The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: the Epistle to the Galatians
A third question was also disputed between Jerome and Augustine as to the date when the Old Law came to an end ; but this is outside the present subject, and it is sufficient therefore to say briefly that the Old Law, so far as obligation goes, came to an end at Pentecost, when the New Law was promulgated, but that its observance did not wholly cease, it being lawful to observe it for a while, till the Jews had been gradually weaned from it, that so in due time it might receive an honourable burial. In this dispute Augustine seems to have held the stronger position.
It may be urged that in this act of Peter’s there was at least something sinful, if not actually erroneous in faith, as some have rashly asserted. By his action it may be thought that he thoughtlessly made a profession of Judaism, and so put a stumbling-block in the way of the Gentiles, and tempted them to Judaise with him. He had previously lived with the Gentiles, but he afterwards withdrew from them suddenly, went over to the Jews, and lived with them. From this the Gentiles might properly infer that Judaism was necessary to salvation, both for him and themselves, and was binding on Christians; for though the Old Law, with its ceremonies , was not yet the cause of death, and might be preserved so as to secure for itself an honourable burial, and also to draw the Jews to the faith of Christ, yet it was dead, and in one sense death-giving, viz., to any one who should keep it on the supposition that it was binding on Christians. Although Peter, however, did not so regard it, yet his action was so imprudent as to give the Gentiles good reason for thinking that he did.
The justness of this remark is evident from the two remarks made : I withstood him to the face , because he was to be blamed ; and : When I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel , I said unto Peter before them all : Why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ? — viz., by your simulation, or what the Greeks call hypocrisy. All this shows that either Peter sinned or that Paul told a lie, which God forbid. See S. Augustine ( Epp . 8, 9, and 19 to Jerome), Cyprian (Ep. ad Quintum), Gregory (Horn. 18 in Ezech .), Ambrose, &c.
To what has been said I add this : This sin of Peter's was venial, or material only, arising from want of thought, or from want of light and prudence. He seems to have thought that, being the Apostle of the Jews especially, that he ought rather to avoid scandalising them than the Gentiles, and that the Gentiles would readily recognise the rightfulness of this line of action. In so doing he erred, for “ although ” as S. Thomas says, “ the Holy Spirit who descended on the apostles at Pentecost established them thereafter in such prudence and grace as to keep them from mortal sins , yet he did not also save them from venial sins.”
Observe that a lie may consist in deeds as well as in words. For example, if a man lead another to suppose by his conduct that he is a good man or his friend, when he is neither of these, then he is guilty of a lie. This lie by deed is what is properly called hypocrisy. Similarly, if any Christian at Rome wears a yellow cap he acts a lie, by thus giving himself out as a Jew.
Notice, however, with Cajetan that falsity in deeds is more easily excused than falsity in words. The reason is that words are express signs of mental concepts, but deeds are not, and so admit a wider interpretation. Hence if soldiers feign flight to draw the enemy into an ambush, they are not guilty of hypocrisy, as they would be if they were to say in words : “We flee, O enemy, because we are afraid of you.”
Again, observe the following rule : When there is a just cause of concealing the truth, no falsehood is involved. Peter, in the act under discussion, had partly a just cause, viz., the fear of offending the Jews. His withdrawal from the Gentiles was not a formal declaration that he was a Judaiser, but only tantamount to saying that he preferred to serve the Jews rather than the Gentiles, the just cause of this preference being that he was more an Apostle of the former than of the latter. I say partly , for he was not wholly justified in so acting, inasmuch as he was bound, as universal pastor, to care for the Jews without neglecting the Gentiles. Hence it follows also that in one respect he sinned through want of due consideration. The infirmity of man's mind, however, is such that he cannot always hit the exact mean, and under complex circumstances benefit one without harming another.
Some one will object then : Since Paul corrected Peter, he was of equal, if not superior authority ; in other words Paul, and not Peter, was the head of the Apostles.
I deny the consequence. For superiors may, in the interests of truth, be corrected by their inferiors. Augustine ( Ep . xix.), Cyprian, Gregory, and S. Thomas lay down this proposition in maintaining also that Peter, as the superior, was corrected by his inferior. The inference from what they say is that Paul was equal to the other Apostles, inferior to Peter, and hence they all were Peter's inferiors ; they were the heads of the whole Church, and Peter was their chief. Gregory (Horn. 18 in Ezech.) says : " Peter kept silence, that the first in dignity might be first in humility ;” and Augustine says the same (Ep. xix. ad Hieron .) : “ Peter gave to those who should follow him a rare and holy example of humility under correction by inferiors , as Paul did of bold resistance in defence of truth to subordinates against their superiors , charity being always preserved.”
He did eat with the Gentiles. He ate, according to Anselm, of pork and other forbidden meats, without any scruple, to show that the Ceremonial Law was abrogated.
Ver. 13. — And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him. What was the nature of this dissimulation? Jerome, Chrysostom, and Œcumenius say it was “economical,” to prevent the Jews being scandalised ; but Augustine, Anselm, and the Latins in general give a more satisfactory explanation in maintaining that it was an act of hypocrisy. The latter, too, have the Greek on their side, the literal meaning of which is, they acted hypocritically with him. They pretended to keep the law, which they knew to be abrogated. Barnabas followed them in pretending that there was a difference in meats, and that the Jews were to be preferred to the Gentiles, and so, though they did not consciously intend it, yet they made the Greeks to believe that the Old Law was necessary to salvation.
Ver. 14. — But when I saw that they walked not uprightly . The Greek word used here denotes literally to walk straight , without turning to the right hand or to the left
If thou being a Jew livest after the manner of the Gentiles, To live as a Gentile is to partake indifferently of the same food, and thereby to show that the ceremonies of the law are dead, if not deadly, now that the Gospel is being preached. Having done this, why do you now avoid the Gentiles, and so compel them to Judaise?
Ver. 15. — Sinners of the Gentiles. So, according to Augustine and Anselm, the Jews contemptuously called the Gentiles, as being idolaters.
Ver. 16. — A man is not justified by the works of the law , but by the faith of Jesus Christ. The English but here exactly interprets the word that the Latin translates by nisi. There is an antithesis between the works of the law and the faith of Jesus Christ, and accordingly the Protestants are wrong in neglecting the force of the antithesis, and translating the phrase as if it meant a man is justified only by the faith of Christ. Moreover, even if the Apostle had said the latter, yet he would lend no support to the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith only, for S. Thomas admits faith as the sole justifying cause. The word only excludes the works of the law, not the works of hope, fear, charity, and penance, which spring from faith as daughters from a mother.
Ver. 17. — But if while we seek to be justified by Christ we ourselves also are found sinners , is, therefore, Christ the minister of sin ?
1. If we are still in sin, and are looking to faith in Christ for forgiveness, while as a matter of fact it is not to be found there, but in the law, then does Christ support sin, inasmuch as He has taken away the law, which, according to the Judaisers, alone destroys sin. If the law alone justifies, then the law of grace, which abolishes the law, is the minister of sin. This is the interpretation of Jerome, Chrysostom, Primasius, Anselm, and Theophylact.
2. Vatablus says that “ to be found a sinner ” means to teach that the Mosaic law is necessary to salvation along with the Evangelical law. If, says S. Paul, we have taught this, as our traducers say we have, is then Christ or the Gospel involved in this heresy?
3. Others again interpret the verse thus : If we also, who boast of our being justified in Christ, are found sinners ; if we give way to our lusts equally with the Jews or the Gentiles, who are aliens to Christ, does it necessarily follow that our teaching about justification through Christ is erroneous ? Does Christ make us sinners unless He be joined to the Law? If Christ’s followers give way to sin it is their own fault, not His.