The Second Chapter

Verse 1. Then fourteen years after I went up to Jerusalem.

Paul taught that the Gentiles were justified by faith only without the works of the law. This doctrine when he had published abroad among the Gentiles, he comes to Antioch, and declares to the Disciples what he had done. Then they which had been trained up in the old customs of the law, rose against Paul with great indignation, for that he preached to the Gentiles liberty from the bondage of the law. Whereupon followed great dissension, which afterwards stirred up new troubles. Paul and Barnabas stood strongly to the truth, and testified, saying: wherever we preached among the Gentiles, the Holy Ghost came and fell upon those which heard the word: and this was done throughout all the churches of the Gentiles. But we preached not circumcision, neither did we require the keeping of the law, but we preached only faith in Jesus Christ: and at this preaching of faith, God gave to the hearers the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost therefore does approve the faith of the Gentiles without the law and Circumcision. For if the preaching of the Gospel and faith of the Gentiles in Christ had not pleased him, he had not come down in a visible shape upon the uncircumcised which heard the word. Seeing then by the only hearing of faith he came down upon them, it is certain that the Holy Ghost by this sign has approved the faith of the Gentiles. For it does not appear that this was ever done before at the preaching of the law.

Then the Jews and many of the Pharisees which did believe, and notwithstanding bore yet a great zeal to the law, earnestly striving to maintain the glory thereof, set themselves fiercely against Paul, (who affirmed that the Gentiles were justified by faith only without the works of the law) contending that the law ought to be kept, and that the Gentiles ought to be circumcised: for otherwise they could not be saved. And no marvel: for the very name of the law of God is holy and dreadful. The heathen man, which never knew any thing of the law of God, if he hear any man say: This doctrine is the law of God, doubtless he is moved. How then could it be but that the Jews must needs be moved, and vehemently contend for the maintenance of the law of God, which even from their infancy had been nursed and trained up therein?

We see at this day how obstinate the Papists be in defending their traditions and doctrines of Devils. Therefore it was much less to be marveled, that the Jews did so vehemently and zealously strive for the maintenance of their law, which they had received from God. Custom is of such force, that whereas nature is of itself inclined to the observation of the law, by long continuance it so confirms nature that now it becomes a double nature. Therefore it was impossible for the Jews which were newly converted to Christ, suddenly to forsake the law: who though they had received the faith of Christ, thought it necessary notwithstanding to observe the law. And with this their weakness God did bear for a time, until the doctrine of the Gospel might be plainly discerned from the law. So he bore with the infirmity of Israel in the time of King Ahab, when the people halted between two religions. He bore also with our weakness, while we were under the blindness of the Pope: For he is long suffering and full of mercy. But we must not abuse this goodness and patience of the Lord, nor continue still in our weakness and error, since the truth is now revealed by the clear light of the Gospel.

Moreover, they that stood against Paul, affirming that the Gentiles ought to be circumcised, had to lay for themselves, first the law and custom of the country, then the example of the Apostles, and last of all the example of Paul himself who had circumcised Timothy. Therefore if Paul in his defense said, that he did not this of necessity, but for Christian love and liberty, lest they which were weak in faith should be offended: which of them would believe him? To this all the people would answer: Since it is evident that you have circumcised Timothy, you may say what you will: notwithstanding you have done it. For this is a matter far passing all man's capacity, and therefore they could not understand it.

Moreover, no defense can serve when a man has lost the favor of the people and is fallen into such deadly hatred and contempt. Paul therefore seeing this contention and these clamors daily to increase more and more, and being also warned by revelation from God: after fourteen years (besides those wherein he had preached in Damascus and Arabia) he goes up again to Jerusalem, to confer his Gospel with the other Apostles: yet not for his own cause, but for the people's sake.

Now this contention touching the observation of the law, exercised Paul a long time after, and wrought him much trouble. But I do not think that this is the contention which Luke speaks of in the 15th chapter of Acts, which happened (as it appears) by and by after the beginning of the Gospel. But this history which Paul here mentions, seems to be done long after, when Paul had now almost eighteen years preached the Gospel.

Verse 1. With Barnabas, and took with me Titus.

He joins to himself two witnesses, Barnabas and Titus. Barnabas was Paul's companion in preaching to the Gentiles freedom from the servitude of the law. He was also a witness of all those things which Paul did, and had seen the Holy Ghost given to the Gentiles which were [reconstructed: uncircumcised] and free from Moses' law, by the only preaching of faith in Jesus Christ, and he only stuck to Paul in this point: that it was not necessary that the Gentiles should be burdened with the law, but that it was enough for them to believe in Christ. Therefore by his own experience he testifies with Paul against the Jews, that the Gentiles were made the children of God and saved by faith alone in Jesus Christ, without the law or circumcision.

Titus was not only a Christian but also the chief overseer in Crete: For to him Paul had committed the charge of governing the churches there (Titus 1). And this Titus was a Gentile.

Verse 2. And I went up by revelation.

For unless Paul had been admonished by revelation, he had not gone up to Jerusalem. But because God warned him by a special revelation, and commanded him to go up, therefore he went. And this he did to bridle or at least to appease the Jews that believed and yet obstinately contended about the keeping of the law, to the end that the truth of the Gospel might be the more advanced and confirmed.

Verse 2. And I communicated with them touching the Gospel.

You hear then that at length, after 18 years he went up to Jerusalem, and conferred with the Apostles touching his gospel.

Verse 2. Which I preach among the Gentiles.

For among the Jews he suffered the law and circumcision for a time, as the other Apostles did: I am made all things to all men, says he (1 Corinthians 9), yet ever holding the true doctrine of the gospel, which he preferred above the law, circumcision, the Apostles, indeed and an Angel from heaven. For thus says he to the Jews: Through this Christ is preached to you the forgiveness of sins. And he adds very plainly: And from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses, by him everyone that believes is justified. For this cause he sets forth and defends the doctrine of the gospel so diligently everywhere, and never suffers it to come in danger. Notwithstanding he did not suddenly break out at the first, but had regard to the weak. And because the weak should not be offended, there is no doubt but he spoke to the Jews after this manner: If that unprofitable service of Moses' law which nothing avails to righteousness, does so highly please you, you may keep it still for me, so that the Gentiles which are not bound to this law, be not charged therewith.

Paul confesses then, that he conferred the gospel with the Apostles, (but says he) they profited me or taught me nothing: but I rather for the defense of the liberty of the gospel, in the presence of the Apostles did constantly resist those which would needs force the observation of the law upon the Gentiles, and so did overcome them. Therefore your false apostles lie in saying that I circumcised Timothy, that I shaved my head in Cenchrea, and that I went up to Jerusalem at the commandment of the Apostles. In fact rather I glory that in going up to Jerusalem by the revelation of God, and not at the commandment of the Apostles, and there conferring my Gospel with them, I brought to pass the contrary, that is to say, obtained that the Apostles did approve me, and not those which were against me.

Now, the question upon which the Apostles conferred together in this assembly, was this: whether the keeping of the law were necessary to justification or no? To this Paul answers: I have preached to the Gentiles, according to my gospel which I received from God, faith in Christ and not the law: and at this preaching of faith they received the Holy Spirit: and hereof Barnabas shall bear me witness. Therefore I conclude that the Gentiles ought not to be burdened with the law, nor to be circumcised. Notwithstanding I give no restraint to the Jews herein. Who if they will needs keep the law and be circumcised, I am not against it, so that they do it with freedom of conscience. And thus have I taught and lived among the Jews, being made a Jew to the Jews: holding ever the truth of the gospel notwithstanding.

Verse 2. But particularly with them that were the chiefest.

That is to say, I did not only confer with the brethren, but with those that were the chiefest among them.

Verse 2. Lest by any means I should run, or had run in vain.

Not that Paul doubted that he ran or had run in vain, for as much as he had now preached the gospel 18 years (for it immediately follows in the text, that he had continued firm and constant all this while and had prevailed) but for that many did think that Paul had therefore preached the gospel so many years in vain, because he had set the Gentiles at liberty from the observation of the law. Moreover, this opinion daily more and more increased, that the law was necessary to justification. Therefore in going up to Jerusalem by revelation, he meant so to remedy this evil, that by this conference all men might plainly see his gospel to be in no point contrary to the doctrine of the other apostles: to the end that by this means he might stop the mouths of the adversaries, which would else have said that he ran or had run in vain. Note here by the way, the virtue of man's righteousness, or of the righteousness of the law to be such, that they which teach it, do run and live in vain.

Verse 3. But neither yet Titus which was with me, though he were a Grecian, was compelled to be circumcised.

This word, was compelled, sufficiently declares what the conference and conclusion was: to wit, that the Gentiles should not be constrained to be circumcised, but that circumcision should be permitted to the Gentiles for a time: not as necessary to righteousness, but for a reverence to the forefathers: also for charity's sake toward the weak (lest they should be offended) until they were grown up more strong in faith: For it might have seemed strange and unseemly upon a sudden to forsake the law and traditions of the fathers, which had been given to this people from God with so great glory.

Paul then did not reject circumcision as a damnable thing, neither did he by word or deed enforce the Jews to forsake it. For in (1 Corinthians 7) he says: If any man be called being circumcised, let him not add uncircumcision. But he rejected circumcision as a thing not necessary to righteousness, seeing the fathers themselves were not justified thereby, but it was to them as a sign only or a seal of righteousness, whereby they testified and exercised their faith. Notwithstanding the believing Jews which were yet weak, and bore a zeal to the law, hearing that circumcision was not necessary to righteousness, could understand this no otherwise, but that it was altogether unprofitable and damnable. And this foolish opinion of the weak Jews that false apostles did increase, to the end that the hearts of the people being stirred up against Paul, by this occasion, they might thoroughly discredit his doctrine. So we at this day do not reject fasting and other good exercises as damnable things: but we teach that by these exercises we do not obtain remission of sins. When the people hear this, by and by they judge us to speak against good works. The Papists also do confirm and increase this opinion in their preachings and writings. But they lie, and do us great wrong. For many years past there has been none that has more truly and faithfully taught concerning good works, than we do at this day.

Paul then did not so condemn circumcision, as though it were sin to receive it or keep it: for so the Jews would have been highly offended: but it was decided in this conference and Council, that it was not necessary to justification, and therefore not to be forced upon the Gentiles. So this moderation was found, that for the reverence of the fathers, and charity toward the weak in faith, the Jews should keep the law and circumcision still for a time, notwithstanding they should not thereby seek to be justified: And also that the Gentiles should not be burdened therewith, both because it would have been to them a very strange thing, and also an intolerable burden: briefly that none should be constrained to be circumcised, or any restrained from circumcision.

Paul therefore compelled none that would be circumcised, to remain uncircumcised, so that he knew circumcision not to be necessary to justification. This constraint would Paul take away. Therefore he suffered the Jews to keep the law, so that they did it with a free conscience. For he had ever taught, as well the Jews as the Gentiles, that in conscience they ought to be free from the law and circumcision: like as all the Patriarchs and all the faithful in the old Testament were free in conscience and justified by faith, and not by the law or circumcision. And indeed Paul might have suffered Titus to be circumcised: but because he saw that they would compel him to it, he would not. For if they had prevailed therein, by and by they would have gathered that it had been necessary to justification, and so through this sufferance they would have triumphed against Paul.

Now, as the false apostles would not leave circumcision and the observation of the law indifferent, but required the same as necessary to salvation: so at this day our adversaries do obstinately contend that men's traditions cannot be omitted without peril of salvation. And thus of an example of charity, they make an example of faith, when notwithstanding there is but one example of faith, which is to believe in Jesus Christ: And this, as it is alone necessary to salvation, so does it also indifferently pertain to all men. Notwithstanding the adversaries would rather worship the Devil ten times in place of God, than they would suffer this. Therefore they are daily hardened more and more, and seek to establish their impieties and blasphemies against God, defending the same by force and tyranny, and will not agree or consent to us in any point. But what then? Let us go on boldly in the name of the Lord of hosts, and for all this, let us not cease to set forth the glory of Jesus Christ: and let us fight valiantly against the kingdom of Antichrist by the word and by prayer, that the name of God alone may be sanctified, that his kingdom may come, and that his will may be done. And that this may speedily come to pass, we desire even from the bottom of our hearts and say, Amen, Amen.

This triumph of Paul therefore was very glorious: namely, that Titus which was a Gentile, although he were in the midst of the Apostles and all the faithful where this question was so vehemently debated, was not yet constrained to be circumcised. This victory Paul carries away, and says that in this conference it was decided by the consent of all the Apostles, the whole Church also approving the same, that Titus should not be circumcised. This is a strong argument, and makes very much against the false apostles. And with this argument: Neither was Titus compelled to be circumcised, Paul was able to repress and mightily convince all his adversaries. As if he should say: Why do these counterfeit apostles so falsely report of me, saying, that I am compelled to keep circumcision by the commandment of the Apostles, seeing I have the witness of all the faithful in Jerusalem, and moreover of all the Apostles themselves, that by my pursuit and travail the contrary was there determined: and that I did not only there prevail that Titus should not be circumcised, but that the Apostles did also approve and ratify the same. Your counterfeit apostles therefore do lie mortally, which slander me under the name of the Apostles, and thereby deceive you: for I have the Apostles and all the faithful, not against me, but with me. And this I prove by the example of Titus.

Notwithstanding, Paul (as I have often said) did not condemn circumcision as an unprofitable thing, nor constrained any man to it. For it is neither sin nor righteousness to be circumcised or uncircumcised, as it is neither sin nor righteousness to eat or drink. For whether you eat or eat not, you are neither better nor worse. But if any man should add to it either sin or righteousness, and say: If you eat you sin, if you abstain you are righteous, he should show himself both foolish and wicked. Therefore to join ceremonies with sin or righteousness, is great impiety: As the Pope does, who in his form of excommunication, threatens to all those that do not obey the law of the Bishop of Rome, God's great curse and indignation, and so makes all his laws necessary to salvation. Therefore the Devil himself speaks in the person of the Pope, and in all the Pope's decrees. For if salvation consists in keeping of the Pope's laws, what need have we of Christ to be our justifier and Savior?

Vers. 4.5. For all the false brethren that crept in, who came in privately to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage. To whom we gave not place by subjection for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.

Here Paul shows the cause why he went up to Jerusalem, and there conferred his gospel with the other Apostles, and why he would not circumcise Titus: Not that he might be the more certain, or confirmed in the gospel by the Apostles, for he nothing doubted thereof: but that the truth of the gospel might continue in the Churches of the Galatians, and in all the Churches of the Gentiles. We see then that this business of Paul was no light matter.

Now, where he speaks of the truth of the Gospel, he shows that there be two gospels, a true and a false gospel. Indeed the gospel of itself is simple, true and sincere, but by the malice of Satan's ministers it is corrupt and defaced. Therefore where he says: The truth of the gospel, he would have us to understand also the contrary. As if he would say: The false apostles do also preach a faith and a gospel, but they are both false. Therefore have I set myself so constantly against them: and in that I would not give place to them, I have brought to pass that the truth of the gospel continues with you. So the Pope and the Anabaptists do brag at this day that they teach the Gospel and faith in Christ. True it is: but with such fruit as the false apostles once did, whom Paul calls before in the first chapter troublers of the church, and subverters of the gospel of Christ. On the other side he says that he teaches the truth of the gospel. As if he should say: Those things which the false apostles teach, brag they never so much that they teach the truth, are nothing else but stark lies. So all heretics pretend the name of God, of Christ, and of the Church. Also they pretend that they will not teach errors or lies, but most certain truth and the pure Gospel of Christ.

Now the truth of the gospel is, that our righteousness comes by faith only without the works of the law. The corruption or falsehood of the Gospel is, that we are justified by faith, but not without the works of the law. With the like condition the false apostles also preached the Gospel. Even so do our Papists and crafty Sophisters at this day. For they say that we must believe in Christ, and that faith is the foundation of our salvation: but it justifies not, except it be furnished with charity. This is not the truth of the Gospel, but falsehood and dissimulation. But the true Gospel indeed is, that works or charity are not the ornament or perfection of faith: but that faith of itself is God's gift and God's work in our hearts, which therefore justifies us because it apprehends Christ our redeemer. Man's reason has the law for his object, thus thinking with itself: This I have done, this I have not done. But faith being in her own proper office, has no other object but Jesus Christ the son of God, delivered to death for the sins of the whole world. It looks not to charity. It says not: what have I done? what have I offended? what have I deserved? but what has Christ done? what has he deserved? Here the truth of the gospel answers you: he has redeemed you from your sin, from the Devil and from eternal death. Faith therefore acknowledges, that in this one person Jesus Christ, it has forgiveness of sins and eternal life. He that turns his eyes away from this object, has not true faith but a fantasy and a vain opinion, and turns his eyes from the promise to the law, which terrifies and drives to desperation.

Therefore those things which the Sophisters and Schoolmen have taught concerning the justifying faith being furnished with charity, are nothing else but mere dreams. For that faith which apprehends Christ the son of God and is furnished with him, is the same faith that justifies, and not that faith which includes charity. For a true and a steadfast faith must lay hold upon nothing else but Christ alone, and in the afflictions and terrors of conscience it has nothing else to lean upon, but this Diamond Christ Jesus. Therefore he that apprehends Christ by faith, although he be never so much terrified with the law, and pressed down with the weight of his sins, yet may he be bold to glory that he is righteous. How or by what means? Even by that precious Pearl Christ which he possesses by faith. This our adversaries understand not, and therefore they cast away this precious Pearl Christ, and in his place they set charity, which they say is their precious Diamond. Now, when they cannot tell what faith is, it is impossible that they should have faith: much less can they teach it to others. And as for that which they will seem to have, it is nothing else but a very dream, an opinion, and natural reason, and not faith.

This I say, to the end you may perceive that Paul mentioning here the truth of the Gospel, speaks with great fervency of spirit for the more reproof of the contrary. For by these words he rebukes the false apostles, for that they had taught a false gospel: for they required circumcision and the observation of the law as necessary to salvation. Moreover, they went about by crafty tricks and policy to entrap Paul: for they watched him narrowly, to see whether he would circumcise Titus or no: also whether he dared withstand them in the presence of the Apostles, and for this cause he rebukes them bitterly. They went about (says he) to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage. Therefore the false apostles armed themselves on every side, that they might convince and confound him before the whole congregation. Besides this, they went about to abuse the authority of the Apostles, in whose presence they accused him, saying: Paul has brought Titus being uncircumcised, into the company of all the faithful: he denies and condemns the law in your presence which are Apostles. If he dare be so bold to attempt this here and before you, what will he not attempt in your absence among the Gentiles?

Therefore when he perceived that he was so craftily assailed, he strongly withstood the false apostles, saying: we did not suffer our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus to come in danger, although the false brethren sought by all means to snare us, and put us to much trouble: but we overcame them even by the judgment of the Apostles themselves, and we would not yield to them, no not one hour (for, no doubt, their drift was to have caused Paul to cease from this liberty for a time) since we saw that they required the observation of the law as necessary to salvation. But if they had alleged nothing else but charitable bearing with the brethren, no doubt but Paul would have given them place. But it was another thing that they sought, to wit, that they might bring Paul and all that stuck to his doctrine into bondage. Therefore he would not yield to them, no not the space of one moment.

In like manner do we also offer to the Papists all that is to be offered, indeed and more than we ought. Only we except the liberty of conscience which we have in Christ Jesus. For we will not suffer our consciences to be bound to any work, so that by doing this thing or that, we should be righteous, or leaving the same undone, we should be damned. We are contented to eat the same foods that they eat, we will keep their feasts and fasting days, so that they will suffer us to do the same with a free conscience, and leave these threatening words wherewith they have terrified and brought under their subjection the whole world, saying: we command, we charge, we charge again, we excommunicate, etc. But this liberty we cannot obtain: just as Paul also could not in his time. Therefore we do as he did. For when he saw that he could not obtain this liberty, he would not give place to the false Apostles, for the space of one hour.

Therefore just as our adversaries will not leave this free to us, that only faith in Christ justifies: so on the other side neither will we nor can we give place to them, that faith furnished with charity justifies. Here we will and we ought also to be rebellious and obstinate against them, for else we should lose the truth of the Gospel: we should lose our liberty which we have, not in the Emperor, not in Kings and Princes, not in that monster the Pope, not in the world, not in flesh, blood, reason, etc.: but which we have in Christ Jesus. We should lose faith in Christ, which (as before I have said) apprehends nothing else but that precious pearl Christ. This faith whereby we are regenerate, justified, and engrafted into Christ, if our adversaries will leave to us sound and uncorrupt: we offer to them that we will do all things, so that they be not contrary to this faith. But because we cannot obtain this at their hands, we again for our part will not yield to them one hair's breadth. For here is a great and a weighty matter in hand, namely touching the death of the son of God: who by the will and commandment of the father was made flesh, was crucified and died for the sins of the world. If faith here gives place, then is this death and resurrection of the son of God in vain: then is it but a fable that Christ is the Savior of the world: then is God also found a liar because he has not performed that he promised. Our boldness therefore in this matter is godly and holy: for by it we seek to preserve our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, and thereby to retain the truth of the Gospel: which if we lose, then do we also lose God, Christ, all the promises, faith, righteousness, and everlasting life.

But some man will say: The law is divine and holy. Let the law have its glory: but yet no law, be it never so divine and holy, ought to teach me that I am justified and shall live through it. I grant it may teach me that I ought to love God and my neighbor: also to live in chastity, sobriety, patience, etc. But it ought not to show me how I should be delivered from sin, the Devil, death and hell. Here I must take counsel of the Gospel, I must listen to the Gospel which teaches me, not what I ought to do (for that is the proper office of the law): but what Jesus Christ the son of God has done for me: to wit, that he suffered and died to deliver me from sin and death. The Gospel wills me to receive this and to believe it. And this is the truth of the Gospel. It is also the principal article of all Christian doctrine: wherein the knowledge of all godliness consists. Most necessary it is therefore that we should know this article well, teach it to others, and beat it into their heads continually. For as it is very tender, so is it soon hurt. This Paul had well tried, and of this have all the godly also good experience.

To conclude, Paul would not circumcise Titus, and (as he says) for no other cause but for that certain false brothers were crept in, to spy out their liberty, and would have constrained Paul to circumcise Titus. Paul perceiving this constraint and necessity, would give no place, no not for one hour, but strongly resisted them: and therefore he says: Neither Titus which was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised. If they had required this in the way of brotherly charity, doubtless he would not have denied it. But seeing they would have done it as a necessary thing, and that by compulsion, to the ill example of others, to the overthrowing of the Gospel and to bring men's consciences into bondage, therefore he set himself mightily against them, and prevailed so, that Titus was not circumcised.

It may seem to be but a small matter to be or not to be circumcised. But when a man has a trust in keeping, or is in fear for not keeping of it, here God is denied, Christ is rejected, the grace and all the promises of God are refused. But if circumcision be kept without this addition, there is no danger. If the Pope would in this sort require of us the keeping of his traditions as bare ceremonies, it should not be grievous to us to keep them, insofar as we also do use ceremonies: but to bind men's consciences to these ceremonies, and to make of them a high and acceptable service to God, indeed and moreover to add, that life and salvation, or death and everlasting damnation consists in the observation thereof, is a devilish superstition and full of blasphemy. Whoever will not cry out against this, accursed be he.

Verse 6-7. And of them which seemed to be great, I was not taught (what they were in times past, it is no matter to me, etc.)

This is a vehement and a stout confutation. For he gives not to the true Apostles themselves any glorious title: but as it were abasing their dignity, he says: which seemed to be great, that is, which were in authority: upon whom the determination of all matters depended. Notwithstanding the authority of the Apostles was indeed very great in all the churches. And Paul also did not seek any whit to diminish their authority, but he thus contemptuously answers the false Apostles, which set the authority and dignity of the Apostles against Paul in all the churches, that thereby they might weaken his authority and bring his whole ministry into contempt. This Paul might not suffer. To the end therefore that the truth of the Gospel and liberty of conscience in Christ might continue among the Galatians and in all the churches of the Gentiles, he answers stoutly to the false Apostles, that he passed not how great the Apostles were or what they had been in time past: and whereas they alleged the authority of the name of the Apostles against him, it touched him nothing at all. He confesses that the Apostles are indeed somewhat, and that their authority is to be reverenced. Notwithstanding his Gospel and ministry ought not to be overthrown for the name or title of any whatever, be he an Apostle or an Angel from heaven.

And this was one of the greatest arguments that the false Apostles used against Paul. The Apostles said they, were familiarly conversant with Christ for the space of three years. They heard and saw all his preachings and miracles. Moreover they themselves preached and wrought miracles while Christ was yet living in the world: whom Paul never saw in the flesh, and as touching his conversion, it was long after the glorification of Christ. Therefore they should now consider which of these they ought more to believe: Paul which was but one and alone, and also but a disciple, yea and one of the last of all: or the chiefest and most excellent Apostles, which long before Paul were sent and confirmed by Christ himself. To this Paul answers: what of all this? This argument concludes nothing. Let the Apostles be never so great, yea let them be Angels from heaven, it is no matter to me. The question is not here concerning the excellency of the Apostles, but concerning the word of God and the truth of the Gospel. Herein consists all the weight of the matter, that the Gospel may be preserved pure and uncorrupt: which also above all things ought to be preferred. Therefore how great Peter and the other Apostles have been, what great miracles they have wrought, it is no matter to me. This is it that I only seek, even that the truth of the Gospel may continue among you. This seems to be but a slender answer of Paul, when of purpose he so contemns the authority of the Apostles which the false Apostles alleged against him, and gives no other solution to their mighty argument than this: it is no matter to me. Notwithstanding he adds a reason of the confutation.

Verse. 6. God accepts no man's person.

This place he alleges out of Moses, who uses the same, not once but many times: You shall not accept in judgment the person of the rich man or of the poor. And this is a principle of divinity: God is no acceptor of persons. With which saying he stops the mouths of the false apostles. As though he would say: You set those against me which seem to be somewhat: but God cares not for such outward things. He regards not the office of Apostleship. It is not the dignity or authority of men that he looks upon. And in token hereof, he suffered Judas one of the chiefest Apostles, and Saul one of the greatest kings, yea and the first of all, to fall away and to be damned. Ishmael also and Esau he refused, being both firstborn. So shall you find throughout all the whole Scripture that God oftentimes rejected those which in outward show were very good and holy men. And in these examples God seems sometimes to be cruel: but it was most necessary that such fearful examples should be shown and also be written. For this vice is naturally grafted in us, that we highly esteem the persons and outward appearance of men and more regard the same than the word of God. Contrariwise God will have us fix our eyes and to rest wholly upon the word itself: he will not have us to reverence and adore the Apostleship in the persons of Peter and Paul, but Christ speaking in them, and the word which they bring and preach to us.

This the natural man cannot see: but the spiritual man only discerns the person from the word, the veil of God from God himself. Now this veil of God is every creature. Moreover, God here in this life deals not with face to face, but covered and shadowed from us: that is, as Paul says in another place: we see him now as it were through a glass and darkly. Therefore we cannot be without veils in this life. But wisdom is here required, which can discern the veil from God himself: and this wisdom the world has not. The covetous man hearing that man lives not by bread only, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, eats the bread, but he sees not God in the bread: for he beholds the veil only and outward show. So he does with gold and other creatures, trusting to them so long as he has them: but when they leave him, he despairs. And thus he honors not the creator, but the creatures, not God but his own belly.

This I speak lest any man should think that Paul utterly condemns these outward veils or persons. For he says not that there ought to be no person, but that there is no respect of persons with God. There must be persons and outward veils: God has given them and they are his good creatures: but we must put no trust in them. All the matter is in the right using of things, and not in the things themselves, as before I have said. There is no fault in circumcision or uncircumcision (for circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing) but in the use thereof. To put righteousness in the one, and unrighteousness in the other, that use is damnable and ought to be taken away: which being removed, circumcision and uncircumcision are things tolerable.

So the Prince, the magistrate, the preacher, the schoolmaster, the scholar, the father, the mother, the children, the master, the servant are persons and outward veils, which God will have us to acknowledge, love and reverence as his creatures, which also must needs be had in this life: but he will not have us so to reverence them or trust to them, that we forget him. And to the end that we should not too much magnify the outward persons or put any trust in them, God leaves in them offenses and sins, indeed great and foul sins, to teach us what difference there is between the person and God himself. David that good king, because he should not seem to be a person upon whom men should trust, fell into horrible sins, adultery and murder. Peter that excellent Apostle denied Christ. These and such like examples, whereof the Scripture is full, ought to warn us that we repose not our trust in the person and outward veil, nor think that when we have the outward shows and shadows, we have all things: as it is in Popery, where they judge all things according to the outward veil, and therefore all Popery is nothing else but a mere respecting of persons and outward shows. God has given his creatures to our use and to do us service, and not as idols, that we should do service to them. Let us then use bread, wine, apparel, possessions, gold, silver, and all other creatures: but let us not trust or glory in them: for we must trust and glory in God alone: he only is to be loved, he only is to be feared and honored.

Paul calls here the person of man the Apostleship or office of the Apostles, which wrought many and great miracles, taught and converted many to the faith, and were also familiar with Christ. Briefly, this word person comprehends the whole outward conversation of the Apostles which was holy, and their authority which was great. Notwithstanding (says he) God esteems not these things: not that he esteems them not at all, but in the matter of justification he regards them not, be they never so great and so glorious. For we must diligently mark this distinction, that in matters of divinity we must speak far otherwise than in matters of policy. In matters of policy (as I have said) God will have us to honor and reverence these outward veils or persons as his instruments by whom he governs and preserves the world. But when the question is touching religion, conscience, the fear of God, faith and the service of God, we must not fear these outward persons, we must put no trust in them, look for no comfort from them, or hope for deliverance by them either bodily or spiritually. For this cause God will have no respect of persons in judgment: for judgment is a divine thing. Therefore I ought neither to fear the judge, nor trust to the judge: but my fear and trust ought to be in God alone, who is the true judge. The civil judge or magistrate I ought indeed to reverence for God's cause, whose minister he is: but my conscience may not stay or trust upon his justice and equity, or be feared through his unjust dealing or tyranny, whereby I might fall into any offense against God, either in lying, in bearing false witness, or denying the truth, etc. Otherwise I will reverence and honor the magistrate with all my heart.

So I would also honor the Pope and love his person if he would leave my conscience free and not compel me to sin against God. But he will so be feared and adored as can not be done without offense to the majesty of God. Here since we must needs lose the one, let us lose the person and stick to God. We could be content to suffer the dominion of the Pope: but because he abuses the same so tyrannously against us, and would compel us to deny and blaspheme God, and him only to acknowledge as our Lord and master, clogging our consciences, and spoiling us of the fear and trust which we should have in God, therefore we are compelled by the commandment of God to resist the Pope: for it is written that we must rather obey God than men. Therefore without offense of conscience (which is our singular comfort) we reject the authority of the Pope.

There is a vehemence in this word God: for in the cause of religion and the word of God, there must be no respect of person: but in matters of policy we must have regard to the person: otherwise there must needs follow a contempt of all reverence and order. In this world God will have an order, a reverence and a difference of persons. For else the child, the scholar, the servant, the subject would say: I am a Christian as well as my father, my schoolmaster, my master, my Prince: why then should I reverence him? Before God there is no respect of persons, neither of Greek nor of Jew, but all are one in Christ: although not so before the world.

Thus Paul dissolves the argument of the false Apostles touching the authority of the Apostles, saying that it is nothing to that purpose. For the question is not here concerning the respect of persons, but there is a far weightier matter in hand, that is to say, a divine matter concerning God and his word, and whether this word ought to be preferred before the Apostleship or no. To which Paul answers: So that the truth of the gospel may continue, so that the word of God and the righteousness of faith may be kept pure and uncorrupt, let the Apostleship go, let an Angel from heaven, let Peter, let Paul and altogether perish.

Verse 6. Nevertheless they that seemed to be the chief, did communicate nothing with me.

As though he would say: I did not so confer with the Apostles, that they taught me anything. For what should they teach me, since Christ by his revelation had before sufficiently taught me all things? And moreover since I have now preached the Gospel the space of eighteen years among the Gentiles, and Christ has wrought so many miracles by me, whereby he has confirmed my doctrine? Therefore it was but a conference and no disputation. Wherein I learned nothing, neither did I recant, nor yet defend my cause, but only declared what things I had done: namely, that I had preached to the Gentiles faith only in Christ without the law, and that by this preaching of faith the Holy Ghost came down upon the Gentiles, which immediately spoke with various tongues. Which thing when the Apostles heard, they witnessed that I had taught the truth. Therefore the false Apostles do me great wrong which pervert and turn all these things clean contrary.

Now if Paul would give no place to the false Apostles which set the authority of the true Apostles against him: much less ought we to give place to our adversaries, which have nothing else to brag of but the authority of their Idol the Pope. I know that the godly ought to be humble: but against the Pope I will and I ought to be proud with a holy pride and say: You Pope, I will not be subject to you: I will not take you for my master, for I am sure that my doctrine is true and godly. But the Pope will not hear this doctrine. In fact he would force us to obey his laws and his decrees, and if we will not, he will by and by excommunicate, curse and condemn us as heretics. Such pride therefore against the Pope is most necessary. And if we should not so be proud, and utterly condemn in the holy Ghost both him with all his doctrine, and the devil the father of lies speaking in him, we should never be able to defend this article of the righteousness of faith. We do not then despise the authority of the Pope because we would bear rule over him, neither do we go about to exalt ourselves above all sovereign power, since it is evident that we teach all men to humble and submit themselves to the higher powers ordained of God: but this is it that we only seek, that the glory of God may be maintained and the righteousness of faith may be kept pure and sound.

Therefore if the Pope will grant to us that God alone by his mere grace through Christ does justify [reconstructed: sinners], we will not only carry him in our hands, but will also kiss his feet. But since we cannot obtain this, we again in God are proud against him above measure, and will give no place, no not one hair's breadth to all the Angels in heaven, not to Peter, not to Paul, not to a hundred Emperors, not to a thousand Popes, nor to the whole world. Be it far from us that we should here humble ourselves, since they would take from us our glory, even God himself that has created us and given us all things, and Jesus Christ who has redeemed us with his blood. Let this be then the conclusion of all together, that we will suffer our goods to be taken away, our name, our life, and all that we have: but the Gospel, our faith, Jesus Christ we will never suffer to be wrested from us. And cursed be that humility which here abases and submits itself. No rather let every Christian man here be proud and spare not, except he will deny Christ.

Therefore God assisting me, my forehead shall be more hard than all men's foreheads. Here I take upon me this title, according to the proverb: I give place to none. Indeed I am glad even with all my heart in this point to be called rebellious and obstinate. And here I confess that I am and ever will be stout and stern and will not one inch give place to any creature. Charity gives place: for it suffers all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. But faith gives no place, indeed it can suffer nothing, according to this ancient verse, Non patitur ludum fama, fides, oculus: That is, man's good name, his faith, and his eye will not be dalied withal. Therefore a Christian, as touching his faith, can never be too proud nor too stout, neither must he relent or give place, no not the breadth of one hair. For faith makes a man here like to God: but God suffers nothing, he gives place to none, for he is immutable. So is faith immutable, and therefore may suffer nothing, give place to no man. But as touching charity let a Christian man yield and suffer all things, for therein he is but a man.

Verses 7-8. But contrariwise when they saw that the Gospel over uncircumcision was committed to me, as the Gospel over circumcision was to Peter (for he that was mighty by Peter in the Apostleship over the circumcision, was also mighty by me towards the Gentiles.)

With these words Paul mightily confutes the false Apostles: For here he challenges to himself the same authority which the false Apostles attributed to the true Apostles. And he uses here a figure which is called an Inversion, returning their argument against themselves. The false Apostles (says he) do allege against me the authority of the great Apostles, to maintain their cause. But I contrariwise do allege the same against them for my defense, for the Apostles are on my side. Therefore O my Galatians, believe not these counterfeit apostles which brag so much of the authority of the Apostles against me. For the Apostles when they saw the Gospel over the uncircumcision to be committed to me, and knew of the grace that to me was given, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, approving my ministry and giving thanks to God for the gift which I had received. Thus he returns the argument of the false apostles upon themselves. And here is also in these words an ardent vehemence, and more contained in matter, than in words is able to be expressed.

This seems to be a hard text, where Paul says that the gospel over the uncircumcision was committed to him, and over the circumcision to Peter, when notwithstanding Paul almost every where preached to the Jews in their Synagogues, and Peter likewise to the Gentiles. There are examples and testimonies of both in the Acts. Peter converted the Centurion with his family, which was a Gentile. He wrote also to the Gentiles, as his first epistle testifies. Paul preaching Christ among the Gentiles, enters notwithstanding into the Synagogues of the Jews, and there preaches the gospel. And our Savior Christ in Matthew and Mark commands his apostles to go throughout the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. Paul likewise says: The gospel preached to every creature which is under heaven. Why then does he call himself the Apostle of the Gentiles, and Peter with the other, the Apostles of the circumcision?

This question is not hard. Paul here has respect to this, that the other Apostles remained specially in Jerusalem, until God called them to other places. Thus stood the matter then for the time, that while the political state of the Jews continued, the Apostles still remained in Judea: but when the destruction of Jerusalem approached, they were dispersed throughout the whole world. But Paul as it is written in the Acts, by a singular vocation was chosen to be the Apostle of the Gentiles, and being sent out of Judea, he traveled through the countries of the Gentiles. Now were the Jews dispersed almost throughout the whole world, and dwelt here and there in cities and other places among the Gentiles. Paul coming there was accustomed (as we read in the Acts) to go into the Synagogues of the Jews, and by this occasion he first brought to them as the children of the kingdom, this glad tidings, that the promises made to the fathers, were now accomplished by Jesus Christ. When they would not hear this, he turned to the Gentiles, as Luke witnesses, where he brings in Paul thus boldly speaking against the Jews: It was necessary that we should first preach the word of God to you: but seeing you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo we turn to the Gentiles. And in the Acts: Be it known therefore to you, that this salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles, and they shall hear it. Therefore Paul was sent specially to the Gentiles. But because he was a debtor to all, and became all things to all men, therefore, occasion being offered, he went into the Synagogues of the Jews, where not only the Jews, but also the Gentiles heard him preaching Christ. Sometimes he preached publicly in the market place, in houses, and by the river sides. He was specially then the Apostle of the Gentiles, as Peter was of the Jews: who notwithstanding preached Christ to the Gentiles also when occasion was offered.

And here he calls uncircumcision the Gentiles, and circumcision the Jews by a figure named Synecdoche, which under part comprehends the whole: which figure is commonly used in the scripture. The gospel then over uncircumcision, is that which should be preached to the Gentiles. This gospel he says was committed to him, as the gospel over circumcision was to Peter. For as Peter preached the gospel among the Jews, so did he among the Gentiles.

This he often repeats, that Peter, James and John, which seemed to be the pillars of the church, taught him nothing, nor committed to him the office of preaching the Gospel, as having authority and rule over him. But they themselves (says he) did see that the gospel was committed to me: but not by Peter. For as I did not receive or learn my gospel of man, so did I receive no commandment by man to preach the same, but both the knowledge and the commandment to preach it among the Gentiles, I received immediately from God: like as the charge was given of God to Peter to preach the same among the Jews.

This place witnesses very plainly that the Apostles had like calling, like charge, and all one Gospel. Peter preached no other Gospel than the rest of the Apostles did, neither did he appoint to others their charge and office: but there was an equality among them all, for they were all taught of God, that is, both their vocation and charge was wholly and immediately from God. There was none therefore greater than another: none that had any prerogative above another. And therefore where the Pope vaunts that Peter was the chief of the Apostles, that thereby he might confirm and establish his usurped primacy, it is an impudent lie.

Verse 8. For he that was mighty by Peter.

This is a confutation of another argument of the false apostles. Why do the false apostles boast (says he) that the Gospel of Peter was mighty, that he converted many, that he wrought many and great miracles, raised up the dead, and with his shadow cured the sick? I grant all these things to be true: but Peter received this power from heaven. God gave a virtue to his word that many did believe him, and great miracles were wrought by him. The same power had I also: which I received not of Peter, but the same God and the same spirit which was mighty in Peter, was mighty in me also. I had the same grace: I taught many: I wrought many miracles, and through my shadow also I cured the sick. And this Luke testifies in the 19th chapter of the Acts in these words: And God wrought no small miracles by the hands of Paul, so that from his body were brought napkins and handkerchiefs, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them. Read more hereof in Acts 13, 16, 20, and 28.

To conclude, Paul will be counted in no point inferior to the rest of the Apostles: and herein he stands with a godly and a holy pride. For he was compelled of necessity to take upon him stoutly against Peter, and the zeal of God constrained him to be proud whether he would or no. Certain profane spirits, as Julianus and Porphyrius not considering this, thought it to be but a carnal pride that caused Paul thus to do: such as at this day we see in the Pope and his generation. But Paul had not here his own business in hand, but a matter of faith. Now, as concerning faith we ought to be invincible, and more hard if it might be, than the Adamant stone. But as touching charity, we ought to be soft, and more flexible than the reed or leaf that is shaken with the wind, and ready to yield to every thing. Therefore the controversy was not here touching the glory of Paul, but the glory of God, the word of God, the true worship of God, true religion, and the righteousness of faith, to the end that these things might still remain pure and uncorrupt.

Verse 9. And when James and Cephas and John knew of the grace that was given to me, which are counted to be pillars, they gave to me and to Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should preach to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision.

That is to say, when they heard that I had received my calling and charge from God to preach the gospel among the Gentiles, and that God had wrought so many miracles by me: moreover, that so great a number of the Gentiles were come to the knowledge of Christ through my ministry, and that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit without the law and circumcision by the only preaching of faith, they glorified God for this grace which was given to me.

He calls grace here whatever he had received of God: to wit, that of a persecutor and waster of the Church, he was made an Apostle, was taught by Jesus Christ, and enriched with spiritual gifts. And herewith he shows that Peter gave testimony to him, that he was a true Apostle, sent and taught, not by himself nor by the other Apostles, but by God alone, and not only acknowledged the ministry and authority of Paul, and gifts of the spirit which were in him, as heavenly things, but also approved and confirmed the same, and yet not as a superior and ruler, but as a brother and witness. James and John did [reconstructed: likewise] the same. Therefore he concludes that they which are [reconstructed: esteemed] for the chief pillars among the Apostles, are wholly with him and not against him.

Verse 9. The right hands of fellowship.

As if they should have said: We (O Paul) in preaching the gospel, do agree with you in all things. Therefore in doctrine we are companions and have fellowship together therein: that is to say, we have all one doctrine, for we preach one gospel, one baptism, one Christ and one faith. Therefore we can teach or enjoin you nothing, since there is one mutual consent between us in all things. For we do not teach any other or more excellent things than you do: but the same gifts which we have, we see to be in you also, except that to you is committed the Gospel over the uncircumcision, as the Gospel over the circumcision is to us. But we conclude here that neither uncircumcision nor circumcision ought to hinder our society and fellowship, since it is but one gospel which we both preach.

Up to now Paul has proved by manifest witness, not only from God, but also from man, that is to say, the apostles, that he had truly and faithfully preached the gospel. Therefore he shows that whatever the false apostles said to diminish his authority, is but feigned and forged matter, and that the testimony of the Apostles makes for him, and not for the false apostles. But for that he is alone and without witness, therefore he adds an oath, and calls God to record that the things which he has spoken are true.

Verse 10. Warning only that we should remember the poor: which thing also I was diligent to do.

After the preaching of the Gospel, the office and charge of a true and faithful pastor is, to be mindful of the poor. For where the Church is, there must needs be poor: who for the most part are the only true disciples of the Gospel, as Christ says: The poor receive the glad tidings of the Gospel. For the world and the Devil do persecute the Church, and bring many to poverty, who are afterward forsaken and despised of the world. Moreover the world not only offends herein, but is also careless for the maintenance and preservation of the gospel, true religion, and the true service of God. There is none that will now take any care for the nourishing of the ministers of the Church, and erecting of schools: but for the erecting and establishing of false worship, superstition and idolatry, no cost was spared, but every man was ready to give largely whatever could be made. And hereof came up so many monasteries, so many cathedral churches, so many bishoprics in the Pope's church where all impiety reigned, with so great revenues provided for their sustenance: whereas now a whole city thinks it much to find one or two poor ministers and preachers of the Gospel, which before, while the Pope and all impiety reigned, was charged and burdened with finding so many monasteries and infinite swarms of massing priests. To be brief, true religion is ever in need. And Christ complains, that he is hungry, thirsty, homeless, naked and sick. On the contrary, false religion and impiety flourishes and abounds with all worldly wealth and prosperity. Therefore a true and faithful pastor must have a care of the poor also: and this care Paul here confesses that he had.

Verse 11. And when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face: for he was to be blamed.

Paul goes on still in his confutation, saying that he not only has for his defense the testimony of Peter and the other Apostles which were at Jerusalem: but also that he withstood Peter in the presence of the whole Church of Antioch. He shows here a matter not done in a corner, but in the face of the whole church. For (as before I have said) he has here no trifling matter in hand, but the chief article of all Christian doctrine. The value and majesty of which whoever rightly esteems, to him all other things shall seem but vile and worth nothing. For what is Peter? what is Paul? what is an Angel from heaven? what are all other creatures to the article of Justification? Which if we know, then are we in the clear light: but if we are ignorant of it, then are we in most miserable darkness. Therefore if you see this article impugned or defaced, do not fear to resist either Peter or an Angel from heaven, following the example of Paul, who seeing the majesty of this article to be in danger for the dignity of Peter, did nothing regard his dignity and estimation, that he might keep the same pure and uncorrupt. For it is written: He that loves father or mother, or his own life more than me, is not worthy of me.

Therefore we are not ashamed for the defense of the truth, to be counted and called by the hypocrites proud and obstinate, and such as will be only wise, will hear none, will give place to none. Very necessary it is here to be inflexible and obstinate. For the cause why we offend man, that is to say, tread down the majesty of the person or of the world, is such, that the sins which the world judges to be most heinous, are counted singular virtues before God. In that we love our parents, honor the Magistrate, show reverence to Peter and other ministers of the word, we do well. But here we have in hand the cause neither of Peter nor parents, nor Magistrate, nor of the world, nor of any other creatures, but of God himself. Here if I give no place to my parents, to the Magistrate, or an Angel from heaven, I do well. For what is the creature in respect of the creator? Indeed, what are all creatures compared to him? Even as one drop of water in respect of the whole sea. Why then should I so highly esteem Peter which is but a drop, and set God aside which is the whole sea? Let the drop therefore give place to the sea, and let Peter give place to God. This I say, to the end that you should diligently weigh and consider the matter about which Paul treats: for he treats of God, who can never be magnified enough.

And here of purpose he adds this clause, to his face, against the venomous vipers and apostles of Satan, which slander those that are absent, and in their presence dare not once open their mouth: as the false apostles did, whom also here he touches by the way: which dared not speak evil of him in his presence, but in his absence slandered him most spitefully. So did not I (says he) speak evil of Peter, but frankly and openly I withstood him, not of any colorable pretense, ambition, or other carnal affection, but because he was to be blamed.

Here let other men debate whether an Apostle may sin or no. This say I, that we ought not to make Peter's fault less than it was indeed. The Prophets themselves have sometimes erred and been deceived. Nathan of his own spirit said to David that he should build the house of the Lord. But this Prophecy was by and by after corrected by a revelation from God, that it should not be David, because he was a man of war and had shed much blood, but his son Solomon that should build up the house of the Lord. So did the Apostles err also. For they imagined that the kingdom of Christ should be carnal and worldly, as we may see in the first of the Acts. And Peter himself, although he heard this commandment of Christ: Go into the whole world, etc. Yet he had not gone to Cornelius, if he had not been admonished by a vision. But in this matter he did not only err, but also committed a great sin, and if Paul had not resisted him, all the Gentiles which did believe, had been constrained to receive circumcision, and to keep the law. The believing Jews also had been confirmed in their opinion: to wit, that the observation of these things was necessary to salvation, and by this means they had received again the law in stead of the Gospel, Moses in stead of Christ: and of all this great enormity and horrible sin Peter by his dissimulation had been the only occasion. Therefore we may not attribute to the saints such perfection, as though they could not sin.

Luke witnesses that there was such great dissension between Paul and Barnabas, (which were put apart together for the ministry of the Gospel among the Gentiles, and had traveled through many regions, and preached to them the Gospel) that the one departed from the other. Here we must needs say that there was a fault either in Paul or in Barnabas. And doubtless it could not be but that the discord was exceeding great which separated these two companions being joined together in such a holy fellowship, as the text witnesses. Such examples are written for our consolation. For it is a great comfort to us when we hear that even the saints which have the Spirit of God, do sin. Which comfort they would take from us which say that the saints do not sin.

Samson, David and many other excellent men, full of the Holy Ghost, fell into great sins. Job and Jeremiah curse the day of their nativity. Elias and Jonah are weary of their life, and desire death. Such errors and offenses of the saints, the Scripture sets forth to the comfort of those that are afflicted and oppressed with desperation, and to the terror of the proud. No man has so grievously fallen at any time, but he may rise again. And on the other side, no man takes so fast footing but he may fall. If Peter fell, I may likewise fall. If he rose again, I may also rise again. And such examples as these are, the weak-hearted and tender consciences ought to make much of, that they may the better understand what they pray for when they say: forgive us our trespasses: and, I believe the forgiveness of sins. We have the self same Spirit of grace and prayer which the Apostles and all the saints had, neither had they any prerogative above us. We have the same gifts which they had, the same Christ, baptism, word, forgiveness of sins, all which they had no less need of than we have, and by the same are sanctified and saved as we be.

Verse 12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles.

The Gentiles which were converted to the faith, did eat meats forbidden by the law, and Peter being conversant with the Gentiles which were converted, did eat with them, and drank wine also which was forbidden, knowing that in doing so he did well, and therefore boldly transgressed the law with the Gentiles. Paul confesses that he also did the like when he says that he became as a Jew to the Jews, and to them that were without law, as though he were without law: that is to say, with the Gentiles he did eat and drink like a Gentile and kept no law at all: with the Jews, according to the law he abstained from all things forbidden in the law. For he labored to serve and please all men that he might gain all. Therefore Peter in eating and drinking with the Gentiles sinned not, but did well, and knew that it was lawful for him so to do: for he showed by this transgression, that the law was not necessary to righteousness, and also delivered the Gentiles from the observation of the law. For if it were lawful for Peter in one thing to break the law, it was lawful for him to break it in all things. And Paul does not here reprove Peter for his transgression, but for his dissimulation, as follows.

Verse 12. But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Here then you see Peter's offense, as Paul plainly sets it forth. Paul accuses him not of malice or ignorance, but of dissimulation and infirmity, in that he abstained from meats forbidden in the law, fearing lest the Jews which came from James, should be offended thereby, and had more respect to the Jews than to the Gentiles: whereby he gave occasion as much as in him was, to overthrow the Christian liberty and truth of the Gospel. For in that he did withdraw and utterly separate himself, abstaining from meats forbidden in the law (which notwithstanding he had eaten of before) he ministered a scruple of conscience to the faithful, thus to gather upon his example: Peter abstains from meats forbidden in the law: therefore he that eats meats forbidden in the law, sins and transgresses the law: but he that abstains is righteous and keeps the law, for otherwise would not Peter have withdrawn himself. But because he did so, and of purpose refused those meats which before he did eat, it is a sure argument that such as eat against the law do sin, and such as abstain from meats which the law forbids, do keep the law and are justified thereby.

Here note, that the end of this act of Peter is reproved by Paul, and not the act itself: for the act in itself was not evil. To eat and drink, or not to eat and drink is nothing. But the end, that is: If you eat you sin: If you abstain you are righteous, is evil. So circumcision of itself is good, but this end is evil: If you be not circumcised after the law of Moses, you cannot be saved. Also to eat meats prohibited in the law, is not evil: but this shrinking and dissimulation of Peter is evil. For it might be said: Peter abstains from meats forbidden in the law: therefore if you do not likewise abstain, you cannot be saved. This Paul might in no way dissemble: for the truth of the Gospel was here in danger. To the end therefore that this truth might continue sound and uncorrupt, he resisted Peter to his face.

And here we must make a distinction. For meats may be refused two manner of ways. First for Christian charity's sake. And herein there is no danger: for to bear with the infirmity of my brother it is good. So Paul himself both did and taught. Secondly, by abstaining from them to obtain righteousness, and for not abstaining to sin and to be damned. Here accursed be charity with all the service and works of charity whatever. For thus to refrain from meats is to deny Christ, to tread his blood under our feet, to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and to despise all holy things. Therefore if we must lose the one, let us rather lose man our friend and brother, than God our father. For if we lose God our father, man our friend and brother cannot continue.

Jerome, who neither understood this place nor the whole epistle besides, thinks this to be but a feigned reprehension of Paul, and therefore he excuses Peter's fall, saying, that it was done by ignorance. But Peter offended through dissimulation, and thereby he had established the necessity of the law, he had constrained both Gentiles and Jews to revolt from the truth of the Gospel, he had given them great occasion to forsake Christ, to despise grace, to return to the Jewish religion and to bear all the burdens of the law, if Paul had not reproved him and by that means revoked the Gentiles and Jews which were offended through this example of Peter, to the liberty which is in Christ Jesus and to the truth of the Gospel.

Therefore if a man would here set forth and amplify Peter's offense, it should appear to be very great, and yet was it not done by malice or ignorance, but by occasion and fear only. Thus we see what ruins may come by one man's fall and offense if it be not well seen to and corrected in time. Therefore we may not trifle with this article of justification: neither is it without good cause that we do so often and so diligently put you in mind thereof.

And it is much to be marveled that Peter being such an excellent Apostle should thus do: who before in the Council of Jerusalem stood in a manner alone in the defense of this article and prevailed therein, namely that salvation comes by faith without the law. He that before did so constantly defend the truth and liberty of the gospel, now by his fall in abstaining from meats forbidden in the law, is not only the cause of great offense, but also offends against his own decree. Therefore let him which thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall. No man would think what dangers and perils do ensue of traditions and ceremonies: which notwithstanding we cannot want. What is more necessary than the law and the works thereof? And yet there is great danger lest by the same, men be brought to the denial of Christ. For of the law often times comes a trust and confidence in works, and where that is, there can be no confidence in Christ. Christ therefore is soon denied and soon lost, as we may see by this example of Peter, who knew this article of justification better than we do, and yet how easily did he give occasion of such a horrible ruin, that all the Gentiles should thereby have fallen away from the preaching of Paul, and by this means should have lost the gospel and Christ himself. And all this should have been done under a holy pretense. For they might have said: Paul, hitherto you have taught us that we must be justified by grace without the law. You see now that Peter does the contrary: for he abstains from meats forbidden in the law, and hereby he teaches us that we cannot be saved except we receive circumcision and observe the law.

Verse. 13. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, in so much that Barnabas was brought into their dissimulation also.

Here you may plainly see that Paul charges Peter with dissimulation. If Peter dissembled, then did he certainly know what was the truth and what was not. He that dissembles sins not of ignorance, but deceives by a pretense which he knows himself to be false. And other (says he) dissembled likewise with Peter, in so much that Barnabas also (who was Paul's companion, and had now a long time preached among the Gentiles faith in Christ without the law, together with Paul) was brought into their dissimulation. You have here then Peter's offense plainly described to be mere dissimulation, which afterwards had been an occasion of the ruin of the gospel then newly received, if Paul had not resisted him.

And this is a wonderful matter, that God preserved the church being yet but young, and the gospel itself, by one only person. Paul alone stands to the truth: for he had lost Barnabas his companion, and Peter was against him. So sometime one man is able to do more in a Council than the whole Council besides. Which thing the Papists themselves do witness. And for example they allege Paphnutius, who withstood the whole Council of Nicaea (which was the best of all that were after the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem) and prevailed against it.

This I say, to the end that we should diligently learn the article of justification, and make a plain difference between the law and the gospel, and that in this matter we should do nothing by dissimulation, or give place to any man, if we will retain the truth of the gospel and faith sound and uncorrupt: which (as I have said) are soon hurt. Therefore in this case away with reason, which is an enemy to faith: which also in temptations of sin and death, leans not to the righteousness of faith (for thereof it is utterly ignorant), but to her own righteousness, or at least to the righteousness of the law. Now as soon as the law and reason join together, faith loses its virginity: for nothing more strongly fights against faith than the law and reason. And these two enemies cannot be conquered but with great labor and difficulty: which we must conquer notwithstanding if we will be saved.

Therefore, when your conscience is terrified with the law, and wrestles with the judgment of God, ask counsel neither of reason nor of the law, but rest only upon grace and the word of consolation, and so stand herein, as if you had never heard anything of the law: but ascend up to the glass of faith, where neither the law nor reason do shine, but only the light of faith, which assures us that we are saved by Christ alone without any law. Thus the gospel leads us beyond and above the light of the law and reason, into the inward and deep secrets of faith, where the law and reason have nothing to do. Notwithstanding we must hearken also to the law, but in place and time. Moses while he was in the mountain, where he talked with God face to face, had no law, made no law, ministered no law: but when he was come down from the mountain, he was a lawgiver, and governed the people by the law. So the conscience must be free from the law, but the body must be obedient to the law.

Hereby it appears that Paul reproved Peter for no light matter, but for the chief article of all Christian doctrine, which by Peter's dissimulation was in great danger. For Barnabas and the other Jews dissembled together with him, which did all offend: not through ignorance or malice, but for fear of the Jews: whereby their hearts were so blinded that they did not see their sin. And certainly it is much to be marveled, that such excellent men as Peter, Barnabas and others, should so suddenly and so lightly fall, especially in that thing which they knew to be well done, and had also before taught to others. It is a perilous thing therefore to trust to our own strength, be we never so holy, never so well learned, and although we think ourselves never so sure of that we know, for in that whereof we think ourselves most sure, we may err and fall, and bring ourselves and others into great danger. Let us therefore diligently and with all humility employ ourselves in the study of the holy scriptures, and let us heartily pray that we never lose the truth of the gospel.

Thus we see then that we are nothing, with all our gifts be they never so great, except God assist us. When he leaves us to ourselves, our wisdom and knowledge is nothing. For in the hour of temptation it may suddenly come to pass, that by the subtlety of the Devil, all the comfortable places of the scripture shall be taken out of our sight, and such places only as contain threatenings shall be set before our eyes and shall oppress and utterly confound us. Let us learn therefore that if God withdraw his hand we may soon be overthrown. Neither let any man vaunt and glory of his own righteousness, wisdom and other gifts, but let him humble himself and pray with the Apostle: Lord increase our faith.

Verse. 14. But when I saw that they went not the right way to the truth of the Gospel.

This is a wonderful example of such excellent men and pillars of the church. There is none but Paul that has his eyes open and sees the offense of Peter, Barnabas and the other Jews which dissembled with Peter. On the other side, they do not see their own offense: indeed they rather think that they do well in bearing with the infirmity of the weak Jews. Therefore it was very necessary that Paul should reprove their offense and not dissemble it, and therefore he accuses Peter, Barnabas and other, that they went not the right way to the truth of the Gospel: that is to say, they swerved from the truth of the Gospel. It is a great matter that Peter should be accused by Paul as one that was fallen from the truth of the Gospel. He could not be more grievously reprehended. Yet he suffered it patiently, and no doubt but he gladly acknowledged his offense. I said before that many have the Gospel but not the truth of the Gospel. So Paul says here, that Peter, Barnabas and other of the Jews went not the right way to the truth of the Gospel: that is to say, they had the Gospel, but they walked not uprightly according to the Gospel. For albeit they preached the Gospel, yet through their dissimulation (which could not stand with the truth of the Gospel) they established the law: but the establishing of the law is the abolishing of the Gospel.

Whoever then can rightly judge between the law and the Gospel, let him thank God, and know that he is a right Divine. In the time of temptation, I confess that I myself do not know how to do it as I ought. Now, the way to discern the one from the other, is to place the Gospel in heaven and the law on the earth: to call the righteousness of the Gospel heavenly, and the righteousness of the law earthly: and to put as great difference between the righteousness of the Gospel and of the law, as God has made between heaven and earth, between light and darkness, between day and night. Let the one be as the light and the day, and the other as the darkness and the night. And would to God we could yet further separate the one from the other. Therefore if the question be concerning the matter of faith or conscience, let us utterly exclude the law, and leave it on the earth: but if we have to do with works, then let us lighten the lantern of works and of the righteousness of the law. So let the sun and the inestimable light of the Gospel and grace shine in the day, and the lantern of the law in the night. Therefore if your conscience be terrified with the sense and feeling of sin, think thus with yourself: You are now remaining upon earth: there let the ass labor and travel: there let him serve and carry the burden that is laid upon him, that is to say, let the body with his members be subject to the law. But when you mount up into heaven, then leave the ass with his burden on the earth: for the conscience has nothing to do with the law or works, or with the earthly righteousness. So does the ass remain in the valley, but the conscience ascends with Isaac into the mountain, knowing nothing at all of the law or works thereof, but only looking to the remission of sins and pure righteousness offered and freely given to us in Christ.

Contrariwise in civil policy, obedience to the law must be severely required. There nothing must be known as concerning the Gospel, conscience, grace, remission of sins, heavenly righteousness, or Christ himself: but Moses only with the law and the works thereof. If we mark well this distinction, neither the one nor the other shall pass his bounds, but the law shall abide without heaven, that is, without the heart and conscience, and contrariwise the liberty of the Gospel shall abide without the earth, that is to say, without the body and members thereof. Now therefore as soon as the law and sin come into heaven, that is, into the conscience, let them by and by be cast out. For the conscience being feared with the terror of the wrath and judgment of God, ought to know nothing of the law and sin, but of Christ only. And on the other side, when grace and liberty come into the earth, that is, into the body, then say: you ought not to dwell in the dregs and dunghill of this corporal life, but you belong to heaven.

This distinction of the law and the Gospel Peter confounded through his dissimulation, and thereby persuaded the believing Jews that they must be justified by the Gospel and the law together. This might not Paul suffer, and therefore he reproved Peter, not to put him to any reproach, but to the end that he might again establish a plain difference between these two: namely that the Gospel justifies in heaven and the law on earth. The Pope has not only mixed the law with the Gospel, but also of the Gospel has made mere laws, indeed and such as are ceremonial only. He has also confounded and mixed political and ecclesiastical matters together: which is a devilish and hellish confusion.

This place touching the difference between the law and the Gospel, is very necessary to be known: for it contains the sum of all Christian doctrine. Therefore let all that love and fear God, diligently learn to discern the one from the other, not only in words, but in effect and practice, that is to say, in heart and conscience. For as touching the words, the distinction is soon made: but in time of temptation you shall find the Gospel but as a stranger and a rare guest in your conscience: but the law on the contrary you shall find a familiar and continual dweller within you: for reason has the knowledge of the law naturally. Therefore when your conscience is terrified with sin, which the law utters and increases, then say: There is a time to die and a time to live: there is a time to hear the law and a time to despise the law: there is a time to hear the Gospel, and there is a time to be ignorant of the Gospel. Let the law now depart and let the Gospel come: for there is now no time to hear the law, but the Gospel. But you have done no good: in fact you have done wickedly and have grievously sinned. I grant: nevertheless I have remission of all my sins for Christ's sake. But out of the conflict of conscience, when external duties must be done, there is no time to hearken to the Gospel: then must you follow your vocation and the works thereof.

Verse 14. I said to Peter openly: If you, being a Jew, live as the Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you constrain the Gentiles to do like the Jews.

That is to wit, you are a Jew and therefore are bound to live like a Jew, that is, to abstain from meats forbidden in the law. Nevertheless you live like a Gentile: that is to say, you do contrary to the law and transgress the law. For as a Gentile which is free from the law, you eat common and unclean meats, and therein you do well. But in that you, being afraid at the presence of the brethren converted from the Jewish religion, abstain from meats forbidden in the law and keep the law, you compel the Jews likewise to keep the law: that is, you constrain them of necessity to observe the law. For in that you abstain from profane meats, you give occasion to the Gentiles thus to think: Peter abstains from those meats which the Gentiles use to eat, which also he himself before did eat, therefore we ought likewise to avoid the same, and to live after the manner of the Jews: otherwise we cannot be justified or saved. We see then that Paul reproves not ignorance in Peter, (for he knew that he might freely eat with the Gentiles all manner of meats,) but dissimulation, whereby he compelled the Gentiles to live like the Jews.

Here I say again, that to live as the Jew, is not evil of itself, for it is a thing indifferent either to eat swine's flesh or any other meats. But so to play the Jew that for conscience sake you abstain from certain meats, this is to deny Christ and to overthrow the Gospel. Therefore when Paul saw that Peter's act tended to this end, he resisted him and said: You know that the keeping of the law is not necessary to righteousness, but that we are justified only through faith in Christ, and therefore you keep not the law, but transgress the law and eat all manner of meats. Nevertheless by your example you constrain the Gentiles to forsake Christ and to return to the law. For you give them occasion thus to think: Faith only is not sufficient to righteousness, but the law and works are also required. And this Peter teaches us by his example. Therefore the observation of the law must needs be joined with faith in Christ if we will be saved. Therefore Peter by this example is not only prejudicial to the purity of doctrine, but also to the truth of faith and Christian righteousness. For the Gentiles received this of him, that the keeping of the law was necessary to righteousness: which error in case it be admitted, then Christ profits nothing.

Hereby it plainly appears to what end this discord between Paul and Peter tends. Paul does nothing by dissimulation, but deals sincerely and goes plainly to work. Peter dissembles, but this dissimulation Paul reproves. The controversy was for the maintenance of pure doctrine and the truth of the Gospel: and in this quarrel Paul did not care for the offense of any. In this case all people and nations, all kings and princes, all judges and magistrates ought to give place. Since then it is so dangerous a thing to have to do with the law, and that this fall was so sudden and so great as if it had been from heaven above even down into hell, let every Christian diligently learn to discern between the law and the Gospel. Let him suffer the law to rule over the body and members thereof, but not over the conscience. For that queen and spouse may not be defiled with the law, but must be kept without spot for her only husband Christ, as Paul says (2 Corinthians 11): I have espoused you to one husband, etc. Let the conscience then have her bridal chamber, not in the low valley, but in the high mountain: in which let Christ lie and there rule and reign, who does not terrify and afflict sinners, but comforts them, pardons their sins and saves them. Therefore let the afflicted conscience think on nothing, know nothing, set nothing against the judgment of God, but the word of Christ, which is the word of grace, of remission of sins, of salvation and everlasting life. But this to perform in deed, is a hard matter. For man's reason and nature cannot steadfastly cleave to Christ, but often it is carried away with the thoughts of the law and sin, and so always seeks to be at liberty after the flesh, but according to conscience a servant and slave.

Verse 15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.

That is to say: we are born to the righteousness of the law, to Moses, and to circumcision, and even in our birth we bring the law with us. We have the righteousness of the law by nature, as Paul before says of himself in the first chapter: Being zealous of the traditions of the fathers. Therefore if we be compared to the Gentiles, we are no sinners: we are not without the law and without works as the Gentiles: but we are Jews born, we are born righteous and brought up in righteousness. Our righteousness begins even with our birth, for the Jewish religion is natural to us. For God commanded Abraham to circumcise every male child the eighth day. This law of circumcision received from the fathers, Moses afterward confirmed. It is a great matter therefore that we are Jews by nature. Notwithstanding, although we have this prerogative, that we are righteous by nature, born to the law and the works thereof, and are not sinners as the Gentiles, yet are we not therefore righteous before God.

Hereby it is evident that Paul speaks not of ceremonies, or of the ceremonial law, as some do affirm, but of a far weightier matter, namely of the nativity of the Jews, whom he denies to be righteous, although they be born holy, be circumcised, keep the law, have the adoption, the glory, the covenant, the fathers, the true worship, God, Christ, the promises, live in them and glory in the same: as they say (John 8:33), 'We are the seed of Abraham.' Also, 'We have one father, which is God.' And to the Romans (Romans 2:17): 'Behold, you are called a Jew, and rest in the law,' etc. Therefore, although that Peter and the other Apostles were the children of God, righteous according to the law, the works and the righteousness thereof, circumcision, the adoption, the covenants, the promises, the Apostleship and all such like: yet Christian righteousness comes not thereby: for none of all these is faith in Christ, which only (as follows in the text) justifies, and not the law. Not that the law is evil or damnable, for the law, circumcision, and such like, are not therefore condemned because they justify not: but Paul therefore takes from them the office of justification, because the false apostles contended that by them, without faith, and only by the work done, men are justified and saved. This was not to be tolerated by Paul. For where faith ceases, all things are deadly: the law, circumcision, the adoption, the temple, the worship of God, the promises, indeed God and Christ himself without faith profits nothing. Paul therefore speaks generally against all things which are contrary to faith, and not against ceremonies only.

Verse 16. Know that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.

This clause, the work of the law, reaches far, and comprehends much. We take the work of the law therefore generally for that which is contrary to grace. Whatever is not grace, is the law, whether it be judicial, ceremonial, or the ten commandments. Therefore if you could do the works of the law according to this commandment: 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,' etc. (which no man yet ever did or could do) notwithstanding you should not be justified before God: for a man is not justified by the works of the law. But hereof we will speak more largely hereafter.

The work of the law then according to Paul, signifies the work of the whole law, whether it be ceremonial or moral. Now if the work of the moral law does not justify, much less does circumcision justify, which is a work of the ceremonial law. Therefore, when Paul says, (as he often does) that by the law, or by the works of the law (which are both one) a man is not justified, he speaks generally of the whole law, setting the righteousness of faith against the righteousness of the whole law. For the righteousness of the law (says he) a man is not pronounced righteous before God: but the righteousness of faith God imputes freely through grace, for Christ's sake. The law (no doubt), is holy, righteous and good, and consequently the works of the law are holy, righteous, and good: yet notwithstanding a man is not justified thereby before God.

Now, the works of the law may be done either before justification or after. There were many good men even among the Pagans, as Xenophon, Aristides, Fabius, Cicero, Pomponius Atticus and others, which before justification performed the deeds of the law, and did notable works. Cicero suffered death valiantly in a good and a just cause. Pomponius was a constant man, and loved truth, for he never made a lie himself nor could suffer the same in any other. Now, constancy and truth are noble virtues and excellent works of the law, and yet were they not justified thereby. After justification, Peter, Paul, and all other Christians have done and do the works of the law, but yet are they not justified thereby. I know not myself guilty in anything (says Paul) and yet am I not thereby justified. We see then that he speaks not of any part of the law, but of the whole law, and all the works thereof.

Verse 1. Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem.

Paul taught that the Gentiles were justified by faith alone without the works of the law. After publishing this doctrine among the Gentiles, he came to Antioch and reported to the disciples what he had done. Then those who had been trained in the old customs of the law rose against Paul with great indignation because he preached freedom from the bondage of the law to the Gentiles. A great controversy followed, which afterward stirred up further trouble. Paul and Barnabas stood firmly for the truth and testified: wherever we preached among the Gentiles, the Holy Spirit came and fell upon those who heard the word — and this happened throughout all the Gentile churches. We did not preach circumcision or require the keeping of the law — we preached only faith in Jesus Christ. And at this preaching of faith, God gave the Holy Spirit to the hearers. The Holy Spirit therefore approved the Gentiles' faith without the law and circumcision. For if the preaching of the Gospel and the faith of the Gentiles in Christ had not pleased Him, He would not have come down visibly upon uncircumcised people who heard the word. Since He did come down upon them through the hearing of faith alone, it is certain that the Holy Spirit by this sign approved the faith of the Gentiles. For this was never seen to happen at the preaching of the law.

Then the Jews and many of the believing Pharisees — who still maintained great zeal for the law and strived earnestly to uphold its honor — fiercely opposed Paul (who maintained that the Gentiles were justified by faith alone without the works of the law), insisting that the law must be kept and that the Gentiles must be circumcised, for otherwise they could not be saved. This is no surprise — for the very name of the law of God is holy and awe-inspiring. Even a pagan who has never known anything of God's law, if he hears someone say "this teaching is the law of God," is moved by it. How much more then must the Jews have been moved and compelled to contend vigorously for God's law, having been nursed and trained in it from their infancy?

We see today how stubbornly the papists defend their traditions and doctrines of demons. It is therefore far less surprising that the Jews so vehemently and zealously fought for the law they had received from God. Custom has such power that where human nature is already inclined toward observing the law, long practice so reinforces that nature that it becomes a second nature. Therefore it was impossible for the Jews who had recently come to Christ to suddenly abandon the law. Even having received faith in Christ, they thought it still necessary to observe the law. God bore with this weakness for a time, until the doctrine of the Gospel could be clearly distinguished from the law. In the same way He bore with the weakness of Israel in the time of King Ahab, when the people wavered between two religions. And He bore with our weakness while we were under the blindness of the Papacy — for He is patient and full of mercy. But we must not abuse the Lord's goodness and patience, or continue in our weakness and error, now that the truth has been revealed by the clear light of the Gospel.

Furthermore, those who stood against Paul — insisting that the Gentiles must be circumcised — had on their side first the law and the custom of the country, then the example of the apostles, and finally Paul's own example of having circumcised Timothy. So if Paul said in his defense that he did this not out of necessity but out of Christian love and freedom, to avoid giving offense to those who were weak in faith — who would believe him? The whole crowd would answer: It is plain that you circumcised Timothy. You may say what you like — but the fact is you did it. For this was a matter far beyond ordinary people's comprehension, and they could not understand the distinction Paul was drawing.

Moreover, no argument is effective when a man has lost the goodwill of the people and has fallen into bitter hatred and contempt. Paul therefore, seeing this controversy and these protests increase daily and having also been warned by a revelation from God, went up again to Jerusalem after fourteen years — in addition to those he had preached in Damascus and Arabia — to lay his Gospel before the other apostles. He did this not for his own sake, but for the people's sake.

Now this controversy about the observance of the law troubled Paul for a long time afterward and caused him much difficulty. I do not think, however, that this is the same controversy Luke describes in Acts 15, which appears to have occurred shortly after the beginning of the Gospel. The account Paul gives here seems to belong to a much later time, when he had already preached the Gospel for about eighteen years.

Verse 1. Taking Barnabas along with me, and Titus also.

He associates two witnesses with himself: Barnabas and Titus. Barnabas was Paul's companion in preaching freedom from the servitude of the law to the Gentiles. He was also a witness of everything Paul had done and had seen the Holy Spirit given to the uncircumcised Gentiles who were free from Moses' law — through the preaching of faith in Jesus Christ alone. He stood firmly with Paul on this one point: it was not necessary to burden the Gentiles with the law — it was enough for them to believe in Christ. Therefore out of his own experience he testifies with Paul against the Jews that the Gentiles were made children of God and saved by faith alone in Jesus Christ, apart from the law or circumcision.

Titus was not only a Christian but also the chief overseer in Crete, for Paul had committed to him the charge of governing the churches there (Titus 1). And Titus was a Gentile.

Verse 2. I went up because of a revelation.

For had Paul not been prompted by a revelation, he would not have gone up to Jerusalem. But because God warned him by a specific revelation and commanded him to go, he went. He did this to restrain or at least to appease the believing Jews who were stubbornly insisting on the keeping of the law, so that the truth of the Gospel might be more fully promoted and confirmed.

Verse 2. And I set before them the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles.

After eighteen years of preaching, Paul went up to Jerusalem and conferred with the apostles — but not to learn anything from them.

Verse 2. Which I preach among the Gentiles.

Paul accommodated himself to the Jews on matters of the law — but he never compromised the true doctrine of the Gospel. His practice among them did not contradict what he preached. He could eat or not eat, circumcise or not circumcise, keep holy days or not keep them, and still remain consistent in doctrine. The false apostles distorted this and used it against him. But Paul had good reason for his conduct: he practiced the law outwardly among Jews to avoid unnecessarily offending them, while always holding firm to the truth that the law contributes nothing to justification.

Paul conferred with the apostles — but they taught him nothing. Rather, after he had laid out his Gospel before them, they agreed with him and added nothing to what he taught. They recognized the grace given to him and extended to him the right hand of fellowship. So the outcome of the conference was that Paul was not corrected or instructed by the apostles, but confirmed.

The central question of the council was this: Is it necessary to keep the law in order to be justified? The false apostles said yes. Paul said no — faith in Christ alone justifies, apart from the works of the law. This was the issue at stake, and on this point Paul prevailed.

Verse 2. But particularly with those who were the most eminent.

He conferred specifically with the chief apostles — Peter, James, and John. He did this not because he needed their approval, but so that their public agreement would silence the false apostles who claimed Paul's Gospel was defective.

Verse 2. Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Paul was not expressing doubt about his own calling or the truth of his Gospel. He never doubted that he had run well. His concern was for others — specifically those who might think he had labored in vain because the false apostles were undermining his ministry. He went to Jerusalem and conferred with the apostles so that the churches would see that all the apostles preached the same Gospel, and that the false apostles stood alone in their error.

Verse 3. But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

The word 'compelled' is key. It shows that circumcision was not required of Titus or of any Gentile. Had the apostles required it, Paul would have resisted. They did not — and this is Paul's point. The outcome of the Jerusalem conference was that Titus, a Gentile, was not compelled to be circumcised. This was a decisive victory for the truth of the Gospel.

Paul did not condemn circumcision as something evil or damnable in itself. His teaching was simply that circumcision is not necessary for righteousness. If a Jewish believer wanted to be circumcised out of respect for the law of Moses, Paul would not forbid it. But to require circumcision as necessary for salvation — that he rejected entirely. This distinction matters: circumcision is neither a sin nor a means of justification; it is an outward sign that belongs to the old covenant and has no bearing on a person's standing before God.

The moderation the apostles reached was this: Jews who believed in Christ could continue to practice circumcision freely, according to their conscience. But Gentiles were not required to be circumcised. They were free from that obligation. This was not a contradiction — it was a wise accommodation to two different situations, while preserving the one essential truth: circumcision contributes nothing to justification.

Paul permitted circumcision where it was a matter of free conscience and love toward the weak. He circumcised Timothy, for example, to avoid giving unnecessary offense to Jews. But when the false apostles insisted that circumcision was necessary for salvation, Paul resisted them to their face. The difference between the two cases is everything: free practice is one thing, compelled observance is another. Paul would yield in love but never yield in doctrine.

The false apostles made circumcision a requirement for salvation — and in doing so, they destroyed the Gospel. The same error reappears in every age. Today there are those who insist that their traditions and ceremonies must be observed for righteousness, just as the false apostles insisted on circumcision. Against all such teaching, we must press on boldly — as Paul did — refusing to let any human requirement be added to faith in Christ as a condition of salvation.

Paul's triumph at Jerusalem was this: Titus was not circumcised. The apostles agreed with Paul's Gospel and did not require circumcision of the Gentiles. This fact alone refutes the false apostles' claim that Paul's teaching was deficient and that circumcision was necessary. The most eminent apostles — Peter, James, and John — stood with Paul, not with his opponents.

Paul did not condemn circumcision. In his view, circumcision is like eating or drinking — neither a sin nor a righteousness. It is an outward, physical act that has no effect on a person's standing before God. The soul is not made holy or unclean by such things. What matters before God is faith working through love — not whether a person has undergone a physical rite. To treat an outward ceremony as necessary for salvation is to misunderstand the entire Gospel.

Verse 4. But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.

Paul now explains his full reason for going to Jerusalem and for refusing to circumcise Titus. He went not for his own sake but for the sake of the churches, so that the truth of the Gospel would be publicly confirmed by the apostles. He refused to circumcise Titus because false brethren had infiltrated the gathering — people who pretended to be believers but were actually spying on the freedom that Christians have in Christ. Their goal was to bring believers back under the bondage of the law. Against this threat, Paul stood firm: he would not yield for even a moment, so that the truth of the Gospel would be preserved for the churches.

When Paul speaks of 'the truth of the Gospel,' he implies there is also a false gospel. The Gospel itself is simple, true, and sincere — but through the work of Satan's ministers it can be distorted and corrupted. The false apostles also preached faith and a gospel, but both were false. Paul stood firm against them, refusing to give ground, so that the truth of the Gospel would continue among the Galatians. Today the papists and Anabaptists boast in the same way that they preach the Gospel and faith in Christ. They do — but with the same result as the false apostles, whom Paul calls in chapter one 'troublers of the church' and 'perverters of the Gospel of Christ.' All heretics claim the name of God, of Christ, and of the church. They insist they teach not error and lies but certain truth and the pure Gospel of Christ.

The truth of the Gospel is this: our righteousness comes by faith alone, apart from the works of the law. The corruption of the Gospel is the claim that we are justified by faith, but not without the works of the law. This is exactly how the false apostles preached. Our modern opponents do the same. They say we must believe in Christ and that faith is the foundation of salvation — but then add that faith does not justify unless it is completed by love. That is not the truth of the Gospel; it is falsehood. The true Gospel teaches that works and love are not the finishing touch that perfects faith. Faith itself is God's gift and God's work in the heart — and it justifies precisely because it lays hold of Christ our Redeemer. Human reason focuses on the law and asks: 'What have I done? What have I left undone?' But faith, operating in its proper role, has only one object: Jesus Christ, the Son of God, given up to death for the sins of the whole world. Faith does not look to love. It does not ask: 'What have I done? What have I deserved?' It asks: 'What has Christ done? What has He deserved?' And the truth of the Gospel answers: He has redeemed you from your sin, from the devil, and from eternal death. Faith therefore recognizes that in this one person, Jesus Christ, it has forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Anyone who turns his eyes from this object does not have true faith but a fantasy and an empty opinion — and turns from the promise to the law, which only terrifies and drives to despair.

What the Scholastic theologians taught about justifying faith being perfected by love is nothing but empty theorizing. The faith that lays hold of Christ the Son of God — furnished with Him — is the faith that justifies, not a faith that includes love as its completion. True, steadfast faith must hold to nothing else but Christ alone. In the afflictions and terrors of conscience, it has nothing else to lean on but this precious gem: Christ Jesus. Therefore, the person who lays hold of Christ by faith — however much he may be terrified by the law and weighed down by his sins — can boldly declare that he is righteous. How? By what means? Through that precious treasure, Christ, which he possesses by faith. Our opponents do not understand this. They set aside Christ as their precious gem and put love in His place. Since they do not know what faith is, they cannot have faith — and they certainly cannot teach it to others. What they claim to have is nothing more than a dream, an opinion, and natural reason — not faith.

I say all this so you can see that when Paul mentions 'the truth of the Gospel,' he speaks with great intensity of spirit, intending to rebuke its opposite. He rebukes the false apostles for teaching a false gospel — they required circumcision and observance of the law as necessary for salvation. They also tried to trap Paul by watching him closely: would he circumcise Titus? Would he dare oppose them in front of the apostles? For this reason he rebukes them sharply. They were spying out the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, he says, so they could bring us into bondage. The false apostles came armed on every side, hoping to defeat and humiliate him before the whole assembly. They used the authority of the apostles against him, accusing him: 'Paul has brought Titus — an uncircumcised man — into the company of all the faithful. He denies and condemns the law right here in your presence, you who are apostles. If he dares do this here and before you, what will he do in your absence among the Gentiles?'

Seeing that he was being craftily attacked from all sides, Paul stood firm against the false apostles. He would not let their efforts endanger the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, though the false brothers sought by every means to entangle him and cause him great trouble. In the end he prevailed — even by the judgment of the apostles themselves — and refused to yield, not even for an hour. The false apostles' real goal was to make Paul abandon this freedom, at least for a time. But Paul saw that they were demanding observance of the law as necessary for salvation. If they had only appealed to charitable consideration for the weak brothers, Paul would have given way. But that was not what they were after. They wanted to bring Paul and all who held his doctrine into bondage. Therefore he would not yield to them — not even for a single moment.

We offer the papists everything that can reasonably be offered — indeed, more than we should. The one thing we will not surrender is the freedom of conscience we have in Christ Jesus. We will not allow our consciences to be bound to any work, so that doing or not doing something determines whether we are righteous or condemned. We are willing to eat what they eat, to observe their feast days and fast days — so long as they allow us to do so with a free conscience, and stop using the threatening words with which they have terrorized and subjugated the world: 'We command, we charge, we charge again, we excommunicate.' But this freedom we cannot obtain from them — just as Paul could not obtain it in his own time. So we do as he did: when he saw he could not secure this freedom, he refused to yield to the false apostles even for an hour.

Our opponents will not concede that faith alone in Christ justifies. Therefore, we in turn will not and cannot concede to them that faith perfected by love justifies. On this point we must and should be immovable and unyielding — otherwise we would lose the truth of the Gospel. We would lose the freedom we have, not in the Emperor, not in kings and princes, not in the pope, not in the world or in human reason — but in Christ Jesus. We would lose faith in Christ, which lays hold of nothing else but that precious treasure, Christ Himself. If our opponents will leave this faith sound and uncorrupted — the faith by which we are regenerate, justified, and united to Christ — we offer to accommodate them in all things that do not conflict with this faith. But since they will not grant us this, we for our part will not yield to them by a single hair's breadth. The matter at stake is too great: it is the death of the Son of God, who by the Father's will and command was made flesh, was crucified, and died for the sins of the world. If faith yields here, then Christ's death and resurrection accomplish nothing. Then it is a fable that Christ is the Savior of the world. Then God Himself is found a liar, because He has not fulfilled what He promised. Our boldness in this matter is therefore godly and holy — by it we seek to preserve the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and thereby to retain the truth of the Gospel. If we lose that, we lose God, Christ, all the promises, faith, righteousness, and eternal life.

Someone might object: 'The law is divine and holy.' Let the law have its glory — but no law, however divine and holy, should teach me that I am justified and will live through it. The law teaches me that I ought to love God and my neighbor, that I ought to live in chastity, sobriety, and patience — I grant all of this. But the law cannot show me how to be delivered from sin, the devil, death, and hell. For that I must turn to the Gospel. I must listen to the Gospel, which does not tell me what I ought to do — that is the law's proper office — but what Jesus Christ the Son of God has done for me: He suffered and died to deliver me from sin and death. The Gospel calls me to receive and believe this. That is the truth of the Gospel. It is also the chief article of all Christian teaching — the one in which the knowledge of all true godliness is found. It is therefore absolutely necessary that we know this article well, teach it to others, and impress it upon them continually. It is a tender truth and easily damaged. Paul knew this from hard experience — and all godly people know it as well.

To sum up: Paul refused to circumcise Titus, and for no other reason than that certain false brothers had crept in to spy on their freedom and wanted to compel Paul to circumcise him. Seeing this compulsion and pressure, Paul gave way to no one — not even for an hour — but stood firm against them. That is why he says: 'Not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.' If they had asked this as a matter of brotherly love, Paul would not have refused. But they demanded it as a requirement, by compulsion, to the bad example of others, to the ruin of the Gospel, and to bring people's consciences into bondage. Therefore Paul resisted them powerfully — and prevailed, so that Titus was not circumcised.

It might seem like a minor thing whether or not someone is circumcised. But when a person trusts that keeping it makes them righteous, or fears that not keeping it brings condemnation, then God is denied, Christ is rejected, and the grace and promises of God are thrown away. If circumcision is practiced without that false trust attached to it, there is no danger in it. If the pope required us to keep his traditions merely as outward ceremonies, it would not be burdensome to observe them — we use ceremonies too. But to bind people's consciences to these ceremonies, to make them into a high and acceptable service to God, and then to add that eternal life or eternal damnation depends on observing them — that is devilish superstition and rank blasphemy. Whoever will not speak against this — let them be accursed.

Verses 6-7. And from those who were reputed to be important — what they were previously makes no difference to me.

This is a bold and forceful refutation. Paul gives the true apostles no special title — instead he speaks of them in a way that almost downplays their status: 'those who seemed to be important,' that is, those who held authority and on whose judgment all matters depended. Yet the apostles did in fact hold great authority in all the churches, and Paul was not trying to diminish it. He was answering the false apostles, who were wielding the apostles' names and reputations against Paul in all the churches in order to undermine his authority and bring his entire ministry into contempt. Paul could not allow this. To preserve the truth of the Gospel and the freedom of conscience in Christ among the Galatians and all the Gentile churches, he boldly answered the false apostles: it made no difference to him how great the apostles were or what they had been in the past. When his opponents used the authority of the apostles' names against him, it made no impression on him. He acknowledged that the apostles are indeed significant people and that their authority deserves respect. But no name or title — whether apostle or angel from heaven — should be allowed to overthrow his Gospel and ministry.

This was one of the false apostles' strongest arguments against Paul. They said: the apostles lived closely with Christ for three years. They heard and saw all His preaching and miracles. They even preached and worked miracles while Christ was still living in the world. Paul, on the other hand, never saw Christ in the flesh, and his conversion came long after Christ's glorification. So who should be believed — Paul, who stood alone and was the last of all to become an apostle, or the chief and most eminent apostles, sent and confirmed by Christ Himself long before Paul? Paul's answer: What of all this? This argument proves nothing. Let the apostles be as great as they are — let them even be angels from heaven. That is beside the point. The question here is not about the apostles' greatness but about the word of God and the truth of the Gospel. Everything depends on this: that the Gospel be preserved pure and uncorrupted — and that must be placed above all else. So however great Peter and the other apostles were, however many miracles they worked — that is beside the point. The one thing I am after is this: that the truth of the Gospel continue among you. This may seem like a thin answer — that Paul deliberately dismisses the apostles' authority and meets his opponents' powerful argument with nothing more than 'it makes no difference to me.' But he does add a reason for his refutation.

Verse 6. God shows no partiality.

Paul draws this from Moses, who uses it repeatedly: 'You shall not show partiality to the rich or the poor in judgment.' And this is a foundational principle of theology: God shows no partiality. With this he shuts the mouths of the false apostles. As if to say: You set against me those who seem to be important — but God cares nothing for such outward things. He does not regard the office of apostleship. He does not look at human dignity or authority. As proof: He allowed Judas, one of the foremost apostles, and Saul, the greatest and first of all Israel's kings, to fall away and be condemned. He rejected both Ishmael and Esau, even though they were firstborn sons. Throughout all of Scripture you will find that God repeatedly rejected those who by outward appearance seemed to be very good and holy men. In these examples God can seem harsh — but such sobering examples were necessary, and necessary that they be recorded. For this tendency is naturally rooted in us: we place great weight on the outward appearance and status of people, often valuing it more than the word of God. God, on the other hand, wants us to fix our eyes entirely on the word itself. He does not want us to revere and honor the apostleship in the persons of Peter and Paul, but Christ speaking through them, and the word they bring and preach to us.

The natural person cannot see this distinction — only the spiritual person can separate the person from the word, the veil of God from God Himself. Every creature is a veil of God. In this life God does not deal with us face to face but from behind a covering — as Paul says in another place: 'we see now as in a mirror dimly' (1 Corinthians 13:12). We cannot do without these veils in this life. But wisdom is needed here — wisdom that can distinguish the veil from God Himself — and the world does not have this wisdom. The greedy person hears that 'man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God' (Matthew 4:4), and he eats the bread but does not see God in it. He looks only at the veil and the outward form. He does the same with gold and other possessions, trusting in them as long as he has them — but when they are gone, he despairs. In this way he honors not the Creator but the creature, not God but his own appetite.

I say this so no one will think Paul is condemning all outward distinctions or persons. He does not say there should be no persons at all — only that God shows no partiality. Persons and outward distinctions must exist; God has given them and they are His good creatures. But we must not put our trust in them. What matters is the right use of things, not the things themselves — as I have said before. There is no fault in circumcision or uncircumcision — for circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing — but in how they are used. To attach righteousness to one and unrighteousness to the other — that use is damnable and must be rejected. Once that false use is removed, circumcision and uncircumcision are both acceptable.

The prince, the magistrate, the preacher, the schoolmaster, the student, the father, the mother, the children, the master, and the servant — all of these are persons and outward distinctions that God wants us to acknowledge, love, and respect as His creatures. These roles are necessary in this life. But He does not want us to revere or trust in them so much that we forget Him. To keep us from placing too much weight on outward persons or trusting in them, God allows them to commit offenses and sins — even great and shameful sins — to teach us the difference between the person and God Himself. David, the good king, fell into horrible sins — adultery and murder — so that no one would place their trust in him. Peter, the excellent apostle, denied Christ. Examples like these fill the Scripture, and they are warnings: do not rest your trust in the person and outward role, or think that having the outward show means you have everything. This is the error of Popery — it judges everything by outward appearance, and therefore all of it amounts to nothing more than partiality and show. God has given His creatures for our use and service, not as idols for us to serve. So let us use bread, wine, clothing, possessions, gold, and silver and all other created things — but let us not trust or glory in them. We must trust and glory in God alone. He alone is to be loved, feared, and honored.

By 'person' here, Paul means the apostleship — the apostles' office: their many great miracles, their teaching, their conversions, their personal closeness to Christ. In short, the word 'person' includes the apostles' entire outward life, which was holy, and their authority, which was great. Yet God, he says, does not esteem these things — not that He disregards them entirely, but in the matter of justification He does not consider them, however great and glorious they may be. We must carefully maintain this distinction: in matters of theology, we must speak very differently from how we speak in matters of civil life. In civil life God wants us to honor and respect these outward roles and persons as His instruments by which He governs and preserves the world. But when the question concerns religion, conscience, the fear of God, faith, and the worship of God, we must not fear these outward persons, place no trust in them, look for no comfort from them, and hope for no deliverance — physical or spiritual — from them. For this reason God will have no partiality in judgment, because judgment is a divine matter. Therefore I should neither fear the judge nor trust in the judge — my fear and trust must be in God alone, who is the true judge. I ought to respect the civil judge and magistrate for God's sake, since he serves as God's minister. But my conscience must not rest on his justice and fairness, nor be driven by his injustice or tyranny to commit any offense against God — lying, bearing false witness, or denying the truth. Apart from that, I will honor and respect the magistrate with all my heart.

I would honor the pope and love his person too, if he would leave my conscience free and not compel me to sin against God. But he demands to be feared and worshiped in a way that cannot be done without offending the majesty of God. Since we must lose one, let us lose the person and hold fast to God. We could have accepted the pope's authority — but because he has abused it so tyrannically against us, seeking to compel us to deny and blaspheme God and to acknowledge him alone as our lord and master, burdening our consciences and robbing us of the fear and trust we owe to God alone — we are compelled by God's command to resist the pope. As it is written: 'We must obey God rather than men' (Acts 5:29). Therefore we reject the authority of the pope — and we do so without any guilty conscience, which is our singular comfort.

The word 'God' carries weight here: in matters of religion and the word of God, there must be no partiality. But in matters of civil life, we must give proper regard to persons — otherwise all respect and order would collapse. In this world, God has established order, respect, and distinctions between persons. Without them, children, students, servants, and subjects would say: 'I am as much a Christian as my father, my teacher, my master, my prince — so why should I show them respect?' Before God there is no partiality — neither Greek nor Jew, for all are one in Christ. But before the world, these distinctions remain.

So Paul dissolves the false apostles' argument about apostolic authority by showing it is irrelevant to the question at hand. The issue is not about human persons and their status — it is a far weightier matter: a divine matter concerning God and His word, and whether that word must be preferred above the apostleship. Paul's answer: so that the truth of the Gospel may stand, so that the word of God and the righteousness of faith may be kept pure and uncorrupted, let the apostleship fall — let an angel from heaven, let Peter, let Paul, let all of them perish.

Verse 6. But those who were highly regarded contributed nothing to me.

As if to say: My conference with the apostles was not a session where they taught me anything. What could they teach me, when Christ had already taught me everything fully through His revelation? And beyond that, I had now been preaching the Gospel for eighteen years among the Gentiles, and Christ had confirmed my doctrine through many miracles. So it was a consultation, not a debate. I learned nothing in it, neither did I recant anything nor defend my case — I simply reported what I had done: I had preached faith in Christ alone to the Gentiles, without the law, and through this preaching of faith the Holy Spirit had come down upon the Gentiles, and they had immediately spoken in various tongues. When the apostles heard this, they testified that I had taught the truth. Therefore the false apostles do me great wrong by twisting and reversing all of this.

If Paul would not yield to false apostles who used the authority of the true apostles against him, we have even less reason to yield to our opponents, who have nothing to boast of except the authority of their idol, the pope. I know that godly people should be humble — but against the pope I will and must be proud with a holy pride, and say: You, Pope, I will not submit to you. I will not accept you as my master, because I am certain that my doctrine is true and godly. But the pope will not hear this. He would force us to obey his laws and decrees, and if we refuse, he immediately excommunicates, curses, and condemns us as heretics. Such boldness against the pope is therefore absolutely necessary. If we were not so bold — if we did not utterly reject in the Holy Spirit both him and all his doctrine, and the devil, the father of lies, who speaks through him — we would never be able to defend the article of justification by faith. We do not reject the pope's authority because we want to rule over him, nor do we try to exalt ourselves above all governing authority — for it is plain that we teach everyone to humble themselves and submit to the governing authorities God has ordained. The one thing we seek is this: that the glory of God be upheld and the righteousness of faith be kept pure and sound.

If the pope will grant us this — that God alone by His pure grace through Christ justifies sinners — we will not only carry him on our shoulders but even kiss his feet. But since we cannot obtain this from him, we stand against him before God with absolute boldness and will not yield one hair's breadth — not to all the angels in heaven, not to Peter, not to Paul, not to a hundred emperors, not to a thousand popes, not to the whole world. Far be it from us to humble ourselves here, when they would strip from us our greatest treasure — God Himself who created us and gave us all things, and Jesus Christ who redeemed us with His blood. Let this then be our final conclusion: we will surrender our possessions, our reputation, our lives, and everything we have — but the Gospel, our faith, Jesus Christ — these we will never allow to be torn from us. Cursed be that humility which bows and gives way here. Let every Christian stand firm and unyielding — unless he is willing to deny Christ.

Therefore, God helping me, my resolve will be harder than iron. Here I take up this motto, according to the proverb: I give way to no one. I am glad with my whole heart to be called rebellious and stubborn on this point. I confess it openly: on this matter I am and always will be firm and unmovable, and will not yield one inch to any creature. Love gives way — for love endures all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and bears all things (1 Corinthians 13:7). But faith gives way to nothing. As the old saying goes: a man's good name, his faith, and his eyes are not things to be trifled with. Therefore in matters of faith, a Christian can never be too firm or too bold — he must not soften or give ground, not even by a hair's breadth. Faith makes a person in some measure like God, and God endures nothing and yields to no one — He is unchangeable. So faith is unchangeable too, and therefore yields to nothing and no one. But in matters of love, a Christian should yield and endure all things — because in that sphere he is only a man.

Verses 7-8. But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for He who was at work for Peter as an apostle to the circumcised was also at work for me as an apostle to the Gentiles).

With these words Paul powerfully refutes the false apostles. He claims for himself the same authority that the false apostles attributed only to the true apostles. He uses a rhetorical reversal here, turning their own argument back against them. The false apostles, he says, use the authority of the great apostles against me to strengthen their case. I in turn use that same authority against them for my defense — because the apostles are on my side. Therefore, O Galatians, do not believe these counterfeit apostles who boast so loudly of apostolic authority against me. For when the apostles saw that I had been entrusted with the Gospel to the uncircumcised, and recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, approving my ministry and giving thanks to God for the gift I had received. So he turns the false apostles' own argument against them. In these words there is an intense force that carries more meaning than can be fully expressed in speech.

This passage may seem difficult, where Paul says the Gospel to the uncircumcised was committed to him and the Gospel to the circumcised to Peter — since in fact Paul preached to Jews in their synagogues almost everywhere, and Peter likewise preached to Gentiles. Both the Acts of the Apostles and other sources confirm this. Peter converted the centurion Cornelius and his household, who were Gentiles. He also wrote to Gentiles, as his first letter shows. Paul, while preaching Christ among the Gentiles, regularly entered Jewish synagogues and preached the Gospel there. And Christ Himself commands in Matthew and Mark that His apostles go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. Paul likewise says the Gospel was preached to every creature under heaven. So why does Paul call himself the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter and the others apostles to the circumcised?

This question is not difficult. Paul is simply noting that the other apostles remained primarily in Jerusalem until God called them to other places. While the Jewish nation continued to exist, the apostles stayed in Judea; but as the destruction of Jerusalem approached, they dispersed throughout the world. Paul, as Acts records, was specifically called to be the apostle to the Gentiles and was sent out from Judea to travel through Gentile lands. Since Jews were scattered throughout the world and lived among Gentiles in cities everywhere, Paul would regularly enter their synagogues when he arrived — preaching to them first as children of the kingdom, announcing that the promises made to the fathers had now been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. When they refused to listen, he turned to the Gentiles. As Luke records, Paul boldly told the Jews: 'It was necessary that we speak God's word to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles' (Acts 13:46). And again in Acts: 'Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will also listen' (Acts 28:28). Paul was therefore sent specifically to the Gentiles. But because he was a debtor to all and became all things to all people, he took every opportunity to enter synagogues as well, where not only Jews but also Gentiles would hear him preach Christ. At times he preached publicly in the marketplace, in houses, and by riverbanks. His primary calling was as apostle to the Gentiles, as Peter's was to the Jews — though Peter also preached Christ to the Gentiles when the occasion arose.

Paul uses the terms 'uncircumcision' and 'circumcision' as figures of speech — a part standing for the whole — which is common in Scripture. The Gospel to the uncircumcised means the Gospel that was to be preached to the Gentiles. This Gospel, he says, was committed to him, just as the Gospel to the circumcised was committed to Peter. As Peter preached the Gospel among the Jews, so Paul preached it among the Gentiles.

Paul repeats this point often: Peter, James, and John — those regarded as pillars of the church — taught him nothing and did not commission him to preach the Gospel as if they held authority over him. Rather, they themselves saw that the Gospel had been committed to him — but not by Peter. Just as he had not received or learned his Gospel from any human being, so he received his commission to preach it from no human authority. Both the knowledge of the Gospel and the command to preach it among the Gentiles came directly from God — just as the charge to preach it among the Jews came directly from God to Peter.

This passage shows plainly that all the apostles shared the same calling, the same charge, and the same Gospel. Peter preached no different Gospel from the rest, nor did he assign to others their specific offices. There was equality among them all — they were all taught of God, and their calling and charge came entirely and directly from God. No one among them was greater than another; no one had any advantage over another. Therefore, when the pope boasts that Peter was the chief of the apostles — using that claim to prop up his own usurped authority — it is a shameless lie.

Verse 8. For He who was at work for Peter.

This is Paul's refutation of another argument from the false apostles. Why do they boast, he says, that Peter's Gospel was powerful — that he converted many, worked great miracles, raised the dead, and healed the sick by his very shadow? All of that is true, Paul grants. But Peter received that power from heaven. God gave such force to his word that many believed, and great miracles were worked through him. I had the same power — not received from Peter, but from the same God and the same Spirit who worked powerfully through Peter. I received the same grace, taught many, worked many miracles, and healed the sick through me as well. Luke testifies to this in Acts 19: 'God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out' (Acts 19:11-12). See also Acts 13, 16, 20, and 28.

In short, Paul refuses to be considered inferior to the other apostles in any respect — and in this he stands with a godly and holy boldness. He was compelled by necessity to stand firm against Peter, and his zeal for God forced him to be unyielding whether he wanted to be or not. Certain unbelievers, like Julian and Porphyry, misread this and thought Paul's boldness was nothing but personal pride — the kind we see today in the pope and his followers. But Paul was not fighting for his own interests here. He was fighting for the matter of faith. In matters of faith we must be immovable — harder, if possible, than diamond. In matters of love we must be soft and flexible — more yielding than a reed or leaf trembling in the wind. The controversy here was not about Paul's own glory, but about God's glory, the word of God, true worship, true religion, and the righteousness of faith — so that these things might remain pure and uncorrupted.

Verse 9. Recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

That is: when they heard that I had received my calling and commission directly from God to preach the Gospel among the Gentiles, and that God had worked so many miracles through me, and that through my ministry so many Gentiles had come to the knowledge of Christ, and that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit through the preaching of faith alone — without the law or circumcision — they glorified God for the grace that had been given to me.

By 'grace' Paul means everything he had received from God — that from being a persecutor and destroyer of the church he had been made an apostle, taught by Jesus Christ, and enriched with spiritual gifts. He shows that Peter bore witness to him that he was a true apostle, sent and taught not by any human being or by the other apostles, but by God alone. Peter acknowledged Paul's ministry and authority, and the spiritual gifts at work in him, as gifts from heaven. He approved and confirmed them — not as a superior giving orders, but as a brother bearing witness. James and John did the same. Paul therefore concludes that those who were regarded as the foremost pillars among the apostles stood entirely with him, not against him.

Verse 9. They gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.

The right hand of fellowship meant, in effect: 'O Paul, in preaching the Gospel we are in agreement with you in all things.' 'In doctrine we are partners — we share the same fellowship: we have one doctrine, for we preach one Gospel, one baptism, one Christ, and one faith.' 'We have nothing to teach you or require of you, since we are in full agreement on everything.' 'We teach nothing different or superior to what you teach — the same gifts we have, we see in you as well — except that you have been entrusted with the Gospel to the uncircumcised as we have been entrusted with the Gospel to the circumcised.' 'But we agree on this: neither circumcision nor uncircumcision should stand in the way of our partnership, since we both preach the one Gospel.'

Up to this point Paul has established by clear testimony — not only from God but also from human witnesses, namely the apostles — that he had preached the Gospel faithfully and truly. Therefore everything the false apostles said to undermine his authority was invented and fabricated. The testimony of the apostles is on his side, not on theirs. But because he stands alone without corroborating witnesses in what follows, he adds an oath and calls God as his witness that what he has said is true.

Verse 10. They asked only that we remember the poor — the very thing I was also eager to do.

After the preaching of the Gospel, the duty of a true and faithful pastor is to care for the poor. Wherever the church exists, there will be poor people — who for the most part are the only true disciples of the Gospel, as Christ says: 'The poor have the Gospel preached to them' (Matthew 11:5). The world and the devil persecute the church and drive many into poverty, and these are then abandoned and despised by the world. Beyond this, the world not only fails in caring for the poor, but is also indifferent to supporting the Gospel, true religion, and the true worship of God. No one wants to take on the cost of providing for the ministers of the church and establishing schools — yet for building up false worship, superstition, and idolatry, no expense was spared and everyone gave generously. This is how so many monasteries, cathedral churches, and bishoprics arose in the papal church — all overflowing with impiety and lavishly funded — while today an entire city begrudges the support of one or two poor ministers and preachers of the Gospel. This same city once bore the burden of supporting entire monasteries and endless swarms of Mass priests. True religion is always in need. Christ Himself says He is hungry, thirsty, homeless, naked, and sick. False religion and impiety, by contrast, flourish and overflow with worldly wealth and prosperity. Therefore a true and faithful pastor must also have a care for the poor — and Paul here acknowledges that he did.

Verse 11. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Paul continues his defense, pointing out that he not only has the testimony of Peter and the other apostles at Jerusalem in his favor — he also publicly opposed Peter in front of the whole church at Antioch. He is dealing here with something that happened openly, before the entire church — not in a private corner. As I have said, the matter at stake is not trivial: it is the chief article of all Christian teaching. Anyone who rightly grasps its importance will count everything else as secondary. What is Peter? What is Paul? What is an angel from heaven? What are all other creatures compared to the article of justification? If we understand this article, we walk in clear light. If we are ignorant of it, we are in the deepest darkness. Therefore, if you see this article attacked or corrupted, do not hesitate to resist — even Peter himself, even an angel from heaven — following Paul's example. When he saw that Peter's status was putting this great article at risk, he set aside all regard for Peter's dignity and reputation in order to keep the truth pure and uncorrupted. For it is written: 'He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me' (Matthew 10:37).

We are not ashamed, therefore, to be called proud and stubborn by hypocrites — those who say we will only listen to ourselves and yield to no one. In defense of the truth, it is absolutely necessary to be unyielding. The reason we offend people — that is, set aside the dignity of persons and the world's opinion — is that what the world judges as the most serious sins are in God's sight outstanding virtues. We do right to love our parents, honor the magistrate, and show respect to Peter and other ministers of the word. But here the cause we are defending belongs not to Peter, not to parents, not to the magistrate, not to the world, not to any creature — but to God Himself. When the cause is God's, I do right to yield to no one — not to my parents, not to the magistrate, not to an angel from heaven. What is any creature compared to the Creator? What are all creatures together before Him? Like a single drop of water compared to the whole ocean. Why should I so highly esteem Peter — who is but a drop — and set aside God — who is the whole ocean? Let the drop give way to the ocean. Let Peter give way to God. I say this so that you may carefully weigh and consider what Paul is really dealing with here — for he is dealing with God, who can never be honored enough.

He deliberately adds the phrase 'to his face' — a rebuke to the venomous false apostles who slander people in their absence but dare not open their mouths in their presence. The false apostles did exactly this: they did not dare speak against Paul to his face, but behind his back they slandered him without restraint. I did not do that with Peter, Paul says. I opposed him openly and directly — not out of pretense, ambition, or any personal motive, but because he was to be blamed.

Let others debate whether an apostle can sin. What I say is this: we must not minimize Peter's fault. Even the prophets have sometimes erred. Nathan, speaking on his own authority, told David to build the house of the Lord — but this was immediately corrected by a revelation from God, who said that not David, being a man of war who had shed much blood, but his son Solomon would build the house. The apostles erred too — they imagined that Christ's kingdom would be an earthly, political one, as we see in Acts 1. Peter himself, though he had received Christ's command to go into all the world, would not have gone to Cornelius had he not been prompted by a vision. But here Peter did more than simply err — he committed a serious sin. If Paul had not confronted him, all the believing Gentiles would have been forced to receive circumcision and keep the law. The believing Jews would have been confirmed in their view that keeping these things was necessary for salvation. The result would have been that the law replaced the Gospel and Moses replaced Christ. Peter's hypocrisy alone would have caused this enormous disaster and terrible sin. We must therefore not attribute to the saints such perfection that they cannot sin.

Luke records that the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas — both of whom had been set apart for the ministry of the Gospel among the Gentiles and had traveled together through many regions — became so great that they parted from each other. We must acknowledge that there was a fault in one or both of them. And clearly the discord that separated two companions joined together in such a holy ministry was exceptionally serious, as the text shows. Such examples are recorded for our comfort. It is a great comfort to know that even saints who have the Spirit of God still sin. Those who claim the saints do not sin would strip us of that comfort.

Samson, David, and many other outstanding men full of the Holy Spirit fell into serious sins. Job and Jeremiah cursed the day of their birth. Elijah and Jonah grew weary of life and asked for death. Scripture sets forth these failures and sins of the saints as comfort for those weighed down by despair, and as a warning to the proud. No one has ever fallen so far that they cannot rise again. And no one stands so securely that they cannot fall. If Peter fell, so may I. If he rose again, so may I. People with tender, troubled consciences should take great encouragement from examples like these, so they can better understand what they are asking for when they pray: 'Forgive us our trespasses' — and when they confess: 'I believe in the forgiveness of sins.' We have the same Spirit of grace and prayer that the apostles and all the saints had. They had no advantage over us. We share the same gifts, the same Christ, the same baptism, the same word, the same forgiveness of sins — all of which they needed no less than we do, and by which they were sanctified and saved, just as we are.

Verse 12. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles.

The Gentiles who had come to faith ate foods the law had forbidden, and Peter — living among these converted Gentiles — ate and drank with them, including wine that the law prohibited. He knew this was right, and so he freely broke the law's dietary regulations along with the Gentiles. Paul says the same of himself: he became as a Jew with Jews, and as one without the law with those outside the law — meaning that among Gentiles he ate and drank like a Gentile, without observing the law, while among Jews he abstained from what the law forbade. He did this to serve and win as many as possible. So Peter did not sin by eating and drinking with the Gentiles — he did well, and he knew it was lawful. By breaking the law's dietary rules, he demonstrated that the law was not necessary for righteousness, and freed the Gentiles from feeling obligated to observe it. If it was lawful for Peter to break the law in one thing, it was lawful in all things. Paul's rebuke of Peter, then, is not about his eating — it is about his hypocrisy, as the next verse shows.

Verse 12. But when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.

Here is Peter's sin, as Paul sets it out plainly. Paul does not charge him with malice or ignorance, but with hypocrisy and weakness. Peter stopped eating the foods the law had forbidden, fearing that the Jews who had come from James would be offended, and he showed more concern for the Jews than for the Gentiles. By doing so he gave as much cause as he could to overthrow Christian freedom and the truth of the Gospel. When he withdrew and completely separated himself — avoiding foods he had eaten before — he put a stumbling block in the conscience of the faithful. They would reason from his example: Peter abstains from foods forbidden by the law; therefore, whoever eats such foods sins and violates the law — but whoever abstains is righteous and keeps the law, for otherwise Peter would not have withdrawn. By deliberately refusing what he had previously eaten, Peter was implying that those who ate such foods sinned, while those who abstained were righteous and justified.

Note that what Paul rebukes here is not the act itself but the message it sent. In itself, eating or not eating is nothing. But the implied conclusion — that eating is sinful and abstaining is righteousness — is evil. Circumcision likewise is not evil in itself, but the conclusion drawn from it — 'unless you are circumcised according to the law of Moses, you cannot be saved' — is evil. Similarly, eating foods the law prohibited is not evil in itself — but Peter's withdrawal and hypocrisy was evil. Because people could conclude: Peter abstains from foods forbidden by the law — therefore if you do not do the same, you cannot be saved. Paul could not ignore this: the truth of the Gospel was at stake. To keep that truth sound and uncorrupted, he opposed Peter to his face.

A distinction is needed here. There are two reasons someone might refuse certain foods. First, out of love for a fellow believer — to avoid causing harm to someone with a weak conscience. This is not dangerous; to bear with a brother's weakness is a good thing. Paul himself both practiced and taught this. Second, to abstain in order to be righteous — and to eat as though eating itself would be sinful and damnable. In that case, let love and all the works of love be set aside. To refuse foods for that reason is to deny Christ, to trample His blood underfoot, to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and to despise everything holy. If we must lose one or the other, let us lose our friend and brother rather than God our Father. For if we lose God our Father, we cannot keep our friend and brother either.

Jerome, who understood neither this passage nor the epistle as a whole, thought Paul's rebuke was a staged performance, and so he excused Peter's behavior, attributing it to ignorance. But Peter's sin was hypocrisy — and by it he had effectively established the necessity of the law. He had pressured both Gentiles and Jews to turn away from the truth of the Gospel. He had given them strong reason to abandon Christ, reject grace, return to Jewish observance, and take up again the full burden of the law. All of this would have happened if Paul had not rebuked him — and through that rebuke called back the Gentiles and Jews who had been led astray by Peter's example, returning them to the freedom that is in Christ Jesus and to the truth of the Gospel.

If someone were to examine Peter's sin in full, it would appear very serious indeed — and yet it arose not from malice or ignorance, but simply from a momentary pressure and fear. We see from this what devastation a single person's failure and inconsistency can cause, if it is not noticed and corrected in time. Therefore we must not treat the article of justification carelessly — and there is good reason that we remind you of it so often and so diligently.

It is remarkable that such an excellent apostle as Peter would behave this way — the same Peter who had stood nearly alone in the Jerusalem council defending the article of justification and had prevailed, declaring that salvation comes by faith without the law. The man who had so firmly defended the truth and freedom of the Gospel now, by withdrawing from foods the law had forbidden, not only causes great harm but actually acts against his own decree. Let anyone who thinks he stands firm take heed lest he fall. No one would expect the dangers that can flow from traditions and ceremonies — yet we cannot do without them entirely. What seems more necessary than the law and its works? And yet there is great danger that through the law, people are led to deny Christ. The law often produces confidence in works, and where that exists, confidence in Christ cannot survive. Christ is easily denied and easily lost, as this example of Peter shows. Peter understood the article of justification better than we do — and yet how easily he gave occasion for a catastrophic collapse, one that could have caused all the Gentiles to abandon Paul's preaching and lose the Gospel and Christ Himself. And all of it would have been done under a holy pretense. They could have said: 'Paul, you have been teaching us that we are justified by grace without the law. But look — Peter does the opposite: he abstains from foods the law forbids, teaching us by his example that we cannot be saved unless we receive circumcision and observe the law.'

Verse 13. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

Here you can see clearly that Paul is charging Peter with hypocrisy. If Peter was being hypocritical, then he certainly knew what was true and what was not. A hypocrite does not sin out of ignorance — he deceives others through a performance he knows to be false. The other Jews joined Peter in this hypocrisy, Paul says — and even Barnabas, his own companion who had spent years preaching faith in Christ without the law, was swept along by it. Peter's sin is therefore plainly described as outright hypocrisy, which would have caused the ruin of the newly received Gospel if Paul had not confronted him.

It is a remarkable thing that God preserved the young church and the Gospel itself through a single person. Paul alone held firm to the truth: he had lost Barnabas, and Peter was against him. Sometimes one person can accomplish more in a council than the entire council combined. Even the papists themselves acknowledge this — pointing to Paphnutius, who stood against the whole Council of Nicaea (the best of all the councils after the Jerusalem council of the apostles) and prevailed.

I say this so we will study the article of justification carefully and keep a clear distinction between law and Gospel. In this matter we must act with no hypocrisy and yield to no one — if we wish to retain the truth of the Gospel and faith in its sound, uncorrupted form. These are easily damaged, as I have said. So in this matter, set aside human reason, which is an enemy of faith. In temptations of sin and death, reason does not reach for the righteousness of faith — it knows nothing of that — but grasps instead at its own righteousness or at best the righteousness of the law. The moment law and reason join forces, faith loses its purity. Nothing fights more fiercely against faith than the law and reason. These two enemies cannot be overcome without great effort and struggle — but overcome them we must, if we are to be saved.

Therefore, when your conscience is overwhelmed by the law and struggling under God's judgment, do not turn to reason or to the law for counsel. Rest only on grace and the word of comfort. Stand as though you had never heard of the law. Rise up to the realm of faith, where neither law nor reason give light — only the light of faith, which assures us that we are saved by Christ alone, without any law. In this way the Gospel leads us beyond the light of law and reason, into the inward depths of faith, where law and reason have no place. Yet we must also listen to the law — each in its proper time and place. When Moses was on the mountain, speaking with God face to face, there was no law, no lawgiving, no governing by law. But when he came down from the mountain, he was a lawgiver and governed the people by the law. So it is with us: the conscience must be free from the law, but the body must be obedient to it.

It is clear, then, that Paul rebuked Peter over no minor matter — he confronted him over the chief article of all Christian teaching, which Peter's hypocrisy had placed in serious danger. Barnabas and the other Jews joined in the same hypocrisy, and all of them failed — not out of ignorance or malice, but out of fear of the Jews, which so blinded their hearts that they could not see their sin. It is truly remarkable that men as outstanding as Peter, Barnabas, and the others could fall so quickly and so easily — especially on something they knew to be right and had even taught to others. It is a dangerous thing to rely on our own strength, however holy we may be, however learned, however certain we feel about what we know. In the very area where we feel most secure, we are capable of erring and falling and bringing both ourselves and others into great danger. Therefore let us study the holy Scriptures diligently and with all humility, and let us pray earnestly that we never lose the truth of the Gospel.

We see from this that we are nothing — with all our gifts, however great — unless God sustains us. When He leaves us to ourselves, our wisdom and knowledge fail us completely. In a moment of temptation, by the subtlety of the devil, all the comforting passages of Scripture can be swept from our sight, and only the threatening passages left before our eyes, crushing and overwhelming us utterly. Let us learn this: if God withdraws His hand, we can fall quickly. Let no one boast of his own righteousness, wisdom, or gifts — but let each humble himself and pray with the apostle: 'Lord, increase our faith' (Luke 17:5).

Verse 14. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the Gospel.

This is a striking example involving such outstanding men and pillars of the church. Paul alone has his eyes open and sees the failure of Peter, Barnabas, and the other Jews who were going along with Peter's hypocrisy. The others do not see their own failure — in fact, they probably think they are doing well by accommodating the weakness of the Jewish believers. It was therefore absolutely necessary that Paul expose their failure rather than ignore it. He charges Peter, Barnabas, and the others with not walking in line with the truth of the Gospel — that is, they had deviated from it. It is a serious thing to accuse Peter of having fallen from the truth of the Gospel. He could not have been rebuked more sharply. Yet he accepted it patiently — and no doubt he gladly acknowledged his fault. I said earlier that many people have the Gospel but not the truth of the Gospel. Paul is saying the same here: Peter, Barnabas, and the other Jews were not walking straight according to the truth of the Gospel. They had the Gospel — they even preached it — but their hypocrisy, which is incompatible with the truth of the Gospel, was effectively establishing the law instead. And establishing the law means abolishing the Gospel.

Anyone who can rightly distinguish between law and Gospel should thank God — and know that he is a genuine theologian. I confess that in times of temptation I do not know how to do it as I should. The way to make this distinction is to place the Gospel in heaven and the law on the earth. Call the righteousness of the Gospel heavenly and the righteousness of the law earthly. Keep as great a difference between them as God has set between heaven and earth, between light and darkness, between day and night. Let one be the sunlight and the day; let the other be the darkness and the night. Would to God we could separate them even further. So: when the question concerns faith or conscience, completely exclude the law and leave it on the earth. When it concerns works and daily life, light up the lantern of works and the law's righteousness. Let the sun and the brilliant light of the Gospel shine in the day; let the lantern of the law light the night. Therefore, when your conscience is terrified by the awareness of sin, say to yourself: I am down here on the earth. Let the donkey labor here, serve here, and carry the burden laid on him — that is, let the body and its members be subject to the law. But when you rise up toward heaven, leave the donkey and his burden on the earth. The conscience has nothing to do with law, works, or earthly righteousness. So the donkey stays in the valley, while the conscience climbs with Isaac up the mountain, knowing nothing of the law and its works, but looking only to the forgiveness of sins and the pure righteousness freely given to us in Christ.

In civil life, on the other hand, obedience to the law must be firmly required. In that sphere, let nothing be spoken of the Gospel, conscience, grace, forgiveness of sins, heavenly righteousness, or Christ Himself — only Moses with the law and its works. If we hold this distinction clearly, neither side will cross its boundary. The law will stay outside of heaven — that is, outside the heart and conscience. And in turn, the freedom of the Gospel will stay outside of earth — that is, it will not govern the body and its conduct in the civil realm. Whenever the law and sin creep into heaven — into the conscience — they must be immediately driven out. When the conscience is frightened by God's wrath and judgment, it must know nothing of law and sin, only Christ. And on the other side, when grace and freedom creep into the earth — into bodily life — say to them: 'You do not belong here in the dust of physical existence. You belong to heaven.'

Peter's hypocrisy collapsed this distinction between law and Gospel, persuading the believing Jews that justification required both the Gospel and the law together. Paul could not tolerate this, and so he rebuked Peter — not to shame him publicly, but to reestablish the clear distinction: the Gospel justifies in heaven, the law governs on earth. The pope has not only mixed law and Gospel together but has turned the Gospel itself into a set of laws — and ceremonial laws at that. He has also fused civil and church matters into one confused mass — a diabolical and hellish confusion.

This point about the distinction between law and Gospel is essential to know — it contains the heart of all Christian teaching. Let everyone who loves and fears God study diligently to tell these two apart — not only in theory, but in practice, in the heart and conscience. The verbal distinction is easy enough to make. But in times of temptation you will find the Gospel is like a stranger and rare visitor to your conscience, while the law is a constant, familiar resident — because reason knows the law by nature. So when your conscience is overwhelmed by sin, which the law exposes and intensifies, say to yourself: 'There is a time to die and a time to live. There is a time to hear the law and a time to set it aside. There is a time to hear the Gospel and a time when the Gospel is not in view.' Let the law depart now and let the Gospel come — because this is not the time for the law, but for the Gospel. But you have done no good — in fact you have sinned gravely. True — but I have the forgiveness of all my sins through Christ. Yet once the inner conflict of conscience is past and external duties call, this is no time to listen to the Gospel alone — then you must follow your calling and do the work it requires.

Verse 14. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all: 'If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?'

That is: You are a Jew, and therefore are bound to live like a Jew — to abstain from foods the law forbids. Yet you live like a Gentile: you act contrary to the law and violate it. Like a Gentile who is free from the law, you eat common and unclean foods — and in that you do rightly. But now, frightened by the arrival of brothers from the Jewish tradition, you abstain from the foods the law prohibits and keep the law again. By doing so, you pressure the Gentile believers to keep the law as well — you force on them an obligation to observe it. For when you abstain from ordinary foods, you give the Gentiles occasion to reason this way: 'Peter abstains from the foods the Gentiles eat — foods he himself was eating before. Therefore we should avoid them too and live according to Jewish custom. Otherwise we cannot be justified or saved.' Paul, then, is not rebuking ignorance in Peter — he knew perfectly well he was free to eat with the Gentiles. He is rebuking the hypocrisy that was effectively compelling the Gentiles to adopt Jewish ways.

Living like a Jew is not evil in itself — it is a matter of indifference whether you eat pork or other meats. But to act as a Jew in such a way that you abstain from certain foods out of a matter of conscience — that is to deny Christ and overthrow the Gospel. Paul therefore, seeing where Peter's behavior was heading, confronted him and said: 'You know that keeping the law is not necessary for righteousness — we are justified only through faith in Christ. You know this — and so you have not been keeping the law. You have been transgressing it by eating everything. But now your example is compelling the Gentiles to abandon Christ and return to the law. You are giving them reason to think: faith alone is not sufficient for righteousness — the law and works are also required. This is what Peter is teaching by his example. Therefore, observing the law must be combined with faith in Christ if we are to be saved.' Peter's example was therefore harmful not only to doctrinal purity but to faith itself and to Christian righteousness. The Gentiles took from him the conclusion that keeping the law was necessary for righteousness — and if that error is accepted, Christ is of no benefit at all.

From all of this, it is clear what the conflict between Paul and Peter was really about. Paul acted with no pretense — he dealt honestly and directly. Peter was acting hypocritically — and Paul exposed it. The dispute was about maintaining pure doctrine and the truth of the Gospel, and in this cause Paul cared nothing for who might be offended. In a matter like this, all people and nations, all kings and princes, all judges and magistrates must give way. Since dealing with the law is so dangerous, and since Peter's fall was as sudden and steep as a plunge from the heights of heaven down to hell, every Christian must diligently learn to distinguish law from Gospel. Let the law rule over the body and its actions — but not over the conscience. For the conscience — that queen and bride — must not be bound by the law, but must be kept pure for her one husband, Christ alone. As Paul says: 'I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin' (2 Corinthians 11:2). Let the conscience have her bridal chamber not in the low valley, but on the high mountain, where Christ alone lies, rules, and reigns — He who does not terrify sinners or crush them, but comforts them, forgives their sins, and saves them. Therefore, let the troubled conscience hold to nothing, know nothing, set nothing before God's judgment but the word of Christ — the word of grace, of forgiveness of sins, of salvation and eternal life. Putting this into practice, however, is hard. Human reason and nature cannot cling steadfastly to Christ. They are often swept away by thoughts of law and sin, always seeking freedom in the flesh while remaining a prisoner in the conscience.

Verse 15. We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles.

That is: we were born into the righteousness of the law, into Moses, into circumcision. We bring the law with us from birth. We have the righteousness of the law by nature — as Paul said of himself in chapter one: 'being zealous for the traditions of the fathers.' Compared to the Gentiles, we are not sinners. We are not lawless or without works, as the Gentiles are. We are born Jews, born righteous, raised in righteousness. Our righteousness begins at birth, for the Jewish religion is native to us. God commanded Abraham to circumcise every male child on the eighth day, and Moses later confirmed this law. It is a great privilege, therefore, to be a Jew by birth. Yet even with this advantage — being righteous by nature, born into the law and its works, not sinners like the Gentiles — we are still not righteous before God.

This makes clear that Paul is not speaking merely about ceremonies or the ceremonial law, as some claim — he is speaking of a far weightier matter: the birth status of Jews. He denies that Jews are righteous before God even though they are born holy, are circumcised, keep the law, hold the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the patriarchs, the true worship, God, Christ, and the promises, and live in and boast of all these things. As they said: 'We are Abraham's descendants' (John 8:33), and 'We have one Father: God.' And Paul says to them in Romans: 'You bear the name Jew and rest upon the law' (Romans 2:17). So even though Peter and the other apostles were children of God, righteous according to the law, its works and righteousness, circumcision, the adoption, the covenants, the promises, and the apostleship — none of these things bring about Christian righteousness. None of them is faith in Christ, which alone (as the text continues) justifies, not the law. This is not to say the law is evil or damnable. Circumcision and the law are not condemned because they fail to justify. Paul removes the function of justification from them simply because the false apostles were claiming that by these things, without faith, a person is justified and saved by the mere doing of the act. Paul could not accept this. Where faith is absent, everything becomes deadly — the law, circumcision, adoption, the temple, the worship of God, the promises, indeed God and Christ Himself profit nothing without faith. Paul therefore speaks generally against everything that stands in opposition to faith — not only against ceremonies.

Verse 16. Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus.

The phrase 'works of the law' is broad and includes much. We take it to mean everything that stands in contrast to grace. Whatever is not grace is law — whether judicial, ceremonial, or moral. Even if you could perfectly fulfill the command 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart' (Deuteronomy 6:5) — which no one ever has or could — you would still not be justified before God by it. For a man is not justified by the works of the law. We will say more about this later.

The 'works of the law,' then, according to Paul, means the works of the whole law — ceremonial and moral alike. If the works of the moral law do not justify, then circumcision — a work of the ceremonial law — justifies even less. So when Paul says, as he often does, that a man is not justified by the law or by the works of the law — which amount to the same thing — he is speaking of the whole law, and setting the righteousness of faith against the righteousness of the entire law. The righteousness of the law does not make a person righteous before God. But the righteousness of faith God imputes freely, through grace, for Christ's sake. The law is without doubt holy, righteous, and good — and the works of the law are likewise holy, righteous, and good — yet they do not justify a person before God.

Works of the law can be performed both before and after justification. Many upright men even among the pagans — Xenophon, Aristides, Fabius, Cicero, Pomponius Atticus, and others — performed works of the law before justification and accomplished remarkable things. Cicero died courageously in a good and just cause. Pomponius was a man of steadfast character who loved truth — he never told a lie himself and could not tolerate it in others. Steadfastness and truth are noble virtues and excellent works of the law — yet they were not justified by them. After justification, Peter, Paul, and all other Christians have done and continue to do the works of the law — yet they are not justified by them either. Paul himself says: 'I am aware of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted' (1 Corinthians 4:4). It is clear, then, that Paul is speaking not of some part of the law, but of the whole law and all its works.