CHAPTER II.] COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS. cumcision at Jerusalem, an abrupt severance from the law not being practicable ; but when they come to Antioch, they no longer continued this observance, but lived indiscriminately with the believing Gentiles which thing Peter also was at that time doing. But when some came from Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer did so fearing to perplex them, but he changed his course, with two objects secretly in view, both to avoid offend ing those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him. 1 For had he, having allowed circumcision when preaching at Jerusa lem, changed his course at Antioch, his con duct would have appeared to those Jews to pro ceed from fear of Paul, and his disciples would have condemned his excess of pliancy. And this would have created no small offence ; but in Paul, who was well acquainted with all the facts, his withdrawal would have raised no such suspicion, as knowing the intention with which he acted. Wherefore Paul rebukes, and Peter submits, that when the master is blamed, yet keeps silence, the disciples may more readily come over. Without this occurrence Paul s exhortation would have had little effect, but the occasion hereby afforded of delivering a severe reproof, impressed Peter s disciples with a more lively fear. Had Peter disputed Paul s sentence, he might justly have been blamed as upsetting the plan, but now that the one reproves and the other keeps silence, the Jewish party are filled with serious alarm; and this is why he used Peter so severely. Observe too Paul s careful choice of expressions, whereby he points out to 1 S. Jerome adopts the interpretation given in the text, viz. that S. Peter s dissimulation was no sin, but intended as an opportunity for S. Paul to declare the freedom of the Gentiles from the Jewish Law. On the other hand, S. Austin considers that heacted through wrong motives, and sinned in dissembling. In this opinion he is supported by Tertullian, S. Cyprian S. Cyril, of Alexandria, S. Gregory and Ambrosiaster. (Hieron. in loc, et alibi. August, de Bapt. contr. Donatist. ii. 2. de Mendacio 8. Tertull. de Pres cript. 23. in Marc. iv. 3. v. 3. Cyprian, Ep. ad Quint. 71. Cyril. Alex, in Julian, ix. fin. Gregor. in Ezech. ii. Jfotn. 6, g. Am- brosiast. in loc.) S. Austin is influenced in his judgment of the transaction by an anxiety lest disingenuousness and duplicity should receive countenance from the apparent example of an Apos tle ; S. Chrysostom and S. Jerome by affectionate reverence for the memory of so great a benefactor and so exalted a saint. Vid. Jus tinian, in loco. [In earlier life Chrysostom had himself practised such a "scheme," as that which he here attributes to Paul. In order to induce his friend Basil to be consecrated as a bishop he made on him the (false) impression that he himseJf had already been conse crated.] Nea.nder(Li/t:o/CArysos(omp. 22.) says: "In the first book of his workonthePriesthood Chrysostom defends the principle that a falsehood is permitted for a good object. An invention which has for its sole object the advantage of another is rather an olKovofiia. (the word he uses in expounding our passage.) This lax view respecting truth was not peculiar to Chrysostom but was consonant with the prevailing spirit of the Eastern Church. There were a few exceptions however to this view, among whom were John of Lycopolis in Egypt, and Basil of Caesarea who says TOII xvpiov Siafiopav \lifv5ovs oiiSejaaiV eK^>f|vav^o<;. Schaft says (Prolegomena p. 8): " Origen, Jerome and Chrysostom explain the offense of this collision away by turning it into a theatrical and hypocritical farce, shrewdly arranged by the Apos tle for a purpose. In this respect the modern standard of ethics is far superior to that of the Fathers and more fully accords with the spirit of the New Testament." [We may add that Chrysostom s view gains nothing ; for to save one Apostle from the charge of unpremeditated hypocrisy, he makes both guilty of premeditated hypocrisy. G. A.] the discerning, that he uses them in pursuance of the plan, (otxtw^ta?) and not from anger. His words are, "When Cephas came to Anti och, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned; " that is, not by me but by others; had he himself condemned him, he would not have shrunk from saying so. And the words, "I resisted him to the face," imply a scheme for had their discussion been real, they would not have rebuked each other in the presence of the disciples, for it would have been a great stumblingblock to them. But now this appar ent contest was much to their advantage ; as Paul had yielded to the Apostles at Jerusalem, so in turn they yield to him at Antioch. The cause of censure is this, " For before that cer tain came from James," who was the teacher at Jerusalem, " he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the Circum cision: " his cause of fear was not his own dan ger, (for if he feared not in the beginning, much less would he do so then,) but their defec tion. As Paul himself says to the Galatians, " I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain:" (Gal. iv : n.) and again, "I fear lest by any means as the serpent beguiled Eve, ... so your minds should be corrupted." (2 Cor. xi : 3.) Thus the fear of death they knew not, but the fear lest their disciples should perish, agitated their inmost soul. Ver. 13. "Insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation." Be not surprised at his giving this proceeding the name of dissimulation, for he is unwilling, as I said before, to disclose the true state of the case, in order to the correction of his disciples. On account of their vehement attachment to the Law, he calls the present proceeding "dis simulation," and severely rebukes it, in order effectually to eradicate their prejudice. And Peter too, hearing this joins in the feint, as if he had erred, that they might be corrected by means of the rebuke administered to him. Had Paul reproved these Jews, they would have spurned at it with indignation, for they held him in slight esteem ; but now, when they saw their Teacher silent under rebuke, they were unable to despise or resist Paul s sentence. Ver. 14. " But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gos pel." Neither let this phrase disturb you, for in using it he does not condemn Peter, but so ex presses himself for the benefit of those who were to be reformed by the reproof of Peter. Ver. 14. "I said unto Cephas before them all." Observe his mode of correcting the others ;