John Calvin Commentary Galatians 2:7

"but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with [the gospel] of the circumcision" — Galatians 2:7 (ASV)

But, on the contrary. They immediately gave him the right hand of fellowship (Galatians 2:9). Consequently, they gave their testimony to his doctrine, without any exception. For they raised no objections, as is commonly done on disputed matters, but acknowledged that he held the same gospel in common with them and was therefore entitled to the honor and status of an associate. Now, one condition of this fellowship was that they distributed the provinces among themselves. They were therefore equal, and there was no subordination on Paul's part. To "give the right hands of fellowship" here means to have a partnership settled by mutual agreement.

When they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me. He asserts that he was not indebted to the apostles for the favor of being made an apostle by their consent and approval. Instead, in conceding to him the apostleship, they merely acknowledged what God had given, not daring to retract it. He constantly maintains that he was made an apostle by the gift and appointment of God, but adds here that he was acknowledged as such by the apostles themselves. Therefore, it followed that those unprincipled men were attempting what the apostles themselves would not have dared to attempt: to oppose the election of God.

And here he begins to claim what distinctly belonged to him, the apostleship of the uncircumcision. For Paul and Barnabas differed from the rest in that they had been appointed to be apostles of the Gentiles (Acts 13:2). This appointment had been made by a divine revelation, which the apostles not only did not oppose but resolved to confirm, because disobeying it would have been impious. This shows us how they arranged their respective duties according to a divine revelation: namely, that Paul and Barnabas should be the apostles of the Gentiles, and the others should be the apostles of the Jews.

But this appears to conflict with the command of Christ, which commands the twelve to go unto all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15).

I reply that this command was not intended to apply specifically to each individual, but describes in general terms the purpose of the apostolic office: that salvation must be proclaimed to all nations by the doctrine of the gospel. For the apostles evidently did not travel over the whole world; indeed, it is probable that not one of the twelve ever traveled to Europe. What is alleged about Peter may, for all I know, be legendary and is, in any case, quite uncertain.

One might object that all of them still had a commission to both Gentiles and Jews. I acknowledge they did, as opportunity arose. Each apostle, I grant, was entrusted with the proclamation of the gospel among both Gentiles and Jews; for the distribution was not of such a nature as to assign them fixed boundaries, like those of kingdoms, principalities, and provinces, which could not lawfully be crossed.

We see that Paul, wherever he went, consistently offered his ministry first to the Jews. Just as he had a right, while living among the Gentiles, to offer himself as an apostle and teacher to the Jews, so the others were free, wherever they were able, to bring Gentiles to Christ; and we find Peter exercising this privilege in the case of Cornelius and others (Acts 10:1).

But as there were other apostles in that district, which was inhabited almost entirely by Jews, Paul traveled through Asia, Greece, and other distant regions. It was on this occasion that he was specially ordained to be an apostle to the Gentiles. Indeed, when the Lord first commanded him to be set apart, He directed him to leave Antioch and Syria and undertake voyages to distant lands for the sake of the Gentiles.

Ordinarily, therefore, he was the apostle of the Gentiles, and on extraordinary occasions, he was the apostle of the Jews. The other apostles, in turn, considered the Jews their primary area of ministry, but with the understanding that, when an opportunity occurred, they were free to minister to the Gentiles; this latter, however, was an extraordinary service for them.

But if Peter’s apostleship primarily concerned the Jews, then Romanists should consider on what basis they derive from him their succession to the primacy. If the Pope of Rome claims the primacy because he is Peter’s successor, he should exercise it over the Jews. Paul is here declared to be the primary apostle of the Gentiles, yet they assert that he was not bishop of Rome. Therefore, if the Pope wishes to establish any claim to his primacy, let him gather churches from among the Jews.

One who, by a decree of the Holy Spirit and by the consent of the whole apostolic college, has been solemnly declared to be one of the apostles, must be acknowledged by us in that role. Those who would transfer that right to Peter disregard all ordination, both human and divine. It is unnecessary to explain here the well-known metaphor in the words circumcision and uncircumcision, as applied to Jews and Gentiles.