He evades, by giving them the Jews, himself the Gentiles. 35

me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. Observe how he gradually proves that his doctrine was ratified both by Christ and by the Apostles. For grace would

neither have been implanted, nor been operative in him, had not his preaching been approved by Christ. Where it was for the purpose of comparison with himself, he mentioned Peter alone; here, when he calls them as witnesses, he names the three together, Cephas, James, John, and with an encomium, who seemed to be pillars. Here again the expression who seemed does not impugn the reality of the fact, but adopts the estimate of others, and implies that these great and distinguished men, whose fame was universal, bare witness that his preaching was ratified by Christ, that they were practically informed and convinced by experience concerning it. Therefore they gave the right hands of fellowship to me, and not to me only, but also to Barnabas, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the Circumcision. Here indeed is exceeding prudence as well as an incontrovertible proof of their concord, For it shews that his and their doctrine was interchangeable, and that both approved the same thing, that they should so preach to the Jews, and he to the Gentiles. Wherefore he adds,

Ver. 9. That we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the Circumcision.

25.

Observe that here also he means by the Circumcision, not the rite, but the Jews; whenever he speaks of the rite, and wishes to contrast it, he adds the word Uncircumcision; as when he says, For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou Rom. 2, keep the law; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. And again, Neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision. But when it is to the Jews and not to the deed that he gives this name, and wishes to signify the nation, he opposes to it not the Uncircumcision, but the Gentiles. For the Jews are the contradistinction to the Gentiles, the Circumcision to the Uncircumcision. Thus when he says above, For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the Circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles; and again, We unto the Gentiles and they unto the Circum

36 Their taking his alms for the Jews shewed unanimity.

GALAT. cision; he means not the rite itself, but the Jewish nation, thus distinguishing them from the Gentiles.

II. 10.

34.

2, 14.

Ver. 10. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

This is his meaning: In our preaching we divided the world between us, I took the Gentiles and they the Jews, according to the Divine decree; but to the sustenance of the poor among the Jews I also contributed my share, which, had there been any dissension between us, they would not have accepted. Next, who were these poor persons? Many

of the believing Jews in Palestine had been deprived of all their goods, and scattered over the world, as he mentions Heb, 10, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, For ye took joyfully the spoiling of your goods; and in writing to the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. he extols their fortitude, Ye became followers of the Churches of God which are in Judæa, . . . for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews. And he shews throughout that those Greeks who believed were not under persecution from the rest, such as the believing Jews were suffering from their own kindred, for there is no nation of a temper so cruel. Wherefore great care was manifested, as appears in the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, that these persons should meet with much attention; and Paul not only collects money for them, but himself conveys it, as he says, But now I go unto Jerusalem to 15, 25. minister unto the saints, for they were without the necessaries of life. And he here shews that in this instance having resolved to assist them, he had undertaken and would not abandon it.

Rom.

15.

1 Cor.

16.

Rom.

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.

For

Ver. 11, 12. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Many, on a superficial reading of this part of the Epistle,

St. Peter too bold really to dissemble.

37

16.

4.

22.

7.

suppose that Paul accused Peter of acting a part. But this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it; we shall discover a deep wisdom, both of Paul and Peter, in this matter, 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. 16, This was when the keys of heaven were committed to him. So too, he appears to have been the only speaker on the Mat. 17, Mount; and when Christ spoke of His crucifixion, and the others kept silence, he said, Be it far from Thee. These Mat. 16, 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. And John 21, after the Resurrection, when the Jews were maddened, and cried out, and sought to tear the Apostles in pieces, he first dared Acts 2. to come forward, and to declare, that the Crucified was taken up into heaven. 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 seemed 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

II. 12.

38 He copied the Judaizers, that St. Paul might protest.

GALAT. Jerusalem, an abrupt severance from the law not being practicable; but when they came to Antioch, they no longer continued this observance, but lived indiscriminately with the believing Gentiles. And at that time Peter's behaviour was similar, but when some came from Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer did so, but fearing to perplex them, changed his course, with two objects secretly in view, both to avoid offending those Jews, and to give Paul an opportunity for animadverting. 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 violating oixcvo- the understanding between them, but now that the one reproves μία. and the other keeps silence, the Jewish party are filled with serious alarm; and this is the reason of his earnestness with Peter. Observe too Paul's careful choice of expressions, whereby he points out to the discerning, that he uses them on an understanding, not in earnest.

κατε

γνωσμέ

νος.

His words are, When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was condemned; that is,

a S. Jerome adopts the interpretation given in the text, viz. that S. Peter's dissimulation was no sin, but intended as an opportunity for S. Paul to declare the freedom of the Gentiles from the Jewish Law. On the other hand, S. Austin considers that he acted through wrong motives, and sinned in dissembling. In this opinion he is supported by Tertul lian, S. Cyprian, S. Cyril of Alexandria, S. Gregory and Ambrosiaster. (Hieron. in loc. et alibi. August. de Bapt. contr. Donatist. ii. 2. de Mendacio 8. Ter

tull. de Præscript. 23. in Marc. iv. 3. v. 3. Cyprian. Ep. ad Quint. 71. Cyril. Alex. in Julian. ix. fin. Gregor. in Ezech. ii. Hom. 6. 9. Ambrosiast, in loc.) S. Austin is influenced in his judgment of the transaction by an anxiety lest disingenuousness and duplicity should receive countenance from the apparent example of an Apostle; S. Chrysostom and S. Jerome by affectionate reverence for the memory of so great a benefactor and so exalted a saint. Vid. Justinian, in loco.

And submitted to his rebuke, that they might copy him. 39

Toy. cf.

one

2 Cor. x.

1; for the

2 Cor. x.

7.

not by me but by others; had he himself condemned him, he would not have shrunk from saying so. And the words, I with- narà stood him to the face, [in appearance] implies a feint, for had πρόσω their dissension been real, they would not have rebuked each for the other in the presence of the disciples, for it would have been a sense, great stumblingblock to them. But now this apparent contest was much to their advantage; as Paul had yielded to the other, 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 were come he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which 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 I have bestowed upon you labour in Gal. 4, vain and again, I fear lest by any means as the serpent 2 Cor. beguiled Eve,... so your minds should be corrupted. Thus the 11, 3. fear of death they knew not, but the fear lest their disciples should perish, agitated their inmost soul.

Ver. 13. Insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

11.

Καὶ συνυ

πεκρίθη

σαν αὐτῷ

λοιποὶ

other

likewise

Be not surprised at his giving this proceeding the name of xai oi dissimulation, for he is unwilling, as I said before, to disclosed. the true state of the case, in order to the correction of his and the disciples. On account of their vehement attachment to the Jews disLaw, he calls the present proceeding dissimulation, and sembled severely rebukes it, in order effectually to eradicate their with him, prejudice. And Peter too hearing this joins in the feint, as if omitted." he had erred, that they might be corrected by means of the rebuke administered to him. Had Paul reproved these Jews, they would have spurned at it with indignation, for they held him in slight esteem; but now, when they saw the Teacher silent under rebuke, they were unable to despise or resist Paul's sentence.

Ver. 14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel.

Neither let this phrase disturb you, for in using it he does not condemn Peter, but so expresses himself for the benefit of those who were to be reformed by the reproof of Peter.