Conversation given in the old church on the words of the apostle: “When Peter came to Antioch, I personally opposed him” (Gal. 2:11)

“The conversation given in the old church on the words of the apostle: “When Peter came to Antioch, I personally opposed him” (Gal. 2:11)” (20 chapters) delivered by St. John Chrysostom in Antioch, probably around 386-388. It addresses the issue of the disagreement between the apostles Peter and Paul. The saint proves that this was not a quarrel: “This is not a struggle, but only seems like it; on the contrary, it reveals the great wisdom of both Paul and Peter and their goodwill towards each other.” The words spoken by the ap. Paul in the form of a reproach to St. Peter, were exhortations and instructions to the Jews: “If he had wanted to correct the apostle, he would have done it in private; and since this was not what he was trying to do... but trying to strengthen those who had been limping for a long time, he makes a reproach in front of everyone. But Peter endures, is silent and does not object, because he knew the intention with which Paul made the reproach... his silence was an instruction for the Jews - not to adhere to the rites of the law any longer.” The conversation contains the answer to the question why Christ entrusted the Jews to the Apostle Peter, and gave the Gentiles to the Apostle Paul. The fact is that the Jews hated the apostle too much. Paul so that he could be their apostle. Ap. Peter, preaching to the Jews, acted condescendingly and gradually, distracting them from the law of Moses. Ap. Paul, preaching to the pagans who were alien to the law of Moses, had no need to act in this way. This was what the disagreement between the apostles and the difference in their preaching boiled down to. *The title of the essay in Latin is In illud: In faciem ei restiti. And (in it the saint) proves that this event was not strife, but a matter of stewardship. The joy of the preacher upon his return to his hearers. The importance of the subject and the need for special attention to it. – The importance of the consequences for the apostles Peter and Paul due to the dispute that arose among them. – Paul’s reproach could be understood in the sense of exposing the ap’s weakness. Peter, and meanwhile ap. Peter presented a brilliant proof of courage and zeal. - Justification of Ap. Petra. - Love and respect to the ap. Paul to Peter; How can we explain this saying of the Ap. Paul in Galatians? – Peter, as the apostle of the Jews; Paul as the apostle of the Gentiles. – Why was Peter sent to the Jews and Paul to the pagans? – The Jews hated the apostle too much. Paul, that he might be their apostle; Peter, preaching to the Jews, acted condescendingly and gradually, distracting them from the law of Moses; Paul, preaching to the pagans, alien to the law of Moses, had no need to act like this: this is what the difference in their preaching boiled down to, this is what this disagreement between the apostles Peter and Paul boiled down to. - Ap himself. Paul sometimes leaned towards Jewish customs, and when indulgence in Jewish customs became dangerous, then Peter knew how to almost completely free himself from them. - How can we explain the reproaches with which he addressed Peter? - A statement of the events that led to this reproach. – Some suggest that ap. Paul is not talking about St. Paul here. Peter, but about some unknown person; but this opinion is unfounded. - The reproaches with which the ap. Paul addresses Peter, things were settled between them in advance. – Explanation and confirmation of the opinion of the preacher himself. 1. I was taken from you for one day, and as if I had been removed from you for a whole year. I was so annoyed and sad. And you know that this is true from what you yourself have experienced. Like a baby weaned from its mother's breast, wherever it is taken, it often turns around in all directions, trying to see its mother; just like that, I too, being carried away far from my mother’s bosom, often looked around, looking everywhere for your holy assembly. However, I had sufficient consolation in the fact that I experienced this out of obedience to my tender father (of course, Bishop Flavian of Antioch), and the reward of obedience covered my carelessness that occurred in this new position. For me, it is more brilliant than any diadem and more honorable than a crown - to be everywhere with this parent; for me this is both decoration and security: decoration, because I have so won him over and attracted him to my love that he never wants to appear without his son; safety, because, being present and seeing me laboring, he, of course, will help us with his prayers. Just as a ship is brought safely to the pier by the helmsman, the rudder and the breath of the wind, so his favor, love and prayerful help are better than the wind, the helmsman, and the rudder to guide our word. In addition, I was consoled by the fact that you then enjoyed a brilliant meal, and had an inquisitive and generous host. We learned about this not only by hearing, but also by experience. Some told us what was said, and from the remainder we concluded that there was complete joy. I praised the host of the treat and marveled at the abundance and richness (of the meal); and at the same time he called you blessed for your goodwill and attentiveness, due to which you so carefully retain in your memory what was said that you can pass it on to another. Therefore, we willingly talk with your love. Truly, the one who throws seeds here does not throw them along the path, and does not pour them into thorns, and does not sow them on stones: so your arable land is fat and fruitful, multiplying all the seeds that it receives into its depths. If you have ever shown a willingness and great zeal to listen to me - as indeed you always have - then I ask you to do me the same favor today. Today we are not talking about insignificant, but important subjects. Therefore, I need eyes that see everything vigilantly, a vigilant mind, an attentive mind, orderly thoughts, a vigilant and alert soul. You have all heard the reading from the Apostle; and whoever listened carefully to what was read knows that great feats and efforts lie ahead of us today. “When,” it is said, “Peter came to Antioch, I personally confronted him” (Gal. 2:11). 2. Isn’t each of the listeners confused by the fact that Paul opposed Peter, that the pillars of the Church collided and attacked each other? Truly, they are the pillars that support and bear the roof of faith, and pillars, and shields, and the eyes of the body of the Church, and sources of blessings, and treasures, and refuges; however, any name, no matter what anyone gives them, will never express their dignity. But the higher the praise for them, the greater the achievement for us. Be careful, because we are talking about our fathers, in order to refute the accusations brought against them by external people, alien to the faith. “When Peter came to Antioch, I personally opposed him, because he was subject to criticism,” and the reason for this criticism follows. “Before some came from Jacob, he ate with the Gentiles; and when they arrived, he began to hide and withdraw, fearing those who were circumcised. Along with him, the other Jews also acted hypocrites, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I spoke to Peter in front of everyone” (Gal. 2:12-14). And above he says: “then I personally opposed him”; and here: “in front of everyone.” Notice these words: “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?” (Gal.2:14) Perhaps you praised Paul for his boldness, for the fact that he was not ashamed of the dignity of his face, nor was he embarrassed by those present, for the truth of the Gospel. But if this is a praise for Paul, then it is a shame for us, so what does it matter that Paul did well? Peter acted badly if he “did not act straight.” What good does it do me if out of a pair of horses harnessed together one is lame? Now I am speaking not with Paul, but with outsiders. That's why I urge you to be careful. I will even increase the condemnation and make it stronger to increase your zeal. He who fights remains awake; he who fears for his father is attentive; whoever hears an accusation wants to be defended. So, when I begin to strengthen the accusation, do not think that these are words of my conviction. With these words, I want to penetrate into the depths of your soul, open your mind, so that, by introducing thoughts deeply, I can make their storage safe. Moreover, what will be said will serve as praise for your city. This struggle took place in him, this competition took place in him, or better yet, not a competition, but only an apparent competition, but in fact the most useful of the whole world, because our members are not so tightly connected to each other by the cover of veins, as the apostles were connected to each other by bonds of love. 3. Do you praise Paul? Listen, then, to how what has been said serves to condemn Paul if we do not grasp the hidden meaning in these words. What are you saying, Pavel? Did you rebuke Peter when you saw him not going straight to the truth of the Gospel? Fine. Why “then I personally opposed him”? Why “in front of everyone”. Shouldn't the conviction have taken place without witnesses? How then do you open the judgment seat and make many witnesses to the condemnation? Who won’t say that you are doing this out of enmity, envy and abuse? Don’t you yourself know, saying: “To the weak he was as weak” (1 Cor. 9:22)? What does it mean – “to the weak he was as weak”? Condescending and covering their wounds, he speaks, and does not allow them to fall into shamelessness. If you are so caring and philanthropic towards your disciples, then why did you become inhumane towards your fellow apostle? Haven’t you heard the words of Christ: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone” (Matthew 18:15)? And you denounce openly and still boast about this matter. “When,” you say, “Peter came to Antioch, I personally opposed him.” And you not only denounce openly, but also, as if depicting this competition in writing on a pillar, you make the memory of it eternal, so that not only those present then, but also all the inhabitants of the universe, learned about the event from the message. Is this what the apostles did to you in Jerusalem when you came fourteen years later to offer them your gospel? Isn’t it you who says: “Then, after fourteen years, I went again... and there I preached the gospel,... am I not running or have I run in vain” (Gal. 2:1-2)? What then? When you wanted to propose to them in private, they prevented it, discovered it and made it known to everyone? It's impossible to say. So you proposed in private, and no one contradicted; and do you denounce the apostle in front of everyone? Was it really only you who enjoyed this favor? No; and then, when there were several thousand Jews, did they not deal with you with the same wisdom? When they were alone with you, they said: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealots of the law. And they have heard about you that you teach all the Jews who live among the pagans to deviate from Moses, saying that they should not circumcise their children and should not act according to the customs. So what? The people will surely gather; for they will hear that you have come. Do what we tell you: we have four people who have a vow. Having taken them, be cleansed with them, and bear the cost of the sacrifice for them, so that they may shave their heads, and everyone will know that what they have heard about you is unjust, but that you yourself continue to keep the law” (Acts 21:20-24). Do you see how they spare you from suspicion? How do they hide you under the guise of that order, preserving you as a victim, with purifying means? Why didn’t you show the same care? 4. If what happened was truly a struggle and abuse, then these accusations would have basis; but this is not a struggle, it only seems like one; on the contrary, it reveals the great wisdom of both Paul and Peter and their goodwill towards each other. However, let’s listen to this seeming reproach. “Peter came to Antioch, then I personally confronted him.” Why? “They do not act directly according to the truth.” What was this truth? “Before some came from Jacob, he ate with the Gentiles; and when they arrived, he began to hide and withdraw, fearing the circumcised.” What are you saying? Is Peter cowardly and unmanly? But isn’t that why he was called Peter because he was unshakable in the faith? What are you doing, man? Be ashamed of the name that the Lord gave this disciple. Is Peter cowardly and unmanly? Who will listen to such words of yours? Otherwise, Jerusalem knows about him, and the then first society and Church, which he was the first to join, and the first to utter these blessed words: “But God raised Him up, breaking the bonds of death”; and again: “for David says of Him: I have always seen the Lord before me, for He is at my right hand”; “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool” (Acts 2:24–25, 34–35). Is he, tell me, cowardly and unmanly - the one who, in the midst of such horror and such threatening dangers, with such boldness entered the midst of these bloodthirsty dogs, burning with anger and breathing murder, and said that the One who was crucified by them was resurrected, and is in heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and surrounds His enemies with countless disasters? Will you not be surprised at him, tell me, and will you not be crowned even for this one thing, that he had the power to open his mouth, the opening of his mouth, to stand, to appear only among those who crucified Him? Truly, what word, what mind can imagine his boldness and frankness on that day? No. If, even before the crucifixion on the Cross, the Jews agreed to excommunicate from the synagogue the one who confesses Christ, then after the crucifixion and burial, hearing a person who not only confesses Christ, but with all wisdom preaches the whole economy (salvation), how did they not rush and piece by piece tear apart the one who was the first of all to bravely dare to resist their fury? 5. Truly, what is important here is not that he confessed Christ, but that before everyone else in general, when they were enraged and worried about the murder, he confessed with boldness. Just as in a war during a battle formation, when the phalanx is closed, we are especially surprised at the one who comes out before the rest and breaks its front, because not only this one deed, but also all those valor that will be accomplished after by others, the one who made the beginning and the attack is considered the culprit - so exactly one must think about Peter, that he, having gone out first and tore the front of the phalanx of the Jews, and having made a long speech to the people, thus paved the way for other apostles. Although John, although James, although Paul, although there was another who did something great afterward, this one surpasses everyone in general, having paved the way for them with his boldness, and opening the entrance and giving them the opportunity to step out with complete fearlessness, like a river with a strong current, and dragging opponents along with them, and constantly irrigating the souls of favorable listeners. Did he really become like this after the Cross? Even before the Cross, wasn’t he hotter than everyone else? Was he not the mouth of the apostles? Didn't he speak loudly when everyone else was silent? “Who do people say that I, the Son of Man, am?” , said Christ. “They said: some for John the Baptist, others for Elijah, and others for Jeremiah, or for one of the prophets.” “And you,” He said, “who do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:13-16). Christ said: “you”; and Peter speaks aloud for all the members of this body: so he was the tongue of the apostles and was responsible for everyone. Was it really only he who was like this here, and in other cases did he not abandon his zeal? Not at all; but everywhere and in everything he revealed the same jealousy. So, when Christ said: “And they will mock Him, and beat Him, and spit on Him, and kill Him,” he said: “Be merciful to Yourself, Lord! let this not happen to you!” (Mk.10:34. Matt.16:22). Let us not examine the fact that the answer was not thought out, but that it belonged to a natural and fiery attraction. Also, when Christ ascended the mountain and was transfigured, he was seen there talking with Elijah and Moses, again there Peter said: “It is good for us to be here; if you want, we will make three tabernacles here” (Matthew 17:4). 6. Look how he loved the Teacher and notice his attentiveness and prudence. Since his mouth was blocked after that rash answer, here he leaves the matter to the will of the Teacher, adding: “if you want.” Maybe, he says, and now I will say it imprudently, driven by attraction. Therefore, in order not to receive the same reproach, he says: “if you want.” Also, when the Holy and Terrible Supper was being celebrated, and when Jesus said: “one of you will betray Me,” Peter, due to the already existing reproach, did not dare to ask the Teacher; but due to the attraction that he had, he could not remain silent, he tried to find out and not seem hasty and imprudent (Matthew 26:21). How did he fulfill his desire and create security for himself? So that by the desire to find out - to show your uncontrollable attraction, and by doing this not on your own, but by offering to another - to express your caution and all moderation in general. I feel cramped from everywhere, he says, the word of the Lord is about betrayal; great danger threatens; rapids on both sides, should we remain silent? “But care consumes my soul; should I say? “But I’m afraid I might get reproached again.” Therefore, he took the middle path and, although he was everywhere ahead of others, here he needed the boldness of John to find out what was said. He breathed nothing else and had nothing constantly in his soul except the Teacher alone. Therefore, after that he boldly went to prison and thousands of deaths and despised all real life. Taking scourgings for Him and bearing wounds on his spine, he said to those scourged: “We cannot help but say what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20). Do you see the indomitable spirit? Do you see the irresistible boldness? Do you see a soul filled with heavenly attraction and devotion? How dare you say that he, fearing “the circumcision, began to hide and withdraw.” Much could be said about Peter and other things that prove his ardor, courage and attraction that he had for Christ; but, in order not to spread the conversation untimely, enough of what has been said, because today we do not have to speak of praise to him, but to resolve the seeming bewilderment and bring this question to the end. 7. Look from the other side how incredible this accusation is. At the beginning, when he said: “This one... you took and nailed him with the hands of the wicked and killed him; but God raised Him up, breaking the bonds of death” (Acts 2:23–24), then he was among enemies who were still killing, still seething with rage, still wanting to tear the disciples to pieces, because the passion was still strong in them and the mind was filled with rage. But now, when Paul wrote this, it was already the seventeenth year of preaching; Having said: “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem” (Gal. 1:18), he further says: “Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem again” (Gal. 2:1). So, the one who was not afraid at the beginning of the sermon is now afraid after so long? Is he who was not afraid in Jerusalem afraid in Antioch? The one who did not tremble then among the enemies surrounding him, now, when there are no enemies, but only believers and disciples, is timid, afraid and “does not act straight”? Is it reasonable to be courageously bold when a fire is burning and rising into the heights, but to fear and tremble when it is extinguished and turned to ashes? If Peter had been cowardly and unmanly, he would have been afraid at the beginning of his sermon, in the capital of the Jews, where everyone was an enemy, and not after such a long time, not in the most Christian city, not in the presence of friends and relatives. Thus, neither time, nor place, nor the nature of persons allows us to accept these words as they are said, and accuse Peter of cowardice. Did you praise what was just said? At first you marveled at Paul and were amazed at his boldness; and now our conversation has given a different turn to the accusation. But just as at the beginning I said that it is of no benefit to me if, despite the fact that Paul does well, Peter turns out to be doing something bad - because the accusation and our shame will remain, whether this one or that one turns out to have sinned - so now I say the same thing again, i.e., that it is of no benefit to me if, after rejecting the accusation from Peter, Paul appears boldly and imprudently accusing his fellow apostle. So we will free this one from charges. What? Peter is like this, but Paul is not like this? But what could be more ardent than Paul, who died every day for Christ? However, now we are not talking about courage - because how will this relate to the matter? - but about whether he was hostile to the apostle, or whether this struggle was a matter of some kind of vanity and abuse. But it’s impossible to say, and it won’t happen. Paul was a servant not only of Peter, the supreme among those saints, but also of all the apostles in general, although he exceeded everyone in his labors; and, however, considered himself the last of all: “For I am the least of the Apostles, and am not worthy to be called an Apostle” (1 Cor. 15:9); and not only the apostles, but all the saints in general: “to me,” he says, “to the least of all saints, this grace was given” (Eph. 3:8). 8. Do you see his contrite soul? Do you see how he places himself lower than all the saints, and not just the apostles? Moreover, having such a disposition towards everyone, he knew what preference Peter should have had, and respected him more than all the people, and generally treated him the way he deserved. This can be seen from the following. The whole universe was looking at him, thoughts about the churches of the whole earth lay on his soul, thousands of affairs preoccupied him every day, concerns, orders, corrections, advice, admonitions, teachings, the arrangement of countless affairs surrounded him from everywhere, and yet, leaving all this, he went to Jerusalem; and the pretext for the journey was nothing other than to see Peter, as he himself says: “I went to Jerusalem to see Peter” (Gal. 1:18): so he revered him and placed him above everyone else. What then? When you saw him, did you immediately leave? No; but he remained with him fifteen days. Tell me: if you saw a noble and wondrous warrior, who, after a declaration of war, when the battle formation was set, the fight was in full swing, when thousands of cases from everywhere were calling for him, left the battle formation and went on a date with some friend, then tell me, would you really look for another greater proof of his favor towards that person? Don't think. Think the same way about Paul and Peter. Truly, a heavy war was established here, there was a battle and struggle not only with people, but “against the principalities, against the powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against the spirits of wickedness in high places” (Eph. 6:12), the struggle for the salvation of people. And yet he respected Peter so much that, in such an urgent and pressing need, he hurried to Jerusalem for him, stayed with him for fifteen days, and then went back. So, you recognized the courage of Peter, you understood the friendly disposition of Paul towards all the apostles, towards Peter himself; Now, finally, it is necessary to start solving the research. If this one loved Peter, and he was not cowardly and unmanly, and abuse and resistance did not come from the soul, then what do these words mean? And why was this arranged? 9. Here be attentive, and take courage, and exert yourself, that you may clearly understand this justification. And it is inappropriate for me to remain at such labor, tearing; and you, who had the pleasure of seeing gold, frivolously ran past this benefit. However, it is necessary to begin the speech a little higher in order to make the instructions clearer to you. When Jesus ascended into heaven, having fulfilled our economy, He left a word of teaching to His apostles, as Paul says: “He gave us the word of reconciliation”; and also: “So we are messengers on behalf of Christ,” i.e. instead of Christ (2 Cor. 5:19–20). So then, when they preached throughout the whole universe, there was no heresy; but the whole human race had two teachings: one sound, and the other corrupt. All the inhabitants of the earth were either pagans or Jews; There was then neither Manichaeus, nor Marcion, nor Valentine, nor any other heretic at all; Why list all the heresies? The tares, this all kinds of damage to heresies, were sown after the wheat. Thus, Christ entrusted the Jews to Peter, and left the Gentiles to Paul. I am not saying this on my own behalf, but you can hear it from Paul himself, who says: “He who helped Peter in his apostleship to the circumcision also helped me among the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:8), meaning here by circumcision the people themselves. Where can you see this? From the additional words, because having said: “He who assisted Peter in his apostleship among the circumcision also assisted me,” he says: “among the Gentiles,” expressing that he used “among the circumcision” in contrast to “among the Gentiles.” But it is not circumcision that is opposed to the Gentiles, but the Jews, to whom he alluded through circumcision. As if he said this: he who assisted Peter in his apostleship to the Jews also assisted me to the pagans. Just as a wise king, knowing exactly who is capable, entrusts one with horsemen, and another with leadership over the foot, so Christ, dividing His army into two parts, turned the Jews to Peter, and the pagans to Paul. The troops are different, but the Tsar is one. And just as there the difference between the troops consists in the type of weapon, and not in the nature of the people, so here too the difference is in an insignificant type of flesh, not in a change in essence. 10. So, to these two, as I said, both these armies were entrusted. If I do not lengthen my conversation and if you do not tire, then I will tell you the reason why the Jews were entrusted to one and the Gentiles to the other. Indeed, it is worthy of investigation why Paul, who, having been carefully taught the law of his fathers, was at the feet of Gamaliel and was blameless in legal righteousness, was entrusted not to the Jews, but to the pagans; and the fisherman, unlearned and ignorant of anything like this, Peter, was entrusted with leadership over the Jews. Moreover, this will somewhat help resolve our question if we are able to explain this well. It cannot be said that Christ, seeing that Paul was hesitating, evading and avoiding authority over his own, did not want to force and coerce him. He showed everything in himself that was completely opposite to this; Not only did he not avoid ruling over the Jews, but, on the contrary, he was the first to begin this; and when Christ commanded him to go to the pagans, he asked to entrust him with the arrangement of the salvation of the Jews; and, having repeatedly endured countless calamities from them, while he was already entrusted with the instruction of the pagans, he did not cease to ask for them, and said this: “I myself would like to be excommunicated from Christ for my brothers, my relatives according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3); then like this: “Brothers! My heart’s desire and prayer to God is for Israel to be saved” (Rom. 10:1). Why, despite the fact that he wanted and sought to teach them, did Christ not allow him to preach to them, but instead sent him as a teacher to the pagans? Let us listen to the words of Christ Himself and Paul, who tells about all this: “When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the church, I went into a trance and saw Him, and He said to me: Hasten and leave Jerusalem quickly, because here they will not accept your testimony about Me” (Acts 22:17-18). The Lord also said the reason for the removal: they will hate you, he says, and will turn away; therefore they will not accept you as a teacher. Meanwhile, the very fact that an inhuman change had occurred could make him a reliable teacher and convince them enough. In fact, a man who was in such a fury, burning with rage and breathing murder, and who did not believe either Christ, who worked miracles, or His apostles, who raised the dead, no person could ever change, in the midst of his very fury, and the excessive zeal that he showed against preaching, to convince him completely and even more to show for the confession of Christ; but truly this conversion and change was a work of Divine power. 11. Paul himself expressed this when, expressing a desire to receive leadership over the Jews, he said to Jesus: “I said: Lord! They know that I imprisoned those who believed in You and beat them in the synagogues, and when the blood of Stephen, Your witness, was shed, I stood there, approved of his murder and guarded the clothes of those who beat him” (Acts 22:19-20). This great fury vouches for the entire change that has taken place, that it is not some kind of human, but from above and began from heaven. What about Christ? “And He said to me: Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles” (Acts 22:21). Is this not enough, says (Paul), to convince even the most insensitive that such a sermon is not human, but everything that happened above human nature, and that truly God made such a change and conversion? It is enough, blessed Paul, if we examine the very nature of the affairs; but the Jews are the most unreasonable of all: without examining the nature of things and without considering naturalness and probability and necessity, they look only to be filled with enmity. You look at the sequence of affairs, but God knows their innermost thoughts - that’s why He says: “I will send you far to the pagans,” in order to quench their hatred with distance itself. Therefore (Paul) in his letters to everyone else puts his name at the beginning of the letters; but in the Epistle to the Hebrews he did not do this, and without saying who he was and to whom he was writing, as he usually did, he simply began like this: “God, who at times and in various ways spoke of old to the fathers by the prophets” (Heb. 1:1). And this reveals Pavlov’s wisdom. So that Scripture would not be subject to hatred along with him, he, as if hiding himself with some kind of mask by taking away his name from it, imperceptibly offers them the medicine of exhortation. Likewise, when we have an unfavorable disposition towards someone, then, even if he says something sensible, we reluctantly and do not accept his words with pleasure; therefore, even then, so that the same thing would not happen, he took away his own title from the message, so that this would not serve as an obstacle to hearing the message. After all, not only the unfaithful Jews, but also those who believed themselves hated him and turned away. So, when he came to Jerusalem, listen to what Jacob and everyone else said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealots of the law. And they have heard about you, that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to apostatize from Moses” (Acts 21:20-21). For this they especially hated him and were disgusted. 12. So this is the reason why it was not the Jews who were entrusted to him, but the Gentile believers. Having finally received them, he did not lead them to faith like Peter, and not in the same way, but in a different way. However, when you hear: to others, you do not understand the difference in preaching. They both preached the same thing to both Jews and pagans - namely, that Christ is God, that He was crucified and buried, and rose again and is at the right hand of the Father, that He has to judge the living and the dead, and the like, both Paul and Peter preached in the same way. What was the difference? In the observation of dishes, in circumcision and in other Jewish customs. Peter did not dare to openly and clearly tell his disciples that he must leave this forever. He was afraid that, deciding to prematurely take away this habit, he would take away along with it his faith in Christ, since the soul of the Jews, due to their long-term attachment to the law, could not yet stand hearing these words. Therefore, blessed Peter endured them, the Judaizers. Like the best farmer, having planted a tender plant near an aged tree, he does not dare and does not allow the aged tree to be pulled out, fearing that, by extracting its roots, the young tree will not be extracted along with them, but first he allows it to become well strengthened and take root in the very depths of the earth, and then he safely plucks out the old one, without at all fearing for the young one - this is exactly what Blessed Peter did: he allowed the newly planted faith to become well established in the souls of his listeners, so that, when it takes root, fearlessly uprooting, finally, all Jewish prejudices. But Paul was not like that: he was free from all this necessity, preaching to the Gentiles who had no participation in the law (Mosaic) and had not heard of Jewish rites. And that they did this not out of opposition to each other, but out of condescension for the weakness of the disciples, this can be seen from the fact that Paul, like Peter, conceded in the same thing, and not only conceded, but also contributed, and Peter established by law the same freedom that Paul preached to all the pagans. Where, they will say, can you see both? In Jerusalem itself. The teacher of the pagans cut his hair, made a sacrifice, and performed cleansing, because this was required by the time and the presence of many Jews. “You see,” they said, “brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed” (gathered): “They have heard about you, that ... you teach the apostasy of Moses” (Acts 21:20–21). 13. Thus, being forced to be lenient, he Judaized; but this was not a matter of persuasion, but of house-building. Likewise, Peter, the teacher of the Jews, who everywhere allowed circumcision and Jewish rites due to the weakness of his disciples, when he saw that time was freeing him from this necessity, and when it was not safe to use leniency to such an extent, but there was a time of dogmas and laws, listen to what he says. When the companions of Paul and Barnabas came from Antioch to receive clear information about this very thing, then “after long reasoning, Peter stood up and said to them: Men and brethren! You know that from the first days God chose me from among us, so that from my mouth the pagans would hear the word of the Gospel and believe.” Then, having said something else, he added: “Why are you now tempting God, wanting to place on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither our fathers nor we could bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we will be saved, just as they were” (Acts 15:7-11). You see that when there was time for leniency, Paul also acted in Judaism; and when there was no time for condescension, but it was necessary to offer dogmas and laws, then Peter, abandoning this condescension, offers precise and pure dogmas; and when this was said, Paul was present and heard and, having received the message, he himself carried it everywhere, and therefore it cannot be said that he did not know the opinion of the apostle (Peter). Why does he now accuse him of this and say: “fearing those of the circumcision” (Gal. 2:12)? 14. So that you know the very history of what has been said, I will begin to tell you a little higher; but be careful, I urge you, because we have descended into the very depths of the issue being resolved. James, the brother of the Lord, was then at first the bishop of the Church of Jerusalem and the primate of all the Jews who believed. It also happened that in Antioch the Jews who, having believed in Christ, - due to the distance from Jerusalem and the fact that many pagan believers lived fearlessly and outside of Jewish rites - quietly and little by little, and themselves decided to leave behind the Jewish habit, to maintain the pure and genuine teaching of the faith. Peter, having arrived there and seeing that there was no need for leniency, finally lived like a pagan. Paul's expression: “in a pagan way” means living without observing Jewish rites, not observing anything prescribed by the (Jewish) law, such as circumcision, the Sabbath, and the like. While Peter was living in this way, some Jews came from James, i.e. from Jerusalem, who, constantly rotating in this capital and not seeing anyone living differently, still had a Jewish prejudice and adhered to many of those rituals. Peter, seeing that those who came from Jerusalem and from Jacob were still weak, and fearing that they, having been tempted, would not depart from the faith, changed again and, ceasing to live “like pagans,” returned to his former indulgence, observing choosiness in food. The Jews who were moving around in Antioch, seeing that he was doing this, and not knowing his thoughts with which he did this, were carried away themselves and were forced to Judaize for the sake of the teacher. For this Paul accuses him; and so that what has been said will be clearer for you, I will finally read to you the very words of the apostles. “When Peter came to Antioch, I personally confronted him because he was being criticized. For before the arrival of some from Jacob”, i.e. from Jerusalem, “ate with the pagans,” i.e. with those in Antioch. “And when they came,” some from Jerusalem, who knew the law, “began to hide and withdraw, fearing those of the circumcision.” Whom? Those who came from Jacob. “The rest of the Jews were hypocrites along with him.” What kind of Jews? Those who moved in Antioch before the arrival of the Jews from Jerusalem and did not observe any Jewish rites. "So even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy." This is where the apparent guilt lies. 15. If you wish, I will first offer excuses invented by others, and then I will try to offer my own word, giving you a choice from what was said. How do some people resolve this issue? It was not that Peter, they say, the first of the apostles, to whom the Lord entrusted the sheep, but some other one, unimportant and worthless, and one of many. Where can you see this? From the fact that Paul, having said: “The rest of the Jews were hypocrites along with him,” added: “so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.” The expression: “so even Barnabas” shows that this was much more surprising than Peter’s hypocrisy, since by saying that not only Peter, but also Barnabas (acted this way), he seemed to put him higher, and Barnabas was not higher than that Peter. But that's not true. Not because Barnabas was taller, he was more surprised by this, but why? Because he was sent to the circumcision, and Barnabas and Paul preached to the pagans and were everywhere bound together with Paul, as he says in another place: “Or do I and Barnabas alone have no authority not to work?” (1 Cor. 9:6); and again: “I went again to Jerusalem with Barnabas” (Gal. 2:1); and everywhere you see him teaching with Paul. So, not because Barnabas was superior to Peter, Paul is surprised that he himself was carried away; but because he always preached with him, had nothing in common with the Jews, but taught among the pagans, and meanwhile he himself became carried away. And that the Apostle Peter, about whom all this is said, really was, can be seen both from the previous and from the subsequent. To say: “personally opposed him,” and to consider this an important matter, meant nothing more than to show that he was not ashamed of the dignity of this person; and, speaking of another: “personally opposed him,” Paul would not consider this a matter of importance. Moreover, if it were another Peter, then his changeability would not have had so much power to attract the rest of the Jews, because he did not convince or advise, but only hid and withdrew, and this evasiveness and removal had the power to attract all the disciples because of the dignity of his face. 16. So, from here it is clear that it was the Apostle Peter. If you wish, we will tell you another resolution. What else is this? Paul, they say, rightly reproached Peter because he used indulgence beyond measure. Just as he himself was condescending towards the Jews while in Jerusalem, so he also had to, having arrived in Antioch, look not at the Jews, but at the pagan believers; because just as there, where all were Jews, Paul was forced to practice Judaism, so here, where the majority were pagans and the city did not present such a need for leniency, it was not necessary for a few Jews to seduce so many pagans. But this is not a solution, but a tension of the issue. At the beginning of the conversation, I said that we are not trying to show that Paul justly reproached Peter, since in this case the question will remain, Peter will be subject to reproach, and we need to inherit and free from guilt both this and that. How will this happen? If we find out the intention with which one reproached, and the other accepted the reproach, and reveal their very thought. What kind of thought is this? Peter strongly sought to free those who came from Jerusalem from Jacob from the Jewish rite. But if he himself began to put this thought into practice and, having come, said: stop using Jewish customs, he would have seduced the disciples, as if he were speaking contrary to himself and everything that he himself had done in the past. Also, if Paul had addressed them with a speech about this, they would not have listened and would not have endured his words. Those who already hated him and were disgusted by such rumors about him would have retreated from him even more if they had heard such advice from him. What's going on? None of them reproaches the Jews who came from James, but Peter accepts the reproach from Paul, so that the one accused by the co-apostle will finally have the just boldness to reproach his disciples; Peter is rebuked, and the disciples are corrected. The same thing happens in everyday contracts. When some are left with arrears of public taxes, then those who are obliged to demand this from them, ashamed and ashamed to begin to take them persistently, but wanting to get a better opportunity and the opportunity to act on them more forcefully, arrange for others of their colleagues to rob them, shower them with slander and cause them other countless troubles in front of those in front of them, in order to show that they are not of their own accord and not of themselves, but under compulsion from others, act persistently in relation to them, and, thus, the insult inflicted on them by others serves as an excuse for them before their subordinates. 17. The same thing happened between Paul and Peter. The Jews still had some arrears. Which ones? To completely lag behind Judaism. Peter strongly desired to reclaim this arrears from them and to exact pure faith from them. Therefore, wanting to have more opportunity and a reason for such punishment, he arranges for Paul to make him a strong reproach and reproach, so that this feigned reproach would give him a fair reason and pretext for boldness in relation to them. That is why Paul says at the beginning: “I personally opposed him”; and here again: “he said to Peter in front of everyone” (Gal. 2:14). Truly, if he wanted to correct the apostle, he would have done it in private; and since this was not what he was trying to do - because he knew the thought with which he did all this - but was trying to strengthen those who had been limping for a long time, he makes a reproach in front of everyone. But Peter endures, is silent and does not object, because he knew the intention with which Paul made the reproach; and thus Peter corrected everything with his silence, because his silence was an instruction for the Jews not to adhere to the rites of the law any longer. The teacher would not have remained silent, they thought, if he had not recognized the justice of Pavlov’s reproach. But, if you like, let’s listen to the reproach itself. “He said to Peter in front of everyone: if you, being a Jew, live like a pagan.” Consider prudence; He did not say to him, “You are doing something bad by living like a Jew,” but he denounces his previous behavior, so that it would seem that the admonition and advice were offered not according to the thought of Paul, but according to the decision of Peter that had already taken place. If he had said: you are doing something bad by keeping the law, then Petrov’s disciples would have condemned him; and now, having heard that this admonition and correction were not according to Paul’s thoughts, but that Peter himself lived this way and had this teaching in his soul, they, willy-nilly, remained calm. Therefore, Peter does not offer his opinion, but accepts reproof from another, I mean Paul, and remains silent so that the instruction becomes acceptable. 18. And not only from here can one see the prudence of Paul, but also from what was said nearby. He did not say: “if you, being a Jew, lived like a pagan,” but: “you live,” i.e. and now you keep the same way of thinking. And his further words are filled with great prudence. Having said: “being a Jew, you live like a pagan,” he did not add: why are you forcing the Jews to practice Judaism, but what? “Why are you forcing the pagans,” he says, “to live like Jews?” , - in order, under the guise of justifying his own disciples and under the pretext of caring for the pagans, to convince the Jews to give up their old habit. And that the accusations were made feignedly is clear from the words themselves. Having said above: “other Jews were also hypocrites,” here he says: “Why do you force the pagans to live like Jews?” Meanwhile, it would be necessary to say: why are you forcing the Jews to practice Judaism? Because those who were carried away were not pagans, but Jews. But if he had said this, then his word would have seemed harsh and indecent for him, since he was a teacher of the pagans; and now, under the guise of caring for his own students, he makes an irresponsible and free reproach. So that you can be convinced that what he said was not a reproach to Peter, but an exhortation and instruction to the Jews in the form of a reproach to Peter, listen to what follows. “We are by nature Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:15). These words, finally, are teachers; and no longer turns everything to Peter, but generalizes the word. If he had suggested this from the very beginning as a teacher, the Jews would not have endured his words; and now, having begun with a reproach and, apparently, having made a fair reproach to Peter, as if he was leading the Gentile believers to observe the rites of the law, he fearlessly proceeds, finally, to exhortation and advice, since the sequence of speech brought him to this. So that someone hears: “Why do you force the pagans to live like Jews?” , did not think that it was impossible for only those to Judaize, but the Jews were left to do so, he turns his word to the teachers themselves. What am I saying, he continues, about the Gentiles or the rest of the Jews? On the contrary, we are teachers, we are apostles. And not only does he say that they are teachers and apostles, but also that they, being Jews from their ancestors, were completely behind the law. What justification will we have for involving others in this? Do you see how in an inconspicuous way he touches the Jews and offers decent instruction? Having said: “We are by nature Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles,” he also gives a reasonable reason why they apostatized from Judaism: “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, so that we might 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" (Gal. 2:16). 19. Do you see how often he mentions both the weakness of the law and justification by faith? And he constantly uses these names, which is characteristic not of someone who reproaches, but of someone who teaches and advises. But, as I said, if he had said this, addressing the Jews, then everything would have disappeared and perished, since they would not have accepted his instructions; when he turned the word to Peter, they in an imperceptible way had fruit for themselves, after Peter was reproached and silent, and his whole way of thinking was revealed, not from himself, but from his fellow apostle, and his previous behavior became known. Then, so that they do not say to each other: what if both Peter and Paul did something bad - he gives fair and indisputable reasons why one should not adhere to Jewish customs. These reasons are that the law cannot justify, but only faith. Here he uses a milder word, but going further he makes it harsher and stronger. “If, seeking justification in Christ, we ourselves turned out to be sinners, then is Christ really the servant of sin? No way” (Gal.2:17). The meaning of his words is as follows: faith justifies and commands one to abandon Jewish customs, as having already ceased; and if the law still rules and there is a lord, and the one who left it is judged for apostasy, then Christ, who commanded to leave it, will turn out to be the culprit of our crime, and not only did not free us from sin, but led us into sin. If we left the law for faith, and leaving the law is a sin, then faith, for which we left the law, itself became the cause of our sin. When in this way he brought the speech to the point of absurdity, he no longer needed any evidence to refute it, but it was enough to say: “no way,” since the absurdity from here was recognized by itself. “For if,” he continues, “I build again what I have destroyed, then I make myself a transgressor” (Gal. 2:18). Here he turns his speech to the opposite, and shows that not breaking the law, and not leaving the law, is what makes a criminal, and under the guise of his own face he again hints at Peter. In fact, didn’t Peter violate his discretion in food by starting to live like a pagan? Therefore, returning again to the Jews and living with them, he will find himself building up what he destroyed. 20. Do you see how everywhere he adheres to the decision of Peter and reveals his previous behavior, so that the Jews would accept the admonition, apparently not from the lips of Paul, but from the opinion of Peter, which he showed by his actions? That’s why he says: “fearing the circumcised,” and “they do not act directly according to the truth of the Gospel.” But in reality it’s not like that, and it won’t be; we have proven this with many arguments; but just as Paul then reproached, and Peter, listening to this, remained silent so as not to undermine Paul’s orders, and accepted the reproach as if he had done wrong, so that this would serve as an excuse for him before his disciples, so now, with the same thought with which he reproached Peter, he writes what he wrote to the Galatians. If then the reproach of Peter and his silence were useful to the Jews, then much more now this story about him would be useful to the corrupted of the Galatians. Just as those who were then moving in Antioch, seeing Peter strongly reproaching and pleading, were corrected by this accusation of the teacher and his silence, so now the Galatians, who were sick with Jewish prejudices, hearing Paul’s story that Peter “does not walk directly according to the truth of the Gospel,” and that, being reproached for this, he remained silent, received from this accusation the greatest instruction not to adhere to Jewish customs any longer. Therefore, Paul reproached then, and now mentions the reproach made then; but Peter, who accepted everything that was said, should be surprised no less than he. He corrected everything, withstood the accusation and remained silent. This is the benefit of this order. Thus, with us, both apostles are freed from criticism and turn out to be worthy of countless praises, as those who tried to listen and speak to everyone for the salvation of others. We, finally, will call on God, who united them with each other by bonds of like-mindedness, and to unite us with love for each other, so that, having like-mindedness with each other in God, we may be worthy to see those saints and be found in their eternal abodes, by the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and with whom to the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, power, honor and worship, now and ever and ever forever and ever. Amen. You might be interested in: