> ‎Chapter 3‎ > ‎Chapter 4‎ > ‎Chapter 5‎ > ‎Chapter 6‎ > ‎  

 

 

 

Galatians 2:1-5

 

1 Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.

2 And I went up according to revelation and communicated to them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles; but apart to them who seemed to be something, lest perhaps I should run or had run in vain.

3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised,

4 But because of false brethren, unawares brought in, who came in privately to spy our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into servitude.

5 To whom we yielded not by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

After commending the authority of the Gospel teaching according to itself in the preceding chapter, the Apostle now in this chapter commends it on the part both of the other apostles and of himself. About this he does two things:

First, he commends the authority of his teaching because of its approval by the other apostles;

Secondly, from the example both of himself and of the other apostles (v. 15).

Concerning the first he does two things:

First, he shows that the other apostles approved his teaching;

Secondly, that he fearlessly rebuked the other apostles in matters where they opposed his teaching (v. 11).

As to the first he does two things:

First, he treats of the discussion he had with the apostles;

Secondly, he narrates the consequences of that discussion (v. 3).

Regarding the first he does two things:

First, he gives the circumstances of that discussion;

Secondly, what they discussed (v. 2): and communicated to them the Gospel.

With respect to the first he touches upon four things: first the time, then the place, the witnesses, and the motive. He mentions the time when he says, Then, after fourteen years. Here some might object that if the Apostle was converted in the first year after the passion of Christ, and went to Jerusalem three years later, that makes four years. But he says, after fourteen years I went once more to Jerusalem—which makes a total of eighteen years—at which time he found Peter in Jerusalem. But this cannot be, because Peter had his See at Antioch seven years, and then at Rome for twenty-five years. So that makes eighteen plus seven, i.e., twenty-five years, before he went to Rome, and twenty-five years more he remained there. Hence Peter would have lived for fifty years after the passion of Christ—which is false, for in the fortieth year after the passion of Christ, Peter was martyred at Rome in the reign of Nero, as is recorded in history.

I answer that when he says, Then, after fourteen years, it is not to be understood that after three years there was another lapse of fourteen years before he went to Jerusalem, but that he went again in the fourteenth year of his conversion. Nor should the seven years that Peter ruled the Church at Antioch be added to those fourteen years, because he began his rule before those years. Furthermore, since Antioch is near Jerusalem, Peter could at times have come to Jerusalem and Paul found him there then. Consequently, what is gathered from history is that after fourteen years Peter went to Rome in the reign of Claudius the Emperor and lived there for twenty-five years, making a total of thirty-nine years, and he died in the fortieth year after the passion of Our Lord. Yet he purposely said fourteen in order to show that he did not need instructions from the apostles, if he went for fourteen years without them.

He gives the place when he says, Jerusalem. And he says, I went up, because it is built on a height. He went up to Jerusalem in order to show that he was in accord with the prophecy of Isaiah (2:3): “For the law shall come forth from Sion: and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”

He gives the witnesses when he says, with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. Now Barnabas was a Jew, but Titus a Gentile. He went up with them, therefore, in order to have witnesses to his teaching and to show that he leaned neither to the side of the Jews nor the Gentiles: “In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand” (Dent. 19:15).

He gives his motive when he says, according to a revelation from God, i.e., because God revealed and commanded him to go up to Jerusalem. From this can be gathered that all the acts and movements of the apostles were according to an instinct of the Holy Spirit: “The clouds spread their light which go round about” (Job 37:11).

Then when he says, and communicated to them, he describes the conversation. About this he does three things:

First, he mentions the subject of their conversation;

Secondly, the persons with whom he conferred;

Thirdly, the reason why he conferred with them.

The subject about which be conferred was the Gospel; hence he says, I communicated to them the Gospel; the persons with whom he conferred were the senior and more outstanding apostles; hence he says, but apart to them who seemed to be some thing. But the reason, both useful and necessary, was lest I should run or had run in vain.

Regarding the first, he says, I went up to Jerusalem where I communicated to them, as to friends and equals, the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, not in order to learn, because I had already been taught by Christ, nor in order to be reassured, because I am so certain, that if an angel were to say the contrary, I would not believe him, as is plain above (1:8). But I conferred for two reasons: namely, to show the unity of my teaching with that of the other apostles: “That you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you” (1 Cor 1:10). Hence he conferred with them as one having the same word as they, and not as an adversary. Also, to avoid false accusation from others. For the Apostle had not lived with Christ or been taught by the apostles, but immediately after his conversion began to preach things odious to the Jews, especially the vocation of the Gentiles and that they should not observe the justifications of the Law. So, then, he conferred about the Gospel.

But he indicates the ones with whom he did this, when he adds, but apart to them who seemed to be some thing. As though to say: Not with all, but with those who were of some authority and importance among them, namely, with Peter, James and John and the other great ones: “Treat with the wise and prudent” (Sir 9:21). But apart, not to talk or treat with them about ignoble or false things, as heretics do, but because he was aware of the presence there of Jews who brought false charges against him for his teachings about the Law. Hence, in order that the truth might prevail over false charges, he spoke apart with those who would not bring false charges against him: “Treat thy cause with thy friend, and discover not the secret to a stranger” (Prov 25:9); “Before a stranger do no matter of counsel: for thou knowest not what he will bring forth” (Sir 8:21). Thus the subject of the discussion as well as the persons are made known.

Then follows the cause, which was lest perhaps I should run or had run in vain, i.e., lest I be thought to have preached to no purpose. He calls his preaching a “running” on account of the rapidity of his teaching, for in a short time be preached the Gospel from Jerusalem to Illyricum and even as far as Spain. Hence the word of Psalm (147:15) can be said of him: “His word runneth swiftly”; “Pray, brethren, that the word of God may run and may be glorified, even as among you (2 Thes 3: 1). But did he really wonder whether he was running in vain? I answer that he did not wonder for himself, but for those to whom he had preached, because if his teaching was not firmly held by them, he would have run in vain as far as they were concerned. So he wanted to confer with them, in order that when his hearers heard that his teaching was in agreement with that of the other apostles and approved by them, they would hold to it more firmly—then he would not be running in vain with respect to them: “I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty” (1 Cor 9:26).

Then when he says, But neither Titus who was with me, he shows what resulted from the discussion held with the apostles. And he mentions three results:

That he did not depart from his opinion;

That nothing was added to his teaching (v. 6);

Thirdly, that his teaching was approved (v. 7).

Concerning the first he does two things:

First, he shows with respect to one definite point that he did not depart from his teachmig;

Secondly, that on no other point did he depart from it (v. 4).

He says, therefore: I say that the result of my discussion with them about the teaching of the Gospel was that my teaching and opinion remained unaltered concerning the non-observance of legalism, i.e., the Gentiles would not be compelled to observe the rites of the Law so that neither Titus who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised, but was admitted uncircumcised into their fellowship by the apostles. This discussion occasioned the decree handed down by the apostles on not observing the rites of the law, as is had in Acts (15:28). The reason why these rites were not to be observed after the passion of Christ is assigned in the following way by Chrysostom: “For it is evident that the instrument drawn up for any promise or pact binds only until the pact and promise are fulfilled; but when fulfilled, the instrument no longer binds on that point.” Now circumcision is an instrument of the promise and pact between God and believing men. Hence it was that Abraham underwent circumcision as a sign of the promise, as is said in Genesis (11:26). And because the promise was fulfilled and the pact completed by the passion of Christ, neither the pact holds after the passion nor is circumcision of any value. Thus, therefore, his refusal to permit Titus to be circumcised makes it plain that he did not depart from his teaching.

Then when hesays, but because of false brethren, unawares brought in, he shows that he did not change on any other point. This passage is obscure and variant readings are found. It should be read thus: You say that you did not permit Titus to be circumcised; but why? seeing that in another case you permitted Timothy, as is read in Acts (16:3). To this the Apostle can respond that when Timothy was circumcised, it was an indifferent matter whether circumcision was observed or not; but later on, when it came to Titus, circumcision became a matter of paramount importance and I said that it is not to be observed. Hence, if I had allowed him to be circumcised, whereas I had already settled the question definitively myself, I would have been acting to the contrary. Furthermore, it was not lawful to raise this question again or to make difficulties about a matter now settled.

He says therefore: I say that I did not permit him to be circumcised by them, to whom we yielded not by subjection, no, not for an hour, i.e., that the Gentiles be subject to the Law; and this because of false brethren, unawares brought in by the devil or by the Pharisees: false brethren, because they pretended to be friends: “In perils from false brethren” (2 Cor 11:26). Who, namely the false brethren, were brought into the place where the apostles were gathered, in order to spy on our liberty from sin and the Law: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Cor 3:17); “You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of the adoption of sons” (Rom 8:15); that he might redeem them who were under the Law (4:5). Which liberty we have in Christ Jesus, i.e., through faith in Christ: You are not children of the bondwoman but of the free (4:31). And to this end were they brought in, that they might bring us into servitude of the Law and the observances of the flesh, as before the passion of Christ. But this is not permissible, “for other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus” (1 Cor 3:11). And this, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. As if to say: We did not yield to them an iota, lest we give an occasion to those who said that you cannot be saved without circumcision, which is contrary to the truth of the Gospel I have preached to you.

Ambrose, however, reads it another way. For according to the foregoing the reason he did not yield for the moment was on account of those brought in. From this it follows that if they had not been brought in, he would have yielded in the matter of observing legalism. Therefore it was not on that account, because on that account he would not have yielded to them, but on account of the truth itself. Therefore, says Ambrose, the text is faulty and the words, no not even, are superfluous. Hence he would have it that those words should not be there. And then the sense is: I did not permit Titus to be circumcised, but Timothy I did, because of false brethren, unawares brought in, i.e., to the place where I was with Timothy and the others who were brought in to spy our liberty. But when they failed in this, they tried to incite the people to rise up against us. To whom, i.e., to the false brethren, we therefore yielded in the hour of subjection in the matter of circumcision by circumcising Timothy, in order that the truth of the gospel might continue with you, i.e., the Gospel which teaches that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision profits anything, but the faith.

But the special reason why Timothy was circumcised and Titus not, was that Timothy was born of a Gentile father and Jewish mother, whereas Titus’ parents were both Gentiles. And the opinion of the Apostle was that those born of a Jewish parent on either side should be circumcised, but those born entirely of Gentile parents should on no account be circumcised.

 

Galatians 2:6-10

 

6, But of them who seemed to be something, (what they were some time, it is nothing to me, God accepteth not the person of man); for to me they that seemed to be something added nothing.

7 But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision,

8 (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision wrought in me also among the Gentiles.)

9 And, when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right bands of fellowship; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision;

10 Only that we should be mindful of the poor; which same thing also I was careful to do.

Having shown that the Apostle did not depart from his opinion on any point in the conference mentioned above, he now shows that nothing was added to his teaching by the other apostles. About this he does two things:

 

First, he describes the status of the apostles who were unable to add anything;

Secondly, he proves his proposition (v. 6): for to me, they that seemed to be something, added nothing.

Their status he describes from three standpoints: first from the authority they held in the Church, for it was great. Regarding it he says, But of them who seemed to be some thing. The text is deficient and should be amended to read, “But of them,” namely, Peter and John. As if to say: Although I would have yielded to them at the time, yet I received from them no new power or teaching. And if I received nothing from them, much less so from others. But it is to be noted that if his statement, who seemed to be something, is understood with reference to the grace of God that was in them, it is true that in this respect they were great, because “whom he justified, them he also glorified,” as is said in Romans (8:30). However, if it is understood that they were something according to themselves, then it is false, because in that respect they were nothing. For if they seemed to be some thing according to themselves, they would always have been great, because whatever belongs to a thing according to itself is always present. Hence, since they were not always great, it was not according to themselves that they were seen to be something.

Secondly, he describes their status on the side of what they were before their conversion, i.e., the status they had in the synagogue. This status, he hints gently, was mean and lowly. Hence he says, what they were some time; for they had been coarse, poor, ignorant and unlettered: “There are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble” (1 Cor 1:26). But what they were is nothing to me, i.e., it is not my concern to mention. Perhaps his reason for introducing this was that by considering the status they had in the synagogue—which was nothing—and the status of Paul—which was great—they might see that Paul’s opinion on legalism should be preferred to theirs, particularly since Paul has an equal status with them in the Church; so that Paul had a higher rank in the synagogue before their conversion, but after the conversion, he had a rank equal to theirs. Hence when matters concerning the synagogue were discussed, the opinion of Paul deserved to prevail over the others, but when it came to the Gospel, his opinion was as good as theirs. And just as the others were not made great through things pertaining to the Law but through Christ, so too in the faith the Apostle was great through Christ and not through things pertaining to the Law.

Thirdly, he describes their condition by reason of their election by God. Regarding this he says, God accepteth not the person. As if to say: They are great because God made them great, not by regarding their merits or demerits, but by regarding what He intended to accomplish. Hence he says: God accepteth not the person of man, i.e., he does not consider whether the person is great or little: “For he made the little and the great, and he hath equally care of all” (Wis 6:8). Furthermore, without regard to person, He calls everyone to salvation, no longer charging them with their sins for they have passed away: “The old things are passed away” (2 Cor 5:17); “Nor will I be mindful of their name” (Ps 15:5). Therefore Peter says: “In very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34).

On this point it should be noted that accepting of persons in any transaction is, properly speaking, to take as a deciding factor in that transaction some aspect of the person that has nothing to do with the matter; for example, when I give a benefice to a person just because he is a noble or is handsome. For nobility or beauty have nothing to do with the question of getting a benefice. But if some aspect of the person does have something to do with the matter, then if I consider that aspect in settling the matter, I do not accept the person; for example, if I give a benefice to a person because he is good and will serve the Church well, or because he is well-educated and honorable, I am not an acceptor of persons. Therefore to accept the person is nothing other than to consider some aspect of the person that has no relation to the business. Hence, since God in His works and benefits regards nothing that pre-exists on the side of the creature-for that which pertains to the creature is an effect of His election—but takes as His measure merely what pleases His will, according to which He effects all things, and not the condition of their person, as is said in Ephesians (1:11), it is evident that He does not regard the person of man.

Then, having described their condition, he proves his proposition, namely, that they were unable to add anything to him. Hence he says, for to me they that seemed to be something added nothing. As if to say: Although they had great authority, they added nothing to my teaching or to my power, because, as was said above, I neither received the Gospel from man nor learned it by man.

However, a certain Gloss has a different reading, namely, what they were at one time is not my concern. As if to say: It is not my concern to recount their status before their conversion, i.e., what they were, because this too makes no difference, since I myself had even been a persecutor of that Church; yet God by the pleasure of His will chose and glorified me—and this because the Lord does not regard the person of man.

Then when he says, But contrariwise, when they had seen. . . , he shows how his opinion was approved by the apostles. About this he does three things:

First, he gives the reason for this approbation;

Secondly, he mentions the approbation (v. 9); James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship;

Thirdly, he adds a condition that was placed on the approbation (v. 10).

He cites the two causes of the approbation (which moved the apostles to approve the opinion of the Apostle) namely, the office of teaching enjoined by Christ on the Apostle; and the effect of this appointment (v. 9). As to the first, he does two things:

First, he mentions the office to which he was appointed which moved them to approve him;

Secondly, the manifestation of this office (v. 8).

He says therefore: I say that those who seemed to be something, added nothing; but rather, contrary to the opinion of the adversaries who came up to Jerusalem to oppose me in this matter, it was I that the Apostles approved, and this when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel, i.e., the office of the preaching, of the uncircumcision, i.e., the injunction to preach to the uncircumcised, namely, the Gentiles: “For all the nations are uncircumcised in the flesh, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart” (Jer 9:26). just as to Peter was entrusted the authority to preach to the Jews alone, so to Paul to the Gentiles; but later, Peter, too, preached to the Gentiles and Paul to the Jews.

But because someone might say: What evidence have you that the commission to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles was given you, he interjects that it was through certain works of Christ. For just as it is evident that Peter received the Gospel from Christ because of the marvels Christ wrought through him, so it is evident that I received it because of the miracles Christ worked and does work in me. Therefore he says, He who wrought in Peter to the apostleship, i.e., made Peter an apostle in Judea, namely Christ, also made me an apostle among the Gentiles. And this is the reason which moves them.

But because one’s appointment and authority to preach are not enough, unless he carries it out through good understanding and discreet eloquence and commends it by a good life, he adds how heused his authority or the effect of his office, saying, And, when they had known the grace of God that was given to me, James and Cephas and John. . . gave to me and Barnabas, the right hands of fellowship. This is a dependent clause, i.e., when they saw that my preaching enjoyed favor and was fruitful, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars. . . In this passage is mentioned the approval or fellowship entered into by them and Paul. First, the persons are mentioned with whom the fellowship was formed, namely, James and Cephas, i.e., Peter, and John. James is mentioned first, as being the Bishop of Jerusalem where these events took place. The John mentioned was John the Evangelist who did not quit Judea until the time of Vespasian.

Who seem to be pillars. This is a metaphor standing for “the support of the entire Church.” For just as a whole edifice is supported by the pillars, so the whole Church of the Jews was supported and governed by these men. Of those pillars it is said in Psalm (74:4): “I have established the pillars thereof,” i.e., the apostles of the Church; “His legs as pillars of marble, that are set upon bases of gold” (Cant 5:15). They, on the one side, gave the right hands of fellowship, i.e., consented to the fellowship, to me and Barnabas, the persons on the other side. By giving them their right hands they signified that they accepted them into their hands as a sign of union and unity of opinion.

Secondly, the intent or condition of the fellowship is shown when it is said, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision, i.e., to preach. As if to say: A bond and union was made among us to the effect that just as the faithful obey Peter among the circumcision, i.e., in the Church of the Jewish believers, so all the Gentiles converted to Christ should obey Paul and Barnabas. But they added the condition that we should be mindful of the poor of Christ, i.e., of those who had sold all their goods and laid the price at the feet of the apostles and became poor for the sake of Christ. Which same thing, indeed, also I was careful to do, being no less moved than those commanding me, as is plain in Romans (Ch. 15), 1 Corinthians (Ch. 6) and 2 Corinthians (Ch. 8 and 9).

Now the reason why the custom prevailed in the early Church for those in the Church of the circumcision to sell their goods and not those in the Church of the Gentiles was that the believing Jews were congregated in Jerusalem and in Judea, which was soon to be destroyed by the Romans, as later events proved. Hence the Lord willed that no possessions were to be kept in a place not destined to endure. But the Church of the Gentiles was destined to grow strong and increase, and therefore, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it came about that the possessions in it were not to be sold.

 

Galatinas 2:11-14

 

11 But, when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For, before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but, when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.

13 And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented; so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation.

14 But, when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews do, bow dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

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.

Then when he says, For, before that some came from James, he manifests what he has said.

First, that he said he was to be blamed;

Secondly, that he rebuked Peter (v. 14).

As to the first hedoes three things:

First, he shows what Peter’s opinion was;

Secondly, what he did (v. 11);

Thirdly, what resulted from it (v. 13).

He says therefore, as to the first point, that Peter felt that legalism ought not be observed. This he showed by the fact that before some came, namely, Jews zealous for the Law, from James, Bishop of the Church at Jerusalem, he did eat, namely, Peter did, with the Gentiles, i.e., without compunction he ate the food of Gentiles. He did this through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Who had said to him: “That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common,” as is had in Acts (10:15), and as he himself in the following chapter said in answer to the Jews who rose up against him, because he had eaten with the uncircumcised.

What Peter did Paul now shows, saying that when he was with the Jews, he withdrew from the company of the faithful who had been converted from the Gentiles and adhered to the Jews alone and mingled among them. Therefore he says, but when they were come, namely, from Judea, Peter withdrew from the converted Gentiles and separated himself from them. This hedid because he was fearing them who were of the circumcision, i.e., the Jews, not with a human or worldly fear but a fear inspired by charity, namely, lest they be scandalized, as is said in a Gloss. Hence he became to the Jews as a Jew, pretending that he felt the same as they did in their weakness. Yet he feared unreasonably, because the truth must never be set aside through fear of scandal.

What resulted from this dissimulation he mentions when hesays that to his dissimulation, i.e., Peter’s, the rest of the Jews consented who were at Antioch, discriminating between food and separating themselves from the Gentiles, although prior to this act of dissimulation they would not have done this. And not only they consented to Peter, but such was the effect of that dissimulation upon the hearts of the faithful that Barnabas also, who along with me was a teacher of the Gentiles and had done and taught the contrary, was led by them into that dissimulation and withdrew from them, namely, the Gentiles. And this on account of what is said in Sirach (10:2): “What manner of man the ruler of a city is, such also are they that dwell therein” and “as the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers.”

Then when he says, But, when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all. . . . he explains what he had said concerning the rebuke with which he rebuked Peter. As to this he does three things:

First, he gives the reason for the rebuke;

Secondly, the manner of rebuking;

Thirdly, the words of the rebuke.

The occasion of the rebuke was not slight, but just and useful, namely, the danger to the Gospel teaching. Hence he says: Thus was Peter reprehensible, but I alone, when I saw that they, who were doing these things, walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, because its truth was being undone, if the Gentiles were compelled to observe the legal justifications, as will be plain below. That, they were not walking uprightly is so, because in cases where danger is imminent, the truth must be preached openly and the opposite never condoned through fear of scandalizing others: “That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light” (Mt 10:27); “The way of the just is right: the path of the just is right to walk in” (Is 26:7). The manner of the rebuke was fitting, i.e., public and plain. Hence he says, I said to Cephas, i.e., to Peter, before them all, because that dissimulation posed a danger to all: “Them that sin, reprove before all” (1 Tim 5:20). This is to be understood of public sins and not of private ones, in which the procedures of fraternal charity ought to be observed.

The words the Apostle spoke to Peter when he rebuked him, he adds, saying, If thou, being a Jew, by nature and race, livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews do, i.e., if you observe the customs of Gentiles and not of Jews, since you know and feel that discriminating among foods is of no importance, how dost thou compel the Gentiles, not indeed by command, but by example of your behavior, to live as do the Jews? He says, compel, because as Pope Leo says, “Example has more force than words.” Hence Paul rebukes Peter precisely because he had been instructed by God that although he had previously lived as the Jews do, he should no longer discriminate among foods: “That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common” (Acts 10:15). But now Peter was dissembling the opposite.

It should be noted that these words occasioned no small controversy between Jerome and Augustine and, as their writings clearly show, they are seen to disagree on four points. First, as to the time of the legal justifications, namely, when they should have been observed. For Jerome distinguishes two periods, one before the passion of Christ and one after. Jerome’s opinion is that the legal justifications were living before the passion of Christ, i.e., had validity, inasmuch as original sin was removed through circumcision, and God was pleased with sacrifices and victims. But after the passion they were, according to him, not only not living i.e., dead, but what is more, they were deadly, so that whoever observed them after the passion of Christ sinned mortally.

Augustine, on the other hand, distinguishes three periods. One period was before the passion of Christ and, in agreement with Jerome, he says that during that period the legal justifications were living. Another was the period immediately following the passion of Christ, before grace was promulgated (as the time of the apostles in the beginning); during this period, says Augustine, the legal justifications were dead but not yet deadly to the converted Jews, so long as the ones observing them placed no hope in them. Hence the Jews observed them during that period without sinning. But had they placed their trust in them when observing them after their conversion, they would have sinned mortally; because if they placed their trust in them so as to believe that they were necessary for salvation, then, as far as they were concerned, they would have been voiding the grace of Christ. Finally, he posits a third period, after the truth and grace of Christ had been proclaimed. It was during that period, he says, that they were both dead and deadly to all who observed them.

The reasoning that underlies these statements is that if the Jews had been forbidden the legal observances right after their conversion, it might have seemed that they had previously been on an equal footing with idolaters, who were immediately forbidden to worship idols, and that just as idolatry had never been good, so too the legal observances. Therefore, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the legal observances were condoned for a short time for the reason given, namely, to show that the legal observances had been good in the past. Hence, says Augustine, the fact that the legal justifications were not forbidden right after the passion of Christ showed that the mother, the synagogue, was destined to be brought in honor to the grave. But whosoever did not observe them in that manner would not be honoring the mother, the synagogue, but disturbing her grave.

Secondly, the aforesaid Jerome and Augustine disagree on the observance of the legal justifications with respect to the apostles; For Jerome says that the apostles never really observed them but pretended to do so, in order to avoid scandalizing the believers who had been of the circumcision. He says that even Paul made this pretense when he fulfilled a vow in the temple at Jerusalem, as is narrated in Acts (21:26), and when he circumcised Timothy, as in Acts (16:3), and when on advice from James he observed some of the justifications, as recorded in Acts (20:20). But in so doing the apostles were not misleading the faithful, because they did not act with the intention of observing the justifications but for other reasons; for example, they rested on the Sabbath, not because it was a legal observance, but for the sake of rest. Likewise, they abstained from food legally unclean, not for the sake of observing the legal justifications but for other reasons; for example, on account of an abhorrence or something of that nature. But Augustine says that the apostles observed the legal justifications and intended to do so, but without putting their trust in them as though they were necessary for salvation. Furthermore, this was lawful for them to do, because they had been Jews. Nevertheless, they observed them before grace was proclaimed. Hence just as certain other Jews could safely observe them at that time without putting any trust in them, so too could the apostles.

Thirdly, they disagree on the sin of Peter. For Jerome says that in the dissimulation previously mentioned, Peter did not sin, because he did this from charity and, as has been said, not from mundane fear. Augustine, on the other hand, says, that he did sin—venially, however—on account of the lack of discretion he had by adhering overmuch to one side, namely, to the Jews, in order to avoid scandalizing them. But the stronger of Augustine’s arguments against Jerome is that Jerome adduces on his own behalf seven doctors, four of whom, namely, Laudicens, Alexander, Origen, and Didymus, Augustine rejects as known heretics. To the other three he opposes three of his own, who held with him and his opinion, namely, Ambrose, Cyprian, and Paul himself, who plainly teaches that Peter was deserving of rebuke. Therefore, if it is unlawful to say that anything false is contained in Sacred Scripture, it will not be lawful to say that Peter was not deserving of rebuke. For this reason the opinion and statement of Augustine is the truer, because it is more in accord with the words of the Apostle.

Fourthly, they disagree on Paul’s rebuke. For Jerome says that Paul did not really rebuke Peter but pretended to do so, just as Peter pretended to observe the legal justifications, i.e. just as Peter in his unwillingness to scandalize the Jews pretended to observe the justifications, so Paul, in order not to scandalize the Gentiles, feigned displeasure at Peter’s action and pretended to rebuke him. This was done, as it were, by mutual consent, so that each might exercise his care over the believers subject to them. Augustine, however, just as he says that Peter really did observe the justifications, says that Paul truly rebuked him without pretense. Furthermore, Peter really sinned by observing them, because his action was a source of scandal to the Gentiles from whom he separated himself. But Paul did not sin in rebuking him, because no scandal followed from his rebuke.

 

Galatians 2:15-16

15 We by nature are Jews; and not of the Gentiles, sinners.

16 But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law; because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Having manifested the truth of the apostolic doctrine preached by him because of the authority of the other apostles, he.now shows the same thing from their manner of life and example. About this he does two things:

First, he proves his proposition from the manner of life of the apostles;

Secondly, he raises an objection posed by his adversaries (v. 17).

As to the first he does three things:

First, he sets forth the status of the apostles;

Secondly, their manner of life (v. 16);

Thirdly, the intended conclusion: (v. 16): because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

The status of the apostles and even of Paul is that according to natural origin they were bom Jews. That is why he says, We, namely, I and the other apostles, are by nature, i.e. by natural origin, Jews, not proselytes: “They are Hebrews: so am I” (2 Cor 11:22). And this is a great compliment, because, as it is said: “Salvation is of the Jews” (Jn 4:22). And not of the Gentiles, sinners, i.e., we are not sinners as are the Gentiles, idolatrous and unclean.

But against this can be set the word of 1 John (1:8): “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.” Therefore, the Jews were sinners. I answer that it is one thing to sin and another to be a sinner. For the first names an act, but the second a readiness or habit of sinning. Hence Scripture is wont to call the impious and those loaded down with the heavy burden of sin, sinners. The Jews therefore, being haughty on account of the Law, and as it were, restrained from sin by it, called the Gentiles sinners, living as they were without the Laws’ restraint and being prone to sin: “Be no more carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Eph 4:14). When, therefore, the Apostle says, not of the Gentiles, sinners, he means we are not of that number of sinners that exist among the Gentiles.

Then when he says, But knowing that man is not justified by the works. . . he sets forth the apostles’ manner of life, which consists not in the works of the Law but in the faith of Christ. About this he does two things:

First, he gives the reason for the apostles’ manner of life;

Secondly, he sets forth their manner of life (v. 16): we also believe in Christ Jesus.

Therefore the apostolic life rested on the faith of Christ and not on the works of the Law. The reason for this is that although we were Jews by nature and were nourished in the works of the Law, yet knowing for certain that man is not justified by the works of the law, i.e., through the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, for that reason we have left the Law and are living according to the precepts of the faith: “For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law” (Rom 3:28); “For there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

However, it is said in Romans (2:13): “For not the hearers of the law are just before God; but the doers of the law shall be justified.” Therefore, it seems that a man would be justified by the works of the Law. I answer that “to be justified” can be taken in two senses, namely, doing what is just, and being made just. But no one is made just save by God through grace. It should be known, therefore, that some works of the Law were moral and some ceremonial. The moral, although they were contained in the Law, could not, strictly speaking, be called “works of the Law,” for man is induced to them by natural instinct and by the natural law. But the ceremonial works are properly called the “works of the Law.” Therefore, to that extent is man justified by the moral laws—so far as the execution of justice is concerned—and also by the ceremonial laws that pertain to the sacraments, as their observance is a work of obedience. And this is the way it is taken in the word of the Apostle to the Romans (2:13).

But with respect to being made just by the works of the Law, a man does not seem to be justified by them, because the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace. How turn you again to the weak and needy elements? i.e., that neither confer grace nor contain grace in themselves. The sacraments of the New Law however, although they are material elements, are not needy elements; hence they can justify. Again, if there were any in the Old Law who were just, they were not made just by the works of the Law but only by the faith of Christ “Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith,” as is said in Romans (3:25). Hence the sacraments of the Old Law were certain protestations of the faith of Christ, just as our sacraments are, but not in the same way, because those sacraments were configured to the grace of Christ as to something that lay in the future; our sacraments, however, testify as things containing a grace that is present. Therefore, he says significantly, that it is not by the works of the law that we are justified, but by the faith of Christ, because, although some who observed the works of the Law in times past were made just, nevertheless, this was effected only by the faith of Jesus Christ.

From this knowledge which the apostles had, namely, that justification is not by the works of the Law but by the faith of Christ, he concludes to their manner of life, in which they chose the faith of Christ and gave up the works of the Law. Hence he adds, we also believe in Christ Jesus, because as is said in Acts (4:12): “There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” Therefore he continued, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ. “Being justified, therefore, by faith, let us have peace with God” (Rom 5:1). But lest anyone suppose that the works of the Law along with the faith of Christ justify, he adds, and not by the works of the law: “For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law” (Rom 3:28).

From this he derives his main proposition, saying that if the apostles, who are Jews by nature, do not seek to be justified by the works of the Law but by faith, then by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, i.e., no man whatsoever can be justified by the works of the Law. For “flesh” is taken here to stand for “Man,” i.e., the part for the whole, as does “All flesh shall see the salvation of the Lord” (Is 40:5). Then by saying, because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, he concludes, as it were, a fortiori. For it seems more natural or reasonable for the Jews, more than anyone else, to be justified by the works of the Law rather than by faith. But this is not the case Therefore. . .

 

Galatians 2:17-18

 

17 But if, while we seek to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ then the minister of sin? God forbid!

18 For, if I build up again the things which I have destroyed, I make myself a prevaricator.

After proving by the apostles’ manner of life that the works of the Law ought not to be observed, the Apostle raises a question to the contrary. About this he does three things:

First, he raises the question;

Secondly, he solves it (v. 17): God forbid;

Thirdly, he explains his solution (v. 19).

The first point can be developed in two ways according to a Gloss. First, thus: Someone could say that the apostles sinned by abandoning the Law and turning to the faith of Christ. But the Apostle shows that this would lead to the following unwelcome conclusion, namely, that Christ is the author of sin in calling men to His faith. This is what he means when he says, But if, we apostles, while we seek to be justified in him, i.e., through Him, namely, Christ, are found, i.e., plainly proven to be sinners for leaving the Law, is Christ then the minister of sin? i.e., is He inducing us to sin, Who called us from the slavery of the Law to His faith? Made under the law that he might redeem them that were under the law (4:4), namely, from the burden of the Law.

The Apostle answers, God forbid, because He is rather the minister of justice; “By the obedience of one, many shall be made just” (Rom 5:19); “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22). That Christ is not the minister of sin in leading one from the Old Law is plain, because if I myself, by wanting to glory once more in the Law, build up again the things I have destroyed, namely, my pride taking glory in the Law, I make myself a prevaricator in taking up what I destroyed: “The dog is returned to his vomit” (2 Pet. 2:22); “Cursed be the man that shall raise up and build the city of Jericho” (Jos. 6:26). He says, which I have destroyed, i.e., not the Law itself, as the Manicheans would have it, because the Law is holy (Rom 7:12), but pride in the Law, concerning which it is said in Romans (10:3): “For they, seeking to establish their own justice have not submitted themselves to the justice of God.”

Now if someone were to object that since he formerly had wasted the faith of Christ, he makes himself a prevaricator by trying to build it up, the plain answer is that he did indeed try to destroy the faith of Christ, yet because of the truth he did not persist: “Why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad” (Acts 9:4). But pride in the Law was vain and this pride could be destroyed, never again to be re-established.

The second way in which it can be developed is to refer his statement, we ourselves are found sinners, not to their abandoning the Law, as in the first explanation, but to the observance of the Law. For it is plain that anyone who seeks to be made just does not profess himself to be just but a sinner. The sense, therefore, is this: if we, in seeking to be justified in Christ, are by the very fact of seeking to be justified found, i.e., reasonably proved, to have been sinners, because we observed the Law, is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin? i.e., commanding men to observe the works of the Law after His passion—something that cannot be done without sin? Note that this explanation harmonizes with Jerome’s opinion which posited that the legal justifications were deadly immediately after the passion of Christ.

It is possible to explain, we ourselves are found to be sinners, in a third way as referring, indeed, to the state in which the Law was observed; not that they offended by observing the Law, but that the Law is deficient and cannot remove sin. Hence the meaning is this: If in seeking to be justified in it, we ourselves are found to be sinners, i.e., still in our sins, because the Law does not remove sin—according to Romans (3:9): “For we have charged both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin”—Is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin, so as to bring us back to observing the Law in which we are under sin? This explanation accords with Augustine’s exposition.

And he [Paul] answers to either explanation, God forbid, because I destroyed the Law understood carnally by judging and teaching it spiritually. Hence, if I should desire to re-establish the observances of the carnal law, I would be a prevaricator of the spiritual law.

Furthermore, it can be explained in a fourth way, thus: I had said that man is not justified by the works of the Law. But someone might say, “Nor by the faith of Christ either,” because many sin after embracing the faith of Christ. And this is what he says: If we, seeking to be justified in Christ, i.e., by the faith of Christ, are ourselves, who have become believers by embracing the faith of Christ, found to be sinners, i.e., living in sin, is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin and of damnation, as the minister of the Old Law is a minister of sin and damnation? Not that the Law led one into sin, but was its occasion, because it forbade sin and conferred no grace to help one resist sin. Hence it is said: “But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence” (Rom 7:8). But Christ gives a helping grace: “Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (in 1:17). Hence in no way is He the minister of sin, either directly or as its occasion.

 

Galatians 2:19-21

 

19 For I, through the law, am dead to the law, that I may live to God; with Christ I am nailed to the cross.

20 And I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me. And that I live now in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and delivered himself for me.

21 1 cast not away the grace of God. For if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain.

Here the Apostle amplifies the solution given above. First, he explains the solution. Secondly, he concludes to his principal proposition (v. 21). It should be noted that the Apostle proceeds in a very thorough manner, leaving no doubt unexamined. Hence his words, although they seem involved, nevertheless, if they are carefully considered, say nothing without a purpose. This is plain from the words he uses. Therefore, he does three things:

First, he manifests the solution;

Secondly, he explains his manifestation of the solution; (v. 19): with Christ I am nailed to the cross;

Thirdly, he settles the question (v. 20): That I live now in the flesh.

Therefore, because the Apostle had said, For, if I build up again the things which I have destroyed, which is understood to refer to the Old Law, for one might regard him as a destroyer of the Law and consequently impious according to Psalm (118:126): “They have dissipated thy law,” for that reason the Apostle wishes to show how he destroys the Law without being impious, saying, For I, through the law, am dead to the law. Here it should be noted that when anyone destroys a law by means of the law itself, he is indeed a prevaricator of the law, but not impious. For a law is destroyed by means of the law when the law itself contains some local or temporary precept, such that the law should be observed for such a time or in such a place and no other, and this fact is expressed in the law. If someone, therefore, after that time or outside that place, does not use the law, he destroys the law by means of the law itself, and in this way the Apostle destroyed the Law. Hence he says: I somehow destroyed the Law, but by means of the Law; because through the Law I am dead to the Law, i.e., by the authority of the Law I have rejected the Law, as being dead to the Law. For the authority of the Law, through which he is dead to the Law, is cited in many places in Sacred Scripture. For example, although not in so many words, it is had in Jeremias (31:31): 1 will make a new covenant with the house of Israel”; “The Lord will raise up to thee a prophet of thy brethren like unto me” (Deut 18:15), and in many other places. Therefore the Apostle is not a destroyer of the Law in the sense of a transgressor of the Law.

Or else, I by the law spiritual am dead to the law carnal. For he dies to the Law when, being freed by the Law, he casts it aside, according to Romans (7:2): “If her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.” Now inasmuch as the Apostle was subject to the spiritual law, he says that he is dead to the Law, i.e., loosed from the observances of the Law: “For the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death” (Rom 8:2). Again there is another possible way of setting the law aside without prevarication, because, namely, a law, when it is written on a scroll is called a dead law, and when it is in the mind of the lawgiver it is called a living law. Now it is plain that if someone were to act according to the word of the lawgiver against the written law and break the law, he would both be set free of the dead law and be acting according to the command of the lawgiver.

He says, therefore, along these lines, I am dead to the law, which is written and dead, i.e., I am loosed from it that I may live to God, i.e., that I may guide my movements according to His precepts and be ordained to His honor. For a law that has been passed does, indeed, hand down something in writing on account of those outside and of those who cannot hear the words spoken by the lawgiver; but for those in his presence he does not lay it down in writing but in words alone. For in the beginning, men were weak and unable to approach unto God; hence it was necessary for the precepts of the Law to be given to them in writing, so that by the Law, as by a pedagogue, they might be led by the hand to the point where they might hear the things He commands, according to the words given below: the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith (3:24). But after we have access to the Father through Christ, as is said in Romans (5:2), we are not instructed about the commands of God through the Law, but by God Himself. Hence he says: Through the Law leading me by the hand I have died to the written law, in order that I may live unto God, i.e., to the maker of the Law, i.e., to be instructed and directed by Him.

Then when he says, with Christ I am nailed to the cross, he amplifies what he said. Now he had said that he died to the Law and lives unto God. Hence he explains these two things:

First, that he died to the Law, he explains by saying that with Christ I am nailed to the cross;

Secondly, that he lives unto God, when he says (v. 20): I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me.

The first point can be explained in two ways. In one way, as in a Gloss, thus: every man according to carnal origin is born a child of wrath: “By nature we were children of wrath, even as the rese, (Eph 2:3). He is also born in the oldness of sin: “Thou art grown old in a strange country” (Bar. 3:11). This oldness of sin is removed by the cross of Christ, and the newness of spiritual life is conferred. Therefore the Apostle says, with Christ I am nailed to the cross, i.e., concupiscence or the inclination to sin, and all such have been put to death in me through the cross of Christ: “Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed” (Rom 6:6). Also from the fact that I am crucified with Christ and have died to sin; and because Christ rose again, I, too, have risen with Him rising: “Who was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification” (Rom 4:25). Thus, therefore, does Christ beget a new life in us, after the oldness of sin has been destroyed. Hence he says, And I live, i.e., because I am nailed to the cross of Christ, I have the strength to act well, now not I according to the flesh, because I no longer have the oldness which I formerly had, but Christ liveth in me, i.e., the newness which has been given to us through Christ.

Or, in another way: a man is said to live according to that in which he chiefly puts his affection and in which he is mainly delighted. Hence men who take their greatest pleasure in study or in hunting say that this is their life. However, each man has his own private interest by which he seeks that which is his own. Therefore, when someone lives seeking only what is his own, he lives only unto himself; but when he seeks the good of others, he is said to live for them. Accordingly, because the Apostle had set aside his love of self through the cross of Christ, he said that be was dead so far as love of self was concerned, declaring that with Christ I am nailed to the cross, i.e., through the cross of Christ my own private love has been removed from me. Hence he says God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (6:14): “If one died for all, then all were dead. And Christ died for all, that they also who live may not now live to themselves, but unto him who died for them” (2 Cor 5:14). And I live, now not 1, i.e., I no longer live as though having any interest in my own good, but Christ liveth in me, i.e., I have Christ alone in my affection and Christ Himself is my life: “To me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21).

Then when he says, And that I live now in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God, he answers a twofold difficulty that might arise from his words. One is how he lives and yet it is not he who lives; the second is how he is nailed to the cross. Therefore he clears up these two points. First of all, the first one, namely, how he lives and yet it is not he who lives. He answers this when he says And that I live now in the flesh I live in the faith of the Son of God. Here it should be noted that, strictly speaking, those things are said to live which are moved by an inner principle. Now the soul of Paul was set between his body and God; the body, indeed, was vivified and moved by the soul of Paul, but his soul by Christ. Hence as to the life of the flesh, Paul himself lived and this is what he says, namely, and that I live now in the flesh, i.e., by the life of the flesh; but as to his relation to God, Christ lived in Paul. Therefore he says, I live in the faith of the Son of God through which He dwells in me and moves me: “But the just shall live in his faith” (Hab. 2:4). And note that he says in the flesh, not “by the flesh,” because this is evil.

Secondly, he shows that he is nailed to the cross, saying: Because the love of Christ, which He showed to me in dying on the cross for me, brings it about that I am always nailed with Him. And this is what he says, who loved me: “He first loved us” (I Jn 4:10). And He loved me to the extent of giving himself and not some other sacrifice for me: “He loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood” (Rev 1:5); “As Christ loved the church and delivered himself up for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life” (Eph 5:25).

But it should be noted that the Son delivered Himself, and the Father His Son: “He spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us” (Rom 8:32). Judas, too, delivered Him up, as is said in Matthew (26:48). It is all one event, but the intention is not the same, because the Father did so out of love, the Son out of obedience along with love, but Judas out of avarice and treachery.

Then when he says, I cast not away the grace of God, he draws the principal conclusion. First, he draws the conclusion; secondly, he explains it. He says, therefore: Because I have received from God so great a grace that He delivered Himself, and I live in the faith of the Son of God, I cast not away the grace of God, i.e., I do not repudiate it or show myself ungrateful: “The grace of God in me hath not been void, but I have labored more abundantly than all they” (1 Cor 15:10). Hence another version has, I am not ungrateful for the grace of God.” “Looking diligently lest any man be wanting to the grace of God” (Heb 12:15), i.e., by showing myself unworthy because of ingratitude.

A form of repudiation and of ingratitude would exist, if I were to say that the Law is necessary in order to be justified. Hence he says, For if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain, i.e., if the Law is sufficient, i.e., if the works of the Law suffice to justify a man, Christ died to no purpose and in vain, because He died in order to make us just: “Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust, that he might offer us to God” (1 Pet. 3:18). Now if this could have been done through the Law, the death of Christ would have been superfluous. But He did not die in vain or labor to no purpose, as it is said in Isaiah (49:4); because through Him alone came justifying grace and truth, as it is said in John (1:17). Therefore, if any were just before the passion of Christ, this too was through the faith of Christ to come, in Whom they believed and in Whose faith they were saved.