Thomas Aquinas Commentary Galatians 2:6-10

"But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man`s person)-- they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me: 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 (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles); and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; only [they would] that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do." — Galatians 2:6-10 (ASV)

Having shown that the Apostle did not depart from his opinion on any point in the conference mentioned above, he now shows that nothing was added to his teaching by the other apostles. Concerning this, he does two things:

1. He describes the status of the apostles who were unable to add anything.
2. He proves his proposition (Galatians 2:6): for to me, they that seemed to be something, added nothing.

He describes their status from three standpoints. First, from the authority they held in the Church, which was great. Regarding this, he says, But of those who seemed to be something. The text is incomplete and should be understood to mean, “But of them,” namely, Peter and John. As if to say: Although I would have yielded to them at the time, I still received no new power or teaching from them. And if I received nothing from them, how much less from others.

It should be noted, however, that if his statement, who seemed to be something, is understood with reference to the grace of God that was in them, it is true that in this respect they were great, because whom He justified, them He also glorified, as is said in Romans 8:30. However, if it is understood that they were something in themselves, then it is false, because in that respect they were nothing. For if they seemed to be something in themselves, they would always have been great, because whatever belongs to a thing in itself is always present. Therefore, since they were not always great, it was not in themselves that they were seen to be something.

He describes their status from three standpoints:

1. He describes their status based on what they were before their conversion—that is, the status they had in the synagogue. This status, he hints gently, was humble and lowly. Thus he says, what they were at one time; for they had been unrefined, poor, ignorant, and uneducated: There are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble (1 Corinthians 1:26). But what they were makes no difference to me; that is, it is not my concern to mention it. Perhaps his reason for introducing this was that by considering the status they had in the synagogue—which was nothing—and the status of Paul—which was great—they might see that Paul’s opinion on legalism should be preferred to theirs. This is particularly so since Paul has an equal status with them in the Church; so that Paul had a higher rank in the synagogue before their conversion, but after his conversion, he had a rank equal to theirs. Thus, when matters concerning the synagogue were discussed, Paul’s opinion deserved to prevail over the others, but when it came to the Gospel, his opinion was as good as theirs. And just as the others were not made great through things pertaining to the Law but through Christ, so too in the faith the Apostle was great through Christ and not through things pertaining to the Law.
2. He describes their condition based on their election by God. Regarding this, he says, God does not accept the person of man. As if to say: They are great because God made them great, not by considering their merits or demerits, but by considering what He intended to accomplish. Thus he says, God does not accept the person of man; that is, He does not consider whether the person is great or small: For he made the little and the great, and he has equal care for all . Furthermore, without regard to person, He calls everyone to salvation, no longer charging them with their sins, for they have passed away: The old things have passed away (2 Corinthians 5:17); Nor will I be mindful of their name (Psalms 15:5). Therefore Peter says: In very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34).

On this point, it should be noted that to “accept persons” in any transaction is, properly speaking, to take some aspect of a person that has nothing to do with the matter as a deciding factor. For example, this occurs when I give a benefice to a person just because he is a noble or is handsome, for nobility or beauty have nothing to do with the question of receiving a benefice. But if some aspect of the person does relate to the matter, then if I consider that aspect in settling the matter, I do not “accept the person.” For example, if I give a benefice to a person because he is good and will serve the Church well, or because he is well-educated and honorable, I am not an “accepter of persons.” Therefore, to “accept the person” is nothing other than to consider some aspect of the person that has no relation to the business at hand.

Therefore, since God in His works and benefits regards nothing that pre-exists in the creature—for whatever pertains to the creature is an effect of His election—it is evident that He does not regard the person of man. Instead, He takes as His measure only what pleases His will, according to which He accomplishes all things, and not the condition of their person, as is said in Ephesians 1:11.

Then, having described their condition, he proves his proposition that they were unable to add anything to him. Thus he says, for to me, they that seemed to be something added nothing. As if to say: Although they had great authority, they added nothing to my teaching or my power, because, as was said before, I neither received the Gospel from man nor was I taught it.

However, a certain gloss offers a different reading: what they were at one time is not my concern. As if to say: It is not my concern to recount their status before their conversion—that is, what they were—because this also makes no difference, since I myself had even been a persecutor of that Church. Yet God, by the pleasure of His will, chose and glorified me, and this is because the Lord does not regard the person of man.

Then, when he says, But on the contrary, when they saw..., he shows how his opinion was approved by the apostles. He does three things concerning this:

1. He gives the reason for this approval.
2. He mentions the approval (Galatians 2:9): James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.
3. He adds a condition that was placed on the approval (Galatians 2:10).

He cites two causes for the approval (which moved the apostles to approve Paul's opinion): namely, the office of teaching given to the Apostle by Christ, and the effect of this appointment (Galatians 2:9). Regarding the first cause, he does two things:

1. He mentions the office to which he was appointed, which moved them to approve him.
2. He mentions the manifestation of this office (Galatians 2:8).

He says, therefore: I say that those who seemed to be something added nothing. Rather, contrary to the opinion of the adversaries who came up to Jerusalem to oppose me, it was I whom the apostles approved. This happened when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me—that is, the office of preaching to the uncircumcised, namely, the Gentiles: For all the nations are uncircumcised in the flesh, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart (Jeremiah 9:26). Just as the authority to preach to the Jews alone was entrusted to Peter, so the authority to preach to the Gentiles was entrusted to Paul. Later, however, Peter also preached to the Gentiles, and Paul to the Jews.

But because someone might say, “What evidence do you have that the commission to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles was given to you?” he interjects that it was through certain works of Christ. For just as it is evident that Peter received the Gospel from Christ because of the marvels Christ worked through him, so it is evident that I received it because of the miracles Christ worked and continues to work in me. Therefore he says, He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship—that is, Christ, who made Peter an apostle in Judea—also made me an apostle among the Gentiles. This is the reason that moves them.

But because one’s appointment and authority to preach are not enough unless he carries it out with good understanding and prudent eloquence and commends it by a good life, he adds how he used his authority, or the effect of his office, saying, And when they had known the grace of God that was given to me, James and Cephas and John... gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. This connects to the previous thought; that is, when they saw that my preaching was received favorably and was fruitful, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars...

In this passage, the approval or fellowship entered into by them and Paul is mentioned. First, the persons are mentioned with whom the fellowship was formed: James, Cephas (that is, Peter), and John. James is mentioned first because he was the Bishop of Jerusalem, where these events took place. The John mentioned was John the Evangelist, who did not leave Judea until the time of Vespasian.

Who seemed to be pillars. This is a metaphor for “the support of the entire Church.” For just as a whole building is supported by its pillars, so the whole Church of the Jews was supported and governed by these men. Of those pillars it is said in Psalm 74:4: I have established its pillars, that is, the apostles of the Church. Also, His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon bases of gold (Song of Solomon 5:15). They, on the one side, gave the right hand of fellowship—that is, consented to the fellowship—to me and Barnabas, the persons on the other side. By giving them their right hands, they signified that they accepted them as a sign of union and unity of opinion.

Second, the intent or condition of the fellowship is shown when it is said, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision—that is, to preach. As if to say: A bond and union was made among us to the effect that just as the faithful obey Peter among the circumcision (that is, in the Church of Jewish believers), so all the Gentiles converted to Christ should obey Paul and Barnabas. But they added the condition that we should remember the poor of Christ—that is, those who had sold all their goods, laid the price at the apostles' feet, and become poor for the sake of Christ. This same thing I was also careful to do, being no less moved than those who commanded me, as is clear in Romans 15, 1 Corinthians 6, and 2 Corinthians 8 and 9.

Now, the reason the custom of selling their goods prevailed in the early Church among those of the circumcision, but not among those in the Church of the Gentiles, was that the believing Jews were gathered in Jerusalem and Judea, which were soon to be destroyed by the Romans, as later events proved. Thus, the Lord willed that no possessions were to be kept in a place not destined to last. The Church of the Gentiles, however, was destined to grow strong and increase, and therefore, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it came about that possessions within it were not to be sold.