Commentary on Galatians 2

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

and I went up by revelation.'

Of the first going up he says the cause was Peter, and to become acquainted with that man;

but of the second, it was the revelation of the Spirit.

'And I laid before them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those of repute, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.'

What are you saying, O Paul? You who at the beginning would not confer even after three years, now after fourteen years have passed do you confer, lest by any means you should be running in vain? And how much better would it have been to have done this immediately at the outset, than after so many years? And why were you running at all, unless you were persuaded that you were not running in vain? Who is so senseless as to preach for so many years without knowing whether he preaches rightly? And what is far more perplexing than this again, that he says he went up by revelation.

For this, as I said before, is more perplexing than the former; yet it is sufficient to furnish us the solution of that former one as well.

For if he had gone up of his own accord, this above all would not even stand to reason;

for it was not in that blessed soul to fall into such great folly;

for he himself is the one who says, 'So I run, as not uncertainly; so I fight, as not beating the air.'

If then not uncertainly, how do you say, 'Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain'? Whence it is plain that even if he had gone up without a revelation, he would have suffered the fate of the foolish;

but nevertheless what was done was not equally absurd;

for when the grace of the Spirit also draws him, who will dare to suspect anything of the sort

any longer? For on this account he too added the words 'by revelation,' so that not even before the resolving of the question should you condemn him of any ignorance, knowing that what happened was not a human thing, but a certain divine dispensation foreseeing many things both of the present and of the future.

What then is the cause of this journey? Just as when he formerly went up from Antioch to Jerusalem, he did not go up for his own sake;

for he himself knew clearly that one ought to follow purely the teachings of Christ;

but because he wished to bring together those who were at variance;

so also now it was not he himself that needed to learn that he was not running in vain, but that those who were accusing him might be fully assured.

Since they held a greater opinion concerning Peter and John, and supposed that these were at variance, because he preached without circumcision, while they conceded it, and they supposed that he was acting unlawfully and running in vain;

'I went up,' he says, 'and communicated to them the Gospel'—not that I myself might learn anything, which he also says more plainly as he goes on, but that I might teach those who suspected these things, that I do not run in vain.

For the Spirit, foreseeing such a contention, prepared him to go up and to communicate it.

For this reason he says, 'I went up by revelation,' and he took Barnabas and Titus to be witnesses of the preaching.

'And I laid before them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles'—that is, the one without circumcision;

'but privately to those of repute.'

What does 'privately' intend? And yet one who is eager to correct doctrines held in common sets them forth not privately, but in common.

For he did not wish to learn anything or to make a correction, but to take away the pretext of those who wished to deceive.

But since in Jerusalem all were being scandalized if anyone should transgress the law, if anyone should hinder the use of circumcision;

wherefore he also said, 'You see, brother, how many myriads there are of those who have believed; and all these are instructed concerning you, that you teach apostasy from the law.'

Since then they were being scandalized, he could not bear to come forward openly and reveal his own preaching;

but privately he laid it before those of repute in the presence of Barnabas and Titus, so that these might become trustworthy witnesses to those who accused him, that it did not seem contrary even to the apostles, but that they confirm such preaching.

But when he says 'to those of repute,' he does not say this to deny that they were great;

since also concerning himself he says, 'And I too think that I have the Spirit of God';

which is the language of one speaking modestly, not of one denying that he has it.

'To those of repute,' he says, together with his own vote also expressing the common vote of all.

'But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.'

What does it mean, 'being a Greek'? He was of the Greeks, he says, and uncircumcised.

For not only did I preach thus, but Titus also acted thus, and though he was uncircumcised the apostles did not compel him to be circumcised.

Which was the greatest proof of their not condemning the things said or done by Paul.

And what is far greater than this, that even though the opponents were pressing hard, and that too knowing these things, the apostles were not compelled to command this;

which very thing he made plain when he said, 'But because of the false brethren secretly brought in.'

Who are these false brethren? For here too there is no small question.

For if the apostles here conceded circumcision, why do you now call false brethren those who, in accordance with the apostles' opinion, also urged that this be done? Because, first of all, it is not the same thing to command a thing to be done and to concede it when done.

For he who commands does so with earnestness, as of something necessary and of first importance;

but he who himself does not command, yet does not hinder the one who wills, concedes not as though it ought to be done, but is fulfilling a certain dispensation.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians, and again enjoined women and men to come together to the same place.

Then, lest you should think that he said this as laying down a law for them, he added:

But this I say by way of concession, not by way of command.

For it was not a judgment issuing from authority that took the lead here, but a concession made to their want of self-control.

For if you would learn Paul's mind, listen to what he says:

I would that all men were even as I myself, in continence.

So also here, the apostles did not yield as though vindicating the Law, but as condescending to the weakness of the Jews.

For had they been vindicating the Law, they would not have preached in one way to the Jews and in another to the Gentiles.

For even if this practice had to be observed among the unbelievers, it is likewise plain that it need not be observed among all the believers.

But since they enjoined upon the Gentiles not to be troubled on this account, they showed that in permitting it among the Jews they were merely condescending to them.

The false brethren, however, acted not so, but rather sought to cast them out of grace and to lead them back again under the yoke of bondage.

This, then, is the first distinction, and it involves a wide difference.

The second is this: the apostles did this in Judea, where the Law also held sway, but the false brethren did it everywhere;

for indeed they laid hold of all the Galatians.

Whence it is plain that the thing was done not for the sake of edification, but for utter overthrow.

And in one way was it conceded by the apostles, in quite another way was it zealously pressed by the false brethren.

Who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus.

Do you see how, even by the appellation of spies, he has disclosed their warfare? For spies enter for no other purpose than that, having learned the affairs of their adversaries, they may prepare for themselves great facility for plundering and overthrowing;

just as these men also did at that time, wishing to lead them back into their old bondage.

So that hence too it is plain that the purpose of the apostles and of these men was not the same, but rather utterly contrary.

For those men made concession in order that little by little they might lead them out of bondage;

but these were contriving that they might all the more thrust them into bondage.

Therefore they kept close watch, scrutinizing accurately and busily prying to see who were uncircumcised;

even as Paul, making this plain, said: They came in privily to spy out our liberty;

indicating their plot not only by the name of spies, but also by the manner of their stealthy entrance and secret creeping in.

To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour.

Mark the nobility and emphasis of the expression.

For he did not say, By word, but, By subjection.

For it was not to teach anything useful that they did these things, but that they might subject and enslave.

For this reason to the apostles we yielded, but to these no longer.

That the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.

That what we had already said, he means, we might confirm by our deeds—namely, that The old things have passed away, and all things have become new, and that, If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature, and that Christ will profit nothing those who are circumcised.

In confirming this truth, we did not yield even for an hour.

Then, since what had come from the apostles at once seemed to run counter to him, and it was likely that some would say:

How then do those men enjoin these things? See how wisely he resolves the objection.

For he does not state the real cause—namely, that the apostles did this for the sake of condescension and dispensation;

for otherwise the hearers would have been harmed.

For those who are to reap some benefit from a dispensation must be ignorant of its cause;

for if the pretext of what is being done should come to light, the whole thing is undone.

For this reason he who works the dispensation must know the cause of what is being done;

but those who are to gain some benefit from it must be ignorant of it.

And that I may make what I say clearer, I will employ an illustration drawn from this very case.

This same blessed Paul, who abolishes circumcision, when he was once about to send Timothy

as a teacher to the Jews, first circumcised him and so sent him.

And he did this that he might be well received by the hearers, and he entered with circumcision that he might abolish circumcision.

But the cause he himself knew, and Timothy, though to the disciples he did not tell it.

For had they known that he circumcised him for this purpose—that he might abolish circumcision—they would not so much as have listened to him at the outset when he preached, and the whole gain would have run to waste;

but as it was, their ignorance profited them in the greatest degree.

For thinking that he did this as a guardian of the Law, they received both him and his teaching kindly and gently.

And having received it, and being little by little instructed, they departed from the old things;

which would not have come to pass, had they known the cause from the beginning.

For had they learned it, they would have turned away from him; and turning away, they would not have listened; and not listening, they would have remained in their former error;

and that this might not happen, he did not disclose the cause.

For this reason here too he does not state the ground of the dispensation, but in another way he manages the argument, saying thus:

But from those who were reputed to be somewhat—

whatsoever they once were, it makes no difference to me;

God accepts no man's person.

Here he not only makes no defense on behalf of the apostles, but even bears very heavily upon the saints, that he may benefit the weak.

And what he says is of this sort:

Even if those men permit circumcision, they themselves shall give account to God for it.

For not because they are great and chiefs will God accept their person.

Yet thus plainly he did not say it, but sparingly;

for he did not say, But if those men muddy the preaching and proclaim contrary to the things enjoined, they shall pay the uttermost penalty and shall undergo punishment;

of these things he said none, but he seems to touch upon them more reverently, saying thus:

But from those who were reputed to be somewhat—whatsoever they once were.

And he did not say, Whatsoever they now are, but, They were, showing that they too had by now ceased from preaching thus, since the preaching had shone forth everywhere.

As for the phrase, Whatsoever they once were: If, he means, they themselves preached thus, they shall give account.

For it is not to men, but to God, that they are to render their defense.

And he said these things not as doubting, nor as ignorant of their affairs, but, as I said before, because he judged it thus expedient to manage the argument.

Then, that he might not seem to be accusing them from a position of opposition, and thereby give rise to a suspicion of strife, he immediately added the correction, saying, that To me those who were reputed added nothing.

And what is this? Whatever things you say, he means, I know not;

this, however, I know clearly, that they did not oppose me, but rather breathed in accord with me and agreed with me;

For the phrase, 'They gave the right hands,' is a way of making this clear.

But for the present he does not say this; rather, that they taught him nothing, corrected nothing, added nothing further to what I already knew.

For 'those who seemed to be somewhat,' he says, 'imparted nothing to me.'

Having learned what was mine, they added nothing, corrected nothing—and this though they knew that it was for this very purpose I had come, namely, to share it with them.

And I came up by revelation of the Spirit, that I might communicate it to them; and I had Titus with me uncircumcised; yet neither did they tell me anything beyond what I already knew, nor did they circumcise him.

What does 'On the contrary' mean? Some say that he means this: that not only did they not teach him, but they were themselves taught by him.

But I would not say this.

For what more was he going to learn from him? Indeed, each of them was already complete.

So then, in saying 'On the contrary,' he does not mean to say this, but that not only did they not rebuke him, but they were so far from finding fault that they even praised him.

For the opposite of finding fault is to praise.

Then, since it was likely that some would object: If they praised him, how is it that they did not abolish circumcision? For if they praised him, they ought to have abolished it—

to say that they abolished it he thought would be exceedingly shameless, and would introduce a manifest conflict with what had been agreed upon;

yet again, to acknowledge the concession of circumcision, he saw, would of necessity fall into another objection.

For if they praised your preaching, he says, and yet themselves again permitted circumcision, they would be at war with themselves.

What then is the solution of this? He might have said that they did these things for the sake of condescension to the Jews;

but by saying this he would have shaken the whole foundation of the divine economy.

For this reason he does not say it, but leaves the matter in perplexity and suspended, saying:

'But from those who seemed to be somewhat, it makes no difference to me'—

as though he were saying: I do not accuse, nor do I disparage those holy men;

they themselves know what they were doing;

for they too shall render an account to God;

but what I am earnest to show is that they did not overthrow what was mine, nor correct it, nor add to it as though it were deficient, but they even praised and consented to it;

and of these things I have as witnesses both Titus and Barnabas.

'Seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with that of the circumcision'—

by 'circumcision' and 'uncircumcision' meaning not the things themselves, but the nations known by these terms.

For He who wrought in Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought also in me toward the Gentiles.

As therefore he calls the Gentiles 'the uncircumcision,' so also he calls the Jews 'the circumcision.'

And he shows himself to be henceforth of equal honor with them, comparing himself not with the others but with the chief, showing that each enjoyed the same dignity.

For since he had constructed his demonstration of their concord, henceforth he discourses boldly and with freedom of speech, and no longer stops merely at the apostles, but carries the argument up to Christ and the grace given him by Him;

and he calls the apostles as witnesses of these things, and says:

that, having perceived the grace of the Lord given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.

And he did not say 'having heard,' but 'having perceived,' that is, having learned thoroughly through the deeds themselves, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.

You see how little by little he showed this to be the resolve both of Christ and of the apostles? For neither would the grace have been given nor would it have wrought effectually, unless such preaching had been according to His will.

And where he needed to compare himself, he mentions Peter alone;

but where he needed to summon a testimony, he mentions the three together, and with commendation, saying: Cephas and James and John, who seemed to be pillars.

And again, not denying that they were such, he says 'those who seemed to be,' but also taking up the opinion of others, and saying: The great and eminent ones, whom all everywhere carry on their lips—these are witnesses of what is said, that these things seem good also to Christ; and through the deeds they learned these things, and by experience itself they were assured.

Wherefore also they gave the right hands to me—and not to me only, but also to Barnabas—that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision.

O the surpassing prudence, and the incontrovertible demonstration of harmony!

For he shows both that their things are his, and that his are theirs.

For these things seemed good to both parties—both that they should preach thus to the Jews, and that he should preach to the Gentiles;

wherefore also he added: That we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision.

Do you see how here he calls not the thing itself 'circumcision,' but the Jews? For whenever he speaks of the thing itself and sets it in contrast, he sets over against it uncircumcision itself—as when he says: Circumcision indeed profits, if you keep the law;

but if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision;

and again: Neither does circumcision avail anything, nor uncircumcision.

But whenever he thus calls the Jews, and wishes to signify not the thing but the people, he sets over against it not uncircumcision, but the Gentiles.

For Jews are set in contrast to Gentiles, and uncircumcision to circumcision;

as when he says above also: For He who wrought in Peter

unto the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought also in me toward the Gentiles;

and here again, that We to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision, he does not mean the thing itself, but so calls the people of the Jews, setting them in contrast to the Gentiles.

Only that we should remember the poor, which very thing I also was eager to do.

What then is this which he says? In the preaching, he says, we divided the whole world, and I received those from the Gentiles, while they received the Jews, according to what seemed good to God;

but as for the care of the poor among the Jews, I contributed to them from my own resources.

But if there had been war and strife, they would not have accepted this.

But who are these poor? Many of the Jews who had believed in Palestine were stripped of all their possessions and were driven out from every quarter.

And this he makes clear in the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying:

For you also accepted with joy the plundering of your possessions;

and he makes it clear when writing to the Thessalonians, and proclaiming their courage:

For you, he says, became imitators of the Churches of God which are in Judaea, in that you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews.

And through all this he shows that those who had believed from among the Greeks were not so warred against by the Greeks who remained such, as those who had believed from among the Jews were driven out by their own kinsmen;

for this nation was harsher than all.

For these reasons they make much diligence that they should enjoy all care, both in writing to the Romans and to the Corinthians.

And not only does he gather money, but he himself also conveys it, and says:

But now I go to Jerusalem, ministering to the saints.

For indeed they lacked necessary food.

This then he here also declares, saying: In this it seemed good to me to help them, and I gladly undertook it, and did not fail.

And having through these things shown his concord and harmony with them, he is henceforth compelled also to make mention of the discussion which took place between him and Peter at Antioch, and he says:

But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was condemned.

For before certain came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles;

but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision.

Many of those who read this passage of the Epistle simply suppose that Paul is accusing Peter of hypocrisy;

But these things are not so, they are not so—away with the thought!

For here we shall find much wisdom, both of Peter and of Paul, hidden away for the profit of those who hear.

But first it is necessary to speak concerning Peter's boldness, and how he was always the one who leaped forth before all the disciples.

For it was from this very thing that he received his name, on account of the unbending and unshakable character of his faith.

And when all together were being questioned, springing forward before the rest, he says:

Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

at which time also the keys of the heavens were entrusted to him.

And upon the mountain he alone appears speaking; and when the Lord was discoursing about the cross, while the others kept silence, he it is who says, Be it far from thee.

And though these words were not of a well-considered judgment, yet they were of a fervent love.

And everywhere we see him more ardent than the rest, and leaping forward amid dangers.

And when the Lord was seen upon the shore, while the others were dragging the boat, he could not bear to come by the boat.

And after the resurrection too, when the Jews were murderous and raging, and seeking to tear them in pieces, he it was who first came forward and dared to raise his voice and say that the Crucified had been taken up and is in the heavens.

But it is not the same thing to open a closed door and to give a beginning to a matter, and after this to speak with boldness.

He who had given up his own soul to so great a mob—how could he ever have played the hypocrite? He who was scourged and bound, and yet chose to relinquish nothing of his boldness, and that at the very beginning of the preaching, in the midst of the mother-city, where there was so great a danger—how, after so long a time, in Antioch, where there was no danger and where he himself had become far more illustrious, holding the testimony that came from his very deeds, could he have feared those who had believed from among the Jews? For he who feared not the very Jews even at the beginning and in the mother-city, how, after so long a time, being in a foreign land, could he have feared those who had come over from among them? Not, then, against Peter does Paul say these things, but from the design which he had spoken of when he said, But from those who seemed to be somewhat—

whatever they once were, it makes no difference to me—it is from the same purpose that he utters these things also.

But that we may not be perplexed at greater length over these matters, it is necessary to unfold the reason for what is said.

For the apostles, as I said before, at Jerusalem permitted circumcision;

for it was not possible to tear them away from the law all at once;

but when they came to Antioch, they no longer observed any such thing, but lived indifferently together with those who believed from among the Gentiles—which indeed Peter also was doing at that time.

But when there came from Jerusalem those who had seen him preaching there in that manner, he no longer did this, fearing to offend them, but changed his conduct, managing two things thereby: both not to cause the Jewish believers to stumble, and to furnish Paul with a reasonable occasion for the rebuke.

For if he himself, who had preached with circumcision at Jerusalem, had changed his conduct in Antioch, it would have seemed to the Jewish believers that he was doing this through fear of Paul, and the disciples would have condemned him for great fickleness;

and this was destined to become no small stumbling-block.

But by changing his conduct in the presence of Paul, who knew all things clearly, he would not have furnished any such suspicion;

for Paul knew the purpose with which these things were being done.

Wherefore Paul rebukes, and Peter bears it, so that, the teacher being accused and keeping silence, the disciples might more easily be brought over.

For if, no such thing having happened, Paul had merely exhorted them, he would have accomplished nothing great;

but as it is, having taken occasion for a more vehement rebuke, he instilled greater fear into the disciples of Peter.

For indeed, if Peter, on hearing these things, had contradicted them, one might well have found fault, as though the dispensation were being overturned;

but as it is, with the one rebuking and the other keeping silence, great was the fear that came upon those from among the Jews;

wherefore he also deals vehemently with Peter.

And observe with how great exactness he uses his language, giving those who are discerning to see that the words were not of contention but of dispensation.

For, But when Peter came to Antioch, he says, I withstood him to his face, because he stood condemned.

He did not say, by me, but, by the others.

But if he himself had been condemning him, he would not have declined to say this too.

And the phrase, But I withstood him to his face, was a mere outward show.

For if they had really been contending, they would not have rebuked one another in the presence of the disciples;

for they would greatly have offended them;

but as it is, the contention that was in the open was profitable.

And just as Paul yielded to them at Jerusalem, so also they themselves yielded at Antioch.

What, then, is the condemnation? For before certain came from James (for he was the teacher at Jerusalem), he used to eat together with the Gentiles;

but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision;

not fearing this, that he himself might be in danger;

for he who feared not at the beginning, much more feared not then;

since he himself also says to the Galatians, I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have labored in vain;

and again, I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve, so your minds should be corrupted.

For the fear of death was nothing to them, but the fear of the destruction of the disciples greatly shook their soul.

So that even Barnabas was carried away with them by their hypocrisy.

Marvel not if he calls the matter hypocrisy;

he wishes, as I said before, to uncover their purpose, that those men might be set right.

For since they clung vehemently to the law, on this account he calls what was done hypocrisy, and rebukes vehemently, so as to root out their prejudice from the very ground.

And Peter, on hearing these things, joins in the pretense as though he had sinned, so that through the rebuke directed at him they might be set right.

For if Paul had rebuked the Jewish believers, they would have been indignant and would have spurned it;

for they had no great opinion of him;

but as it is, seeing their teacher rebuked and keeping silence, they were able neither to despise nor to gainsay what was said.

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel—

Neither let this expression trouble you;

for it is not in condemnation of Peter that he says these things, but he thus characterizes the expression as it was expedient for those to hear who were, through the rebuke of Peter, about to become better.

I said to Peter before them all—

Do you see how he sets the others right? For it is on this account that he says, Before them all, that hearing it they too might be afraid.

If you, being a Jew, live after the manner of Gentiles and not after the manner of the Jews, why do you compel the Gentiles to Judaize? And yet it was not the Gentiles who were carried away with him, but the Jews;

why, then, does he bring a charge concerning what did not happen? And why does he not turn his discourse upon those from among the Jews who were dissembling, but upon the Gentiles? And why, moreover, does he charge Peter alone, if the rest also dissembled together with him? But let us see also what it is that he charges.

If you, being a Jew, live after the manner of Gentiles and not after the manner of the Jews, why do you compel the Gentiles to Judaize? And yet he alone was withdrawing himself;

what, then, is it that he wishes to establish? To make the rebuke free from suspicion.

For if he had said, You do ill in keeping the law, the Jewish believers would have rebuked him, as one presuming against their teacher;

but as it is, by bringing the charge against him on behalf of his own disciples, those from among the Gentiles I mean, he thereby makes the discourse well acceptable;

and not by this only, but also by removing the rebuke from all and setting the whole of it about the apostle.

For if you, he says, being a Jew, live after the manner of Gentiles and not after the manner of the Jews—

all but expressly saying, Imitate your teacher, since he too, though being a Jew, lives after the manner of Gentiles.

for they would not have accepted the exhortation;

but under the guise of a rebuke on behalf of the Gentiles he uncovers the purpose of Peter.

Again, had he said, 'Why do you compel those of Jewish birth to Judaize?' the reproach would have been the more severe;

but as it is, he corrects them not as though defending the disciples from among the Jews, but rather those from among the Gentiles.

For rebukes, whenever they are not exceedingly burdensome, are then most of all able to be readily received.

For no one of those from among the Gentiles could have brought a charge against Paul when he was making his argument on behalf of the Jews.

All this Peter accomplished by keeping silence and accepting the reputation of dissembling, that he might free the Jews from a dissembling that was real.

At first, then, he directed the argument to the person of Peter, saying, 'If you, being a Jew...';

but as he goes on he makes what is said common to all, taking himself in also, and speaking thus:

'We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles.'

And what was said was indeed exhortation, yet a form of rebuke is thrown around it for the sake of those from among the Jews.

He does this also elsewhere;

for while seeming to say one thing, he is establishing another;

as when writing to the Romans he says:

'But now I am going to Jerusalem, ministering to the saints.'

For he did not wish to say this and simply to teach them for what reason he was going to Jerusalem, but rather to lead them to a zeal for almsgiving.

For had he wished to state the reason, it would have sufficed to say only this: 'I am going, ministering to the saints';

but now see how many things he joins together.

'For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a certain contribution

for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem.'

'For they have been pleased, and they are their debtors.'

And again: 'For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they ought also to minister to them in carnal things.'

Observe therefore here also how he restrains the presumptions of the Jews, establishing one thing by means of another.

And with authority he employs the word, saying, 'We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles.'

But what does 'Jews by nature' mean? Not proselytes, but nurtured in the Law from earliest age; and yet, forsaking the manner of life in which we were reared, we fled for refuge to the faith which is in Christ.

'Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, except through faith in Jesus Christ, we too have believed in Christ.'

Observe here also how with all security he utters everything.

For he says, we let it go not as being wicked, but as being weak.

If then the Law does not furnish righteousness, the matter of circumcision is superfluous.

And as he goes on he shows that it is not only superfluous but also perilous;

which is above all to be noted—how at the outset he says, 'A man is not justified by the works of the Law,' but as he advances he utters something even more weighty.

'But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, then is Christ a minister of sin?'

For if, he says, faith in Him has not the power to justify, but it is necessary to hold to the Law again, then, having forsaken the Law for Christ's sake, and being not justified by that release but rather condemned, we shall find that He has become the cause of the condemnation—He on whose account we forsook the Law and deserted to Him.

Do you see into how great an absurdity he has forced the argument, and how mightily he has contended? For if one must not forsake the Law, he says, yet we forsook it for Christ's sake;

how are we to be judged? Why then do you say and enjoin these things to Peter, who knew them more accurately than all men? Did not God show him that one ought not to judge an uncircumcised man in the matter of circumcision? Did he not, when disputing with the Jews about these matters, nobly stand against this very view? Did he not again send forth from Jerusalem clear decrees concerning these things? It is not, then, to correct Peter that he says these things;

but the argument had indeed to be aimed at that man, while he was reproving the disciples.

And these things were not directed against the Galatians only, but also against those who were suffering from the same malady as they.

For even if many are not now circumcised, yet they fast, and keep the Sabbath along with them, and do the same things, thrusting themselves out of grace.

For if Christ profits nothing those who make use of circumcision only;

when both fasting and Sabbath-keeping are added, and instead of one, two commandments are observed, mark how the danger becomes even more grievous by reason of the time.

For those men did these things in the beginning, while the city still stood, and the temple, and all the rest;

but these, though beholding the punishment which the Jews have paid, and the destruction of the city, and observing yet more, what defence could they have—keeping the Law at a time when the Jews themselves, though they be Jews and greatly desire it, are unable to observe these things? You have put on Christ, and become a member of the Master, and have been enrolled in the city above—and do you still creep about the Law? And how is it possible for you to attain the kingdom? Hear Paul saying that the Gospel is overthrown by observance of the Law.

And, if you will, learn also the manner, and shudder, and flee the pit.

For why do you keep the Sabbath and fast with them? Clearly because you fear the Law and to let go of those written ordinances;

but you would not have feared to let go of the Law, had you not condemned the faith as weak and not strong enough of itself to save.

For if you fear not to keep the Sabbath, it is plain that you dread the Law as still being lord.

But if there is again need of the Law—not of a part, nor of one commandment, but of the whole—it is clear that there is need of the Law entirely;

and, the whole being needed, little by little the righteousness that is through faith has been cast out.

For if you keep the Sabbaths, why not also be circumcised? And if you are circumcised, why not also sacrifice? For if it is right to keep it, one must keep the whole Law;

but if the whole ought not to be kept, neither ought a part.

And if you shudder over the part, lest you be judged for transgression, then for the whole also there is of necessity cause to fear;

but if the whole, when transgressed, brings no punishment, it is plain that neither does a part;

and if a part, much more the whole;

and if it is necessary to keep the whole, it is necessary either to disobey Christ, or, in hearkening to Christ, to become transgressors of the Law.

For if it is right to keep it, those who keep it not are transgressors, and of this transgression Christ will be found to be the cause to us;

for He Himself dissolved the Law concerning these things, and commanded that it be dissolved.

Do you see what those who Judaize establish? Christ, who is to us the cause of righteousness, they declare to be also the cause of sin, even as Paul also says:

'Is then Christ a minister of sin?' Then, having led the argument into an absurdity, he needed thereafter no further demonstration for its refutation, but was content with denial alone, saying only, 'God forbid.'

For against things exceedingly shameless and impudent there is no need even of demonstrative words, but it suffices merely to deny.

'For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor.'

Behold the sagacity of Paul.

Those men wished to show that he who keeps not the Law is a transgressor;

but he turned the argument to the contrary, showing that he who keeps the Law is a transgressor—not of the faith, but of the Law itself.

'For the things which I destroyed, these I build up again'—he means the Law.

And what he says is of this sort:

the Law has ceased, and this we confessed by the very fact that, forsaking it, we fled for refuge to the salvation which is of faith.

If then we contend to set it up again, by this very act we become transgressors, contending to keep the things which have been dissolved by God.

Then he shows also how it was dissolved.

'For I through the Law died to the Law.'

This admits of a twofold contemplation;

for either he speaks of the law of grace;

for he is wont to call this too a law, as when he says:

But the law of the Spirit of life set me free.

Or else he here means the old law, showing that it was through the law itself that he died to the law.

It was the law itself that led me no longer to give heed to it.

If therefore I should continue to give heed to it, I even transgress it.

How, and in what manner? Moses says: 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet from among your brethren, like me.'

So that those who do not obey Him transgress the law.

But this saying, 'Through the law I died to the law,' is also to be understood by us in yet another way.

For the law commands the doing of all that is written therein, and punishes him who does not perform it.

We have all therefore died to it, for no one has fulfilled it.

for no one has fulfilled it.

And observe how here too he wages his contest against it with measure.

For he did not say, 'The law died to me,' but, 'I died to the law.'

Just as it is impossible for the dead and departed to obey the commandments of the law, so neither can I, who have died through its curse.

for by its own word I died.

Let it not therefore lay commands upon the dead, whom it itself has slain—and that with a death not only of the body, but also of the soul, through which it also brought on the death of the body.

For that this is what he means, he made plain by what follows.

For, 'that I might live to God,' he says, 'I have been crucified with Christ.'

For since he had said, 'I died,' lest anyone should ask, 'How then do you live?' he added the cause also of his life, and showed that the law slew him while he was living, but Christ, receiving him dead, made him alive through death.

and he shows the wonder to be twofold: that He both gave life to the dead, and through death bestowed life.

for this is the meaning of, 'That I might live to God, I have been crucified with Christ.'

'And how,' one may say, 'was he who lives and breathes crucified with Him?' For that Christ was crucified is plain.

'But how have you been crucified, and yet live?' Observe how he explains this very thing, saying:

'It is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me.'

For by saying, 'I have been crucified with Christ,' he hinted at baptism.

and by saying, 'It is no longer I that live,' he meant the manner of life that follows thereafter, whereby our members are put to death.

And what is, 'Christ lives in me'? It means: 'Nothing is done by me,' he says, 'which Christ does not will.'

For just as by 'death' he means not this common death, but that which comes from sins, so also by 'life' he means deliverance from them.

For it is not possible to live to God otherwise than by being dead to sin.

Just as therefore Christ underwent the death of the body, so I have undergone the death against sin.

For, 'Put to death your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, adultery.'

and again he says, 'Our old man was crucified.'

And after this, if you remain dead to sin, you live to God.

but if you raise it up again, you have ruined such a life.

But Paul was not such a one; rather, he remained wholly dead.

'If therefore I live to God,' he says, 'a life other than that which is under the law, and I have become dead to the law, I can keep nothing of the law.'

And observe the exactness of his manner of life, and admire beyond measure that blessed soul.

For he did not say, 'I live,' but, 'Christ lives in me.'

Who will dare to utter such a word? For since he had rendered himself obedient to Christ, and had cast out all worldly things, and did all according to His will, he did not say, 'I live to Christ,' but, what was far more, 'Christ lives in me.'

For just as sin, when it prevails, is that which lives, leading the soul to whatever it wills;

so, if when that is put to death the things pleasing to Christ are done, such a life is no longer human, since He lives in us—that is, works and prevails.

But since he had said, 'I have been crucified with Christ,' and, 'I no longer live, but have died,' and to many this seemed incredible to say, he added:

'But the life which I now live in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God.'

'What I have said,' he says, 'concerns the spiritual life.'

'But if anyone should inquire also into this sensible life, this too has come to me through my faith in Christ.'

'For so far as concerned my old manner of life and the law, I was worthy of the utmost punishment, and long ago should I have perished.'

'For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,' and Christ set us free while we lay under the sentence.

For indeed all had died—if not in actual experience, yet by the sentence.

and He delivered us who were awaiting the blow.

Since the law accused, and God pronounced sentence, Christ came and gave Himself over to death, and snatched us all away from death.

So that, 'the life which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith.'

For had this not been so, nothing would have hindered all from being blotted out;

which also came to pass at the time of the flood.

but the coming of Christ, having stayed the wrath of God, made us to live through faith.

For that this is what he means, hear what follows;

for having said, 'The life which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith,' he added:

'In the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.'

What are you doing, O Paul, appropriating to yourself what is common, and claiming as your own what was done for the whole world? For he did not say, 'who loved us,' but, 'who loved me.'

And indeed the Evangelist says, 'God so loved the world'; and you yourself also say, 'He who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up'—not for you, but for all;

and again, 'That He might purchase for Himself a peculiar people.'

What then is it that he says here? Having pondered the desperate condition of human nature,

and the unspeakable tender care of Christ, and from what things He delivered us, and what things He bestowed, and being set aflame by his longing for Him, he thus speaks.

Since indeed the prophets also often appropriate to themselves the common God, thus saying:

'O God, my God, unto Thee do I rise up early.'

and apart from these things too, he shows that each of us is justly bound to owe Christ as great a thankfulness as if He had come for his sake alone.

For He would not have refused to display so great a dispensation even for one man.

so He loves each single man with as great a measure of love as He loves the whole world.

The sacrifice, therefore, was offered for the whole of nature, and was sufficient to save all;

but those who avail themselves of the benefit are the believers alone.

But nevertheless, the fact that not all came to Him did not remove Him from such a dispensation; but just as in the Gospel the feast was prepared for all, yet when those who were called would not come, He did not take away what was set forth, but called others;

so also here has He done.

For indeed the sheep that had strayed from the ninety and nine was but one; yet even so He did not despise it.

This very thing Paul also hints at in some such way when discoursing concerning the Jews, saying:

For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faithfulness of God of no effect? God forbid.

But let God be true, and every man a liar.

Then, when He so loved you as even to give up Himself, and to bring you—who had no hope of salvation—into so great and so glorious a life,

shall you, after so many blessings, run back again to the old things? Therefore, since he had laid down accurately the arguments drawn from reasonings, he now proclaims his conclusion vehemently by way of assertion, saying: