COMMENTARY ON SAINT PAUL’S
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

PROLOGUE

The new coming on, you shall cast away the old. (Lev. 26:10)

These words befit the present epistle in which the Apostle reproves the Galatians who had been so deceived by false teachers as to observe at once the rites of the Law and those of the Gospel. For this the Apostle rebukes them with the above words: “The new coming on, you shall cast away the old.” In these words the Lord suggests a fourfold oldness.

First, the oldness of error concerning which Isaiah states (26:3): “The old error is passed away.” This is removed by the newness of the doctrine of Christ. “What is this new doctrine?” (Mk 1:27).

The second oldness is that of figure, concerning which Hebrews (8:8) states: “Behold, the days shall come, saith the Lord; and I will perfect, unto the house of Israel and unto the house of Juda, a new testament not according to the testament which I made to their fathers.” Here he shows first of all that the first testament is old and that it is made new by the newness of grace or of the reality of Christ’s presence. “The Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth . . .” (Jer 31:22).

The third is the oldness of guilt, concerning which Psalm (31:3) states: “Because I was silent” (not confessing my sins), “my bones grew old.” And this is made new by the newness of justice. “So we may walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4).

The fourth is the oldness of punishment. “My skin he hath made old” (Lam 3:4). And this will be made new by the newness of glory, concerning which Isaiah (66:22) states: “Behold I will create a new heaven and a new earth.” “And he that sat on the throne said: Behold, I make all things new” (Rev 21:5).

CHAPTER I

Lecture 1

1 Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead,

2 And all the brethren who are with me, to the churches of Galatia:

3 Grace be to you, and peace from God the Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present wicked world, according to the will of God and our Father;

5 To whom is glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The Apostle therefore writes the Galatians this epistle in which he shows that with the coming of the grace of the New Testament, the Old Testament should be cast out, so that with the fulfillment of the truth, the figure may be abandoned, and with the attainment of these two, namely, grace and truth, one may arrive at the truth of justice and glory. And these two are acquired, if, abandoning the observance of the “legalia” [i.e., the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law], we concentrate fervently on observing the Gospel of Christ.

The order of this epistle is fitting in that, after the two epistles to the Corinthians, in the first of which it is a question of the sacraments of the Church, and in the second, of the ministers of these sacraments, there should necessarily follow the epistle to the Galatians, treating of the termination of the sacraments of the Old Testament.

This epistle is divided into two parts: namely, into a greeting, and the setting forth of the epistle (v. 6): I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. In the greeting, however:

First, the person who sends the greeting is mentioned;

Secondly, the persons greeted are mentioned (v. 2): To the Churches of Galatia;

Thirdly, the good he wishes them (v. 3).

As to the first, mention is made first of the person principally sending the greeting; and he is described by his name and his authority. By his name, indeed, when he says Paul which, because it means “humble,” accords with his humility. Hence it is said in 1 Corinthians (15:9): “I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle.” Furthermore, it accords with his office, because in another sense it means “the mouth of the trumpet,” in which the office of preaching is specially signified. “Lift up thy voice like a trumpet and announce to my people their sins” (Is 58:1). He is described by his authority, when he says, an apostle. Here two things are mentioned, namely, his authority and its source. Authority, because he says apostle, which is the same as “sent.”

Now it should be noted that the Apostle in some epistles calls himself “Servant,” thereby showing a spirit of humility, as in. the Epistle to the Romans; in others he calls himself “apostle,” thereby showing his authority. The reason for this is that the Romans being proud, the Apostle, in order to induce them to humility, calls himself a servant as an example of humility. But to the Galatians, who were stupid and proud, he calls himself an apostle in order to break them down; hence he here sets forth his authority.

He describes the source of his authority when he says, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father.

First, he removes what is, according to their opinion, the source;

Secondly, he presents the true source (v. 1): but by Jesus Christ and God the Father.

The source [of his authority] in their opinion was in keeping with the fact that the Galatians had been so deceived by false teachers as to believe that the Apostle did not enjoy the same authority as the other apostles, as having neither been taught by Christ nor lived with Him, but sent by them as their minister. He therefore removes this opinion when he says, not of men, neither by man. For some had been sent by the whole college of apostles and disciples; hence, to show that he had not been sent by them, he says, not of men. Others had been sent by some particular apostle, as Paul now and then sent Luke and Titus. Therefore, to show that he had not been sent in that manner, he says, neither by man, i.e., not by any apostle in particular, but by the Holy Spirit, Who says: “Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them “(Acts 13:2).

But because the true cause of the origin of this authority is Christ Jesus, he says, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father. Now the distinction expressed when he says, by Jesus Christ and God the Father, can be taken with respect to the person of the Father and the person of the Son; and then God the Father is one person and Jesus Christ another. For the Blessed Apostle Paul was sent to preach by both, and indeed, by the whole Trinity, because the works of the Trinity are inseparable. Yet no mention is made of the person of the Holy Spirit, because, since there is a union and joining of two, by mentioning two persons, namely, Father and Son, the Holy Spirit too is understood. Or, the aforesaid distinction can be taken with respect to the assumed nature, i.e., the human, because according to the divine nature there is not a distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ. In this sense, then, Paul was sent by God the Father as by the chief sender, and by Jesus Christ as by a minister. “For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision” (Rom 15:8).

But because the Galatians belittled the Apostle for having neither lived with Christ, as did the others, nor been sent by Him, he extols himself on this very point, because they had been sent by Christ yet living in mortal flesh, whereas he had been sent by Christ now glorified. This is why he says, who, namely, God the Father, raised him, namely, Jesus Christ as man, from the dead. As though to say: I am an apostle not of men, i.e., not by the college of apostles, neither by man, namely, Christ living in mortal flesh, but I am an apostle through Christ now risen and glorified. “Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more” (Rom 6:9). And because the present life is signified by the left side and the future life by the right, inasmuch as the latter is heavenly and spiritual, and the former temporal, Peter, who was called while Christ was yet in mortal flesh, appears in papal bulls on the left side, but Paul, who was called by Christ now glorified, is set on the right side.

Then when he says, and all the brethren who are with me, he refers to the persons who join with him in sending the greeting. These he describes in terms of sweet familiarity, because they are with me, namely, for consolation and help. “A brother that is helped by his brother is like a strong city” (Prov 18:19). “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Ps 132:1). And in terms of inseparable charity, when he says, brethren. “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another” (Jn 13:35). And universality, when he says, all. He adds this because they might be so deceived as not to respect the words of Paul. Hence he says, all who are with me, to show them as witnesses to his truthfulness and make it easy for them to understand that they are wrong, when they are rebuked by everyone else. “To him who is such a one, this rebuke is sufficient which is given by many” (2 Cor 2:6).

He mentions the persons greeted when he says, to the churches of Galatia. Here it should be noted that, as is mentioned in a Gloss, Brennus, leader of the Senones, once gathered an army, and having entered Italy through which he passed, came into Greece before the time of Alexander the Great. There some of the invaders remained in a certain district of Greece and intermarried with the Greeks. For this reason that province came to be called “Gallic Greece” and the inhabitants “Galatians,” as it were, “white.” But whereas the Greeks are natively intelligent, those Galatians were stupid and inconstant and slow to understand, as the indocile Gauls from whom they descended. This is why he later says, O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth? (3:1). To these people, therefore, he writes this epistle, and they are the ones greeted.

Then when he says, grace be to you and peace, he mentions the good things he wishes them.

First, he mentions the goods he wishes;

Secondly, the author of these goods (v. 3): from God the Father and our Lord.

The goods he wishes them are twofold, but in them are included all spiritual goods. The first is grace, which is the beginning of the spiritual life, and to it is ascribed in a Gloss the remission of sins, which is first in the spiritual life. For no one can be in the true spiritual life, unless he first dies to sin. The second is peace, which is the settling down of the mind in its end, and which in a Gloss is said to be reconciliation with God. Thus in wishing them the beginning and the end of all spiritual goods, the Apostle includes, as it were, between the two extremes, the wish that every good come to them. “The Lord will give grace and glory” (Ps 83:12). “The grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of God and the communication of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor 13:13).

The author of these goods is God the Father, and so he says, from God the Father. Here are mentioned

First, the cause of the goods;

Secondly, the manner of causing (v. 4);

Thirdly, thanksgiving for these goods (v. 5).

The cause and source of good is God the Father as originator, precisely as God, and the entire Trinity, the God of all through creation. “But Thou, O Father, governest it” (Wis 14:3). Hence he says, from God the Father. Again, the originator is the Lord Jesus Christ as minister; and this insofar as He is man. “For I say that Jesus Christ was a minister” (Rom 15:8). But that grace comes to us through Christ is plain from John (1:17): “Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” “Being justified freely by His grace” (Rom 3:24). Peace, too, comes to us through Him. “My peace I give unto you” (in. 14:27).

The manner in which these goods are caused is also mentioned when he says, who gave himself for our sins. Here is mentioned, first of all, the efficient cause, which is the death of Christ. Referring to this, he says who gave himself for our sins. As if to say: Christ is the author of grace and peace, because He gave Himself to death and endured the cross. Hence the very death of Christ is the efficient cause of grace: “You have been justified freely by his grace” (Rom 3:24); “Making peace as to the things that are in heaven” (Col 1:20). And he says, first of all, who gave himself, i.e., offered Himself voluntarily. “Christ also hath loved us and hath delivered Himself for us” (Eph 5:2); “That He might taste death for all” (Heb 2:9); “Who gave Himself for us” (Tit. 2:14). From this, the Apostle plainly is arguing against them that if the death of Christ is the sufficient cause of our salvation, and if grace is conferred in the sacraments of the New Testament, which have their efficacy from the passion of Christ, then it is superfluous to observe, along with the New Testament, the rituals of the Old Law in which grace is not conferred nor salvation acquired, because the Law has led no one to perfection, as is had in Hebrews (7:19).

Secondly, the end and utility of those goods is mentioned—in other words, the final cause. And it is twofold; one is that we be set free of past sins; and as to this he says, for our sins, namely, that past sins be removed and atoned for, which is the beginning of our salvation. “He loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood” (Rev 1:5). The other end is that He might free us from the power of death; and as to this he says, that he might deliver us from this present wicked world. “He delivered us from the power of darkness” (Col 1:13). Herein he mentions three things: namely, to deliver us from the present, and the world, and wicked. To deliver us from the present by drawing us to eternal things through desire and hope; from the world, i.e., from being conformed to this world which allures us: “And be not conformed to this world” (Rom 12:2); wicked, leading us back to the truth of justice. And it is called a wicked world, not because of its nature, for it was created good by God, but because of the evils perpetrated in it, as is said in Ephesians (5:16): “The days are evil.” And “Jacob said: the days of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty years, few and evil” (Gen 47:9).

Now although these things come to us through Christ, God the Father is not excluded. Hence there is mentioned in the third place, acceptance of the divine will. Therefore he says, according to the will of God and our Father. Of the Father by nature, I say, of Christ Who proceeds from eternity as the Word: “This day have I begotten Thee” (Ps 2:7); “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn 1:1). Also of our Father by adoption: “He gave them power to be made the sons of God: (Jn 1:12). In the first rendering, God the Father is taken for the sole person of the Father; in the second, for the whole Trinity. And because it is from God our Father, namely, from the whole Trinity, that all things come to us through Christ, therefore to it, i.e., to the whole Trinity, glory in itself, honor from others, be or is, forever and ever, i.e., always. Amen. This is a mark of corroboration.

You have therefore, in summary, in the above greeting, the Apostle’s authority by which he breaks their pride; the power of the grace by which he exhorts them to observe the Gospel; and the insufficiency of the ceremonies of the Law, in order to call them away from them.

CHAPTER I

Lecture 2

6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel;

7 Which is not another; only there are some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

The greeting given, it is followed by the epistle message, in which the Apostle refutes their error; secondly, he admonishes them with a view to their correction (5:1): Stand fast and be not held again under the yoke of bondage. He refutes their error two ways: namely, on the authority of the Gospel teaching; and by reason, using the Old Testament (3:1): O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you. . . ?

He refutes their error by showing the authority of the Gospel teaching:

First, by showing their fickleness in lightly dismissing the Gospel teaching;

Secondly, by commending the authority of the Gospel teaching, as he intimates that in view of the precious value of that which they so lightly regard, their error is seen to be so much the greater (v. 11).

Regarding the first he does two things:

First, he enlarges upon their guilt;

Secondly, he inflicts a punishment (v. 8).

Concerning the first, he enlarges upon the guilt both of the seduced and of those who seduced them (v. 7): only there are some that trouble you. As to the first he does three things:

First, he enlarges upon the guilt of those who were misled for their fickleness of mind. Hence he says, I wonder. As if to say: Although you are aware of the many good things already mentioned that come to you through Christ, and although I instructed you well, nevertheless you are thus, i.e., so far and so completely removed [transferred], that you seem already to have forgotten; so soon, i.e., in such a short time, are you removed [transferred]. With this word he alludes to their name, for Galatia means “transferred.” As if to say: You are Galatians, because you are so quickly transferred. “He that is hasty to give credit is light of heart” (Sir 19:4).

Secondly, he amplifies their guilt on the part of that which they have abandoned. For if reason withdraws and is removed from evil, it is worthy of praise and does well; but when it departs from the good, it is culpable. And this is how they were removed from good. So he says to them: Although it is amazing that you are so quickly and so far removed, there is additional reason for wonder, namely, because you have removed yourselves from him, i.e., from God, and from faith in Him that called you into the grace of Christ, i.e., into the sharing of the eternal good which we have through Christ: “Giving thanks to God who hath called you into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9). Again: “For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them” (2 Pet. 2:21).

Thirdly, he amplifies their guilt on the part of that to which they have turned, because they have been turned not to good but to evil. Hence he says, unto another gospel, i.e., of the Old Law, which is a good message only insofar as it does announce some good things, namely, temporal and carnal: “If you be willing and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land” (Is 1:19). Yet it is not completely perfect as is the Gospel, because it does not announce the perfect and loftiest goods, but small and slight ones. But the New Law is perfectly and in the full sense a Gospel, i.e., a good message, because it announces the greatest goods, namely, heavenly, spiritual and eternal. And although it is another gospel according to the tradition of the deceivers, yet according to my preaching it is not. For it is different in the promises, but not in the figure, because the same thing is contained in the Old Testament and in the New: in the Old, indeed, as in a figure, but in the New as in the express reality. Therefore it is another gospel if you consider the outward appearances; but as to the things that are contained and exist within, it is not another gospel.

Yet though it is not in itself another gospel, it can be another, if you consider the guilt of the others, i.e., of the deceivers. Hence in enlarging upon the guilt of the latter he says, only there are some, namely, the seducers, that trouble you, i.e., sully the purity of your understanding with which you were imbued with the truth of faith. Because although the same thing is contained, so far as the inward understanding is concerned, in the Old and New Testament, as has been said, yet if the Old is embraced after accepting the New, that is seen to show that the New is not perfect, and that the one is different from the other. Hence he says, which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, because those deceivers were compelling them to be circumcised after professing faith in the Gospel, showing thereby that circumcision is something different from Baptism and does something that Baptism cannot do, and for that reason they are troubling you. I would that they were even cut off who trouble you (5:12).

And they do indeed bring you trouble, because they would pervert the gospel of Christ, i.e., the truth of the Gospel teaching, into the figure of the Law—which is absurd and the greatest of troubles. For a thing ought to be converted into that to which it is ordained. But the New Testament and the Gospel of Christ are not ordained to the Old, but contrariwise, the Old Law is ordained to the New Law, as a figure to the truth. Consequently the figure ought to be converted into the truth, and the Old Law to the Gospel of Christ, not the truth into the figure, or the Gospel of Christ into the Old Law. This is plain from the way we ordinarily speak; for we do not say that a man resembles the image of a man, but contrariwise, that the image resembles the man: “They shall be turned to thee and thou shalt not be turned to them” (Jer 15:19); “The new coming on, you shall cast away the old” (Lev. 26:10).

Then after enlarging upon their guilt, the inflicting of the penalty is set forth when he ways, But though we, or an angel from heaven (v. 8). And with respect to this he does two things:

First, he promulgates the sentence;

Secondly, he gives a reason for the sentence (v. 10).

As to the first he does two things:

First, he presents authority for his sentence;

Secondly, he passes sentence (v. 9).

He shows that his authority for passing sentence is great on the ground that it would affect not only the perverters and seducers, who are subject to him, but also his own equals, as the other apostles, and even those above him, as the angels, were they guilty of this crime, namely, of turning the Gospel into the Old Law. Hence he says: Because the authority behind the sentence which we pass (which is excommunication) has efficacy, not only over those who are doing these things, then though we, namely, the apostles, or an angel, good or evil, coming from heaven, preach a gospel besides that which we have preached, let him be anathema, i.e., subject to this sentence that we pass.

To elucidate the foregoing, three things should be investigated. First, the meaning of this word, anathema. Apropos of this it should be noted that anathema is a Greek word composed of ana, which means above, and thesis, i.e., a placing; hence a placing above. The word arose from an old custom. For the ancients, when they waged war, sometimes took from their enemies certain booty which they were unwilling to turn to their own use, but hung it in the temple or other public place of the city, as though to separate it from the common use of men. Everything so hung up, the Greeks called anathema. And from this arose the custom of declaring anathematized anything excluded from common use. Hence in Joshua (6:17) it is said of Jericho and of everything in it, that Joshua once anathematized it. Consequently, even in the Church the practice arose of declaring anathema those who are excluded from the common society of the Church and from partaking of the sacraments of the Church.

Secondly, we must look for an explanation of his statement, though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. Here it should be noted that there are three kinds of teachings: the first is that of the philosophers who have arrived at a knowledge of their doctrine with their own reason guiding them. Another is that which has been delivered by angels, as the Old Law. For the Old Law was not issued by a human will but by angels in the hand of a mediator (Gal. 3:19). But the third teaching was given immediately by God Himself, as the teaching of the Gospel: “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (in. 1:18); “In these days [He] hath spoken to us by his Son” (Heb 1:2); “Which, having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him” (Heb 2:3).

Now, a teaching passed on by a man can be changed and revoked by another man who knows better, as one philosopher refutes the sayings of another, or by an angel who has a more penetrating knowledge of the truth. Even a teaching handed down by one angel could be supplanted by that of a higher angel or by God. But a teaching that comes directly from God can be nullified neither by man nor angel. Hence if a man or an angel were to state anything contrary to what has been taught by God, such a statement would not contradict God’s teaching, so as to void or destroy it; rather, God’s teaching would be against him, because one who speaks thus should be expelled and prevented from sharing his teaching. Hence the Apostle says that the dignity of the Gospel teaching, which has come directly from God, is so great that if a man or even an angel preached another Gospel besides that which he has preached among them, be is anathema, i.e., must be rejected and expelled.

Thirdly, we must solve the objections which arise on this point. The first is that, since an equal has no authority over his peers and much less over his superiors, it seems that the Apostle has no power to excommunicate the apostles, who are his peers, and less so, angels who are superior. “He that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt. 11:11). Therefore the anathema is invalid. The answer to this is that the Apostle passed this sentence not on his own authority, but on the authority of the Gospel teaching, of which he was the minister, and the authority of which teaches that whoever says aught contrary to it must be expelled and cast out. “The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (in. 14:48).

A second question arises from the words, a gospel besides that which we have preached to you. Therefore no one may teach or preach anything but what is written in the epistles and Gospels. But this is false, because it is said in 1Thessalonians (3:10): “Praying that we may accomplish those things that are wanting to your faith.” I answer that nothing is to be taught except what is contained, either implicitly or explicitly, in the Gospels and epistles and Sacred Scripture. For Sacred Scripture and the Gospels announce that Christ must be believed explicitly. Hence whatever is contained therein implicitly and fosters its teaching and faith in Christ can be preached and taught. Therefore, when he says, besides that which you have received, he means by adding something completely alien: “If any, man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book” (Rev 22:18). And “Neither add anything,” i.e., contrary or alien, “nor diminish” (Deut 12:32).

Then when he says, As we said before, so now I say it again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema, he pronounces his sentence on the evil person and says: As I have said of angels and apostles, so I say of the seducers. If any seducer shall preach a gospel besides that which you have received from me, let him be anathema, i.e., excommunicated. And this is the sentence he passes.

Now it may be asked whether all heretics are thereby excommunicated. And it seems not, because it is said: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid” (Tit. 3:10). I answer that a person might be called a heretic either because he errs solely from ignorance, and then he is not on that account excommunicated; or because he errs through obstinacy and tries to subvert others, and then he falls under the canon of the sentence passed. But whether he was then and there passing sentence on heretics by these words is open to question, since sentence was later passed against heretics in the Councils. Yet it can be said that perhaps he was showing that they deserved to be excommunicated.

Then when hesays, For do I now persuade men, or God?, he gives the reason for his sentence.

First, he gives the reason for his sentence;

Secondly, he discloses here his purpose (v. 10): Or do I seek to please men?

For someone might say: Why do you excommunicate in this manner? Perhaps some are your friends or men of some authority. Therefore you ought not act in this way. But the Apostle says in answer: Indeed, one should act in this way, because the things I say now are not to gain the favor of men but to please God, and this is what he means by do I now, i.e., after my conversion, or in this epistle, persuade men, i.e., is it my intention to please men or God? As if to say: The things I do, I do to please God alone: “We speak, not as pleasing men, but God” (1Thes 2:4); nor do we speak on the authority of men, but of God. That I do not seek to please men is plain from my intention and purpose. For I do not seek to please men, i.e., it is not my intention in converting men to please men alone, but for the honor of God. And this is plain, because if I yet sought to please men, as I formerly pleased them, I should not be the servant of Christ. The reason is that the two are opposed. More precisely, if I were to please men for the sake of men without referring it to God; for if I intend now and then to please men so that I might draw them to God, I do not sin. But if in the first way, I am not the servant of Christ: “For the bed is straitened, so that one must fall out, and a short covering cannot cover both” (Is 28:20); “No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will sustain the one and despise the other” (Mt 6:24); “They have been confounded that please men (Ps 52:6).

CHAPTER I

Lecture 3

11 For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to Man.

12 For neither did I receive it of man; nor did I learn it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13 For you have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews ‘ religion; how that, beyond measure, I persecuted the church of God and wasted it.

14 And I made progress in the Jews’ religion above many of my equals in my own nation, being more abundantly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

In the foregoing the Apostle rebuked the Galatians for their fickleness of mind in so quickly setting aside the Gospel teaching; now he shows the dignity of the Gospel teaching. And concerning this he does two things:

First, he commends the authority of the Gospel teaching according to itself;

Secondly on the part both of the other apostles and himself (2:1): Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas.

The first part is further divided into two others, because

First, he presents his intention;

Secondly, he manifests his purpose (v. 13).

Regarding the first he does two things:

First, he proposes what he intends;

Secondly, he proves what he proposes (v. 12).

Intending, therefore, to commend the truth of the Gospel teaching, he says, For I give you to understand, brethren. . . As if to say: So certain am I of the Gospel’s authority, that I would disbelieve not only men but even angels saying the contrary; so that if they were contrary, I would say anathema to them. And I have this certainty, because one must believe God rather than men or angels. Therefore, since I have this Gospel from God, I should and do have the greatest of certainty. Hence he says, For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me to you and to the other Churches is not according to man, i.e., not according to human nature out of tune with the divine rule or divine revelation. In this sense, according to man implies something evil: “For whereas there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal, and walk according to man?” (1 Cor 3:3). And this is the sense the Apostle takes here; hence he says, not according to man teaching me or sending me. As if to say: Not at all can this Gospel be had from men but from God.

That is why headds, For neither did I receive it of man; nor did I learn it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ, whereby he precludes two ways of receiving. First, that he did not receive from man the authority to preach. As to this he says, nor of man, i.e., purely man, did I receive it, i.e., the authority to preach the Gospel, but of Christ: “And how shall they preach unless they be sent?” (Rom 10:15); “1 have given thee for a light of the Gentiles, for a covenant of the people” (Is 42:6); “This man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel” (Acts 9:15). Secondly, that he did not receive the science of the Gospel from man. Hence he says, nor did I learn it, namely, the Gospel, from mere man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ, i.e., by Jesus Christ showing everything clearly. “But to us, God hath revealed them” (1 Cor 2:10); “The Lord hath opened my ear, and I do not resist” (Is 50:5), and “The Lord has given ine a learned tongue, that I should know how to uphold by word him that is weary” (Is 50:4). Now this revelation was made to the Apostle when he was rapt into paradise, where “he heard secret words which it is not granted to man to utter” (2 Cor 12:4).

Then when he says, For you have heard of my conversation in time past, he shows that he did not receive the Gospel from men, either before his conversion or after his conversion to Christ (v. 15). That he did not receive it from man before his conversion he shows both by the hatred he bore toward the faith of Christ and toward Christians, and by the zeal he had for Judaism: And I made progress in the Jews’ religion above many of my equals in my own nation (v. 14).

He says therefore: I say that I did not receive it of man, and this is true of the time before my conversion. This, indeed, is obvious from my actions at that time and from the hatred I bore toward the faith. For you yourselves have heard—“But they had heard only: He who persecuted us in times past doth now preach the faith which once he impugned” (v. 23)—of my conversation in time past, when I was an unbeliever, in the Jews’ religion, when I lived as a Jew. And he says, my, because the evil we do is from ourselves, but from God is whatever good we do: “Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in me” (Hos 13:9).

This you have heard, how that, beyond measure, i.e., more. than others, because he bestirred not only himself to this but rulers as well. For others, when they persecuted, were to it by the rulers, but he urged even them: “Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest” (Ac 9:1). Also because he did this not only in Jerusalem but in the entire region. Hence “he received letters to Damascus, that if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.” Therefore what is said in Genesis (49:27): “Benjamin a ravenous wolf, in the morning shall eat the prey, and in the evening shall divide the spoil,” can be understood as applying to him.

I persecuted the church of God, i.e., by hunting down Christians and discomfiting them: “I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor 15:9); and I wasted it, not indeed spiritually, because I was unable to turn the hearts of the faithful from their faith, but physically by inflicting bodily punishment on them and casting them into prison: “Is not this he who persecuted in Jerusalem those that called upon this name?” (Acts 9:21); “Often have they fought against me” (Ps 128:1).

It is plain, therefore, from the hatred he bore toward the faith of Christ before his conversion, that he did not receive the Gospel from man.

It is plain also from the love and burning zeal he had for Judaism, as to outward progress. Hence he says, And I made progress in the Jews’ religion above many of my equals in my own nation: wherein he mentions three things that indicate how great was his progress. For he progressed not above a few but above many, not above old men incapable of progress in learning, but my equals, i.e., young men who were intelligent and capable of progress: “It is good for a man, when he has borne the yoke from his youth” (Lam 3:27). Furthermore, not above equals who were foreigners and ignorant of the language, but equals of my own nation, i.e., Jews: I am a Jew, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the truth of the law of the fathers, zealous for the law, as also all you are this day” (Acts 22:3).

Finally, as to the inward zeal he had for the Law. Hence he says, being more abundantly zealous, not only for the Law, but for the traditions of my fathers, namely, those traditions which the Jews lawfully kept and “which the good fathers added,” as is said in a Gloss. He calls these traditions his own because he treasured them as though they were his: “According to the Law, a Pharisee; according to zeal, persecuting the church of God” (Phil 3:5).

But a question arises from the fact that the aforesaid Gloss says: “The good fathers added.” For it seems that they were not good, because, it is said in Deuteronomy (4:2): “You shall not add to the word I speak to You. “ Hence in adding traditions they acted against the command of God and so were not good. To this one may answer that this word of the Lord is taken to mean that you shall not add anything contrary or alien to the words which I shall speak. But to add certain things not contrary was lawful for them, namely, certain solemn days and the like, as was done in the time of Mordochai and of Judith, in memory of the blessings they received from God.

But against this is the rebuke addressed to them by our Lord, when He says: “You have made void the command of the Lord for the traditions of me” “ (Mt 15:16). Hence those traditions were not lawful.—I answer that they are not rebuked for holding the traditions of men, but because for the sake of the traditions of men, they neglect the commands of God.

CHAPTER 1

Lecture 4

15 But when it pleased him who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood.

17 Neither went I to Jerusalem, to the apostles who were before me; but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus.

After showing that he did not receive the Gospel from man before his conversion, the Apostle now proves that he did not receive it from man after his conversion. About this he does two things:

First, he shows that he did not receive the Gospel from man at the time of his conversion;

Secondly, nor after his conversion (v. 18).

Regarding the first he does two things:

First, he shows that he did not receive or learn the Gospel from the apostles;

Secondly, nor from any other believer (v. 17): I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus.

As to the first he does three things:

First, he shows the efficient cause of his conversion;

Secondly, the end (v. 16);

Thirdly, the manner (v. 16): immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood.

In regard to the first point, he notes the twofold cause of his conversion, namely, the good pleasure of God, which is divine election, and the call of the one converting. Regarding the first he says, when it pleased him, namely, God: not when I willed, but when it pleased Him, because “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (Rom 9:16); “The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear him” (Ps 146:11); “For it is God who worketh in us, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will” (Phil 2:13). Who, namely, God, separated me, i.e., rebellious: I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor 15:9); “Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings” (Acts 9:1); and a persecutor: “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” (Acts 9:4); “N”o before was a blasphemer” (1 Tim 1:13). Me, and such a one, I say, he separated from my mother’s womb. Or, literally: who made me to be born from my mother’s womb.

It is indeed true to say that God separates one from the womb, even though it is a work of nature, which is, as it were, an instrument of God, because even our own works are attributed to God as to their principal author: “For thou hast wrought all our works for us” (Is 26:12), as any effect is attributed to the principal agent; hence Job (10:11): “Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh.” And he was separated from this womb to be justified, for the same one justifies who makes: “From my mother’s womb thou art my God” (Ps 21:11). Or: from my mother’s womb, i.e., the synagogue, whose womb is the college of Pharisees who trained him in Judaism: “You go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte” (Mt 23:15). Thus, therefore, was the synagogue his mother: “The sons of my mother have fought against me” (Cant 1:5). Its womb are the Pharisees. And from this womb he was separated by the Holy Spirit unto faith in the Gospel: “Separated unto the Gospel of God” (Rom 1:1).

Or his mother is the Church of Christ, and the womb, the college of apostles. Hence God separated him from the womb of the Church, i.e., from the college of apostles, for the office of apostleship and preacher to the Gentiles, when He said to the apostles: “Separate me Saul and Barnabas” (Acts 13:2).

Again, he calls the synagogue his mother, because he was a Pharisee and an outstanding one, for which reason he is called a Pharisee and of the Pharisees, because he was zealous for the Law: being more abundantly zealous for the traditions of my fathers (v. 14).

Now as regards the other cause, he says, and called me by his grace. But there are two kinds of call. One is exterior, and so he, says: He called me with a voice from heaven. “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me . . . Go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do” (Acts 9:4). In a similar fashion He called the other apostles. The other call is interior, and in this way He calls through a certain interior instinct, whereby God touches the heart to be turned to Him, as when He calls one from the path of evil to good; and this by His grace and not our own merits: “And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified” (Rom 8:30); “1 have raised him up to justice” (Is 45:13); “That calleth the waters of the sea and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The Lord is his name” (Am 5:8).

The end of his conversion is stated when he says, to reveal his Son in me. Hence Christ is the end. Now his conversion is ordained to Christ in two ways: First of all, by his works. Hence he says, to reveal his Son, i.e., by what He did in my regard, by converting me and forgiving my sins, He revealed what a great act of mercy was bestowed on me: “Jesus Christ came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief” (1 Tim 1:15); “But I obtained the mercy of God, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief” (1 Tim 1:13). Thus, therefore, in his conversion he revealed His Son in the sense that the Son is called the grace of God. Likewise, he revealed Him in his action; hence he says: “For I dare not speak of any of those things which Christ worketh not by me, for the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed, by virtue of signs and wonders” (Rom 15:18). And this inasmuch as the Son is the power [virtue] of God. Furthermore, he revealed Him in his preaching. Hence he said: “We preach Christ crucified; unto the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness, but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:23). And this inasmuch as the Son is called the wisdom of God.

Secondly, his conversion is ordained to Christ by his words. Hence hesays, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, because, whereas the other apostles preached the Gospel of Christ to the Jews, Paul, on the Lords command, went to convert the Gentiles: “It is a small thing that thou shouldst be my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to convert the dregs of Israel. Behold, I have given thee to be the light of the Gentiles” (Is 49:6); “For so the Lord has commanded us: that thou mayest be for salvation unto the utmost part of the earth” (Acts 13:47); “Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, for a leader and a master to the Gentiles” (Is 55:4).

The manner of his conversion is perfect, both as to its effect—hence he says, immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood, i.e., at once I was so completely converted that all carnal affection left me: “It is easy in the eyes of God on a sudden to make the poor man rich” (Sir 11:23). Flesh and blood are here taken for vices of the flesh: “Flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50). For the flesh lusteth against the spirit (5:17)—or for the affection and love borne toward blood relatives. “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee” (Mt 16:17). Thus the Apostle overcame his own vices and scorned his fellow Jews. Furthermore, his conversion was perfect with respect to his understanding, because he was so instructed by Christ that there was no need to be instructed by the apostles; hence he says, Neither went I to Jerusalem, i.e., to be instructed by them.

Again, it was not necessary for him to be instructed by any other of the faithful; hence he says, but I went into Arabia. As if to say: I did not go to places where there were believers who might instruct me, but I went to Arabia where they were not instructed in the faith but were unbelievers. And again I returned to Damascus, i.e., to his parents: “Who gave a course to violent showers, or a way for noisy thunder?” (Job 38:25).

But someone might object that it is said in Acts (9:25): “In Damascus they let him down in a basket. . . and when he was come into Jerusalem, he essayed to join himself to the disciples.” Therefore, according to this, he went to Jerusalem. To this I answer that he did go, but not to be instructed. Or, better still, he did not go at once but after some time. Hence he says in the next verse, Then, after three years I went to Jerusalem (v. 18).

CHAPTER 1

Lecture 5

18 Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem to see Peter; and I tarried with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James, the brother of the Lord.

20 Now the things which I write to you, behold, before God, I lie not.

21 Afterwards, I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.

22 And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea, which were in Christ;

23 But they had heard only: He, who persecuted us in times past, doth now preach the faith which once he impugned.

24 And they glorified God in me.

After showing above that he did not receive the Gospel from man before his conversion nor at the time of his conversion, the Apostle now proves that neither after his conversion did he receive it from man; but heshows, rather, how his teaching was approved by men. About this he does two things:

First, he shows how his teaching was approved by the apostles;

Secondly, he shows how it was approved by the rest of the faithful (v. 21).

First, he states the fact;

Secondly, he confirms the truth of his statement (v. 20): before God, I lie not.

He says therefore: Although I did not go to the apostles to be instructed by them in the beginning of my conversion, because I had already been instructed by Christ, yet, being moved by a feeling of charity, after three years, i.e., after my conversion, I went to Jerusalem, because I had long desired to see Peter, not to be taught by him but to visit him; “And visiting thy beauty thou shalt not sin” (Job 5:24). And I tarried with him fifteen days, because that number is the sum of eight and seven. Eight is the number of the New Testament, in which the eighth day of those who will rise is awaited; but seven is the number of the Old Testament, because it celebrates the seventh day. And so he stayed with Peter fifteen days, conversing with him on the mysteries of the Old and New Testament. But lest anyone suppose that, although he was not instructed by Peter, he might have been instructed by others, he adds that he was not instructed by others. Hence he says, But other of the apostles, by whom I might be instructed, I saw none, i.e., no one, saving James, the brother of the Lord. For I saw him in Jerusalem.

Regarding James, it should be known that he was the Bishop of Jerusalem and named James the Less, because he had been called after another James. Many things are recorded of him in Acts (15:13 ff). He also wrote a canonical epistle. Now there are various explanations why he is called the brother of the Lord. Elvidius says that it was because he was the son of the Blessed Virgin. For according to him, the Blessed Virgin conceived and gave birth to Christ, and after the birth of Christ she conceived of Joseph and brought forth other sons. But this error is condemned and refuted. Furthermore, it is false for the simple reason that James was not the son of Joseph but of Alpheus.

Others say that before the Blessed Virgin, Joseph had another wife of whom he had James and other children, and that after she died, he took unto wife the Blessed Virgin, from whom Christ was born, although she was not known by Joseph, but, as it is said in the Gospel, He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. But because progeny are named after their father, and Joseph was considered the father of Christ, for that reason, James, too, although he was not the son of the Virgin, was nevertheless called the brother of the Lord. But this is false, because if the Lord did not want as mother anyone but a virgin entrusted to the care of a virgin, how would He have allowed her husband not to be a virgin and still endure it?

Therefore others say (and this is mentioned in a Gloss) that James was the son of Mary of Cleophas, who was a sister of the Virgin. For they say that Anne, the mother of the Blessed Virgin, first married Joachim, of whom was born Mary, the mother of the Lord; but when Joachim died, she married Joachim’s brother, Cleophas, from whom she bore Mary of Cleophas, and from her were born James the Less, Jude and Simon. Then after Cleophas died, she married a third man who was called Salome, of whom she conceived and bore another Mary, called Salome, from whom were born James the Great and his brother John.

But this opinion is denied on two counts by Jerome: first of all, because Salome is not a man’s name, as is plain in Greek, but the name of the woman who was the sister of the Blessed Virgin and who begot James the Great and John, of Zebedee, just as Mary Cleophas begot James the Less, Jude and Simon, of Alpheus. Now this James is singled out from his other brothers and called the brother of the Lord for two reasons: first, because of a likeness in appearance, for he had a facial resemblance to Christ; and because of a likeness in their lives, for he imitated the manners of Christ. Or he is called the brother of Christ, because Alpheus, his father, was related to JosEph Accordingly, because the Jews were accustomed to draw up the lines of ancestry on the father’s side, and Christ was considered the son of Joseph, as is said in Luke (3:23), he, rather than the others, was called the brother of the Lord, because they were related to him only on His mother’s side.

Furthermore, “brother” is taken here in the sense of kinsman. For in the Scriptures some are called brothers, who are so by nature: “Jacob begot Judas and his brethren” (Mt 1:2). Others, who are kinsmen, such as blood relations, are brothers: “Let there be no quarrel, I beseech thee, between me and thee. . . for we are brethren” (Gen 13:8). Others who are so by race; hence all who speak the same tongue are called brothers: “Thou mayest not make a man of another nation king, that is not thy brother” (Deut 17:15). Others who are so by affection; hence all who are friends and who have the same love are called brothers: “Because I found not Titus my brother” (2 Cor 2:13). Others who are so by religion; hence all Christians who have one rule of life are called brothers: “For one is your master; and all you are brethren” (Mt 23:8); “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Ps 132:1). And in general, all men are called brothers, because they are ruled and protected by one God: “Have we not all one father?” (Mal 2:10).

Then when he says, Now the things which I write to you, behold, before God I lie not, he confirms his statements with an oath. As if to say: The things I now write to you about myself, behold, are so well known that it is obvious I lie not. And this I say before God, i.e., with God as my witness. The Apostle here takes an oath not for a slight reason, but for the sake of those for whom it was necessary, that they might believe. For had he not sworn, they would not have believed him. “Before God, in Christ we speak” (2 Cor 2:17); “God is my witness” (Rom 1:9).

But what does the Lord say in Matthew (5:37)? “Let your speech be: Yea, Yea; No, No. And that which is over and above these is of evil.” The answer to this is that it is of the evil of him who does not believe, or of the evil of punishment which compels one to swear.

Then when he says, Afterwards, I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, he shows how he was approved by the other churches of Judea. Here he does three things: first he shows where he lived, namely in Cilicia. Hence he says, then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, i.e., his native land. (Here he was caught up into paradise). Because it is said in Acts (22:3): “Paul was born at Tarsus in Cilicia.” Secondly, how he was known by the others, namely, not by sight but by report and reputation. Hence he says, I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea, which were in Christ, i.e., in the faith of Christ: “As unknown and yet known (2 Cor 6:8). Hence it is evident that the churches of Judea did not teach me. But they had heard only, i.e., of me, from reports that he who persecuted us in times past, doth now preach the faith which once he impugned. Thirdly, how he was approved by them, because they glorified God in me, i.e., in my conversion they glorified Him Who converted me by His grace: “The beast of the field shall glorify me” (Is 43:20).

CHAPTER 2

Lecture 1

1 Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.

2 And I went up according to revelation and communicated to them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles; but apart to them who seemed to be something, lest perhaps I should run or had run in vain.

3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised,

4 But because of false brethren, unawares brought in, who came in privately to spy our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into servitude.

5 To whom we yielded not by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

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” (Dent. 19:15).

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 be 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 be 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).

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 teachmig;

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.

Then when hesays, 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.

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.

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.

CHAPTER 2

Lecture 2

6, But of them who seemed to be something, (what they were some time, it is nothing to me, God accepteth not the person of man); for to me they that seemed to be something added nothing.

7 But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision,

8 (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision wrought in me also among the Gentiles.)

9 And, when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right bands of fellowship; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision;

10 Only that we should be mindful of the poor; which same thing also I was careful to do.

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.

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.

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.

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 heused 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. 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.

CHAPTER 2

Lecture 3

11 But, when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For, before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but, when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.

13 And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented; so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation.

14 But, when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews do, bow dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

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.

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 hedoes 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 hedid 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.

What resulted from this dissimulation he mentions when hesays 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.”

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.

CHAPTER 2

Lecture 4

15 We by nature are Jews; and not of the Gentiles, sinners.

16 But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law; because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

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 bom 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 Laws’ 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.

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