Jerome

(Verse 16) Immediately, I did not consult with flesh and blood. Or, as it is better in Greek: I did not confer with flesh and blood. I know that many consider this statement to be about the apostles. For even Porphyry objects that after the revelation of Christ, he did not deign to go to men and confer with them: lest, of course, he be instructed by flesh and blood after the teaching of God. But far be it from me to think that Peter, John, and James are flesh and blood; which cannot possess the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 1). If the spiritual apostles are flesh and blood, what do we think of the earthly ones? Paul did not associate himself with flesh and blood after the revelation of Christ, because he did not want to cast pearls before swine or give what is holy to dogs (Matthew 7). See what is written about sinners: My spirit will not remain in these people, for they are flesh (Genesis 6). With those who were flesh and blood, who did not reveal the Son of God to Peter either (Matthew 16), the Apostle did not share the Gospel that had been revealed to him, but gradually turned them from flesh and blood to spirit. And only then did he entrust them with the hidden sacraments of the Gospel. Let someone say: If immediately he did not communicate the Gospel with flesh and blood, nevertheless it is understood that later he will communicate with flesh and blood: and this understanding, by which the apostles are excused, cannot stand, lest flesh and blood be [involved], since nevertheless he who did not communicate with flesh and blood in the beginning, later, as I said, will communicate with flesh and blood. This preposition constrains us, that we may distinguish thus, lest immediately or continuously, we unite with flesh and blood; but that we may adhere to the previous statements, and it may be read: But when it pleased him who separated me from the womb of my mother. And then: That he might reveal his Son in me. And finally: That I might preach him among the Gentiles immediately: that I have not conferred with flesh and blood; but rather it should be understood in this sense: that he who is immediately sent to proclaim the Gospel to the Gentiles after the revelation of Christ, has not remained, nor has he extended the time by going to the apostles and comparing the Lord's revelation with men: but he has gone to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus, and after three years he preached the Gospel; and only then, coming to Jerusalem, did he see Peter, John, and James.

(Verse 17.) Nor did I go to Jerusalem to the apostles before me. If he had mentioned the apostles, I did not confer with flesh and blood. So why was it necessary to repeat the same thing by saying, Nor did I go to Jerusalem to the apostles before me? Therefore, we must maintain the meaning that we explained above.

But I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus. It does not seem to fit with the order of the story, as recounted by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts IX), that after Paul spoke boldly about the Gospel of Christ for many days in Damascus, plots were made against him and he was lowered in a basket through the wall at night, and he came to Jerusalem trying to join the disciples. But when they avoided him and were afraid to approach him, he was brought to the apostles by Barnabas and he told them how he had seen the Lord on the road and had acted confidently in the name of the Lord (some versions add Jesus) while in Damascus. He was, he said, with them, going in and out in Jerusalem, boldly acting in the name of the Lord. He also spoke and debated with the Greeks, but they sought to kill him. When the brothers learned of this, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus. But he says that he first went to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus after three years, and went to Jerusalem, saw Peter, and stayed with him for fifteen days, and did not see anyone else except James, the brother of the Lord. In order for them to be believed as true (since doubtful things could appear questionable in the absence of witnesses), he confirms under oath, saying: “The things that I tell you are true, behold, I say them before God, for I do not lie.” Therefore, we can conclude that Paul, according to the account of Luke, went to Jerusalem not to learn something from the apostles who came before him, but to avoid the onslaught of persecution that had been incited against him in Damascus because of the Gospel of Christ. And so he came to Jerusalem as if he had come to any other city. Then, when he had immediately withdrawn on account of the ambush, he came to Arabia or Damascus; and then, after three years, he returned to see Peter in Jerusalem. Or certainly, this is how it happened: Immediately after he was baptized and strengthened by receiving food, he stayed with the disciples in Damascus for a few days; and while all the Jews in the synagogues were amazed, he preached continuously that Jesus was the Son of God. Then he went to Arabia, and returned from Arabia to Damascus, where he spent three years. These many days are attested by the Scripture, which says: When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him (Acts 9:23). However, there were plots made against Saul, and they were guarding the gates day and night in order to kill him. So, his disciples took him at night and lowered him down the wall in a basket. When he arrived in Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples. But Luke mentions that he passed through Arabia because perhaps he had not done anything deserving of apostleship in Arabia. And he chose to give a concise account of the things that seemed worthy of the Gospel of Christ. Nor should we attribute this to the laziness of the Apostle, if he stayed in Arabia in vain (or: remained): but rather that it was some dispensation and command of God that he should keep silent. For we also read that after this Paul went out with Silas, and the Holy Spirit prohibited him from speaking the word in Asia (Acts 16). In another passage: But I went to Arabia; and again, I returned to Damascus. What benefit is this account to me, if I read that Paul immediately went to Arabia after the revelation of Christ, and immediately returned from Arabia to Damascus, without knowing what he did there, or what usefulness his going and returning had? Give me the opportunity for a deeper understanding in this same letter the Apostle himself, while discussing Abraham, Hagar, and Sarah, says: These things, he says, are spoken in allegory. For these are the two covenants: one indeed from Mount Sinai, which brings forth into slavery, and that is Hagar. For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which is joined to the present Jerusalem (Gal. IV, 24, 25). And he teaches that the old Testament, that is, the son of the servant girl, was established in Arabia (which translates to humble and western). So immediately, as soon as Paul believed, he turned to the Law, the Prophets, and the sacraments of the old Testament which were already placed in the west, and he sought in them the Christ whom he had been instructed to preach to the Gentiles. And having found Him, he did not linger there any longer; but he returned to Damascus, that is, to the blood and passion of Christ. And from there, strengthened by prophetic reading, he went on to Jerusalem, the place of the vision and peace: not so much to learn something from the apostles as to compare the Gospel that he had taught with them.

(Verse 18.) Then, after three years, I came to Jerusalem to see Peter. Not to look at his eyes, cheeks, and face, to see if he was thin or fat, if he had a hooked or straight nose, and if he covered his forehead with hair or (as Clement reports in his Periods) had baldness on his head. And I don't think it was the gravity of the Apostolic office that wanted to see something human in Peter after such a long three-year preparation. But she looked at him with these eyes, with which she seems to see him even now in her Letters. With his own eyes, Paul saw Peter, whom now by the wise and learned, Paul himself is seen. And if someone does not see this, let them join these facts with their superior understanding: that the apostles did not confer anything upon themselves. For even though Paul was told to go to Jerusalem, it was for the purpose of seeing the apostle, not for the purpose of learning, because he himself had the same author of preaching; but rather to show honor to the apostle who was before him.


And I stayed with him for fifteen days. He did not lack for great instruction, as he had prepared himself so much time to see Peter. And although it may seem excessive to some, it is also fitting to observe the numbers that are in the Scriptures: nevertheless, I think it is not without reason that the fifteen days Paul spent with Peter signify complete knowledge and perfected doctrine. For there are fifteen songs in the Psalter, and fifteen steps by which the righteous ascend to sing to God, and stand in his courts. Moreover, Ezechias, having been granted fifteen years of life, deserves to receive a sign in the degrees (Isa. XXXVIII): and the solemnities of God begin on the fifteenth day (Exod. XII). Also, (because we follow a double understanding) therefore he adds fifteen days, to show that there was not a long time in which he could have learned anything from Peter; so that everything may be referred back to that meaning from which he began: that he was not taught by man, but by God.

James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife, as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book, after our Lord's passion at once ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic Epistles and even this is claimed by some to have been published by some one else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authority. Hegesippus, who lived near the apostolic age, in the fifth book of his Commentaries, writing of James, says

"After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels' knees."

He says also many other things, too numerous to mention. Josephus also in the 20th book of his Antiquities, and Clement in the 7th of his Outlines mention that on the death of Festus who reigned over Judea, Albinus was sent by Nero as his successor. Before he had reached his province, Ananias the high priest, the youthful son of Ananus of the priestly class, taking advantage of the state of anarchy, assembled a council and publicly tried to force James to deny that Christ is the son of God. When he refused Ananius ordered him to be stoned. Cast down from a pinnacle of the temple, his legs broken, but still half alive, raising his hands to heaven he said, "Lord forgive them for they know not what they do." Then struck on the head by the club of a fuller such a club as fullers are accustomed to wring out garments with — he died. This same Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death. He it is of whom the apostle Paul writes to the Galatians that "No one else of the apostles did I see except James the brother of the Lord," and shortly after the event the Acts of the apostles bear witness to the matter. The Gospel also which is called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and which I have recently translated into Greek and Latin and which also Origen often makes use of, after the account of the resurrection of the Saviour says, "but the Lord, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to James (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord until he should see him rising again from among those that sleep)" and again, a little later, it says "'Bring a table and bread,' said the Lord." And immediately it is added, "He brought bread and blessed and broke and gave to James the Just and said to him, 'my brother eat your bread, for the son of man is risen from among those that sleep.'" And so he ruled the church of Jerusalem thirty years, that is until the seventh year of Nero, and was buried near the temple from which he had been cast down. His tombstone with its inscription was well known until the siege of Titus and the end of Hadrian's reign. Some of our writers think he was buried in Mount Olivet, but they are mistaken.

(Verse 19) But I saw none of the other apostles, except James the Lord's brother. I remember that while I was in Rome, I published a book on the perpetual virginity of Saint Mary under the urging of the brothers. In this matter, I had to argue for a long time about those who are called the brothers of the Lord. Therefore, we should be satisfied with whatever we have written. Now let it suffice that, because of his outstanding character and incomparable faith and wisdom, he was called the Lord's brother, not in an ordinary sense. And he was the first to preside over the Church, which was the first to be gathered to Christ from among the Jews. Indeed, the other apostles are also called brothers of the Lord, as in the Gospel: 'Go, tell my brethren: I go to my Father, and your Father; to my God, and your God' (John 20:17). And in the psalm: 'I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the church will I praise You' (Psalm 22:22). But especially here this person is called brother, to whom the Lord had entrusted the sons of his mother as he went to the Father. And just as Job and the other patriarchs were indeed called servants of God, but Moses had something extraordinary, so that it was written about him: 'But not as Moses, my servant' (Hebrews 3:5), likewise the blessed James is specially called the brother of the Lord (as we said before). But why, except for the twelve, some are called apostles is this: all who had seen the Lord, and then preached about Him, were called apostles, as it is written to the Corinthians: 'He appeared to Cephas, then to the eleven.' After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at once, many of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles (I Cor. XV, 5 seqq.). But gradually, as time went on, and elsewhere from those whom the Lord had chosen, the apostles were ordained; as he declares in his letter to the Philippians, saying: But I thought it necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your apostle and minister to my need (Philippians 2:25). And concerning such, it is written to the Corinthians: whether apostles of the churches, the glory of God (2 Corinthians 8:23). Silas and Judas were also named apostles by the apostles. Therefore, he greatly erred who believed that James, the brother of John, mentioned in the Gospel, was an apostle. It is well known that James, after Stephen, shed his blood for Christ according to the faith of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 12). However, this James was the first bishop of Jerusalem, also known as James the Just. He was a man of such great holiness and reputation among the people that they eagerly sought to touch the fringe of his garment. And he himself, after being cast down from the temple by the Jews, had Simon as his successor, whom they also relate was crucified as the Lord. He denies that he met any of the other apostles, aside from those mentioned, so as not to give rise to hidden contradictions: even if you were not taught by Peter, you had other apostles as teachers. However, he did not see them, not because he regarded them with contempt, but because they had been scattered throughout the whole world for the preaching of the Gospel.

(Verses 22-24.) But I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea, which were in Christ Jesus. They only heard it said: He who once persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy. And they glorified God in me. The churches of Judea had only heard of me by reputation. And among them, they saw me more as a persecutor than as an apostle. But in Syria and Cilicia, Arabia and Damascus, they might have recognized me by sight as well: because I, as the Apostle to the Gentiles, preached the gospel of Christ not to the Jews, but to the Gentiles. But the whole point of what he does is this: to show that he could never have been glorious before those very people whom he had previously persecuted unless his preaching had also been proven by their judgment, even by those who had known him before as evil. And he returns secretly to his purpose, affirming that he spent such a short time in Judea that even those who believed were unaware of his appearance. From this he shows that he did not have Peter, James, or John as his teachers, but Christ, who revealed the Gospel to him. At the same time, it should be noted that while it was said above that the Church was under attack, here faith is: there men, here things; so that now (or then) it could be more opportune: He preaches the faith, which he once attacked. For they could not make a similar sound about the Church.

(Chapter 2 - Verses 1, 2) Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. I went up by revelation, and I discussed with them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles, but privately with those who seemed to be influential, so that I might not be running in vain or have run in vain. This matter arose because of false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery. And to speak more truthfully, the Greek word ἀνεθέμην conveys something different than what is understood among us, namely that we compare what we know with a friend and place it in their lap and conscience, so that, with equal counsel, what we know may either be approved or disapproved. Therefore, after fourteen years, he went up to Jerusalem. And he who had previously gone only to see Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days, now says that he went there to confer with the apostles about the Gospel. And he took along Barnabas, who was circumcised, and Titus, who was uncircumcised among the Gentiles, so that every word may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses (Deut. 19:15). But it is one thing to compare, another to learn. Among those who compare, there is equality; between the teacher and the learner, the one who learns is lesser. At the beginning of faith, he saw the apostles during their journey. After seventeen years (as he himself says), he speaks fully with them and humbles himself: and lest he might be running or might have run in vain, he inquires. For a twofold reason, so that the humility of Paul, who, as a teacher, had already surpassed the apostles who came before him in the whole world of the Gentiles, might be shown: and so that the Galatians may not say that they rejected his Gospel, also condemning those who presided over the Churches in Judea. Moreover, it also teaches that for the sake of the faith of Christ and the liberty of the Gospel, he dared to lead Titus, an uncircumcised man, to those same individuals who knew more about him, who accused him of breaking the Law, destroying Moses, and completely doing away with circumcision. And in the midst of such a great multitude of Jews and his enemies, who desired to shed his blood out of zeal for the Law, neither he nor Titus gave way to fear, but stood firm in necessity. They were able to obtain forgiveness, either in terms of position or authority of the elders, or in terms of the number of churches that believed in Christ from the Jews, or in terms of time, so as not to endure such great envy at the same time. Some say that after fourteen years he went up to Jerusalem, when a dispute arose among the believers in Antioch regarding the observance or omission of the Law, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. It was decided to go to Jerusalem and wait for the judgment of the elders, when Paul and Barnabas themselves were sent. And this is what is written in the Latin codices: We yielded to subjection for a time, so that the truth of the Gospel would persist among you. That is why, clearly, Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem as if it were doubtful, in order to confirm by the judgment of the elders that the grace of the Gospel had also been given to the believers, and that there would be no further doubt about the omission of circumcision. For it had been commanded by the letters of the apostles that the yoke of the Law should be removed from those who believed in Christ from the Gentiles. However, it can be understood that when he says, 'I conferred with them the Gospel that I preach to the Gentiles,' he means separately to those who seemed important, so that I might not run or have run in vain, and thus it can be understood that he shared with the apostles in secret the grace of Gospel freedom and the abolishment of the old Law, because of the multitude of believing Jews who were not yet able to hear about the fulfillment and end of the Law, and who, in the absence of Paul, had falsely boasted in Jerusalem that he was going on a pointless or fruitless journey, thinking that the old Law should not be followed. Not because Paul feared that he had preached a false Gospel among the Gentiles for seventeen years; but to show his predecessors that he was not running or had run in vain, as they had thought in their ignorance.

(Vers. 3-5.) But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Gentile. This matter arose because of false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery. But what is this truth of the Gospel, to give in to the hypocrisy of the Jews; and to consider as scybala what you once esteemed, and to despise as losses, and to observe and esteem as something, when they are nothing? But it strongly opposes the meaning of the Epistle itself, to call the Galatians back to circumcision. This is the main theme throughout his discourse, to teach that he is a Hebrew among the Hebrews, once observing all the works of the Law, circumcised on the eighth day according to the Law of the Pharisees: nevertheless, for the grace of Christ, to completely despise everything. For when he went to Jerusalem, and the false brethren, who believed in circumcision, wanted to compel him to circumcise Titus; neither Titus, nor did he give in to violence, so that they would safeguard the truth of the Gospel. But if he says that he was compelled by necessity to circumcise Titus: how does he recall the Galatians from circumcision, from which neither Titus, who was with him from the Gentiles, could excuse himself in Jerusalem? Therefore, according to the Greek manuscripts, it should be read, 'To whom we did not yield in subjection, not even for an hour,' so that it may be understood subsequently: so that the truth of the Gospel may remain with you. But if the testimony of the Latin exemplars is pleasing to anyone, we must understand it according to the higher sense: that the purpose was not for Titus to be circumcised, but to go to Jerusalem. For this reason, Paul and Barnabas submitted to going to Jerusalem, due to the sedition caused by the Law of Antioch. This was done so that the truth of the Gospel would be confirmed by the letter of the apostles and remain among the Galatians, which was not in the literal sense, but in the spiritual sense. It was not in the carnal understanding, but in spiritual intelligence, and not in overt Judaism, but in hidden understanding. It is worth knowing that the conjunction 'autem,' which is placed in this position, is superfluous if it is read without any purpose to respond to it and if it concludes the previous statement. However, it serves to maintain the order of reading and the sense of the passage. So, Titus, who was with me, being a Gentile, was not compelled to be circumcised. And immediately after, it explains the reason why he was being urged to undergo circumcision against his will. 'Because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery.' But when they were serving as ministers and wished to drag us into the servitude of the Law from the freedom of Christ, we did not even yield to them for a moment, so that we might not give any occasion to them to accuse us. And we did this primarily because of the ecclesiastical peace, so that we could excuse ourselves from necessity, and we did all of this so that you would not have any opportunity to depart from the grace of the Gospel. Therefore, if we, while in Jerusalem, among so many Jews who were falsely claiming to be brothers and those who were exerting influence over us to some extent, could not be compelled by force or reason to observe the circumcision that we knew was abolished, then you, coming from the Gentiles, you in Galatia, you to whom no violence can be done, voluntarily abandoning the grace, have transcended the antiquity of the already abolished Law.

(Verse 6) But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were,it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do. But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? For God does not show favoritism. He doesn't play favorites. In fact, He has no favorites. It makes no difference who you are or where you're from—if you want God and are ready to do what He says, the door is open. The Message He sent to the children of Israel—that through Jesus Christ everything is being put together again—well, He's doing it everywhere, among everyone. And thus, cautiously and gradually, Peter walks a middle path between praise and rebuke, so that he may defer to his predecessor the apostle, and yet boldly oppose him to his face, compelled by truth.

For those who seemed important, contributed nothing to me. He himself, however, conferred with them earlier and recounted many things to them that he had accomplished among the nations: they contributed nothing to him, but only confirmed what he had said, giving the right hand of fellowship, and they strengthened the gospel of me and of Paul. Again, it must be noted that the word 'conferred' itself is in Greek, which we discussed earlier.

(Vers. 7, 8.) But on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Ὑπέρβατον est, et multis quae in medio sunt interjecta sublatis, sic breviter legi potest: Mihi enim qui videbantur esse nihil contulerunt: sed econtra dexteras dederunt mihi et Barnabae, societatis. Aut certe ille absque jactatione sui, occultus est sensus: Mihi qui videbantur esse aliquid, nihil contulerunt; sed econtra a me eis collatum est, dum fiunt in Evangelii gratia firmiores. Totum autem quod dicit, hoc est: unus atque idem mihi Evangelium praeputii, et Petro circumcisionis credidit. He sent me to the Gentiles, and he appointed him in Judea. Neither could the Gentiles, who were no longer young and could not benefit from the pain of circumcision, abstain from the foods they had always been accustomed to and that God had created for them to use; nor could those who believed and were circumcised from the Jews, and who, by custom, thought they had more than the other Gentiles, easily despise the things in which they boasted. Therefore, by the providence of God, one apostle was given to the circumcised, who seemed to acquiesce to the shadows of the Law, while another was given to those who were uncircumcised, who did not consider the grace of the Gospel to be slavery, but rather free faith. Lest any impediment to faith arise under any occasion: and because of circumcision or uncircumcision, one would not believe in Christ. And we do not say this because Peter, who himself also testified that no man is common in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 10), and is taught in that vessel, which he saw sent from heaven with four corners, that it makes no difference whether someone is a Jew or a Gentile, as if he had forgotten the things that came before, concerning the grace of the Gospel, he considered the Law to be observed. But rather, in order to also pretend to keep the Law himself, gradually leading the Jews away from their ancient way of life. For they could not suddenly and contemptuously cast aside so much labor of observance, and the most careful conduct of their former life, as if it were mere refuse and loss. Hence we may clearly understand why Paul and Barnabas, who were in society with Peter, James, and John, received the right hand of fellowship from them. It was not to prevent the gospel of Christ being thought different among those who hitherto observed various rites, or who held diverse opinions, but to establish a common bond both between those who were circumcised and those who were not. Paul wisely maintained this, when he said, 'For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles; and recognizing the favor conferred upon Peter, he thus explains it, that it might be understood how, in receiving circumcision, he did it in part, in order that he might profit those who had believed in him among the Jews, and keep them in the faith and gospel of Christ.' He also understands that if that person were to act without fault and observe the time when it is not allowed, so as not to lose those entrusted to him, he would have to do more for the truth of the Gospel, namely, what was entrusted to him in secret, so that the nations, discouraged by the burden and difficulty of the Law, would not turn away from the faith and belief in Christ. A hidden question arises here: So what? If Peter were to find [people] from the Gentiles, would he not lead them to the faith? But if Paul had found any from the circumcision, did he not invite them to the baptism of Christ? This is resolved in the following way: that we say that it was commanded for each group, the Jews and the Gentiles, that those who defended the Law would have someone to follow, and those who preferred grace over the Law would have a teacher and guide. But in general, their purpose was to gather the Church of Christ from all the nations. For we read that the Gentile Cornelius was baptized by the holy Peter, and that Paul often preached Christ in the synagogues of the Jews. Peter, John, and James, who seemed to be pillars (Acts X, XIII, XVII). Three times before we have read about the Apostles, but after them were the others who seemed to be something. They made no difference to me, those who seemed important. So I was anxious to know what this meant, those who seemed important, but now he has relieved me of all doubts by adding, who seemed to be pillars. Therefore, the pillars of the Church are the apostles, especially Peter, James, and John, among whom two of them deserve to ascend the mountain with the Lord, one of whom introduces the Savior speaking in the Apocalypse: 'To him who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God' (Rev. 3:12), teaching all believing ones who overcome the adversary that they can become pillars of the Church. Writing to Timothy, Paul says: 'So that you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth' (1 Tim. 3:15). And we are instructed by him and the other apostles, all the believers, and even the Church itself is also called the pillar in the Scriptures. And there is no difference whether it is said about the body or the members, since the body is divided into members and the members are the body. Therefore, Peter, James, and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas; but Titus, who was with them, did not receive the right hand. For he had not yet reached such a measure, that the merchandises of Christ could be believed to him in equal measure with the elders, and hold the same place of negotiation that Barnabas held, and Paul.