“But that Paul acceded to [the request of] those who summoned him to the apostles, on account of the question [which had been raised], and went up to them, with Barnabas, to Jerusalem, not without reason, but that the liberty of the Gentiles might be confirmed by them, he does himself say, in the Epistle to the Galatians: "Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking also Titus. But I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles." And again he says, "For an hour we did give place to subjection, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." If, then, any one shall, from the Acts of the Apostles, carefully scrutinize the time concerning which it is written that he went up to Jerusalem on account of the forementioned question, he will find those years mentioned by Paul coinciding with it. Thus the statement of Paul harmonizes with, and is, as it were, identical with, the testimony of Luke regarding the apostles.”

“But with regard to the countenance of Peter and the rest of the apostles, he tells us that "fourteen years after he went up to Jerusalem," in order to confer with them about the rule which he followed in his gospel, lest perchance he should all those years have been running, and be running still, in vain, (which would be the case, ) of course, if his preaching of the gospel fell short of their method.”

“His first journey was owing to his desire to visit Peter, his second, he says, arose from a revelation of the Spirit. "And I laid before them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running or had run in vain." What is this, O Paul! thou who neither at the beginning nor after three years wouldest confer with the Apostles, dost thou now confer with them, after fourteen years are past, lest thou shouldest be running in vain? Better would it have been to have done so at first, than after so many years; and why didst thou run at all, if not satisfied that thou wert not running in vain? Who would be so senseless as to preach for so many years, without being sure that his preaching was true? And what enhances the difficulty is, that he says he went up by revelation; this difficulty, however, will afford a solution of the former one. Had he gone up of his own accord, it would have been most unreasonable, nor is it possible that this blessed soul should have fallen into such folly; for it is himself who says, "I therefore so run, as not uncertainly; so fight I, as not beating the air." (1 Cor. ix: 26.) If therefore he runs, "not uncertainly," how can he say, "lest I should be running, or had run, in vain?" It is evident from this, that if he had gone up without a revelation, he would have committed an act of folly. But the actual case involved no such absurdity; who shall dare to still harbor this suspicion, when it was the grace of the Spirit which drew him? On this account he added the words "by revelation," lest, before the question was solved, he should be condemned of folly; well knowing that it was no human occurrence, but a deep Divine Providence concerning the present and future. What then is the reason of this journey of his? As when he went up before from Antioch to Jerusalem, it was not for his own sake, (for he saw clearly that his duty was simply to obey the doctrines of Christ,) but from a desire to reconcile the contentious; so now his object was the complete satisfaction of his accusers, not any wish of his own to learn that he had not run in vain. They conceived that Peter and John, of whom they thought more highly than of Paul, differed from him in that he omitted circumcision in his preaching, while the former allowed it, and they believed that in this he acted unlawfully, and was running in vain. I went up, says he, and communicated unto them my Gospel, not that I might learn aught myself, (as appears more clearly further on,) but that I might convince these suspicious persons that I do not run in vain. The Spirit foreseeing this contention had provided that he should go up and make this communication. Wherefore he says that he went up by revelation, and, taking Barnabas and Titus as witnesses of his preaching, communicated to them the Gospel which he preached to the Gentiles, that is, with the omission of circumcision. "But privately before them who were of repute." What means "privately?" Rather, he who wishes to reform doctrines held in common, proposes them, not privately, but before all in common; but Paul did this privately, for his object was, not to learn or reform any thing, but to cut off the grounds of those who would fain deceive. All at Jerusalem were offended, if the law was transgressed, or the use of circumcision forbidden; as James says, "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them which have believed; and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest to forsake the law." (Acts xxi: 20, et seq.) Since then they were offended he did not condescend to come forward publicly and declare what his preaching was, but he conferred privately with those who were of reputation before Barnabas and Titus, that they might credibly testify to his accusers, that the Apostles found no discrepancy in his preaching, but confirmed it. The expression, "those that were of repute," does not impugn the reality of their greatness; for he says of himself, "And I also seem to have the Spirit of God," thereby not denying the fact, but stating it modestly. And here the phrase implies his own assent to the common opinion.”

“After commending the authority of the Gospel teaching according to itself in the preceding chapter, the Apostle now in this chapter commends it on the part both of the other apostles and of himself. About this he does two things: First, he commends the authority of his teaching because of its approval by the other apostles; Secondly, from the example both of himself and of the other apostles (v. 15). Concerning the first he does two things: First, he shows that the other apostles approved his teaching; Secondly, that he fearlessly rebuked the other apostles in matters where they opposed his teaching (v. 11). As to the first he does two things: First, he treats of the discussion he had with the apostles; Secondly, he narrates the consequences of that discussion (v. 3). Regarding the first he does two things: First, he gives the circumstances of that discussion; Secondly, what they discussed (v. 2): "and communicated to them the Gospel." With respect to the first he touches upon four things: first the time, then the place, the witnesses, and the motive. He mentions the time when he says, "Then, after fourteen years." Here some might object that if the Apostle was converted in the first year after the passion of Christ, and went to Jerusalem three years later, that makes four years. But he says, "after fourteen years" I went once more to Jerusalem—which makes a total of eighteen years—at which time he found Peter in Jerusalem. But this cannot be, because Peter had his See at Antioch seven years, and then at Rome for twenty-five years. So that makes eighteen plus seven, i.e., twenty-five years, before he went to Rome, and twenty-five years more he remained there. Hence Peter would have lived for fifty years after the passion of Christ—which is false, for in the fortieth year after the passion of Christ, Peter was martyred at Rome in the reign of Nero, as is recorded in history. I answer that when he says, "Then, after fourteen years," it is not to be understood that after three years there was another lapse of fourteen years before he went to Jerusalem, but that he went again in the fourteenth year of his conversion. Nor should the seven years that Peter ruled the Church at Antioch be added to those fourteen years, because he began his rule before those years. Furthermore, since Antioch is near Jerusalem, Peter could at times have come to Jerusalem and Paul found him there then. Consequently, what is gathered from history is that after fourteen years Peter went to Rome in the reign of Claudius the Emperor and lived there for twenty-five years, making a total of thirty-nine years, and he died in the fortieth year after the passion of Our Lord. Yet he purposely said "fourteen" in order to show that he did not need instructions from the apostles, if he went for fourteen years without them. He gives the place when he says, "Jerusalem." And he says, I went up, because it is built on a height. He went up to Jerusalem in order to show that he was in accord with the prophecy of Isaiah (2:3): "For the law shall come forth from Sion: and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." He gives the witnesses when he says, "with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me." Now Barnabas was a Jew, but Titus a Gentile. He went up with them, therefore, in order to have witnesses to his teaching and to show that he leaned neither to the side of the Jews nor the Gentiles: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand" (Deut. 19:15).”

“I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead.”

“There would be still wanted that Gospel which St. Paul found in existence, to which he yielded his belief, and with which he so earnestly wished his own to agree, that he actually on that account went up to Jerusalem to know and consult the apostles, "lest he should run, or had been running in vain; " in other words, that the faith which he had learned, and the gospel which he was preaching, might be in accordance with theirs.”

“That is, those through whom the commandments and gospel of God were being handed down, such as apostles and the rest. "To these men," he says, "I privately explained my gospel, which I preach among the Gentiles, so that if there was anything that they were handing on otherwise, they could correct it or could emend anything that I myself was handing on otherwise. This therefore was the cause of my going up to Jerusalem, and for this reason it was revealed to me that I should go up, so that it might be more readily known that my gospel to the Gentiles and their gospel to the Jews were the same." Now the purpose of his expounding it privately was that shame might be taken from among them, and they might communicate to one another the mysteries that they knew. Since they all shared one opinion and one gospel, what was it that he labored to persuade them of? That they should not add anything new or join anything to it. That is the cause of the present sin of the Galatians in following Judaism and the practice of circumcision, the sabbath and other things.”

“The cause of the first journey was Peter, and of the second — a revelation. And he brought Titus and Barnabas as witnesses of his preaching, that it was pleasing to the apostles. That is, the preaching of the gospel without circumcision. Why then, after so many years, did he set it before them, when he should have done this at the beginning and learned whether he was acting rightly or not? For it would be unreasonable that one who had labored for so many years should after this have need of instruction, unless he had labored in vain. But if he had come with the purpose of receiving instruction regarding his own ministry, this would indeed have been unreasonable. But since he saw that many were scandalized by the fact that Peter permitted circumcision while he did not circumcise, and through this he was subjected to the suspicion of violating the law, he came to Jerusalem by revelation, by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, in order to convince those who were scandalized that there is no disagreement in the preaching, and that those who permit circumcision wisely make a concession, as ones preaching to the circumcised; what is unreasonable about that? For the Holy Spirit moved him to go for the correction of others, and he naturally obeyed. "And privately to those of reputation." Because many were being scandalized, Paul converses "privately," in private with the disciples of Peter, so that no strife would arise and so as to prevent a greater scandal. For very many were being scandalized, and if they had heard that Paul openly rejects circumcision, then there would have been an uproar and everything would have been thrown into confusion. Therefore, he converses in private, having as witnesses Titus and Barnabas, who would be able to declare to all people that the apostles also found nothing contrary in his preaching. And by calling them "those of reputation," he does not reject their significance, but alongside his own he also places the common recognition of all, just as he also said of himself: "I think I also have the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 7:40), not rejecting the existence of this gift in himself, but pointing to the common opinion. So, "those of reputation," that is, the great, the renowned. That is, in order to teach those who are scandalized concerning me that I do not labor in vain, and not in order to learn myself, for how could I learn, when I received from the Father the revelation concerning the Son and His Gospel?”

“He gives his motive when he says, "according to a revelation from God," i.e., because God revealed and commanded him to go up to Jerusalem. From this can be gathered that all the acts and movements of the apostles were according to an instinct of the Holy Spirit: "The clouds spread their light which go round about" (Job 37:11). Then when he says, "and communicated to them," he describes the conversation. About this he does three things: First, he mentions the subject of their conversation; Secondly, the persons with whom he conferred; Thirdly, the reason why he conferred with them. The subject about which he conferred was the Gospel; hence he says, "I communicated to them the Gospel"; the persons with whom he conferred were the senior and more outstanding apostles; hence he says, "but apart to them who seemed to be some thing." But the reason, both useful and necessary, was "lest I should run or had run in vain." Regarding the first, he says, "I went up to Jerusalem" where "I communicated to them," as to friends and equals, "the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles," not in order to learn, because I had already been taught by Christ, nor in order to be reassured, because I am so certain, that if an angel were to say the contrary, I would not believe him, as is plain above (1:8). But I conferred for two reasons: namely, to show the unity of my teaching with that of the other apostles: "That you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you" (1 Cor 1:10). Hence he conferred with them as one having the same word as they, and not as an adversary. Also, to avoid false accusation from others. For the Apostle had not lived with Christ or been taught by the apostles, but immediately after his conversion began to preach things odious to the Jews, especially the vocation of the Gentiles and that they should not observe the justifications of the Law. So, then, he conferred about the Gospel. But he indicates the ones with whom he did this, when he adds, "but apart to them who seemed to be some thing." As though to say: Not with all, but with those who were of some authority and importance among them, namely, with Peter, James and John and the other great ones: "Treat with the wise and prudent" (Sir 9:21). "But apart," not to talk or treat with them about ignoble or false things, as heretics do, but because he was aware of the presence there of Jews who brought false charges against him for his teachings about the Law. Hence, in order that the truth might prevail over false charges, he spoke apart with those who would not bring false charges against him: "Treat thy cause with thy friend, and discover not the secret to a stranger" (Prov 25:9); "Before a stranger do no matter of counsel: for thou knowest not what he will bring forth" (Sir 8:21). Thus the subject of the discussion as well as the persons are made known. Then follows the cause, which was "lest perhaps I should run or had run in vain," i.e., lest I be thought to have preached to no purpose. He calls his preaching a "running" on account of the rapidity of his teaching, for in a short time he preached the Gospel from Jerusalem to Illyricum and even as far as Spain. Hence the word of Psalm (147:15) can be said of him: "His word runneth swiftly"; "Pray, brethren, that the word of God may run and may be glorified, even as among you" (2 Thes 3:1). But did he really wonder whether he was running in vain? I answer that he did not wonder for himself, but for those to whom he had preached, because if his teaching was not firmly held by them, he would have run in vain as far as they were concerned. So he wanted to confer with them, in order that when his hearers heard that his teaching was in agreement with that of the other apostles and approved by them, they would hold to it more firmly—then he would not be running in vain with respect to them: "I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty" (1 Cor 9:26).”

“So great had been his desire to be approved and supported by those whom you wish on all occasions to be understood as in alliance with Judaism! When indeed he says, that "neither was Titus circumcised," he for the first time shows us that circumcision was the only question connected with the maintenance of the law, which had been as yet agitated by those whom he therefore calls "false brethren unawares brought in.”

“"But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." What means, "being a Greek?" Of Greek extraction, and not circumcised; for not only did I so preach but Titus so acted, nor did the Apostles compel him to be circumcised. A plain proof this that the Apostles did not condemn Paul's doctrine or his practice. Nay more, even the urgent representations of the adverse party, who were aware of these facts, did not oblige the Apostles to enjoin circumcision, as appears by his own words.”

“(Vers. 3-5.) But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Gentile. This matter arose because of false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery. But what is this truth of the Gospel, to give in to the hypocrisy of the Jews; and to consider as scybala what you once esteemed, and to despise as losses, and to observe and esteem as something, when they are nothing? But it strongly opposes the meaning of the Epistle itself, to call the Galatians back to circumcision. This is the main theme throughout his discourse, to teach that he is a Hebrew among the Hebrews, once observing all the works of the Law, circumcised on the eighth day according to the Law of the Pharisees: nevertheless, for the grace of Christ, to completely despise everything. For when he went to Jerusalem, and the false brethren, who believed in circumcision, wanted to compel him to circumcise Titus; neither Titus, nor did he give in to violence, so that they would safeguard the truth of the Gospel. But if he says that he was compelled by necessity to circumcise Titus: how does he recall the Galatians from circumcision, from which neither Titus, who was with him from the Gentiles, could excuse himself in Jerusalem? Therefore, according to the Greek manuscripts, it should be read, 'To whom we did not yield in subjection, not even for an hour,' so that it may be understood subsequently: so that the truth of the Gospel may remain with you. But if the testimony of the Latin exemplars is pleasing to anyone, we must understand it according to the higher sense: that the purpose was not for Titus to be circumcised, but to go to Jerusalem. For this reason, Paul and Barnabas submitted to going to Jerusalem, due to the sedition caused by the Law of Antioch. This was done so that the truth of the Gospel would be confirmed by the letter of the apostles and remain among the Galatians, which was not in the literal sense, but in the spiritual sense. It was not in the carnal understanding, but in spiritual intelligence, and not in overt Judaism, but in hidden understanding. It is worth knowing that the conjunction 'autem,' which is placed in this position, is superfluous if it is read without any purpose to respond to it and if it concludes the previous statement. However, it serves to maintain the order of reading and the sense of the passage. So, Titus, who was with me, being a Gentile, was not compelled to be circumcised. And immediately after, it explains the reason why he was being urged to undergo circumcision against his will. 'Because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery.' But when they were serving as ministers and wished to drag us into the servitude of the Law from the freedom of Christ, we did not even yield to them for a moment, so that we might not give any occasion to them to accuse us. And we did this primarily because of the ecclesiastical peace, so that we could excuse ourselves from necessity, and we did all of this so that you would not have any opportunity to depart from the grace of the Gospel. Therefore, if we, while in Jerusalem, among so many Jews who were falsely claiming to be brothers and those who were exerting influence over us to some extent, could not be compelled by force or reason to observe the circumcision that we knew was abolished, then you, coming from the Gentiles, you in Galatia, you to whom no violence can be done, voluntarily abandoning the grace, have transcended the antiquity of the already abolished Law.”

“Uncircumcised Titus, he says, was not compelled to be circumcised. And this serves as the most important proof that the apostles too permitted circumcision not as a law, but according to a certain economy, that is, as a temporary measure of prudent condescension to the weak, for the sake of believers from the circumcision, – and that they could not censure the preaching of Paul, whose disciple was uncircumcised.”

“Then when he says, "But neither Titus who was with me," he shows what resulted from the discussion held with the apostles. And he mentions three results: That he did not depart from his opinion; That nothing was added to his teaching (v. 6); Thirdly, that his teaching was approved (v. 7). Concerning the first he does two things: First, he shows with respect to one definite point that he did not depart from his teaching; Secondly, that on no other point did he depart from it (v. 4). He says, therefore: I say that the result of my discussion with them about the teaching of the Gospel was that my teaching and opinion remained unaltered concerning the non-observance of legalism, i.e., the Gentiles would not be compelled to observe the rites of the Law so that "neither Titus who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised," but was admitted uncircumcised into their fellowship by the apostles. This discussion occasioned the decree handed down by the apostles on not observing the rites of the law, as is had in Acts (15:28). The reason why these rites were not to be observed after the passion of Christ is assigned in the following way by Chrysostom: "For it is evident that the instrument drawn up for any promise or pact binds only until the pact and promise are fulfilled; but when fulfilled, the instrument no longer binds on that point." Now circumcision is an instrument of the promise and pact between God and believing men. Hence it was that Abraham underwent circumcision as a sign of the promise, as is said in Genesis (11:26). And because the promise was fulfilled and the pact completed by the passion of Christ, neither the pact holds after the passion nor is circumcision of any value. Thus, therefore, his refusal to permit Titus to be circumcised makes it plain that he did not depart from his teaching. But the special reason why Timothy was circumcised and Titus not, was that Timothy was born of a Gentile father and Jewish mother, whereas Titus' parents were both Gentiles. And the opinion of the Apostle was that those born of a Jewish parent on either side should be circumcised, but those born entirely of Gentile parents should on no account be circumcised.”

“So great had been his desire to be approved and supported by those whom you wish on all occasions to be understood as in alliance with Judaism! When indeed he says, that "neither was Titus circumcised," he for the first time shows us that circumcision was the only question connected with the maintenance of the law, which had been as yet agitated by those whom he therefore calls "false brethren unawares brought in." These persons went no further than to insist on a continuance of the law, retaining unquestionably a sincere belief in the Creator.”

“"And they watched diligently." And this, too, is to be noted. For up to the present time both the Gentiles and the Jews of the circumcision watch and busy themselves with the dealings of the Church, desiring to suborn false witnesses against us, as the apostle says: "And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus."”

“"And that because of the false brethren, privily brought in." Here arises a very important question, Who were these false brethren? If the Apostles permitted circumcision at Jerusalem, why are those who enjoined it, in accordance with the Apostolic sentence, to be called false brethren? First; because there is a difference between commanding an act to be done, and allowing it after it is done. He who enjoins an act, does it with zeal as necessary, and of primary importance; but he who, without himself commanding it, alloweth another to do it who wishes yields not from a sense of its being necessary but in order to subserve some purpose. We have a similar instance, in Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, in his command to husbands and wives to come together again. To which, that he might not be thought to be legislating for them, he subjoins, "But this I say by way of permission, not of commandment." (1 Cor. vii: 5.) For this was not a judgment authoritatively given but an indulgence to their incontinence; as he says, "for your incontinency." Would you know Paul's sentence in this matter? hear his words, "I would that all men were even as I myself," (1 Cor. vii: 7.) in continence. And so here, the Apostles made this concession, not as vindicating the law, but as condescending to the infirmities of Judaism. Had they been vindicating the law, they would not have preached to the Jews in one way, and to the Gentiles in another. Had the observance been necessary for unbelievers, then indeed it would plainly have likewise been necessary for all the faithful. But by their decision not to harass the Gentiles on this point, they showed that they permitted it by way of condescension to the Jews. Whereas the purpose of the false brethren was to cast them out of grace, and reduce them under the yoke of slavery again. This is the first difference, and a very wide one. The second is, that the Apostles so acted in Judaea, where the Law was in force, but the false brethren, every where, for all the Galatians were influenced by them. Whence it appears that their intention was, not to build up, but entirely to pull down the Gospel, and that the thing was permitted by the Apostles on one ground and zealously practiced by the false brethren on another. "Who came in privily to spy out our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." He points out their hostility by calling them spies; for the sole object of a spy is to obtain for himself facilities of devastation and destruction, by becoming acquainted with his adversary's position. And this is what those did, who wished to bring the disciples back to their old servitude. Hence too appears how very contrary their purpose was to that of the Apostles; the latter made concessions that they might gradually extricate them from their servitude, but the former plotted to subject them to one more severe. Therefore they looked round and observed accurately and made themselves busybodies to find out who were uncircumcised; as Paul says, "they came in privily to spy out our liberty," thus pointing out their machinations not only by the term "spies," but by this expression of a furtive entrance and creeping in.”

“The order of the speech is as follows: even on account of the false brethren who had come in, Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, that is, although my opponents were present, the apostles did not even for their sake compel Titus to be circumcised. But how does he call those who insisted on circumcision false brethren, if the apostles also accepted it? Because the apostles permitted circumcision out of condescension toward those who believed from the circumcision, as a preacher to the Jews; but those others did so as ones who established circumcision on principle and as defenders of the law, so to speak; for this reason he calls them false brethren. And by the expression "who came in secretly" he points to their crafty design, and by the word "to spy out" he gives us to understand that they are enemies. For spies come for no other purpose than precisely to find out everything and to clear the way for destruction and enslavement. This is exactly what they were doing. For they were watching to see who were the uncircumcised, who had freedom in Christ, that is, who were not subject to the law, in order to attack them and compel them to be circumcised, and to subject us again to the slavery of the law, from which Christ set us free. So then, from this it is clear that the apostles permitted what was under the law in order to gradually free people from this slavery, while those others acted so as to fasten this slavery firmly in place.”

“Then when he says, "but because of false brethren, unawares brought in," he shows that he did not change on any other point. This passage is obscure and variant readings are found. It should be read thus: You say that you did not permit Titus to be circumcised; but why? seeing that in another case you permitted Timothy, as is read in Acts (16:3). To this the Apostle can respond that when Timothy was circumcised, it was an indifferent matter whether circumcision was observed or not; but later on, when it came to Titus, circumcision became a matter of paramount importance and I said that it is not to be observed. Hence, if I had allowed him to be circumcised, whereas I had already settled the question definitively myself, I would have been acting to the contrary. Furthermore, it was not lawful to raise this question again or to make difficulties about a matter now settled.”

“I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born [only ] in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance; others that He is not the Son the Creator, and others that He is Himself God over all. Others, again, hold that He is a mere man, and others that this flesh is not to rise again, so that our proper course is to live and partake of a life of pleasure, for that this is the chief good to beings who are in a little while to perish. A swarm of such evils has burst in upon us. But ye have not "given place by subjection to them, no, not for one hour." For ye are the fellow-citizens as well as the disciples of Paul, who "fully preached the Gospel from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum," and bare about "the marks of Christ" in his flesh.”

“But that Paul acceded to [the request of] those who summoned him to the apostles, on account of the question [which had been raised], and went up to them, with Barnabas, to Jerusalem, not without reason, but that the liberty of the Gentiles might be confirmed by them, he does himself say, in the Epistle to the Galatians: "Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking also Titus. But I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles." And again he says, "For an hour we did give place to subjection, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." If, then, any one shall, from the Acts of the Apostles, carefully scrutinize the time concerning which it is written that he went up to Jerusalem on account of the forementioned question, he will find those years mentioned by Paul coinciding with it. Thus the statement of Paul harmonizes with, and is, as it were, identical with, the testimony of Luke regarding the apostles.”

“Neither must we prescribe this from custom, but overcome opposite custom by reason. For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything; so as to say that he held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those lately come. Nor did he despise Paul because he had previously been a persecutor of the Church, but admitted the counsel of truth, and easily yielded to the lawful reason which Paul asserted, furnishing thus an illustration to us both of concord and of patience, that we should not obstinately love our own opinions, but should rather adopt as our own those which at any time are usefully and wholesomely suggested by our brethren and colleagues, if they be true and lawful. Paul, moreover, looking forward to this, and consulting faithfully for concord and peace, has laid down in his epistle this rule: "Moreover, let the prophets speak two or three, and let the rest judge. But if anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace." In which place he has taught and shown that many things are revealed to individuals for the better, and that each one ought not obstinately to contend for that which he had once imbibed and held; but if anything has appeared better and more useful, he should gladly embrace it. For we are not overcome when better things are presented to us, but we are instructed, especially in those matters which pertain to the unity of the Church and the truth of our hope and faith; so that we, priests of God and prelates of His Church, by His condescension, should know that remission of sins cannot be given save in the Church, nor can the adversaries of Christ claim to themselves anything belonging to His grace.”

“He did not say "did not yield" to the word, but did not submit, because they were not doing this to teach us anything, but for subjection and enslavement. Therefore we obey the apostles, but not them. So that, he says, what we preached to you might remain firm and true. What exactly? That the old things have passed away, the law has been abolished, and Christ does not accept the circumcised, and circumcision brings no benefit whatsoever. Thus, in opposition to them, we showed that we also truly proclaimed to you the abolition of the law. Therefore do not depart from this truth.”

“He says therefore: I say that I did not permit him to be circumcised by them, "to whom we yielded not by subjection, no, not for an hour," i.e., that the Gentiles be subject to the Law; and this "because of false brethren, unawares brought in" by the devil or by the Pharisees: false brethren, because they pretended to be friends: "In perils from false brethren" (2 Cor 11:26). "Who," namely the false brethren, "were brought into" the place where the apostles were gathered, "in order to spy on our liberty" from sin and the Law: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Cor 3:17); "You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of the adoption of sons" (Rom 8:15); "that he might redeem them who were under the Law" (4:5). "Which liberty we have in Christ Jesus," i.e., through faith in Christ: "You are not children of the bondwoman but of the free" (4:31). And to this end were they brought in, "that they might bring us into servitude" of the Law and the observances of the flesh, as before the passion of Christ. But this is not permissible, "for other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus" (1 Cor 3:11). And this, "that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." As if to say: We did not yield to them an iota, lest we give an occasion to those who said that you cannot be saved without circumcision, which is contrary to the truth of the Gospel I have preached to you. Ambrose, however, reads it another way. For according to the foregoing the reason he did not yield for the moment was on account of those brought in. From this it follows that if they had not been brought in, he would have yielded in the matter of observing legalism. Therefore it was not on that account, because on that account he would not have yielded to them, but on account of the truth itself. Therefore, says Ambrose, the text is faulty and the words, "no not even," are superfluous. Hence he would have it that those words should not be there. And then the sense is: I did not permit Titus to be circumcised, but Timothy I did, "because of false brethren, unawares brought in," i.e., to the place where I was with Timothy and the others "who were brought in to spy our liberty." But when they failed in this, they tried to incite the people to rise up against us. "To whom," i.e., to the false brethren, we therefore "yielded in the hour of subjection" in the matter of circumcision by circumcising Timothy, in order that the truth of the gospel might continue with you, i.e., the Gospel which teaches that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision profits anything, but the faith.”

“[He means] those who have sprung from those same pseudoapostles but nonetheless "are something," that is, have undergone change and now follow the gospel. Even if they have sprung from these phonies they are now whole, for that is what it is truly to be something. "It is nothing to me," he says, "what kind of people they were before, at some past time." And he adds the reason: God shows no partiality but looks at one's mental attitude and faith. Whether one be Greek or Jew, whether one was anything, is not what God accepts, but what one is and whether one has received faith and the gospel.”

“"But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me, God accepteth no man's person)" Here he not only does not defend the Apostles, but even presses hard upon those holy men, for the benefit of the weak. His meaning is this: although they permit circumcision, they shall render an account to God, for God will not accept their persons, because they are great and in station. But he does not speak so plainly, but with caution. He says not, if they vitiate their doctrine, and swerve from the appointed rule of their preaching, they shall be judged with the utmost rigor, and suffer punishment; but he alludes to them more reverently, in the words, "of those who were reputed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were." He says not, "whatsoever they 'are,'" but "were," showing that they too had thenceforth ceased so to preach, the doctrine having extended itself universally. The phrase, "whatsoever they were," implies, that if they so preached they should render account, for they had to justify themselves before God, not before men. This he said, not as doubtful or ignorant of the rectitude of their procedure, but (as I said before) from a sense of the expediency of so forming his discourse. Then, that he may not seem to take the opposite side and to accuse them, and so create a suspicion of their disagreement, he straightway subjoins this correction: "for those who were reputed to be somewhat, in conference imparted nothing to me." This is his meaning; What you may say, I know not; this I know well, that the Apostles did not oppose me, but our sentiments conspired and accorded. This appears from his expression, "they gave me the right hand of fellowship;" but he does not say this at present, but only that they neither informed or corrected him on any point, nor added to his knowledge. "For those who were reputed to be somewhat, imparted nothing to me:" That is to say, when told of my proceedings, they added nothing, they corrected nothing, and though aware that the object of my journey was to communicate with them, that I had come by revelation of the Spirit, and that I had Titus with me who was uncircumcised, they neither circumcised him, nor imparted to me any additional knowledge.”

“(Verse 6) But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were,it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do. But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? For God does not show favoritism. He doesn't play favorites. In fact, He has no favorites. It makes no difference who you are or where you're from—if you want God and are ready to do what He says, the door is open. The Message He sent to the children of Israel—that through Jesus Christ everything is being put together again—well, He's doing it everywhere, among everyone. And thus, cautiously and gradually, Peter walks a middle path between praise and rebuke, so that he may defer to his predecessor the apostle, and yet boldly oppose him to his face, compelled by truth. For those who seemed important, contributed nothing to me. He himself, however, conferred with them earlier and recounted many things to them that he had accomplished among the nations: they contributed nothing to him, but only confirmed what he had said, giving the right hand of fellowship, and they strengthened the gospel of me and of Paul. Again, it must be noted that the word 'conferred' itself is in Greek, which we discussed earlier.”

“Since it was natural for someone to object to him and say: how then did the apostles command circumcision? – he removes this objection, though he does not indicate the true reason, that they acted this way by special dispensation and out of condescension, fearing that the believers from among the Jews, upon hearing that the apostles permitted circumcision not for the sake of truth but for the sake of good order, might also fall away from them as destroyers of the law; for until then they had adhered to them precisely because they preserved the law. Therefore Paul conceals this reason, but presses hard upon the apostles, saying: "it makes no difference to me," that is, I have no concern with those of repute, with the great ones, evidently the apostles – whether they preach circumcision or not, since they themselves will give an answer to God, and although they are great and preeminent, God will not regard their persons, for He is no respecter of persons. And notice: he did not say "what they are," but "what they once were," showing that afterward they too ceased to preach in this way, when the preaching shone forth everywhere. Paul says this not in reproach of the saints, but wishing to benefit his listeners. Whatever they may have been, he says, that is God's affair, but this I know: that they in no way opposed me and added nothing to my preaching, nor corrected it.”

“Having shown that the Apostle did not depart from his opinion on any point in the conference mentioned above, he now shows that nothing was added to his teaching by the other apostles. About this he does two things: First, he describes the status of the apostles who were unable to add anything; Secondly, he proves his proposition (v. 6): "for to me, they that seemed to be something, added nothing." Their status he describes from three standpoints: first from the authority they held in the Church, for it was great. Regarding it he says, "But of them who seemed to be some thing." The text is deficient and should be amended to read, "But of them," namely, Peter and John. As if to say: Although I would have yielded to them at the time, yet I received from them no new power or teaching. And if I received nothing from them, much less so from others. But it is to be noted that if his statement, "who seemed to be something," is understood with reference to the grace of God that was in them, it is true that in this respect they were great, because "whom he justified, them he also glorified," as is said in Romans (8:30). However, if it is understood that they were something according to themselves, then it is false, because in that respect they were nothing. For if they seemed to be some thing according to themselves, they would always have been great, because whatever belongs to a thing according to itself is always present. Hence, since they were not always great, it was not according to themselves that they were seen to be something. Secondly, he describes their status on the side of what they were before their conversion, i.e., the status they had in the synagogue. This status, he hints gently, was mean and lowly. Hence he says, "what they were some time"; for they had been coarse, poor, ignorant and unlettered: "There are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble" (1 Cor 1:26). "But what they were is nothing to me," i.e., it is not my concern to mention. Perhaps his reason for introducing this was that by considering the status they had in the synagogue—which was nothing—and the status of Paul—which was great—they might see that Paul's opinion on legalism should be preferred to theirs, particularly since Paul has an equal status with them in the Church; so that Paul had a higher rank in the synagogue before their conversion, but after the conversion, he had a rank equal to theirs. Hence when matters concerning the synagogue were discussed, the opinion of Paul deserved to prevail over the others, but when it came to the Gospel, his opinion was as good as theirs. And just as the others were not made great through things pertaining to the Law but through Christ, so too in the faith the Apostle was great through Christ and not through things pertaining to the Law. Thirdly, he describes their condition by reason of their election by God. Regarding this he says, "God accepteth not the person." As if to say: They are great because God made them great, not by regarding their merits or demerits, but by regarding what He intended to accomplish. Hence he says: "God accepteth not the person of man," i.e., he does not consider whether the person is great or little: "For he made the little and the great, and he hath equally care of all" (Wis 6:8). Furthermore, without regard to person, He calls everyone to salvation, no longer charging them with their sins for they have passed away: "The old things are passed away" (2 Cor 5:17); "Nor will I be mindful of their name" (Ps 15:5). Therefore Peter says: "In very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34). On this point it should be noted that accepting of persons in any transaction is, properly speaking, to take as a deciding factor in that transaction some aspect of the person that has nothing to do with the matter; for example, when I give a benefice to a person just because he is a noble or is handsome. For nobility or beauty have nothing to do with the question of getting a benefice. But if some aspect of the person does have something to do with the matter, then if I consider that aspect in settling the matter, I do not accept the person; for example, if I give a benefice to a person because he is good and will serve the Church well, or because he is well-educated and honorable, I am not an acceptor of persons. Therefore to accept the person is nothing other than to consider some aspect of the person that has no relation to the business. Hence, since God in His works and benefits regards nothing that pre-exists on the side of the creature—for that which pertains to the creature is an effect of His election—but takes as His measure merely what pleases His will, according to which He effects all things, and not the condition of their person, as is said in Ephesians (1:11), it is evident that He does not regard the person of man. Then, having described their condition, he proves his proposition, namely, that they were unable to add anything to him. Hence he says, "for to me they that seemed to be something added nothing." As if to say: Although they had great authority, they added nothing to my teaching or to my power, because, as was said above, I neither received the Gospel from man nor learned it by man. However, a certain Gloss has a different reading, namely, "what they were at one time is not my concern." As if to say: It is not my concern to recount their status before their conversion, i.e., what they were, because this too makes no difference, since I myself had even been a persecutor of that Church; yet God by the pleasure of His will chose and glorified me—and this because the Lord does not regard the person of man.”

“"But contrariwise." Some hold his meaning to be, not only that the Apostles did not instruct him, but that they were instructed by him. But I would not say this, for what could they, each of whom was himself perfectly instructed, have learnt from him? He does not therefore intend this by the expression, "contrariwise," but that so far were they from blaming, that they praised him: for praise is the contrary of blame. Some would probably here reply: Why did not the Apostles, if they praised your procedure, as the proper consequence abolish circumcision? Now to assert that they did abolish it Paul considered much too bold, and inconsistent with his own admission. On the other hand, to admit that they had sanctioned circumcision, would necessarily expose him to another objection. For it would be said, if the Apostles praised your preaching, yet sanctioned circumcision, they were inconsistent with themselves. What then is the solution? is he to say that they acted thus out of condescension to Judaism? To say this would have shaken the very foundation of the economy. Wherefore he leaves the subject in suspense and uncertainty, by the words, "but of those who were reputed to be somewhat; it maketh no matter to me." Which is in effect to say, I accuse not, nor traduce those holy men; they know what it is they have done; to God must they render their account. What I am desirous to prove is, that they neither reversed nor corrected my procedure, nor added to it as in their opinion defective, but gave it their approbation and assent; and to this Titus and Barnabas bear witness. Then he adds, "When they saw that I had been entrusted with the Gospel of the Uncircumcision even as Peter with the Gospel of the Circumcision," The Circumcision and Uncircumcision; meaning, not the things themselves, but the nations known by these distinctions...”

“This intricate passage, full of intervening matter, might be briefly construed as follows: "Those who were conspicuous added nothing to me, but on the contrary gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas." An alternative sense is hidden to avoid boasting of himself: "Those who were conspicuous added nothing to me, but on the contrary I have added to them, and they have become more steadfast in the grace of the gospel."”

“The apostles were not therefore found to disagree in anything. Otherwise, when Paul claimed to have received the gospel perfectly, they might have denied this and wished to add to his teaching, as though he were incomplete. On the contrary, instead of reproving Paul's imperfection, they approved his perfection.… His saying "on the contrary" might also be understood in such a way as to yield the following meaning: "Upon me those who had a reputation imposed nothing further. On the contrary, they consented with me and Barnabas, joining the right hand of fellowship, that we, for our part, should go among the Gentiles, who are contrary to the circumcision, while they for their part should go to those of the circumcision."”

“Some interpreted it this way: not only did they add nothing to correct my teaching, but on the contrary, they were even corrected themselves. But this is incorrect. For in what could they have been corrected by him? After all, each of them is perfect. So he says the following: "but on the contrary, they gave me the right hand of fellowship," — then still in the middle: "seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised," and so on in order. And not only did they not correct me, they even praised and agreed that I and Barnabas should go with the gospel to the uncircumcised, that is, to the Gentiles, while they would go to the circumcised, that is, to the Jews.”

“Then when he says, "But contrariwise, when they had seen...," he shows how his opinion was approved by the apostles. About this he does three things: First, he gives the reason for this approbation; Secondly, he mentions the approbation (v. 9): "James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship"; Thirdly, he adds a condition that was placed on the approbation (v. 10). He cites the two causes of the approbation (which moved the apostles to approve the opinion of the Apostle) namely, the office of teaching enjoined by Christ on the Apostle; and the effect of this appointment (v. 9). As to the first, he does two things: First, he mentions the office to which he was appointed which moved them to approve him; Secondly, the manifestation of this office (v. 8). He says therefore: I say that those "who seemed to be something, added nothing"; but rather, contrary to the opinion of the adversaries who came up to Jerusalem to oppose me in this matter, it was I that the Apostles approved, and this "when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel," i.e., the office of the preaching, "of the uncircumcision," i.e., the injunction to preach to the uncircumcised, namely, the Gentiles: "For all the nations are uncircumcised in the flesh, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart" (Jer 9:26). Just as to Peter was entrusted the authority to preach to the Jews alone, so to Paul to the Gentiles; but later, Peter, too, preached to the Gentiles and Paul to the Jews.”

“With regard to those (the Marcionites) who allege that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, let Paul himself convict them, when he says, that one and the same God wrought in Peter for the apostolate of the circumcision, and in himself for the Gentiles. Peter, therefore, was an apostle of that very God whose was also Paul; and Him whom Peter preached as God among those of the circumcision, and likewise the Son of God, did Paul [declare] also among the Gentiles. For our Lord never came to save Paul alone, nor is God so limited in means, that He should have but one apostle who knew the dispensation of His Son.”

“"For He that wrought for Peter unto the Apostleship of the Circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles." He calls the Gentiles the Uncircumcision and the Jews the Circumcision, and declares his own rank to be equal to that of the Apostles; and, by comparing himself with their Leader not with the others, he shows that the dignity of each was the same. After he had established the proof of their unanimity, he takes courage, and proceeds confidently in his argument, not stopping at the Apostles, but advances to Christ Himself, and to the grace which He had conferred upon him, and calls the Apostles as his witnesses.”

“Paul allows that Peter, following Jewish custom, was without blame in his temporary observation of what was amiss so as not to lose those entrusted to him. But it was Paul's own duty for the sake of the gospel truth to do what was entrusted to him among the uncircumcised, so that the Gentiles would not depart from their faith and belief in Christ through fear of the burdens and rigor of the law.”

“Here he also shows himself equal to Peter. For He who entrusted to Peter the work of preaching the gospel to the Hebrews gave the same to me for the Gentiles. And notice how he showed that his preaching was not only pleasing to the apostles, but was also acceptable to God. For concerning the apostles he says that they "recognized the grace." He did not say "heard," but from the very deeds themselves "recognized." For how would God have given me this gift if such preaching were displeasing to Him?”

“But because someone might say: What evidence have you that the commission to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles was given you, he interjects that it was through certain works of Christ. For just as it is evident that Peter received the Gospel from Christ because of the marvels Christ wrought through him, so it is evident that I received it because of the miracles Christ worked and does work in me. Therefore he says, "He who wrought in Peter to the apostleship," i.e., made Peter an apostle in Judea, namely Christ, also made me an apostle among the Gentiles. And this is the reason which moves them.”

“Now they certainly would not have been surprised at his having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching were of something contrary; nor, moreover, would they have "glorified the Lord," because Paul had presented himself as an adversary to Him They accordingly even gave him "the right hand of fellowship," as a sign of their agreement with him, and arranged amongst themselves a distribution of office, not a diversity of gospel, so that they should severally preach not a different gospel, but (the same), to different persons, Peter to the circumcision, Paul to the Gentiles.”

“That is, those who supported the church were like pillars supporting roofs and other things. "These men, then," he says, "being of such quality and so great, gave me their right hands, that is, joined in friendship, peace and steadfastness and declared that they had only one gospel. In view of this accord, Galatians, you are sinning and follow neither my gospel nor that of Peter, James and John, who are the pillars of the church, when you add things that are not approved by any of them."”

“And again he mentions the three with praise. For "those reputed to be pillars," that is, the great ones whom everyone everywhere names and glorifies — they bear witness concerning me that my preaching is pleasing to Christ. Therefore they also "gave the right hand of fellowship," that is, they agreed, acknowledged us as partners, and showed that they were satisfied with my preaching, as in no way differing from their own word.”

“But because one's appointment and authority to preach are not enough, unless he carries it out through good understanding and discreet eloquence and commends it by a good life, he adds how he used his authority or the effect of his office, saying, "And, when they had known the grace of God that was given to me, James and Cephas and John... gave to me and Barnabas, the right hands of fellowship." This is a dependent clause, i.e., when they saw that my preaching enjoyed favor and was fruitful, James "and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars..." In this passage is mentioned the approval or fellowship entered into by them and Paul. First, the persons are mentioned with whom the fellowship was formed, namely, James and Cephas, i.e., Peter, and John. James is mentioned first, as being the Bishop of Jerusalem where these events took place. The John mentioned was John the Evangelist who did not quit Judea until the time of Vespasian. "Who seem to be pillars." This is a metaphor standing for "the support of the entire Church." For just as a whole edifice is supported by the pillars, so the whole Church of the Jews was supported and governed by these men. Of those pillars it is said in Psalm (74:4): "I have established the pillars thereof," i.e., the apostles of the Church; "His legs as pillars of marble, that are set upon bases of gold" (Cant 5:15). "They," on the one side, "gave the right hands of fellowship," i.e., consented to the fellowship, "to me and Barnabas," the persons on the other side. By giving them their right hands they signified that they accepted them into their hands as a sign of union and unity of opinion. Secondly, the intent or condition of the fellowship is shown when it is said, "that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision," i.e., to preach. As if to say: A bond and union was made among us to the effect that just as the faithful obey Peter among the circumcision, i.e., in the Church of the Jewish believers, so all the Gentiles converted to Christ should obey Paul and Barnabas.”

“When Paul and Barnabas were having these discussions with John and Peter and James, the gospel was accepted and established in the way that Paul describes. The only thing that they did not hear willingly in this dispute was that works were not part of salvation. Their sole injunction, however, was that they should be mindful of the poor. Thus they agree on this point also, that the hope of salvation does not reside in the activity of doing works for the poor, but they simply enjoin—what?—that we be mindful of the poor. Not that we should spend all our efforts on it but that we should share with those who have not what we are able to have. We are instructed simply that we should be mindful of the poor, not that we should place our care and thought upon our own capacity to hold on to our salvation by this means. Thus he is almost corrected and admonished in this matter, but this is not all Paul says. "That we should be mindful," he says, not "that we should do this" but "that we should keep them in mind," which is less than putting our work into this and fulfilling this alone. He adds that he took thought even for this matter outside the gospel that he preached, which consisted in being mindful of the poor and bestowing whatever he could upon them. In truth, indeed, no one is poor if, simply keeping faith and trusting in God, he awaits the riches of his salvation.”

“Having divided among themselves, he says, the work of preaching, we remembered the poor without division. For in Jerusalem many of those who had believed were deprived of their possessions by the unbelieving Jews and were in difficulty regarding necessary sustenance. The Greeks did not wage war so fiercely against the believers from among them as the Jews did against the Christians from among the Hebrews. Therefore Paul shows especial zeal in his care for them, as he himself testifies, that "I was eager to carry out precisely." For collecting alms everywhere from his disciples, he himself delivered them to them.”

“In Galatians 2 he says that Peter and James gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision, only that we should be mindful of the poor: the Gloss: "Of the poor, who had laid the price of their goods sold at the feet of the Apostles, we should be mindful, by making collections for their support." If therefore the Apostle was not simoniacal in this, that he sought collections and sent disciples for this purpose, that they might seek alms from those among whom he had sown spiritual things, for the poor who were in Jerusalem: if the Supreme Pontiff establishes Orders of poor men who sow spiritual things and live from the freely given alms, whether sought or spontaneously offered, of those whom they edify by word and example: he in no way whatsoever disagrees with the Apostle, but rather agrees.”

“But they added the condition that we should be mindful of the poor of Christ, i.e., of those who had sold all their goods and laid the price at the feet of the apostles and became poor for the sake of Christ. "Which same thing," indeed, "also I was careful to do," being no less moved than those commanding me, as is plain in Romans (Ch. 15), 1 Corinthians (Ch. 6) and 2 Corinthians (Ch. 8 and 9). Now the reason why the custom prevailed in the early Church for those in the Church of the circumcision to sell their goods and not those in the Church of the Gentiles was that the believing Jews were congregated in Jerusalem and in Judea, which was soon to be destroyed by the Romans, as later events proved. Hence the Lord willed that no possessions were to be kept in a place not destined to endure. But the Church of the Gentiles was destined to grow strong and increase, and therefore, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it came about that the possessions in it were not to be sold.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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."”

“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."”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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."”

“"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...”

“(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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“"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.”

“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."”

“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.”

“"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.”

“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.”

“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...”

“Suppose that we, after receiving faith in Christ, do in Christ what the Jews do. Suppose we have received faith in Christ and wish to be justified in it. Suppose we have understood that a man is not justified by the works of the law. Would we not then, by observing the works of the law, be made sinners? Then it would be the case that Christ, whom we received in order not to sin, would himself become a minister of sin. Now, when after receiving him we return to sin—that is, to the old covenant—is Christ made a minister of sin? Let this possibility, Paul says, be far from us. One ought not to think in this way and act so as to make Christ a minister of sin, when he suffered in order that sin might perish.”

“"But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners is Christ a minister of sin?" If faith in Him, says he, avail not for our justification, but it be necessary again to embrace the Law, and if, having forsaken the Law for Christ's sake, we are not justified but condemned for such abandonment,-then shall we find Him, for whose sake we forsook the Law and went over to faith the author of our condemnation. Observe how, he has resolved the matter to a necessary absurdity. And mark how earnestly and strongly he argues. For if, he says, it behooved us not to abandon the Law, and we have so abandoned it for Christ's sake, we shall be judged. Wherefore do you urge this upon Peter, who is more intimately acquainted with it than any one? Hath not God declared to him, that an uncircumcised man ought not to be judged by circumcision; and did he not in his discussion with the Jews rest his bold opposition upon the vision which he saw? Did he not send from Jerusalem unequivocal decrees upon this subject? Paul's object is not therefore to correct Peter, but his animadversion required to be addressed to him, though it was pointed at the disciples; and not only at the Galatians, but also at others who labor under the same error with them. For though few are now circumcised, yet, by fasting and observing the sabbath with the Jews, they equally exclude themselves from grace. If Christ avails not to those who are only circumcised, much more is peril to be feared where fasting and sabbatizing are observed, and thus two commandments of the Law are kept in the place of one. And this is aggravated by a consideration of time: for they so acted at first while the city and temple and other institutions yet existed; but these who with the punishment of the Jews, and the destruction of the city before their eyes, observe more precepts of the Law than the others did, what apology can they find for such observance, at the very time when the Jews themselves, in spite of their strong desire, cannot keep it? Thou hast put on Christ, thou hast become a member of the Lord, and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and dost thou still grovel in the Law? How is it possible for thee to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul's words, that the observance of the Law overthrows the Gospel, and learn, if thou wilt, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Wherefore dost thou keep the sabbath, and fast with the Jews? Is it that thou fearest the Law and abandonment of its letter? But thou wouldest not entertain this fear, didst thou not disparage faith as weak, and by itself powerless to save. A fear to omit the sabbath plainly shows that you fear the Law as still in force; and if the Law is needful, it is so as a whole, not in part, nor in one commandment only; and if as a whole, the righteousness which is by faith is little by little shut out. If thou keep the sabbath, why not also be circumcised? and if circumcised, why not also offer sacrifices? If the Law is to be observed, it must be observed as a whole, or not at all. If omitting one part makes you fear condemnation, this fear attaches equally to all the parts. If a transgression of the whole is not punishable, much less is the transgression of a part; on the other hand, if the latter be punishable, much more is the former. But if we are bound to keep the whole, we are bound to disobey Christ, or by obedience to Him become transgressors of the Law. If it ought to be kept, those who keep it not are transgressors, and Christ will be found to be the cause of this transgression, for He annulled the Law as regards these things Himself, and bid others annul it. Do you not understand what these Judaizers are compassing? They would make Christ, who is to us the Author of righteousness, the Author of sin, as Paul says, "Therefore Christ is the minister of sin." Having thus reduced the proposition to an absurdity, he had nothing further to do by way of overthrowing it, but was satisfied with the simple protestation, "God forbid:" for shamelessness and irreverence need not be met by processes of reasoning, but a mere protest is enough.”

“We sought to obtain justification in Christ, he says, having abandoned the law. How then do you say that it is sinful to abandon the law: for it turns out that Christ led us into such a sin, since for His sake we abandoned everything pertaining to the law. Thus Christ, as you say, not only did not justify us, but even became for us the cause of greater condemnation by having persuaded us to depart from the law. Having driven the argument to absurdity, he no longer had need of confirmation, but contented himself with a simple denial, which is what he ordinarily always did in matters that were generally disputable.”

“After proving by the apostles' manner of life that the works of the Law ought not to be observed, the Apostle raises a question to the contrary. About this he does three things: First, he raises the question; Secondly, he solves it (v. 17): "God forbid"; Thirdly, he explains his solution (v. 19). The first point can be developed in two ways according to a Gloss. First, thus: Someone could say that the apostles sinned by abandoning the Law and turning to the faith of Christ. But the Apostle shows that this would lead to the following unwelcome conclusion, namely, that Christ is the author of sin in calling men to His faith. This is what he means when he says, "But if we apostles, while we seek to be justified in him," i.e., through Him, namely, Christ, "are found," i.e., plainly proven to be "sinners" for leaving the Law, "is Christ then the minister of sin?" i.e., is He inducing us to sin, Who called us from the slavery of the Law to His faith? "Made under the law that he might redeem them that were under the law" (4:4), namely, from the burden of the Law. The Apostle answers, "God forbid," because He is rather the minister of justice; "By the obedience of one, many shall be made just" (Rom 5:19); "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth" (1 Pet. 2:22). That Christ is not the minister of sin in leading one from the Old Law is plain, because "if I" myself, by wanting to glory once more in the Law, "build up again" the things I have destroyed, namely, my pride taking glory in the Law, "I make myself a prevaricator" in taking up what I destroyed: "The dog is returned to his vomit" (2 Pet. 2:22); "Cursed be the man that shall raise up and build the city of Jericho" (Jos. 6:26). He says, "which I have destroyed," i.e., not the Law itself, as the Manicheans would have it, because the Law is holy (Rom 7:12), but pride in the Law, concerning which it is said in Romans (10:3): "For they, seeking to establish their own justice have not submitted themselves to the justice of God." Now if someone were to object that since he formerly had wasted the faith of Christ, he makes himself a prevaricator by trying to build it up, the plain answer is that he did indeed try to destroy the faith of Christ, yet because of the truth he did not persist: "Why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad" (Acts 9:4). But pride in the Law was vain and this pride could be destroyed, never again to be re-established. The second way in which it can be developed is to refer his statement, "we ourselves are found sinners," not to their abandoning the Law, as in the first explanation, but to the observance of the Law. For it is plain that anyone who seeks to be made just does not profess himself to be just but a sinner. The sense, therefore, is this: "if we, in seeking to be justified in Christ, are" by the very fact of seeking to be justified "found," i.e., reasonably proved, to have been "sinners," because we observed the Law, "is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin?" i.e., commanding men to observe the works of the Law after His passion—something that cannot be done without sin? Note that this explanation harmonizes with Jerome's opinion which posited that the legal justifications were deadly immediately after the passion of Christ. It is possible to explain "we ourselves are found to be sinners" in a third way as referring, indeed, to the state in which the Law was observed; not that they offended by observing the Law, but that the Law is deficient and cannot remove sin. Hence the meaning is this: If in seeking to be justified in it, we ourselves are found to be sinners, i.e., still in our sins, because the Law does not remove sin—according to Romans (3:9): "For we have charged both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin"—"Is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin," so as to bring us back to observing the Law in which we are under sin? This explanation accords with Augustine's exposition. And he answers to either explanation, "God forbid," because I destroyed the Law understood carnally by judging and teaching it spiritually. Hence, if I should desire to re-establish the observances of the carnal law, I would be a prevaricator of the spiritual law. Furthermore, it can be explained in a fourth way, thus: I had said that man is not justified by the works of the Law. But someone might say, "Nor by the faith of Christ either," because many sin after embracing the faith of Christ. And this is what he says: "If we, seeking to be justified in Christ," i.e., by the faith of Christ, "are ourselves," who have become believers by embracing the faith of Christ, "found to be sinners," i.e., living in sin, "is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin" and of damnation, as the minister of the Old Law is a minister of sin and damnation? Not that the Law led one into sin, but was its occasion, because it forbade sin and conferred no grace to help one resist sin. Hence it is said: "But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence" (Rom 7:8). But Christ gives a helping grace: "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (Jn 1:17). Hence in no way is He the minister of sin, either directly or as its occasion.”

“Justly, therefore, did he refuse to "build up again (the structure of the law) which he had overthrown." The law, indeed, had to be overthrown, from the moment when John "cried in the wilderness, Prepare ye the ways of the Lord," that valleys and hills and mountains may be filled up and levelled, and the crooked and the rough ways be made straight and smooth -in other words, that the difficulties of the law might be changed into the facilities of the gospel.”

“"For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor." Observe the Apostle's discernment; his opponents endeavored to show, that he who kept not the Law was a transgressor, but he retorts the argument upon them, and shows that he who did keep the Law was a transgressor, not merely of faith, but of the Law itself. "I build up again the things which I destroyed," that is, the Law; he means as follows: the Law has confessedly ceased, and we have abandoned it, and betaken ourselves to the salvation which comes of faith. But if we make a point of setting it up again, we become by that very act transgressors, striving to keep what God has annulled. Next he shows how it has been annulled.”

“When they say that he who does not keep the law is a transgressor, he says the exact opposite, calling a transgressor the person who keeps the law. It is like saying: The law has ceased, as we confessed, and so, having abandoned it, we have taken refuge with the salvation which is from faith. If, then, we contest about the application of the law, we become transgressor of the same, inasmuch as we contest about keeping what has been dissolved by God.”

“Notice his wisdom: they were saying that the one who violates the law is a transgressor, but he, on the contrary, shows that the one who observes it is a transgressor, going not only against the faith, but also against the law itself. For the law itself led me to the faith and persuaded me to leave it. Further on he will point this out, but for now he says that the law has ceased, and we have testified to this by the fact that we destroyed it, having departed from it. Therefore, if we were to endeavor to restore it, we would prove to be transgressors, restoring that which was destroyed by God.”

“We have nullified the law by allowing it, and have run to Christ. If then we seek to establish it again, we make ourselves transgressors in that we attempt to set up again what was dissolved by us. But observe his sense: those men thought themselves transgressors because they did not keep the law; he shows that they are transgressors because they hold to it. "I consider myself a transgressor." For by once more obeying the law, I show that as a transgressor I first permitted myself, and I believed in Christ.”

“"Purify out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump," cries the apostle to us. And again in anger at such people he directs that we should "have no fellowship with anyone called a brother if he is a fornicator or covetous man or idolater or reviler or drunkard or robber; with such a man one ought not even to eat." "For I through the law am dead to the law," he says, "that I may live unto God. I am crucified with Christ; it is no longer I that live," meaning that I used to live according to my lusts, "but Christ lives in me," and I am pure and blessed by obeying the commandments; so that whereas at one time I lived in the flesh carnally, "the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God."”

“Whose grace, if not of that God from whom also came the law? Unless it be, forsooth, that the Creator intercalated His law for the mere purpose of producing some employment for the grace of a rival god, an enemy to Himself (I had almost said, a god unknown to Him), "that as sin had" in His own dispensation "reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto (eternal) life by Jesus Christ," His own antagonist! For this (I suppose it was, that) the law of the Creator had "concluded all under sin," and had brought in "all the world as guilty (before God)," and had "stopped every mouth," so that none could glory through it, in order that grace might be maintained to the glory of the Christ, not of the Creator, but of Marcion! I may here anticipate a remark about the substance of Christ, in the prospect of a question which will now turn up. For he says that "we are dead to the law." It may be contended that Christ's body is indeed a body, but not exactly flesh.”

“Now it is possible to see Paul as speaking of two laws—one of Moses, the other of Christ—so that he is saying he is dead to that law, which was given to the Jews, through the law that was given through Christ … that is, "I am dead through the law of Christ to the law formerly given to the Jews." But Paul may also be seen as doing what both he and the Savior himself often do, so that he speaks of two laws because it is itself, as it were, twofold: one thing when it is understood carnally another when understood spiritually.… Thus the sense will be "For I through the law," which is now spiritually understood, "am dead to the law"—that law obviously which is understood carnally. And since this is so, "I am dead to the carnal law" because I understand the law spiritually, "so that I live to God." For what it means for someone to live to God is that he understands those precepts contained in the law not carnally but spiritually, that is, what it is to be truly circumcised and what the true sabbath is.”

“He explains in what manner he abandoned the law, and says: through the law of grace and the Gospel I died to the law of Moses, or I died, he says, to the law through the law; that is, the law itself led me to no longer observe it, having led me to Christ through the Mosaic and prophetic word. Therefore, if I again begin to observe it, I will again violate it. Or in this way: the law commanded that the one who does not fulfill its prescriptions be punished and put to death. And since it could not be fulfilled, by its power I was subjected to death. Therefore let it not command me, as one already dead both in soul, because I sinned, being unable to fulfill the works of the law, and in body, inasmuch as this depended on the condemnation by the law. How then after this shall I still hold to that which put me to death? Lest anyone should say: how then do you live, if you have died? – he says that although the law put me to death while I was living, Christ, having found me dead, made me alive, having been mystically co-crucified with Him and having died with Him through baptism. A twofold miracle: He gave life to one who was dead, and gave life through death.”

“Here the Apostle amplifies the solution given above. First, he explains the solution. Secondly, he concludes to his principal proposition (v. 21). It should be noted that the Apostle proceeds in a very thorough manner, leaving no doubt unexamined. Hence his words, although they seem involved, nevertheless, if they are carefully considered, say nothing without a purpose. This is plain from the words he uses. Therefore, he does three things: First, he manifests the solution; Secondly, he explains his manifestation of the solution (v. 19): "with Christ I am nailed to the cross"; Thirdly, he settles the question (v. 20): "That I live now in the flesh." Therefore, because the Apostle had said, "For, if I build up again the things which I have destroyed," which is understood to refer to the Old Law, for one might regard him as a destroyer of the Law and consequently impious according to Psalm (118:126): "They have dissipated thy law," for that reason the Apostle wishes to show how he destroys the Law without being impious, saying, "For I, through the law, am dead to the law." Here it should be noted that when anyone destroys a law by means of the law itself, he is indeed a prevaricator of the law, but not impious. For a law is destroyed by means of the law when the law itself contains some local or temporary precept, such that the law should be observed for such a time or in such a place and no other, and this fact is expressed in the law. If someone, therefore, after that time or outside that place, does not use the law, he destroys the law by means of the law itself, and in this way the Apostle destroyed the Law. Hence he says: I somehow destroyed the Law, but by means of the Law; because "through the Law I am dead to the Law," i.e., by the authority of the Law I have rejected the Law, as being dead to the Law. For the authority of the Law, through which he is dead to the Law, is cited in many places in Sacred Scripture. For example, although not in so many words, it is had in Jeremiah (31:31): "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel"; "The Lord will raise up to thee a prophet of thy brethren like unto me" (Deut 18:15), and in many other places. Therefore the Apostle is not a destroyer of the Law in the sense of a transgressor of the Law. Or else, "I by the law" spiritual "am dead to the law" carnal. For he dies to the Law when, being freed by the Law, he casts it aside, according to Romans (7:2): "If her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." Now inasmuch as the Apostle was subject to the spiritual law, he says that he is dead to the Law, i.e., loosed from the observances of the Law: "For the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death" (Rom 8:2). Again there is another possible way of setting the law aside without prevarication, because, namely, a law, when it is written on a scroll is called a dead law, and when it is in the mind of the lawgiver it is called a living law. Now it is plain that if someone were to act according to the word of the lawgiver against the written law and break the law, he would both be set free of the dead law and be acting according to the command of the lawgiver. He says, therefore, along these lines, "I am dead to the law," which is written and dead, i.e., I am loosed from it "that I may live to God," i.e., that I may guide my movements according to His precepts and be ordained to His honor. For a law that has been passed does, indeed, hand down something in writing on account of those outside and of those who cannot hear the words spoken by the lawgiver; but for those in his presence he does not lay it down in writing but in words alone. For in the beginning, men were weak and unable to approach unto God; hence it was necessary for the precepts of the Law to be given to them in writing, so that by the Law, as by a pedagogue, they might be led by the hand to the point where they might hear the things He commands, according to the words given below: "the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (3:24). But after we have access to the Father through Christ, as is said in Romans (5:2), we are not instructed about the commands of God through the Law, but by God Himself. Hence he says: Through the Law leading me by the hand I have died to the written law, in order that I may live unto God, i.e., to the maker of the Law, i.e., to be instructed and directed by Him.”

“I no longer wish to live after the manner of men, and my desire shall be fulfilled if ye consent. "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet no longer I, since Christ liveth in me." I entreat you in this brief letter: do not refuse me; believe me that I love Jesus, who was delivered [to death] for my sake. "What shall I render to the Lord for all His benefits towards me?" Now God, even the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, shall reveal these things to you, [so that ye shall know] that I speak truly. And do ye pray along with me, that I may attain my aim in the Holy Spirit. I have not written to you according to the flesh, but according to the will of God. If I shall suffer, ye have loved me; but if I am rejected, ye have hated me.”

“By the words "I am crucified with Christ" he indicated baptism, and by the words "it is no longer I who live" – the life after this, through which our body dies. "But Christ lives in me," that is, there is nothing in us that is not pleasing to Christ, but He accomplishes everything in us, governing and ruling. And our will has died, and His lives and governs our life. Therefore, if I live for God a life distinct from life under the law, and have died to the law, then I cannot observe anything from the law. What I have said, I said about the spiritual life, but you will find the sensible life also in me, existing from Christ. For the law being transgressed subjected all to sin and punishment, and nothing prevented, as in the times of the flood, all from perishing as transgressors; but Christ, having appeared, delivered us from condemnation, having justified us by His death. So that even this very thing – the sensible and fleshly life – we have through faith in Christ, – faith that justifies us and delivers us from condemnation. Although He gave Himself for all and loved all, Paul, having reflected on what Christ freed us from and what He bestowed, and having been kindled with love, ascribes what is common to himself, just as the prophets say: "O God, my God." And at the same time he also shows that each person ought to render such gratitude to Christ as if He had died for him alone. But only those who believed in Him benefited from these gifts. So that the one who clings to the law shows that Christ did not die for him. How then are you not afraid of this, but return again to the law, showing the death of the Lord to be useless for you? And note the expression "who gave Himself" — on account of the Arians.”

“I judge that because Paul already at that time walked in the spirit, and in his mind consented to the law of God because it is good (Rom 7:16); for this reason he deemed this very mind of his, as a certain principal and supreme part of himself, worthy to be designated rather by the name of himself than of any possession of his; but the remainder, which is established to be of an inferior nature and therefore to cling to the inferior and cheaper essence, which is the body; not only by the office of vivifying and giving sensation, but also by the desire of nourishing and cherishing: this, I say, being sensual and carnal, the spiritual man, judging it unworthy of the appellation of himself, reckoned it should rather be counted among his possessions than that he should be personally expressed through it. "When I say 'me,'" he says, "understand that which is more excellent in me, in which I also stand by the grace of God, that is, the mind and reason. When I speak of 'my soul,' take it in the lower sense, that which you see accommodated to animating the flesh, and even joined to it in concupiscence. That I was this, but now am no longer, I acknowledge, because I no longer walk according to the flesh, but according to the spirit" (Rom 8:4). "I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me" (Gal 2:20). According to the mind, I; according to the flesh, not I. For what if the soul even now desires carnally? "It is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells in me" (Rom 7:17). And therefore I would call what in me savors carnally not indeed myself, but nevertheless mine, and that nothing other than the soul itself. For truly the carnal affection of the soul is a portion of it, and the life which it administers to the body. This soul, therefore, Paul despised in comparison with himself, prepared for the Lord's sake not only to be bound but also to die in Jerusalem, and so to lose his soul according to the Lord's counsel.”

“Then when he says, "with Christ I am nailed to the cross," he amplifies what he said. Now he had said that he died to the Law and lives unto God. Hence he explains these two things: First, that he died to the Law, he explains by saying that "with Christ I am nailed to the cross"; Secondly, that he lives unto God, when he says: "I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me." The first point can be explained in two ways. In one way, as in a Gloss, thus: every man according to carnal origin is born a child of wrath: "By nature we were children of wrath, even as the rest" (Eph 2:3). He is also born in the oldness of sin: "Thou art grown old in a strange country" (Bar. 3:11). This oldness of sin is removed by the cross of Christ, and the newness of spiritual life is conferred. Therefore the Apostle says, "with Christ I am nailed to the cross," i.e., concupiscence or the inclination to sin, and all such have been put to death in me through the cross of Christ: "Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed" (Rom 6:6). Also from the fact that I am crucified with Christ and have died to sin; and because Christ rose again, I, too, have risen with Him rising: "Who was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification" (Rom 4:25). Thus, therefore, does Christ beget a new life in us, after the oldness of sin has been destroyed. Hence he says, "And I live," i.e., because I am nailed to the cross of Christ, I have the strength to act well, "now not I" according to the flesh, because I no longer have the oldness which I formerly had, "but Christ liveth in me," i.e., the newness which has been given to us through Christ. Or, in another way: a man is said to live according to that in which he chiefly puts his affection and in which he is mainly delighted. Hence men who take their greatest pleasure in study or in hunting say that this is their life. However, each man has his own private interest by which he seeks that which is his own. Therefore, when someone lives seeking only what is his own, he lives only unto himself; but when he seeks the good of others, he is said to live for them. Accordingly, because the Apostle had set aside his love of self through the cross of Christ, he said that he was dead so far as love of self was concerned, declaring that "with Christ I am nailed to the cross," i.e., through the cross of Christ my own private love has been removed from me. Hence he says "God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (6:14): "If one died for all, then all were dead. And Christ died for all, that they also who live may not now live to themselves, but unto him who died for them" (2 Cor 5:14). "And I live, now not I," i.e., I no longer live as though having any interest in my own good, "but Christ liveth in me," i.e., I have Christ alone in my affection and Christ Himself is my life: "To me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain" (Phil 1:21). Then when he says, "And that I live now in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God," he answers a twofold difficulty that might arise from his words. One is how he lives and yet it is not he who lives; the second is how he is nailed to the cross. Therefore he clears up these two points. First of all, the first one, namely, how he lives and yet it is not he who lives. He answers this when he says "And that I live now in the flesh I live in the faith of the Son of God." Here it should be noted that, strictly speaking, those things are said to live which are moved by an inner principle. Now the soul of Paul was set between his body and God; the body, indeed, was vivified and moved by the soul of Paul, but his soul by Christ. Hence as to the life of the flesh, Paul himself lived and this is what he says, namely, "and that I live now in the flesh," i.e., by the life of the flesh; but as to his relation to God, Christ lived in Paul. Therefore he says, "I live in the faith of the Son of God" through which He dwells in me and moves me: "But the just shall live in his faith" (Hab. 2:4). And note that he says "in the flesh," not "by the flesh," because this is evil. Secondly, he shows that he is nailed to the cross, saying: Because the love of Christ, which He showed to me in dying on the cross for me, brings it about that I am always nailed with Him. And this is what he says, "who loved me": "He first loved us" (1 Jn 4:10). And He loved me to the extent of "giving himself" and not some other sacrifice "for me": "He loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev 1:5); "As Christ loved the church and delivered himself up for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life" (Eph 5:25). But it should be noted that the Son delivered Himself, and the Father His Son: "He spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us" (Rom 8:32). Judas, too, delivered Him up, as is said in Matthew (26:48). It is all one event, but the intention is not the same, because the Father did so out of love, the Son out of obedience along with love, but Judas out of avarice and treachery.”

“"I do not make void the grace of God." Let those, who even now Judaize and adhere to the Law, listen to this, for it applies to them. "For if righteousness is through the Law, then Christ died for naught." What can be more heinous than this sin? what more fit to put one to shame than these words? Christ's death is a plain proof of the inability of the Law to justify us; and if it does justify, then is His death superfluous. Yet how could it be reasonable to say that has been done heedlessly and in vain which is so awful, so surpassing human reason, a mystery so ineffable, with which Patriarchs travailed, which Prophets foretold, which Angels gazed on with consternation, which all men confess as the summit of the Divine tenderness? Reflecting how utterly out of place it would be if they should say that so great and high a deed had been done superfluously, (for this is what their conduct came to,) he even uses violent language against them, as we find in the words which follow.”

“(Verse 21.) I do not reject the grace of God; for if justice is through the Law, then Christ died in vain. He rejects the grace of God, both the one who lives under the Law after the Gospel, and the one who becomes defiled by sins after baptism. But he who can say with the Apostle: His grace in me was not in vain (1 Cor. XV, 10), he also speaks confidently of this: I do not reject the grace of God. What follows, however, is very necessary against those who think that the precepts of the Law must be observed after the faith of Christ. For it must be said to them: If righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. Or certainly they should teach how Christ did not die for nothing if works justify. But even though they may be dull, they will not dare to say that Christ died without cause. Therefore, in regard to the participle of the syllogism that is proposed here, that is: If righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing, we must accept what is consequentially inferred and cannot be denied: but Christ did not die for nothing; and conclude: Therefore, righteousness does not come through the law. So far he has been against Peter, but now he is turning towards the Galatians.”

“After these reasonings, he finally declares: I do not reject the gift of Christ, by which He deemed me worthy, having justified me without works by His death, and I do not resort to the law. For if, he says, the law is able to save and justify, then Christ died entirely in vain. But He, without a doubt, died in order to save us by His death, which the law is powerless to do. And if the law saves, the death of Christ is superfluous. Do you see where such blasphemy leads?”

“Whence the Apostle to the Galatians: "I do not cast aside the grace of God; for if justice is through the Law, then Christ died in vain:" but Christ died that he might raise the dead to the reception of life and grace: therefore grace flows into us through the Word incarnate and through the Word crucified. And the blessed Virgin received this Word full of grace; and a river of graces went forth from his side, which has the efficacy of healing us.”

“Then when he says, "I cast not away the grace of God," he draws the principal conclusion. First, he draws the conclusion; secondly, he explains it. He says, therefore: Because I have received from God so great a grace that He delivered Himself, and I live in the faith of the Son of God, "I cast not away the grace of God," i.e., I do not repudiate it or show myself ungrateful: "The grace of God in me hath not been void, but I have labored more abundantly than all they" (1 Cor 15:10). Hence another version has, "I am not ungrateful for the grace of God." "Looking diligently lest any man be wanting to the grace of God" (Heb 12:15), i.e., by showing myself unworthy because of ingratitude. A form of repudiation and of ingratitude would exist, if I were to say that the Law is necessary in order to be justified. Hence he says, "For if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain," i.e., if the Law is sufficient, i.e., if the works of the Law suffice to justify a man, Christ died to no purpose and in vain, because He died in order to make us just: "Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust, that he might offer us to God" (1 Pet. 3:18). Now if this could have been done through the Law, the death of Christ would have been superfluous. But He did not die in vain or labor to no purpose, as it is said in Isaiah (49:4); because through Him alone came justifying grace and truth, as it is said in John (1:17). Therefore, if any were just before the passion of Christ, this too was through the faith of Christ to come, in Whom they believed and in Whose faith they were saved.”