Thomas Aquinas

Above, the Apostle showed that he himself received no benefit from the conference held with the aforesaid apostles; but here he shows that he himself was of benefit to others. And first he shows how he was of benefit to Peter in correcting him; second, he explains what he has said, at the place, "for before certain ones came," etc.

He says therefore: truly they conferred nothing on me, but rather I conferred on them, and especially on Peter; for when Peter had come to Antioch, where the Church of the Gentiles was, I resisted him to his face, that is, openly. Ecclesiasticus 4:27: do not stand in awe of your neighbor in his fall, nor hold back your word, etc. Or "to his face," that is, not in secret, as one detracting and fearing, but publicly, and as his equal. Leviticus 19:17: do not hate your brother in your heart, but rebuke him publicly, etc. And this for the reason that he was reprehensible.

But against this: because this was after the grace of the Holy Spirit had been received; but after the grace of the Holy Spirit the apostles sinned in no way. I answer. It must be said that after the grace of the Holy Spirit the apostles in no way sinned mortally, and they had this gift through the divine power which had confirmed them. Psalm 74:4: I have confirmed its pillars, etc. They sinned, however, venially, and this was theirs from human frailty. 1 John 1:8: if we shall say that we have no sin, namely venial, we seduce ourselves, etc.

But as to what is said in the Gloss — "I resisted him as an equal" — it must be said that the Apostle was on a par with Peter in the execution of authority, not in the authority of governance. From the foregoing, therefore, we have an example: for prelates, an example of humility, that they should not disdain to be corrected by their inferiors and subjects; but for subjects, an example of zeal and freedom, that they should not fear to correct their prelates, especially if the offense is public and tends toward the peril of the multitude.

Next, when he says "before certain ones came," etc., he explains what he had said. And first, that which he said, that he was reprehensible; and second, that which he said, that he had rebuked Peter, at the place "but when I saw," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he shows what Peter thought; second, what he was doing, at "but when he had come," etc.; third, what followed from this, at "and to his dissimulation," etc.

He says therefore concerning the first, that Peter held that the legal observances were not to be kept. And this he showed by deed, because before certain ones came — namely Jews zealous for the legal observances — from James, the bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, he, namely Peter, was eating with the Gentiles, that is, he used the foods of the Gentiles indifferently; and he did this from the instinct of the Holy Spirit, who had said to him, what God has sanctified, do not call common, as is found in Acts 10:15, as he himself likewise said to the Jews in the following chapter, who rose up against him because he had eaten with the uncircumcised, as if rendering an account.

But what he was doing, Paul shows here, saying that when he was with the Jews, he withdrew himself from the company of the faithful who had been from the Gentiles, adhering to the Jews only, and gathering himself with them. And therefore he says, "but when he had come," namely from Judea, Peter withdrew himself from the converted Gentiles, and separated himself from them. And this for the reason that he was fearing those who were of the circumcision, that is, the Jews — not indeed with a human or worldly fear, but with a fear of charity, namely lest they be scandalized, as is said in the Gloss. And therefore he became to the Jews as a Jew, pretending that he felt the same as the weak; but nevertheless he feared inordinately, because truth must never be abandoned on account of fear of scandal.

But what followed from this dissimulation, he adds, saying that the rest of the Jews who were at Antioch consented to his dissimulation, that is, Peter's, distinguishing between foods and separating themselves from the Gentiles, although before this kind of dissimulation they had not done this. And not only did they consent to Peter, but that dissimulation was so present in the hearts of the faithful that even Barnabas, who together with me was a teacher of the Gentiles, and had done and taught the contrary, was led by them into that dissimulation, withdrawing himself from them, namely from the Gentiles. And this for the reason that, according to what is said in Ecclesiasticus 10:2: as is the ruler of the city, etc. And in the same place: according to the judge of the people, etc.

Next, when he says "but when I had seen," etc., he explains what he had said about his own rebuke, by which he rebuked Peter. And concerning this he does three things. First he sets down the cause of the rebuke; second, the manner of rebuking; third, the words of the rebuke.

The occasion of the rebuke, moreover, is not slight, but just and useful, namely the peril of evangelical truth. And therefore he says: thus Peter was reprehensible, but I alone, when I had seen that those who acted in this way were not walking rightly with regard to the truth of the Gospel — because through this the truth was perishing, if the Gentiles were compelled to observe the legal observances, as will be clear below. But the reason that they were not walking rightly is this: because truth, especially where danger threatens, ought to be publicly preached, and the contrary ought not to be done on account of the scandal of some. Matthew 10:27: what I tell you in darkness, speak in the light. Isaiah 26:7: the path of the just is straight; the track of the just is right for walking.

The manner of rebuking, moreover, was fitting, because it was public and manifest. Hence he says, I said to Cephas, that is, to Peter, before all, because that dissimulation was to the peril of all. 1 Timothy 5:20: rebuke the one sinning before all. This is to be understood of manifest sins, and not of hidden ones, in which the order of fraternal correction must be observed.

But of what sort the words were that the Apostle spoke to Peter when he rebuked him, he adds, saying, if you, though you are a Jew, etc., as if to say: O Peter, if you, though you are a Jew by nation and by race, live in a Gentile manner and not in a Jewish manner — that is, you keep the rite of the Gentiles and not of the Jews — since you know and perceive that the distinction of foods confers nothing, how do you compel the Gentiles — not indeed by command, but by the example of your conduct — to judaize? And he says "you compel," because, according to what Pope Leo says, examples are more forceful than words. In this, then, Paul rebukes Peter, that although he himself had been instructed by God — when he had previously lived in Jewish fashion, that he should no longer afterward distinguish between foods (Acts 10:15: what God has sanctified, do not call common) — he himself was feigning the contrary.

It must be known, moreover, that on the occasion of these words, no small controversy arose between Jerome and Augustine. And according to what is openly gathered from their words, they seem to disagree in four points.

And first, on the time of the legal observances, namely when they ought to have been kept. For Jerome distinguishes two times, one before the Passion of Christ, the other after the Passion. Jerome holds, therefore, that the legal observances, before the Passion of Christ, were alive, that is, having their own force, inasmuch as, namely, through circumcision original sin was taken away, and through sacrifices and victims God was appeased. But after the Passion he says not only that they were not alive or dead, but, what is more, that they were death-dealing, and that whoever, after the Passion of Christ, observed them, sinned mortally.

Augustine, however, distinguishes three times. One time before the Passion of Christ, and, agreeing with Jerome, he says that at this time the legal observances were alive. Another time is immediately after the Passion of Christ, before grace was made known abroad (as was the time of the apostles at the beginning), in which time Augustine says the legal observances were dead, but nevertheless not death-dealing to the converted Jews, provided that, while observing them, they did not place their hope in them — so that even the Jews themselves, observing them at that time, did not sin. But if they had placed their hope in them, whoever among the converts, observing them, would have sinned mortally, because if they had placed their hope in them, as though they were necessary for salvation, as far as was in them, they would have emptied out the grace of Christ. He says there is another time after the truth and grace of Christ had been made known abroad, and in this time he says they were dead and death-dealing to all who observed them.

The reason for what has been said, moreover, is that if the Jews, immediately after their conversion, had been forbidden from the observances of the legal precepts, it would have seemed that they walked with equal step with idolaters, who were immediately forbidden from the worship of idols — and that the legal observances had not been good, just as idolatry was not. And therefore, by the instinct of the Holy Spirit, it was permitted that the legal observances be kept for a little time, with the intention that has been stated, so that through this it might be shown that the legal observances had then been good. Hence Augustine says that through this it was shown that mother synagogue was to be led to the tomb with honor, since the legal observances were not forbidden immediately after the Passion of Christ. But whoever did not observe them in that manner would not honor mother synagogue, but would tear her from the tomb.

Second, the aforesaid Jerome and Augustine disagree concerning the observance of the legal precepts as regards the apostles themselves. For Jerome says that the apostles never truly observed the legal precepts, but pretended to observe them, so as to avoid the scandal of the faithful who had been of the circumcision. And he says that Paul feigned in this manner when he paid a vow in the temple of Jerusalem, as is found in Acts 21:26; and when he circumcised Timothy, as is found in Acts 16:3; and when, admonished by James, he took up certain legal observances, as is found in Acts 15:20. And in doing this they were not indeed deceiving others, because they did this not intending to observe the legal precepts, but on account of certain other reasons — just as they rested on the sabbath not on account of observance of the law, but for the sake of rest. Likewise they abstained from things unclean according to the law, not on account of observance of the law, but for other reasons, such as on account of abomination and something of this kind.

Augustine, however, says that the apostles observed the legal precepts themselves, and this intentionally, but nevertheless not placing their hope in them, as though they were necessary for salvation. And this indeed was lawful for them, because they were of the Jews. Yet in such a way that they observed these things before grace had been made known; hence, just as at that time other converted Jews could observe them without danger, provided they did not place their hope in them, so also could they themselves.

Third, they disagree concerning the sin of Peter. For Jerome says that in the aforesaid dissimulation Peter did not sin, because he did this out of charity, and not out of any worldly fear, as has been said. Augustine, however, says that he sinned, venially nonetheless, and this on account of the lack of discretion which he had, in clinging too much to this side, namely of the Jews, in order to avoid their scandal.

And the stronger argument of Augustine against Jerome is this: that Jerome adduces on his own behalf seven doctors, of whom Augustine excludes four — namely, the Laodicean, and the Alexandrian, Origen and Didymus — as being notorious for heresy. But against the other three he opposes three whom he has on his own side and for his own opinion, namely Ambrose, Cyprian, and Paul himself, who manifestly says that Peter was reprehensible. If, then, it is unlawful to say that something false is contained in sacred Scripture, it will not be lawful to say that Peter was not reprehensible. And on account of this the opinion and judgment of Augustine is truer, because it agrees more with the words of the Apostle.

Fourth, they disagree concerning the rebuke of Paul. For Jerome says that Paul did not truly rebuke Peter, but only in pretense — just as Peter also observed the legal precepts in pretense — namely, that just as Peter, unwilling to scandalize the Jews, pretended to observe the legal precepts, so Paul, in order not to scandalize the Gentiles, showed that what Peter was doing displeased him, and rebuked him in pretense; and they did this as though by agreement, so that they might provide for both sets of the faithful subject to them. Augustine, however, just as he says that Peter truly observed the legal precepts, so he says that Paul truly rebuked him, and not in pretense. But Peter indeed sinned in observing them, because from this there was scandal among the Gentiles, from whom he withdrew himself. Paul, however, did not sin in rebuking, because from his rebuke no scandal followed.