The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: the Epistle to the Galatians
Chapter 2
i. Paul declares that he had compared his Gospel with Peter, James, and John, and that it had been approved of them so completely that there was nothing to be added to it or subtracted from it.
ii. He declares (ver. 7) that it had been mutually agreed between them that they should preach to the Jews and he to the Gentiles.
iii. He describes (ver. 11) how he had rebuked Peter openly for heedlessly assuming the appearance of a Judaiser, and so tempting the Gentiles into a similar error.
iv. He proves (ver. 16) that we are justified not by the works of the law but by the faith of Christ, and that for three reasons: (a) because (ver. 17) otherwise in abolishing the law Christ would be the minister of sin ; because (ver. 19) the law itself proclaims its own abrogation in Christ, because (ver. 21) otherwise Christ would have died in vain.
Ver. 1 . — Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem. Are these years to be reckoned from the date of Paul’s conversion, or from the end of the three years spent in Arabia and Damascus ? S. Jerome takes the latter, and so gets a date of seventeen years after the conversion, or a.d. 54, the twelfth of the Emperor Claudius, for this journey of S. Paul. But since Claudius ceased to reign in the next year, and was succeeded by Nero, in whose second year Paul was sent bound to Rome (Acts xxvii.), it would follow that all the history of Paul that is contained in Acts xv.-xxvii — I shall show directly that the journey alluded to here and that described in Acts xv. are the same — must be compressed into two years, which, considering the number and importance of the events recorded, seems very improbable. Moreover, it is clear, from Acts xviii. 11, that Paul, after what took place at Jerusalem, spent a year and a half at Corinth and then three years at Ephesus (Acts xx. 31). Accordingly, the opinion of Baronius and others seems better founded, by which these fourteen years are reckoned from S. Paul's conversion. He treats that as an illustrious event from which to reckon, just as we treat a call to the Papacy, to the Episcopate, or to religion as the beginning of a new era.
That this journey of Paul to Jerusalem is the same as that described in Acts xv., when he went up to the council, is evident from the identity of cause, place, and persons in both. This is the opinion of the Fathers in general, except Chrysostom, who argues as follows : In Acts xv. Paul appears as sent to Jerusalem by his fellow-Christians ; but here (ver. 2) he says that he went up to Jerusalem , hence the two journeys are distinct. My answer is : I deny the consequence. For both may be true, viz., that he went , and that he was sent by the Christians of Antioch ; because, as Bede remarks, he was warned by a voice from heaven to undertake the embassy entrusted to him by the people of Antioch, and went up, both for the sake of obtaining a decision of the common question about the observance of the law, and also for his own private purpose, viz., that he might compare his own teaching with that of the chief of the Apostles (ver. 2). From what has been said it follows, as Baronius holds, that the Council of Jerusalem was held fourteen years after Paul's conversion, in the sixteenth year after the Crucifixion of Christ, in the ninth year of Claudius, a.d. 51 .
Ver. 2 . — I communicated unto them that Gospel which I preached.’ I put it before Peter and the Apostles, making them as it were judges of my Gospel, that they might approve, disapprove, add, or take away as they saw fit in common council, and that I might receive it then at their hands to be believed and taught. See Gal. i. 16, and comments.
Observe that the Apostle did not compare his Gospel with that of the other Apostles because he had any doubt of its truth or completeness , or of its agreement with that preached by Peter and the rest; for he knew most certainly, by the revelation of God, that together with them he had received the same full and perfect Gospel, as is evident from Gal. i. 11, 12. It was not for his own sake that he made the comparison, but for the sake of those converted to the faith, amongst whom Paul was traduced by the Judaising pseudo-Apostles, as one who, among the Gentiles, slighted the law of Moses, contrary to the practice of Peter, James, and John, nay, of Paul himself when among Jews. To show the falsity of the accusation, to show the agreement of his teaching with that of the other Apostles, and also to guard his own authority, Paul compares his Gospel with theirs, lest , he says, by any means I should run , or had run in vain.
To them. That is to the first Christians, those made at Jerusalem, for the adjective “Christian” is latent in the substantive “Jerusalem.”
Which were of reputation . Who seemed to be pillars (ver. 9.) of the Church and leading Apostles.
Lest I should run in vain. Lest, through the report spread abroad by the pseudo-Apostles, that my teaching was condemned by the Apostles, the faithful should believe neither me nor my teaching, and so all my labour should be rendered ineffectual. Cf. S. Jerome (Ep. xi. ad August.), Tertullian (contra Marcion. lib. iv.), and S. Augustine (contra Faustum), who anticipates Luther’s opinions, and against them shows that the word of God, even when most pure, and all its preachers, stand in need of the testimony and authority of men. This is what he says : “ Who is so foolish as to believe nowadays that the epistle produced by Manichæus was really written by Christ, and not to believe that what Matthew wrote contained the doings and sayings of Christ ? Even if he has doubts about Matthew being the author, at all events he prefers to believe about Matthew himself what he finds the Church believes, and what has been continuously believed and handed down from his times to the present, rather than what some fugitive or other from Persia, coming 200 or more years after Christ , tells us about Christ's words and works . For would the Church wholly believe the Apostle Paul himself, who was called from heaven after the Lord's ascension , if he had not found Apostles in the flesh, to whom he might make it clear by communicating his Gospel that he was of the same fellowship as they ? ” (lib. xxviii. c. 4).
Our Protestant friends should note this, and apply it to themselves , who prefer to believe Calvin, coming 1500 years after Christ, and teaching new doctrines, rather than the Church and the unanimous tradition of so many centuries.
Observe that this testimony is not for the laity to give, even if they be magistrates, but for Peter and the Apostles, i.e., for the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops, who have succeeded the Apostles, whether individually, or assembled in council. For Paul sought this testimony to his teaching and Apostleship from the Council of Jerusalem, in which the judges were the Apostles, and where Peter, as the president, spoke first and pronounced sentence. So from the time of the Apostles up to the present time, the whole Christian world, when doubts as to the faith, or new opinions, or heresies spring up, has sought from the Roman Pontiff, and from the Councils over which he presides, either in person or by his legates, a decision and testimony as to the truth. Whatever dogmas or doctors are condemned by them the whole Christian world regards as heretical. Heretics alone, because they are heretics, have refused to recognise this condemnation, this judgment, this testimony, and have in every age avoided it. So it is not surprising if our Protestants do the same ; nay, their doing so is a sure proof of novelty, of wrong faith, and of heresy.
Ver. 3. — Neither Titus, who was a Gentile , was compelled to be circumcised. Observe the word compelled. Though the false brethren, the Jews, urged and tried to force it, yet I would not consent to Titus being circumcised, since he was a Gentile. Had I consented, I should have been thought to allow the necessity of circumcision and the law of Moses for Gentiles. But when I circumcised Timothy afterwards (Acts xvi. 3), I did so not under compulsion, but of my own initiative, that I might not irritate the Jews. For Timothy was not wholly a Gentile, being on his mother’s side a Jew, and on his father’s a Gentile, and so half- Jew, half-Gentile.
Gentile . Literally “ Greek ” [as in A.V.] At the time of Alexander the Greeks were those of the Gentiles who were best known to the Jews.
Ver. 4. — And that I.e., not even though the false brethren of the Jews urged it was Titus circumcised (Chrysostom, Œcumenius). S. Jerome takes away the adversative but , and makes the verse follow immediately on the construction of the preceding. But it is better to take the Greek διὰ δέ, which our version renders sed propter , in the sense of δή or ἄρα, i.e., “nempe,” in spite of it all , he was not circumcised.
The interpretation of Primasius and some others, who take the δέ, sed, in its strictly adversative sense, as meaning that Titus was not indeed compelled by the Apostles to be circumcised, but yet was circumcised because of the importunity of the false brethren, is clearly inconsistent with the following words, To whom we gave place , no, not for an hour, and also with a sound faith. For circumcision having been already done away, and having given place to baptism under the Gospel, it was forbidden to Gentiles to be circumcised. But Titus was a Gentile by both parents. Cf. S. Augustine (Ep. xix. ad Hieron ., and de Mendacio , c. 5).
Unawares brought in, who came in privily . Like spies preparing for traps to be laid for us, they crept in by stealth. Cf. Rom. v. 20 and comments.