กาลาเทีย 2:11 วิจารณ์

The apostle, in this chapter, continues the relation of his past life and conduct, which he had begun in the former; and, by some further instances of what had passed between him and the other apostles, makes it appear that he was not beholden to them either for his knowledge of the gospel or his authority as an apostle, as his adversaries would insinuate; but, on the contrary, that he was owned and approved even by them, as having an equal commission with them to this office. I. He particularly informs them of another journey which he took to Jerusalem many years after the former, and how he behaved himself at that time (Gal 2:1-10). And, II. Gives them an account of another interview he had with the apostle Peter at Antioch, and how he was obliged to behave himself towards him there. From the subject-matter of that conversation, he proceeds to discourse on the great doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, without the works of the law, which it was the main design of this epistle to establish, and which he enlarges more upon in the two following chapters.

I. From the account which Paul gives of what passed between him and the other apostles at Jerusalem, the Galatians might easily discern both the falseness of what his enemies had insinuated against him and their own folly and weakness in departing from that gospel which he had preached to them. But to give the greater weight to what he had already said, and more fully to fortify them against the insinuations of the judaizing teachers, he acquaints them with another interview which he had with the apostle Peter at Antioch, and what passed between them there, _Gal 2:11-14. Antioch was one of the chief churches of the Gentile Christians, as Jerusalem was of those Christians who turned from Judaism to the faith of Christ. There is no colour of reason for the supposition that Peter was bishop of Antioch. If he had, surely Paul would not have withstood him in his own church, as we here find he did; but, on the contrary, it is here spoken of as an occasional visit which he made thither. In their other meeting, there had been good harmony and agreement. Peter and the other apostles had both acknowledged Paul's commission and approved his doctrine, and they parted very good friends. But in this Paul finds himself obliged to appose Peter, for he was to be blamed, a plain evidence that he was not inferior to him, and consequently of the weakness of the pope's pretence to supremacy and infallibility, as the successor of Peter. Here we may observe, 1. Peter's fault. When he came among the Gentile churches, he complied with them, and did eat with them, though they were not circumcised, agreeably to the instructions which were given in particular to him (Acts 10), when he was warned by the heavenly vision to call nothing common or unclean. But, when there came some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, he grew more shy of the Gentiles, only to humour those of the circumcision and for fear of giving them offence, which doubtless was to the great grief and discouragement of the Gentile churches. Then he withdrew, and separated himself. His fault herein had a bad influence upon others, for the other Jews also dissembled with him; though before they might be better disposed, yet now, from his example, they took on them to scruple eating with the Gentiles, and pretended they could not in conscience do it, because they were not circumcised. And (would you think it?) Barnabas himself, one of the apostles of the Gentiles, and one who had been instrumental in planting and watering the churches of the Gentiles, was carried away with their dissimulation. Here note, (1.) The weakness and inconstancy of the best of men, when left to themselves, and how apt they are to falter in their duty to God, out of an undue regard to the pleasing of men. And, (2.) The great force of bad examples, especially the examples of great men and good men, such as are in reputation for wisdom and honour. 2. The rebuke which Paul gave him for his fault. Notwithstanding Peter's character, yet, when he observes him thus behaving himself to the great prejudice both of the truth of the gospel and the peace of the church, he is not afraid to reprove him for it. Paul adhered resolutely to his principles, when others faltered in theirs; he was as good a Jew as any of them (for he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews), but he would magnify his office as the apostle of the Gentiles, and therefore would not see them discouraged and trampled upon. When he saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel - that they did not live up to that principle which the gospel taught, and which they had professed to own and embrace, namely, that by the death of Christ the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile was taken down, and the observance of the law of Moses was no longer in force - when he observed this, as Peter's offence was public, so he publicly reproved him for it: He said unto him before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Herein one part of his conduct was a contradiction to the other; for if he, who was a Jew, could himself sometimes dispense with the use of the ceremonial law, and live after the manner of the Gentiles, this showed that he did not look upon the observance of it as still necessary, even for the Jews themselves; and therefore that he could not, consistently with his own practice, impose it upon the Gentile Christians. And yet Paul charges him with this, yea, represents him as compelling the Gentiles to live as did the Jews - not by open force and violence, but this was the tendency of what he did; for it was in effect to signify this, that the Gentiles must comply with the Jews, or else not be admitted into Christian communion. II. Paul having thus established his character and office, and sufficiently shown that he was not inferior to any of the apostles, no, not to Peter himself, from the account of the reproof he gave him he takes occasion to speak of that great fundamental doctrine of the gospel - That justification is only by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law (though some think that all he says to the end of the chapter is what he said to Peter at Antioch), which doctrine condemned Peter for his symbolizing with the Jews. For, if it was the principle of his religion that the gospel is the instrument of our justification and not the law, then he did very ill in countenancing those who kept up the law, and were for mixing it with faith in the business of our justification. This was the doctrine which Paul had preached among the Galatians, to which he still adhered, and which it is his great business in this epistle to mention and confirm. Now concerning this Paul acquaints us, 1. With the practice of the Jewish Christians themselves: "We," says he, "who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles (even we who have been born and bred in the Jewish religion, and not among the impure Gentiles), knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we ourselves have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. And, if we have thought it necessary to seek justification by the faith of Christ, why then should we hamper ourselves with the law? What did we believe in Christ for? Was it not that we might be justified by the faith of Christ? And, if so, is it not folly to go back to the law, and to expect to be justified either by the merit of moral works or the influence of any ceremonial sacrifices or purifications? And if it would be wrong in us who are Jews by nature to return to the law, and expect justification by it, would it not be much more so to require this of the Gentiles, who were never subject to it, since by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified?" To give the greater weight to this he adds (Gal 2:17), "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ the minister of sin? If, while we seek justification by Christ alone, and teach others to do so, we ourselves are found giving countenance or indulgence to sin, or rather are accounted sinners of the Gentiles, and such as it is not fit to have communion with, unless we also observe the law of Moses, is Christ the minister of sin? Will it not follow that he is so, if he engage us to receive a doctrine that gives liberty to sin, or by which we are so far from being justified that we remain impure sinners, and unfit to be conversed with?" This, he intimates, would be the consequence, but he rejects it with abhorrence: "God forbid," says he, "that we should entertain such a thought of Christ, or of his doctrine, that thereby he should direct us into a way of justification that is defective and ineffectual, and leave those who embrace it still unjustified, or that would give the least encouragement to sin and sinners." This would be very dishonourable to Christ, and it would be very injurious to them also. "For," says he (Gal 2:18), "if I build again the things which I destroyed - if I (or any other), who have taught that the observance of the Mosaic law is not necessary to justification, should now, by word or practice, teach or intimate that it is necessary - I make myself a transgressor; I own myself to be still an impure sinner, and to remain under the guilt of sin, notwithstanding my faith in Christ; or I shall be liable to be charged with deceit and prevarication, and acting inconsistently with myself." Thus does the apostle argue for the great doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law from the principles and practice of the Jewish Christians themselves, and from the consequences that would attend their departure from it, whence it appeared that Peter and the other Jews were much in the wrong in refusing to communicate with the Gentile Christians, and endeavouring to bring them under the bondage of the law. 2. He acquaints us what his own judgment and practice were. (1.) That he was dead to the law. Whatever account others might make of it, yet, for his part, he was dead to it. He knew that the moral law denounced a curse against all that continue not in all things written therein, to do them; and therefore he was dead to it, as to all hope of justification and salvation that way. And as for the ceremonial law, he also knew that it was now antiquated and superseded by the coming of Christ, and therefore, the substance having come, he had no longer any regard to the shadow. He was thus dead to the law, through the law itself; it discovered itself to be at an end. By considering the law itself, he saw that justification was not to be expected by the works of it (since none could perform a perfect obedience to it) and that there was now no further need of the sacrifices and purifications of it, since they were done away in Christ, and a period was put to them by his offering up himself a sacrifice for us; and therefore, the more he looked into it the more he saw that there was no occasion for keeping up that regard to it which the Jews pleaded for. But, though he was thus dead to the law, yet he did not look upon himself as with law. He had renounced all hopes of justification by the works of it, and was unwilling any longer to continue under the bondage of it; but he was far from thinking himself discharged from his duty to God; on the contrary, he was dead to the law, that he might live unto God. The doctrine of the gospel, which he had embraced, instead of weakening the bond of duty upon him, did but the more strengthen and confirm it; and therefore, though he was dead to the law, yet it was only in order to his living a new and better life to God (as Rom 7:4, Rom 7:6), such a life as would be more agreeable and acceptable to God than his observance of the Mosaic law could now be, that is, a life of faith in Christ, and, under the influence thereof, of holiness and righteousness towards God. Agreeably hereunto he acquaints us, (2.) That, as he was dead to the law, so he was alive unto God through Jesus Christ (Gal 2:20): I am crucified with Christ, etc. And here in his own person he gives us an excellent description of the mysterious life of a believer. [1.] He is crucified, and yet he lives; the old man is crucified (Rom 6:6), but the new man is living; he is dead to the world, and dead to the law, and yet alive to God and Christ; sin is mortified, and grace quickened. [2.] He lives, and yet not he. This is strange: I live, and yet not I; he lives in the exercise of grace; he has the comforts and the triumphs of grace; and yet that grace is not from himself, but from another. Believers see themselves living in a state of dependence. [3.] He is crucified with Christ, and yet Christ lives in him; this results from his mystical union with Christ, by means of which he is interested in the death of Christ, so as by virtue of that to die unto sin; and yet interested in the life of Christ, so as by virtue of that to live unto God. [4.] He lives in the flesh, and yet lives by faith; to outward appearance he lives as other people do, his natural life is supported as others are; yet he has a higher and nobler principle that supports and actuates him, that of faith in Christ, and especially as eyeing the wonders of his love in giving himself for him. Hence it is that, though he lives in the flesh, yet he does not live after the flesh. Note, Those who have true faith live by that faith; and the great thing which faith fastens upon is Christ's loving us and giving himself for us. The great evidence of Christ's loving us is his giving himself for us; and this is that which we are chiefly concerned to mix faith with, in order to our living to him. Lastly, The apostle concludes this discourse with acquainting us that by the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, without the works of the law (which he asserted, and others opposed), he avoided two great difficulties, which the contrary opinion was loaded with: - 1. That he did not frustrate the grace of God, which the doctrine of the justification by the works of the law did; for, as he argues (Rom 11:6), If it be of works, it is no more of grace. 2. That he did not frustrate the death of Christ; whereas, if righteousness come by the law, then it must follow that Christ has died in vain; for, if we look for salvation by the law of Moses, then we render the death of Christ needless: for to what purpose should he be appointed to die, if we might have been saved without it?

INTRODUCTION TO GALATIANS 2 In this chapter the apostle proceeds with the narrative of himself, and gives an account of another journey of his to Jerusalem, where he had a conversation with the chief of the apostles; in which they approved of his ministry, allowed of his commission, and took him into fellowship with them, but gave him no new instructions, nor added to his spiritual light and knowledge; from whence it appeared that the Gospel he preached was not after men, or received from men, as he had asserted in the preceding chapter; and he also gives an account of his meeting with Peter at Antioch, and how he reproved him for some judaizing practices; which leads him to assert the doctrine of justification by faith, in opposition to the works of the law; which is the grand point he had in view to establish in this epistle, and which he vindicates from the charge of licentiousness. He begins with an account of another journey of his to Jerusalem, the circumstances of which he relates, as the time when, fourteen years ago; the persons he took with him as his companions, Barnabas and Titus, Gal 2:1 what moved him to it, a revelation from God; and the business he did when come thither, he communicated the Gospel, and that not to any but to such that were of reputation, and not publicly but privately; his end was, that it might appear how successful he had been in his ministry, and had not laboured in vain, Gal 2:2 then follows a narrative of a particular event relating to Titus, who is described as one of his companions, and by his nation, a Greek; and who though an uncircumcised person, yet the apostles and elders at Jerusalem did not oblige him to be circumcised, which showed that they were of the same mind with the apostle in this point, Gal 2:3 and the reason of it was because of the false teachers, that they might not give them any handle; who are described by their character, false brethren, by their private manner of getting in among the saints, and by their ends and views, which were to spy out their Christian liberty and bring them into bondage, Gal 2:4 to whom the apostle opposed himself, and would not give way for the least space of time; for this end, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with the Gentiles, Gal 2:5 and as for the apostles, though they were men of great character and reputation, nor would the apostle detract from it; yet they added nothing to him, he received nothing from them, Gal 2:6 but, on the other hand, partly because they saw that as the Gospel to be preached to the Jews was committed to Peter, so the same Gospel to be preached to the Gentiles was committed to Paul; and partly because of the same efficacy and success in the ministry of the one as in the ministry of the other; as also because they perceived what gifts of grace were bestowed on the apostle; they gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, as a token of their mutual agreement, and as being of the same society, Gal 2:7 nor did they give him and Barnabas anything in charge, but only to remember the poor, to which he was forward enough of himself, Gal 2:10 after which follows an account of an opposition made by the apostle to Peter, which was done at Antioch, and to his face, and not without reason, Gal 2:11 for whereas some time before he ate with the Gentiles, which was commendable in him, he afterwards declined conversation with them, moved to it by fear of the converted Jews, Gal 2:12 and such was the force of his example, that other Jews, who before did not scruple eating with the Gentiles, separated likewise, and even Barnabas himself, Paul's companion, Gal 2:13 wherefore seeing this was not walking according to the Gospel of Christ, and with that integrity and uprightness which became such persons, the apostle publicly reproved Peter, and expostulated with him; partly on account of his former conversation with the Gentiles, though he himself was a Jew, and therefore it was absurd and contradictory in him to oblige the Gentiles to live as the Jews did, Gal 2:14 and partly on account of the ledge which he and Peter and others who were Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles, had of the doctrine of justification; that it was not by the works of the law, but by faith in Christ; for to this end they had believed in Christ that they might be justified, not by the one, but by the other; which doctrine is confirmed by a passage referred to in Psa 149:2 and whereas it might be objected that this doctrine of free justification opened a door to licentiousness, the apostle answers to it by an abhorrence of it, Gal 2:17 and by observing that this would build up what he had destroyed, Gal 2:18 besides, he argues the contrary from his being dead to the law, that he might live unto God, Gal 2:19 and from his crucifixion with Christ, and of the old man with his deeds; and from Christ's living in him, and his living by faith upon him, Gal 2:20 and for the further confirmation of the doctrine of justification being by faith, and not by works, he suggests, were it otherwise, both the grace of God would be frustrated and made void, and the death of Christ be in vain, Gal 2:21.

But when Peter was come to Antioch,.... The Alexandrian copy, and others, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions, instead of "Peter", read "Cephas", who, by some ancient writers, is said to be not Peter the Apostle, named Cephas by Christ, but one of the seventy disciples. So Clemens (h) says, that Cephas, of whom Paul speaks, that when he came to Antioch he withstood him to his face, was one of the seventy disciples who had the same name with Peter the Apostle: and Jerom says (i) that there were some who were of opinion, that Cephas, of whom Paul writes that he withstood him to his face, was not the Apostle Peter, but one of the seventy disciples called by that name: but without any manner of foundation; for the series of the discourse, and the connection of the words, most clearly show, that that same Cephas, or Peter, one of the twelve disciples mentioned, Gal 2:9, with James and John, as pillars, is here meant. Our apostle first takes notice of a visit he made him, three years after his conversion, Gal 1:18, when his stay with him was but fifteen days, and, for what appears, there was then an entire harmony between them; fourteen years after he went up to Jerusalem again, and communicated his Gospel to Peter, and the rest, when they also were perfectly agreed; but now at Antioch there was a dissension between them, which is here related. However, the Papists greedily catch at this, to secure the infallibility of the bishops of Rome, who pretend to be the successors of Peter, lest, should the apostle appear blameworthy, and to be reproved and opposed, they could not, with any grace, assume a superior character to his: but that Peter the Apostle is here designed is so manifest, that some of their best writers are obliged to own it, and give up the other as a mere conceit. When Peter came to Antioch is not certain; some have thought it was before the council at Jerusalem concerning the necessity of circumcision to salvation, because it is thought that after the decree of that council Peter would never have behaved in such a manner as there related; though it should be observed, that that decree did not concern the Jews, and their freedom from the observance of the law, only the Gentiles; so that Peter and other Jews might, as it is certain they did, notwithstanding that, retain the rites and ceremonies of the law of Moses; and according to the series of things, and the order of the account, it seems to be after that council, when Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, and with others continued there for some time, during which time Peter came thither; see Act 15:30 and the following contention happened, I withstood him to the face: not in show, and outward appearance only, as some of the ancients have thought, as if this was an artifice of the apostle's, that the Jews, having an opportunity of hearing what might be said in favour of eating with the Gentiles, might be convinced of the propriety of it, and not be offended with it: but this is to make the apostle guilty of the evil he charges Peter with, namely, dissimulation; no, the opposition was real, and in all faithfulness and integrity; he did not go about as a tale bearer, whisperer, and backbiter, but reproved him to his face, freely spoke his mind to him, boldly resisted him, honestly endeavoured to convince him of his mistake, and to put a stop to his conduct; though he did not withstand him as an enemy, or use him with rudeness and ill manners; or as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, and false teachers resist the truth; but as a friend and an apostle, and in an amicable manner, and yet with all uprightness: his reason for it was, because he was to be blamed; some read it, "was blamed", or "condemned", either by others, by the Jews, for his going into Cornelius's house formerly; but what has this to do with the present case? or by those who lately came from James to Antioch, for his eating with the Gentiles there; yet this could be no reason for the apostle's withstanding him, but rather a reason why he should stand by him; or he was condemned by himself, self-condemned, acting contrary to the sentiments of his mind, and what he had declared in the council at Jerusalem; though it is best to render the word, to be blamed, which shows that the apostle did not oppose him for opposition sake, rashly, and without any foundation; there was a just reason for it, he had done that which was culpable, and for which he was blameworthy; and what that was is mentioned in the next verse. (h) Apud Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 12. (i) In loc.

For in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church, you now stand. If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute. But if you say that I am condemned, you bring an accusation against God, who revealed the Christ to me, and you inveigh against Him who pronounced me blessed on account of the revelation. But if, indeed, you really wish to work in the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow-worker with us."

Having by these means declared the unanimity and harmony between the Apostles and himself, he is obliged to proceed to mention his debate with Peter at Antioch. "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision." Many, on a superficial reading of this part of the Epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it; we shall discover great wisdom, both of Paul and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their hearers. But first a word must be said about Peter's freedom in speech, and how it was ever his way to outstrip the other disciples. Indeed it was upon one such occasion that he gained his name from the unbending and impregnable character of his faith. For when all were interrogated in common, he stepped before the others and answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Mat. xvi: 16.) This was when the keys of heaven were committed to him. So too, he appears to have been the only speaker on the Mount; (Mat. xvii: 4.) and when Christ spoke of His crucifixion, and the others kept silence, he said, "Be it far from Thee." (Mat. xvi: 22.) These words evince, if not a cautious temper, at least a fervent love; and in all instances we find him more vehement than the others, and rushing forward into danger. So when Christ was seen on the beach, and the others were pushing the boat in, he was too impatient to wait for its coming to land. (John xxi: 7.) And after the Resurrection, when the Jews were murderous and maddened, and sought to tear the Apostles in pieces, he first dared to come forward, and to declare, that the Crucified was taken up into heaven. (Acts ii: 14, Acts 2:36) It is a greater thing to open a closed door, and to commence an action, than to be free-spoken afterwards. How could he ever dissemble who had exposed his life to such a populace? He who when scourged and bound would not bate a jot of his courage, and this at the beginning of his mission, and in the heart of the chief city where there was so much danger,-how could he, long afterwards in Antioch, where no danger was at hand, and his character had received lustre from the testimony of his actions, feel any apprehension of the believing Jews? How could he, I say, who at the very first and in their chief city feared not the Jews while Jews, after a long time and in a foreign city, fear those of them who had been converted? Paul therefore does not speak this against Peter, but with the same meaning in which he said, "for they who were reputed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me." But to remove any doubt on this point, we must unfold the reason of these expressions. The Apostles, as I said before, permitted circumcision at Jerusalem, an abrupt severance from the law not being practicable; but when they come to Antioch, they no longer continued this observance, but lived indiscriminately with the believing Gentiles which thing Peter also was at that time doing. But when some came from Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer did so fearing to perplex them, but he changed his course, with two objects secretly in view, both to avoid offending those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him. For had he, having allowed circumcision when preaching at Jerusalem, changed his course at Antioch, his conduct would have appeared to those Jews to proceed from fear of Paul, and his disciples would have condemned his excess of pliancy. And this would have created no small offence; but in Paul, who was well acquainted with all the facts, his withdrawal would have raised no such suspicion, as knowing the intention with which he acted. Wherefore Paul rebukes, and Peter submits, that when the master is blamed, yet keeps silence, the disciples may more readily come over. Without this occurrence Paul's exhortation would have had little effect, but the occasion hereby afforded of delivering a severe reproof, impressed Peter's disciples with a more lively fear. Had Peter disputed Paul's sentence, he might justly have been blamed as upsetting the plan, but now that the one reproves and the other keeps silence, the Jewish party are filled with serious alarm; and this is why he used Peter so severely. Observe too Paul's careful choice of expressions, whereby he points out to the discerning, that he uses them in pursuance of the plan, and not from anger. His words are, "When Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned;" that is, not by me but by others; had he himself condemned him, he would not have shrunk from saying so. And the words, "I resisted him to the face," imply a scheme for had their discussion been real, they would not have rebuked each other in the presence of the disciples, for it would have been a great stumbling block to them. But now this apparent contest was much to their advantage; as Paul had yielded to the Apostles at Jerusalem, so in turn they yield to him at Antioch. The cause of censure is this, "For before that certain came from James," who was the teacher at Jerusalem, "he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the Circumcision:" his cause of fear was not his own danger, (for if he feared not in the beginning, much less would he do so then,) but their defection. As Paul himself says to the Galatians, "I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain:" (Gal. iv: 11.) and again, "I fear lest by any means as the serpent beguiled Eve, ...so your minds should be corrupted." (2 Cor. xi: 3.) Thus the fear of death they knew not, but the fear lest their disciples should perish, agitated their inmost soul.

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.

(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.

There was no dispute or condemnation in Paul's opposing Peter, but a matter of far-sightedness. For since, through accommodation, those around Peter in Jerusalem tolerated circumcision, wishing gradually to lead the Gentile converts from the Jews to completion, when Peter came to Antioch, while none of the Jews there were yet believers, he used to eat without distinction with those who believed from the Gentiles; but when they arrived, so as not to scandalize them, being still weak, he withdrew and ceased to eat with them. The cause of this, as has been said, was the weakness of those people. And that Paul acted openly, but not to oppose Peter privately, was a matter of far-sightedness, so that when the believers from Judea saw their teacher Peter accused openly, they might perceive whatever was not in accord with the uncircumcised and not combative, and know that the observance of the law after faith was no longer necessary but was merely a ploy to entrap Peter. That this was managed therefore, Paul plainly entered into argument with Peter, so that the believers from the circumcision, hearing, would turn from the observance of the law; for if the anger were genuine, he ought to have argued with them privately. In another way. [OECUMENIUS] Eusebius Pamphili, in the Ecclesiastical History shows that the Cephas mentioned is not Peter, but a namesake of his, one of the seventy. And the argument is reasonable. For Peter would not again have needed to retreat, who had already defended this matter in Jerusalem and, having persuaded everyone when he ate with Cornelius, had caused some of those of the circumcision to be scandalized, and had also said, "Truly, brothers, I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation the one who fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35) For he was not the one who said these things. But if he had acted therefore contrary to the beginning of his preaching, and had convinced everyone that he had not acted wrongly, the Spirit leading him to this, how would he now, after such a long time, after giving Peter the proof of his own virtue, have again needed such a kind of management? And as for the fact that he was judged, you may also think in this way: "It has happened to me," he says, as a pretext for opposing him face to face and refuting him, nothing else, or that he had been previously judged by the Jews concerning eating with those uncircumcised when he ate with Cornelius. For if he had not been beforehand judged there by those who were scandalized, he would not now have been admonished. And if he had not been admonished, there would have been no need either of a rebuke or of the face-to-face opposition. But what profit is the face-to-face opposition at all? [OF THE SAME] Because he made it timely to be spoken before the Jews, that "We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from the Gentiles," (Gal. 2:15) knowing that no one is justified by works of the law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ, and we also believed in Jesus Christ in order that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by works of the law, because these things were said before all, there arose a personal opposition. For if indeed there was any fault, he ought to have reproved and corrected it privately, the Lord saying: "If your brother sins, rebuke him privately." (Matt. 18:15) If he refuses, then bring others and the church. [end of the excerpt by Oecumenius] "he was clearly in the wrong." Peter was in the wrong, not by the truth nor by Paul who knew the allowance, away with that! but by those ignorant of the administration and thinking he was acting hypocritically because of the matter: that when the believing Jews were absent he used to eat with the Gentiles, but when they were present he no longer did so. And you know what has been written concerning Cephas.

When he was resident in Jerusalem, Peter condescended to Judaism, not prohibiting circumcision, nor the Sabbaths. When he came down to Antioch, however, he ate with those from the nations who had believed in the Lord without - any discrimination. Then, when certain people came down from Jerusalem, he was afraid in case he scandalized them and separated himself from those with whom he previously used to eat. But Paul made some sort of economy with him, when he rebuked him in front of everyone for demanding from the nations to Judaize; inasmuch as he intended that by seeing the teacher hearing this rebuke and remaining silent, they might learn that they should not keep the Jewish customs. The whole case was one of economy, based on the prudence of both and intended for the benefit of the disciples, so that even if Peter is said to have behaved as a hypocrite, and not to have been upright, this is understood to have been said for the benefit of the disciples, and on account of the economy.

Many think that here Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy, but this is unjust. For what he seemingly says against Peter was done and spoken with a special purpose. For Peter, being in Jerusalem, permitted circumcision — indeed it was impossible to suddenly draw them away from the law — but having come to Antioch, he ate together with the Gentiles. When certain people from Jerusalem came to Antioch, he began to avoid the Gentiles, so as not to scandalize the Jerusalemites and at the same time to give Paul a fitting occasion for rebuke. Therefore Paul rebukes, and Peter endures it. For in this way the disciples could more easily change their way of thinking, when the teacher is subjected to reproaches and remains silent. Thus, this "opposed him to his face" was only in appearance, since if the struggle had been real, they would not have accused each other in front of the disciples, because they would have subjected them to great scandal. But as it was, the apparent outward opposition served for the correction of the disciples. For Peter does not contradict at all — clearly he agreed with this objection of Paul. He did not say: from me, but simply, from others, who did not know that it was done with good intention, and considered it hypocrisy that in the absence of the Jerusalemites he ate together with the Gentiles, but when they came, he withdrew. And some understood it this way: Peter even before "was blamed," says Paul, because he ate together with Cornelius, therefore now too he withdrew, fearing to be subjected to new reproaches, and when he withdrew, "I opposed him to his face."

The Apostle showed above that he received nothing useful from the discussion held with the apostles; now he shows that he benefitted them: First, he shows how he helped Peter by correcting him; Secondly, he tells what he said (v. 12). He says, therefore: Indeed, they advantaged me nothing; rather I conferred something upon them, and especially upon Peter, because "when Cephas was come to Antioch," where there was a church of the Gentiles, "I withstood him to the face," i.e., openly: "Reverence not thy neighbor in his fall and refrain not to speak in the time of salvation" (Sir 4:27). Or: to his face, i.e., not in secret as though detracting and fearing him, but publicly and as his equal: "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart: but reprove him openly, lest thou incur sin through him" (Lev. 19:17). This he did, because he was to be blamed. But it might be objected: This took place after they received the grace of the Holy Spirit; but after the grace of the Holy Spirit the apostles did not sin in any way. I answer that after the grace of the Holy Spirit the apostles did not sin mortally, and this gift they had through the divine power that had strengthened them: "I have established the pillars thereof" (Ps 74:4). Yet they sinned venially because of human frailty: "If we say that we have no sin," i.e., venial, "we deceive ourselves" (1 John 1:8). Apropos of what is said in a certain Gloss, namely, that "I withstood him" as an adversary, the answer is that the Apostle opposed Peter in the exercise of authority, not in his authority of ruling. Therefore from the foregoing we have an example: prelates, indeed, an example of humility, that they not disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; subjects have an example of zeal and freedom, that they fear not to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude.

The apostle mentions his journey to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus, Gal 2:1. Shows that he went thither by revelation; and what he did while there, and the persons with whom he had intercourse, Gal 2:2-8. How the apostles gave him the right hand of fellowship, Gal 2:9, Gal 2:10. Here he opposes Peter at Antioch, and the reason why, Gal 2:11-14. Shows that the Jews as well as the Gentiles must be justified by faith, Gal 2:15, Gal 2:16. They who seek this justification should act with consistency, Gal 2:17, Gal 2:18. Gives his own religious experience, and shows, that through the law he was dead to the law, and crucified with Christ, Gal 2:19, Gal 2:20. Justification is not of the law, but by the faith of Christ, Gal 2:21.

When Peter was come to Antioch - There has been a controversy whether Πετρος, Peter, here should not be read Κηφας, Kephas; and whether this Kephas was not a different person from Peter the apostle. This controversy has lasted more than 1500 years, and is not yet settled. Instead of Πετρος, Peter, ABCH, several others of good note, with the Syriac, Erpenian, Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Armenian, later Syriac in the margin, Vulgate, and several of the Greek fathers, read Κηφας. But whichsoever of these readings we adopt, the controversy is the same; for the great question is, whether this Peter or Kephas, no matter which name we adopt, be the same with Peter the apostle? I shall not introduce the arguments pro and con, which may be all seen in Calmet's dissertation on the subject, but just mention the side where the strength of the evidence appears to lie. That Peter the apostle is meant, the most sober and correct writers of antiquity maintain; and though some of the Catholic writers have fixed the whole that is here reprehensible on one Kephas, one of the seventy disciples, yet the most learned of their writers and of their popes, believe that St. Peter is meant. Some apparently plausible arguments support the contrary opinion, but they are of no weight when compared with those on the opposite side.

HIS CO-ORDINATE AUTHORITY AS APOSTLE OF THE CIRCUMCISION RECOGNIZED BY THE APOSTLES. PROVED BY HIS REBUKING PETER FOR TEMPORIZING AT ANTIOCH: HIS REASONING AS TO THE INCONSISTENCY OF JUDAIZING WITH JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. (Gal. 2:1-21) Translate, "After fourteen years"; namely, from Paul's conversion inclusive [ALFORD]. In the fourteenth year from his conversion [BIRKS]. The same visit to Jerusalem as in Act 15:1-4 (A.D. 50), when the council of the apostles and Church decided that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised. His omitting allusion to that decree is; (1) Because his design here is to show the Galatians his own independent apostolic authority, whence he was not likely to support himself by their decision. Thus we see that general councils are not above apostles. (2) Because he argues the point upon principle, not authoritative decisions. (3) The decree did not go the length of the position maintained here: the council did not impose Mosaic ordinances; the apostle maintains that the Mosaic institution itself is at an end. (4) The Galatians were Judaizing, not because the Jewish law was imposed by authority of the Church as necessary to Christianity, but because they thought it necessary to be observed by those who aspired to higher perfection (Gal 3:3; Gal 4:21). The decree would not at all disprove their view, and therefore would have been useless to quote. Paul meets them by a far more direct confutation, "Christ is of no effect unto you whosoever are justified by the law" (Gal 5:4), [PALEY]. Titus . . . also--specified on account of what follows as to him, in Gal 2:3. Paul and Barnabas, and others, were deputed by the Church of Antioch (Act 15:2) to consult the apostles and elders at Jerusalem on the question of circumcision of Gentile Christians.

Peter--"Cephas" in the oldest manuscripts Paul's withstanding Peter is the strongest proof that the former gives of the independence of his apostleship in relation to the other apostles, and upsets the Romish doctrine of Peter's supremacy. The apostles were not always inspired; but were so always in writing the Scriptures. If then the inspired men who wrote them were not invariably at other times infallible, much less were the uninspired men who kept them. The Christian fathers may be trusted generally as witnesses to facts, but not implicitly followed in matters of opinion. come to Antioch--then the citadel of the Gentile Church: where first the Gospel was preached to idolatrous Gentiles, and where the name "Christians" was first given (Act 11:20, Act 11:26), and where Peter is said to have been subsequently bishop. The question at Antioch was not whether the Gentiles were admissible to the Christian covenant without becoming circumcised--that was the question settled at the Jerusalem council just before--but whether the Gentile Christians were to be admitted to social intercourse with the Jewish Christians without conforming to the Jewish institution. The Judaizers, soon after the council had passed the resolutions recognizing the equal rights of the Gentile Christians, repaired to Antioch, the scene of the gathering in of the Gentiles (Act 11:20-26), to witness, what to Jews would look so extraordinary, the receiving of men to communion of the Church without circumcision. Regarding the proceeding with prejudice, they explained away the force of the Jerusalem decision; and probably also desired to watch whether the Jewish Christians among the Gentiles violated the law, which that decision did not verbally sanction them in doing, though giving the Gentiles latitude (Act 15:19). to be blamed--rather, "(self)-condemned"; his act at one time condemning his contrary acting at another time.