Commentary on Galatians (Super Epistolam B. Pauli ad Galatas Lectura)

After the Apostle, in the preceding chapter, commended the authority of the evangelical teaching in itself, now in this chapter he commends it on the part of the other apostles and of himself at the same time. And concerning this he does two things. First he commends the authority of his teaching from the approval of the other apostles; second, from the example of himself and the other apostles, at the place "We by nature Jews, not of the Gentiles," etc.

Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that the other apostles approved his teaching; second he shows that he freely reprehended the other apostles in those things which they said contrary to his teaching, at the place "When Peter had come," etc.

Concerning the first he does two things. First he treats of the conference which he had with the apostles; second he intimates what followed from it, at the place "but neither was Titus," etc.

Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down the circumstances of the conference itself; second he sets down the conference itself, at the place "and I conferred with them," etc. As to the first he touches on four circumstances, namely the time, the place, the witnesses, and its motive.

Now he describes the time when he says, "then after fourteen years." But against this: the Apostle was converted in the first year after the Passion of Christ, and after three years he went to Jerusalem, and thus there are four; and here he says "after fourteen years" he went again to Jerusalem, and thus there come to be eighteen; and then he found Peter in Jerusalem. And this cannot be, because Peter sat at Antioch for seven years, but at Rome for twenty-five years. And so there would be eighteen (two short of twenty) and seven — which are twenty-five years — before he went to Rome, and at Rome he stayed twenty-five years; therefore Peter would have lived after the Passion of Christ fifty years, which is false: because in the fortieth year from the Passion of Christ, Peter suffered at Rome, as is held in history, which was in the time of Nero.

I respond. It must be said that when it is said "then," etc., it is not to be understood that after the three years fourteen more years elapsed before he went to Jerusalem, but that in the fourteenth year of his conversion he went up again. Nor are the seven years, during which Peter ruled the Antiochene Church, to be added on top of these fourteen, because he began to rule before these years. And since Antioch is near Jerusalem, it could be that at some point Peter had gone to Jerusalem, and then Paul found him there. And thus it is gathered from history that after fourteen years Peter came to Rome in the time of the emperor Claudius, and being there for twenty-five years, he completed the number of thirty-nine years, and died in the fortieth year after the Passion of the Lord. Now he says "fourteen" pointedly, to show that he had no need of the instruction of the apostles, if he was without them for fourteen years.

But he describes the place when he says "Jerusalem." And he says "I went up," because it is situated on high. Now he went up to Jerusalem, in order to show himself in agreement with the prophecy which says, Isaiah 2:3: "Out of Sion shall go forth the law," etc.

He describes the witnesses when he says, "with Barnabas, taking also Titus." Barnabas was a Jew, but Titus a Gentile. With them, therefore, he went up, so that he might have witnesses to his teaching, and so that he might show himself inclining to neither side, neither of the Jews nor of the Gentiles. Deuteronomy 17: "In the mouth of two or three every word stands."

But he describes the motive when he says "according to a revelation of God," that is, God revealing it and commanding him that he should go up to Jerusalem. From this it can be gathered that all the acts and movements of the apostles were according to the instinct of the Holy Spirit. Job 37:11: "The clouds scatter their light," etc.

Consequently, when he says "and I conferred," etc., he treats of the conference itself, where he does three things. First he sets forth the matter concerning which he conferred; second, the persons with whom he conferred; and third, the cause for which he conferred. The matter concerning which he conferred was the Gospel. And therefore he says, "I conferred with them the Gospel of God," etc. The persons with whom he conferred are the greater and more excellent among the apostles: "but apart with those," etc. But the useful and necessary cause: namely "lest perhaps in vain," etc.

As to the first he says, "I went up to Jerusalem," where "I conferred with them," as with friends and equals, the Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles — not that I might learn it, since I was already taught by Christ; not that I might be certified of it, since I am so certain that even if an angel should say the contrary, I would not believe it, as is clear above in chapter 1. But I conferred for two reasons: namely, to intimate the unity of my teaching with the teaching of the other apostles. 1 Corinthians 1:10: "That you all say the same thing," etc. He therefore conferred with them, having as it were the same word as they, yet not holding them as equals. Likewise, to avoid the calumny of others. For the Apostle, because he had not lived with Christ, nor been taught by the apostles, but immediately after his conversion began to preach things that were hateful to the Jews — and especially concerning the calling of the Gentiles, and that the legal observances ought not to be kept — thus, then, he conferred the Gospel.

But with whom he did this, he shows by adding, "but apart with those," etc., as if to say: not with all, but with those who were among the others of some authority and weight, namely with Peter, James and John, and the other great ones. Ecclesiasticus 9:21: "Deal with the wise and the prudent," etc. But "apart," etc. — not that he dealt or conferred with them concerning shameful or false things, as heretics do, but because he knew that there were Jews there who calumniated, on account of the fact that he had taught concerning the legal observances. And therefore, lest the truth lie open to calumny, he conferred apart with those who would not calumniate. Proverbs 25:9: "Treat thy cause with thy friend, and discover not the secret to a stranger," etc. Ecclesiasticus 8:21: "Before a stranger do not take counsel," etc. Thus, then, both the matter of the conference and the persons are clear.

There follows the cause, which was, namely, "lest I should run, or had run, in vain" — that is, lest I be reckoned to have preached uselessly. Now he calls his preaching a "running," on account of the swiftness of his teaching, because in a short time he preached the Gospel from Jerusalem all the way to Illyricum, and even to Spain. Whence that saying could be said of him, Psalm 147:15: "His word runneth swiftly," etc.; 2 Thessalonians 3:1: "Brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may run," etc.

But did he doubt that he was running in vain? It must be said that he did not doubt for himself, but concerning those to whom he had preached — because unless his teaching were firmly held by them, as far as they were concerned he would have run in vain; and therefore he wished to confer with them, so that, when the hearers knew that his teaching agreed with the teaching of the other apostles, and was approved by them, they would hold his teaching more firmly, and thus, as far as they were concerned, he would not run in vain. 1 Corinthians 9:26: "I so run, not as at an uncertain thing."

Consequently, when he says "but neither was Titus," etc., he shows what followed from the conference held with the apostles. And he sets down three things that followed from it: namely, that he did not depart from his own position; and that nothing was added over and above to his teaching, at the place "but from those who seemed," etc. Third, that his teaching was approved, at the place "but on the contrary, when they had seen," etc.

Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that he did not depart from his position in a certain particular matter; second he shows that he did not depart from it in any other matter either, at the place "but because of false brethren brought in unawares," etc.

He says, then: I say that I conferred with them concerning the teaching of the Gospel in such a way that from this it followed that my teaching and position remained firm — namely, that the legal observances were not to be kept, so that the Gentiles were not compelled to keep the legal observances — to such an extent that not even Titus, who was with me, although he was also a Gentile, was compelled, by their arguments, to be circumcised, but was received by the apostles into fellowship uncircumcised. Whence then a decision was given by the apostles concerning the legal observances not being kept, as is found in Acts 15:28.

Now the reason why, after the Passion of Christ, the legal observances ought not to be kept is assigned by Chrysostom as follows: for it is manifest that an instrument which is made concerning some promise or covenant holds only until the covenant and promise be fulfilled; once these are fulfilled, the aforesaid instrument no longer holds in this regard. Now circumcision is a certain instrument of the promise and covenant between God and faithful men; whence also Abraham received circumcision as a sign of the promise, as is said in Genesis 17. And because, the Passion of Christ having been accomplished, the promise was discharged and the covenant fulfilled, therefore after the Passion circumcision no longer holds, nor is it of any effect. Thus, then, it is clear that he did not depart from his position in that he did not permit Titus to be circumcised.

Consequently he shows that he did not depart from it in any other matter either, when he says "but because of false brethren brought in unawares," etc. But this text is different in different copies and obscure, and is read thus: you say that you did not permit Titus to be circumcised, but why did you not permit it? Did you not elsewhere permit Timothy to be circumcised, as is read in Acts 16:3? To this the Apostle can respond thus: because at that time, when Timothy was circumcised, circumcision was a matter of indifference, namely whether it was kept or not; but now, when the matter concerned Titus, there was a special question about circumcision, which I was saying ought not to be kept. Whence if I had permitted him to be circumcised, since I myself had settled the question, it would have been done contrary to my own decision, nor was it lawful to raise the question further about this, or to make a difficulty of it, as being already determined.

And therefore he says: I say that I not only did not permit him to be circumcised by them, to whom we yielded not even for an hour by way of subjection — namely, that the Gentiles should be made subject to the law. And this on account of those brought in unawares — by the Devil or by the Pharisees — false brethren, who feign themselves to be friends. 2 Corinthians 12: "peril from false brethren." Who — namely, the false brethren — came in unawares into the place where the apostles were, "to spy," that is, to spy out our liberty from sin and the law. 2 Corinthians 3:17: "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Romans 8:15: "For you have not received the spirit of bondage," etc. Below, chapter 4:5: "that he might redeem them who were under the law." Which — namely, liberty — we have in Christ Jesus, that is, through faith in Christ. Below, chapter 4, verse 31: "You are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free." And for this they came in unawares: that they might bring us back into servitude — of the law and of carnal observances — as before the Passion of Christ, which is not to be done, because "no man can lay another foundation," etc., 1 Corinthians 3:11. And this "that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you" — as if to say: in nothing did we yield to them for this reason, namely lest we give occasion to those who said that without circumcision you could not be saved, which is contrary to the truth of the Gospel that I preached to you.

But Ambrose reads it otherwise. For according to what has been said above, it is held that he did not yield for an hour on account of those brought in unawares. From which it follows that, had the false brethren not been brought in unawares, he would have yielded to them concerning the observance of the legal precepts. And therefore it was not on account of this, because he would not have yielded to them on account of this, but on account of the truth itself. Therefore Ambrose says that the text is corrupt, and that the word "neither" there is superfluous. Whence he wishes that "neither" not be there. And then the sense is: I did not permit Titus to be circumcised, but I permitted Timothy to be circumcised on account of the false brethren brought in unawares, in the place where I was with Timothy and the others, who came in unawares, etc. And since they had been unable to do this, they were striving to incite the people to sedition against us. To whom — namely, to the false brethren — for this reason we yielded for an hour to subjection, in the act of circumcision, by circumcising Timothy, there where it is said "that the truth of the Gospel might remain," etc., which holds that neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith.

Now there was a special reason why Timothy was circumcised and not Titus: because Timothy was of a Gentile father and a Jewish mother, whereas Titus was of Gentile parents on both sides. And it was the Apostle's position that those who had been born of some Jewish parent should be circumcised, but those who had been born entirely of Gentile parents should by no means be circumcised.

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

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.

Above he showed the truth of the apostolic doctrine preached by him, from the authority of the other apostles; here he shows the same thing from their manner of life and example. And concerning this he does two things. First he shows his proposition through the manner of life of the apostles; second, the objection of adversaries, that "if, seeking to be justified," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets forth beforehand the condition of the apostles; second he touches upon their manner of life, at the place "but knowing that a man is not justified," etc.; third, the condition intended, at the place "wherefore by the works of the law," etc.

Now the condition of the apostles, and also of Paul himself, is this: that according to natural origin they proceeded from the Jews. And this is what he says: "we," namely I and the other apostles, "are by nature," that is, by natural origin, "Jews," not proselytes. 2 Corinthians 11:22: "They are Hebrews, so am I," etc. And this is great praise, because, as is said in John 4:22, salvation is from the Jews. And "not sinners of the Gentiles," that is, we are not sinners, as the idolatrous and unclean Gentiles are.

But against this is what is said in 1 John 1:8: "If we shall say that we have no sin," etc.; therefore the Jews are sinners. I respond. It must be said that to be sinning is one thing, to be a sinner another. For the first denominates an act, but the second a readiness, or habit, toward sinning. Whence Scripture is accustomed to call the wicked, and those burdened with grave loads of sins, "sinners." The Jews, therefore, growing proud on account of the law, as it were restrained by it from sins, called the Gentiles, who were without the rein of the law and prone to sin, "sinners." Ephesians 4:14: "let us not be carried about by every wind of doctrine," etc. When therefore the Apostle says "not sinners of the Gentiles," it is explained thus: that is, we are not of the number of the sinners who are among the Gentiles, etc.

Consequently, when he says "but knowing that a man is not justified," etc., he sets forth the manner of life of the apostles, which indeed is not in the things of the law, but in the faith of Christ. And concerning this he does two things. First he expresses the reason for the apostolic manner of life; second he sets forth the apostolic manner of life itself, at the place "and we in Christ," etc.

The apostolic manner of life, then, was in faith, and not in the things of the law. The reason for this is that although we were Jews by nature and nourished in the things of the law, nevertheless, knowing for certain that a man is not justified by the works of the law, that is, through the legal works, except through the faith of Jesus Christ, therefore, forsaking those things, we conduct our lives in the precepts of faith. Romans 3:28: "For we reckon a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law." Acts 4:12: "there is no other name," etc.

But against this: for in Romans 2:13 it is said: "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified," etc. It seems, therefore, that a man is justified by the works of the law.

I respond. It must be said that "to be justified" can be taken in two ways: namely, to carry out justice, and to become just. Now in the first way, a man is justified who does works of justice. But no one becomes just except from God, through grace. It must be known, therefore, that of the works of the law, some were moral, and some indeed ceremonial. But the moral works, although they were contained in the law, nevertheless could not properly be called "works of the law," since man is led to them by natural instinct, and by the natural law. But the ceremonial works are properly called "works of the law." However much, therefore, a man is justified — as regards the carrying out of justice — by the moral works, and also by the ceremonial works, insofar as to observe them is a work of obedience, so far as they pertain to the sacraments; and it is taken in this way according to the saying of the Apostle in Romans 2:13.

As to becoming just, however, a man is seen not to be justified by these, from the works of the law, because the sacraments of the old law did not confer grace. Below, 4:9: "you are turned again to the weak elements," that is, elements not conferring grace, nor containing grace in themselves. But the sacraments of the new law, although they are material elements, are nevertheless not weak elements, because they contain grace in themselves, whence they are also able to justify.

But if any in the old law were just, they were not just from the works of the law, but only from the faith of Christ, whom God set forth as a propitiator through faith, as is said in Romans 3:20. Whence also the sacraments themselves of the old law were nothing but certain professions of the faith of Christ, just as our sacraments also are; but differently, because those sacraments configured the grace of Christ as it were future; but our sacraments make profession as containing, as it were, present grace. And therefore he says pointedly, that a man is not justified by the works of the law, except through the faith of Jesus Christ, because even if formerly some who kept the works of the law were justified, this nevertheless was not except through the faith of Jesus Christ.

Now from this knowledge which the apostles had, that justification is not through the working of the law, but through the faith of Christ, he concludes the manner of life of the apostles, choosing the faith of Christ and leaving aside the works of the law. Whence there follows, "and we believe in Christ Jesus," because, as is said in Acts 4:12, "there is no other name given," etc. Whence there follows, "that we may be justified by the faith of Christ." Romans 5:1: "Being justified therefore by faith," etc. And lest anyone believe that, together with the law of Christ, the works of the law also justify, he adds, "and not by the works of the law." Romans 3:28: "For we reckon that a man is justified by faith," etc.

From this he concludes the principal point intended, saying that if the apostles, who are Jews by nature, do not seek to be justified through the works of the law, but through faith, that "no flesh is justified by the works of the law," nor can any man whatsoever be justified through the works of the law. For here "flesh" is taken for man, namely a part for the whole, as in Isaiah 40: "all flesh shall see the salvation of our God." But in saying "wherefore," etc., he concludes as it were from the greater. For it seems more natural or reasonable that the Jews, rather than others, should be justified through the works of the law, not through faith; but this is not so: wherefore, etc.

After the Apostle showed, through the conduct of the apostles, that the legal observances were not to be kept — which he himself was saying — here he raises a question to the contrary. And concerning this he does three things. First he raises the question; second he resolves it, at the words God forbid, etc.; third he manifests the solution to it, at the words for I through the law, etc.

The first can be expounded in two ways according to the Gloss. First thus: for someone could say that the apostles, in abandoning the law by coming to the faith of Christ, had sinned. But from this the Apostle introduces, as it were, a certain unfitting consequence, namely that Christ would be the author of sin, in that he calls men to his own faith. And this is what he says: "But" — that is, but — "if we," the apostles, "seeking to be justified in him," that is, through him, namely Christ, "are found" — that is, are manifestly shown — "ourselves also," we apostles, "sinners," on account of the abandonment of the law, "is Christ then the minister of sin?" That is, is he leading us into sin, he who called us from the state of the law to his own faith? Below, chapter 4: "made under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the law," namely from the burden of the law. The Apostle answers, "God forbid," because he is rather the minister of justice. Romans 5:19: "through the obedience of one, many are constituted just." 1 Peter 2:22: "who did no sin," etc.

And that Christ is not the minister of sin in withdrawing men from the old law is evident, because "if I myself build up again the things which I destroyed," namely the pride that gloried in the law — wishing to return to glorying in the law — "I make myself a transgressor," taking up again what I destroyed. 2 Peter 2:22: "the dog returned to his vomit," etc. Joshua 2: "Cursed be the man who shall rebuild Jericho." Now he says "the things which I destroyed," not the law itself, as the Manichees would have it, since the law is holy (Romans 7:12), but the pride concerning the law, of which it is said in Romans 10:3: "seeking to establish their own righteousness," etc.

But if someone should object that, since he himself formerly destroyed the faith of Christ, he was making himself a transgressor by building it up, the answer is clear: for he indeed attempted to destroy the faith of Christ, but he did not prevail, on account of the truth. Acts 9:4: "Why do you persecute me? It is hard for you," etc. But the pride of the law was vain, and therefore it could be destroyed, and it was not to be rebuilt.

It can be expounded in a second way, so that what he says, "we ourselves also are found sinners," is referred not to the abandonment of the law, as has now been expounded, but rather to the very observance of the law. For it is manifest that whoever seeks to be justified professes that he is not just, but a sinner. The sense, therefore, is: if we, seeking to be justified in Christ, from this very fact that we seek to be justified, are found — that is, are shown by reason to have been ourselves also sinners, because we were observing the law — is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin? Namely, in that he commanded men, after his passion, to observe the legal precepts, which cannot be done without sin. And it must be noted that this exposition proceeds according to the opinion of Jerome, who held that immediately after the passion of Christ the legal observances were deadly.

It can be expounded in a third way, so that what he says, "we ourselves also are found sinners," pertains indeed to the state in which the law was observed, yet not in the sense that they offended on account of the observance of the law, but on account of the defect of the law, which could not take away sin — so that the sense is: if, seeking to be justified in him, we are found ourselves also sinners, that is, having sin, the law not taking away sin, according to that saying in Romans 3:9: "we have charged that Jews and Greeks are all under sin," is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin, in that he would lead us back to the observance of the law, in which we were under sin? And this exposition proceeds according to the exposition of Augustine.

And he answers, according to both expositions, "God forbid," because I destroyed the law understood carnally, by judging and teaching spiritually. Hence if I wished again to build up the observances of the carnal law, I would be a transgressor of the spiritual law.

It can also be expounded in a fourth way, as follows. He had said that man is not justified by the works of the law. Someone could say that neither is he justified through the faith of Christ, because many, after receiving the faith of Christ, sin. And this is what he says: "if, seeking to be justified in Christ," that is, through the faith of Christ, "we are found," after receiving the faith of Christ, "ourselves also," we the faithful, "sinners," that is, living in sins, is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin and of damnation, just as the minister of the old law is the minister of sin and of damnation? Not that the law induced men to sin, but occasionally, because it forbade sin, and did not confer the grace that helps one to resist sin. Hence it is said in Romans 7:8: "sin, taking occasion, by the commandment," etc. But Christ gives helping grace. John 1:17: "grace and truth were made through Jesus Christ." Hence he is in no way the minister of sin, neither directly, nor occasionally.

Here the Apostle manifests the solution assigned above. And first he sets forth the manifestation of the solution; second he concludes his principal intention, at the words "I do not cast away the grace of God," etc. But it must be noted that the Apostle, proceeding by way of inquiry, leaves no doubt undiscussed. And therefore, although his words may seem intricate, nevertheless if they are carefully attended to, he says nothing without a reason, and this is apparent in the words proposed. Here he does three things: first he manifests the solution; second he explains the manifestation of the solution, at the words "I am fixed to the cross with Christ," etc.; third he removes a doubt, at the words "and that I now live," etc.

Since, then, the Apostle had said, "for if the things I have destroyed," etc., which is understood of the old Law — for he could be reckoned by someone a destroyer of the Law, and consequently unjust, according to that word of Psalm 118:126: "The wicked have destroyed thy law" — the Apostle therefore wishes to show how he destroys the Law, and yet is not unjust, saying, "for I through the Law," etc. Here it must be known that when someone dissolves the law through the law itself, such a one is a transgressor of the law, not an unjust man. But the law is dissolved through the law when in the law some local or temporal precept is given — namely, that that law be observed at such a time, or in such a place, and not another, and this itself is expressed in the law. If someone then does not make use of the law at that time, or in that place, he destroys the law through the law itself, and in this way the Apostle destroyed the law. Hence, he says, I destroyed the law in a certain way, yet through the law, because I have died to the law through the law — that is, through the authority of the law I let it go, as one dead to the law. For the authority of the law, by which he died to the law, is found in many places of sacred Scripture: Jeremiah 31:31, though under other words: "I will confirm a new covenant upon the house of Israel," etc.; Deuteronomy 18:15: "The Lord will raise up a prophet from among your brethren," etc.; and in many other places. Therefore the Apostle is not a transgressor in destroying the law.

Or otherwise: I, through the law — namely, the spiritual law — have died to the carnal law. For then does one die to the law, when, released from the law, he casts it off, according to that word of Romans 7:2: "The husband being dead, the woman is loosed from the law of the husband." Insofar as the Apostle was subject to the spiritual law, he says that he is dead to the law — that is, released from the observance of the law. Romans 8:2: "The law of the spirit of life," etc.

There can be another way of letting go of the law without transgression, namely because when some law is written on paper, it is then called a dead law, and when it is in the mind of the lawgiver, it is then called a living law. Now it is clear that if someone were to act, according to the word of the lawgiver, against the written law, he would both dissolve the law and be released from the dead law, and would keep the living law according to the command of the lawgiver. According to this, then, he says: I have died to the law that is written and dead — that is, I am released from it — that I may live to God, that is, that I may direct my movements according to his own sayings, and be ordered to his honor. For the law established in writings hands something down on account of strangers, and those who cannot hear it word for word from him; but to those who are in his presence, he does not state it in writings, but by word alone. For from the beginning men were weak, unable to approach God. And therefore it was necessary to give them the precepts of the law in writings, so that through the law, as through a tutor, they might be led by the hand to this — that they might hear his precepts from him — according to what is said below, chapter 3:24: "The law was our tutor in Christ," etc. But after we have access to the Father through Christ, as is said in Romans 5:2, we are not instructed about the commandments of God through the law, but by God himself. And therefore he says: through the law that leads by the hand, I have died to the written law, that I may live to God — namely, to the very maker of the law — that is, that I may be instructed and directed by him.

Next, when he says "I am fixed to the cross with Christ," etc., he explains what he has said. For he had said that he is dead to the law, and that he lives to God. And these two things he manifests. And first, that he is dead to the law, by what he says: "I am fixed to the cross with Christ"; second, that he lives to God, when he says "I live, now not I," etc.

And the first indeed can be expounded in two ways. In one way, as in the Gloss, thus: every man according to his carnal origin is born a son of wrath, Ephesians 2:3: "For we were by nature children of wrath," etc. He is also born in the oldness of sin, Baruch 3:11: "Thou hast grown old in a strange land," etc. This oldness of sin indeed is taken away through the cross of Christ, and the newness of spiritual life is conferred. The Apostle therefore says, "I am fixed to the cross with Christ," that is, concupiscence, or the kindling-wood of sin, and everything of this sort, has died in me through the cross of Christ. Romans 6:6: "Our old man is crucified together with him," etc. Likewise, since I am fixed to the cross with Christ, and have died to sin, and Christ rose again, I too have risen together with him who rose. Romans 4:25: "He was delivered up," etc. Thus, then, Christ renews a new life in us, the oldness of sin having been destroyed. And therefore he says "but I live" — that is, because I am fixed to the cross with Christ, I have the vigor of acting well — "now not I" according to the flesh, because I no longer have the oldness which I had before, "but Christ lives in me," that is, the newness which has been given to us through Christ.

Or otherwise: a man is said to live with respect to that in which he principally fixes his affection, and in which he takes the greatest delight. Hence also men who take the greatest delight in study or in hunting say that this is their life. Now every man has a certain private affection, by which he seeks what is his own; therefore while someone lives seeking only what is his own, he lives to himself alone, but when he seeks the goods of others, he is said to live to them also. Since, then, the Apostle had laid aside his own affection through the cross of Christ, he was saying that he was dead to his own affection, saying "I am fixed to the cross with Christ" — that is, through the cross of Christ my own or private affection has been removed from me. Hence he was saying below, at the end: "Far be it from me to glory save in the cross of our Lord," etc.; 2 Corinthians 5:14f.: "If one died for all, then all died." And Christ died for all, that they also who live may now live not to themselves, but to him, etc. "But I live" — that is, "now I do not live," as it were having my own good in my affection, "but Christ lives in me," that is, I have only Christ in my affection, and Christ himself is my life. Philippians 1:21: "To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

Next, however, when he says "and that I now live," etc., he responds to a doubt which could be twofold from the word set forth above. One is how he himself lives, and yet is not the one — namely, who lives; the second is how he is fixed to the cross. And therefore he opens up these two things.

And first the first, namely how he lives, and yet he himself does not live, saying "and that I now live," etc. Here it must be noted that those things are properly said to live which are moved from an intrinsic principle. Now the soul of Paul was set between God and the body, and the body indeed was vivified and moved by the soul of Paul, but his soul by Christ. As to the life of the flesh, then, Paul himself lived, and this is what he says: "and that I now live in the flesh" — that is, the life of the flesh; but as to relation to God, Christ was living in Paul, and therefore he says "I live in the faith of the Son of God," through which he dwells in me and moves me. Habakkuk 2:4: "But my just man lives by faith." And note that he says "in the flesh," not "from the flesh," because this would be evil.

Second, he shows that he is fixed to the cross, saying: because the love of Christ, which he showed to me on the cross, dying for me, causes me always to be fixed to him. And this is what he says: "who loved me." 1 John 4:10: "He first loved us." And he loved me to such an extent that he delivered himself up for me, and no other sacrifice. Apocalypse 1:5: "He loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood." Ephesians 5:25: "As Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for her," etc. But it must be noted that the Son himself delivered himself up, and the Father delivered up the Son, Romans 8:32: "Who spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all"; and Judas delivered him up, as is said in Matthew 26:48. And it is all one and the same deed, but not one and the same intention, because the Father acted out of charity, the Son out of obedience together with charity, but Judas out of cupidity and treacherously.

Next, when he says "I do not cast away the grace of God," he infers the principal conclusion. And first he brings forth the conclusion; second he manifests the manner. He says therefore: since I have received so great a grace from God, that he delivered himself up, and I live in the faith of the Son of God, I do not cast away the grace of the Son of God — that is, I do not repudiate it, nor do I show myself ungrateful. 1 Corinthians 15:10: "The grace of God in me has not been void," etc. Hence another text also has: "I am not ungrateful to the grace of God" (Hebrews 12:15: "looking diligently lest any man be wanting to the grace of God"), namely by confessing oneself unworthy through ingratitude.

Now the manner of casting away and of ingratitude would be, if I were to say that the law was necessary for justifying. And therefore he says: "for if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain" — that is, if the law is sufficient, that is, if the works of the law suffice to justify man, Christ died without cause, and in vain, because he died for this purpose, that he might justify us. 1 Peter 3:18: "Christ died once for our sins," etc. But if this could be done through the law, the death of Christ would have been superfluous. But he did not die in vain, nor did he labor in vain, as is said in Isaiah 49:4, because through him alone justifying grace and truth came to be, as is said in John 1:17. If any were just before the passion of Christ, this too was through faith in Christ who was to come, in whom they believed, and in whose faith they were saved.