The Great Commentary (Mossman/Cobb English)

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem. Are these years to be reckoned from the date of Paul’s conversion, or from the end of the three years spent in Arabia and Damascus ? S. Jerome takes the latter, and so gets a date of seventeen years after the conversion, or ad. 54, the twelfth of the Emperor Claudius, for this journey of S. Paul But since Claudius ceased to reign in the next year, and was succeeded by Nero, in whose second year Paul was sent bound to Rome (Acts xxvii.), it would follow that all the history of Paul that is contained in Acts xv.-xxvii — I shall show S. PAUL'S JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM 237 directly that the journey alluded to here and that described in Acts xv. are the same — must be compressed into two years, which, considering the number and importance of the events recorded, seems very improbable. Moreover, it is clear, from Acts xviii. 1 1, that Paul, after what took place at Jerusalem, spent a year and a half at Corinth and then three years at Ephesus (Acts xx. 31). Accordingly, the opinion of Baronius and others seems better founded, by which these fourteen years are reckoned from S. Paul's conversion. He treats that as an illustrious event from which to reckon, just as we treat a call to the Papacy, to the Episcopate, or to religion as the beginning of a new era. That this journey of Paul to Jerusalem is the same as that described in Acts xv., when he went up to the council, is evident from the identity of cause, place, and persons in both. This is the opinion of the Fathers in general, except Chrysostom, who argues as follows : In Acts xv. Paul appears as sent to Jerusalem by his fellowChristians ; but here (ver. 2) he says that he went up to Jerusalem by revelation, hence the two journeys are distinct. My answer is : I deny the consequence. For both may be true, viz., that he went up by revelation, and that he was sent by the Christians of Antioch ; because, as Bede remarks, he was warned by a voice from heaven to undertake the embassy entrusted to him by the people of Antioch, and went up, both for the sake of obtaining a decision of the common question about the observance of the law, and also for his own private purpose, viz., that he might compare his own teaching with that of the chief of the Apostles (ver. 2). From what has been said it follows, as Baronius holds, that the Council of Jerusalem was held fourteen years after Paul's conversion, in the sixteenth year after the Crucifixion of Christ, in the ninth year of Claudius, a.d. 51

I communicated unto them that Gospel which / preached ’ I put it before Peter and the Apostles, making them as it were judges of my Gospel, that they might approve, disapprove, add, or take away as they saw fit in common council, and that I might receive it then at their hands to be believed and taught See Gal. i 16, and comments. 238 THE EPISTLE TO THE Observe that the Apostle did not compare his Gospel with that of the other Apostles because he had any doubt of its truth or completeness, or of its agreement with that preached by Peter and the rest; for he knew most certainly, by the revelation of God, that together with them he had received the same full and perfect Gospel, as is evident from Gal L 11, 12. It was not for his own sake that he made the comparison, but for the sake of those converted to the faith, amongst whom Paul was traduced by the Judaising pseudo-Apostles, as one who, among the Gentiles, slighted the law of Moses, contrary to the practice of Peter, James, and John, nay, of Paul himself when among Jews. To show the falsity of the accusation, to show the agreement of his teaching with that of the other Apostles, and also to guard his own authority, Paul compares his Gospel with theirs, lest , he says, by any means I should run , or had run in vain. To them. That is to the first Christians, those made at Jerusalem, for the adjective “Christian” is latent in the substantive “Jerusalem.” Which were of reputation . Who seemed to be pillars (ver. 9.) of the Church and leading Apostles. Lest I should run in vain. Lest, through the report spread abroad by the pseudo-Apostles, that my teaching was condemned by the Apostles, the faithful should believe neither me nor my teaching, and so all my labour should be rendered ineffectual CfL S. Jerome (Ep. xi. ad August.), Tertullian (contra Mar cion. lib. iv.), and S. Augustine (contra Faustum), who anticipates Luther’s opinions, and against them shows that the word of God, even when most pure, and all its preachers, stand in need of the testimony and authority of men. This is what he says : “ Who is so foolish as to believe nowadays that the epistle produced by Manichceus was really written by Christ, and not to believe that what Matthew wrote contained the doings and sayings of Christl Even if he has doubts about Matthew being the author, at all events he prefers to believe about Matthew himself what he finds the Church believes, and what has been continuously believed and handed down from his times to the present, rather than what some fugitive or other from Persia, coming 200 or more years after THE FORCE OF TRADITION 239 Christ tells us about Christ's words and works . For would the Church wholly believe the Apostle Paul himself, who was called from heaven after the Lord's ascension , if he had not found Apostles in the flesh, to whom he might make it clear by communicating his Gospel that he was of the same fellowship as they ? ” (lib .xxviii. c. 4). Our Protestant friends should note this, and apply it to themselves, who prefer to believe Calvin, coming 1500 years after Christ, and teaching new doctrines, rather than the Church and the unanimous tradition of so many centuries. Observe that this testimony is not for the laity to give, even if they be magistrates, but for Peter and the Apostles, i.e., for the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops, who have succeeded the Apostles, whether individually, or assembled in council For Paul sought this testimony to his teaching and Apostleship from the Council of Jerusalem, in which the judges were the Apostles, and where Peter, as the president, spoke first and pronounced sentence. So from the time of the Apostles up to the present time, the whole Christian world, when doubts as to the faith, or new opinions, or heresies spring up, has sought from the Roman Pontiff, and from the Councils over which he presides, either in person or by his legates, a decision and testimony as to the truth. Whatever dogmas or doctors are condemned by them the whole Christian world regards as heretical. Heretics alone, because they are heretics, have refused to recognise this condemnation, this judgment, this testimony, and have in every age avoided it So it is not surprising if our Protestants do the same ; nay, their doing so is a sure proof of novelty, of wrong faith, and of heresy

He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision — to make him the Apostle of the circumcised Jews by filling Peter with strength and effectual energy, did exactly the same for me among the Gentiles. As Ephrem puts it, he was alike effectual in us, both by working signs and wonders, by efficacy of speech, by the conversion of some — many — to Christ

Cephas . Clement of Alexandria (Euseb. Hist Eccl. ii. 12) and Dorotheus (in Synopsi) thought that that Cephas was not the Apostle Peter, but one of the seventy disciples. But the Church neither knows nor commemorates any other Cephas save S. Peter. The words, who seemed to be pillars , show that an Apostle is meant, and, therefore, Peter. Accordingly, in verse 14, S. Paul opposes himself to Peter, as being a sort of primate over James and John. In Syriac, spoken at Antioch of Syria, the same person would be called Cephas who by the Greeks was called Peter. So the man styled Cephas here is in verse 7 Peter. k That we should go unto the heathen , and they unto the circumcision. So Christ is called, in Rom. xv. 8, a minister of the circumcision, inasmuch as He was promised and given to the Jews as the firstfruits of the world. Accordingly, the Apostles at first confined their labours to these circumcised Jews. THE REBUKING OF PETER 243

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly . The Greek word used here denotes literally to walk straight , without turning to the right hand or to the left Jf thou being a Jew lives t after the manner of the Gentiles, To live as a Gentile is to partake indifferently of the same food, and thereby to show that the ceremonies of the law are dead, if not deadly, now that the Gospel is being preached. Having done this, why do you now avoid the Gentiles, and so compel them to Judaise?

Sinners of the Gentiles, So, according to Augustine ahd Anselm, the Jews contemptuously called the Gentiles, as being idolaters

A man is not justified by the works of the law , but by the faith of Jesus Christ, The English but here exactly interprets the work that the Latin translates by nisi. There is an antithesis between the works of the law and the faith of Jesus Christy and accordingly the Protestants are wrong in neglecting the force of the antithesis, and translating the phrase as if it meant a man is justified only by the faith of Christ, Moreover, even if the Apostle had said the latter, yet he would lend no support to the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith only, for S. Thomas admits faith as the sole justifying cause. The word only excludes the works of the law, not the works of hope, fear, charity, and penance, which spring from faith as daughters from a mother

But if while we seek to be justified by Christ we ourselves also are found sinners , is, therefore, Christ the minister of sin f 1. If we are still in sin, and are looking to faith in Christ for for JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 249 giveness, while as a matter of fact it is not to be found there, but in the law, then does Christ support sin, inasmuch as He has taken away the law, which, according to the Judaisers, alone destroys sin. If the law alone justifies, then the law of grace, which abolishes the law, is the minister of sin. This is the interpretation of Jerome, Chrysostom, Primasius, Anselm, and Theophylact. 2. Vatablus says that “ to be found a sinner ” means to teach that the Mosaic law is necessary to salvation along with the Evangelical law. If, says S. Paul, we have taught this, as our traducers say we have, is then Christ or the Gospel involved in this heresy? 3. Others again interpret the verse thus : If we also, who boast of our being justified in Christ, are found sinners ; if we give way to our lusts equally with the Jews or the Gentiles, who are aliens to Christ, does it necessarily follow that our teaching about justification through Christ is erroneous ? Does Christ make us sinners unless He be joined to the Law? If Christ’s followers give way to sin it is their own fault, not His. The first of these three interpretations is the best, as being the least forced. The others have to supply a clause; the second supplies “ are called sinners,” the third, u because they give way to their lusts.” The first two agree better with the context. The Apostle is trying to prove that faith and not the law justifies. If, then, they who trust to faith in Christ are none the less found sinners, then Christ is found a deceiver in promising righteousness by faith, and in not keeping His promise. Hence He becomes the servant of sin, not its conqueror, especially since He has abrogated the law, which, they say, was our justifier against sin. The Apostle uses a common Hebraism. His question implies a negative reply, and refutes the Judaising error by a reductio ad absurdum. Cfi Rom. iii. 5 ; S. John viil 53 ; Jer. xviii. 20

For if / build again — if I attribute justifying faith to the law — the things which I destroyed— i.e.> the law, as justifying — I make myself a transgressor. Like a Proteus, I change my faith at every wind. This is a fresh argument. If I do what the Jews falsely allege against me, I shall be a hypocrite, a destroyer in 250 THE EPISTLE TO THE public of what I build again in private. But a hypocrite no one has charged me with being

For I through the law am dead to the law . The law was the forerunner of Christ, and died when He appeared. The Ceremonial died absolutely, the Moral only so far as it was a tutor, and a judge of sin. By the law itself I died to law, because itself bade me die to it and live unto Christ. This is a second reason, following on that given in ver. 17, why we are justified by Christ and not by the law. Since the law itself sent me to Christ, why do you, O Jews, go against its own declarations, and seek to galvanise it into fresh life? It does not, however, follow from this that the binding force of the Decalogue ceased when Christ came, for the law in this respect was not Mosaic, but natural and immutable. Cf. notes on Rom. vii. 1. Accordingly, Luther’s remarks here and again on chapter iv. of this Epistle are impious. 44 To die to the law” he says, 44 is nothing but to be free from obeying it , whether it be ceremonial or moral, for it is obvious that the law was given to the Jews, and not to us” He says the same in his treatise de Libertate Christian & : 44 The Christian needs neither law nor works , for by faith he is free from all law” Again, in the Wittenberg Edition of his works (pp. 189, 190), he says : “ The human heart must hate above all things the law of God, and so far God Himself” Listen to these words, all ye who have been miserably deceived by him and his colleagues, and shudder at the words not of a man but of Satan. For what more blasphemous and abominable words could Satan, the sworn foe of God and man, utter against God, or what words more dangerous to man? The sentiments of Calvin {Insist, lib. 3, cap. 19, § 2, 4, 7) : 44 When conscience says , * Thou hast sinned reply , 4 Yes, I have sinned 9 — 4 God will, therefore f condemn and punish you. 1 — 1 No, for it is the law that threatens that ; but I have nothing to do with the law l — 4 Why ? 9 — 4 Because I am free l ” Is this the pure Gospel ? Did Paul teach this ? 44 Do we then make void the law through faith ? God forbid Yea , we establish the law” (Rom. iii. 31). 44 Who,” says CHRIST IN US 251 S. Augustine ( contra Ep . Pelag. lib. iiL c. 4), 44 is so impious as to say that he does not keep the commandments , because a Christian is not under the law but under grace f” Who can believe that Luther and Calvin were sent by God to be reformers of the Church, when they abrogate all law, human and Divine ?