Galatians 2:11–17

Verse 11. But when Cephas, and so forth [1] In most Greek copies, we read Petrus, both here and verse 13. Nor are there any sufficient, nor even probable grounds to judge, that Cephas here mentioned was different from Peter, the prince of the apostles, as one or two later authors would make us believe. Among those who fancied Cephas different from Peter, not one can be named in the first ages, except Clemens of Alexandria, whose works were rejected as apocryphal by Pope Gelasius. The next author is Dorotheus of Tyre, in his Catalogue of the seventy-two disciples, in the fourth or fifth age, and after him the like, or same catalogue, in the seventh age, in the Chronicle, called of Alexandria, neither of which are of any authority with the learned, so many evident faults and falsehoods being found in both. S. Jerom indeed on this place says, there were some (though he does not think fit to name them) who were of that opinion; but at the same time S. Jerom ridicules and rejects it as groundless. Now as to authors that make Cephas the same with Saint Peter, the prince of the apostles, we have what may be called the unexceptionable and unanimous consent of the ancient fathers and doctors of the Catholic Church, as of Tertullian, who calls this management of Saint Peter, a fault of conversation, not of preaching or doctrine. Of S. Cyprian, of Origen, of the great doctors, S. Jerom, Saint Augustine Saint John Chrysostom Saint Gregory the Great, of S. Cyril of Alex. of Theodoret, Pope Gelasius, Pelagius the second, S. Anselm, Saint Thomas. In later ages, of Bellarm. Baronius, Binius, Spondan, of Salmeron, Estius, Gagneius, Tirinus, Menochius, Alex. Natalis, and a great many more: so that Cornelius a Lapide on this place says, that the Church neither knows, nor celebrates any other Cephas but Saint Peter. Tertullian and most interpreters take notice, that Saint Peter’s fault was only a lesser or venial sin in his conduct and conversation. Did not Saint Paul on several occasions do the like, as what is here laid to Saint Peter’s charge? that is, practise the Jewish ceremonies: did not he circumcise Timothy after this, an. 52? did he not shave his head in Cenchrea, an. 54? did he not by the advice of Saint James (an. 58.) purify himself with the Jews in the temple, not to offend them? S. Jerom, and also Saint John Chrysostom [2] give another exposition of this passage. They looked upon all this to have been done by a contrivance and a collusion betwixt these two apostles, who had agreed beforehand that Saint Peter should let himself be reprehended by Saint Paul, (for this they take to be signified by the Greek text) and not that Saint Peter was reprehensible; [3] so that the Jews seeing Saint Peter publicly blamed, and not justifying himself, might for the future eat with the Gentiles. But Saint Augustine vigorously opposed this exposition of S. Jerom, as less consistent with a Christian and apostolical sincerity, and with the text in this chapter, where it is called a dissimulation, and that Cephas or Peter walked not uprightly to the truth of the gospel. After a long dispute betwixt these two doctors, S. Jerom seems to have retracted his opinion, and the opinion of Saint Augustine is commonly followed, that Saint Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence. In the mean time, no Catholic denies but that the head of the Church may be guilty even of great sins. What we have to admire, is the humility of Saint Peter on this occasion, as S. Cyprian observes, [4] who took the reprehension so mildly, without alleging the primacy, which our Lord had given him. Baronius held that Saint Peter did not sin at all, which may be true, if we look upon his intention only, which was to give no offence to the Jewish converts; but if we examine the fact, he can scarce be excused from a venial indiscretion. Witham.—I withstood, and so forth The fault that is here noted in the conduct of Saint Peter, was only a certain imprudence, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts: but this in such circumstances, when his so doing might be of ill consequence to the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. Neither was Saint Paul’s reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for is such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior. Challoner.

Verse 16. and so forth Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law. Saint Paul, to the end of the chapter, seems to continue his discourse to Saint Peter, but chiefly to the Jewish Galatians, to shew that both the Gentiles, whom the Jews called and looked upon as sinners, and also the Jews, when converted, could only hope to be justified and saved by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law.—But if while we seek to be justified in Christ, by faith in him, and by his grace, we ourselves also are found sinners, as the false doctors teach you, and not to be justified but by the ceremonies and works of the law of Moses, this blasphemous consequence must follow, that Christ is the minister and author of sin, by making us believe that by faith in him, and complying with his doctrine, we may be justified and saved. For thus we must be considered transgressors, unless we renew and build again what Christ and we have destroyed.—For by the law I am dead to the law. That is, says S. Jerom, by the evangelical law of Christ I am dead to the ancient law and its ceremonies. Others expound it, that by the law and its types and figures, and by the predictions contained in the law, I know the Mosaical law hath now ceased, in which sense he might say, by the law I am dead to the law.—If justice. That is, if justification and salvation be to be had, or could have been had by the works of the law; therefore Christ died in vain, and it was not necessary that he should become our Redeemer. Witham.