Galatians 2:11–16

Galatians two: I withstood him to the face: the Gloss says: "as an equal." "For he would not have dared to do this unless he knew himself not to be unequal." To this it must be said that the authority of the apostolate has a twofold comparison, namely to him by whom it is conferred, and to those over whom it is conferred: because an apostle is called one sent by someone and to some persons. According to the first comparison, the Gloss says that Paul is made equal to Peter, because each was immediately sent by Christ. Whence Paul also says that he is an Apostle, not from man nor through man, but through Jesus Christ. But according to the second comparison, he is not made equal to him; for Peter is called the prince of the Apostles, which is never said of Paul, because according to this comparison he was inferior to Peter. Whence the Gloss also says there: "Peter himself furnished an example to posterity, so that the greater ones would not disdain, if perchance they had departed from the path of rectitude, to be corrected even by their inferiors."

It is not that Peter and Cephas signify different things, but what we would call in Latin and Greek petra ("stone") the Hebrews and Syrians both, because of the affinity of their languages, call cephas.… Nor is it surprising that Luke was silent on this matter, when there are many other things that Paul claims to have suffered which Luke omits with the freedom of a historian.

(Verse 11 onwards) But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles. But when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. When I saw that they were not walking straight, according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in the presence of all, 'If you, who are a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?' We are Jews by nature, and not Gentile sinners, but we know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, when the apostle Paul saw that the grace of Christ was in danger, he employed a new battle tactic of the old warrior, to correct the dispensation of Peter, by which he desired the salvation of the Jews, with a new dispensation of contradiction, and to resist him to his face. Not arguing against his intention, but rather publicly contradicting him, so that by Paul's argument and resistance, those who had believed from the Gentiles would be saved. Now if anyone thinks that Paul truly resisted the apostle Peter and boldly did wrong to his predecessor for the sake of the truth of the Gospel, that person's argument will not stand. For even Paul became a Jew to the Jews in order to gain the Jews, and he will be held guilty of the same hypocrisy when he shaved his head in Cenchreae and offered a sacrifice in Jerusalem (Acts 18), and when he circumcised Timothy (Ibid., 16), and practiced foot-washing, which are clearly ceremonial practices of the Jews. Therefore, if the one who was sent to preach to the Gentiles did not think it necessary to say: 'Be without offense to the Jews and to the Church of God' (1 Corinthians 10:32); how can I please everyone in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, so that they may be saved? And he did certain things that were contrary to the freedom of the Gospel, so as not to scandalize the Jews. With what authority, with what audacity does he dare to reprehend this in Peter, who was an apostle of the circumcision, when he himself, the apostle of the Gentiles, is accused of committing the same? But as we have already said, he yielded to the public opinion, to Peter and the rest, so that the hypocrisy of observing the Law, which was harming those who had believed from the Gentiles, would be corrected by the hypocrisy of correction, and both peoples would be saved, both those who praise circumcision follow Peter; and those who do not want to be circumcised, preach Paul's freedom. But what he said was blameworthy, therefore he moderated the fasting; so that we understand that he was not so blameworthy to Paul, as he separated himself from those brothers with whom he had eaten before. But a useful simulation, and one to be adopted in time, let us teach an example of King Jehu of Israel, who could not kill the priests of Baal unless he pretended to want to worship the idol, saying: 'Gather (or 'gather together') for me all the priests of Baal: for if Ahab served Baal in few things, I will serve him in many.' (4 Kings 10:18). And David, when he changed his appearance before Abimelech, and who dismissed him and went away. (1 Kings 21) And it is not surprising, even though righteous men, nevertheless, pretend for a time, for their own and others' salvation, when our Lord Himself, not having sin nor the flesh of sin, assumed the pretense of sinful flesh, so that, condemning sin in the flesh, He would make us the righteousness of God in Himself. Certainly, Paul had read in the Gospel the Lord commanding: But if your brother sins against you, go and correct him between you and him alone. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. (Luke 17:3) And in what way, when he even commanded this to be done to the least of the brothers, did he dare to rebuke the greatest of the apostles so boldly and steadfastly in public; unless it had pleased Peter to be rebuked in this way, and Paul had not done him any harm, about whom he had said before: I went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and I stayed with him for fifteen days: but I saw none of the other apostles. And again: For he who worked in Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision. And below: Peter and James and John, who seemed to be pillars, and the others whom he praises in his praises. Many times, when I was a young man in Rome, I would engage in debates on fictitious lawsuits and exercise myself in true competitions. I would run to the courts of the judges, and I would see the most eloquent orators contending with each other with such bitterness that they would often neglect their duties and turn to personal insults, biting each other with jokes. If they do this, so that they may not incur any suspicion of prevarication, and deceive the surrounding people, what do we think the great pillars of the Church, Peter and Paul, and the vessels of wisdom, ought to have done among the dissenting Jews and Gentiles? Unless it was for the purpose of making their pretended contention the peace of the believers, and the faith of the Church might be established by a holy dispute among them. There are some who think that Cephas, whom Paul writes that he confronted to his face, is not the apostle Peter, but another one of the seventy disciples called by that name. They say that Peter could not have avoided the company of the Gentiles, as he had also baptized the centurion Cornelius. And when he went up to Jerusalem, those who were of the circumcision argued against him, saying: Why did you go to men uncircumcised and eat with them? After recounting the vision, he concluded his response with these words: Therefore, if God gave them the same gift as he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to hinder God? When they heard this, they fell silent and glorified God, saying, 'So then, even to the Gentiles God has granted repentance unto life.' Especially since the writer of the history, Luke, makes no mention of this disagreement; nor does he ever say that Peter was in Antioch with Paul, and that Porphyry was blaspheming; but if it is believed that Peter erred or that Paul insolently refuted the chief of the apostles, first it must be answered that we do not know the name of some other Cephas, unless it is the one who is called both Cephas and Peter in the Gospel, in Paul's other Epistles, and also in this very passage. Not that Peter signifies one thing and Cephas another, but that as we call the rock in Latin and Greek, so the Hebrews and Syrians, because of the similarity of their languages, name it Cephas. Moreover, the entire argument of the epistle, which is indirectly mentioned concerning Peter, James, and John, contradicts this interpretation. It is not surprising that Luke has remained silent on this matter, considering that he has omitted many other things that Paul claims to have endured, by the liberty of a historian, and it is not necessarily contradictory if one deemed worthy of recounting what another left out among other things for a different reason. Lastly, we have learned that Peter was the first bishop of the Church of Antioch, and then transferred to Rome, which Luke completely omitted. Finally, if we are to create another person called Cephas because of Porphyry's blasphemy, so that Peter is not thought to have erred, countless divine Scriptures will have to be erased, which he condemns because he does not understand. But also against Porphyry, we will fight in another way if Christ commands it: now let us continue with the rest.

Having by these means declared the unanimity and harmony between the Apostles and himself, he is obliged to proceed to mention his debate with Peter at Antioch.

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision."

Many, on a superficial reading of this part of the Epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it; we shall discover great wisdom, both of Paul and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their hearers. But first a word must be said about Peter's freedom in speech, and how it was ever his way to outstrip the other disciples. Indeed it was upon one such occasion that he gained his name from the unbending and impregnable character of his faith. For when all were interrogated in common, he stepped before the others and answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Mat. xvi: 16.) This was when the keys of heaven were committed to him. So too, he appears to have been the only speaker on the Mount; (Mat. xvii: 4.) and when Christ spoke of His crucifixion, and the others kept silence, he said, "Be it far from Thee." (Mat. xvi: 22.) These words evince, if not a cautious temper, at least a fervent love; and in all instances we find him more vehement than the others, and rushing forward into danger. So when Christ was seen on the beach, and the others were pushing the boat in, he was too impatient to wait for its coming to land. (John xxi: 7.) And after the Resurrection, when the Jews were murderous and maddened, and sought to tear the Apostles in pieces, he first dared to come forward, and to declare, that the Crucified was taken up into heaven. (Acts ii: 14, Acts 2:36) It is a greater thing to open a closed door, and to commence an action, than to be free-spoken afterwards. How could he ever dissemble who had exposed his life to such a populace? He who when scourged and bound would not bate a jot of his courage, and this at the beginning of his mission, and in the heart of the chief city where there was so much danger,-how could he, long afterwards in Antioch, where no danger was at hand, and his character had received lustre from the testimony of his actions, feel any apprehension of the believing Jews? How could he, I say, who at the very first and in their chief city feared not the Jews while Jews, after a long time and in a foreign city, fear those of them who had been converted? Paul therefore does not speak this against Peter, but with the same meaning in which he said, "for they who were reputed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me." But to remove any doubt on this point, we must unfold the reason of these expressions.

The Apostles, as I said before, permitted circumcision at Jerusalem, an abrupt severance from the law not being practicable; but when they come to Antioch, they no longer continued this observance, but lived indiscriminately with the believing Gentiles which thing Peter also was at that time doing. But when some came from Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer did so fearing to perplex them, but he changed his course, with two objects secretly in view, both to avoid offending those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him. For had he, having allowed circumcision when preaching at Jerusalem, changed his course at Antioch, his conduct would have appeared to those Jews to proceed from fear of Paul, and his disciples would have condemned his excess of pliancy. And this would have created no small offence; but in Paul, who was well acquainted with all the facts, his withdrawal would have raised no such suspicion, as knowing the intention with which he acted. Wherefore Paul rebukes, and Peter submits, that when the master is blamed, yet keeps silence, the disciples may more readily come over. Without this occurrence Paul's exhortation would have had little effect, but the occasion hereby afforded of delivering a severe reproof, impressed Peter's disciples with a more lively fear. Had Peter disputed Paul's sentence, he might justly have been blamed as upsetting the plan, but now that the one reproves and the other keeps silence, the Jewish party are filled with serious alarm; and this is why he used Peter so severely. Observe too Paul's careful choice of expressions, whereby he points out to the discerning, that he uses them in pursuance of the plan, and not from anger.

His words are, "When Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned;" that is, not by me but by others; had he himself condemned him, he would not have shrunk from saying so. And the words, "I resisted him to the face," imply a scheme for had their discussion been real, they would not have rebuked each other in the presence of the disciples, for it would have been a great stumbling block to them. But now this apparent contest was much to their advantage; as Paul had yielded to the Apostles at Jerusalem, so in turn they yield to him at Antioch. The cause of censure is this, "For before that certain came from James," who was the teacher at Jerusalem, "he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the Circumcision:" his cause of fear was not his own danger, (for if he feared not in the beginning, much less would he do so then,) but their defection. As Paul himself says to the Galatians, "I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain:" (Gal. iv: 11.) and again, "I fear lest by any means as the serpent beguiled Eve, ...so your minds should be corrupted." (2 Cor. xi: 3.) Thus the fear of death they knew not, but the fear lest their disciples should perish, agitated their inmost soul.

When he was resident in Jerusalem, Peter condescended to Judaism, not prohibiting circumcision, nor the Sabbaths. When he came down to Antioch, however, he ate with those from the nations who had believed in the Lord without - any discrimination. Then, when certain people came down from Jerusalem, he was afraid in case he scandalized them and separated himself from those with whom he previously used to eat. But Paul made some sort of economy with him, when he rebuked him in front of everyone for demanding from the nations to Judaize; inasmuch as he intended that by seeing the teacher hearing this rebuke and remaining silent, they might learn that they should not keep the Jewish customs. The whole case was one of economy, based on the prudence of both and intended for the benefit of the disciples, so that even if Peter is said to have behaved as a hypocrite, and not to have been upright, this is understood to have been said for the benefit of the disciples, and on account of the economy.

There was no dispute or condemnation in Paul's opposing Peter, but a matter of far-sightedness. For since, through accommodation, those around Peter in Jerusalem tolerated circumcision, wishing gradually to lead the Gentile converts from the Jews to completion, when Peter came to Antioch, while none of the Jews there were yet believers, he used to eat without distinction with those who believed from the Gentiles; but when they arrived, so as not to scandalize them, being still weak, he withdrew and ceased to eat with them. The cause of this, as has been said, was the weakness of those people. And that Paul acted openly, but not to oppose Peter privately, was a matter of far-sightedness, so that when the believers from Judea saw their teacher Peter accused openly, they might perceive whatever was not in accord with the uncircumcised and not combative, and know that the observance of the law after faith was no longer necessary but was merely a ploy to entrap Peter. That this was managed therefore, Paul plainly entered into argument with Peter, so that the believers from the circumcision, hearing, would turn from the observance of the law; for if the anger were genuine, he ought to have argued with them privately.

In another way. [OECUMENIUS] Eusebius Pamphili, in the Ecclesiastical History shows that the Cephas mentioned is not Peter, but a namesake of his, one of the seventy. And the argument is reasonable. For Peter would not again have needed to retreat, who had already defended this matter in Jerusalem and, having persuaded everyone when he ate with Cornelius, had caused some of those of the circumcision to be scandalized, and had also said, "Truly, brothers, I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation the one who fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35) For he was not the one who said these things. But if he had acted therefore contrary to the beginning of his preaching, and had convinced everyone that he had not acted wrongly, the Spirit leading him to this, how would he now, after such a long time, after giving Peter the proof of his own virtue, have again needed such a kind of management? And as for the fact that he was judged, you may also think in this way: "It has happened to me," he says, as a pretext for opposing him face to face and refuting him, nothing else, or that he had been previously judged by the Jews concerning eating with those uncircumcised when he ate with Cornelius. For if he had not been beforehand judged there by those who were scandalized, he would not now have been admonished. And if he had not been admonished, there would have been no need either of a rebuke or of the face-to-face opposition. But what profit is the face-to-face opposition at all?

[OF THE SAME] Because he made it timely to be spoken before the Jews, that "We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from the Gentiles," (Gal. 2:15) knowing that no one is justified by works of the law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ, and we also believed in Jesus Christ in order that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by works of the law, because these things were said before all, there arose a personal opposition. For if indeed there was any fault, he ought to have reproved and corrected it privately, the Lord saying: "If your brother sins, rebuke him privately." (Matt. 18:15) If he refuses, then bring others and the church. [end of the excerpt by Oecumenius]

"he was clearly in the wrong." Peter was in the wrong, not by the truth nor by Paul who knew the allowance, away with that! but by those ignorant of the administration and thinking he was acting hypocritically because of the matter: that when the believing Jews were absent he used to eat with the Gentiles, but when they were present he no longer did so. And you know what has been written concerning Cephas.

But if you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances, interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him. For in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church, you now stand. If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute. But if you say that I am condemned, you bring an accusation against God, who revealed the Christ to me, and you inveigh against Him who pronounced me blessed on account of the revelation. But if, indeed, you really wish to work in the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow-worker with us."

Many think that here Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy, but this is unjust. For what he seemingly says against Peter was done and spoken with a special purpose. For Peter, being in Jerusalem, permitted circumcision — indeed it was impossible to suddenly draw them away from the law — but having come to Antioch, he ate together with the Gentiles. When certain people from Jerusalem came to Antioch, he began to avoid the Gentiles, so as not to scandalize the Jerusalemites and at the same time to give Paul a fitting occasion for rebuke. Therefore Paul rebukes, and Peter endures it. For in this way the disciples could more easily change their way of thinking, when the teacher is subjected to reproaches and remains silent. Thus, this "opposed him to his face" was only in appearance, since if the struggle had been real, they would not have accused each other in front of the disciples, because they would have subjected them to great scandal. But as it was, the apparent outward opposition served for the correction of the disciples. For Peter does not contradict at all — clearly he agreed with this objection of Paul.

He did not say: from me, but simply, from others, who did not know that it was done with good intention, and considered it hypocrisy that in the absence of the Jerusalemites he ate together with the Gentiles, but when they came, he withdrew. And some understood it this way: Peter even before "was blamed," says Paul, because he ate together with Cornelius, therefore now too he withdrew, fearing to be subjected to new reproaches, and when he withdrew, "I opposed him to his face."

The Apostle showed above that he received nothing useful from the discussion held with the apostles; now he shows that he benefitted them:

First, he shows how he helped Peter by correcting him;

Secondly, he tells what he said (v. 12).

He says, therefore: Indeed, they advantaged me nothing; rather I conferred something upon them, and especially upon Peter, because "when Cephas was come to Antioch," where there was a church of the Gentiles, "I withstood him to the face," i.e., openly: "Reverence not thy neighbor in his fall and refrain not to speak in the time of salvation" (Sir 4:27). Or: to his face, i.e., not in secret as though detracting and fearing him, but publicly and as his equal: "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart: but reprove him openly, lest thou incur sin through him" (Lev. 19:17). This he did, because he was to be blamed.

But it might be objected: This took place after they received the grace of the Holy Spirit; but after the grace of the Holy Spirit the apostles did not sin in any way. I answer that after the grace of the Holy Spirit the apostles did not sin mortally, and this gift they had through the divine power that had strengthened them: "I have established the pillars thereof" (Ps 74:4). Yet they sinned venially because of human frailty: "If we say that we have no sin," i.e., venial, "we deceive ourselves" (1 John 1:8).

Apropos of what is said in a certain Gloss, namely, that "I withstood him" as an adversary, the answer is that the Apostle opposed Peter in the exercise of authority, not in his authority of ruling. Therefore from the foregoing we have an example: prelates, indeed, an example of humility, that they not disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; subjects have an example of zeal and freedom, that they fear not to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude.

Perhaps indeed he would at this point have kept silent about the sin that he says he reproved in Peter, for it was enough that Peter had been corrected by popular reproof and Paul's open accusation. But it is profitable and extremely requisite for this letter. He has two reasons for relating the incident. First, his own gospel was not reproved, and he himself, when he reproved Peter, heard no reproof from Peter. Next, this too, as I said, was extremely pertinent: it is because the Galatians thought that they needed to add to the principles of the gospel to obtain life … that this letter is being written to them. Hence it is very good to tell the story, because it is this very fault that was reproved by Paul in Peter and by the people also. In this way it follows that the Galatians too are sinning.

But in what way was Peter sinning? He had not adopted this ruse to bring in the Jews, meeting them on their own terms (which Paul himself had done and glories in having done, meeting the Jews on their own terms but for their profit). Rather, the sin of Peter lay in the fact that he withdrew, through fear of those who were of the circumcision.

But they themselves, while knowing the same God, continued in the ancient observances; so that even Peter, fearing also lest he might incur their reproof, although formerly eating with the Gentiles, because of the vision, and of the Spirit who had rested upon them, yet, when certain persons came from James, withdrew himself, and did not eat with them. And Paul said that Barnabas likewise did the same thing. Thus did the apostles, whom the Lord made witnesses of every action and of every doctrine-for upon all occasions do we find Peter, and James, and John present with Him-scrupulously act according to the dispensation of the Mosaic law, showing that it was from one and the same God; which they certainly never would have done, as I have already said, if they had learned from the Lord [that there existed] another Father besides Him who appointed the dispensation of the law.

From those who came down from Jerusalem. "Because he was afraid of those from the circumcision." In other words, that he might not scandalize them, and might not suffer anything terrible on their account.

"from James." James, who is called the brother of Christ, served as bishop of Jerusalem. From him therefore those sent forth came who had believed from among the Jews, still observing the law.

"he began to draw back and separate himself." From the association with the Gentiles, of course.

And the phrase "fearing those" does not mean that he feared they might do him harm, but that he feared so as not to, having been scandalized, they might fall away from the faith.

Paul, however, censures Peter for not walking straightforwardly according to the truth of the gospel. No doubt he blames him; but it was solely because of his inconsistency in the matter of "eating," which he varied according to the sort of persons (whom he associated with) "fearing them which were of the circumcision," but not on account of any perverse opinion touching another god.

No doubt he blames him; but it was solely because of his inconsistency in the matter of "eating," which he varied according to the sort of persons (whom he associated with) "fearing them which were of the circumcision," but not on account of any perverse opinion touching another god.

While active in Judea the holy apostles were forced to live according to the law on account of the weakness of the believers from Jewish backgrounds, for they held fast to the regulations of the law. But when they shifted to the cities of the Gentiles they had no need of such an accommodation but lived according to the freedom of the gospel. This is what the godly Peter did when he arrived in Antioch. He ate freely with the Gentiles. But when some of the Jews came he separated from the Gentiles, so that he might not give those who came from the Jews any pretext for doing harm. This is the meaning of "fearing those of the circumcision." For he who did not fear the whole host of the Jews did not succumb to fear of men, but he did not wish to furnish them with a pretext for scandal.

He also points out the reason for this rebuke. James was the brother of the Lord, who taught in Jerusalem as their bishop. It was he who sent certain Jews who had already believed but still adhered to the law, and they went to Antioch. Seeing them and fearing not for his own safety, but lest they, being scandalized, should fall away from the faith, Peter began to withdraw from association with the Gentiles. But some, not knowing this reason, began to condemn him.

Then when he says, "For, before that some came from James," he manifests what he has said.

First, that he said he was to be blamed;

Secondly, that he rebuked Peter (v. 14).

As to the first he does three things:

First, he shows what Peter's opinion was;

Secondly, what he did (v. 11);

Thirdly, what resulted from it (v. 13).

He says therefore, as to the first point, that Peter felt that legalism ought not be observed. This he showed by the fact that "before some came," namely, Jews zealous for the Law, "from James," Bishop of the Church at Jerusalem, "he did eat," namely, Peter did, "with the Gentiles," i.e., without compunction he ate the food of Gentiles. He did this through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Who had said to him: "That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common," as is had in Acts (10:15), and as he himself in the following chapter said in answer to the Jews who rose up against him, because he had eaten with the uncircumcised.

What Peter did Paul now shows, saying that when he was with the Jews, "he withdrew" from the company of the faithful who had been converted from the Gentiles and adhered to the Jews alone and mingled among them. Therefore he says, "but when they were come," namely, from Judea, Peter "withdrew" from the converted Gentiles "and separated himself from them." This he did because he was "fearing them who were of the circumcision," i.e., the Jews, not with a human or worldly fear but a fear inspired by charity, namely, lest they be scandalized, as is said in a Gloss. Hence he became to the Jews as a Jew, pretending that he felt the same as they did in their weakness. Yet he feared unreasonably, because the truth must never be set aside through fear of scandal.

Paul never fell into any pretense, for he everywhere observed a principle which seemed fitting both to Gentile and to Jewish churches, that he should nowhere take away a custom whose observation did not prevent the receiving of God's kingdom.… Peter, however, when he came to Antioch, was rebuked by Paul not because he observed the Jewish custom in which he was born and reared, although he did not observe it among the Gentiles, but because he wanted to impose it on the Gentiles. This happened after seeing certain persons come from James—that is, from Judea, since James was the head of the church in Jerusalem. It was therefore in fear of those who still thought that salvation resided in these observances that Peter separated himself from the Gentiles and pretended to consent in imposing those burdens of servitude on the Gentiles.

What then should we understand by "their insincerity"? Even Peter and Barnabas and the other Jews had not truly gone to the length of living their lives according to Jewish practice. They even pretended to do so as an ad hoc measure, because of the fears of those around them. And therefore, he says, even Barnabas acquiesced in their insincerity.

"Insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation."

Be not surprised at his giving this proceeding the name of dissimulation, for he is unwilling, as I said before, to disclose the true state of the case, in order to the correction of his disciples. On account of their vehement attachment to the Law, he calls the present proceeding "dissimulation," and severely rebukes it, in order effectually to eradicate their prejudice. And Peter too, hearing this joins in the feint, as if he had erred, that they might be corrected by means of the rebuke administered to him. Had Paul reproved these Jews, they would have spurned at it with indignation, for they held him in slight esteem; but now, when they saw their Teacher silent under rebuke, they were unable to despise or resist Paul's sentence.

By hypocrisy he means the observation of the Law, and he teaches that they should be separated from it.

"joined him in his pretense." He calls the thing itself a pretense, so that the hidden arrangement would no longer benefit those who believed because of circumcision.

"and the other Jews." For there were also other believers from the circumcision in Antioch, who themselves, he says, separated themselves from those of uncircumcision because of those who had come from James.

Well, but Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he rebukes even apostles ) for "not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel," as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ), labours very hard to destroy the character of those Gospels which are published as genuine and under the name of apostles, in order, forsooth, to secure for his own Gospel the credit which he takes away from them.

He calls this matter hypocrisy, because he does not wish to reveal Peter's intention, and also for the sake of those strongly attached to the law, in order to uproot their devotion to the law. And by the rest of the Jews he means those from among the Jews in Antioch who had believed, who themselves also kept away from the uncircumcised.

What resulted from this dissimulation he mentions when he says that "to his dissimulation," i.e., Peter's, "the rest of the Jews consented" who were at Antioch, discriminating between food and separating themselves from the Gentiles, although prior to this act of dissimulation they would not have done this. And not only they consented to Peter, but such was the effect of that dissimulation upon the hearts of the faithful "that Barnabas also," who along with me was a teacher of the Gentiles and had done and taught the contrary, "was led by them into that dissimulation" and withdrew from them, namely, the Gentiles. And this on account of what is said in Sirach (10:2): "What manner of man the ruler of a city is, such also are they that dwell therein" and "as the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers."

Those who wish to defend Peter from error and from the depravity of life into which he had fallen overturn the very way of religion in which lies the salvation of all. This shatters and diminishes the authority of the Scriptures. They do not see that in this defense they are implicitly charging the apostle Paul not only with the crime of lying but even with perjury in the very teaching of piety, that is, in the letter in which Paul proclaims the gospel. It is for this reason he says, before narrating these things [in 1:20], "What I write to you, understand before God that I do not lie.

That he rebuked him "before all" was necessary, in order that everyone might be bettered by his rebuke. For it was not expedient to correct in secret an error that was doing public harm. It should be added that in his steadfastness and charity Peter, to whom the Lord had said three times, "Do you love me? Feed my sheep," was very ready to bear this rebuke from a junior shepherd for the salvation of the flock. For the one who was being rebuked was himself more remarkable and more difficult to imitate than the one rebuking. For it is easier to see what one should correct in others than to see what ought to be corrected in oneself. It is easier to correct others by admonishing and rebuking than to be corrected readily even by yourself, let alone by another, still less if you add another and "before all."

So that one might fulfill the works of the law, his infirmity being assisted not by his own merit but by the grace of God, they were not to demand from the Gentiles a fleshly observation of the law but were to understand that through the same grace of God they were able to fulfill the spiritual works of the law.

He says this so that Hebrews no less than Gentiles may be compelled to accept the grace of faith, not the impositions of the law, which no one could fulfill.

(Verse 14.) But when I saw that they were not walking straight towards the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter in front of everyone. Just as those who pretend to limp with healthy steps do not have a fault in their feet, but there is some reason why they limp, so Peter, knowing that circumcision and uncircumcision mean nothing, but the observance of God's commandments does, used to eat with the Gentiles, but for a time he withdrew from them, lest he should make the Jews lose faith in Christ. And so Paul, using the same tactic as Peter had pretended, confronted him to his face and spoke openly in front of everyone; not so much to accuse Peter, but rather to correct those for whose sake Peter had pretended, or even to remove pride from the Jews and despair from the Gentiles. But if someone does not like this interpretation, in which neither Peter is shown to have sinned nor Paul to have boldly accused him, they must explain in what way Paul criticizes this in the other case, which he himself committed.

If you, being a Jew, live as a Gentile and not as a Jew, how do you force the Gentiles to live as Jews? Peter is strongly convinced by an unbreakable argument, or rather, through Peter, those who were compelling him to engage in disputes: If, Peter, you being a Jew by nature, born a Jew and observing all the precepts of the Law, now know that these things have no inherent usefulness but are examples and images of things to come, and if you, eating with those who are from the Gentiles, do not live in a superstitious manner as you did before, but now live freely and impartially; how then can you compel those who believed from the Gentiles to Judaize, now separating yourself from them and considering them unclean? For if those from whom you separate are unclean, and yet you do separate, it follows that you compel them to be circumcised and become Jews; while you yourself, being born a Jew, live like a Gentile. And he joyfully shows the reason why he disputed against him: namely, because he was compelling the Gentiles to judaize through his own hypocrisy, as they desired to imitate him.

"But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel."

Neither let this phrase disturb you, for in using it he does not condemn Peter, but so expresses himself for the benefit of those who were to be reformed by the reproof of Peter.

"I said unto Cephas before them all."

Observe his mode of correcting the others; he speaks "before them all," that the hearers might be alarmed thereby. And this is what he says,

"If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

But it was the Jews and not the Gentiles who were carried away together with Peter; why then does Paul impute what was not done, instead of directing his remarks, not against the Gentiles, but against the dissembling Jews? And why does he accuse Peter alone, when the rest also dissembled together with him? Let us consider the terms of his charge; "If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" for in fact Peter alone had withdrawn himself. His object then is to remove suspicion from his rebuke; had he blamed Peter for observing the Law, the Jews would have censured him for his boldness towards their Teacher. But now arraigning him in behalf of his own peculiar disciples, I mean the Gentiles, he facilitates thereby the reception of what he has to say which he also does by abstaining from reproof of the others, and addressing it all to the Apostle. "If thou," he says, "being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews;" which almost amounts to an explicit exhortation to imitate their Teacher, who, himself a Jew, lived after the manner of the Gentiles. This however he says not, for they could not have received such advice, but under color of reproving him in behalf of the Gentiles, he discloses Peter's real sentiments. On the other hand, if he had said, Wherefore do you compel these Jews to Judaize? his language would have been too severe. But now he effects their correction by appearing to espouse the part, not of the Jewish, but of the Gentile, disciples; for rebukes, which are moderately severe, secure the readiest reception. And none of the Gentiles could object to Paul that he took up the defense of the Jews. The whole difficulty was removed by Peter's submitting in silence to the imputation of dissimulation, in order that he might deliver the Jews from its reality. At first Paul directs his argument to the character which Peter wore, "If thou, being a Jew:" but he generalizes as he goes on, and includes himself in the phrase...

Namely that they did not cease altogether from [observing] the tradition of the Law. As we already said, he spoke in this way on account of the economy; for the whole event was an economy, including the rebuke made by Paul, and the silence and condescension of Peter. For both of them sought one thing, namely, that those who believed in Christ should cease to observe the Law. "If you are a Jew and live as a pagan, and not as a Jew." Namely, you do not keep the observance of the Law, but like those believers from the nations, you no longer keep the new months and the sabbaths. "How then do you force the nations to do this?" This too indicates the economy of this affair. Although he does not force you, nor does he attempt to persuade the nations to Judaize, Paul says that he does so that the rebuke addressed to Peter might be found to be a useful occasion to him with respect to his own disciples. By saying all this he educates the Galatians to easily cope with the weight of the rebuke for if Peter, being from the Jews, and persuading others to Judaize, was rebuked, and accepted the rebuke, as having been properly addressed to him, how much more should the Galatians, who are from the nations, and believed in Christ, and subjected themselves again to the slavery of the Law should accept the rebuke when it is addressed to them.

In what sense has it been said, "joined him in his pretense," (Gal. 2:13) likewise also, "not walking straight," it was said. For he does not wish to reveal the arrangement.

"according to the truth of the Gospel." For the truth of the Gospel is not to circumcise nor to withdraw from those faithful from uncircumcision. "For there is neither Jew nor Greek." (Gal. 3:28)

"I said to Peter before them all." You see that for this reason he scolded Peter before all, not to condemn Peter, but so that he might benefit those of the circumcision, as has been said before.

"If you, being a Jew." But he did not say it openly to the followers of James; "Imitate your teacher living as a Gentile," that is, quietly. For this is constructed from the speech addressed to Peter.

"why do you compel the Gentiles?" Which, he says, you do not do, nor compel others to do. But why did he not say: Why do you compel those who are of the circumcision to Judaize? since he was speaking because of them, and the sequence of the discourse was such that it could have been said so. Yet he spoke in this way so that he might seem to care for his own disciples, namely those who were of the Gentiles, for fear that the arrangement for which the rebuke existed be revealed.

The apostle Peter would not have been rebuked if he had separated himself from the Gentiles for fear of giving scandal to the Jews. But what was rebuked in the apostle Peter was that, when he previously had been living in Gentile fashion with believers, he started to teach that the Gentiles ought to follow Jewish practice because he was overcome by fear upon the arrival of Jews from James. Therefore it was said to him, "If you, being a Jew, live in Gentile fashion, why do you force the Gentiles to follow Jewish practice?" For he had introduced doubt about discipleship in the gospel, which is a crime, since he was destroying what he had built. Thus it is that the apostle Paul calls this "insincerity.

But do not be troubled by these words — he says this not to condemn Peter, but for the sake of those who could benefit from hearing that even Peter was subjected to rebuke for his attachment to the law. Why then should you hold to it? For it was with this purpose that he rebuked him then before all, so that they would be frightened, hearing that so great a man is subjected to censure and cannot object. Eusebius, however, says that the one subjected to rebuke from Paul was not the great Peter, but some other Cephas, one of the Seventy, and in support of this he points to the impossibility that the one who had already previously defended himself regarding the scandal he had caused by sharing a meal with Cornelius could again be subjected to such rebuke. But we too do not say that Peter was censured by Paul for ignorance of his duty, but that he voluntarily submitted to condemnation so that others too might be corrected.

Paul all but cries out to everyone: "Imitate your teacher — for behold, he is a Jew, yet he ate food together with the Gentiles." And notice — he does not accuse him: "You do wrong by observing the Law," but reproaches him on behalf of his own disciples from among the Gentiles, that he compels them to be circumcised and to live according to Jewish customs. For in this form the word could be more readily accepted.

Then when he says, "But, when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all...," he explains what he had said concerning the rebuke with which he rebuked Peter. As to this he does three things:

First, he gives the reason for the rebuke;

Secondly, the manner of rebuking;

Thirdly, the words of the rebuke.

The occasion of the rebuke was not slight, but just and useful, namely, the danger to the Gospel teaching. Hence he says: Thus was Peter reprehensible, but I alone, "when I saw that they," who were doing these things, "walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel," because its truth was being undone, if the Gentiles were compelled to observe the legal justifications, as will be plain below. That they were not walking uprightly is so, because in cases where danger is imminent, the truth must be preached openly and the opposite never condoned through fear of scandalizing others: "That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light" (Mt 10:27); "The way of the just is right: the path of the just is right to walk in" (Is 26:7). The manner of the rebuke was fitting, i.e., public and plain. Hence he says, "I said to Cephas," i.e., to Peter, "before them all," because that dissimulation posed a danger to all: "Them that sin, reprove before all" (1 Tim 5:20). This is to be understood of public sins and not of private ones, in which the procedures of fraternal charity ought to be observed.

The words the Apostle spoke to Peter when he rebuked him, he adds, saying, "If thou, being a Jew" by nature and race, "livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews do," i.e., if you observe the customs of Gentiles and not of Jews, since you know and feel that discriminating among foods is of no importance, "how dost thou compel the Gentiles," not indeed by command, but by example of your behavior, "to live as do the Jews?" He says, "compel," because as Pope Leo says, "Example has more force than words." Hence Paul rebukes Peter precisely because he had been instructed by God that although he had previously lived as the Jews do, he should no longer discriminate among foods: "That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common" (Acts 10:15). But now Peter was dissembling the opposite.

It should be noted that these words occasioned no small controversy between Jerome and Augustine and, as their writings clearly show, they are seen to disagree on four points. First, as to the time of the legal justifications, namely, when they should have been observed. For Jerome distinguishes two periods, one before the passion of Christ and one after. Jerome's opinion is that the legal justifications were living before the passion of Christ, i.e., had validity, inasmuch as original sin was removed through circumcision, and God was pleased with sacrifices and victims. But after the passion they were, according to him, not only not living, i.e., dead, but what is more, they were deadly, so that whoever observed them after the passion of Christ sinned mortally.

Augustine, on the other hand, distinguishes three periods. One period was before the passion of Christ and, in agreement with Jerome, he says that during that period the legal justifications were living. Another was the period immediately following the passion of Christ, before grace was promulgated (as the time of the apostles in the beginning); during this period, says Augustine, the legal justifications were dead but not yet deadly to the converted Jews, so long as the ones observing them placed no hope in them. Hence the Jews observed them during that period without sinning. But had they placed their trust in them when observing them after their conversion, they would have sinned mortally; because if they placed their trust in them so as to believe that they were necessary for salvation, then, as far as they were concerned, they would have been voiding the grace of Christ. Finally, he posits a third period, after the truth and grace of Christ had been proclaimed. It was during that period, he says, that they were both dead and deadly to all who observed them.

The reasoning that underlies these statements is that if the Jews had been forbidden the legal observances right after their conversion, it might have seemed that they had previously been on an equal footing with idolaters, who were immediately forbidden to worship idols, and that just as idolatry had never been good, so too the legal observances. Therefore, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the legal observances were condoned for a short time for the reason given, namely, to show that the legal observances had been good in the past. Hence, says Augustine, the fact that the legal justifications were not forbidden right after the passion of Christ showed that the mother, the synagogue, was destined to be brought in honor to the grave. But whosoever did not observe them in that manner would not be honoring the mother, the synagogue, but disturbing her grave.

Secondly, the aforesaid Jerome and Augustine disagree on the observance of the legal justifications with respect to the apostles. For Jerome says that the apostles never really observed them but pretended to do so, in order to avoid scandalizing the believers who had been of the circumcision. He says that even Paul made this pretense when he fulfilled a vow in the temple at Jerusalem, as is narrated in Acts (21:26), and when he circumcised Timothy, as in Acts (16:3), and when on advice from James he observed some of the justifications, as recorded in Acts (20:20). But in so doing the apostles were not misleading the faithful, because they did not act with the intention of observing the justifications but for other reasons; for example, they rested on the Sabbath, not because it was a legal observance, but for the sake of rest. Likewise, they abstained from food legally unclean, not for the sake of observing the legal justifications but for other reasons; for example, on account of an abhorrence or something of that nature. But Augustine says that the apostles observed the legal justifications and intended to do so, but without putting their trust in them as though they were necessary for salvation. Furthermore, this was lawful for them to do, because they had been Jews. Nevertheless, they observed them before grace was proclaimed. Hence just as certain other Jews could safely observe them at that time without putting any trust in them, so too could the apostles.

Thirdly, they disagree on the sin of Peter. For Jerome says that in the dissimulation previously mentioned, Peter did not sin, because he did this from charity and, as has been said, not from mundane fear. Augustine, on the other hand, says that he did sin—venially, however—on account of the lack of discretion he had by adhering overmuch to one side, namely, to the Jews, in order to avoid scandalizing them. But the stronger of Augustine's arguments against Jerome is that Jerome adduces on his own behalf seven doctors, four of whom, namely, Laudicens, Alexander, Origen, and Didymus, Augustine rejects as known heretics. To the other three he opposes three of his own, who held with him and his opinion, namely, Ambrose, Cyprian, and Paul himself, who plainly teaches that Peter was deserving of rebuke. Therefore, if it is unlawful to say that anything false is contained in Sacred Scripture, it will not be lawful to say that Peter was not deserving of rebuke. For this reason the opinion and statement of Augustine is the truer, because it is more in accord with the words of the Apostle.

Fourthly, they disagree on Paul's rebuke. For Jerome says that Paul did not really rebuke Peter but pretended to do so, just as Peter pretended to observe the legal justifications, i.e., just as Peter in his unwillingness to scandalize the Jews pretended to observe the justifications, so Paul, in order not to scandalize the Gentiles, feigned displeasure at Peter's action and pretended to rebuke him. This was done, as it were, by mutual consent, so that each might exercise his care over the believers subject to them. Augustine, however, just as he says that Peter really did observe the justifications, says that Paul truly rebuked him without pretense. Furthermore, Peter really sinned by observing them, because his action was a source of scandal to the Gentiles from whom he separated himself. But Paul did not sin in rebuking him, because no scandal followed from his rebuke.

The Jews had given the name of sinners to the Gentiles through a certain pride, already inveterate. It is as though they themselves were just, seeing the mote in another's eye and not the beam in their own.

A Jew by nature is one of Abraham's stock, who has been circumcised by his parents on the eighth day. One who is a Jew "not by nature" is one of Gentile origin who has been subsequently made so. That I may embrace the whole argument in a brief discourse, the sense of the text is as follows: "We are Jews by nature, doing those things that were precepts of the law. We are not sinners who come from the Gentiles—either in the sense of those who are sinners generically because they worship idols or those whom Jews now regard as unclean. Yet we know that we cannot be saved by the works of the law but rather by faith in Christ. We have believed in Christ that what the law had not given us our faith would guarantee to us. Seceding from the law in which we could not be saved, we have gone over to faith, in which not the circumcision of the flesh but the devotion of a pure heart is demanded. But what if we now belatedly declare by seceding from the Gentiles that whoever is uncircumcised is unclean? In that case faith in Christ—by which we previously thought we were saved—would rather become a minister of sin than of righteousness. For faith would under that assumption take away the circumcision without which one is unclean."

(Verse 15) We are by nature Jews, and not sinners from the Gentiles. At this point, heretics sneak in, who, inventing ridiculous and foolish things, say that the spiritual nature cannot sin, nor can the earthly nature do anything just. Let us ask them why branches of the good olive tree were broken off and why branches from a wild olive tree were grafted onto the root of the good olive tree, if nothing can fall from good or rise from evil. Or how was Paul persecuting the Church before he became an Apostle if he was of a spiritual nature? Or how did he become an Apostle afterwards if he was generated from earthly sediment? But if they contend that He was not of earthly origin, let us set down His own words: 'We were by nature children of wrath, like the others' (Ephesians II, 3). The Jew by nature is one who is of the race of Abraham and was circumcised by his parents on the eighth day. Not the Jew by nature, who later became one from the Gentiles. But to sum up the whole argument in a few words, this is the sense that is being expressed: 'We', that is, 'I and you, Peter' (for He mixed in His own person, lest it might seem that He was doing injury to them), when we were, He says, Jews by nature, doing the things that were commanded by the Law, and not sinners from among the Gentiles, who either generally, because they serve idols, are sinners, or those whom we now consider unclean, knowing that we cannot be saved by the work of the Law, but by faith in Christ, we believed in Christ, so that what the Law did not give us, faith bestowed on us in Christ.' But if, departing from the Law in which we could not be saved, we turn to faith, in which circumcision of the flesh is not sought but rather devotion of a pure heart, and now by turning away from the Gentiles we do this, so that whoever is not circumcised may be unclean; therefore, faith in Christ, in which we thought we were saved before, is more a minister of sin than of justice, which removes circumcision, and whoever does not have it is unclean. But far be it from me to seek revenge, now that I know that what I once destroyed and considered as useless to me. Once I departed from the Law, I died to the Law in order to live in Christ, and I was crucified with Him, and I was reborn as a new man, relying more on faith than on flesh, and with Christ I departed from the world. What I once embraced, I hold fast. Christ did not die for me in vain: in Him I believed in vain, if I could be saved without faith in Him in the old Law.

"We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles."

These words are hortatory, but are couched in the form of a reproof, on account of those Jews. So elsewhere, under cover of one meaning he conveys another; as where he says in his Epistle to the Romans, "But now I go unto Jerusalem, ministering unto the saints." (Rom. xv: 25.) Here his object was not simply to inform them of the motive of his journey to Jerusalem, but to excite them to emulation in the giving of alms. Had he merely wished to explain his motive, it would have sufficed to say, "I go to ministering unto the saints;" but now observe what he says in addition; "For it hath been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem. Yea, it hath been their good pleasure and their debtors they are." And again, "For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them, also to minister unto them in carnal things." (Rom. xv: 26, 27)

Observe how he represses the high thoughts of the Jews; preparing for one thing by means of another, and his language is authoritative. "We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles." The phrase, "Jews by nature," implies that we, who are not proselytes, but educated from early youth in the Law, have relinquished our habitual mode of life, and betaken ourselves to the faith which is in Christ.

Having worked out from the case of those around Peter that circumcision should not be applied, he now works this out in a more complete way. For if those who were Jews from childhood, and not prostylites, but having been brought up in the Law, having seen the weakness of the Law in justifying man, transpose themselves to the grace through faith, how much more those who were not from the beginning from the Law, but from the nations, and having later come to believe in Christ, are not obliged to incline themselves to the Law which is impotent in making one upright.

"We who are Jews by nature." Instead of "from above and from ancestors."

"knowing that a person is not justified." Having fulfilled what accords with Peter's opposition, he now turns to the subject at hand, slightly criticizing circumcision, and asserting that the law cannot be held as able to save. And these things, he says, are according to Peter. But we, being Jews by nature, that is, not converts (for this is what is meant by "not sinners of the Gentiles"), since we have recognized that it is not possible to be saved through works of the law (for there is, he says, great exactitude demanded there), have put our trust in Christ, expecting to be saved through faith in him. These things are fittingly spoken both to Peter and to the Galatians.

"By nature," that is, not proselytes, but born of Jewish fathers and raised in the law, yet we abandoned our accustomed way of life and turned to faith in Christ.

Having manifested the truth of the apostolic doctrine preached by him because of the authority of the other apostles, he now shows the same thing from their manner of life and example. About this he does two things:

First, he proves his proposition from the manner of life of the apostles;

Secondly, he raises an objection posed by his adversaries (v. 17).

As to the first he does three things:

First, he sets forth the status of the apostles;

Secondly, their manner of life (v. 16);

Thirdly, the intended conclusion (v. 16): "because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified."

The status of the apostles and even of Paul is that according to natural origin they were born Jews. That is why he says, "We," namely, I and the other apostles, are "by nature," i.e., by natural origin, Jews, not proselytes: "They are Hebrews: so am I" (2 Cor 11:22). And this is a great compliment, because, as it is said: "Salvation is of the Jews" (Jn 4:22). "And not of the Gentiles, sinners," i.e., we are not sinners as are the Gentiles, idolatrous and unclean.

But against this can be set the word of 1 John (1:8): "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." Therefore, the Jews were sinners. I answer that it is one thing to sin and another to be a sinner. For the first names an act, but the second a readiness or habit of sinning. Hence Scripture is wont to call the impious and those loaded down with the heavy burden of sin, sinners. The Jews therefore, being haughty on account of the Law, and as it were, restrained from sin by it, called the Gentiles sinners, living as they were without the Law's restraint and being prone to sin: "Be no more carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph 4:14). When, therefore, the Apostle says, "not of the Gentiles, sinners," he means we are not of that number of sinners that exist among the Gentiles.

Some say that if Paul is right in asserting that no one is justified by the works of the law but from faith in Christ, the patriarchs and prophets and saints who lived before Christ were imperfect. We should tell such people that those who are said not to have obtained righteousness are those who believe that they can be justified by works alone. The saints who lived long ago, however, were justified from faith in Christ, seeing that Abraham saw in advance Christ's day.

In this place we must consider how many are the precepts of the law which no one can fulfill. And it must also be said that some works of the law are done even by those who do not know it. But those who perform it are not justified, because this happens without faith in Christ.

(Verse 16). However, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, we also have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law. Some say: if what Paul affirms is true, that no one is justified by the works of the Law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, then the patriarchs, prophets, and saints who lived before the coming of Christ were imperfect. Those whom we ought to admonish are those who have not attained to justice, who believe that they can be justified by works alone. But the saints, who have been justified by the faith of Christ since ancient times. For Abraham saw the day of Christ and rejoiced. And Moses esteemed the greater riches as a treasure of the Egyptians, as an insult to Christ. For he looked to the reward. And Isaiah saw the glory of Christ, as John the Evangelist recounts, and Judas speaks generally of all: I want to remind you, knowing everything once: that Jesus, saving the people from the land of Egypt, destroyed them secondly, those who did not believe. Where the works of the Law are not so much condemned, as those who trust that they can be justified by works alone, the Savior also spoke to his disciples, Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:20). It is necessary to gather (or consider) at this place how many precepts there are in the Law, which no one is able to fulfill. And on the other hand, it must be said that some of the Law is also done by those who are ignorant of it. But this is why his workers are not justified, because they are done without the faith of Christ. For example, not sleeping with a woman as a man sleeps, not committing adultery, not stealing, but rather honoring father and mother, and doing the other things that are commanded. But if they bring us examples of holy men: that they, being versed in the Law, have committed the things that were of the Law, we will say: Because the just Law is not laid down for the law-abiding and the obedient, but for the unjust and the disobedient, the impious and the sinners, the polluted and the unclean (1 Timothy 1). But as for one who is taught by God, it is not necessary for him to be taught about charity, as Paul says: But as for charity, I have no need to write to you: for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another (IV Thess. IV, 9).

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, save through faith, in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus."

Observe here too how cautiously he expresses himself; he does not say that they had abandoned the Law as evil, but as weak. If the law cannot confer righteousness, it follows that circumcision is superfluous; and so far he now proves; but he proceeds to show that it is not only superfluous but dangerous. It deserves especial notice, how at the outset he says that a man is not justified by the works of the Law; but as he proceeds he speaks more strongly.

"knowing that a person is not justified." Having fulfilled what accords with Peter's opposition, he now turns to the subject at hand, slightly criticizing circumcision, and asserting that the law cannot be held as able to save. And these things, he says, are according to Peter. But we, being Jews by nature, that is, not converts (for this is what is meant by "not sinners of the Gentiles"), since we have recognized that it is not possible to be saved through works of the law (for there is, he says, great exactitude demanded there), have put our trust in Christ, expecting to be saved through faith in him. These things are fittingly spoken both to Peter and to the Galatians.

"by works of the law." Because of the resentment felt toward him.

"For by works of the law no flesh shall be justified." The things necessary to the law, and those taught by nature, are for example, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal," and the other similar precepts. (Ex. 20:13-15) But matters concerning the Sabbath, and circumcision, and leprosy, and gonorrhea, and sacrifices, and sprinklings, were particular to the law. For nature did not instruct concerning these things. These, then, he calls works of the law. Of these, transgression is sin, and observance is not the accomplishment of perfect righteousness. For these are riddles of other peoples, yet even for the Jews they fitted the occasion. Concerning these the divine Apostle said, "For by works of the law no flesh shall be justified."

But what do the Marcionites wish to have believed (on the point)? For the rest, the apostle must (be permitted to) go on with his own statement, wherein he says that "a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith: " faith, however, in the same God to whom belongs the law also.

For he remembered that the time was come of which the Psalm spake, "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast off their yoke from us; " since the time when "the nations became tumultuous, and the people imagined vain counsels; "when "the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ," in order that thenceforward man might be justified by the liberty of faith, not by servitude to the law, "because the just shall live by his faith.

The necessary commandments of the law were taught even by nature. That is, "You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor, honor your father and mother, and the rest of this kind." But the commandments about the sabbath and circumcision and lepers and menstruation and sacrifice were peculiar to the [Jewish] law, since nature taught nothing about these matters. These are what he now calls "works of the law." The transgression of these is sin, yet the mere keeping of them is not the way of maintaining perfect righteousness. For these were symbols of other things. Nonetheless they were appropriate to the Jews in their due time.

See how simply everything is said. We left the law not because it is not good, but because it is weak and unable to justify. For no one could fulfill its works, difficult and hard to perform, not because of their greatness, but rather because of their pettiness; or otherwise, because it did not sanctify the soul, but only removed bodily impurity. So circumcision is superfluous. And further ahead he will say that it is even dangerous, because it alienates from Christ.

Then when he says, "But knowing that man is not justified by the works..." he sets forth the apostles' manner of life, which consists not in the works of the Law but in the faith of Christ. About this he does two things:

First, he gives the reason for the apostles' manner of life;

Secondly, he sets forth their manner of life (v. 16): "we also believe in Christ Jesus."

Therefore the apostolic life rested on the faith of Christ and not on the works of the Law. The reason for this is that although we were Jews by nature and were nourished in the works of the Law, yet "knowing" for certain that man is "not justified by the works of the law," i.e., through the works of the Law, but "by the faith of Jesus Christ," for that reason we have left the Law and are living according to the precepts of the faith: "For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law" (Rom 3:28); "For there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

However, it is said in Romans (2:13): "For not the hearers of the law are just before God; but the doers of the law shall be justified." Therefore, it seems that a man would be justified by the works of the Law. I answer that "to be justified" can be taken in two senses, namely, doing what is just, and being made just. But no one is made just save by God through grace. It should be known, therefore, that some works of the Law were moral and some ceremonial. The moral, although they were contained in the Law, could not, strictly speaking, be called "works of the Law," for man is induced to them by natural instinct and by the natural law. But the ceremonial works are properly called the "works of the Law." Therefore, to that extent is man justified by the moral laws—so far as the execution of justice is concerned—and also by the ceremonial laws that pertain to the sacraments, as their observance is a work of obedience. And this is the way it is taken in the word of the Apostle to the Romans (2:13).

But with respect to being made just by the works of the Law, a man does not seem to be justified by them, because the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace. "How turn you again to the weak and needy elements?" i.e., that neither confer grace nor contain grace in themselves. The sacraments of the New Law however, although they are material elements, are not needy elements; hence they can justify. Again, if there were any in the Old Law who were just, they were not made just by the works of the Law but only by the faith of Christ "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith," as is said in Romans (3:25). Hence the sacraments of the Old Law were certain protestations of the faith of Christ, just as our sacraments are, but not in the same way, because those sacraments were configured to the grace of Christ as to something that lay in the future; our sacraments, however, testify as things containing a grace that is present. Therefore, he says significantly, that "it is not by the works of the law that we are justified, but by the faith of Christ," because, although some who observed the works of the Law in times past were made just, nevertheless, this was effected only by the faith of Jesus Christ.

From this knowledge which the apostles had, namely, that justification is not by the works of the Law but by the faith of Christ, he concludes to their manner of life, in which they chose the faith of Christ and gave up the works of the Law. Hence he adds, "we also believe in Christ Jesus," because as is said in Acts (4:12): "There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." Therefore he continued, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ. "Being justified, therefore, by faith, let us have peace with God" (Rom 5:1). But lest anyone suppose that the works of the Law along with the faith of Christ justify, he adds, "and not by the works of the law": "For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law" (Rom 3:28).

From this he derives his main proposition, saying that if the apostles, who are Jews by nature, do not seek to be justified by the works of the Law but by faith, then "by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified," i.e., no man whatsoever can be justified by the works of the Law. For "flesh" is taken here to stand for "man," i.e., the part for the whole, as does "All flesh shall see the salvation of the Lord" (Is 40:5). Then by saying, "because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified," he concludes, as it were, a fortiori. For it seems more natural or reasonable for the Jews, more than anyone else, to be justified by the works of the Law rather than by faith. But this is not the case. Therefore...