Gal. 2:11. But when Peter came to Antioch, I personally opposed him,
Many think that here Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy, but this is unjust. For what he seemingly says against Peter was done and spoken with a special purpose. For Peter, being in Jerusalem, permitted circumcision — indeed it was impossible to suddenly draw them away from the law — but having come to Antioch, he ate together with the Gentiles. When certain people from Jerusalem came to Antioch, he began to avoid the Gentiles, so as not to scandalize the Jerusalemites and at the same time to give Paul a fitting occasion for rebuke. Therefore Paul rebukes, and Peter endures it. For in this way the disciples could more easily change their way of thinking, when the teacher is subjected to reproaches and remains silent. Thus, this "opposed him to his face" was only in appearance, since if the struggle had been real, they would not have accused each other in front of the disciples, because they would have subjected them to great scandal. But as it was, the apparent outward opposition served for the correction of the disciples. For Peter does not contradict at all — clearly he agreed with this objection of Paul.
Gal. 2:11. Because he was subject to blame.
He did not say: from me, but simply, from others, who did not know that it was done with good intention, and considered it hypocrisy that in the absence of the Jerusalemites he ate together with the Gentiles, but when they came, he withdrew. And some understood it this way: Peter even before "was blamed," says Paul, because he ate together with Cornelius, therefore now too he withdrew, fearing to be subjected to new reproaches, and when he withdrew, "I opposed him to his face."
Gal. 2:12. For before certain ones came from James, he ate together with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to hide and withdraw, fearing those of the circumcision.
He also points out the reason for this rebuke. James was the brother of the Lord, who taught in Jerusalem as their bishop. It was he who sent certain Jews who had already believed but still adhered to the law, and they went to Antioch. Seeing them and fearing not for his own safety, but lest they, being scandalized, should fall away from the faith, Peter began to withdraw from association with the Gentiles. But some, not knowing this reason, began to condemn him.
Gal. 2:13. And the other Jews likewise joined him in hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
He calls this matter hypocrisy, because he does not wish to reveal Peter's intention, and also for the sake of those strongly attached to the law, in order to uproot their devotion to the law. And by the rest of the Jews he means those from among the Jews in Antioch who had believed, who themselves also kept away from the uncircumcised.
Gal. 2:14. But when I saw that they were not walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter before all:
But do not be troubled by these words — he says this not to condemn Peter, but for the sake of those who could benefit from hearing that even Peter was subjected to rebuke for his attachment to the law. Why then should you hold to it? For it was with this purpose that he rebuked him then before all, so that they would be frightened, hearing that so great a man is subjected to censure and cannot object. Eusebius, however, says that the one subjected to rebuke from Paul was not the great Peter, but some other Cephas, one of the Seventy, and in support of this he points to the impossibility that the one who had already previously defended himself regarding the scandal he had caused by sharing a meal with Cornelius could again be subjected to such rebuke. But we too do not say that Peter was censured by Paul for ignorance of his duty, but that he voluntarily submitted to condemnation so that others too might be corrected.
Gal. 2:14. If you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, then why do you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
Paul all but cries out to everyone: "Imitate your teacher — for behold, he is a Jew, yet he ate food together with the Gentiles." And notice — he does not accuse him: "You do wrong by observing the Law," but reproaches him on behalf of his own disciples from among the Gentiles, that he compels them to be circumcised and to live according to Jewish customs. For in this form the word could be more readily accepted.
Gal. 2:15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles;
"By nature," that is, not proselytes, but born of Jewish fathers and raised in the law, yet we abandoned our accustomed way of life and turned to faith in Christ.
Gal. 2:16. However, having learned that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ, we also believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
See how simply everything is said. We left the law not because it is not good, but because it is weak and unable to justify. For no one could fulfill its works, difficult and hard to perform, not because of their greatness, but rather because of their pettiness; or otherwise, because it did not sanctify the soul, but only removed bodily impurity. So circumcision is superfluous. And further ahead he will say that it is even dangerous, because it alienates from Christ.
Gal. 2:17. But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found to be sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin?
We sought to obtain justification in Christ, he says, having abandoned the law. How then do you say that it is sinful to abandon the law: for it turns out that Christ led us into such a sin, since for His sake we abandoned everything pertaining to the law. Thus Christ, as you say, not only did not justify us, but even became for us the cause of greater condemnation by having persuaded us to depart from the law.
Gal. 2:17. By no means.
Having driven the argument to absurdity, he no longer had need of confirmation, but contented himself with a simple denial, which is what he ordinarily always did in matters that were generally disputable.
Gal. 2:18. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
Notice his wisdom: they were saying that the one who violates the law is a transgressor, but he, on the contrary, shows that the one who observes it is a transgressor, going not only against the faith, but also against the law itself. For the law itself led me to the faith and persuaded me to leave it. Further on he will point this out, but for now he says that the law has ceased, and we have testified to this by the fact that we destroyed it, having departed from it. Therefore, if we were to endeavor to restore it, we would prove to be transgressors, restoring that which was destroyed by God.
Gal. 2:19. Through the law I died to the law,
He explains in what manner he abandoned the law, and says: through the law of grace and the Gospel I died to the law of Moses, or I died, he says, to the law through the law; that is, the law itself led me to no longer observe it, having led me to Christ through the Mosaic and prophetic word. Therefore, if I again begin to observe it, I will again violate it. Or in this way: the law commanded that the one who does not fulfill its prescriptions be punished and put to death. And since it could not be fulfilled, by its power I was subjected to death. Therefore let it not command me, as one already dead both in soul, because I sinned, being unable to fulfill the works of the law, and in body, inasmuch as this depended on the condemnation by the law. How then after this shall I still hold to that which put me to death?
Gal. 2:19. To live for God. I have been crucified together with Christ,