Galatians 2:7

But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Read Chapter 2


AD 400
He names Peter alone because he has received the primacy in the founding of the church; and he himself had likewise been chosen to have the primacy in the founding of Gentile churches, but with the proviso that Peter should preach to the Gentiles, should cause arise, and Paul to the Jews. .

Augustine of Hippo

AD 430
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.”

Cornelius a Lapide

AD 1637
The gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter. I.e, of the circumcised Jews. See my canon21. You will urge: Then Peter was not head of the Church, but Apostle and Pope of the Jews only. Some reply that this is said of the care and division of protection—that Peter was appointed to protect the Jews, Paul the Gentiles; and this especially, because he adds, He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles; which signifies: I was given the duty, the necessary graces, and apostolic gifts for my apostleship to the Gentiles. Jerome"s answer is much better. He points out that at that time, at the very beginning of the Church, when there was still, as verse12shows, a wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles, Peter and Paul divided between them not power but works, so that Paul, hateful as he was to the Jews, might primarily and chiefly preach to the Gentiles...

George Leo Haydock

AD 1849
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)


AD 420
This intricate passage, full of intervening matter, might be briefly construed as follows: “Those who were conspicuous added nothing to me, but on the contrary gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas.” An alternative sense is hidden to avoid boasting of himself: “Those who were conspicuous added nothing to me, but on the contrary I have added to them, and they have become more steadfast in the grace of the gospel.” –.

John Chrysostom

AD 407
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 learned 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...

John Chrysostom

AD 407
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;

John of Damascus

AD 749
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

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation - 2 Peter 1:20

App Store LogoPlay Store Logo