Глава вторая

Gal.2:1. Then, fourteen years later, I again went to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus with me. Gal.2:2. I walked by revelation, The first journey was caused by Peter, and the second by revelation. And he brought Titus and Barnabas as witnesses to his sermon, that it was pleasing to the apostles. and he offered there, and especially to the most famous, the gospel that I preached to the pagans, That is, the gospel without circumcision. Why, after so many years, did he offer it to them, when they should have done it in the beginning and found out whether he was doing well or not? For it is unreasonable for someone who has labored for so many years to need instruction after this, unless he labored in vain. But if he had come for the purpose of receiving instruction concerning his own ministry, it would indeed have been unwise. And since he saw that many were offended by the fact that Peter allowed circumcision, but he did not circumcise and through this was exposed to suspicion of breaking the law, he came to Jerusalem by revelation, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to convince those who were offended that there is no disagreement in preaching, and that those who allow circumcision prudently make condescension, like those who preach to the circumcised; What is unreasonable here? For to correct others the Holy Spirit moved him to go, and he naturally obeyed. “And especially the most famous.” Due to the fact that there were many who were tempted, Paul talks “specially,” alone with the disciples of Peter, so that discord does not arise and in order to prevent a greater temptation. For there were very many who were offended, and if they had heard that Paul openly rejected circumcision, there would have been confusion and everything would have been in confusion. That is why he talks in private, having Titus and Barnabas as witnesses, who could declare to all people that the apostles did not find anything objectionable in his preaching. And calling them “most famous”, he does not reject their meaning, but alongside his own he puts the general recognition of all, just as he said about himself: “I think that I also have the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 7:40), not denying the existence of this gift in himself, but pointing to the general opinion. So, “most famous,” that is, great, glorious. Is it not in vain that I struggle or have labored? That is, to teach those who are offended about me that I do not strive in vain, and not to learn myself, for how can I learn when I have received from the Father a revelation about the Son and His Gospel? Gal.2:3. But they did not force Titus, who was with me, even though he was a Greek, to be circumcised, The uncircumcised Titus, he says, was not forced to be circumcised. And this serves as the most important proof that the apostles did not allow circumcision as a law, but according to a certain economy, that is, as a temporary measure of prudent leniency towards the weak, for the sake of those who believe from circumcision - and that they could not condemn the preaching of Paul, whose disciple was uncircumcised. 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, The order of speech is as follows: even for the sake of the false brethren who came, Titus was not forced to be circumcised, that is, although my opponents were present, the apostles, even for their sake, did not force Titus to be circumcised. How then does he call those who insist on circumcision a false brethren, if the apostles also accepted it? Because the apostles allowed circumcision out of condescension towards the believers from circumcision, like a preacher to the Jews; and those - as legitimizers of circumcision according to the principle and as if defenders of the law; that is why he calls them false brethren. And the expression “coming secretly” indicates their insidious plan, and the word “spy” makes it clear that they are enemies. After all, spies do not come for anything other than to find out everything and ease their path to destruction and enslavement. This is exactly what they did. For they observed who were the uncircumcised, having freedom in Christ, that is, not subject to the law, in order to attack them and force them to be circumcised, and again subject us to the bondage of the law from which Christ freed us. So, from here it is clear that the apostles allowed the law to little by little free them from this slavery, and they acted in such a way as to consolidate this slavery. Gal.2:5. We did not yield or submit for an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved among you. He didn’t say “they didn’t yield” to the word, but they didn’t submit, because they didn’t do this to teach us anything, but to subjugate and enslave. Therefore we obey the apostles, but not them. So that, he says, what we preached to you may remain firm and true. What exactly? That the old things have passed away, the law has been abolished, and Christ does not accept the circumcision, and circumcision does not bring any benefit. So, in contrast to them, we showed that we truly proclaimed to you the abolition of the law. Therefore, do not deviate from this truth. 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. Since it was natural for someone to object to him and say: how did the apostles command circumcision? - he eliminates this objection, although he does not indicate the true reason, that they acted this way by special order and out of condescension, fearing that the Jewish believers, having heard that the apostles did not allow circumcision in the form of truth, but in the form of improvement, did not retreat from them, as from the destroyers of the law; for hitherto they adhered to them because they protected the law. Therefore, Paul hides this reason, but leans heavily on the apostles, saying: “there is nothing special for me,” that is, I have no need for the famous, obviously great apostles, whether they preach circumcision or not, since they themselves will give an answer to God, and, although they are great and foremost, God will not look at their faces, for he is no respecter of persons. And note: he did not say what they are, but “what they ever were,” showing that later they also stopped preaching like that, when the sermon shone everywhere. Paul says this not to reproach the saints, but wanting to benefit his listeners. And the famous ones didn’t put anything more on me. Whatever, he says, they were, this is God’s work, but I know that they did not oppose me in anything and did not add anything to my sermon or correct it. Gal.2:7. On the contrary, seeing that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, as Peter was to the circumcision: Gal.2:8. (for He who assisted Peter in his apostleship to the circumcision also aided me among 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, Some interpreted it this way: not only did they not correct anything in my case, but on the contrary, they even improved. But this is not true. And how could they be corrected by him? After all, each of them is perfect. So, he says the following: “but on the contrary, they gave me the hand of fellowship,” then again in the middle: “seeing that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised,” and further in order. And not only did they not correct me, they even praised me and agreed that Barnabas and I should go with the gospel to the uncircumcised, that is, to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised, that is, to the Jews. Here he shows himself equal to Peter. For He who entrusted him with the work of preaching the gospel to the Jews has given me the same work to the Gentiles. And notice how he showed that his preaching not only pleased the apostles, but also pleased God. After all, it says about the apostles that they “learned about grace.” He didn’t say, “they heard,” but they “learned” from the deeds themselves. For how could God give me this gift if such preaching was unpleasant to Him? And again he mentions three with praise. For “those revered by the pillars,” that is, the great ones, whom everyone everywhere pronounces and praises, they testify to me that my preaching is pleasing to Christ. Therefore, they “gave a hand of fellowship,” that is, they agreed, recognized us as accomplices and showed that they were pleased with my preaching, as not differing at all from their words. Gal.2:10. only so that we remember the beggars, which is what I tried to do exactly. Having divided among ourselves, he says, the work of preaching, we remembered the poor undividedly. For even in Jerusalem, many of those who believed were deprived of their property by unbelieving Jews and were in difficulty regarding the necessary food. The Greeks did not antagonize their believers as much as the Jews did against the Jewish Christians. Therefore, Paul shows special zeal in caring for them, as he himself testifies that “I tried to do it exactly.” For collecting alms from his disciples everywhere, he himself delivered it to them. Gal.2:11. When Peter came to Antioch, I personally confronted him, Many people think that Paul is accusing Peter of hypocrisy here, but this is unfair. For what seems to speak against Peter is done and expressed for a special purpose. For Peter, while in Jerusalem, allowed circumcision - and it was impossible to suddenly distract them from the law - and when he came to Antioch, he ate with the pagans. When some of the Jerusalemites came to Antioch, he began to avoid the pagans, so as not to tempt the Jerusalemites and at the same time give Paul a plausible opportunity to expose him. Therefore Paul reproaches, and Peter endures. For in this way the students could more easily change their way of thinking when the teacher is reproached and silent. So, this “personally opposed” was only an appearance, since if the struggle had been real, they would not have accused each other in front of the students, because they would have exposed them to great temptation. And now, apparently, external confrontation served to correct the disciples. For Peter does not contradict at all - it is clear that he agreed with this objection of Paul. because he was criticized. He did not say: from me, but simply from others who did not know what was being done with good intentions, and considered it hypocrisy that in the absence of the Jerusalemites he ate with the pagans, and when they came, he turned away. And some understood this: Peter had previously “been subject to reproach,” says Paul, because he ate with Cornelius, and therefore now he turned away, fearing to be subjected to new criticism, and when he turned away, “I opposed him." Gal.2:12. For before the arrival of some from Jacob, he ate with the Gentiles; and when they arrived, he began to hide and withdraw, fearing those who were circumcised. He also indicates the reason for this reproof. Now James was the brother of the Lord, who taught in Jerusalem as their bishop. So he sent some of the Jews who had already believed, but still adhered to the law, and they went to Antioch. Seeing them and fearing not for his own safety, but so that they, having been tempted, would not fall away from the faith, Peter began to avoid relations with the pagans. Some, not knowing this reason, began to condemn him. Gal.2:13. Along with him, the other Jews also acted hypocrites, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. He calls this matter hypocrisy, because he does not want to reveal Peter’s intentions, and also for the sake of those who are strongly committed to the law, in order to uproot their addiction to the law. And by other Jews he calls those who believed among the Jews in Antioch, who themselves shunned the uncircumcised. Gal.2:14. But when I saw that they were not acting directly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter in front of everyone: But do not be embarrassed by these words, he says this not to condemn Peter, but for the sake of those who could benefit from hearing that Peter was also rebuked for his adherence to the law. Why do you need to stick to it? For for this purpose he denounced him then before everyone, so that they would be afraid, hearing that such a great man was being reproached and could not object. Eusebius says that it was not the great Peter who was exposed to reproof by Paul, but another certain Cephas, one of the seventy, and in support of this he points out the impossibility that he, who had already previously defended himself regarding the temptation he caused by sharing a meal with Cornelius, could again be subjected to such reproof. But we do not say that Peter was reprimanded by Paul for ignorance of his duty, but that he voluntarily submitted to the condemnation, so that others would also be corrected. 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? It’s just that Paul doesn’t appeal to everyone: “Imitate your teacher - after all, he is a Jew, but he ate food with the pagans.” And notice, he does not accuse him: “you are doing evil in keeping the law,” but he denounces for his own disciples from the pagans that he forces them to be circumcised and live like Jews. For in this form the word could be more conveniently accepted. Gal.2:15. We are by nature Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles; “By nature,” that is, not proselytes, but born of Jewish fathers and raised in the law, but we left our usual way of life and resorted to faith in Christ. 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. Look how simply everything is said. We left the law not because it is unkind, but because it is weak and unable to justify. For no one could complete his deeds, difficult and inconvenient, not because of their greatness, but rather because of their pettiness; or otherwise, because he did not sanctify souls, but only removed bodily uncleanness. So, circumcision is unnecessary. And ahead he will say that it is even dangerous, because it alienates you from Christ. Gal.2:17. If, seeking justification in Christ, we ourselves turned out to be sinners, then is Christ really the servant of sin? We tried to find, he says, justification in Christ, leaving the law. How can you say that it is a sin to abandon the law: after all, it turns out that Christ led us into such a sin, since for His sake we abandoned everything that was legal. Thus, Christ, as you say, not only did not justify us, but even became the author of greater condemnation for us by convincing us to deviate from the law. Having brought his speech to the point of absurdity, he no longer had the need for confirmation, but was content with one denial, which he usually always did in generally controversial subjects. Gal.2:18. For if I build again what I have destroyed, then I make myself a criminal. Notice his wisdom: they said that he who breaks the law is a criminal, but he, on the contrary, shows that he who keeps it is a criminal, going not only against faith, but also against the law itself. For the law itself led me to faith and convinced me to leave it. In the future he will point out this, but now for now he says that the law has ceased, and we have testified to this by destroying it by retreating from it. So, if we began to strive to restore it, we would turn out to be criminals, restoring what was destroyed by God. Gal.2:19. By the law I died to the law, He explains how he left the law, and says: by the law of grace and the gospel I died to the law of Moses, or died, he says, to the law by the law; that is, the law itself led me to no longer observe it, having led me to Christ through the word of Moses and the prophetic word. Therefore, if I again begin to observe it, I will again break it. Or in this way: the law commanded that those who did not fulfill its instructions be punished and killed. And since it could not be fulfilled, then by its force I was subjected to death. Therefore, let him not command me, as I am already dead, both spiritually, because I sinned, not being able to do the works of the law, and physically, since this depended on condemnation by the law. How, after this, will I still hold on to the one who killed me? to live for God. I have been crucified with Christ, So that someone doesn’t say: how do you live when you’re dead? - he says that although the law killed me alive, Christ, having found me dead, revived me, mentally crucified with Him and dying with Him through baptism. A profound miracle: he revived the dead, and revived him through death. Gal.2:20. and it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. With the words “I have been crucified with Christ” he pointed to baptism, and with the words “it is no longer I who live” - to life after this, through which our body dies. “But Christ lives in me,” that is, there is nothing in us that is not pleasing to Christ, but He does everything in us, ruling and dominating. And our will has died, but His lives and controls our lives. So, if I live a life for God that is different from living in the law, and I die to the law, then I cannot keep anything of the law. And as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, What I said, I said about spiritual life, but you will also find sensory life in me, which comes from Christ. For the broken law subjected everyone to sin and punishment, and nothing prevented, as in the time of the flood, everyone from perishing as criminals; but Christ, who appeared, delivered us from condemnation, having justified us by His death. So we have this very thing - sensual and carnal life - through faith in Christ - faith that justifies us and delivers us from condemnation. who loved me and gave himself for me. Although He gave Himself for everyone and loved everyone, Paul, reflecting on what Christ freed us from and what He gave us, and being inflamed with love, ascribes to himself the general things, just as the prophets say: “God, my God.” And at the same time, it shows that everyone should show Christ the same gratitude as if He had died for him alone. But only those who believed in Him took advantage of these benefits. So he who keeps the law shows that Christ did not die for him. Why are you not afraid of this, but again return to the law, showing the Lord’s death to be useless for you? And note the expression “who betrayed Himself” - for the sake of the Arians. Gal.2:21. I do not reject the grace of God; After these considerations, he finally declares: I do not reject the gift of Christ, with which He vouchsafed me, having justified me without works by His death, and I do not resort to the law. and if there is justification by law, then Christ died in vain. For if, he says, the law is able to save and justify, then Christ died completely in vain. But He, without a doubt, died in order to save us by His death, which the law cannot do. And if the law saves, the death of Christ is superfluous. Do you see where such blasphemy leads? You might be interested in: