multitude of the Jews, their enemies, who out of zeal for the law would have exhausted all his blood, neither he himself nor Titus yielded out of any fear or need; although one could excuse them if they could not withstand the hatred of so many and so many - and gave in... He seems to be saying: by frightening us with threats and suppressing us with their numbers, they wanted from the freedom of Christ to plunge us again under the yoke of the law; but we did not yield to them for a minute, although in this case we could be excused by the need to preserve the peace of the Church. And we did this in order not to give you any reason to depart from grace. So, if we, being in Jerusalem, surrounded by such a multitude of Jews and false brethren, with the compliance of the elder Apostles, could not be forced by any force to perform the rite of circumcision, which they recognized as no longer valid; How are you, from the pagans, you who live in Galatia (that is, far from the Jews), you, to whom no influential compulsion could be made, how did you, departing from grace, decide to submit to the outworn law? c) How did the Apostles react to him? (Gal.2, 6–10) Having said how the believers and these zealots of the law received him, Paul now says how the elder Apostles treated him. As for our most famous ones, he says, there turned out to be no difference between me and them, no disagreement in teaching, no difference in dignity. They added nothing to my teaching or to my authority. On the contrary, having clearly understood the grace of God both in my election and in my preaching, the right hands gave me and Barnabas, that is, they fully agreed, that I should authoritatively preach the Gospel among the pagans, in the same spirit as I had preached before, as they learned from my conversations with them, in which spirit I preach it hitherto, in which I preached it among you (Gal. 2:6 - 10). This general idea of ​​this section is very clear in itself; but some turns of speech of St. Paul are quite difficult to interpret. Gal.2:6. From those who pretend to be what they once were, nothing differs from us: God does not accept the face of man. You won’t bring me anything imaginary. “Those who imagine themselves to be” are the same as above: “imaginary”, and below: “imaginary pillars of being.” It is not, according to Augustine, that the Apostle wants to express by this that they consider themselves to mean something, but that all Christians consider them to be such. Everyone thinks about them that they are not the same as everyone else, they are something special, outstanding from the series. You can paraphrase these words: our most famous. "Yakovi once besha". The Greek text: οποιοι ποτε ησαν - allows for such a translation: what (people) have ever been. And this, it seems, will be the most convenient translation, according to the course of speech and the purpose of the Apostle. The Apostle expresses his thought about the elder Apostles and places them above all human celebrities, as they really are. By then comparing himself with them, he raises his dignity in the eyes of the Galatians, in order to take away from them any pretext for not following his teaching. Another translation: what they (that is, the Apostles) once were, or whatever they ever were, makes it difficult to explain what it means: they once were, or ever were, suggesting that they have ceased to be famous. Dwelling on this translation, you involuntarily ask: when is there no time? Some answer: when the Lord was visible on earth and they followed Him everywhere (Blessed Jerome). But, after the descent of the Holy Spirit, they became more famous than they were before. Others: even before the Lord called them to the Apostleship, when they were sinners (Blessed Augustine), simple people ignorant of the law (Ambrosiastes). But the Apostle Paul had no need to take the thought of the Galatians so far, when it, moreover, did not give anything for his goals. Third: first of the confirmation from above, given through Saint Peter, that the door is open for the pagans to enter the Church of Christ without circumcision. Thought: before they thought that a law was needed, but now they have stopped thinking so (Ecumenius), in which I have no difference with them. This, in this translation, is closest to the course of speech of St. Paul. Note, however, that this is an input sentence that has no influence on determining the main idea of ​​the text. Therefore, you don’t have to worry too much about precisely defining its meaning. “Nothing differs from me” - I have no difference, neither according to the Apostolic authority, which I have the same as theirs, nor according to the teaching, for they also understand salvation in the Lord the same way as I do. “He who imparted understanding of Christian teaching to those not versed in the law (that is, unlearned fishermen), He was pleased to grant me, skilled in the law (scholar), the same understanding” (Ambrosiastes). “God does not accept the face of man.” God does not look at what someone is, but at what he can be with the assistance of God’s grace. Even though I was an unbeliever and persecuted the Church of God; but God, foreseeing that I would remain a faithful worker if I was entrusted with the gospel (see 1 Thess. 2:4), chose me for this ministry and placed me among those most famous. “By the grace of God I am” (1 Cor. 15:10). “For me, you brought nothing to me.” That there is no difference with the most noble is proved by the fact that, after talking and understanding the whole course of affairs with the Apostle Paul, they did not add anything to him, either in teaching or in the dignity of the Apostle, but only, recognizing both as coming from the Lord Himself, they accepted him into equal communion with themselves. Blessed Jerome writes: “he said above that he entered into conversation with the senior Apostles and told everything that he had done among the pagans. Now he says that they did not add anything to that, but, having approved everything that was said to them, they gave the right hands of fellowship, confirming that their Gospel and Paul’s Gospel are one and the same.” This understanding of this text is given by our Slavic translation, mainly with the words: “nothing differs from me.” But the corresponding Greek expression: ουδεν μοι διαφερει is also used when they want to say: I don’t care about anything. Accepting this meaning of this phrase here, we must assume that St. Paul wanted to say: as for the famous Apostles, I have nothing to do with them - of course, in the sense that they tolerated circumcision among the Jews, due to some kind of economy. Our most ancient interpreters understand this phrase in this way, and in explaining the thought of the text they take special care to remove from the Apostle Paul any shadow of disrespect for the first Apostles. Their train of thought is as follows: before this, Saint Paul directed everything to prove that circumcision is no longer necessary for salvation. They could object to him: how can the other Apostles, the first, tolerate him? If they are patient, why shouldn’t you be patient? Those Apostles tolerated circumcision among Jews only, and at that for a time, allowing this leniency as a measure of prudence, out of some kind of economy. One could say to Saint Paul: that’s why they do this! But by declaring this, he would weaken the power of that measure, and instead of good it would bring more evil. Why is he silent about this, and only says: what they do is of no concern. I'm not their judge. God, who does not look at faces, will judge. “God will not be ashamed (will not look) that they are luminaries” (Ecumenius). I will quote the very words of some interpreters. Here are the words of Blessed Theodoret: “since, as probably the Galatians said, the very first of the Apostles kept the law, and the Divine Apostle knew that they were forced to do this out of condescension towards those who believed from the Jews and were not yet firm in the faith; then, placed between two extremes, and, on the one hand, recognizing that it is most inappropriate to blame the Apostles, and on the other, not wanting to discover their intentions, so as not to damage the economy, he creates for himself some kind of middle path and assumes the appearance that he is upset by what is being done, and finds it difficult to say about it, but leaves everything to God’s determination.” Here are the words of Photius in the Ecumenium “could have spoken to Saint Paul: if Peter does well by condescending to circumcision, why not you? Why do you so harshly condemn what in others you call wise economy? Leave doing the same here, don’t forbid it, and then call it whatever you like—economy or dogma. This is what they would have thought and this is what they would have said to Paul if he had said that Peter, out of economy, was temporarily allowing circumcision. Why did Paul wisely do that he was completely silent about economy, but with severity concerns the action itself and denounces, as if they were violators of the law, those who condescend, so that, with the severity of this reproof, all the more to frighten and correct those who held on to circumcision with sin (that is, recognizing it as necessary for salvation). Why is he not afraid to later call them hypocrites and wrongdoers (Gal. 2:13-14), just to preserve the purity of the Gospel of Christ?” Here, finally, are the words of Saint Chrysostom: “since the actions of the Apostles spoke against him (the Apostle Paul) and, looking at them, some could naturally say: how do they allow this? - then look how wisely he resolves this objection. He does not say the true reason, that is, that the Apostles did this out of condescension and by special order (economy, economy); for it might harm the hearers. There is no need to know the reasons for this or that order to those for whom some benefit is being prepared through this order. If the reason for this order is revealed, then everything will be destroyed. Therefore, only the one who makes the order should know the reason for his actions; but those for whom benefit is being prepared through this order should not know the reasons for this. In order to more clearly imagine what I am saying, I will give an example from this very case. Blessed Paul himself, who so strongly rebelled against 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 so he came to them circumcised, to destroy circumcision. And Timothy himself knew the reason for this matter, but did not tell it to his disciples. For if they had known that he was circumcised in order to destroy circumcision, they would not have listened to his preaching for a minute, and all the benefit would have been lost. And now this ignorance has brought them the greatest benefit. For, thinking that he did this as the keeper of the law, they favorably and willingly accepted him and his teaching. And, accepting his teaching little by little and learning the truth, they themselves left the ancient things behind. Which would not have happened if they had known the reason at the very beginning. For, having found out, they would begin to turn away from him, turning away, they would not listen to him; and without listening, they would remain in the same delusion. In order for this not to happen, he did not reveal the reason. That is why here, too, the Apostle does not reveal the reasons for such an order of the Apostles, but leads his word in a different way, saying this: “from those who imagine that there was something that once was, nothing differs from us: God does not accept the face of man.” Here he not only does not defend the Apostles, but also speaks strongly against these saints in order to benefit the weak. His words have the following meaning: if they allow circumcision, then they will also answer to God; God will not respect their faces because they are considered great and supreme. However, he said this not so openly, but with caution, for he did not say: if they damage the sermon and preach not as commanded, they will give an answer at the final judgment and will be punished. He did not say this, but he concerns them much more respectfully, saying this: “from those who think that there is something.” He did not say again: “Yakovi are the essence,” but: “Yakovi besha”; showing that they also stopped preaching like that later, when the light of the Gospel shone everywhere. And again with the same words: “I once besha”, he also says: and if they preached like that, they themselves will give an answer; for they will not answer to men, but to God. And he says this not because he doubted them or did not know their intentions; but because, as I said, I considered it more useful to conduct the word this way. Then, so that they do not think that he is following the opposite path - accusing them, and thus not giving a reason for division, he immediately corrects his speech, saying: “For imaginary things you have brought to me.” What does this mean? What you tell me, I don’t know, he says; but the only thing I know clearly is that they did not contradict me, on the contrary, they were like-minded and agreed with me; that they taught nothing, corrected nothing, and added nothing to what he knew. “For me,” he says, “I have brought you nothing.” That is, they, having listened to my teaching, did not add anything to it, did not correct anything, knowing, moreover, that this is why I came, to communicate to them my teaching, by revelation of the Spirit - I came for this and also brought Titus with me, uncircumcised; but they did not tell me anything more than what I knew, nor did they circumcise Titus.” This is the same idea of ​​Theophylact and Ecumenium. Jerome's interpretation is similar to this. What understanding of this place should we accept? The first is more natural, the second is more authoritative. Let him choose what is more valuable to someone. The main idea of ​​the Apostle—the agreement of his teaching with the teaching of the elder Apostles—is maintained with both understandings. Gal.2:7 – 9. But the opposite, you will understand, is that we are confident that the gospel of uncircumcision will be, as Peter was circumcised: for he who made progress to Peter in the message of circumcision, made progress to me in tongues: and you will know the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were supposed to be pillars, giving right hands to me and Barnabas of fellowship, so that we in tongues, they in circumcision In all these verses, the main idea is the same: they did not bring anything, but on the contrary, the right hands gave fellowship. “Not only did they not add anything to my sermon, but, on the contrary, they approved it with praise” (Ecumenius). Other provisions: “you will understand” - that I have been entrusted with preaching the gospel to the pagans; “having known grace” and so on - represent the reasons why this was done - because Saint Paul, just like the first Apostles, was assigned by God to this work and was equally blessed with it. "But the opposite". - “What does “resistive” mean? Some think that by this he wanted to say that the Apostles not only taught him nothing, on the contrary, they themselves learned from him. But I won't say this. For what else would they learn from him? Every one of them was perfect. It was not what he wanted to say with the word “opposite,” but that they not only did not reproach him and did not think of blaming him for anything, but also approved and praised him. For the opposite of accusation is approval and praise. But against this, some could now say: if they approved it, then why didn’t they abolish circumcision? For if they approved it, then it would be necessary to cancel it. But to say: they canceled it - he considered it a very immodest thing and thought that through this he would arouse open warfare against the Apostolic Confession. And if he had said that they allow circumcision, he saw that he would meet with another objection. If they approved of your preaching, your opponents would say, but they themselves allowed circumcision, then in that case they would contradict themselves. How to get out of this difficulty? Of course, he could have said that the Apostles permitted circumcision out of leniency towards the Jews. But, having said this, he would have shaken the whole basis of their wise disposition; and therefore he does not say this, leaving it in doubt and in secrecy, saying only: “from those who imagine that something... is nothing different from us.” As if I would say this: I do not condemn or slander these saints. 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 with their consent; I have Titus and Barnabas as witnesses of this” (St. Chrysostom). “You will understand that I am confident of the gospel of uncircumcision, as Peter was of circumcision.” “By circumcision and uncircumcision he does not mean the thing itself, but the peoples who are thereby distinguished from each other. He calls the pagans uncircumcision, and the Jews circumcision” (St. Chrysostom). With the words: “to me, as to Peter” - “shows that he has equal honor with the Apostles, and compares himself not with any other of them, but with the Supreme One, showing thereby that each of them received equal dignity” (St. Chrysostom). “The Apostles understood” that Saint Paul was entrusted with the gospel to the pagans. Where did you understand? They could also understand this from the legends about how, upon conversion, Saint Paul was directly appointed to this from above. For the Lord also said to Ananias: “This vessel has been chosen by Me, to bear My name before the tongues and before kings” (Acts 9:15); and He then commanded Paul himself: “Get out of Jerusalem... for I will send you to the nations far away” (Acts 22:18,21); and in the Church of Antioch the Holy Spirit commanded to separate him for the work of preaching to the tongues (Acts 13:2). The most tangible confirmation of this was the fact that “he who assisted Peter in the message of circumcision also assisted him in the tongues” - wondrous signs that accompanied the preaching of Saint Paul on his first preaching journey, as he talked about this with Barnabas both on the road to Jerusalem and in Jerusalem itself (Acts 15). In Paphos, on the island of Cyprus, he blinded Elymas, a Jewish sorcerer, for stubborn resistance to the truth, which was harmful to the Gospel (Acts. 13, 11); in Lystra he healed a paralytic who had not walked on his feet since birth; during his long stay in Iconium, the Lord confirmed the truth of the word of the Gospel, performing signs and wonders with his hands (Acts 14:3); and upon returning to Antioch, he told the Church of Antioch what God had done to him (Acts 14:27). It was obvious that just as all the Apostles “preached everywhere, making haste to the Lord and confirming the word with subsequent signs” (Mark 16:20), so Saint Paul was not deprived of this assistance from above during his preaching. Convinced of this, the senior Apostles could not help but see that Saint Paul was not some kind of impostor, but was chosen from above, for he was protected from above. Therefore, it must be assumed that both then, in Jerusalem at the Council, he deliberately told, “God has done signs and wonders among the nations,” during his sermon with Barnabas (Acts 15:12), and here, in the Epistle, he deliberately remembers this; for nothing convinces more of the truth than testimony from above, reliably proven. From this alone the Galatians could derive the conviction that his preaching in the form and spirit as he proposed it was from God, who so visibly cooperates with him in everything. Thus Saint Paul, by the supernatural action of God's grace, was transformed from such a zealot of the law into one completely detached from all coherence by the bonds of the law, and by the conviction of the mind, and by the feelings of the heart, and by deed itself; and in this new state he was appointed to preach the pure Gospel, completely freed from all admixture of Judaism, among the tongues. Why is there an Apostle of tongues? But how is Saint Peter called appointed to preach only to the Jews, for, he said, I have been entrusted with the gospel of uncircumcision, like Peter of circumcision, while the Lord commanded Saint Peter and all the other Apostles: “Go and teach all languages” (Matthew 28:19)? St. Paul takes here the state of the activity of the Apostles as it was at the time to which his narrative concerns. The course of the activities of the holy Apostles can be presented in this form. At first they all operated in Jerusalem. When the Church was firmly established in Jerusalem, they dispersed to all other cities and villages of Palestine. Having founded churches here too, they dispersed throughout the world, wherever God assigned them to. In Jerusalem, to complete the ongoing work of converting the Jews and for guidance in case of perplexity of all other Churches, Peter, John and James (not Zebedee, but the brother of the Lord), the first primate of the Jerusalem Church, were left, by general advice and, perhaps, instructions from above. This was the case during the Council. Peter and those with him at this time were exclusively occupied with the organization of the Churches among the Jews. And Saint Paul could say that he was entrusted with the affirmation of the faith among the circumcised. Peter here alone is placed as the representative of the others, the first among them. Our Eastern interpreters, when explaining these passages, always say: Peter and with him Saint Paul only wanted to separate their ministry from others. Since Peter was the main figure among others before him, he compares himself with him alone. Ambrosiastes writes: “he only names Peter and compares himself with him. How he received primacy in the founding of the Church from the Jews; In the same way, he presents himself as chosen to take precedence in founding churches from the Gentiles, so, however, that Peter preaches to the Gentiles when there is a need, and Paul to the Jews. Both actually did this. But the complete command in preaching the faith among the Jews is recognized for Peter, and the complete command in preaching it among the pagans is for Paul. This is why he calls himself a teacher of languages ​​in faith and truth (2 Tim. 1:11). Each of them received an appointment according to his strength.” Blessed Jerome sees in this distribution of the Apostolic works a special wise order of God's providence for the organization of the Church of Christ on earth. “It is the same One,” he says through the mouth of Saint Paul, “who entrusted me with the gospel of uncircumcision, and Peter with circumcision. He sent me into the languages, and appointed him to be in Judea. Neither the pagans should be subjected to the diseases of circumcision, which do not bring any benefit, and forced to abstain from the dishes to which they are accustomed; neither those who believed from the Jews, having already been circumcised, could suddenly lag behind the customs with which they had become accustomed, and in which they saw their superiority over the pagans. So, by the providence of God, another Apostle was given to the circumcised, who would descend into the shadow of the law, another - to the uncircumcised, who would offer the gospel, in the freedom of faith from any mixture of the works of the law; so that there is no obstacle to faith on any side and no one is disqualified from faith in Christ because of circumcision or uncircumcision. This did not mean that Peter, who was taught by vision not to look at whether someone is a Jew or a pagan, as if forgetting about this, thought that in addition to the grace of the Gospel it is necessary to fulfill the law; but so that he, out of condescension, not shying away from observing the law, little by little distracts the Jews from the ancient customs of life. For they could not suddenly tear themselves away from them. Why is it deliberately mentioned: “He who promoted Peter to send him circumcision,” so that no one would think that he is reproaching Peter, but so that, having encountered such praise in advance, everyone would understand that Peter, not without the permission of God, condescends to circumcision precisely for the sake of preserving those who were entrusted to him from among the Jews in the faith of Christ and the Gospel. This also makes it clear that if he (Peter) did not act to his own fault, observing for the time being what was no longer necessary, so as not to lose those entrusted to him; much more should he (Paul) act according to the whole truth of the Gospel in order to preserve what was entrusted to him in uncircumcision, lest otherwise the Gentiles, terrified by the yoke of the law, should not be driven away from faith in Christ.” “And having known the grace given to me.” Here he calls grace what he mentioned before, that is, the entrusting of the gospel to the pagans to him and the promotion from above of his preaching by the manifestation of signs and wonders. From both of them together, the Apostles could not help but see that he had been granted from above the same grace as they had been given. Saint Chrysostom says: “having shown his like-mindedness with the Apostles, he continues the conversation with greater freedom and no longer stops at the Apostles alone, but raises his word even to Christ, to whom he assimilates the grace of the Apostleship given to him, and calls the Apostles themselves witnesses of this, saying: “and having known grace.” He did not say: having heard, but: “having known,” that is, having been convinced by the very deeds. Do you see how he finally showed that his preaching was pleasing to both Christ and the Apostles? For this grace would not have been given to him and would not have acted in him if such preaching had not been pleasing to Christ.” By virtue of this certification, all that remained for the holy Apostles was to give hands to Saint Paul and Barnabas, as a sign of complete agreement with him in everything and approval of his way of acting - which they did. "James and Cephas and John". Jacob is the same as above, the brother of the Lord, who, for the holiness of life and love for the Lord, was held in great esteem by everyone in Jerusalem and presided over the Church of Jerusalem. He stands first for the sake of this primacy, and not as the brother of the Lord. Saint Chrysostom notes at this: “where he needed to compare himself, he mentions only Peter; and where it was necessary to present evidence, there he names three together, and moreover with praise.” “Thinking pillars of being.” Pillars are support, guards, signposts. All this goes to the aforementioned Apostles in relation to faith. “Minimia” are “real pillars of faith and revered as such by everyone” (Ecumenius). Saint Chrysostom notes: “in a word: “imaginaries” - he does not deny that they really were such, but cites the opinion of others and says that those great and glorious ones, whom everyone everywhere extols, they themselves are witnesses to what I say, that this is also pleasing to Christ, that they learned the truth of this from their very deeds and were convinced of it from experience itself.” The same goes for Ambrosiastes: “St. Paul says: By the more glorious apostles among the others, whom for their firmness they are called pillars, I confirm that I have been granted by God grace and the gift to excel in preaching among the pagans, just as Peter excels in preaching among the circumcision.” “The right hands gave me and Barnabas fellowship.” They gave the right hands of communication as a sign of community and complete agreement, like-mindedness and unity of action. “It shows that his opinion was in agreement with their opinion, and their opinion was in agreement with his opinion” (St. Chrysostom) “It did not turn out that the senior Apostles disagreed with Paul in anything, so that when he said that he had received perfect knowledge of the Gospel, they denied it and wanted to give something to him as imperfect. But on the contrary, they were not denouncers of imperfection, but approvers of perfection” (Blessed Augustine). – “To Me and Barnabas.” “Just as under Peter he placed the best men among the Apostles, so he adds to himself Barnabas, who was united with him by God’s will. The grace of primacy (in preaching to the pagans) applies to himself alone, as well as to Peter alone (in preaching among the Jews). So the Apostles of the circumcision gave their right hands to the Apostles of the tongues as proof of the general agreement” (Ambrosiastes). “For this reason, the right hands of fellowship were given to Paul and Barnabas by James, Peter and John, so that, due to the difference in attitude towards observance (of Jewish customs), no one would think that their Gospel itself was different, and so that there would also be unanimous fellowship between the circumcised and the uncircumcised” (Blessed Jerome). “Yes, we are into tongues, they are into circumcision.” “Both sides were pleased that they should preach this way to the Jews, and the others – this way to the pagans” (St. Chrysostom). This is not exclusively, but predominantly. For Paul and Barnabas, even in Jerusalem itself, proclaimed the truth; and then everywhere they first turned to preach to the Jews, and then moved on to the pagans (Acts 17:1-4; Acts 18:4-9; Acts 19:8-9). And Peter and John acted among the pagans, after all who could believe in Jerusalem and Judea believed, and those who did not believe became more and more alienated from those who believed, becoming hostile towards them. – Blessed Jerome decides this way: “the question arises: what then? Peter, if he had found one of the pagans (ready to believe), would he not have led him to faith? And Paul, if he had found one of those who were circumcised, would he not have communicated to him the baptism of Christ? This issue is resolved in such a way that predominantly one was appointed for the Jews, and the other for the pagans, 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. In general, both of them had one goal - to gather the Church of Christ from all languages. We read that Peter baptized Cornelius, and Paul often preached Christ in the synagogues of the Jews.” Gal.2:10. Let us remember the beggars: we even tried to create this true thing. The poor here mean those who became beggars among the believing Jews, due to persecution, deprivation and devastation caused by unbelievers to believers; extreme need forced such a commandment to be established jointly. Although not all of those who believed were ruined and there were enough among them who were ready to help, it is true that the number of poor and impoverished was so great that Christians did not have enough local means to support them. The pagans, who suffered ruin from their own people less than the Jews, were more sufficient and without burdening themselves could give help to the poor Jews - which they willingly did, according to the convictions and orders of St. Paul. This together maintained a spiritual connection with the center of Christianity - Jerusalem and supported the attraction of all Churches to their mother, the Church of Jerusalem. St. Paul remembers this, perhaps in order to show that the order he made to them was to set aside on Saturdays whatever it is appropriate for anyone to help the poor believing Jews (1 Cor. 16:1), was forced by the commandment of the Apostles placed on him, and is not some unnecessary, unauthorized decree personally invented by him. Saint Chrysostom writes: “What do these words mean? In the work of preaching, he says, we divided the entire universe among ourselves; and I took the pagans, and they took the Jews, because it pleased God. In caring for the poor among the Jews, I also helped them. Therefore, if there was any disagreement or discord between us, they would not have accepted my participation. Who are these beggars? Many of the believing Jews in Palestine, who lost everything they had, were persecuted everywhere. He points to this in the Epistle to the Hebrews when he says: “and the plunder of your possessions you accepted with joy” (Heb. 10:34). The Epistle to Thessalonians also points to the same thing when, praising their courage, he says: “For you are likened to the churches of God that are in Judea: henceforth you will suffer from your fellow tribesmen, just as you also suffered from the Jews” (1 Thessalonians 2:14). And everywhere he shows that those who believed among the pagans were not so much persecuted from those who remained in paganism, as those who believed among the Jews were persecuted from their fellow tribesmen. For the Jews are the most cruel people of all nations. That is why the Apostles care so much about the Jewish believers that they are deprived of all consolation in life. That is why the Apostle Paul writes about them both to the Romans and to the Corinthians and not only collects money for them, but also takes it himself, as he himself says: “Now I am coming to Jerusalem to serve the saints” (cf. Rom 15:25). For they also needed daily food.” 4) The firmness of St. Paul in the doctrine of freedom from the law, revealed in his opposition to St. Peter, when he showed leniency to the Judaizing Christians out of time and place (Gal. 2: 11-21) The false teachers told the Galatians that Saint Paul himself was unstable in his convictions. He teaches you that it is not at all necessary to adhere to the law, but in other places, among the Jews, he himself keeps the law and subjects others to the law (Saint Timothy was already circumcised). What came out of this was why listen to him when he acts one way or another? Against this, Saint Paul answers them with a legend about how he acted in relation to Saint Peter when he, out of ignorance, accidentally acted inconsistently with the good of the Church and the successes of the Gospel. The meaning of this legend is this: for sure, I am with the Jews and look condescendingly at others who act like this, but only until this brings about the salvation of many and the good of faith is built; As soon as something harmful to the faith and the Church came out of this, then I rebelled against it with all my strength, regardless of any person; This circumstance is also: a) in itself very instructive (Gal. 2: 11 – 14); but it is especially significant for understanding that faith: b) speech (Gal. 2, 15 – 21), which Saint Paul then held in the presence of Jews and Greeks about salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, with complete renunciation from all legal works. This speech serves as a transition to the next part, provides a theme, which Saint Paul then reveals and proves with his characteristic energy of words. a) The story of this event (Gal. 2: 11–14) The circumstance that Saint Paul mentions here was the following: at one time, after the Apostolic Council, Saint Peter came to Antioch, when Barnabas was also there with the Apostle Paul. The Church of Antioch consisted almost entirely of pagan believers; there were also Jews in it, but in small numbers. Saint Peter, taught by revelation from above not to disdain pagans and having been convinced by experience that uncircumcision does not interfere with accepting the grace of the Holy Spirit and entering the Church, in which therefore there is neither Jew nor Greek, but all, one in Christ Jesus, are obliged to fraternal communion with each other - lived in Antioch with pagan Christians in full communion, without observing the usual rules in relation to pagans Jews, and ate with them, which the zealous Jews did not allow in any way and for which Saint Peter was already forced to justify himself in Jerusalem after the baptism of Cornelius and a meal in his house. But when some believing Jews came to Antioch from the Apostle James, he began to distance himself from the believing pagans and stopped free communication with them, fearing these beings from the circumcision. Other Jewish Christians from Antioch also pestered him, so that Barnabas was carried away by their example. There was a separation, seductive and dangerous. Saint Paul, noticing this, explained to Saint Peter, and through him to all Jewish Christians, that this should not be done. What happened as a result of this explanation, Saint Paul does not say, but from the silence of Saint Peter we can conclude that everyone agreed with Saint Paul, again entered into communion with pagan Christians, and the peace of the Church was restored. “The truth has triumphed,” which was especially important for St. Paul to instill in the Galatians. In this circumstance, the action of Saint Peter seems incomprehensible to many. Looking at it as a mistake or a wavering belief in the Supreme, they naturally raise the question in themselves: how could this be? And to solve it, different assumptions are made. But one has only to look at the matter in its natural meaning at that time, then the question will not arise and there will be no need to make assumptions for its solution. Why did Saint Peter do this? Not by mistake and not by wavering conviction, but because he had to act this way and not otherwise according to the Apostolic conscience and convictions, which St. Paul shared. Take the affairs of the Church a little higher. At first, the preaching of the Gospel, which began in Jerusalem, did not even occur to anyone about the participation of pagans in it, although all the Apostles received the commandment to go and teach the faith to all languages ​​(Matthew 28:19). This was brought about by a special, wondrous instruction from above. Saint Peter was chosen as an instrument for this on the part of the Apostles, and reverent Cornelius on the part of the pagans, as everyone knew (Acts 10). The vision of a shroud with reptiles descending from heaven with the command to slaughter and eat, indicated that one should not disdain the pagans and without embarrassment accept them into the bosom of the Church, as long as they believe, and the fact that the Holy Spirit descended on Cornelius and all those who believed in his house meant that the pagans, in order to become children of God, born of God, had no need to be circumcised first, and therefore, then perform all the Jewish rites. Saint Peter understood all this and then in Jerusalem boldly assured everyone that it was impossible not to obey such instructions from above and that therefore the pagans had to be left free from the yoke of Jewish decrees. But it also followed from this that if for the pagans the receipt of grace was not conditioned by circumcision, then it was not conditioned by it for the Jews either. The Holy Apostles and all the wisest of the Jews understood this. Others, the weakest, could not quickly understand this and held to the conviction that Judaism was also necessary for salvation and grace. Saint Peter and others, knowing from experience how difficult it is to give up this conviction, decided to spare the weakest believers among the Jews, without insisting on the renunciation of Judaism by the Jews who had been accustomed to it since childhood, and allowed time, circumstances and the grace of God to enlighten them and change their convictions. In the same spirit, they themselves continued to adhere to the former Jewish ranks among the Jews and in other places; but, of course, under the indispensable condition that this does not harm the cause of faith and the success of the preaching of the Gospel. They decided that everyone should be all, but then that everyone might be saved (1 Cor. 9:22), or, in other words: not seeking their own benefit, but others, that they might be saved. Since from here, that is, from Judaism or freedom from that which was harmful to the Gospel, then they, without hesitation, renounced the bonds of the law there, and freedom here. In the actions of St. Paul this is expressed to the point of tactile evidence. It is from this point that one must look at the action of St. Peter in Antioch. When there was no need to bind himself to the bonds of Jewish decrees, he lived freely with pagan Christians. When he saw that this was necessary, he renounced this freedom and tied himself with those bonds. What need was this? Not only sparing the weakness of those who came from Jerusalem, but the peace and peace of all the Churches gathered from the Jews. When they arrived, Saint Peter had to decide whether to continue to behave freely, as before, or to become a Jew with these Jews who came. He chose the latter, as he should have done. He already knew how irritable the zealous Jews were and could not look with indifference at the indulgences, as it seemed to them, to the pagans. Remaining as before in close proximity to the pagans, he would certainly irritate these newcomers. This in itself is still small; but they, returning again to Jerusalem, would spread their irritation everywhere both in Judea and in Jerusalem. And divisions and unrest would arise there, which could not remain without harmful consequences for the Church of God. Foreseeing this, on the basis of previous experiences, Saint Peter had to again begin to live Jewishly with these Jews. He could be stopped from doing this only by the obvious harm to pagan Christians that his behavior could produce. But he could not imagine or see this. From previous history, before Christianity, the pagans were already accustomed to the alienation of the Jews from them; Christianity has not yet experienced how they will encounter such a temporary alienation. The Apostle Peter therefore had a choice - between the completely probable confusion among the Jews and harm to the pagans, which he could not even imagine, that is, there was no choice, but one course of action was presented to him, which he accepted. Saint Paul acted in exactly the same way on other occasions. Therefore, here, of course, he did not see anything against which he should rebel. He saw that Apostolic prudence forced St. Peter to act this way; and he would not have said anything if this behavior of Peter had not had an unfavorable impression on the believing Antiochians, which Saint Peter did not see and which only Saint Paul could notice. As soon as this harm occurred and was noticed, the course of the matter took a completely different turn. Here obvious harm appeared on Wednesday and demanded attention to itself more than the supposed confusion among the Jews. The duty to find out this lay with the Apostle Paul, the Apostle of the tongues: which he did. But at the same time, he could not reveal to everyone that secret intention of Saint Peter, but spoke as if Saint Peter had definitely made a mistake. Saint Peter recognized the correctness of Saint Paul's instructions and expressed his agreement with him by silence. If he had stayed his way, one could have reproached him; but here he obviously saw that the law is: He will give all things to everyone, and save everyone (1 Cor. 9:22), obliged him to no longer spare the Jews. And one can even assume that he was very glad that Saint Paul made such a speech. It could have a strong effect on the inherent zealots of Judaism and serve as an incentive for them to cool their zeal for Judaism and move to the simplicity of the Gospel. This assumption of Saint Peter’s pleasure from the speeches of Saint Paul arises in the mind by itself, so that the Holy Fathers, our interpreters, even allowed a preliminary agreement between Saint Peter and Paul in the deliberate arrangement of the entire event with the goal of the most striking admonition of the Judeo-Christians, both those present and all. This is the natural course of things! It is clear from it that the Apostle Peter could not act otherwise, as the Apostle of the Jews, and Saint Paul could not remain silent, as the Apostle of the Gentiles. Both of them agreed in one thing, as Apostles of the One Lord, who commanded to build the Church from all languages. So that there is no doubt about this, we present the opinions of the ancient interpreters of the Church. Here is the opinion of Blessed Jerome: “From the fact that Peter, before some came from Jerusalem, ate with pagan Christians, it is clear that he did not forget the inspiration given to him from above that God does not disdain any person, as long as he believes in Christ Jesus. But when, for the sake of those who still thought that it was necessary to fulfill the law for salvation, he began to avoid eating with pagan Christians and thus encouraged the pagans who believed in Antioch to submit to the yoke of the law (for they did not know the good intention of St. Peter, that he did this for the salvation of the Jews, but believed that this was how it should be, according to the meaning of the Gospel), then St. Paul, seeing that the grace of Christ was in danger, new - this old warrior - used the art of militia for the truth, so that the measure of Petrov's prudence, useful for the Jews (and which turned out to be unhelpful for the believing pagans), was corrected by a new measure of prudence, which he believed in open contradiction to Peter, in order to confront him to his face, without revealing his secret intention, so that by such opposition to Peter he could save believers from the pagans (in the purity and purity of the Gospel faith). If anyone believes that Saint Paul truly (for one act of Judaism) rebelled against Peter and so fearlessly reproached him, then wouldn’t this be contradicted by the fact that Paul himself was a Jew to the Jews, that he might gain the Jews, and that he himself would be guilty of hypocrisy when he shaved his head in Cenchrea (Acts 18:18) and brought an offering in Jerusalem (Acts 21, 26) and circumcised Timothy? So, if he himself, sent to preach good news to the pagans, finds it not inappropriate to say: “be a Jew and the church of God without stumbling, just as I am pleasing in all things, not seeking your own advantage, but many, that they may be saved” (1 Cor. 10:32-33) - and did something that is contrary to the freedom of the Gospel, so as not to seduce the Jews; then how could he, for this one thing, truly reproach Peter, the Apostle of circumcision, for what he himself was convicted of doing, being the Apostle of tongues? But, as we said, he rebelled against Peter and others, so that the observance of the law, kept with a special hidden intention (which turned out to be harmful for Gentile Christians), could be corrected by reproach (also done with a special intention) and thus both people would be saved.” Here are the words of Saint Chrysostom: “having shown (above) his agreement and like-mindedness with the Apostles, he further finds it necessary to mention his conversation with Peter, which was in Antioch, and therefore says: “When Peter came to Antioch, he opposed him” and so on. Many, reading these words of the Epistle without due attention, think that Paul is denouncing Peter’s hypocrisy. But it's not fair. It shouldn't be understood that way. Here we find the profound prudence of Peter and Paul in favor of the hearers. – Paul does not say this against Peter; but, with what intention he said: “from those who pretend to be, what once was, is nothing different from us,” - this also speaks with the same thing. However, so that we no longer remain in doubt about this, it would not be superfluous to show the very reason for what was said. The apostles, as I said above, allowed circumcision in Jerusalem, for it was impossible to suddenly distract from the law; but when they came to Antioch, they no longer observed anything like this and treated the pagan believers indifferently; Peter did the same then. But when those who knew that he acted differently there came from Jerusalem, he stopped acting like pagans, fearing to offend them, and changed the manner of his conversion for two reasons: so as not to lead the Jewish believers into temptation and to provide Paul with a plausible opportunity for reproof. Paul knew the intention for which Peter acted this way. But Paul reproaches, and Peter complacently endures the reproof, so that the disciples, seeing the silence of the teacher when he is reprimanded, are the sooner convinced to change their way of thinking. For if it were not for such a case that Paul began to exhort them to this, he would not have accomplished anything important; Now, when he made such a strict reproof, having a sufficient reason for it, he created much greater fear in the Petrov’s disciples. And if again Peter, having heard the reproof, began to contradict, then very easily another could think that they were perverting the structure of salvation; Now his silence during Paul’s reproof struck the Jewish believers with great fear. This is why he opposed Peter so strongly. Look, moreover, with what circumspection he speaks, letting the prudent notice that his words were not a matter of warfare, but a matter of service and wise action. If they really disagreed with each other, then, of course, one would not denounce the other in the presence of the disciples; otherwise they would have given them great temptation. Now this apparent disagreement was useful.” Gal.2:11. When Peter came to Antioch, he was opposed to him, as if he were shameful. "Whenever". When is this? After the Apostolic Council, when Saint Barnabas was also with the Apostle Paul. Most directly this falls on the time before the second Apostolic journey of St. Paul: for after this Barnabas is no longer seen with the Apostle Paul. Consequently, it was soon after that Council, in the period of time between it and the second journey of St. Paul. But was there time here? Was. The Acts narrates that Judas and Silas, sent with the Apostle Paul and Barnabas, “remained there for a time” (cf. Acts 15:33). Then, when Judas returned to Jerusalem and Silas remained in Antioch, “Paul and Barnabas lived in Antioch, preaching the word of the Lord frequently and preaching the good news” (Acts 15:35). “After certain days” Paul invites Barnabas to go again to preach. From this we must conclude that from the Council to this moment quite a time had passed in which Saint Peter could have come to Antioch. Others attribute this to the time after the second Apostolic journey of Saint Paul, from which, having returned, he stayed in Antioch “for a certain time” (Acts. 18, 23) But in this case, it is necessary to bring Barnabas from Cyprus there too: an unnecessary assumption, which can be dispensed with at the first opinion. There is no need to insist, however, on the most precise definition of time, because it cannot have an influence on the meaning of the story. “I resisted him in person” - either immediately, as the temptation noticed, or with firmness, without indulgence, not letting him down because he is one of the elders, or the same thing below: “in front of everyone” - that is, without delaying to say about it in private. The good of the Church required this. “As if he were shameful”, κατεγνωσμενος ην, – “he was shameful”; which makes us think that he was envied not by the Apostle Paul, but by others - the pagan Antiochian Christians. “He did not say: he was punished by me, but: he was shamed,” meaning the criticism from others. And if Paul himself had looked at him, he would not have been afraid to say this” (St. Chrysostom). “Not knowing the reason, some scorned him” (Blessed Theophylact). “He was scorned not by Paul, who knew why Peter did this, but by those who did not know this and thought that he was really being a hypocrite” (Ecumenius). Why was Saint Peter punished? Because he first dined with pagan Christians, and then distanced himself from them. Gal.2:12 – 13. Before, no one even came from Jacob, eating their tongues: but when they came, they hid themselves and went away, fearing those who were circumcised. And the rest of the Jews also showed hypocrisy with him, so that Barnabas also pestered their hypocrisy. Sharing a meal is a sign of friendly treatment in everyday life, which presupposes agreement in everything else. It's the same here. When Saint Peter ate with pagan Christians, he showed that there was no longer any mediastinum between Jews and pagans in the Church of Christ. In the Antiochian Church itself, the fusion of Jews with pagans was established by Saint Paul and Barnabas from the very beginning of its foundation. And Saint Peter, having arrived there, acted in exactly the same spirit. But when some came from Jacob, he changed his way of acting, he was in full contact with the pagans, and then he began to alienate them and distance himself from them. What made him do this? “Fearing those who are of the circumcision,” says St. Paul. Was Saint Peter afraid? At Pentecost, before a countless assembly of people, he fearlessly preached a new truth, then, in the church, he proclaimed the same thing after the healing of the lame, then, after imprisonment, he was not afraid to boldly instill faith in the Crucified One before the crucifiers themselves, and resolutely, in the eyes of the entire Sanhedrin, who forbade preaching about the Lord, said: “If there is righteousness before God, we will listen to you rather than God, judge. For we cannot, even though we have seen and heard, not speak” (Acts 4:19-20) And then you were afraid? There I was not afraid of enemies; and here he was afraid before the brethren who believed and only treasured the law? He was afraid not by any ordinary human fear, but by the fear of the love of Christ, afraid that these beings would fall away from circumcision or, remaining in the faith, would cause confusion among all the Churches of the Jews, exposing Peter among them as an open enemy of the law, if he had continued to be with the pagans as a pagan in their presence. “I was afraid not so as not to expose myself to danger (for, having not been fearful at first, could I be afraid now?), but so that the disciples would not fall away, which Paul himself was afraid of. Thus, writing to the Galatians, he says: “I am afraid for you, for we labored in vain for you” (Gal. 4:11); and to the Corinthians: “I fear that lest, as the serpent deceives Eve with his wickedness, so your minds also will decay” (2 Cor. 11:3). The fear of death meant nothing to them; but the fear of the disciples’ destruction greatly struck their souls” (St. Chrysostom). The identity of those who came - neither the fact that they were from James, nor the fact that they were perhaps significant among the Jews - had no influence on the fears of Saint Peter. He feared not for them, but for them, for the sole reason that they were from the circumcision, believing Jews, who valued the law and considered its fulfillment, and with faith in the Lord, a condition of salvation. That these beings from the circumcision came from Jacob does not necessarily mean that they were sent by Jacob: for this can be said about them if they came with the knowledge of Jacob alone, and even that they came from the place where Jacob was the leader. And it cannot be concluded that they were of the same spirit as Jacob. For, although he lived in Jerusalem among the Jews, he fulfilled everything under the law so strictly that even those under the law considered him a saint; however, he does not at all consider subordinate laws to be a condition of salvation. He was the first to voice a decisive voice about the freedom of the pagans from the law at the Council (Acts. 15, 13); he, when Saint Paul arrived in Jerusalem after his third Apostolic journey, advised him to observe certain rituals to soften the rumor that was circulating about him that he despised the law (Acts 21:18-26), thereby showing that he did not consider the fulfillment of the law a condition of salvation, but a temporary measure of prudence to attract and retain the Jews in the faith. If those who came to Antioch were of the same spirit, then Saint Peter would have nothing to fear for them. But it is clear that these were those who could not tolerate any condescension to the pagans, and Saint Peter knew this, which is why he acted towards them in such a way as not to irritate their jealousy, which, as we know, not being controlled by reason, begins to act noisily, randomly, without considering anything. So Saint Peter began to distance himself from the pagans, with the goal of avoiding the temptation of lovers of Judaism and preserving peace in the Churches. It turned out differently. The first consequence of this was division in the Church of Antioch. The Jews, who, through the inspirations of Saint Paul, merged with the pagans in this Church, carried away by the example of Peter, now began to separate from them. “The rest of the Jews also played hypocrites with him,” says Saint Paul. They did not know the intentions of Saint Peter and, only by imitating him, separated from the pagans. But it might have occurred to them: shouldn’t they really keep themselves away from the pagans? This could not but shake their previous conviction that the mediastinum dividing Jews and pagans was already collapsing. Thus, the labors of the Apostle Paul were rendered futile. He had one concern: to merge Jews and pagans into one Church, in which there would be no traces of either Judaism or paganism, but only Christianity reigned and all believers lived in one spirit in Christ Jesus. The Church of Antioch was exemplary in this regard, for the formation of which he spent so much work. - And so, however, before his eyes a dangerous division took place in this Church. What was it like for the Apostle Paul to see this, especially when Barnabas adhered to the hypocrisy of others, this hidden man of Paul, who acted in the same spirit with him here and in other places, planting with him more than one Church free from Judaism?! The action of Saint Barnabas seems very incomprehensible at first. But there is nothing special about him: he acted in the same spirit as St. Peter and as St. Paul himself acted on other occasions. He approached Saint Peter, not yet seeing how Saint Paul would act, and not expecting any consequences harmful to the cause of the Gospel. But Saint Paul looked at this circumstance differently. He clearly saw the harm to the well-being of the Church that flowed from this way of acting. The division alone was already harmful. But, in addition, there could be fluctuations in the beliefs of the pagan Christians themselves. They might have thought: why have we become like outcasts? But from this, some could draw the following conclusion: if it is necessary to Judaize for communication, then we are ready, and others: if it is necessary to Judaize for communication, and we would never agree to Judaize, then all that remains is to turn to the old pagan beliefs. Saint Paul does not say that Peter’s act had such an effect on pagan Christians; but its possibility is very likely. In every possible way he could not remain without any influence on them. Ambrosiastes believes that when Saint Peter, who had previously lived with the pagans in a pagan way, suddenly began to shun them for the sake of those zealots of the law who came, then the pagan Christians were also perplexed as to what course of action was right? If justice demanded to Judaize, then he himself turns out to be a violator of it when he lived with them like a pagan. If it was better or righteous to live simply, like them, then they were upset by the disdain he now began to have for them. However, no matter how you interpret all this, it was clear that the well-intentioned act of Saint Peter turned out to have a harmful effect on the Christian society of Antioch. This is what called Saint Paul to find out the truth in order to restore the order that had been disrupted. Gal.2:14. But when I saw that they were not following the truth of the gospel in the right way, I said to Peter before everyone: If you are a Jew, living like a pagan, and not like a Jew, why do tongues need to live like a Jew? "Egda Videkh". I saw it first; because it was more convenient for him to see it. If Saint Peter had seen this harm himself, then, of course, even without a reminder, he would have stopped acting in the way he considered beneficial to act; others would have stopped behind him, and the matter would have been settled by itself. But what did Saint Paul see? That “it is not right that they walk toward the truth of the gospel.” The thought here is not that they do not live according to the Gospel, but that they act in such a way that the way they act turns out to be unfavorable for the success of the gospel. Anyone who wants the gospel to go and spread successfully will not act like this. You act in a way that undermines the progress of the gospel. This is where you are wrong. A prudent measure is no longer prudent if it produces effects that are completely opposite to those expected. "Rekoh Petru". Saint Paul tells the Apostle Peter that his alienation from the pagans began with him and that, therefore, if he stops alienating himself from them, others will stop following him. And therefore it could also have been done that if Saint Paul had turned to others, they might have thought that Saint Peter was for them, and would have boldly objected; now, seeing that Peter was exposed and was silent, they too should have remained silent and submitted to the word of Saint Paul. Saint Chrysostom writes that Saint Paul then turns to Peter, so that from the reprimand given to him, those who believed among the Jews would know the truth. For if Paul had turned his reproof upon the most believing of the Jews, they would have rejected his rebuke with contempt and indignation; for they have not yet learned to respect him much. Now, seeing the silence of their teacher being denounced, they could neither despise him nor contradict what he said. He says to him “in front of everyone,” because his act, which caused the remark, was committed in front of everyone, and especially because it was useful for everyone, and it was necessary to keep in mind and heart what he had to say. “What he said in front of everyone, necessity forced him to let this rebuke serve as a healing medicine for everyone. For it was not useful to correct a matter that had clearly caused harm secretly” (Blessed Augustine). “For this purpose he said before everyone, in order to frighten those listening” (St. Chrysostom) “Just as those who with healthy legs pretend to limp, still do not have a defect in their legs, but limp for some other reason; so Peter, knowing that circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing, but keeping the commandments of God, first ate with pagan Christians; then he distanced himself from them for a while, so as not to alienate the Jews from the faith. Why does Paul, in the same spirit, confront him and speak before everyone, not in order to denounce Peter, but so that those for whose sake Peter was hypocritical would correct themselves, or so that the pride of the Jews would be knocked down, and the pagans would not be allowed to despair” (Blessed Jerome). “If you are a Jew, living like a pagan, and not like a Jew, why should tongues need to live like a Jew?” Saint Paul turns to what happened before this, and in this he takes the basis for his remark. Saint Peter, who grew up in the bonds of Jewish decrees, having entered the society of pagan Christians, gave himself complete freedom from these constraints, not observing the usual rules among Jews that determined their relations with pagans. Saint Paul says, as it were: you gave yourself, who was unfree, freedom from Judaism, and you force the pagans, who did not know this connection (bond), to Judaize. The essence of the reproach is not that he became a Jew with the Jews, but that by doing this he forced the pagans to Judaize. How? By his example, which in him had the power of a persuasive word and even a law. Seeing themselves alienated and wanting to maintain communication with a highly respected person, they were ready or came to the idea of ​​submitting to the yoke of the law. Thus, the convictions sown there by St. Paul among Jews and pagans wavered, and the purity of the Gospel truth was in danger of accepting mixtures that perverted it. I will give fatherly opinions on this case, which impressively interpret its meaning. St. Augustine writes: “Peter was reproached by Paul not because he observed Jewish customs, but because (by this observance) he forced the pagans to do the same. – Separating himself from the pagans to please those who considered it necessary for salvation to observe Jewish decrees, he pretended that he considered it necessary to impose the yoke of legal work on the pagans as well. This is evident from the very words with which he is rooted. For Saint Paul does not tell him why you again returned to Jewish customs - you, who, being a Jew, live paganly, and not like Jews, but: why do you force the pagans to practice Judaism? Blessed Jerome expresses the same thought more fully: “he presses Peter with irrefutable evidence, or, better, in the person of Peter, those who forced him to such contradictory actions. If, he says, you, Peter, by nature a Jew, circumcised in infancy and keeping all the precepts of the law, now by the grace of Christ, knowing that all this is nothing in itself, but was only an image of the good things to come, began to eat food with the believing pagans with complete freedom, without embarrassment, then how can you, now moving away from them, as if from the unclean, force them Judaize? For if those from whom you distance yourself are unclean, and you distance yourself because they are not circumcised, then you force them to be circumcised and become Jews, while you yourself, being a Jew, live like a pagan. Paul presents the reason for his rebellion against Peter as the fact that he, through his (well-intentioned) hypocrisy, forced the pagans to Judaize; for they were disposed to imitate him.” Saint Chrysostom draws attention to the other side of the matter, namely, that Saint Paul stands for the pagans, and has in mind the admonition of the Jews, and, moreover, not directly from them, but in the person of Saint Peter. “What does St. Paul mean when he says this? He wants to make his reproof more acceptable and bearable. For if he had said this: you are doing badly in keeping the law, then the Jews would have accused him of insolence against the teacher. Now, accusing him on behalf of his disciples, he made his speech more understandable, and not only by this, but also by the fact that, leaving all others, he turned all the accusation against one Apostle Peter. “If you,” he says, “are a Jew, you live like a pagan, and not like a Jew,” - almost saying this: you imitate your teacher, and he himself, being a Jew, lives like a pagan. But he did not say this clearly because his advice would not have been accepted; but opens the thought to Petrov under the guise of a reprimand for the pagans. Also, if he said: why are you forcing those who converted from the Jews to live again like Jews? – his words would have been much more unbearable; now, as if taking the side of the disciples from the pagans, and not from the Jews, he thereby corrects these latter. For reproofs and reproaches are accepted more easily and quickly when they are not too severe. None of the Gentiles could complain against Paul, because he spoke against the Jews. And Peter arranged all this for the good by his silence, taking on the appearance of hypocrisy, in order to free the Jews from real hypocrisy.” The silence of St. Peter forces us to assume the following thoughts in him in response to St. Paul: if so, if those pagan believers are as if tempted and deduced from my act that in order to be saved I must Judaize, then you are right, I should not do that. I agree with you that this mediastinum - Judaism - should not exist between believers. St. Paul's speech did not create a break. Saint Peter saw that she was right and remained on good terms with Saint Paul, as he himself testified to (2 Pet. 3:15). Pavlov’s peaceful acceptance of the word shows that he said the same thing that was in Peter’s own heart. And perhaps he was glad to have such an impressionable admonition to those zealots with whom it was very difficult to speak and manage in Jerusalem. Blessed Theodoret writes: “The great Peter confirms Paul’s words with silence, as if saying so to those who believed from among the Jews and were then with the Apostles: Paul rightly reproaches me, it is impossible to contradict his words. And that Peter, having in mind the benefit of those listening, was pleased with Pavlov’s words, is obvious to everyone. So, since one reproached, and the other accepted it in silence; then a medicine was prepared that would be useful for those who believed, both Jews and pagans. The Divine Apostle wrote this to the Galatians, letting them know that the great and first Apostles, due to the weakness of the Jews, sometimes allowed them to keep the law, but did not always do so.” Saint Damascus also clarifies the relationship of this incident to the Galatians, showing how a reminder of this corresponds to the goals of the Epistle. “By this circumstance, Saint Paul in passing teaches the Galatians to graciously accept the reproach addressed to them. For if Peter, being one of the Jews, having been reproached for inciting others to practice Judaism, calmly accepted this reproach as an appropriate and good thing; much more, the Galatians, being from the pagans, and after believing in Christ, inclined towards the yoke of the law, being reproached for this, should graciously accept this reproach.” “How lovingly Saint Peter accepted this rebuke of salvation for the sake of the flock of Christ! - says Augustine. - The one being reproached was more wondrous than the one reproaching. Here is an example to follow, an example of humility, which is the highest Christian virtue. They primarily cherish mutual love, which nothing destroys more quickly than pride.” b) Speech concerning him (Gal. 2:15-21) Saint Paul's speech to Saint Peter, regarding his alienation from the pagans, only began with the previous words. She continues continuously until the end of the chapter and clarifies the essence of faith in Christ the Lord, and especially freedom with it from the law, which is the main subject of the Epistle. And all the ancient interpreters (except for one, it seems, Ambrosiastes) consider verses 15–21 to be a continuation of St. Paul’s speech to Peter and the other Jews who were there. Others directly mean this, like Theodoret, who moves from verse 14 to 15 like this: “Paul also says everything else that he said to blessed Peter, meaning the benefit of the Jews who were there.” Others, without remembering this, make it clear by the course of their speech that they consider the following words from the 15th verse to be a continuation of the speech begun in the 14th, like Saint Chrysostom, who says: “first he directed his speech to Peter alone, saying: “if you are a Jew,” and then he turns it to everyone, not excluding himself.” And the flow of speech is such that there is no reason to believe that from the 15th verse she is already addressing other persons. It would not occur to anyone that Saint Paul, who was obviously on the move, when he began his speech to Saint Peter, limited himself to what he said in the 14th verse. On the contrary, after this verse one involuntarily expects further speech, in the same spirit and tone, and the words: “we are Jews by nature” and so on - completely correspond to this expectation. But if you just agree that at least one verse was still spoken in Antioch, you will no longer find where to stop until the end of the speech in order to say: from here St. Paul turns to the Galatians. He addresses the Galatians after this speech from the 1st verse of the 3rd chapter. Here all speech goes to Saint Peter and other Jews. And it is all the more necessary to hold on to such a thought because verse 18 (he had already ruined...) cannot be understood unless it is attributed to Saint Peter, who abandoned the Jewish order and then took it up again; and this verse stands in the middle of the entire speech. Others seize on this and say: the 18th verse ends the speech to St. Peter, and then it is addressed to the Galatians. But one has only to read these verses in a row to abandon such a guess. From verse 18, Saint Paul speaks in his own person: “az... az.” With this, the 19th verse merges with the 18th outwardly; internally, with his thoughts, he is connected with him by the union: “for, I am...”. Therefore, there is no need to tear them apart. It is certain that, when citing this speech in the Epistle to the Galatians, Saint Paul had in mind the benefit of the Galatians, and it certainly gives them strong suggestions; but these will be salutary conclusions for the Galatians from a speech not addressed to them. Some of the ancient interpreters draw these conclusions. It can be noted, however, that it has no influence on the understanding of these verses whether they were spoken to Peter in Antioch or written to the Galatians in Ephesus. Therefore, there is no need to strain to determine it, and it is not important. The important thing is that they were spoken by St. Paul and are therefore inspired by God. In this speech: aa) at first Saint Paul keeps his attention on the same case on which he began to speak, trying from the very behavior of Saint Peter and other Jews to extract a conviction about how unreasonable it is to adhere to the law, especially after it has already been so openly abandoned (Gal. 2: 15 - 18); bb) then shows how those who sincerely believe in Christ must place all their hope of salvation on Him alone, decisively abandoning the law. He speaks about this mood as it was formed and maintained in him, making it clear that it should be the same in everyone (Gal. 2: 19-21). aa) At first the Apostle keeps his attention on the same incident (Gal. 2:15–18) Gal.2:15–16. We are Jews by nature, and not by the tongue of a sinner. Having learned that man is not justified by the works of the law, but only by the faith of Jesus Christ, let us also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for before all flesh will be justified by the works of the law. “We” – we are with you, Peter, if we refer only to Saint Peter, or with all the Judeo-Christians who were there, or not with these only, but with all the Jews who believed in Christ. It is clear that Saint Paul distracts his thought from Peter and directs his speech to those who were still attached to the law and considered its fulfillment necessary for salvation. - “By nature of Judaism” - Jews by birth and origin, and not those who accepted Judaism after birth. Our fathers and forefathers are Jews. We were both born and raised in the Jewish law. “Jews” are the people of God, chosen by God as a part of His property, preserved and guided by Him, a people to whom God Himself showed the true path to please Him and provided with all the means of justification before Him, therefore, a holy people, appointed to holiness and adapted to achieve it. - “And not from the tongue of a sinner.” A sinner is one who does not fulfill God’s commandments and violates God’s law. But here the pagans are called sinners in contrast to the Jews, as those who do not know the true God and worship gods that do not exist by nature, and as not having a law that would show them how to be righteous before God, and therefore allowing among themselves many shameful deeds, contrary to God, which they, however, did not consider to be sins, which are approved even by their religion. By presenting such an opposition, the Apostle suggests such thoughts that if the pagans are sinners, then the Jews are not sinners; and further, if the Jews are not sinners by nature, then the pagans are sinners by nature, that is, the Jews were written by birth to be saints, and the pagans to wallow in sinfulness, so that among the Jews sinfulness is an exception, but among the pagans non-sinfulness would be an exception. So that's what we are! - Saint Paul seems to say. And there is no need for us to look for other ways of salvation and justification before God. Let the pagans look for him. And yet, “having known” - obviously knowing, tangibly convinced - partly from one’s own experience, but mainly from the revelation in Christ Jesus, “for he is not justified”, cannot become or be made righteous, “every person” cannot achieve righteousness and holiness, not only we, the Jews, but also every person who would stand in our place, cannot become righteous and holy “by the works of the law”, through the works of the law, with the very strict fulfillment of the prescriptions of the law that determined the external structure of our religious life, which, although they sanctified us to carnal purity, did not calm the conscience and did not give us the strength to resist sin, but “only through the faith of Jesus Christ,” only through faith in Jesus Christ, the promised Savior, who, by His death, satisfied the righteousness of God and the Holy Spirit for sanctification, sending down upon us to us from the Father, did this, that everyone who believes in Him and decides to follow Him receives remission of sins, and is clothed with power from above to resist sin and create all righteousness, for the sake of faith in Him and the determination to be faithful to Him in everything to the point of the stomach - having learned all this, we, the Jews, to whom God Himself was shown all the ranks of justification, which until time had power, but now have become dilapidated, in “Christ Jesus faith”, - they believed in Christ, leaving the law, they resorted to Christ, they placed all the hope of salvation on Him, “that we may be justified by the faith of Christ”, - in the conviction that He will forgive all our sins, and will give us the strength to acquire internal righteousness, in thoughts, feelings and dispositions, which alone makes us right before God - “and not from the works of the law”, which provide only external righteousness, leaving the heart in the old, old wrong: “before all flesh will not be justified by the works of the law.” For the works of the law have not brought anyone and cannot bring anyone to this inner rightness before God. They were not given such power by God, who determined them. Throughout this speech there is one thought: the law does not lead us to righteousness; why, convinced that only Jesus Christ can give it, we, leaving the law, clung to Him by faith. But Saint Paul expresses it in various ways in order to impress it more firmly in memory. Three times he reminds of the powerlessness of the law to deliver righteousness and three times indicates the true source of righteousness, holiness, and salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ through faith in Him. His soul was so full of this conviction and he was so jealous of passing it on to the souls of others! With all this, there are aspects here that require explanation. What do we mean by “law” here? The external order that determined the structure of the moral and religious life of the Jewish people - circumcision, subservience, holidays, sacrifices, ablutions, sprinklings and the like. This rank separated the Jews from all other nations and constituted their exclusive property. The dispositions that make up piety and good morals, such as: fear of God, trust in God, compassion, charity, patience, abstinence, hard work and the like, were common to the entire human race, and did not belong to just the Jews. They are not included in the law here. That exactly what law means here is the external order of Jewish life is evident from the reason for which the speech began. The speech began due to the fact that Saint Peter at first abandoned all the ranks and orders that separated him from the uncircumcised, and lived freely with them, and then, when strict zealots for observing these ranks came, he recoiled from the uncircumcised and again submitted to the ranks that separated him from them, along with those zealots of separation. Here, therefore, the operative reasons were the law of circumcision and non-fellowship with the uncircumcised. Saint Paul understood them directly, and, along with them, all similar laws that determined the external order of Jewish life: for circumcision alone was binding on all of them, just as uncircumcision made them free from them. What the Apostle Paul calls in verse 14: living Jewishly means: living, strictly observing all the orders that characterized Jewish life; to live paganly means to live not subject to these orders. These orders constituted the mediastinum that separated the Jews from the pagans. Saint Paul focused all his efforts on destroying this mediastinum and merging Jews and pagans into one indivisible Church, as one body of Christ. This is how all the ancient interpreters understood the law here. Blessed Theodoret writes: “Nature itself taught what was necessary in the law; These are the commandments: do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness against your neighbor, honor your father and your mother and others like that; the commandments about the Sabbath, about circumcision, about lepers, about sacrifices, about sprinklings were the property of the law; for they were not taught by nature. Therefore the Apostle calls all these works of the law.” Although Saint Chrysostom does not say so definitively what he means by law, in the entire interpretation of this section of the Epistle, where he had to talk about the law, he remembers only circumcision, the Sabbath and sacrifices; and, therefore, means by law the same thing as Theodoret directly expressed. Following them, all other ancient interpreters understand the law this way. Thus, here we should not understand by law the moral law, the rules of piety, good morals and all good deeds. This understanding is contrary to the direct meaning of this section and everything that St. Paul writes about in the 2nd chapter. For at the Council in Jerusalem they also discussed the external Jewish ranks, and the incident with the Apostle Peter was due to external ranks. When the Apostles of the Council wrote to the Antiochians that they had decided not to impose anything on the Gentile believers, except certain restrictions; then, of course, they did not understand that they were given complete freedom from all the rules of piety and good morals, but that they were not obligated to fulfill any laws of Jewish external life, starting with circumcision (Acts 15:24). What does “justification” mean here? In general terms, to justify oneself means to present good reasons why someone is legally absolved of the guilt charged against him, and he is declared right. In this sense, justification before God cannot take place. Between people it is possible that someone will be blamed for something that is not his, and he only has to explain the matter in order to appear innocent. But before God we are all guilty by deed, both for the sin of our ancestors, and for the sake of our own sins. We cannot offer any excuses to justify ourselves, and we cannot do anything to make amends for our guilt. How can this be? So we would always remain under the judgment of God’s truth, if the goodness of God had not arranged for us a special way of justification. To better understand this, let us imagine our guilt under the guise of debt before the righteousness of God. The debtor himself may not have a way to pay his debt, but someone else can pay for it, and when he pays, the creditor no longer considers him responsible to himself, clears him, makes him free from debt. This is what the goodness of God has arranged for us to be justified before God. Our debts are unpaid. But for all of us, our Lord Jesus Christ paid them to the righteousness of God by His death on the cross, the power of which is determined in such a way that in it the Lord Himself bore our sins on His body on the tree (1 Pet. 2:24), and nailed the handwriting of our sins on the cross (Col. 2:14). All that remains is to make sure that the truth of God recognizes each of us individually, personally, as suitable for this mercy, or that each of us presents to the truth of God that in the total mass of persons whose debts have been paid, payment was made for him as well. Let there be many debtors in any city and some rich man announce to the creditors, different or one, that whichever debtor presents a receipt or certificate from me, his debt will be considered paid from my treasury, and his debt free. It is this receipt or testimony on behalf of the Lord that every sinner must present to the truth of God in order to become before it free from the debt of his sins. What kind of receipt or certificate is this? Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. He who believes in the Lord is right before the God of righteousness. What is faith in the Lord? It is in vain that they want to define faith in the Lord in one word. It must be described; for it is a state of the heart that combines not one feeling, conviction and disposition, but several. She comes through repentance; for the Lord says: “Repent and believe in the Gospel” (Mark 1:15). From this laboratory of the repentant spirit, faith no longer comes alone, but is “promoted by love” (Gal. 5:6), after one has faith and is baptized (Mk. 16:16). This is the “new creation”, which is conceived by grace in the first movements of repentance, and in this order is already fully formed, characteristically formed, and has accepted the Christian personality. The whole course of the matter is like this. Only the truly repentant seeks the Lord. The repentant person is filled with two feelings and dispositions: regret that he has sinned, and a strong desire not to succumb to more sinful inclinations. But in the first feeling he is tormented by the truth of God, which cannot be satisfied by anything, in the second - desire - he is afraid of his own powerlessness, proven by experience. He resorts to the Lord in full confidence that He will deliver him from one and the other extreme, and will forgive his previous sins, and will give him the strength to resist sins in the future. Without these two certainties, faith in the Lord is unthinkable, just as repentance is unthinkable without contrition for sins and a firm intention not to succumb to sin. But all these dispositions are only preparations for the formation of a believing person. Education itself is carried out by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of baptism, in which, immersed, he is immersed in the death of Christ and receives remission of sins, and emerging from immersion, he emerges in renewal of life, endowed with the power not to work for sin, but to live the rest of God in Christ Jesus (see Rom. 6: 3-13). This is when a fully formed believing Christian person appears. She goes all this way; but nothing is lost from what has passed, but on the contrary, everything is included in the structure of her spirit, which is called in one word: faith. Faith therefore combines many feelings; but its distinguishing feature, outstanding, is the dedication of oneself to the service of the Lord to the point of the stomach in the hope of salvation by His grace. The believer feels that he was bought at the price of blood; he must work for the One who bought him, in full confidence that in this way he will certainly be saved. Only he who believes this way is justified before God, not only in the sense that the guilt of sinfulness is removed from him, but that the seed of all righteousness is placed in him in his determination to work for the Lord, by doing His will, and in the feeling of strength for this instilled in him by the grace that regenerated him. He has inner rightness; for the right spirit is renewed in “his womb” (Ps. 50:12). After this, it is self-evident why the law does not justify, but only faith in the Lord Jesus Christ: because the law did not give new life. The Jew who had sinned came, confessed his sin, made the prescribed sacrifice and was restored to all the rights of a Jew; but internally he remained the same, with the same slavery to sin. Therefore it is said that all sacrifices were purified only for carnal purity (Heb. 9:13). Equally, the execution of all other statutes of the law imparted only external rightness, leaving the ancient wrongness inside. Circumcision itself brought Israel into the fold, but left the heart uncircumcised. Thus, a Jew, faithful to the law, was only declared to be right outwardly, without being right in his heart. On the contrary, he who believes in the Lord is not only declared to be right, but receives rightness in the inner structure of life, is renewed and, like a mature young man, full of strength, goes out to please the Lord, in the feeling of the grace-filled power bestowed upon him. This internal renewal is a characteristic feature of the faith of Christ. For his sake, the Christian himself is justified in the face of God’s truth, justified by perfect justification. This, in fact, is the testimony for the sake of which everything is forgiven, and the one who presents it is again accepted into the full mercy and complete favor of God. Meanwhile, however, the law was not bad. He had his strength according to God’s definition and bore the corresponding fruit: he kept them in good order, although only externally, and prepared those who were more attentive to receive the Lord, since all his orders were an image of the good things to come. Those who understood this, even being under the law, sighed for these blessings and looked forward to the coming of the Person who would bring them. And this made them superior to the Jews among the Jews. Such were all the Old Testament patriarchs, prophets, and righteous people. Saint Chrysostom sees in the words of Saint Paul such an incentive to abandon the law: “we, says (Saint Paul), abandoned the law not because it was not good, but because it was weak.” To explain this weakness, Theophylact adds to the words of Saint Chrysostom: “(and he is weak) because he did not sanctify the soul, but only took away carnal impurity.” On this basis, Blessed Theodoret generally defines the meaning of the law as follows: “violation of these commandments (the above mentioned: about circumcision, Sabbath, sacrifices, ablutions, etc.) is a sin (for a Jew), however, keeping them does not mean progress in perfect righteousness. For all this served as an indication of something else; however, it was suitable for the Jews at that time.” Blessed Jerome, speaking about this meaning of the law, explains in what case and for what reason the law remained with such little fruit. “Some say: if what St. Paul says here is true, that by the works of the law no one will be justified, but only by the faith of Jesus Christ; then the patriarchs, prophets and saints who lived before the coming of Christ were imperfect. These must be answered that here they are called those who have not achieved the truth, who believe that they can be justified only by such works. The saints who were of old were justified by the faith of Christ. For Abraham saw the day of Christ and rejoiced. And Moses considered the reproach of Christ to be wealth greater than the treasures of Egypt: “he looked upon the reward” (Heb. 11:26). And Isaiah saw the glory of Christ (Is. 6), as the Evangelist John testifies. From this it is clear that it is not so much the works of the law that are condemned as those who hope to be justified only by works, when the Savior Himself says: “Unless your righteousness comes to pass, no more than the scribe and the Pharisee, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 5:20).” Gal.2:17. If, in seeking to be justified in Christ, sinners themselves are found, is Christ a servant of sin? It won't happen. The apostle draws attention to the present circumstance - that, excluding those who came from James, all the Jews who were here, including the Apostle Peter, abandoned everything legal for the sake of faith in the Lord, and then turned to him again, for the reason that now the zealots of the law were looking at them. It was as if they had captured them in a bad case, which they had to hasten to correct! It’s as if it were sin, leaving the law behind, to cleave to Christ—to Christ, Who is the cleansing for our sins! This is the absurdity that comes from your way of acting! In the word: “seeking,” the Apostle shows that all who heard his word were definitely excited people and zealously sought salvation. They looked for him in the law and saw that he did not satisfy the requirements of the conscience and heart of a God-loving man. Why did they legally leave him and cleave to the Lord, the true Savior, the Physician of souls, in Whom all spiritual treasures are given to us. They sought this in Christ and, of course, found it, for everyone who seeks this in Him finds it. Why turn again to the weak elements? This behavior cannot be understood. They sought to be justified, “but sinners were found.” When they found us doing such deeds that testified that we believe to be saved only in the Lord Jesus Christ, without the works of the law; we came to our senses, we felt ashamed, both in front of others and in front of our own conscience, and quickly corrected our mistake. They accepted freedom, and then again jumped away from it, as if they had been burned, as if they had committed a destructive sin! “Is Christ then a servant of sin?” And it turned out, in your opinion, that clinging to Christ and placing all the hope of salvation on Him alone, abandoning legal affairs, means the same thing as falling into sin. “And Christ became among you a servant of sin, plunging everyone into sin, whoever cleaves to Him by faith. Is this possible, when He came for our salvation and we turned to Him, expecting this salvation and actually finding it? This is the meaning of your action. What incentive could those who understood the power of these speeches of the Apostle to completely abandon the law and never return to it again be able to derive from this! Saint Chrysostom writes: “if, he says, faith in Christ cannot justify, then the law is again necessary; then, having left the law for Christ and not receiving justification through leaving it, but being condemned, we will have to recognize the culprit of our condemnation as the One to whom we passed, leaving the law. Look to what inevitable absurdity he led his words. For if, he says, one should not leave the law, but we left it for Christ, then we will be judged for this. - But why, Paul, do you say and advise this to Peter, who knew all this perfectly? Didn’t God reveal to him that an uncircumcised man should not be condemned for not being circumcised?.. He does not say this to correct Peter, but, turning his speech to Peter because he found it necessary, he speaks to the disciples. You have put on Christ, become a member of the Lord, and are numbered among the city on high—how can you still grovel near the law? How can you reach the Kingdom? Hear the words of Paul that by keeping the law the Gospel is overthrown, and if you want, I will show you - and how it is; and you be afraid and try to avoid the threatening abyss. Why do you observe the law? Of course, fearing the law and fearing leaving these letters? But you would not have been afraid to leave the law if you had not despised faith, as weak as it was and in itself unable to save you. If it is necessary to fulfill the law, then it is necessary to reject Christ or, following Christ, to become a transgressor of the law. For if the law must be fulfilled, then those who do not fulfill it are lawbreakers, and for us Christ will be the culprit of this crime; for He Himself released from the obligation to this law and gave the commandment to others to release from this obligation. Look what the Judaizers get to! They make Christ, the author of our justification, the author of sin, just as Paul says: “Is Christ then a servant of sin?” Having brought them to such an absurdity, he no longer needed to bring other evidence to refute them, but one denial was enough”; That’s why he only said: “let it not happen!” For against a completely obvious absurdity there is no need to seek evidence, but one denial is enough. This “let it not be,” according to Blessed Augustine, was uttered by Saint Paul not on his own behalf, but on behalf of all those who heard him, not excluding the zealots of the law who came. For, that Christ was a servant of sin, this “they could not say, because not only did they themselves believe in Christ, but they did not even want the Gospel to be taught to anyone except the circumcised.” Gal.2:18. Even if I have ruined, I create again, I imagine a criminal. Explains how they turned out to be sinners when, having left the law, they turned to it again, using an example from everyday life. No one here will destroy any building at random, unless they are convinced that it is not needed. But if he, having destroyed the building, begins to build it again in the same form, then he will expose himself that he did something bad, by destroying it, he turned out to be a criminal against worldly wisdom. So it is with us, Saint Paul seems to say. Having abandoned the law, we ruined it; turning to him again, we create him again. But if we turn to him again for the sake of the fact that it is impossible to be without him, then we expose ourselves before everyone that we did something bad by leaving the law, thereby sinning before God. If, on the contrary, we abandoned the law out of the conviction that it had become dilapidated and lost its strength, and we clung to Christ out of the conviction that He is the only true Savior, then, now returning again to the abandoned law, we go against our conscience and violate our consciously correctly known will of God to seek salvation only in the Lord Jesus Christ. Consequently, we appeared as sinners both before God and before our conscience. “Do you see the prudence of Paul,” says Saint Chrysostom. “The Jews wanted to show that he who does not keep the law is a criminal; but he says the opposite, that he who fulfills the law is a criminal, and a criminal not only against faith, but also against the law itself. For by the words: “I have destroyed, I will build again,” he means the law. And his words have this meaning: the law has received an end; and we ourselves confirmed this by the fact that, having left it, we resorted to seek salvation from faith. By trying after this to restore the law, we thereby become criminals of it, that is, when we stubbornly want to observe what was abolished by God Himself.” This reproach is very strong; why does Saint Paul turn him to himself, as if he himself had acted this way, at the same time in order to soften the impression, which could not be pleasant. Or, speaking in the first person, he makes speech general, as it were: whether it’s me, or someone else, in general, everyone who does this is doing something bad - in order to distract the speech from those listening - for the sake of softening the reproach. bb) Then the Apostle shows how the hope of salvation must be placed in the One Lord (Gal. 2:19-21) Gal.2:19. For I died by the law, but I will live by God, and have been crucified by Christ. In the last three verses, the Apostle shows with what determination one must leave the law and cleave to the One Lord, setting forth as the basis that in this cleaving to the Lord, as if merging one’s life with His life, there is real life, salvation and righteousness. He speaks about this in his own face, as it were: this is how everyone should act, like me - to die to the law and live only for Christ and Christ. He could talk about himself like that and present himself as a model not for boasting, but for explaining the matter. For everyone knew how suddenly, as soon as he learned that there was truth in Christ, he cut off all communication with the law. As much as he had previously been devoted to him and trusted in him, so much, having believed in the Lord, he became far from him and regarded him as nothing. “He expresses this attitude towards the law with the words: “I died to the law” - it ceased to exist for him, and it ceased to exist for me. Just as a deceased person becomes free from all obligations to the living, so with my death all obligations to him ceased to law. “The law,” he says, “died,” so that it would no longer be under the law” (Blessed Augustine). For “whoever frees himself from the law dies to the law” (Ambrosiastes). He exposes himself to the law as having died through the law: “He died by the law.” The law itself killed me for itself, pushed me away from itself, took me away from itself and led me to Christ. This can be understood in two ways. Or this: the law itself, because it did not satisfy my search for truth, forced me to abandon it and turn to another true source of righteousness; or this: the law itself foretold Christ to me - the goal and end of the law; he himself talks about the coming of Christ the Savior and the need to listen to Him in order to be saved. Following this suggestion of the law, I turned to Christ and abandoned the law. Both thoughts are combined in one thought: that the law was a nurturer in Christ. The ancient interpreters dwell on it more. So Blessed Augustine: “by the law,” he says, “I died to the law”; since he was a Jew and had the law as his disciple in Christ, as he explains later (Gal. 3:24). What the nurturer himself does is that he himself is not needed afterwards: just as a baby feeds from nipples, so that later he does not need nipples.” So Saint Chrysostom: “he shows that through this very law he died to the law, that is, the law itself convinced me not to follow the law. And if after this I follow it, then I will thereby violate it. How and in what way? Moses, predicting about Christ, says: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren: him you will listen to” (Deut. 18:15). It is obvious from this that those who do not obey Christ transgress the law.” Thus Theodoret: “convinced by the law itself,” says the Apostle, I made myself dead to the law; because the law foretold Christ to me; Convinced by the law, I came to Christ, and to the law I am dead; because I am no longer governed in life by him, but I will follow the decrees of Christ.” But, in addition to this main understanding, they find shades of other thoughts in the words of the Apostle. So they say that by the law by which Saint Paul died, one can understand the law of the Gospel, as it were: a new law came from God, in obedience to which I left the old law; or this way: I was bound to the old law, like a wife to her husband, and could not leave him; but a new law came and killed that old law, from which, through its death, I became free and combined with the new law, which the law itself allows me to do. So Saint Chrysostom: “it is possible that he is speaking here about the law of grace, because he usually calls grace the law when, for example, he says: “the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus set me free to eat” (Rom. 8:2).” So Blessed Jerome: “Whoever dies to the law lived before it, observing Saturdays, new moons, holidays, sacrifices. When Christ came, and the old law died through the Gospel law, then the soul, which, according to what is written, “is alive to the husband of an adulterer, even if he becomes another husband,” - after the death of the husband, that is, the old law, is free to unite (with another husband) with the spiritual law (of faith in Christ), so that it may bear fruit for God (Rom. 7: 3-4).” Saint Chrysostom, moreover, finds it possible to see in the Apostle the following thought: the law killed me, and I became dead to it; but Christ gave life to me when I was dead, and I live to Him. “We can,” he says, “also understand the words differently: “I died by law.” If the law commands to fulfill everything written in it and punishes non-compliance (with death), then we all died by it, because no one fulfilled it. But just as it is not natural for the soulless and dead to obey the commandments of the law, so it is not for me, who died by the law, because I died by the power of its word. Consequently, he should no longer demand obedience from the deceased, whom he himself killed - and not only by physical death, but also by spiritual death, through which he also subjected the body. since he said: I am dead, so that they would not say to him: how do you live? - he presented the reason for life and showed that the law killed him alive, and Christ, having received the dead, revived him through His death: which also shows a twofold miracle - both in that Christ revived him “dead,” and that he revived him “through death.” “Let me live for God,” that is, to live for God. He lives for God who dedicates all his thoughts, desires, feelings, words, deeds and all kinds of work to God, for His glory, to please Him, according to His holy will. – And those who were under the law lived for God, but only outwardly; their inner things did not work for Him. Despite all this, they were considered right, as having fulfilled the external conditions of justification. Now, he says, I, by the grace of God, am reborn in the Lord, both internally and externally, with all my being I strive towards God and live truly for Him, “that is, an immortal and ageless life” (Ecumenius). - Or this: before the coming of the Lord, whoever wanted to live for God had to live according to the law of Moses; for such was the will of God. Now it’s different: God in the Lord Jesus Christ established a new, better and more effective way of life according to God. Why, whoever wants to live now to God, that is, completely according to His will, truly pleasing to Him, must abandon the law and believe in the Lord: for such is now the will of God, that God should live no other way than in Christ and through Christ. If I, he says, left the law, and only left it, so as not to be constrained by the law, then it would be worse than being under the law. But I left one law in order to adopt another, better one; I still revolve in the same area in which the will of God reigns; He left the law in order to live for God, as before, enslaving the law, he thought to live for God. But then there was no true life in me; and now I recognize it in me and live by it, with the confidence that, living this way, I live to God. Where did Saint Paul get this new life? In co-crucifixion with Christ. “Christ,” he says, “has fallen asleep.” With these words he shows how, having left the law, he began to live for God. He seems to be saying: don’t think that leaving the law was easy for me. No. It was the same as crucifixion. Why was Christ crucified? In order to fulfill the will of the Heavenly Father, Who “so loved the world, as He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but may have eternal life” (John 3:16). I understood this will and, in order to follow it, I sacrificed everything - everything that was so dear to my heart - our religious beliefs and the love of my people. Was it easy for me to leave what I had been accustomed to since childhood, what I valued so highly and treasured so much?! But, realizing that this was the will of God, I tore my heart away from it. Didn’t I see that by abandoning the law, I would incur the hatred of my people, whom I love and whose glory and prosperity I consider my own? But I submitted myself to all kinds of suffering from those I love, so as not to sin against the will of our Heavenly Father, so clearly revealed to me in the Lord Jesus Christ. My change was painful, like death. It was painful to fall behind the law, it was scary to arouse danger all around and put yourself in a state of expecting death at every hour. But I surrendered myself to illness and death, clinging to Christ by faith and placing all the hope of my salvation in Him alone. I was and am in a crucified state, in co-crucifixion with Christ. But that's not all. The co-crucifixion with Christ is visible here; but how did new life according to God come from here?! In order for a new life to begin, one specified moral change was not enough. This change is only preparation for a new life. Life itself is formed by rebirth, which takes place in baptism. Saint Chrysostom says: “But how, who will say, he was crucified (to Christ) when he was alive and breathing? That Christ was crucified is clear; but how are you crucified and live? With the words: “I have been crucified with Christ,” he pointed to baptism.” “I have been crucified with Christ; for I was buried in Him through baptism” (Blessed Theodoret). “I was spiritually crucified to Him and died with Him through baptism” (Blessed Theophylact). How the one baptized into the death of Christ is immersed and emerges from the font in newness of life, the Apostle depicts at length in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 6:1-13). At this moment of new birth, the soul feels and from the same moment constantly begins to feel that it already has in perfection everything that it expected and could expect from the law, which therefore turns out to be unnecessary - and that the new life that has arisen is so blissful that in comparison with it all sacrifices are nothing. Thus, that which, at the time of turning to Christ the Lord, caused mortal illness and threatened death, has now disappeared: that deathly thing was consumed by the belly in Christ Jesus the Lord. Gal.2:20. I am not the one who lives, but Christ lives in me: but as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I died, he says, but not in order to be dead, but in order to live a different life, a more perfect one. I have been crucified with Christ; and Christ, alive and on the crucifixion, filled me with His life: he began to live in me. Now it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. This is not moral only in the sense that I am completely devoted to Him and dedicate everything to Him - thoughts, feelings, deeds, words, everything external, as well as internal - I don’t plan anything for myself, everything is for Him, so it’s as if I don’t exist, but only He exists in me and pleasing Him is my only concern: but in fact, essentially, He is in me. I matched with Him, and He matched with me. I was grafted into Him like a wild olive tree, and He filled me with His life. He works all things in me, directing everything to the glory of God and the salvation of me and others. From Him is the excitement, from Him is the strength. It does not happen that a personality disappears; but in such a way that the soul consciously and freely surrenders itself to the all-action of Christ. And He acts omnipotently in the soul, according to desire, seeking and loving perception of His omnipotence; so in fact it turns out that the soul itself acts. For “be joined to the Lord; there is one spirit with the Lord” (1 Cor. 6:17). By faith Christ dwells in hearts (Eph. 3:17), and what He promised is fulfilled: “you are in Me and I am in you” (John 15:4). Hence: whatever a believer does that is truly valuable in the eyes of God, he does not do without Him (John 15:5). Without Him no one can do such things. Ecumenius writes: “For this reason Christ lives in me, that in me there is nothing displeasing to Him. Or this: lives in me, influencing, dominating, being everything to me.” St. Chrysostom depicts this and the other side of this mystery of life in Christ in more detail: “having said: “I live,” he pointed to the way of life that follows baptism, by which the ouds are killed. What does it mean: “Christ lives in me”? That, he says, is that I do nothing that is displeasing to Christ. For just as by life he does not mean common life, but sinful life, so by death he means liberation from sins. For it is impossible to live for God otherwise than by dying to sin. So, just as Christ died in the body, so I died to sin. “Put to death,” he says, “your evils that are on earth, fornication, uncleanness, passion” (Col. 3:5). Also: “our old man will be crucified with Him” (Rom. 6:6), that is, in the baptismal font. Now, if you remain dead to sin, you will live to God; and if you rise again to sin, you will lose this life. But Paul is not like that: throughout his whole life he remained dead to sin. Look how strict and pure his life is, and above all others, marvel at this blessed soul! He did not say: I live, but: “Christ lives in me.” Who dares to dispute the truth of what was said? Although he devoted himself entirely to Christ, abandoned everything temporary and did everything according to His will, he did not say: therefore I live for Christ, but, what is much more important, “Christ lives in me.” For just as sin, when it dominates a person, it already lives in him and controls his soul according to his will: so, when, after killing him, a person does what is pleasing to Christ, such a life of his is no longer the life of a person, but of one living in him, that is, Christ acting and ruling him.” “And now I live in the flesh.” This is a conclusion from the previous one. – To live according to the flesh means to live carnally, sensually, in lusts; and to live in the flesh means to live in the body, visible to everyone, in this life. The apostle draws the attention of those who listened to him to how he carried himself or behaved visibly for everyone, and says, as it were: that if I visibly conduct myself this way and that way for everyone, that is, free from all the obligations of the law, I do not offer sacrifices, I do not accept washings, I do not observe the Sabbath or holidays, and I count circumcision itself as nothing, that I now live so visibly, then this is because “by faith I live the Son of God”; I don’t rely on anything else but Him, I placed all the hope of salvation on Him, in the unshakable confidence that He will forgive my sins, and correct my life, and bring me into His eternal Kingdom. I live by this faith; it makes up the entire structure of my inner life. The legal sacrifices and all the provisions of the law had value because they represented Christ, the Son of God. Now, when the Son of God came and gave Himself for us, all the Old Testament rites lost their meaning. We must abandon the law and cling to Christ by faith: which is what I do. I counted everything in my mind, so that I might gain Christ, and I live by faith alone in Him. The Son of God, who loved us, came to earth and gave Himself for us, and became our Intercessor, and the Propitiator of God’s truth, and the Giver of God’s grace, giving us new life. This I accept and assimilate to myself by faith and I don’t want to know anything else. That is why I live the way you see me living, that is, in complete detachment from the law! Here, according to the remark of Saint Chrysostom, lies a strong reproach to those to whom Pavlov’s speech was addressed. He seems to say to each of them: “Christ loved you so much that He gave Himself; and, when you had no hope of salvation, he led you to such a great and such a high life; and you, having received such benefits, again turn to the old.” Saint Chrysostom also draws special attention to why Saint Paul assimilates the salvation of all, accomplished by the Lord, to himself alone. “What are you doing, Pavle? Why do you appropriate to yourself what is common to all and attribute to yourself only what has been done for all people? For you did not say: the one who loved us, but: “the one who loved me.” And the Evangelist says: “God so loved the world” (John 3:16); and you yourself say in another place: “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up to eat—not for you, but for us all” (Rom. 8:32). Why is he saying this here? He imagined all the hopelessness of human nature and the ineffable care of Jesus Christ for us, and what He freed us from, and what He gave us, and, imagining all this, he was completely enveloped in the flame of love for Him; that's why he says so. For the Prophets often call the God common to all theirs, saying this: “O God, my God! I come to You in the morning” (Ps. 63:2). In addition, he showed by this that each of us owes the same just gratitude to Christ, which we would have owed even if He had come for him alone. For he would not refuse to accept such a petition for himself even for one; because he loves each person individually as much as the whole world. Moreover, although the sacrifice was made for everyone and was sufficient for the salvation of everyone; however, only those who believed took advantage of her benefit.” Gal.2:21. I do not reject the grace of God: if the law were right, then Christ died without death. “To dismiss means not to believe, to humiliate, to condemn” (Ecumenius). The apostle says, as it were: I cannot do otherwise; for if I had still adhered to the law, I would have rejected, despised and despised grace. Or this: The Lord Himself so mercifully approaches me, for the sake of a single faith, granting me both forgiveness of sins and inner renewal: how can I reject this grace and continue to bind myself with the bonds of the law? Saint Damascus says: “By grace, he says, I became free. Why, by returning again to the law, will I not bring reproach upon grace, as if it were not powerful to give life?” “For (after the coming of grace) he who continues to live according to the law dishonors grace, as insufficient for salvation” (Blessed Theodoret). According to Ambrosiastes, Saint Paul seems to be saying this here: “I cannot be ungrateful to the grace of God and not remain unshakably in faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, knowing that I have not been benefited by anyone as much as He has, and that if I compare another (law) with him, from whom I have received no help, then I will show contempt for Him.” “If by law there is righteousness”, δικαιοσυνη, - righteousness, godly, saving life, - “for Christ will not die.” If the law had provided both forgiveness of sins, and inner righteousness and sanctification, then Christ would have had no reason to die for. Then He died in order to provide us with these two essential benefits - forgiveness of sins and sanctifying grace, which, besides Him, no one else could provide and without which there is no salvation for us. For as long as we are under sin and not forgiven, we have no approach to God. But even if they were forgiven, but were not internally renewed and did not receive the strength to walk steadfastly in the will of God, then everyone would remain indecent before God. The Lord Savior died for us and nailed our sins to the cross. Then, ascending into heaven, he sent down the Holy Spirit from the Father. Why does He grant those who believe in Him both forgiveness of sins and the saving grace of the Holy Spirit. Without these two there is no salvation for us. Consequently, Christ, who delivered them to us, did not die in vain. But if these benefits were provided by the law, then Christ would have no reason to die, when everything necessary for salvation is already provided by the law. The Apostle, however, expresses here only a general position; the conclusion from it is left to everyone to draw for themselves, for the sake of its extreme obviousness. Namely: but Christ did not die in vain; it cannot be said that Christ died in vain; therefore, it is not true by law. St. Chrysostom says with these words of St. Paul: “What other sin is greater than this, what other words are stronger than these to expose? For if Christ died, it is obvious because the law is not able to justify us; if the law justifies, then Christ died in vain. But wouldn’t it be unreasonable to call this, so terrible and beyond the human mind, useless and vain, this indescribable sacrament, which the patriarchs were impatiently awaiting, which the Prophets predicted and which the Angels looked on in horror - a matter that, in fairness from all, should be recognized as the main reason for God’s providence for us? Thus, the Apostle presents it as an extreme degree of stupidity and absurdity - to consider such a great and important matter in vain.” “This word is very strong,” writes Blessed Jerome, “against those who, after believing in Christ, think that they must observe the precepts of the law. If the law is true, then Christ died in vain. Or let them show how Christ did not die in vain, if the works of the law justify; but no matter how stupid they are, they will not dare to say that Christ died for nothing - Therefore, we must supplement the speech here with the following guidance: but Christ did not die for nothing; and conclude: therefore, it is not the law that is true.” You might be interested in: