It should also be noted that there is a close ideological and theological, and often verbal, correspondence to Gal. and Rom., so that it is possible that they were written one after the other within a short period when Ap. Paul was in the grip of his experience of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. They differ only in tone (more measured and calm in Rome) and volume (greater in Rome), but also in theological argumentation (more detailed and profound in Rome). Naturally, when dismantling Rome. (see § 34) we will also have to repeat ourselves.

Paul's Apostolic Authority

The doubts that the Judaizing agitators sowed in the souls of the Galatians forced Apostle Paul. Paul began his apologia for the gospel he preached by justifying his apostleship. The same, let us recall, he had to do in communion with the Corinthians, which, on the contrary, cannot be said of the Macedonian churches (cf. 1 and 2 Corinthians 1:1; 1 and 2 Thess. 1:1; Phil. 1:1). As a result, already at the very beginning of the epistle (in the prescript, see § 30. 2) one senses not so much the solemnity of the doctrinal formulations (comparable to the Creed) as their polemical sharpness:

Paul the Apostle, chosen not by men and not through man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead... (1, 1)

The entire first part of Gal. (up to 2:15) has a vivid autobiographical character (again, as in the case of the Epistles to the Corinthians, thanks to the negative phenomena in the life of early Christian communities, we have the most valuable historical and biographical information). Paul mentions his conversion (cf. § 29:2), when he received the Gospel "not from man, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ" (1:12), and of the painful way to the Church and the recognition of his evangelistic labors by the pillars of the Jerusalem Mother Church, Cephas (Peter) and James (1:18-2, 10).

Paul had to defend his apostolic authority on several points.

Firstly, it took time for the former "persecutor" of the Church, as he calls himself, more zealous than any other of his contemporaries, in this "immoderate zealot of the fathers [i.e., Jewish – A.S.] traditions" (Gal. 1:13-14) recognized not just a Christian, but such an inspired evangelist who could be called an apostle. However, Paul writes that when they heard in Jerusalem that "he who once persecuted them now preaches the gospel of the faith which he formerly destroyed," they glorified God (1:23-24).

Secondly, let us recall that the fact that Paul was not a witness to the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ seemed to work against him formally. For this reason, Paul emphasizes the uniqueness of his conversion: "not by men, and not through man" (1:1); "not of man" (1:12; cf. v. 11), and speaks of Jesus not as an earthly Teacher, but as the risen (1:1), i.e. the glorified Lord, the Son of God (1:16).

Finally, thirdly, his very preaching, or, so to speak, Paul's "version" of the Gospel, which seemed to him the only possible one in relation to the pagans, caused confusion and protest (both internal, spiritual, psychological, and external) on the part of the Judeo-Christians, not to mention the repeated open attempts of the synagogue to deal with him. The very idea that the message of the Messiah could be preached to the Gentiles aroused the religious fury of the Jews (cf. Acts 22:21-23). It must be assumed that the Jews who became Christians did not get rid of such hostility to the pagans without difficulty. Even the luminaries of the Church, closely connected with the Judeo-Christian community of Jerusalem, such as Peter and James, only after some hesitation and their own insights (see Acts 10:10-28) accepted the possibility of evangelizing the Gentiles and recognized in Paul a younger brother in preaching, moreover, one who was going to devote himself to the enlightenment of the Gentiles:

9 When James and Cephas, and John, who were esteemed as pillars, when they learned of the grace which had been given me, they gave me and Barnabas the hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles, and to them to the circumcision, 10 only that we might remember the poor, which I also endeavoured to do exactly" (2:9-10).

All this is quite consonant with the decision of the Apostolic Council (see Acts 15:20), which, by the way, Paul has in mind when speaking of his visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1). Thus Paul from the very beginning embarked on a field from which he had never turned back, the field of preaching to the Gentiles, which earned him as a nickname "apostle of the Gentiles" (cf. Rom. 11:13), almost equivalent to his own name.

Now it is difficult for us to feel in all their acuteness not so much the theological as the psychological difficulties that Paul had to overcome in the new field of preaching to the Gentiles. It was a sermon to people who were completely new from the point of view of the centuries-old Holy History of Israel with its expectations of the Messiah. The Christ in whom the Gentiles believed was "really" the fulfillment of the Scriptures of Israel, and the Gentiles looked like people who did not know or feel these Scriptures as the Word addressed to their forefathers in the flesh. It was a matter of introducing a completely new "non-biblical" audience to those biblical values that the Jews perceived as their property. These values must first be absorbed, felt "on one's back", honored with them, "earned" as they were "earned" and assimilated by Israel as a result of a long and difficult history from the calling of Abraham through many journeys, trials and captivity. And it was difficult for the pious Jews to reconcile themselves to the idea that someone who came at the eleventh hour (cf. Matt. 20:12) would receive just as generously, without enduring the burdens of the Law. However, it is not so much about hardships as about the fact that the Law is a kind of shrine, not to honor which is blasphemy, especially since it is associated with such sweat and blood.. Not being familiar with the peculiarities of the Jewish religious Law, we can still fully imagine how irreconcilable, harsh and even cruel any religious or ecclesiastical society can be when it comes to traditions "sanctified by time" in relation to those who want to enter the Church, but have not yet understood the meaning of the numerous traditions and ceremonial precepts. The majestic colossus of age-old traditions is vigilantly guarded in its inviolable integrity not only by venerable "elders", but also by young neophytes ("immoderate zealots of patristic traditions"), who everywhere want to "spy [EC: to track]" (2, 4) the violation of traditions. Both authoritative theologians and influential hierarchs of the Church sometimes tremble before them.

Thus, returning to the times of early Christianity, the great Apostle Peter was again faint-hearted, trying to find a "reasonable compromise", but as a result he found himself in a situation between two chairs. This is what Paul reproaches him for:

11 And when Peter came to Antioch, I personally opposed him, because he was reproached. 12 For before the arrival of some from Jacob, he ate with the Gentiles; and when they came, he hid himself and withdrew himself, fearing the circumcised. 13 And the rest of the Jews were hypocrites with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not walking upright in the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter in front of all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the Gentile way, and not in the Jewish way, why do you compel the Gentiles to live in the Jewish way?" (2, 11-14)