Thomas Aquinas Commentary Galatians 2:1-5

"Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. And I went up by revelation; and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain. But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." — Galatians 2:1-5 (ASV)

After commending the authority of the gospel in the previous chapter, the Apostle now commends it from the perspective of both the other apostles and himself. In this, he does two things:

1. He commends the authority of his teaching because of its approval by the other apostles.
2. He commends it from the example of both himself and the other apostles (see verse 15).

Concerning the first point, he does two things:

1. He shows that the other apostles approved of his teaching.
2. He shows that he fearlessly rebuked the other apostles in matters where they opposed his teaching (see verse 11).

Regarding the first of these, he does two things:

1. He discusses the meeting he had with the apostles.
2. He recounts the consequences of that discussion (see verse 3).

On the first point, he does two things:

1. He gives the circumstances of the meeting.
2. He explains what they discussed, noting that he "communicated to them the gospel" (see verse 2).

Regarding the circumstances, he addresses four things: the time, the place, the witnesses, and the motive. He mentions the time when he says, Then, after fourteen years. Here, some might object that if the Apostle was converted in the first year after the passion of Christ and went to Jerusalem three years later, that makes four years. But he says, after fourteen years I went once more to Jerusalem, which makes a total of eighteen years, at which time he found Peter in Jerusalem. But this cannot be, because Peter held his see at Antioch for seven years, and then at Rome for twenty-five years. This would mean twenty-five years (eighteen plus seven) passed before he went to Rome, and he remained there for twenty-five more years. Hence, Peter would have lived for fifty years after the passion of Christ—which is false, for history records that Peter was martyred at Rome in the fortieth year after the passion of Christ, during the reign of Nero.

I answer that when he says, Then, after fourteen years, it should not be understood that another fourteen years passed after the initial three before he went to Jerusalem. Rather, he went again in the fourteenth year of his conversion. Nor should the seven years that Peter ruled the Church at Antioch be added to those fourteen years, because he began his rule before that period. Furthermore, since Antioch is near Jerusalem, Peter could have occasionally come to Jerusalem, and Paul found him there at that time.

Therefore, what is gathered from history is that after fourteen years, Peter went to Rome in the reign of Emperor Claudius and lived there for twenty-five years, making a total of thirty-nine years. He died in the fortieth year after the passion of our Lord. Paul intentionally said "fourteen" to show that he did not need instruction from the apostles, as he had gone for fourteen years without it.

He gives the place when he says, Jerusalem. He says, I went up, because the city is built on a height. He went up to Jerusalem to show that he was in accordance with the prophecy of Isaiah: For the law shall come forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:3).

He gives the witnesses when he says, with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. Now, Barnabas was a Jew, but Titus was a Gentile. He went up with them to have witnesses for his teaching and to show that he leaned neither to the side of the Jews nor the Gentiles, for In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand (Deuteronomy 19:15).

He gives his motive when he says it was according to a revelation from God—that is, because God revealed and commanded him to go up to Jerusalem. From this, it can be gathered that all the acts and movements of the apostles were according to the prompting of the Holy Spirit: The clouds spread their light which go round about (Job 37:11).

Then, when he says, and communicated to them, he describes the conversation. In this, he does three things:

1. He mentions the subject of their conversation.
2. He identifies the persons with whom he conferred.
3. He gives the reason why he conferred with them.

The subject was the gospel; hence he says, I communicated to them the Gospel. The persons were the senior and more prominent apostles; hence he says, but apart to them who seemed to be some thing. The reason, both useful and necessary, was lest I should run or had run in vain.

Regarding the first point, he says, "I went up to Jerusalem where I communicated to them, as friends and equals, the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles." He did this not to learn, because he had already been taught by Christ, nor to be reassured, because he was so certain that he would not believe even an angel who said the contrary, as is clear from Galatians 1:8. Rather, he conferred for two reasons: to show the unity of his teaching with that of the other apostles, so That you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you (1 Corinthians 1:10), and also to avoid false accusations. The Apostle had not lived with Christ or been taught by the apostles, but immediately after his conversion began to preach things offensive to the Jews, especially the calling of the Gentiles and that they should not observe the justifications of the Law. So, he conferred with them about the gospel.

He indicates the ones with whom he did this when he adds, but apart to them who seemed to be some thing. As if to say: "Not with everyone, but with those who had some authority and importance among them, namely, with Peter, James, and John, and the other great ones." As it is written, Treat with the wise and prudent . He met with them apart, not to discuss ignoble or false things, as heretics do, but because he was aware of the presence of Jews who brought false charges against him for his teachings about the Law. Therefore, so that the truth might prevail over false charges, he spoke apart with those who would not misrepresent him: Treat your cause with your friend, and do not discover the secret to a stranger (Proverbs 25:9); Before a stranger do no matter of counsel, for you know not what he will bring forth .

The reason for the meeting was lest perhaps I should run or had run in vain—that is, lest he be thought to have preached to no purpose. He calls his preaching a "running" because of the rapidity of his teaching, for in a short time he preached the gospel from Jerusalem to Illyricum and even as far as Spain. Hence the word of the Psalm can be said of him: His word runs swiftly (Psalms 147:15). He also wrote, Pray, brethren, that the word of God may run and may be glorified, even as among you (2 Thessalonians 3:1). But did he really wonder if he was running in vain? I answer that he did not wonder for himself, but for those to whom he had preached. If his teaching was not firmly held by them, he would have run in vain as far as they were concerned. So he wanted to confer with the apostles, so that when his hearers learned that his teaching was in agreement with that of the other apostles and approved by them, they would hold to it more firmly. Then he would not be running in vain with respect to them: I therefore so run, not as uncertainly (1 Corinthians 9:26).

Then, when he says, But neither Titus who was with me, he shows what resulted from the discussion. He mentions three results:

1. He did not depart from his opinion.
2. Nothing was added to his teaching (see verse 6).
3. His teaching was approved (see verse 7).

Concerning the first result, he shows two things: first, that he did not depart from his teaching on one specific point, and second, that he did not depart from it on any other point (see verse 4). He says, therefore: "I say that the result of my discussion with them about the teaching of the gospel was that my teaching and opinion remained unaltered concerning the non-observance of legalism." That is, the Gentiles would not be compelled to observe the rites of the Law, so that neither Titus who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised, but was admitted uncircumcised into their fellowship by the apostles. This discussion occasioned the decree handed down by the apostles on not observing the rites of the Law, as is found in Acts 15:28.

Chrysostom explains why these rites were not to be observed after the passion of Christ in the following way: "For it is evident that the instrument drawn up for any promise or pact binds only until the pact and promise are fulfilled; but when fulfilled, the instrument no longer binds on that point." Now, circumcision is an instrument of the promise and pact between God and believing men. Abraham underwent circumcision as a sign of the promise, as is said in Genesis 11:26. Because the promise was fulfilled and the pact completed by the passion of Christ, neither the pact holds after the passion nor is circumcision of any value. Thus, his refusal to permit Titus to be circumcised makes it plain that he did not depart from his teaching.

Then, when he says, but because of false brethren, unawares brought in, he shows that he did not change on any other point. This passage is obscure and has variant readings. It should be read this way: You say that you did not permit Titus to be circumcised, but why, since in another case you permitted Timothy to be, as is read in Acts 16:3? To this, the Apostle can respond that when Timothy was circumcised, it was an indifferent matter whether circumcision was observed or not. But later, when it came to Titus, circumcision became a matter of utmost importance, and I said that it is not to be observed. Hence, if I had allowed him to be circumcised when I had already settled the question definitively myself, I would have been acting inconsistently. Furthermore, it was not lawful to raise this question again or to make difficulties about a matter now settled.

He says therefore: I did not permit him to be circumcised by them, to whom we yielded not by subjection, no, not for an hour—that is, we did not yield to the subjection of the Gentiles to the Law. This was because of false brethren, unawares brought in by the devil or by the Pharisees. They were false brethren because they pretended to be friends: In perils from false brethren (2 Corinthians 11:26). These false brethren were brought into the place where the apostles were gathered in order to spy on our liberty from sin and the Law, for Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17), and You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of the adoption of sons (Romans 8:15). This was that he might redeem them who were under the Law (Galatians 4:5). This is the liberty we have in Christ Jesus—that is, through faith in Christ, for You are not children of the bondwoman but of the free (Galatians 4:31). They were brought in for this purpose: that they might bring us into servitude to the Law and the observances of the flesh, as before the passion of Christ. But this is not permissible, for other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus (1 Corinthians 3:11). We resisted so that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. As if to say: "We did not yield to them one bit, lest we give an occasion to those who said that you cannot be saved without circumcision, which is contrary to the truth of the gospel I have preached to you."

Ambrose, however, reads it another way. According to the previous interpretation, the reason Paul did not yield was on account of those "brought in." From this, it would follow that if they had not been brought in, he would have yielded in the matter of observing legalism. Therefore, Ambrose argues, the reason was not them, but the truth itself. Ambrose says the text is flawed and the words "no, not even" are superfluous, arguing that those words should not be there. The sense would then be: "I did not permit Titus to be circumcised, but Timothy I did, because of false brethren, unawares brought in to the place where I was with Timothy and the others, who were brought in to spy on our liberty. But when they failed in this, they tried to incite the people against us. To whom—that is, to the false brethren—we therefore yielded in the hour of subjection in the matter of circumcision by circumcising Timothy, in order that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." This refers to the gospel which teaches that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any value, but only faith.

But the special reason why Timothy was circumcised and Titus was not, was that Timothy was born of a Gentile father and a Jewish mother, whereas Titus's parents were both Gentiles. The Apostle's opinion was that those born of a Jewish parent on either side should be circumcised, but those born entirely of Gentile parents should on no account be circumcised.