But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision.

“"But contrariwise." Some hold his meaning to be, not only that the Apostles did not instruct him, but that they were instructed by him. But I would not say this, for what could they, each of whom was himself perfectly instructed, have learnt from him? He does not therefore intend this by the expression, "contrariwise," but that so far were they from blaming, that they praised him: for praise is the contrary of blame. Some would probably here reply: Why did not the Apostles, if they praised your procedure, as the proper consequence abolish circumcision? Now to assert that they did abolish it Paul considered much too bold, and inconsistent with his own admission. On the other hand, to admit that they had sanctioned circumcision, would necessarily expose him to another objection. For it would be said, if the Apostles praised your preaching, yet sanctioned circumcision, they were inconsistent with themselves. What then is the solution? is he to say that they acted thus out of condescension to Judaism? To say this would have shaken the very foundation of the economy. Wherefore he leaves the subject in suspense and uncertainty, by the words, "but of those who were reputed to be somewhat; it maketh no matter to me." Which is in effect to say, I accuse not, nor traduce those holy men; they know what it is they have done; to God must they render their account. What I am desirous to prove is, that they neither reversed nor corrected my procedure, nor added to it as in their opinion defective, but gave it their approbation and assent; and to this Titus and Barnabas bear witness. Then he adds, "When they saw that I had been entrusted with the Gospel of the Uncircumcision even as Peter with the Gospel of the Circumcision," The Circumcision and Uncircumcision; meaning, not the things themselves, but the nations known by these distinctions...”

“The apostles were not therefore found to disagree in anything. Otherwise, when Paul claimed to have received the gospel perfectly, they might have denied this and wished to add to his teaching, as though he were incomplete. On the contrary, instead of reproving Paul's imperfection, they approved his perfection.… His saying "on the contrary" might also be understood in such a way as to yield the following meaning: "Upon me those who had a reputation imposed nothing further. On the contrary, they consented with me and Barnabas, joining the right hand of fellowship, that we, for our part, should go among the Gentiles, who are contrary to the circumcision, while they for their part should go to those of the circumcision."”

“The sentence beginning with "But on the contrary, seeing ... etc.," is summed up by the sentence "They extended to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship." Actually he says what he says in between in order to indicate once again that he was not ordained by men to preach to the nations, as his enemies said concerning him”

“Having shown that the Apostle in no way withdrew from his position in the aforesaid conference, he here consequently shows that nothing was added to his teaching by the other apostles. And concerning this he does two things. First, he describes the condition of the apostles, who were unable to add anything to him; second, he pursues his proposal, at the place for to me, they who, etc. Now he describes their condition from three things. First, from the authority which they had in the Church, which is great. And as to this he says but from these, etc. The text is defective, whence it ought to be supplied thus: but from these, namely from Peter and John; as if he were saying: although for a time I yielded to them, I nevertheless received nothing from them, either of power or of doctrine. And if I received nothing from these, much less from the others. But it should be noted that what he says, who seemed to be something, if this is understood according to the grace of God which was in them, is true in this way, that according to this they were great, because whom he justified, these he also magnified, as is said in Romans 8:30. But if they are understood to be something according to themselves, then it is false, because according to this they were nothing. For if they seemed to be something of themselves, they would always have been great, because what belongs to a thing through itself always belongs to it. Whence, since they were not always great, they did not seem to be something of themselves. Second, he describes their condition from their state before their conversion, which they had in the synagogue. And this state he cautiously shows to have been abject and vile. Whence he says whatsoever they once were, because they were rustic, poor, unlearned, and without letters. 1 Corinthians 1:26: not many wise according to the flesh, etc. But what they were, it is nothing, that is, it does not matter to me, namely, to speak of it. And this perhaps he introduces so that, considering the state which they had in the synagogue (which was nothing) and the state of Paul (which was great), they might clearly know that Paul, as regards the matters of the Law, is to be preferred to them, and especially since Paul, in the state of the Church of Christ, was equal to them, so that Paul, in the state of the synagogue before his conversion, surpassed them, while in the state after his conversion he was equal to them. Whence, when it was a question of the synagogue, one ought rather to stand by Paul's judgment than that of the others; but when it was a question of the Gospel, one ought to stand by his judgment just as by that of the others. And just as the others were not great through the matters of the Law, but through Christ, so too the Apostle was great through Christ in faith, and not through the matters of the Law. Third, he describes their condition from divine election, and as to this he says for God does not accept the person, etc., as if he were saying: therefore they are great, because God magnified them, not looking to their merits or demerits, but to that very thing which he intends to do. And therefore he says God does not accept the person of man, that is, he does not regard it as great or small. Wisdom 6:8: he made the small and the great, etc. But without acceptance of persons he calls all to salvation, not imputing to them their sins, and this because they have passed away. 2 Corinthians 5:17: the old things have passed away, etc. Psalm 15:4: nor will I be mindful of their names, etc. And therefore Peter says, in Acts 10:34: in truth I have found that there is no acceptance of persons, etc. Concerning this it should be known that to accept a person is properly to attend, in some transaction, to a condition of the person that contributes nothing to the transaction, as if it were the rule of that transaction itself — for example, when I give a benefit to someone because he is noble, or handsome. For nobility or handsomeness contributes nothing to his having the benefit. But if the condition of the person does contribute to the transaction, then, in considering that condition in that deed, I am not accepting the person; as when I give a benefit to someone because he is good, and will serve the Church well, because he is well-lettered and honest, I am not an accepter of persons. Therefore to accept a person, properly speaking, is nothing other than to consider a condition of the person which contributes nothing to the transaction. Since, then, God in his works and benefits regards nothing pre-existing on the part of the creature — because that very thing which belongs to the creature is the effect of his election — but regards only, as a rule, the good pleasure of his own will, according to which he works all things, and not according to any condition of the person, as is said in Ephesians 4:7, it is manifest that he does not accept the person of man. Consequently, having described their condition, he shows his proposal, namely that they were able to add nothing to him. And therefore he says for to me, they who seemed to be something, contributed nothing, as if he were saying: although they were of great authority, nevertheless they added nothing to my teaching nor to my power, because, as was said above, neither did I receive the Gospel from man, nor was I taught it through man. But the Gloss reads otherwise: whatsoever they once were, etc., as if he were saying: it does not pertain to me to recount their state before their conversion, namely what sort of men they were, because this too does not matter, since I too was a persecutor of that very Church, and yet God, by the good pleasure of his own will, chose me and magnified me, and this because the Lord does not accept the person of man. Consequently, when he says but on the contrary, when they had seen, etc., he shows how his position was approved by the apostles. And concerning this he does three things. First, he sets down the cause of the approval; second, he intimates the approval itself, at the place James and Cephas, etc. Third, he adds a certain condition attached to the approval, at the place only that we should be mindful of the poor, etc. Now he sets down a twofold cause of the approval (which moved the apostles to approve the Apostle's position), namely, the office of preaching enjoined upon the Apostle by Christ, and the effect of the office enjoined, at the place and when they had known, etc. Concerning the first, he first sets down the office enjoined, which moved them to approve; second, the manifestation of the office, at the place for he who wrought, etc. He says therefore: I say that they who seemed to be something contributed nothing to me, but rather, against the opinion of the adversaries, who had gone up against me to Jerusalem to the apostles on account of this very question, the apostles themselves approved me, and this when they had seen that the Gospel had been entrusted to me, that is, the office of preaching, of the uncircumcision, that is, enjoined to preach to the uncircumcised, namely, to the gentiles. Jeremiah 9:26: all the nations have the foreskin, but the whole house, etc. Just as authority was committed to Peter, that he should preach to the Jews only, and to Paul, to the gentiles; but afterward both Peter preached to the gentiles, and Paul to the Jews. But because someone could say: whence is it clear to us that the Gospel among the gentiles has been committed to you? Therefore, interposing, he says that it is through the operations of Christ. For just as it is evident that Peter received the Gospel from Christ on account of the wonders which Christ worked through him, so it is evident that I received it from him on account of the miracles which Christ has wrought, and works, in me. And therefore he says he who wrought in Peter, etc., that is, he who made Peter an apostle in Judea, namely Christ, he himself made me an apostle among the gentiles. And this is the cause which moves them. But because the injunction and authority of preaching does not suffice, unless a man carries it out through good knowledge and discreet eloquence, and commends it through a good life, therefore he adds the use of his authority or office, that is, its effect, saying and when they had known the grace of God, etc. And this is a suspended clause, that is, when they had seen that my preaching was gracious and fruitful, then James, and Cephas, and John, etc. In which is noted the approval, or the fellowship made between them and Paul. And first the persons are set down between whom the fellowship was made, who are James, and Cephas, that is, Peter, and John. And James is placed first, because he was bishop of Jerusalem, where these things were done. Now this John was John the Evangelist, who did not leave Judea until the time of Vespasian. Who seemed to be pillars. This is said metaphorically, that is, the support of the whole Church. For just as a whole building is sustained by pillars, so through these men the whole Church of the Jews was sustained and ruled. And of these pillars it is said in Psalm 74:4: I have made firm its pillars, that is, the apostles of the Church; Song of Songs 5:15: his legs are pillars of marble, which are founded upon bases of gold. These, namely on the one side, gave the right hands of fellowship, that is, they consented into fellowship, to me and to Barnabas, in which are designated the persons on the other side. Now by this, that they gave right hands to each other, it is signified that by their hands they received one another as a sign of conjunction and of unity of opinion. Second, the tenor or condition of the fellowship is shown, when it is said that we should go to the gentiles, and they to the circumcision, namely, that they should preach; as if he were saying: a conjunction and union was made between us, yet in such a way that, just as all the faithful obey Peter in the circumcision, that is, in the Church of the faithful Jews, so all the gentiles who were converted to Christ should obey Barnabas and Paul. This, however, was added, that we should be mindful of the poor of Christ, who, namely, had sold all their goods, and had placed the price of them at the feet of the apostles, having been made poor on account of Christ. Which indeed I was solicitous to do this same thing, no less zealous than those who had ordained it, as appears in Romans 15, and 1 Corinthians 6, and 2 Corinthians chapters 8 and 9. Now the reason why the custom of the primitive Church, of the selling of possessions, was observed in the Church from the circumcision, and not in the Church from the gentiles, is this: because the faithful Jews were gathered together in Jerusalem, and in Judea, which was soon to be destroyed by the Romans, as the outcome of the matter afterward proved; and therefore the Lord willed that possessions should not be kept in reserve there, where they were not going to remain. But the Church of the gentiles was to be established and increased, and therefore it was brought about by the counsel of the Holy Spirit, that in it possessions should not be sold.”

“But contrariwise, when they saw that the Gospel,.... James, Cephas, and John, were so far from blaming or correcting anything in the apostle's ministry, or adding anything to it, that they highly approved of it; and as a token of their agreement with him and Barnabas, gave them the right hand of fellowship: the reasons of their so doing are inserted here, and in the following verse, and in the next to that: the reason here given is, because they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the circumcision was to Peter; by "the uncircumcision and circumcision" are meant the Gentiles and Jews; see Rom 2:26 by the Gospel of the one, and the Gospel of the other, two Gospels are not designed, for there is but one Gospel, and not another. Paul did not preach one Gospel unto the uncircumcised Gentiles, and Peter another to the circumcised Jews; but the same Gospel was preached by both, and is so called with respect to the different persons to whom it was preached by these apostles. The Apostle Paul was ordained a minister of the Gentiles, and he chiefly preached among them, though not to them only. Peter was principally employed among the Jews, though also as he had opportunity he sometimes preached to the Gentiles: however, the subject of both their ministrations was the Gospel, which is said to be "committed" to them, as a trust deposited in their hands, not by man, but by God; the management of which required both prudence and faithfulness, and which were eminently seen in these good stewards of the mysteries of God. This being observed by the apostles at Jerusalem, they came into an agreement that one part should discharge their ministry among the Gentiles, and the other among the Jews.”

“But contrariwise - They were so far from wishing me to alter my plan, or to introduce any thing new in my doctrine to the Gentiles, that they saw plainly that my doctrine was the same as their own, coming immediately from the same source; and therefore gave to me and to Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. The Gospel of the uncircumcision - They saw, to their utmost satisfaction, that I was as expressly sent by God to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, as Peter was to preach it to the Jews.”

“As to Peter was that of the circumcision. Calvin pretends to prove by this, that St. Peter and his successors are not head of the whole Church, because St. Peter was only the apostle of the Jews. But St. Paul speaks not here of the power and jurisdiction, but of the manner that St. Peter and he were to be employed. It was judged proper that St. Peter should preach chiefly to the Jews, who had been the elect people of God, and that St. Paul should be sent to the Gentiles; yet both of them preached both to Jews and Gentiles: and St. Peter, by receiving Cornelius, first opened the gate of salvation to the Gentiles, as he says of himself, (Acts xv. 7.) that God made choice of him, that the Gentiles by his mouth should hear the gospel, and believe. That St. Peter was head of the Church, see the notes on Matthew xvi. and John xxi. (Witham)”

“contrariwise--on the contrary. So far from adding any new light to ME, THEY gave in THEIR adhesion to the new path on which Barnabas and I, by independent revelation, had entered. So far from censuring, they gave a hearty approval to my independent course, namely, the innovation of preaching the Gospel without circumcision to the Gentiles. when they saw--from the effects which I showed them, were "wrought" (Gal 2:8; Act 15:12). was committed unto me--Greek, "I was entrusted with." gospel of the uncircumcision--that is, of the Gentiles, who were to be converted without circumcision being required. circumcision . . . unto Peter--Peter had originally opened the door to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; Act 15:7). But in the ultimate apportionment of the spheres of labor, the Jews were assigned to him (compare Pe1 1:1). So Paul on the other hand wrote to the Hebrews (compare also Col 4:11), though his main work was among the Gentiles. The non-mention of Peter in the list of names, presciently through the Spirit, given in the sixteenth chapter of Romans, shows that Peter's residence at Rome, much more primacy, was then unknown. The same is palpable from the sphere here assigned to him.”