Глава II

The Apostle Paul is recognized at the Council in Jerusalem as a completely correct preacher of the Gospel (1-10). The Apostle Paul himself denounces the Apostle Peter in Antioch (11–21) Gal.2:1–10. To prove that the Apostle Paul was always recognized in the Church as a true Apostle of Christ, in no way inferior to the 12 Apostles, Paul recalls what happened 14 years after his first visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18). On this second visit to Jerusalem, he offered his Gospel to the entire Jerusalem Church and especially to the Apostles, and no one found it necessary to correct in any way the Apostle’s understanding of the essence and purpose of Christianity. The apostles shook hands with Paul and recognized his primary right to preach to the pagans. Gal.2:1. Then, fourteen years later, I again went to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus with me. Ap., obviously, begins counting 14 years from his first visit to Jerusalem, because he uses the expression “again,” which returns the reader’s thought to his first visit to Jerusalem. But which of the three subsequent journeys that took place after the first does the Apostle mean in the present case? There were three such journeys before the writing of Galatians (see Acts 11, Acts 15 and Acts 18). In modern times, the view has been established that the Apostle here refers to the journey that Acts 15 mentions, namely the journey to the so-called Apostolic Council. This assumption is supported by the agreement of certain moments of the description of Paul’s stay this time in Jerusalem, as they are set out here and in the book of Acts (for details, see Father Galakhov, p. 139)... - “Taking Titus with him.” Titus was accepted uncircumcised into the bosom of the Church of Christ, and the Apostle deliberately takes him with him to the very center of Jewish Christianity in order to show in practice how he understands Christianity, to show that he teaches freedom from the law and circumcision. - In what relation this time Barnabas stood to Paul - as his assistant or as an equal person - the present place does not give an idea of ​​this. We can only say that the expression “with (μετά) Barnabas” does not show that Barnabas occupied a leading position in the Antioch delegation (cf. Acts 15:2). Gal.2:2. I walked by revelation, and suggested there, and especially to the most famous, the gospel that I preached to the pagans, whether I am struggling or have struggled in vain. The Apostle does not want to write here the history of the Jerusalem Council, but wants to speak only about his personal attitude towards the elder Apostles and towards the Jewish Christians of Palestine. Therefore, he does not talk about the reason and purpose of his journey to Jerusalem this time, as he did in Gal. 1:18. He only says that he went this time “by revelation,” perhaps to himself or to one of the Christians of the Antiochian Church, but in any case not for his own personal reasons. He did not find it necessary for himself to go to Jerusalem, but obeyed the “revelation,” and took the opportunity to declare the nature of his preaching before the Jerusalem church. - “He offered there” - more correctly: to them, that is, to the Christians there (cf. Gal. 1:23). - “And especially famous.” Privately (κατ ιδίαν), the Apostle invited the most respected representatives of the Church to familiarize themselves with his Gospel (τ. δοκοῦσιν - a term that, obviously, at that time was in use among Jewish Christians in general and among the Judaizing opponents of Paul in particular). After all, Paul’s enemies tried to humiliate him in front of the most prominent representatives of Christianity and even said that these representatives looked disapprovingly at Paul’s activities. That is why the Apostle wanted to take away from his enemies any reason to refer to the allegedly negative attitude towards him on the part of representatives of Christianity. - “And especially.” According to the best reading, this expression refers to the word "most famous". - “Have I not labored in vain, or have I labored in vain?” The apostle with these words does not at all express any uncertainty about the truth of his preaching or even about its success. He was fully convinced of the first, and the circumstances of that time sufficiently convinced him of the second (cf. Gal. 1:22-24). It is natural, therefore, to understand the expression in question as an indirect question: “In this way I wanted to ask them: do I work or have I worked for nothing? And they, of course, answered me: no, not in vain, not without success.” This way you can convey the meaning of the expression in question. If the Apostle wanted to receive an answer in this spirit from the elder Apostles, then this shows that his enemies, who were in Jerusalem at that time, spoke differently about the work of Paul: they, of course, presented this case as having no success and downright insignificant. Gal.2:3. But they did not force Titus, who was with me, even though he was a Greek, to be circumcised, The tales of Paul's enemies about the insignificance of Pavlov's work had no influence on the Jerusalem representatives of Christianity. And Titus, like other Greeks and non-Jews who were in Jerusalem at that time (this is indicated by the expression ουδέ Τίτος), representatives of the Jerusalem Church did not force him to accept circumcision, although an attempt to do so was obviously made by the Judaizers in relation to all pagan Christians. The apostle, therefore, took Titus with him uncircumcised, as he brought him to Jerusalem, and this was again proof of his rightness as a preacher of the Gospel among the pagans - a rightness recognized by those whom only Paul valued, namely the Apostles from the 12. Gal.2:4. and to the false brothers who crept in, who secretly came to spy on our freedom, which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us, Gal.2:5. We did not yield or submit for an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved among you. As for those whom the Apostle calls “the false brethren who have crept in” (τούς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους; the member τούς shows that Paul here has in mind a group of people known to the readers of the epistle), then these people Apostle, obviously, he considers them to be false Christians (“false brothers” are false Christians, because the word “brother” in the language of the Apostle Paul means “Christian”). These people, posing as Christians (cf. the expression “false apostles” in 2 Corinthians 11:26 or “false prophet” in Matthew VII:15), entered in a fraudulent manner (in fact: they were inadvertently admitted into the Church, as the passive form of the parable παρείσακτοι shows). – “Those who came secretly” (οίτινες παρεισῆλθον). Here it is already indicated what was done by these “false brothers” themselves. They crept into where Paul and Barnabas acted as full-fledged leaders (for “our” freedom - to enslave “us”). It was primarily the Church of Antioch and the churches of Syria and Cilicia, dependent on it (Gal. 1:21 and Acts 15: 1, 23), within which the Apostle thinks of himself and Barnabas, as well as the rest of the Jewish Christians of Antioch (cf. Gal. 2:13). The point here is about the “freedom” of Jewish Christians, which they had as Christians (“in Christ”) - about freedom from fulfilling the Mosaic Law. The “false brethren” argued that everyone who bears the seal of circumcision is certainly recognized as obligated to fulfill the entire law of Moses, even if this circumcised person already belonged to Christians. The Apostle did not yield even for the shortest time (“not for an hour”) to the demands of these people, which they made of him in relation to the uncircumcised Titus and other Christians who came with the Apostle, whom the “false brethren” wanted to force, as Jews by origin, to fulfill the law of Moses. - “So that the truth of the gospel may remain with you.” The Galatians, as Gentile Christians, might have been tempted as to the truth of the Gospel preached to them by Paul, had they been informed that the Apostle had, even for a short time, made some concession from his program. Therefore, the Apostle did not make any concession this time, although at other times he made various concessions (for example, he accepted initiation as a Nazirite). – It should be noted that the Russian translation of verses 4–5 is quite far from the Greek text, even from the one accepted here (the Slavic one in this case is much better, since it accurately reproduces the words of the Greek). The expression διά δε τ. παρεισάκτους ψευδ. cannot be translated in the dative case: “to the false brothers who crept in,” and then the pronoun οῖς at the beginning of the 5th verse cannot be left without translation. It is better to consider the period of verses 4–5 simply unfinished (anakoluth), examples of which are not uncommon in the letters of the Apostle Paul. However, some interpreters, based on many ancient manuscripts and translations of the Epistle to the Galatians, consider the first words of verse 5 to be interpolated and both verses are rendered as follows: “for the sake of the false brethren that crept in ... we yielded for a moment out of submission (befitting us).” So, for example, Tsang translates. In this translation, the Apostle’s thought becomes quite clear. He makes it clear that the “false brethren” entered the Church of Antioch and caused confusion in the minds there. It was necessary to put an end to such confusion, and the Apostle did not find any better way for this than to go to Jerusalem and declare his program to the oldest representatives of Christianity, whom the false brethren referred to in Antioch, as supporters of their view of the law of Moses. In Jerusalem, therefore, the struggle between Paul and the Judaizers was to be resolved and, at the same time, access to their influence on the churches founded by Paul was to be blocked. But it is clear that this journey to Jerusalem was a certain concession on Paul’s part - he himself did not find it at all necessary to expound his Gospel before the elder Apostles - although a temporary concession (“for an hour”)... Of course, the acceptance of such an interpretation is conditioned by agreement with Tsan’s position that the reading of the 5th verse without οῖς ουδέ is completely in accordance with the ancient readings. But the fact is that this cannot be said, and he himself points out that the Sinaiticus and Vatican texts have both these words. Many other texts also have them, so Tsang’s assertion that the reading he offers is the most attested does not agree with reality. Gal.2:6. And in those who are famous for something, no matter what they may have ever been, there is nothing special for me: God does not look at the face of a person. And the famous ones didn’t put anything more on me. Paul's enemies could say: “yet Paul found it necessary to reinforce his authority with the authority of the elder Apostles, which means he recognizes himself as dependent on them.” In view of the possibility of such reinterpretations of his journey to Jerusalem, the Apostle, in a number of fragmentary statements, expresses the idea that the respected representatives of the Jerusalem Church, no matter how highly they stand in the opinion of believers, are not at all higher than him in the position of the Apostles-preachers of the Gospel (ποτε, translated in Russian by the expression “ever”, in fact, there is a particle standing in close connection with the word οποῖοί whatever). - “God does not look at the face,” that is, at the external position of a person. Track. even if the elder Apostles enjoyed greater authority among Jewish Christians than Paul, this does not yet serve as proof that Paul would actually (before God) stand below them. But, besides, these elder Apostles did not find themselves in any opposition to Paul’s Gospel at all: they did not find it necessary to add anything to his preaching. - However, Tsang, following the blessed one. Theodoret and other ancient interpreters see a different meaning here. He draws attention to the verb προσανέθεντο, in Russian inaccurately translated by the expression “to assign more, to add.” This verb, according to him, can only have the meaning that the parallel expressions ανεθέμην (Gal.2:2) and προσανεθέμην (Gal.1:16) have, i.e. “to propose for consideration, to consult about something.” Hence the meaning of the verse is as follows: “I, calling the other Apostles famous, do not at all want to use their word as especially authoritative and useful for me personally. It is the Judaizers who are guilty of this seeking, not me. Just as God does not pay attention to the face, that is, to the external position of a person, but only to his internal merits, so should a person do, so do I. Moreover, I am not called upon to evaluate the dignity of the elder Apostles (perhaps Paul’s enemies pointed out to him that the elder Apostles looked at the law of Moses differently than he did. - Chrysostom, etc.): after all, I, and not they, offered me their Gospel for consideration. Whoever is considering someone's case can really pay attention to the external situation of the person who is applying for consideration of his case. But I, Paul, was not at all in the position of judging the Apostles and therefore did not and do not pay attention to the external honor that they enjoy and have enjoyed among Christians.” – This interpretation seems very plausible. Gal.2:7. On the contrary, seeing that I have been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, as Peter was to the circumcised Gal.2:8. (for He who helped Peter in his apostleship to the circumcision also helped me to the Gentiles) Gal.2:9. and having learned of the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles, and them to the circumcision, Gal.2:10. only so that we remember the beggars, which is what I tried to do exactly. So, Paul did not at that time express any judgment about the activities and views of the elder Apostles on the work of preaching the Gospel. On the contrary, it was they themselves who had to consider Paul's course of action, and indeed they did (Tzahn's interpretation). Then they saw that the Apostle Paul really received from Christ the authority to preach among the uncircumcised, just as Peter was commissioned to bring the Gospel (ευαγγέλιον in Russian not exactly: gospel. The word ευαγγέλιον does not mean the very process of evangelism, but the message or teaching preached by Christ about the salvation of all people cf. Gal. 1:7) mainly to the circumcision. The elder Apostles based this conclusion on the consideration that Paul, without special authority from God and Christ, could not have performed such miracles among the pagans (cf. 2 Cor. 12:12; Acts 15:12) as he did, like the Apostle Peter. – Among these oldest representatives of Christianity, Paul specifically mentions “James” (by which, of course, we must mean the one mentioned in Gal. 1:19 v. brother of the Lord - otherwise the Apostle would have precisely defined which James he meant here), “Cephae” (as Paul calls Peter, obviously because the Judaizers constantly called Peter that way) and “John”, because the three of them were revered as “pillars” or representatives of the Church in Palestine. These “pillars,” having learned about “grace” (χάριν), i.e., about the successes of Paul’s activities (the recognition of his grace-filled calling was already mentioned above - in verse 7), gave him and Barnabas, as preachers of the Gospel among the pagans, the hand of communication and thereby solemnly confirmed (the matter probably took place in a solemn meeting of Jerusalem Christians) the right of Paul and Barnabas to act everywhere as missionaries among the pagans. They took for themselves the main task of spreading the Gospel among the Jews. In this way, a demarcation of the area of ​​activity between the Apostles was accomplished, but, of course, only in a geographical sense, since the Apostle Paul was not deprived of the right to act among the Jews and the other Apostles did not refuse to speak a word of instruction among Christians from the pagans. However, despite this demarcation, a feeling of unity between the Apostles and the Apostles was preserved. The churches they led, the Apostles asked Paul to help the needier members of the Church of Jerusalem from the funds of the richer churches formed from converted pagans. The Apostle says that he tried to fulfill this condition, and he speaks only about himself, and not about Barnabas, since Barnabas separated from Paul soon after this trip to Jerusalem (Acts 15:39). So, the independence of the Apostle was openly recognized in the very center of Jewish Christianity - in Jerusalem. The goal that the Apostle Paul and Barnabas had when going to Jerusalem was completely achieved, and the enemies of Christian freedom were put to shame; Paul's authority as a true Apostle of Christ stood high. But this is not enough. There was a case when Paul himself acted as an exhorter in relation to the Apostle Peter; this was when Peter, together with some Jewish Christians, was in Antioch and first ate food in common with pagan Christians, then, upon the arrival of “some of James” in Antioch, he stopped this communication, fearing the circumcision. Paul then revealed openly to everyone the wrongness of this course of action and was listened to by Peter without any objections from the latter. Gal.2:11. When Peter came to Antioch, I personally confronted him because he was being criticized. It is unknown when this incident took place - before or after the council. It is only likely that this was before the council, because it is unlikely, firstly, that the Apostle Peter, after the delimitation of areas of activity between Paul and the other Apostles, which took place at the council, would have decided to soon cause confusion with his unexpected appearance in Antioch, which for the Apostle Paul at that time was almost a permanent place of residence. Secondly, it is unlikely that the Apostle Peter, after those principled discussions in which he took a very active part (Gal. 2: 1-10 and Acts 15: 7-14), would have adhered to such hesitant tactics in relation to the issue of communication with pagan Christians, which he adhered to in Antioch. He probably came before the council to Antioch, as to a church that stood in close relation to Jerusalem (Acts 11:18–21). – “Personally”, that is, directly to the face and in the presence of several witnesses (κατά πρόσωπον cf. Luke 2:31; Acts 3:13). – “I was subject to criticism”, – i.e. in advance, even before the Apostle Paul denounced him, he was already condemned by his own actions (κατεγνωσμένος ῆν, cf. John 3:18). Gal.2:12 For before some came from Jacob, he did eat with the Gentiles; and when they arrived, he began to hide and withdraw, fearing those who were circumcised. Gal.2:13. Along with him, the other Jews also acted hypocrites, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. The Apostle Peter, during his stay in Antioch, did not hesitate to eat food with pagan Christians, obviously such food as was prohibited by the Law of Moses for a Jew. In the present case, he obviously acted as God Himself inspired him to act (Acts 10:1-11, 18), of course, in Jerusalem, among his fellow tribesmen, acting according to Jewish customs (cf. Acts 21:20-26). But when people came “from Jacob,” i.e., standing in a very close relationship with this strict zealot of the law of Moses, who later at the council clearly expressed the idea that observance of the laws of Moses on food is obligatory for Jewish Christians (Acts 15:21 and Acts 21:20, 24), the Apostle Peter, in order not to tempt these guests of Jerusalem, decided for a while to stop communicating in food with Christians from pagans. He was even afraid of these “circumcision” who came from James, who were obviously very reactionary and could spread rumors about the Apostle Peter as a liberal preacher. - “Other Jews”, i.e. Jewish Christians living in Antioch followed in the footsteps of the Apostle Peter and began to “be hypocrites,” that is, to assume the appearance of strict adherents of the Law of Moses, which they actually were not. Even Paul's colleague, Barnabas, fell into the same hypocrisy. Gal.2:14. But when I saw that they were not directly acting on the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter in front of everyone: if you, being a Jew, live like a pagan and not like a Jew, then why do you force the pagans to live like a Jew? Paul at that time was not yet the crowned Apostle of the tongues, but only a simple teacher of the faith in Antioch, perhaps even the last among them (see Acts 13:1). But among all the teachers, he showed the greatest willpower, the highest courage (other teachers also agreed with him regarding his convictions), precisely in the fact that he made an open denunciation against the Apostle Peter (some ancient Fathers and teachers of the Church believed that this speech, as well as the very act of the Apostle Peter, was a matter of a preliminary agreement between the Apostles, but Blessed Augustine in his correspondence with Blessed Jerome clearly proved that such an agreement it could not be between the Apostles and that Peter had sinned, and Paul - quite unexpectedly for Peter - acted as his accuser). - “They don’t act straight” - more precisely: “they don’t walk straight, they walk with a hesitant step in relation to the Gospel truth.” - “In front of everyone.” The temptation caused by Peter openly - he probably brought his Jewish food with him to the love supper - had to be cured also publicly, in front of everyone. Paul turns to Peter as the main culprit in the turmoil that occurred in Antioch. - “You live,” that is, you usually behave differently than you do now, in front of strangers, and, of course, you will behave this way freely in the future (that’s why the present tense is set ζῆς). - “The pagans are forced.” Pagan Christians, who saw that the “famous” Apostle of Christ refused to continue close communication with them, had no choice, in fact, but to accept the Jewish laws on food and thus say goodbye to their Christian freedom. The coercion exerted by Peter on the Gentile Christians was thus moral, and the Apostle himself did not at all intend to exert such pressure on these Christians. However, from his behavior, these Christians could quite reasonably conclude that the Apostles of Christ consider them unclean and unequal members of the Church of Christ. – That Peter could act so carelessly should not be surprising. Although he was an Apostle of Christ, he was not infallible in his actions, but only in his teaching. “Both the prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostles, acting under the influence of the Holy Spirit, did not lose their human consciousness and will... In ordinary matters, the Apostles were no strangers to mistakes. Examples of such errors and less-than-absolutely perfect behavior were also found in the life of the Apostle Paul (Acts XXIII:3-5)... In this case, the Apostle Peter appeared to be the same fickle person as he was when he denied the Lord three times. Here and there, at a critical moment, his strength of character abandoned him, giving way to an unaccountable fear, under the influence of which he actually contradicted his most sacred convictions, did not do what he wanted, what he agreed with, what he preached infallibly” (Fr. Galakhov, pp. 171–172). Gal.2:15. We are by nature Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles; Gal.2:16. however, having learned that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but only by faith in Jesus Christ, we also believed in Christ Jesus in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law; For by the works of the law no flesh will be justified. Some interpreters (eg Tsan) believe that this is where the new speech of the Apostle Paul begins, addressed to Jewish Christians. But the Apostle does not make the slightest hint that he has finished his conversation with Peter. If Art. 17 et seq. seem not entirely suitable for Peter, then we can assume that Paul here is already somewhat expanding his appeal and even has in mind the Judaizers. So, continuing his speech, the Apostle says that he himself, as well as the Apostle Peter and other Christians from the Jews, despite their advantage over the pagans, whom the Apostle here still, from the previous Jewish theocratic point of view, calls “sinners” (cf. Luke 18:32, 24:7), have the full conviction that one can be justified only through faith in Christ, and not by works, which the law requires Moses (see Rom. 3:20). That is why, the Apostle adds, we believed in Christ. Gal.2:17. If, seeking justification in Christ, we ourselves turned out to be sinners, then is Christ really the servant of sin? No way. Gal.2:18. For if I build again what I have destroyed, then I make myself a criminal. The behavior of the Apostle Peter and other Jewish Christians who were in Antioch at that time goes against this general church belief and even insults Christ. In fact, if we, Jews, are looking for justification in Christ and do not find it, but feel that even in the Christian state we are the same sinners as the pagans, because it is as if we do not fulfill the requirements of the Law of Moses, then it turns out that Christ has led us to such a state that as if all His service to humanity was in fact harmful for people - in this case for the Jews - that as if He is a servant of sin! But can such an assumption be allowed? No way. The reasoning of supporters of the observance of the law in Christianity is completely illogical. It is not Christ who is the criminal in this case, but the one who restores what he destroyed again, as if regretting what happened and admitting that he did wrong. Gal.2:19. By the law I died to the law in order to live to God. I have been crucified with Christ, Gal.2:20. and it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. In contrast to this inconsistent course of action of the Judaizers and, in part, even of the Apostle Peter himself, who temporarily leaned toward their side, the Apostle Paul himself considers himself “dead to the law,” i.e., not obligated to fulfill it. At the same time, he says that the “law” itself brought him to such a break with him (for more details on this, see the epistle to Rom. 7: 4, 6, 9, 10). Now the Apostle “already lives for God,” that is, as before he devoted his entire life to the law, hoping to be justified through its fulfillment, so now he lives directly for God, from Whom the law only alienated man (cf. Gal. 3:10). The Apostle “was crucified with Christ” (cf. Rom. 6:6), and the Apostle no longer feels the former predominance of his human “I”. On the contrary, “Christ lives” in him. – Christ became in him the only driving force or principle guiding Paul’s thoughts, feelings and will. But, of course, the Apostle still “lives in the flesh”; even after his conversion to Christ, his life did not become in all respects the life of Christ, did not completely resemble the life of Christ. However, this does not bother the Apostle. Yet he knows that this is “life in faith in Christ as the Son of God,” Who gave Himself, out of love for Paul or for man in general, to death. It follows from this that in the future, thanks to the help of Christ, the life of the Apostle will be completely similar to the life of Christ, Who will constantly add strength to him to achieve possible perfection. Gal.2:21. I do not reject the grace of God; and if there is justification by law, then Christ died in vain. Yes, the Apostle does not reject the grace of God revealed in Christ - he wants to use it to the end for his own improvement. He does not want to imitate those who, as if considering this grace insufficient, turn again to fulfilling the works of the law. After all, if we look for other ways of justification in the law, then this means admitting the idea that Christ suffered and died in vain, that He cannot provide justification... This is the absurd conclusion that the reasoning of those who consider it necessary to comply with the requirements of the Law of Moses in Christianity leads to. – The Apostle Paul does not say what consequences this speech against Peter had. But from the fact that he does not cite a single objection from Peter, we can conclude that Peter was fully aware of the tactlessness of his action. There is not the slightest basis for the assumption of rationalists that this clash served as a reason for the separation between Peter and Paul. The very fact that Peter was on the side of the Apostle Paul at the Apostolic Council (Gal. 2:9) speaks against such an assumption, and then Peter’s response to Paul in the 2nd Epistle also testifies against this. Peter (2 Peter 3:15). You might be interested in: