Thomas Aquinas Commentary Galatians 2

After commending the authority of the gospel in the previous chapter, the Apostle now commends it from the perspective of both the other apostles and himself. In this, he does two things:

1. He commends the authority of his teaching because of its approval by the other apostles.
2. He commends it from the example of both himself and the other apostles (see verse 15).

Concerning the first point, he does two things:

1. He shows that the other apostles approved of his teaching.
2. He shows that he fearlessly rebuked the other apostles in matters where they opposed his teaching (see verse 11).

Regarding the first of these, he does two things:

1. He discusses the meeting he had with the apostles.
2. He recounts the consequences of that discussion (see verse 3).

On the first point, he does two things:

1. He gives the circumstances of the meeting.
2. He explains what they discussed, noting that he "communicated to them the gospel" (see verse 2).

Regarding the circumstances, he addresses four things: the time, 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 held his see at Antioch for seven years, and then at Rome for twenty-five years. This would mean twenty-five years (eighteen plus seven) passed before he went to Rome, and he remained there for twenty-five more years. Hence, Peter would have lived for fifty years after the passion of Christ—which is false, for history records that Peter was martyred at Rome in the fortieth year after the passion of Christ, during the reign of Nero.

I answer that when he says, Then, after fourteen years, it should not be understood that another fourteen years passed after the initial three before he went to Jerusalem. Rather, 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 that period. Furthermore, since Antioch is near Jerusalem, Peter could have occasionally come to Jerusalem, and Paul found him there at that time.

Therefore, what is gathered from history is that after fourteen years, Peter went to Rome in the reign of Emperor Claudius and lived there for twenty-five years, making a total of thirty-nine years. He died in the fortieth year after the passion of our Lord. Paul intentionally said "fourteen" to show that he did not need instruction from the apostles, as he had gone for fourteen years without it.

He gives the place when he says, Jerusalem. He says, I went up, because the city is built on a height. He went up to Jerusalem to show that he was in accordance with the prophecy of Isaiah: For the law shall come forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:3).

He gives the witnesses when he says, with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. Now, Barnabas was a Jew, but Titus was a Gentile. He went up with them to have witnesses for his teaching and to show that he leaned neither to the side of the Jews nor the Gentiles, for In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand (Deuteronomy 19:15).

He gives his motive when he says it was according to a revelation from God—that is, because God revealed and commanded him to go up to Jerusalem. From this, it can be gathered that all the acts and movements of the apostles were according to the prompting 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. In this, he does three things:

1. He mentions the subject of their conversation.
2. He identifies the persons with whom he conferred.
3. He gives the reason why he conferred with them.

The subject was the gospel; hence he says, I communicated to them the Gospel. The persons were the senior and more prominent apostles; hence he says, but apart to them who seemed to be some thing. The reason, both useful and necessary, was lest I should run or had run in vain.

Regarding the first point, he says, "I went up to Jerusalem where I communicated to them, as friends and equals, the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles." He did this not to learn, because he had already been taught by Christ, nor to be reassured, because he was so certain that he would not believe even an angel who said the contrary, as is clear from Galatians 1:8. Rather, he conferred for two reasons: to show the unity of his teaching with that of the other apostles, so That you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you (1 Corinthians 1:10), and also to avoid false accusations. The Apostle had not lived with Christ or been taught by the apostles, but immediately after his conversion began to preach things offensive to the Jews, especially the calling of the Gentiles and that they should not observe the justifications of the Law. So, he conferred with them about the gospel.

He indicates the ones with whom he did this when he adds, but apart to them who seemed to be some thing. As if to say: "Not with everyone, but with those who had some authority and importance among them, namely, with Peter, James, and John, and the other great ones." As it is written, Treat with the wise and prudent . He met with them apart, not to discuss ignoble or false things, as heretics do, but because he was aware of the presence of Jews who brought false charges against him for his teachings about the Law. Therefore, so that the truth might prevail over false charges, he spoke apart with those who would not misrepresent him: Treat your cause with your friend, and do not discover the secret to a stranger (Proverbs 25:9); Before a stranger do no matter of counsel, for you know not what he will bring forth .

The reason for the meeting was lest perhaps I should run or had run in vain—that is, lest he be thought to have preached to no purpose. He calls his preaching a "running" because of the rapidity of his teaching, for in a short time he preached the gospel from Jerusalem to Illyricum and even as far as Spain. Hence the word of the Psalm can be said of him: His word runs swiftly (Psalms 147:15). He also wrote, Pray, brethren, that the word of God may run and may be glorified, even as among you (2 Thessalonians 3:1). But did he really wonder if he was running in vain? I answer that he did not wonder for himself, but for those to whom he had preached. 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 the apostles, so that when his hearers learned 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 uncertainly (1 Corinthians 9:26).

Then, when he says, But neither Titus who was with me, he shows what resulted from the discussion. He mentions three results:

1. He did not depart from his opinion.
2. Nothing was added to his teaching (see verse 6).
3. His teaching was approved (see verse 7).

Concerning the first result, he shows two things: first, that he did not depart from his teaching on one specific point, and second, that he did not depart from it on any other point (see verse 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." That is, 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 found in Acts 15:28.

Chrysostom explains why these rites were not to be observed after the passion of Christ in the following way: "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. Abraham underwent circumcision as a sign of the promise, as is said in Genesis 11:26. 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, his refusal to permit Titus to be circumcised makes it plain that he did not depart from his teaching.

Then, when he says, but because of false brethren, unawares brought in, he shows that he did not change on any other point. This passage is obscure and has variant readings. It should be read this way: You say that you did not permit Titus to be circumcised, but why, since in another case you permitted Timothy to be, 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, when it came to Titus, circumcision became a matter of utmost importance, and I said that it is not to be observed. Hence, if I had allowed him to be circumcised when I had already settled the question definitively myself, I would have been acting inconsistently. Furthermore, it was not lawful to raise this question again or to make difficulties about a matter now settled.

He says therefore: I did not permit him to be circumcised by them, to whom we yielded not by subjection, no, not for an hour—that is, we did not yield to the subjection of the Gentiles to the Law. This was because of false brethren, unawares brought in by the devil or by the Pharisees. They were false brethren because they pretended to be friends: In perils from false brethren (2 Corinthians 11:26). These false brethren were brought into the place where the apostles were gathered in order to spy on our liberty from sin and the Law, for Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17), and You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of the adoption of sons (Romans 8:15). This was that he might redeem them who were under the Law (Galatians 4:5). This is the liberty we have in Christ Jesus—that is, through faith in Christ, for You are not children of the bondwoman but of the free (Galatians 4:31). They were brought in for this purpose: that they might bring us into servitude to 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 Corinthians 3:11). We resisted so that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. As if to say: "We did not yield to them one bit, 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. According to the previous interpretation, the reason Paul did not yield was on account of those "brought in." From this, it would follow that if they had not been brought in, he would have yielded in the matter of observing legalism. Therefore, Ambrose argues, the reason was not them, but the truth itself. Ambrose says the text is flawed and the words "no, not even" are superfluous, arguing that those words should not be there. The sense would then be: "I did not permit Titus to be circumcised, but Timothy I did, because of false brethren, unawares brought in to the place where I was with Timothy and the others, who were brought in to spy on our liberty. But when they failed in this, they tried to incite the people against us. To whom—that is, 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." This refers to the gospel which teaches that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any value, but only faith.

But the special reason why Timothy was circumcised and Titus was not, was that Timothy was born of a Gentile father and a Jewish mother, whereas Titus's parents were both Gentiles. The Apostle's opinion 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.

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. Concerning this, he does two things:

1. He describes the status of the apostles who were unable to add anything.
2. He proves his proposition (Galatians 2:6): for to me, they that seemed to be something, added nothing.

He describes their status from three standpoints. First, from the authority they held in the Church, which was great. Regarding this, he says, But of those who seemed to be something. The text is incomplete and should be understood to mean, “But of them,” namely, Peter and John. As if to say: Although I would have yielded to them at the time, I still received no new power or teaching from them. And if I received nothing from them, how much less from others.

It should be noted, however, 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 in themselves, then it is false, because in that respect they were nothing. For if they seemed to be something in themselves, they would always have been great, because whatever belongs to a thing in itself is always present. Therefore, since they were not always great, it was not in themselves that they were seen to be something.

He describes their status from three standpoints:

1. He describes their status based on what they were before their conversion—that is, the status they had in the synagogue. This status, he hints gently, was humble and lowly. Thus he says, what they were at one time; for they had been unrefined, poor, ignorant, and uneducated: There are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble (1 Corinthians 1:26). But what they were makes no difference to me; that is, it is not my concern to mention it. 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. This is particularly so 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 his conversion, he had a rank equal to theirs. Thus, when matters concerning the synagogue were discussed, Paul’s opinion 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.
2. He describes their condition based on their election by God. Regarding this, he says, God does not accept the person of man. As if to say: They are great because God made them great, not by considering their merits or demerits, but by considering what He intended to accomplish. Thus he says, God does not accept the person of man; that is, He does not consider whether the person is great or small: For he made the little and the great, and he has equal care for all . 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 have passed away (2 Corinthians 5:17); Nor will I be mindful of their name (Psalms 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 to “accept persons” in any transaction is, properly speaking, to take some aspect of a person that has nothing to do with the matter as a deciding factor. For example, this occurs 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 receiving a benefice. But if some aspect of the person does relate to 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 “accepter 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 at hand.

Therefore, since God in His works and benefits regards nothing that pre-exists in the creature—for whatever pertains to the creature is an effect of His election—it is evident that He does not regard the person of man. Instead, He takes as His measure only what pleases His will, according to which He accomplishes all things, and not the condition of their person, as is said in Ephesians 1:11.

Then, having described their condition, he proves his proposition that they were unable to add anything to him. Thus 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 my power, because, as was said before, I neither received the Gospel from man nor was I taught it.

However, a certain gloss offers a different reading: 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—that is, what they were—because this also 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 is because the Lord does not regard the person of man.

Then, when he says, But on the contrary, when they saw..., he shows how his opinion was approved by the apostles. He does three things concerning this:

1. He gives the reason for this approval.
2. He mentions the approval (Galatians 2:9): James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.
3. He adds a condition that was placed on the approval (Galatians 2:10).

He cites two causes for the approval (which moved the apostles to approve Paul's opinion): namely, the office of teaching given to the Apostle by Christ, and the effect of this appointment (Galatians 2:9). Regarding the first cause, he does two things:

1. He mentions the office to which he was appointed, which moved them to approve him.
2. He mentions the manifestation of this office (Galatians 2:8).

He says, therefore: I say that those who seemed to be something added nothing. Rather, contrary to the opinion of the adversaries who came up to Jerusalem to oppose me, it was I whom the apostles approved. This happened when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me—that is, the office of preaching to the uncircumcised, namely, the Gentiles: For all the nations are uncircumcised in the flesh, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart (Jeremiah 9:26). Just as the authority to preach to the Jews alone was entrusted to Peter, so the authority to preach to the Gentiles was entrusted to Paul. Later, however, Peter also preached to the Gentiles, and Paul to the Jews.

But because someone might say, “What evidence do you have that the commission to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles was given to 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 worked through him, so it is evident that I received it because of the miracles Christ worked and continues to work in me. Therefore he says, He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship—that is, Christ, who made Peter an apostle in Judea—also made me an apostle among the Gentiles. This is the reason that moves them.

But because one’s appointment and authority to preach are not enough unless he carries it out with good understanding and prudent eloquence and commends it by a good life, he adds how he used his authority, or the effect of his office, saying, And when they had known the grace of God that was given to me, James and Cephas and John... gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. This connects to the previous thought; that is, when they saw that my preaching was received favorably and was fruitful, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars...

In this passage, the approval or fellowship entered into by them and Paul is mentioned. First, the persons are mentioned with whom the fellowship was formed: James, Cephas (that is, Peter), and John. James is mentioned first because he was the Bishop of Jerusalem, where these events took place. The John mentioned was John the Evangelist, who did not leave Judea until the time of Vespasian.

Who seemed to be pillars. This is a metaphor for “the support of the entire Church.” For just as a whole building is supported by its 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 its pillars, that is, the apostles of the Church. Also, His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon bases of gold (Song of Solomon 5:15). They, on the one side, gave the right hand of fellowship—that is, 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 as a sign of union and unity of opinion.

Second, the intent or condition of the fellowship is shown when it is said, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision—that is, 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 (that is, in the Church of Jewish believers), so all the Gentiles converted to Christ should obey Paul and Barnabas. But they added the condition that we should remember the poor of Christ—that is, those who had sold all their goods, laid the price at the apostles' feet, and become poor for the sake of Christ. This same thing I was also careful to do, being no less moved than those who commanded me, as is clear in Romans 15, 1 Corinthians 6, and 2 Corinthians 8 and 9.

Now, the reason the custom of selling their goods prevailed in the early Church among those of the circumcision, but not among those in the Church of the Gentiles, was that the believing Jews were gathered in Jerusalem and Judea, which were soon to be destroyed by the Romans, as later events proved. Thus, the Lord willed that no possessions were to be kept in a place not destined to last. The Church of the Gentiles, however, was destined to grow strong and increase, and therefore, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it came about that possessions within it were not to be sold.

The Apostle showed previously that he received nothing useful from the discussion held with the apostles; now he shows that he benefited them.

1. First, he shows how he helped Peter by correcting him.
2. Second, he tells what he said (Galatians 2:12 and following).

He says, therefore: Indeed, they gave me no advantage; rather, I contributed something to them, and especially to Peter. For when Cephas had come to Antioch, where there was a church of the Gentiles, I withstood him to his face—that is, openly. As it is written, Reverence not thy neighbor in his fall and refrain not to speak in the time of salvation . Or, "to his face" means not in secret, as if slandering 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 (Leviticus 19:17). He did this because Peter was to be blamed.

But it might be objected that this took place after the apostles received the grace of the Holy Spirit, and after receiving that grace, they did not sin in any way. I answer that after the grace of the Holy Spirit, the apostles did not sin mortally, a gift they had through the divine power that had strengthened them: I have established the pillars thereof (Psalms 74:4). Yet they did sin venially because of human frailty: If we say that we have no sin (that is, venial sin), we deceive ourselves (1 John 1:8).

Regarding what is said in a certain gloss—namely, that Paul withstood him as an adversary—the answer is that the Apostle opposed Peter in the exercise of his authority, not in his authority to rule. Therefore, from this we have an example: for prelates, an example of humility, that they should not disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; for subjects, an example of zeal and freedom, that they should not be afraid to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and endangers the community.

Then, when he says, For, before that some came from James, he explains what he has said:

1. First, that Peter was to be blamed.
2. Second, that he rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:14).

As to the first point, he does three things:

1. First, he shows what Peter’s opinion was.
2. Second, what he did (Galatians 2:11).
3. Third, what resulted from it (Galatians 2:13).

He says, therefore, as to the first point, that Peter felt that the legal ceremonies ought not to be observed. He showed this by the fact that before certain men came from James, the Bishop of the Church at Jerusalem—men who were zealous for the Law—Peter ate with the Gentiles. That is, he ate the food of Gentiles without scruple. 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 found in Acts 10:15. He himself also said this in the following chapter in answer to the Jews who rose up against him because he had eaten with the uncircumcised.

Now Paul shows what Peter did, saying that when the men from Judea had come, Peter withdrew from the company of the faithful who had been converted from the Gentiles and associated only with the Jews. Therefore he says, but when they were come, Peter withdrew from the converted Gentiles and separated himself from them.

He did this because he was fearing them who were of the circumcision—that is, the Jews. This was not 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.

He mentions what resulted from this dissimulation when he says that the rest of the Jews at Antioch consented to his (Peter’s) dissimulation, discriminating between foods and separating themselves from the Gentiles, although they would not have done this before his act. And not only did they consent, but such was the effect of that dissimulation on the hearts of the faithful that Barnabas also, who along with me was a teacher of the Gentiles and had taught the contrary, was led by them into that dissimulation and withdrew from the Gentiles. This happened 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. In this, he does three things:

1. First, he gives the reason for the rebuke.
2. Second, the manner of the rebuke.
3. Third, the words of the rebuke.

The occasion for the rebuke was not slight, but just and useful, namely, the danger to the teaching of the Gospel. Hence he says: Thus Peter was reprehensible, but I alone, when I saw that they... walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, acted. Its truth was being undone if the Gentiles were compelled to observe the legal requirements, as will be made clear below.

The reason they were not walking uprightly is that in cases where danger is imminent, the truth must be preached openly, and the opposite must never be condoned through fear of scandalizing others: That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light (Matthew 10:27); The way of the just is right: the path of the just is right to walk in (Isaiah 26:7).

The manner of the rebuke was fitting, that is, public and plain. Hence he says, I said to Cephas (that is, to Peter) before them all, because that dissimulation posed a danger to all. As the Apostle says, Them that sin, reprove before all (1 Timothy 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 Apostle adds the words he spoke to Peter when he rebuked him, saying, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews do—that is, 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... 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 dissimulating and acting to the contrary.

It should be noted that these words caused a significant controversy between Jerome and Augustine. As their writings clearly show, they disagreed on four points. The first concerns the era of the legal requirements, namely, when they should have been observed. Jerome distinguishes two periods: one before the passion of Christ and one after.

Jerome’s opinion is that the legal requirements were living before the passion of Christ—that is, they had validity, in that original sin was removed through circumcision, and God was pleased with sacrifices and offerings. But after the passion, they were, according to him, not only not living (that is, 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 time the legal requirements were living.

Another was the period immediately following the passion of Christ, before grace was proclaimed (as in the time of the early apostles). During this period, says Augustine, the legal requirements were dead but not yet deadly for converted Jews, as long as those observing them placed no hope in them. Hence, the Jews observed them during that period without sinning. But if they had placed their trust in them while observing them after their conversion, they would have sinned mortally, because if they trusted in them so as to believe they were necessary for salvation, they would have been, as far as they were concerned, nullifying the grace of Christ.

Finally, he proposes a third period, after the truth and grace of Christ had been proclaimed. It was during that period, he says, that the legal requirements 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 the legal observances, like idolatry, had never been good. Therefore, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the legal observances were permitted for a short time for the reason given: to show that they had been good in the past. Hence, says Augustine, the fact that the legal requirements 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 whoever did not observe them in that manner would not be honoring the mother, the synagogue, but disturbing her grave.

Secondly, Jerome and Augustine disagree on the apostles' observance of the legal requirements. Jerome says that the apostles never really observed them but only 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), when he circumcised Timothy , and when on advice from James he observed some of the requirements (as recorded in Acts 21:20-24). But in so doing, the apostles were not misleading the faithful, because they did not act with the intention of observing the requirements 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 that was legally unclean not for the sake of observing the legal requirements but for other reasons, such as an aversion to it or something of that nature.

Augustine, however, says that the apostles observed the legal requirements 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 fully 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. 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 worldly fear. Augustine, on the other hand, says that he did sin—venially, however—on account of his lack of discretion in adhering too much 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 cites in his own defense seven doctors, four of whom—Laodicenus, Alexander, Origen, and Didymus—Augustine rejects as known heretics. To the other three, he opposes three of his own who agreed with him and his opinion: 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 truer, because it is more in agreement with the words of the Apostle.

Fourthly, they disagree on Paul’s rebuke. Jerome says that Paul did not really rebuke Peter but pretended to do so, just as Peter pretended to observe the legal requirements. That is, just as Peter, in his unwillingness to scandalize the Jews, pretended to observe the requirements, 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 care for the believers under their authority.

Augustine, however, just as he says that Peter really did sin by observing the requirements, says that Paul truly rebuked him without pretense. Furthermore, Peter's 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.

Having demonstrated the truth of the apostolic doctrine he preached, based on the authority of the other apostles, he now shows the same thing from their way of life and example. In this regard, he does two things:

1. He proves his proposition from the apostles' way of life.
2. He addresses an objection raised by his adversaries (verse 17).

Regarding the first point, he does three things:

1. He presents the status of the apostles.
2. He describes their way of life (verse 16).
3. He states the intended conclusion (verse 16): because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

The status of the apostles, including Paul, is that by natural origin they were born Jews. This is why he says that they—he and the other apostles—are Jews by nature, that is, by birth, and not proselytes: They are Hebrews: so am I (2 Corinthians 11:22). This is a high compliment, because, as it is said, Salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22). He adds, and not of the Gentiles, sinners, meaning, "we are not sinners in the same way as the Gentiles, who are idolatrous and unclean."

However, one might object with the words of 1 John 1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. Therefore, the Jews were also sinners. I answer that it is one thing to sin and another to be a sinner. The first refers to an act, while the second refers to a disposition or habit of sinning. Thus, Scripture typically calls the wicked and those heavily burdened by sin, sinners.

The Jews, therefore, being proud because of the Law and, as it were, restrained from sin by it, called the Gentiles sinners, since they lived without the Law's restraint and were prone to sin: Be no more carried about with every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:14). Therefore, when the Apostle says, not of the Gentiles, sinners, he means that they are not part of that group of sinners found among the Gentiles.

Then, when he says, But knowing that man is not justified by the works..., he presents the apostles' way of life, which consists not in the works of the Law but in faith in Christ. Concerning this, he does two things:

1. He gives the reason for the apostles' way of life.
2. He describes their way of life (verse 16): we also believe in Christ Jesus.

The apostolic life, therefore, rested on faith in Christ and not on the works of the Law. The reason for this is that even though they were Jews by nature and raised in the works of the Law, they knew for certain that a person is not justified by the works of the Law but by faith in Jesus Christ. For that reason, they left the Law and are living according to the principles of the faith: For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law (Romans 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 person could be justified by the works of the Law. I answer that "to be justified" can be understood in two senses: first, as doing what is just, and second, as being made just. But no one is made just except by God through grace.

It should be known, therefore, that some works of the Law were moral and others were ceremonial. The moral works, although contained in the Law, could not, strictly speaking, be called "works of the Law," because a person is led to them by natural instinct and the natural law. The ceremonial works, however, are properly called the "works of the Law." Therefore, a person is justified by the moral laws to the extent that it concerns the execution of justice, and also by the ceremonial laws that pertain to the sacraments, insofar as their observance is an act of obedience. And this is how the Apostle's words in Romans 2:13 are to be understood.

But with respect to being made just by the works of the Law, a person is not justified by them, because the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace. How turn you again to the weak and needy elements?—that is, elements that neither confer grace nor contain it in themselves. The sacraments of the New Law, however, although they are material elements, are not "needy elements"; therefore, they can justify.

Furthermore, if any in the Old Law were just, they were not made just by the works of the Law but only by faith in Christ, Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith, as is said in Romans 3:25. Thus, the sacraments of the Old Law were declarations of faith in Christ, just as our sacraments are, but not in the same way. This is because those sacraments were oriented toward the grace of Christ as something yet to come, whereas our sacraments testify to a grace that is present and contained within them. Therefore, he says pointedly that it is not by the works of the Law that we are justified, but by faith in Christ, because although some who observed the works of the Law in the past were made just, this was accomplished only by faith in Jesus Christ.

From this knowledge that the apostles possessed—namely, that justification is not by the works of the Law but by faith in Christ—he draws a conclusion about their way of life, in which they chose faith in Christ and abandoned the works of the Law. Thus he adds, we also believe in Christ Jesus, because as is said in Acts 4:12, There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.

Therefore, he continued, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ. As it is written, Being justified, therefore, by faith, let us have peace with God (Romans 5:1). But so that no one might suppose that the works of the Law justify alongside faith in Christ, he adds, and not by the works of the law, for, we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law (Romans 3:28).

From this, he derives his main proposition. He argues that if the apostles, who are Jews by nature, do not seek to be justified by the works of the Law but by faith, then it follows that by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified—that is, no person whatsoever can be justified by the works of the Law. Here, "flesh" is used to mean "person"—a part representing the whole—just as in the verse, All flesh shall see the salvation of the Lord (Isaiah 40:5).

Then, by saying, because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, he concludes, as it were, with an a fortiori argument. For it would seem more reasonable for the Jews, more than anyone else, to be justified by the works of the Law rather than by faith. But since this is not the case, therefore...

After proving from the apostles’ manner of life that the works of the Law should not be observed, the Apostle raises a question to the contrary. In this regard, he does three things:

1. He raises the question.
2. He solves it, saying, God forbid (Galatians 2:17).
3. He explains his solution (Galatians 2:19).

The first point can be developed in two ways, according to a gloss. First, someone could argue that the apostles sinned by abandoning the Law and turning to the faith of Christ. But the Apostle shows that this would lead to the unwelcome conclusion that Christ is the author of sin for calling people to His faith. This is what he means when he says: If we apostles, while we seek to be justified in Him (that is, through Christ), are found to be sinners for leaving the Law, is Christ then the minister of sin? In other words, is He inducing us to sin, the one who called us from the slavery of the Law to His faith? He was made under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law (Galatians 4:4), namely, from the burden of the Law.

The Apostle answers, God forbid, because Christ is instead the minister of justice: By the obedience of one, many shall be made just (Romans 5:19); Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth (1 Peter 2:22). That Christ is not the minister of sin in leading someone from the Old Law is plain. For if I, by wanting to glory once more in the Law, build up again the things I have destroyed—namely, my prideful glorying in the Law—I make myself a transgressor by taking up what I destroyed. This is like the saying, The dog is returned to his vomit (2 Peter 2:22), or the curse, Cursed be the man that shall raise up and build the city of Jericho (Joshua 6:26).

When he says, which I have destroyed, he does not mean the Law itself, as the Manicheans would claim, because the Law is holy (Romans 7:12). Instead, he means pride in the Law, about which it is said in Romans: For they, seeking to establish their own justice have not submitted themselves to the justice of God (Romans 10:3).

Now, if someone were to object that since Paul formerly destroyed the faith of Christ, he makes himself a transgressor by now trying to build it up, the answer is clear. He did indeed try to destroy the faith of Christ, yet because of the truth, he did not persist, as the Lord said to him: Why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad (Acts 9:4). But pride in the Law was futile, and this pride could be destroyed, never to be re-established.

A second way to understand this is to relate the statement, we ourselves are found sinners, not to abandoning the Law (as in the first explanation), but to observing the Law. For it is plain that anyone who seeks to be made just does not profess to be just, but a sinner. The meaning, therefore, is this: If we, in seeking to be justified in Christ, are by that very act found to be sinners because we observed the Law, is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin? In other words, is He commanding people to observe the works of the Law after His passion—something that cannot be done without sin? Note that this explanation aligns with Jerome’s opinion, which held that the legal observances became deadly immediately after the passion of Christ.

A third way to explain we ourselves are found to be sinners is to see it as referring to the state in which the Law was observed. This is not because they sinned by observing the Law, but because the Law is deficient and cannot remove sin. Hence, the meaning is this: If, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we are found to be sinners (that is, still in our sins) because the Law does not remove sin—as stated in Romans, For we have charged both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin (Romans 3:9)—is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin, bringing us back to observe a Law under which we remain in sin? This explanation agrees with Augustine’s interpretation.

And Paul answers both explanations with, God forbid, because he destroyed the Law as it was understood carnally by judging and teaching it spiritually. Therefore, if I were to re-establish the observances of the carnal law, I would be a transgressor of the spiritual law.

Furthermore, it can be explained in a fourth way. I have said that a person is not justified by the works of the Law. But someone might say, “Nor by the faith of Christ either,” because many people sin after embracing the faith of Christ. And this is what he means: If we, who seek to be justified in Christ and have become believers, are ourselves found to be sinners by living in sin, is Jesus Christ then a minister of sin and damnation, just as the minister of the Old Law was a minister of sin and damnation?

This is not because the Law led one into sin, but because it was the occasion for sin, for it forbade sin but conferred no grace to help one resist it. Hence it is said, But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence (Romans 7:8). But Christ gives helping grace: Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17). Therefore, in no way is He the minister of sin, either directly or as its occasion.