Jerome

(Verse 10.) So that we might be mindful of the poor, I was also concerned to do this very thing. The holy poor, to whom the care is especially entrusted by the apostles Paul and Barnabas, are those who, as Jewish believers, were bringing the prices of their possessions to be given to the needy at the feet of the apostles, either because they were renouncing the Law, their fellow Jews, and their kinsmen, or because they were being considered as traitors and sacrilegious for believing in the crucified man. Of this ministry, the holy apostle Paul worked with great effort, as his Epistles testify, writing to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians, and to all the churches of the Gentiles, to prepare this gift to be carried to Jerusalem by himself or by those who pleased him. Therefore, he confidently says now that he was also eager to do this very thing. However, the poor can also be received in another way, about whom it is said in the Gospel: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3). They truly deserve to be remembered, these apostles. And also those poor ones, about whom it is written in Solomon: The redemption of a man's soul, his own wealth (Prov. XIII, 8). But the poor cannot endure a threat. For he cannot hear the terror of future punishments, poor in faith, poor in grace, lacking spiritual riches, nor knowledge of the Scriptures, which are valued as gold and silver and precious stones. Therefore, since the healthy do not need a doctor, but those who are sick, it is fitting for the apostles, too, to gather in the sharing of hands, so that they would not reject the poor or despise sinners; but always remember them, just as Paul remembers that person in Corinth, whom he had saddened for a time in his previous letter, so that, as the body labors through penance, the spirit would be saved (1 Cor. 5); in the second letter, so that he would not be consumed by greater sadness, he called him back to the Church. And he asked everyone to confirm their love for him and to give to their brother as he had given to each of them, fulfilling the covenant he had made in Jerusalem to always remember the poor.

(Verse 11 onwards) But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles. But when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. When I saw that they were not walking straight, according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in the presence of all, 'If you, who are a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?' We are Jews by nature, and not Gentile sinners, but we know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, when the apostle Paul saw that the grace of Christ was in danger, he employed a new battle tactic of the old warrior, to correct the dispensation of Peter, by which he desired the salvation of the Jews, with a new dispensation of contradiction, and to resist him to his face. Not arguing against his intention, but rather publicly contradicting him, so that by Paul's argument and resistance, those who had believed from the Gentiles would be saved. Now if anyone thinks that Paul truly resisted the apostle Peter and boldly did wrong to his predecessor for the sake of the truth of the Gospel, that person's argument will not stand. For even Paul became a Jew to the Jews in order to gain the Jews, and he will be held guilty of the same hypocrisy when he shaved his head in Cenchreae and offered a sacrifice in Jerusalem (Acts 18), and when he circumcised Timothy (Ibid., 16), and practiced foot-washing, which are clearly ceremonial practices of the Jews. Therefore, if the one who was sent to preach to the Gentiles did not think it necessary to say: 'Be without offense to the Jews and to the Church of God' (1 Corinthians 10:32); how can I please everyone in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, so that they may be saved? And he did certain things that were contrary to the freedom of the Gospel, so as not to scandalize the Jews. With what authority, with what audacity does he dare to reprehend this in Peter, who was an apostle of the circumcision, when he himself, the apostle of the Gentiles, is accused of committing the same? But as we have already said, he yielded to the public opinion, to Peter and the rest, so that the hypocrisy of observing the Law, which was harming those who had believed from the Gentiles, would be corrected by the hypocrisy of correction, and both peoples would be saved, both those who praise circumcision follow Peter; and those who do not want to be circumcised, preach Paul's freedom. But what he said was blameworthy, therefore he moderated the fasting; so that we understand that he was not so blameworthy to Paul, as he separated himself from those brothers with whom he had eaten before. But a useful simulation, and one to be adopted in time, let us teach an example of King Jehu of Israel, who could not kill the priests of Baal unless he pretended to want to worship the idol, saying: 'Gather (or 'gather together') for me all the priests of Baal: for if Ahab served Baal in few things, I will serve him in many.' (4 Kings 10:18). And David, when he changed his appearance before Abimelech, and who dismissed him and went away. (1 Kings 21) And it is not surprising, even though righteous men, nevertheless, pretend for a time, for their own and others’ salvation, when our Lord Himself, not having sin nor the flesh of sin, assumed the pretense of sinful flesh, so that, condemning sin in the flesh, He would make us the righteousness of God in Himself. Certainly, Paul had read in the Gospel the Lord commanding: But if your brother sins against you, go and correct him between you and him alone. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. (Luke 17:3) And in what way, when he even commanded this to be done to the least of the brothers, did he dare to rebuke the greatest of the apostles so boldly and steadfastly in public; unless it had pleased Peter to be rebuked in this way, and Paul had not done him any harm, about whom he had said before: I went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and I stayed with him for fifteen days: but I saw none of the other apostles. And again: For he who worked in Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision. And below: Peter and James and John, who seemed to be pillars, and the others whom he praises in his praises. Many times, when I was a young man in Rome, I would engage in debates on fictitious lawsuits and exercise myself in true competitions. I would run to the courts of the judges, and I would see the most eloquent orators contending with each other with such bitterness that they would often neglect their duties and turn to personal insults, biting each other with jokes. If they do this, so that they may not incur any suspicion of prevarication, and deceive the surrounding people, what do we think the great pillars of the Church, Peter and Paul, and the vessels of wisdom, ought to have done among the dissenting Jews and Gentiles? Unless it was for the purpose of making their pretended contention the peace of the believers, and the faith of the Church might be established by a holy dispute among them. There are some who think that Cephas, whom Paul writes that he confronted to his face, is not the apostle Peter, but another one of the seventy disciples called by that name. They say that Peter could not have avoided the company of the Gentiles, as he had also baptized the centurion Cornelius. And when he went up to Jerusalem, those who were of the circumcision argued against him, saying: Why did you go to men uncircumcised and eat with them? After recounting the vision, he concluded his response with these words: Therefore, if God gave them the same gift as he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to hinder God? When they heard this, they fell silent and glorified God, saying, 'So then, even to the Gentiles God has granted repentance unto life.' Especially since the writer of the history, Luke, makes no mention of this disagreement; nor does he ever say that Peter was in Antioch with Paul, and that Porphyry was blaspheming; but if it is believed that Peter erred or that Paul insolently refuted the chief of the apostles, first it must be answered that we do not know the name of some other Cephas, unless it is the one who is called both Cephas and Peter in the Gospel, in Paul's other Epistles, and also in this very passage. Not that Peter signifies one thing and Cephas another, but that as we call the rock in Latin and Greek, so the Hebrews and Syrians, because of the similarity of their languages, name it Cephas. Moreover, the entire argument of the epistle, which is indirectly mentioned concerning Peter, James, and John, contradicts this interpretation. It is not surprising that Luke has remained silent on this matter, considering that he has omitted many other things that Paul claims to have endured, by the liberty of a historian, and it is not necessarily contradictory if one deemed worthy of recounting what another left out among other things for a different reason. Lastly, we have learned that Peter was the first bishop of the Church of Antioch, and then transferred to Rome, which Luke completely omitted. Finally, if we are to create another person called Cephas because of Porphyry's blasphemy, so that Peter is not thought to have erred, countless divine Scriptures will have to be erased, which he condemns because he does not understand. But also against Porphyry, we will fight in another way if Christ commands it: now let us continue with the rest.

(Verse 14.) But when I saw that they were not walking straight towards the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter in front of everyone. Just as those who pretend to limp with healthy steps do not have a fault in their feet, but there is some reason why they limp, so Peter, knowing that circumcision and uncircumcision mean nothing, but the observance of God's commandments does, used to eat with the Gentiles, but for a time he withdrew from them, lest he should make the Jews lose faith in Christ. And so Paul, using the same tactic as Peter had pretended, confronted him to his face and spoke openly in front of everyone; not so much to accuse Peter, but rather to correct those for whose sake Peter had pretended, or even to remove pride from the Jews and despair from the Gentiles. But if someone does not like this interpretation, in which neither Peter is shown to have sinned nor Paul to have boldly accused him, they must explain in what way Paul criticizes this in the other case, which he himself committed.


If you, being a Jew, live as a Gentile and not as a Jew, how do you force the Gentiles to live as Jews? Peter is strongly convinced by an unbreakable argument, or rather, through Peter, those who were compelling him to engage in disputes: If, Peter, you being a Jew by nature, born a Jew and observing all the precepts of the Law, now know that these things have no inherent usefulness but are examples and images of things to come, and if you, eating with those who are from the Gentiles, do not live in a superstitious manner as you did before, but now live freely and impartially; how then can you compel those who believed from the Gentiles to Judaize, now separating yourself from them and considering them unclean? For if those from whom you separate are unclean, and yet you do separate, it follows that you compel them to be circumcised and become Jews; while you yourself, being born a Jew, live like a Gentile. And he joyfully shows the reason why he disputed against him: namely, because he was compelling the Gentiles to judaize through his own hypocrisy, as they desired to imitate him.

A Jew by nature is one of Abraham’s stock, who has been circumcised by his parents on the eighth day. One who is a Jew “not by nature” is one of Gentile origin who has been subsequently made so. That I may embrace the whole argument in a brief discourse, the sense of the text is as follows: “We are Jews by nature, doing those things that were precepts of the law. We are not sinners who come from the Gentiles—either in the sense of those who are sinners generically because they worship idols or those whom Jews now regard as unclean. Yet we know that we cannot be saved by the works of the law but rather by faith in Christ. We have believed in Christ that what the law had not given us our faith would guarantee to us. Seceding from the law in which we could not be saved, we have gone over to faith, in which not the circumcision of the flesh but the devotion of a pure heart is demanded. But what if we now belatedly declare by seceding from the Gentiles that whoever is uncircumcised is unclean? In that case faith in Christ—by which we previously thought we were saved—would rather become a minister of sin than of righteousness. For faith would under that assumption take away the circumcision without which one is unclean.”

(Verse 15) We are by nature Jews, and not sinners from the Gentiles. At this point, heretics sneak in, who, inventing ridiculous and foolish things, say that the spiritual nature cannot sin, nor can the earthly nature do anything just. Let us ask them why branches of the good olive tree were broken off and why branches from a wild olive tree were grafted onto the root of the good olive tree, if nothing can fall from good or rise from evil. Or how was Paul persecuting the Church before he became an Apostle if he was of a spiritual nature? Or how did he become an Apostle afterwards if he was generated from earthly sediment? But if they contend that He was not of earthly origin, let us set down His own words: 'We were by nature children of wrath, like the others' (Ephesians II, 3). The Jew by nature is one who is of the race of Abraham and was circumcised by his parents on the eighth day. Not the Jew by nature, who later became one from the Gentiles. But to sum up the whole argument in a few words, this is the sense that is being expressed: 'We', that is, 'I and you, Peter' (for He mixed in His own person, lest it might seem that He was doing injury to them), when we were, He says, Jews by nature, doing the things that were commanded by the Law, and not sinners from among the Gentiles, who either generally, because they serve idols, are sinners, or those whom we now consider unclean, knowing that we cannot be saved by the work of the Law, but by faith in Christ, we believed in Christ, so that what the Law did not give us, faith bestowed on us in Christ.' But if, departing from the Law in which we could not be saved, we turn to faith, in which circumcision of the flesh is not sought but rather devotion of a pure heart, and now by turning away from the Gentiles we do this, so that whoever is not circumcised may be unclean; therefore, faith in Christ, in which we thought we were saved before, is more a minister of sin than of justice, which removes circumcision, and whoever does not have it is unclean. But far be it from me to seek revenge, now that I know that what I once destroyed and considered as useless to me. Once I departed from the Law, I died to the Law in order to live in Christ, and I was crucified with Him, and I was reborn as a new man, relying more on faith than on flesh, and with Christ I departed from the world. What I once embraced, I hold fast. Christ did not die for me in vain: in Him I believed in vain, if I could be saved without faith in Him in the old Law.

(Verse 16). However, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, we also have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law. Some say: if what Paul affirms is true, that no one is justified by the works of the Law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, then the patriarchs, prophets, and saints who lived before the coming of Christ were imperfect. Those whom we ought to admonish are those who have not attained to justice, who believe that they can be justified by works alone. But the saints, who have been justified by the faith of Christ since ancient times. For Abraham saw the day of Christ and rejoiced. And Moses esteemed the greater riches as a treasure of the Egyptians, as an insult to Christ. For he looked to the reward. And Isaiah saw the glory of Christ, as John the Evangelist recounts, and Judas speaks generally of all: I want to remind you, knowing everything once: that Jesus, saving the people from the land of Egypt, destroyed them secondly, those who did not believe. Where the works of the Law are not so much condemned, as those who trust that they can be justified by works alone, the Savior also spoke to his disciples, Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:20). It is necessary to gather (or consider) at this place how many precepts there are in the Law, which no one is able to fulfill. And on the other hand, it must be said that some of the Law is also done by those who are ignorant of it. But this is why his workers are not justified, because they are done without the faith of Christ. For example, not sleeping with a woman as a man sleeps, not committing adultery, not stealing, but rather honoring father and mother, and doing the other things that are commanded. But if they bring us examples of holy men: that they, being versed in the Law, have committed the things that were of the Law, we will say: Because the just Law is not laid down for the law-abiding and the obedient, but for the unjust and the disobedient, the impious and the sinners, the polluted and the unclean (1 Timothy 1). But as for one who is taught by God, it is not necessary for him to be taught about charity, as Paul says: But as for charity, I have no need to write to you: for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another (IV Thess. IV, 9).

(Verse 19) For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. To die to the law, is to die to the law as a rule of justification. Who dies to the law, lives to God. Before his conversion, the apostle found experience answer to the word of the Lord. The commandment, which was ordained to life, he found to be unto death. The same enlightening Spirit gives a sight of the hateful nature of sin, and the deceitfulness of the heart. Therefore it is said in Hosea: 'From me is your fruit found' (Hosea 14:9). To whom the mystical interpretation is well applied: 'Who is a wise man and understands these things, and a prudent man and knows them?' Therefore, by the spiritual law, one dies to the law of the letter and lives to God, since he is not without the law of God, but is under the law of Christ. But whoever dies to the law because of sins, although he is dead, it cannot be said of him that he lives to God. But there is another spiritual law beyond the law of the letter, as the Apostle elsewhere teaches, saying: Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good (Rom. VII, 12). And Ezekiel speaks in the person of God: I brought them out, that is, the people of Judah, from the land of Egypt: and I led them into the desert: and I gave them my commandments, and showed them my justifications: which if a man do, he shall live in them (Ezek. XX, 10). But about that law which works wrath, to which even the Apostle is dead, afterward he says: And I gave them commands that are not good, and justifications in which they will not live (Ibid., 25). The same is also signified in the Psalter: Because I did not know literature, I will enter into the strength of the Lord (Ps. LXX, 51).

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)

(Verse 20.) But I no longer live; Christ lives in me. The person who once lived under the law no longer lives, for they persecuted the Church. But Christ lives in them, providing wisdom, strength, speech, peace, joy, and other virtues. The one who does not possess these virtues cannot say, 'Christ lives in me.' And all of this is said in opposition to Peter, directed at Peter.

But as for now, I live in the flesh. To be in the flesh is one thing, and to live in the flesh is another. For those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom. VIII, 8, 9). Therefore, it is said to those who live well: However, you are not in the flesh.

I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. He speaks about God to the Romans, that he did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us. Now, about Christ, that he gave himself up: 'He loved me,' he says, 'and gave himself for me.' In the Gospel, where the apostles are listed, it is stated: 'And Judas Iscariot ((also Scariot)), who betrayed him' (Luke 6:16). Again, in the same Gospel: 'Look, the one who will betray me is approaching' (Matthew 26:46). But the Scriptures mention the high priests and elders of the people, who condemned Jesus to death and, binding him, led him and delivered him to Pilate the governor (ibid., XXVII, and Mark XV). And afterwards about Pilate: He released Barabbas to them, but Jesus, after being flogged, he handed over to them to crucify (John XIX). Therefore, the Father handed over the Son, and the Son himself handed over, and Judas and the priests handed him over to the rulers, and finally, having been handed over to him, Pilate himself delivered him. But the Father handed over, in order to save the lost world: Jesus himself handed himself over, in order to do the will of the Father and his own: However, Judas and the priests and the elders of the people, and Pilate, delivered him, ignorant of life unto death. And when she also handed herself over for our salvation, blessed and very happy is he who, with Christ living in him, can say through every thought and action: I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and delivered himself for me.

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

(Chapter III - Verse 1) O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you? This place can be understood in two ways. Either the foolish Galatians are called so because they have come from greater things to lesser things, having begun in the spirit and are now being consumed in the flesh. Or it is because each province has its own peculiarities. The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons, truly spoken of by the poet Epimenides, confirmed by the Apostle. The vain Moors and the fierce Dalmatians are struck by the Latin historian. Timid Phrygians, all poets tear apart. They say that more talented people are born in Athens, and philosophers boast about it. Cicero criticizes the Greeks, calling them either frivolous or cruel barbarians before Caesar. And for Flaccus, he says: 'Ingeniousness is innate, he says, and educated vanity.' The true Israel, with a heavy heart and a stiff neck, accuses all the Scriptures. Therefore, I think that the Apostle Paul also rebuked the Galatians for their regional customs. Although some, inserting profound questions as if under the guise of avoiding heresy, which introduces diverse natures, may say that even the Tyrians and Sidonians, Moabites and Ammonites, and Idumaeans, Babylonians and Egyptians, and all the Nations mentioned in the Scriptures, have certain languages for preceding reasons, and deservedly for their prior actions, so that the justice of God may not come into doubt: since it is asserted that every nation has either good or evil, which another does not have. We will pursue those declining heights: either accusing them of foolishness, saying that they cannot judge the spirit of the Law and the letter; or blaming the fault of the nation, that they are unteachable and foolish, and slower to wisdom. But what follows - 'Who bewitched you?' (1 Corinthians 11) - we should explain according to Paul (who, although unskilled in speech, is not lacking in knowledge): not that he knows that there is a bewitching power, which is commonly believed to be harmful; but he uses the word as a trite expression, and as in other things, so also in this place, he takes up the phrase of everyday conversation. We read in Proverbs: The gift of the envious tortures the eyes. The envious person among us is more significantly called a fascinator in Greek, and in the Wisdom of Solomon it is written: The fascination of wickedness obscures good things (Wis. 4:22). With these examples we are taught that the envious person is tormented by the happiness of others, or that someone in whom there is some good is harmed by another person who fascinates, that is, envies. It is said that the fascinus properly harms infants, young children, and those who have not yet firmly set foot. Where and some of the Gentiles:

I do not know who bewitches the tender eyes of my lambs. (Virgil. Eclog. 3.) Whether this is true or not, God knows: because it is possible that even demons may serve this sin; and they may turn away from the good works anyone has learned or achieved in the work of God. Now this is in question, because we consider this example to be taken from the opinion of the common people: just as it is said that a tender age can be harmed by a spell, so too it seems that the Galatians, who were recently born and raised in the faith of Christ, and nourished by milk and not solid food (1 Corinthians 3), have been harmed by some sort of spell, and the spirit of the Holy One has made them vomit the food of faith, causing a nausea in their spirit. But if someone contradicts, let him explain how the ideas of the Titans' valley in the Books of Kings (2 Kings 23), the sirens and centaurs in Isaiah (Chap. 34), Arcturus and Orion, and the Pleiades in Job (Chap. 9), and the like, which are certainly terms borrowed from the myths of the Gentiles, have been taken from common opinion. Let us therefore ask Marcion, who rejects the prophets, how he interprets what follows.


Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was proclaimed, among you he was crucified. For Christ was rightly proclaimed to us, from whose gallows and suffering, slaps and whips, the chorus of all the prophets foretold: that his cross was not only from the Gospel, in which he is said to be crucified; but long before he deigned to descend to the earth and take on the form of a crucified man, we have known. And it is no small praise of the Galatians that they have believed in the Crucified One, as it was proclaimed to them before: namely, by reading the prophets and knowing all the sacraments of the old Law, they have come to believe in the way and order. It is read in some codices: Who bewitched you to not believe the truth? But because this is not found in the exemplars of Adamantius, we have omitted it.