Galatians Sermon

Overview: Paul went up to Jerusalem at last to refute his detractors (Ambrosiaster). He took Titus and Barnabas as witnesses (Marius Victorinus), just as Acts indicates (Theodoret). His journey was occasioned by divine revelation (Chrysostom). He had learned nothing from the Jerusalem apostles that he had not already known by revelation, though he solicited their judgment (Marius Victorinus, Chrysostom). His visit to the apostles was an act of humility (John Cassian), undertaken privately to avoid causing scandal to others (Jerome). Thus others could not suspect him of having run in vain (Augustine), nor did he thus accuse himself (Marius Victorinus). He was more submissive to the apostles than to the false brethren (Chrysostom, Marius Victorinus), but he could be wary even of the apostles (Chrysostom). He knew that God is the only true judge of human worth (Augustine). Paul stood in accord with the apostles, teaching them more than he learned from them (Jerome, Augustine). Barnabas accompanied Paul as a fellow trustee of the gospel (Marius Victorinus). Paul acknowledged Peter’s singular role (Ambrosiaster). He noted that he and Peter had distinguishable but complementary callings (Jerome), as made evident by their works (Theodoret). Because the other apostles support the church they are called pillars (Marius Victorinus), fully deserving their reputation (Jerome). So we too should be pillars reared on truth (Gregory of Nyssa).

In refusing to circumcise Titus, Paul confronted the legalistic brothers, setting an example to the Galatians (Ambrosiaster, Augustine), who had gone overboard by making compulsory what the apostles merely allowed. The care of those who had been impoverished by persecution (Chrysostom) was committed to Paul as a gospel duty (Marius Victorinus), and he performed it with zeal (Jerome). Paul steadfastly maintained the centrality of his vocation to the Gentiles (Ambrosiaster, Theodoret).

2:1a Going Again to Jerusalem

The Occasion for the Journey to Jerusalem. Ambrosiaster: His renown had been growing for a long time among all the Jews, though he had not been seen face to face … but on account of the law he had acquired a bad reputation among the Jews, as though his preaching was out of harmony with the preaching of the other apostles. Many were having doubts on account of this, which were sufficient to make the Gentiles anxious, in case they had been trained in something other than that which was preached by the apostles who had been with the Lord. For on this precise occasion the Galatians were undermined by Jews who were saying that Paul taught something other than Peter taught. This is the reason for his going up to Jerusalem, at the bidding of the Lord’s revelation, disclosing to them the implications of his preaching, with Barnabas and Titus as witnesses of his preaching, one from the Jews and one from the Gentiles, so that if any took offense at him it might be assuaged by their testimony. Epistle to the Galatians 2.2.1.

2:1b With Barnabas and Titus

The Confirming Companionship of Barnabas and Titus. Marius Victorinus: These men he had as witnesses, through whom he proved that his gospel was given to him through revelation, seeing that he said “Barnabas went up with me,” and he also took Titus, whose faith and gospel were approved by everyone. Epistle to the Galatians 1.2.1.

Where Does This Fit into the Narrative of Acts? Theodoret: Both [Barnabas and Titus] spent an extended time in Antioch, making a large body of converts and binding them to live according to the law of grace. But some supporters of the law who arrived from Judea tried to persuade the Gentiles to adopt the way of life according to the law But those great heralds of the truth, Paul and Barnabas, repudiated the teaching they promoted. They wished to persuade the congregation of the faithful that this was also the view of the great apostles. So they immediately went straightway to Judea, to apprise the apostles of what was going on. Epistle to the Galatians 2.1–2.

2:2a I Went Up by Revelation

Why “by Revelation”? Chrysostom: The purpose for his saying “through revelation” was that even before the solution to the question [why he spoke of running in vain] no one should accuse him of any ignorance, knowing that what occurred was not of human origin but of a certain divine dispensation which had in view many things, both present and to come. What then is the reason for this journey? When he first went up from Antioch to Jerusalem it was not for his own sake, for he himself knew that he ought to follow strictly the teachings of Christ. Rather he wanted to win over those who opposed him. He himself had no need at this point to ascertain whether he ran in vain, but [he went up] to satisfy his detractors. Homily on Galatians 2.2.

2:2b The Gospel Preached Among the Gentiles

Those Who Were of Repute. Marius Victorinus: That is, those through whom the commandments and gospel of God were being handed down, such as apostles and the rest. “To these men,” he says, “I privately explained my gospel, which I preach among the Gentiles, so that if there was anything that they were handing on otherwise, they could correct it or could emend anything that I myself was handing on otherwise. This therefore was the cause of my going up to Jerusalem, and for this reason it was revealed to me that I should go up, so that it might be more readily known that my gospel to the Gentiles and their gospel to the Jews were the same.” Now the purpose of his expounding it privately was that shame might be taken from among them, and they might communicate to one another the mysteries that they knew. Since they all shared one opinion and one gospel, what was it that he labored to persuade them of? That they should not add anything new or join anything to it. That is the cause of the present sin of the Galatians in following Judaism and the practice of circumcision, the sabbath and other things. Epistle to the Galatians 1.2.2.

Why He Met Them Privately. Jerome: What he says [about meeting privately] could be understood as meaning that the grace of evangelical liberty and the obsolescence of the law that was now abolished was discussed in confidence with the apostles on account of the many Jewish believers who were not yet able to hear that Christ was the fulfillment and end of the law. And these men, when Paul was absent, had boasted in Jerusalem that he was running and had run in vain when he supposed that the old law was not to be followed. Epistle to the Galatians 1.2.1–2.

Paul’s Motive. Chrysostom: It is indeed true that one who is eager to set right a common doctrine undertakes this not privately but in public. But it was not so with Paul, for he did not wish to learn or correct anything but rather to overthrow the pretext of those who were intent on deception. For since everyone in Jerusalem was scandalized if someone transgressed the law … he did not attempt to come forward openly and reveal his own preaching. Homily on Galatians 2.2.

The Call to Confer Within the Apostolate. John Cassian: Who could be so presumptuous and blind as to dare to trust his own judgment and discretion, when the vessel of election bears witness that he needs the partnership of his coapostles? Conferences 2.15.

2:2c Not Running in Vain

So as Not to Run Vainly. Marius Victorinus: “So that I should not run or have run in vain.” That is [he says], “lest I should fail to preach a full gospel. For if I have preached anything less, I have run in vain or I now run in vain.” Epistle to the Galatians 1.2.2.

To Whom Addressed. Augustine: “So that I should not run or have run in vain” we should understand to be addressed as if in a question, not to those with whom he compared his gospel in private but to those to whom he was writing, so that it might appear that he was not running and had not run in vain from the fact that by the testimony of the others he was certified not to dissent from the truth of the gospel. Epistle to the Galatians 10 [1b.2.1–2].

2:3 The Circumcision of Titus

The Case of Titus. Ambrosiaster: The implication is “Why should you be circumcised, when Titus was not compelled to undergo circumcision by the apostles? Titus, who had an important role, was accepted without circumcision.” Epistle to the Galatians 2.3.

The Gravity of the Case. Augustine: It was because of the intrigues of false brethren that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. It was not possible to require circumcision of him. Those who had crept in to spy on their liberty had a vehement expectation and desire for the circumcision of Titus. They wanted, with Paul’s testimony and consent, to preach circumcision as necessary to salvation. Epistle to the Galatians 11 [1b.2.3–5].

2:4a False Brethren

It Is False to Consider Circumcision a Necessity. Chrysostom: No small thing is at stake here. The question is, if the apostles at this point consented to circumcision, why did Paul apply the term “false brothers” to those who also imposed circumcision in accordance with the sentiment of the apostles? First of all, it is one thing actively to impose an act and another passively to consent to it once done. For the one who zealously imposes it makes it necessary and paramount. But the one who, without imposing it, does not prevent the one who wants it, does not consent to it as a necessity but rather through passive consent seeks to accomplish other purposes. … Second, the apostles did this only in Judea, but the false apostles had gone about everywhere. They had all the Galatians in their grip. Homily on Galatians 2.4.

2:4b Spying Out Our Freedom

Their Deceptive Methods. Ambrosiaster: By “secretly” he means that they had entered by deception, passing themselves off as brothers when they were enemies. By “slipped in” he means that they came in a humble manner, feigning friendship.… To “spy out” is to enter in such a way as to invent one thing and discover another, whereby they may challenge our liberty.… “Liberty in Jesus Christ” means not being subject to the law. “That they might bring us into bondage” means … to subject us to the law of circumcision. Epistle to the Galatians 2.5.3–4.

2:5 We Did Not Submit to Them

Resisting a New Slavery. Chrysostom: See how noble and emphatic his words are.… For [the false brethren] did not do this in order to teach anything profitable but that they might subject and enslave them. “For this reason,” [he says,] “we yielded to the apostles but not to [the false brethren].”Homily on Galatians 2.5.

Challenging Arrogant Opinions. Theodoret: “Not even for a short while,” [he says,] “would we endure their arrogant opinions, but we preferred the truth of the gospel before all things.” … He says this about those who obeyed the law by custom. For since it was likely that the Galatians would say that even the first of the apostles also kept the law, and the divine apostle knew that they were forced to do this in deference to believers from among the Jews who were still weak, he was caught in the middle. It would have been highly perverse to condemn them, yet he did not wish to reveal their aim, in case he might do harm to the new dispensation. So he steers a middle course. And while he does indeed profess to be angry at what occurred, he is nonetheless not disposed to say anything more about them. So he commits everything to the verdict of God. Epistle to the Galatians 2.5.

2:6a Those Reputed to Be Something

Those Reputed to Be Something Are Nothing. Marius Victorinus: [He means] those who have sprung from those same pseudoapostles but nonetheless “are something,” that is, have undergone change and now follow the gospel. Even if they have sprung from these phonies they are now whole, for that is what it is truly to be something. “It is nothing to me,” he says, “what kind of people they were before, at some past time.” And he adds the reason: God shows no partiality but looks at one’s mental attitude and faith. Whether one be Greek or Jew, whether one was anything, is not what God accepts, but what one is and whether one has received faith and the gospel. Epistle to the Galatians 1.2.6.

The Temptation to Appeasement. Chrysostom: Here he not only offers no defense of the apostles but is hard on the saints so that he may assist the weaker among them. What he is saying is something like this: “If these men enjoin circumcision, they will give an account to God. For God will not accept their persons because they are great and in authority.” Yet he has not said this openly, but sparingly.… And he does not say “what they are” but what they were, indicating that they also later gave up the preaching of circumcision, once the gospel was manifest everywhere.… It is as though he were saying, “I do not condemn or disparage those saints; for they knew what they were doing, and they will give an account to God.”Homily on Galatians 2.5–6.

2:6b God Shows No Partiality

Being Something, Being Nothing. Augustine: If people were reputed to be anything, that was a human reputation, for they themselves are not anything to boast of. For even if they are good ministers of God, it is Christ in them, not they through themselves, who are something. For if they were something through themselves they would always be something. “What they were” at one time means that it is nothing to him that they themselves were sinners. God accepts no one because of the office one holds. He calls all to salvation, not imputing their transgressions to them.… No one should suppose that Paul said [this] to disparage his predecessors, for they too, as spiritual people, wished to stand against the carnal people who thought themselves to “be something” on their own rather than out of Christ in them. They were extremely glad when persuaded that they themselves, Paul’s predecessors, like Paul had been justified by the Lord from a state of sin. But carnal people, if anything is said about their previous life, grow angry and take it as disparagement. So they assume that the apostles are of their own mind. Now Peter, James and John were more honored among the apostles because the Lord showed himself on the Mount to these same three as a sign of his kingdom. Epistle to the Galatians 12–13 [1b.2.6–9].

2:7a The Gospel to the Uncircumcised

Two Possible Readings. Jerome: This intricate passage, full of intervening matter, might be briefly construed as follows: “Those who were conspicuous added nothing to me, but on the contrary gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas.” An alternative sense is hidden to avoid boasting of himself: “Those who were conspicuous added nothing to me, but on the contrary I have added to them, and they have become more steadfast in the grace of the gospel.” Epistle to the Galatians 1.2.7–8.

The Fullness of the Gospel to the Uncircumcised. Augustine: The apostles were not therefore found to disagree in anything. Otherwise, when Paul claimed to have received the gospel perfectly, they might have denied this and wished to add to his teaching, as though he were incomplete. On the contrary, instead of reproving Paul’s imperfection, they approved his perfection.… His saying “on the contrary” might also be understood in such a way as to yield the following meaning: “Upon me those who had a reputation imposed nothing further. On the contrary, they consented with me and Barnabas, joining the right hand of fellowship, that we, for our part, should go among the Gentiles, who are contrary to the circumcision, while they for their part should go to those of the circumcision.” Epistle to the Galatians 12 [1b.2.6–9].

2:7b The Gospel to the Circumcised

The Unique Authority of Peter. Ambrosiaster: He names Peter alone because he has received the primacy in the founding of the church; and he himself had likewise been chosen to have the primacy in the founding of Gentile churches, but with the proviso that Peter should preach to the Gentiles, should cause arise, and Paul to the Jews. Epistle to the Galatians 2.7.8.

2:8 The Mission to the Gentiles

Mission to the Gentiles Uncompromised. Jerome: Paul allows that Peter, following Jewish custom, was without blame in his temporary observation of what was amiss so as not to lose those entrusted to him. But it was Paul’s own duty for the sake of the gospel truth to do what was entrusted to him among the uncircumcised, so that the Gentiles would not depart from their faith and belief in Christ through fear of the burdens and rigor of the law. Epistle to the Galatians 1.2.7–8.

2:9a The Grace Given to Paul

Collaboration with Grace. Theodoret: They knew this from the facts; for [he says] “just as divine grace worked with Peter for the preaching to the Jews, so it collaborated with me for the salvation of the Gentiles.” Epistle to the Galatians 2.8.

2:9b The Pillars

One Gospel. Marius Victorinus: That is, those who supported the church were like pillars supporting roofs and other things. “These men, then,” he says, “being of such quality and so great, gave me their right hands, that is, joined in friendship, peace and steadfastness and declared that they had only one gospel. In view of this accord, Galatians, you are sinning and follow neither my gospel nor that of Peter, James and John, who are the pillars of the church, when you add things that are not approved by any of them.” Epistle to the Galatians 1.2.7–9.

All Believers Who Overcome the Enemy Are Pillars. Jerome: Three times above we read that the apostles were “reputed.” … And so I was wondering what this word meant. Now he has delivered me from all doubt when he describes them as those “who appeared to be pillars.” Therefore it means the apostles, and above all Peter, James and John, two of whom were deemed fit to go up the Mount with Jesus. One of these introduces the Savior in the Apocalypse saying “He who has overcome I shall make him a pillar in the temple of my God.” This teaches us that all believers who have overcome the enemy can become pillars of the church. Epistle to the Galatians 1.2.7–8.

The Foundation of Truth. Gregory of Nyssa: Since we must also ascertain how it is possible to become a “pillar,” so that we too may become worthy of this calling, we ought to hear this again from the dictum of the apostle Paul, who says that the pillar is “the foundation of truth.” Oration 14 on Song of Songs 5.15.

2:9c Fellowship Given to Paul and Barnabas

Not to Me Alone. Marius Victorinus: “Not to me alone,” [he says], “did they give the right hand of fellowship, but also to Barnabas who was my companion.” He made the addition so that it should not appear that he alone had received the trust. Epistle to the Galatians 1.2.7–9.

Whether Barnabas Received Equal Primacy. Ambrosiaster: Just as he allots to Peter companions who were the outstanding men among the apostles, so he joins to himself Barnabas, who was associated with him by God’s appointment. Yet he claims that the grace of his primacy was entrusted to him alone by God, just as the primacy among the apostles was entrusted solely to Peter. Epistle to the Galatians 2.10.1–2.

2:10a Remembering the Poor

Being Mindful of the Poor. Marius Victorinus: When Paul and Barnabas were having these discussions with John and Peter and James, the gospel was accepted and established in the way that Paul describes. The only thing that they did not hear willingly in this dispute was that works were not part of salvation. Their sole injunction, however, was that they should be mindful of the poor. Thus they agree on this point also, that the hope of salvation does not reside in the activity of doing works for the poor, but they simply enjoin—what?—that we be mindful of the poor. Not that we should spend all our efforts on it but that we should share with those who have not what we are able to have. We are instructed simply that we should be mindful of the poor, not that we should place our care and thought upon our own capacity to hold on to our salvation by this means. Thus he is almost corrected and admonished in this matter, but this is not all Paul says. “That we should be mindful,” he says, not “that we should do this” but “that we should keep them in mind,” which is less than putting our work into this and fulfilling this alone. He adds that he took thought even for this matter outside the gospel that he preached, which consisted in being mindful of the poor and bestowing whatever he could upon them. In truth, indeed, no one is poor if, simply keeping faith and trusting in God, he awaits the riches of his salvation. Epistle to the Galatians 1.2.10.

Who Are These Poor? Chrysostom: Many believers of Jewish origin in Palestine had been robbed of all their goods and were being persecuted on all sides.… Those who had been converted from Greek backgrounds did not suffer such antagonism from those who had remained Greek as much as the believers of Jewish origin had suffered from their own people. Therefore he takes great pains that they should receive all assistance, as also when writing to the Romans and Corinthians.Homily on Galatians 2.10.

2:10b Care for the Poor

The Holy Poor. Jerome: The holy poor, care of whom was specially committed to Paul and Barnabas by the apostles, are those believers in Judea who brought the price of their possessions to the feet of the apostles to be given to the needy, or because they were incurring hatred and punishment from their kin, family and parents as deserters of the law and believers in a crucified man. How much labor the holy apostle expended in ministering to these his letters bear witness, as he wrote to Corinth, the Thessalonians and all the churches of the Gentiles that they should prepare this offering to be taken to Jerusalem through himself or others. For this reason he now says confidently “which very thing I have been careful to do.” Epistle to the Galatians 1.2.10.

2:11–14 THE CONFRONTATION AT ANTIOCH

Overview: Peter, now called Cephas (Jerome) found himself in a debate with Paul (Chrysostom) because Peter himself was being wrongly condemned (Jerome) after the people “came from James” (Theodoret). Paul’s rebuke is repeated here to edify the Galatians (Marius Victorinus). Peter’s fear has wholesome grounds. Insincerity is wrong (Augustine), at least if it is practiced for the wrong reason (Marius Victorinus). It is doubtful that an apostle should ever make use of it (Augustine). Grace is available where the law is unavailing (Cassiodorus). The reprimand, publicly delivered to be more effective (Augustine), is made on behalf of Gentiles (Chrysostom), whose duty is to keep the law in spirit (Augustine).

2:11a Opposing Peter at Antioch

Why Peter Is Now Called Cephas. Jerome: It is not that Peter and Cephas signify different things, but what we would call in Latin and Greek petra (“stone”) the Hebrews and Syrians both, because of the affinity of their languages, call cephas.… Nor is it surprising that Luke was silent on this matter, when there are many other things that Paul claims to have suffered which Luke omits with the freedom of a historian. Epistle to the Galatians 1.2.11.

2:11b Standing Condemned

Whether They Really Disagreed. Chrysostom: Many of those who read this passage of the letter superficially believe that Paul rebuked the hypocrisy of Peter. But it is not so—it is not so, far from it! For we shall find that there was here a deep though hidden understanding between Paul and Peter for the good of those who listen. … How could one who risked his life before such a multitude have ever played the hypocrite?… Paul does not now say this to condemn Peter, but in the same spirit as when he said those who are “reputed to be something,” he now says this too.… The apostles, as I said before, consented to circumcision in Jerusalem, because it was not possible to tear them away from the law all at once. But when they came to Antioch they did not henceforth observe anything of the kind but lived indifferently with believers of Gentile origin. Peter also did this. But when people came from Judea and saw him preaching there in this way, he gave up this practice, fearing to disturb them, and changed his ways. He had a twofold purpose, to avoid scandalizing the Jews and to give Paul a plausible reason to confront him. For if Peter himself, having included circumcision in his preaching in Jerusalem, had changed in Antioch, those of Jewish origin would have surmised that he did this from fear of Paul, and his disciples would have condemned his excessive complacence.… And so Paul rebukes and Peter voluntarily gives way. It is like the master who when upbraided keeps silent, so that his disciples might more easily change their ways. Homily on Galatians 2.11–12.

2:12a Eating with the Gentiles

Why This Puzzling Story Had to Be Told. Marius Victorinus: Perhaps indeed he would at this point have kept silent about the sin that he says he reproved in Peter, for it was enough that Peter had been corrected by popular reproof and Paul’s open accusation. But it is profitable and extremely requisite for this letter. He has two reasons for relating the incident. First, his own gospel was not reproved, and he himself, when he reproved Peter, heard no reproof from Peter. Next, this too, as I said, was extremely pertinent: it is because the Galatians thought that they needed to add to the principles of the gospel to obtain life … that this letter is being written to them. Hence it is very good to tell the story, because it is this very fault that was reproved by Paul in Peter and by the people also. In this way it follows that the Galatians too are sinning. Epistle to the Galatians 1.2.12–13.

The Implication of Eating with the Gentiles. Theodoret: While active in Judea the holy apostles were forced to live according to the law on account of the weakness of the believers from Jewish backgrounds, for they held fast to the regulations of the law. But when they shifted to the cities of the Gentiles they had no need of such an accommodation but lived according to the freedom of the gospel. This is what the godly Peter did when he arrived in Antioch. He ate freely with the Gentiles. But when some of the Jews came he separated from the Gentiles, so that he might not give those who came from the Jews any pretext for doing harm. This is the meaning of “fearing those of the circumcision.” For he who did not fear the whole host of the Jews did not succumb to fear of men, but he did not wish to furnish them with a pretext for scandal. Epistle to the Galatians 2.12–13.

2:12b Fearing the Circumcision Party

Peter’s Fear. Marius Victorinus: But in what way was Peter sinning? He had not adopted this ruse to bring in the Jews, meeting them on their own terms (which Paul himself had done and glories in having done, meeting the Jews on their own terms but for their profit). Rather, the sin of Peter lay in the fact that he withdrew, through fear of those who were of the circumcision. Epistle to the Galatians 1.2.12–13.

Appropriate Fear of Apostasy. Chrysostom: He was not afraid of his own endangerment; for one who had no fear at the beginning would have all the less at that time. Rather, he feared their apostasy. Just as Paul himself says to the Galatians, “I am afraid I have labored over you in vain.”Homily on Galatians 2.11–12.

2:13a Acting Insincerely

Peter’s Ambivalence. Augustine: Paul never fell into any pretense, for he everywhere observed a principle which seemed fitting both to Gentile and to Jewish churches, that he should nowhere take away a custom whose observation did not prevent the receiving of God’s kingdom.… Peter, however, when he came to Antioch, was rebuked by Paul not because he observed the Jewish custom in which he was born and reared, although he did not observe it among the Gentiles, but because he wanted to impose it on the Gentiles. This happened after seeing certain persons come from James—that is, from Judea, since James was the head of the church in Jerusalem. It was therefore in fear of those who still thought that salvation resided in these observances that Peter separated himself from the Gentiles and pretended to consent in imposing those burdens of servitude on the Gentiles. Epistle to the Galatians 15 [1b.2.11–16].

2:13b Barnabas Carried Away by Their Insincerity

Even Barnabas. Marius Victorinus: What then should we understand by “their insincerity”? Even Peter and Barnabas and the other Jews had not truly gone to the length of living their lives according to Jewish practice. They even pretended to do so as an ad hoc measure, because of the fears of those around them. And therefore, he says, even Barnabas acquiesced in their insincerity. Epistle to the Galatians 1.2.12–13.

2:14a The Truth of the Gospel

The Implication of the Charge. Augustine: Those who wish to defend Peter from error and from the depravity of life into which he had fallen overturn the very way of religion in which lies the salvation of all. This shatters and diminishes the authority of the Scriptures. They do not see that in this defense they are implicitly charging the apostle Paul not only with the crime of lying but even with perjury in the very teaching of piety, that is, in the letter in which Paul proclaims the gospel. It is for this reason he says, before narrating these things [in 1:20], “What I write to you, understand before God that I do not lie. On Lying 43.

2:14b Rebuking Peter Openly

Before Them All. Augustine: That he rebuked him “before all” was necessary, in order that everyone might be bettered by his rebuke. For it was not expedient to correct in secret an error that was doing public harm. It should be added that in his steadfastness and charity Peter, to whom the Lord had said three times, “Do you love me? Feed my sheep,” was very ready to bear this rebuke from a junior shepherd for the salvation of the flock. For the one who was being rebuked was himself more remarkable and more difficult to imitate than the one rebuking. For it is easier to see what one should correct in others than to see what ought to be corrected in oneself. It is easier to correct others by admonishing and rebuking than to be corrected readily even by yourself, let alone by another, still less if you add another and “before all.” Epistle to the Galatians 15 [1b.2.11–16].

2:14c Born a Jew, Living Like a Gentile

The Substance of the Reproach. Pseudo-Augustine: The apostle Peter would not have been rebuked if he had separated himself from the Gentiles for fear of giving scandal to the Jews. But what was rebuked in the apostle Peter was that, when he previously had been living in Gentile fashion with believers, he started to teach that the Gentiles ought to follow Jewish practice because he was overcome by fear upon the arrival of Jews from James. Therefore it was said to him, “If you, being a Jew, live in Gentile fashion, why do you force the Gentiles to follow Jewish practice?” For he had introduced doubt about discipleship in the gospel, which is a crime, since he was destroying what he had built. Thus it is that the apostle Paul calls this “insincerity. Questions on the New Testament, Appendix 60.2.

Grace Is Available Where the Law Is Unavailing. Cassiodorus: He says this so that Hebrews no less than Gentiles may be compelled to accept the grace of faith, not the impositions of the law, which no one could fulfill. Summary of Galatians 3.2.6.

2:14d Compelling Gentiles to Live Like Jews

The Palatable Way the Rebuke Was Phrased. Chrysostom: What is Paul’s design? To preempt suspicion in his reproach. For if Paul had said, “You do wrong in observing the law,” those from Judea would have reproached him, as one who insulted the teacher. But now, rebuking Peter on account of his own disciples—those of Gentile origin I mean—Paul makes his argument palatable. And not in this way only, but by declining to reproach everyone and making the whole reproof fall on the apostle [Peter] alone. Homily on Galatians 2.14.

Grace Enables the Fulfillment of the Law. Augustine: So that one might fulfill the works of the law, his infirmity being assisted not by his own merit but by the grace of God, they were not to demand from the Gentiles a fleshly observation of the law but were to understand that through the same grace of God they were able to fulfill the spiritual works of the law. Epistle to the Galatians 15 [1b.2.11–16].