Jerome

(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.

(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).