Thomas Aquinas Commentary Galatians 2:11-14

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" — Galatians 2:11-14 (ASV)

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.