Timor Petri JudaeisPeter’s fear of the Jews2:11 Cum autem venisset Cephas Antiochiam, in faciem ei restiti, quia reprehensibilis erat. [n. 76]2:11 But when Cephas had come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. [n. 76]2:12 Prius enim quam venirent quidam a Jacobo, cum gentibus edebat: cum autem venissent, subtrahebat, et segregabat se, timens eos qui ex circumcisione erant. [n. 78]2:12 For before some came from James, he ate with the gentiles: but when they had come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. [n. 78]2:13 Et simulationi ejus consenserunt ceteri Judaei, ita ut et Barnabas duceretur ab eis in illam simulationem. [n. 81]2:13 And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented: so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. [n. 81]2:14 Sed cum vidissem quod non recte ambularent ad veritatem Evangelii, dixi Cephae coram omnibus: si tu, cum Judaeus sis, gentiliter vivis, et non judaice: quomodo gentes cogis judaizare? [n. 82]2:14 But when I saw that they did not walk uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: if you, being a Jew, live after the manner of the gentiles and not as the Jews do, how do you compel the gentiles to live as the Jews do? [n. 82]76. Supra Apostolus ostendit quod ipse nil utilitatis accepit ex collatione habita cum dictis apostolis, hic vero ostendit quod ipse aliis profuit. Et76. The Apostle showed above that he received nothing useful from the discussion held with the apostles; now he shows that he benefitted them:primo ostendit quomodo profuit Petro in corrigendo eum;first, he shows how he helped Peter by correcting him;secundo manifestat ea quae dixit, ibi prius enim quam venirent, et cetera.second, he tells what he said, at for before some came.77. Dicit ergo: vere ipsi mihi nihil contulerunt, sed ego potius contuli eis, et specialiter Petro; quia cum venisset Petrus Antiochiam, ubi erat ecclesia gentium, ego restiti ei in faciem, id est, manifeste. Eccli. c. IV, 27: ne reverearis proximum in casu suo, nec retineas verbum, et cetera. Vel in faciem, id est non in occulto, tamquam detrahens et timens, sed publice, et ut par ei. Lev. XIX, 17: non oderis fratrem tuum in corde tuo, sed publice argue eum, et cetera. Et hoc ideo, quia reprehensibilis erat.77. He says, therefore: indeed, they advantaged me nothing; rather I conferred something upon them, and especially upon Peter, because when Cephas had come to Antioch, where there was a church of the gentiles, I withstood him to the face, i.e., openly: do not reverence your neighbor in his fall and do not refrain to speak in the time of salvation (Sir 4:27). Or: to the face, i.e., not in secret as though detracting and fearing him, but publicly and as his equal: you shall not hate your brother in your heart: but reprove him openly (Lev 19:17). This he did, because he was to be blamed.Sed contra: quia hoc fuit post acceptam gratiam Spiritus Sancti; sed post gratiam Spiritus Sancti nullo modo peccaverunt apostoli.But it might be objected: this took place after they received the grace of the Holy Spirit; but after the grace of the Holy Spirit the apostles did not sin in any way.Respondeo. Dicendum quod post gratiam Spiritus Sancti nullo modo peccaverunt mortaliter apostoli, et hoc donum habuerunt per potentiam divinam, quae eos confirmaverat. Ps. LXXIV, 4: ego confirmavi columnas eius, et cetera. Peccaverunt tamen venialiter, et hoc fuit eis ex fragilitate humana. I Io. I, 8: si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, scilicet veniale, ipsi nos seducimus, et cetera.I answer that after the grace of the Holy Spirit the apostles did not sin mortally, and this gift they had through the divine power that had strengthened them: I have established the pillars thereof (Ps 74:4). Yet they sinned venially because of human frailty: if we say that we have no sin, i.e., venial, we deceive ourselves (1 John 1:8).Quod vero dicitur in Glossa: restiti ei tamquam par, dicendum est quod Apostolus fuit pro Petro in executione auctoritatis, non in auctoritate regiminis.Concerning what is said in a certain Gloss, namely, that I withstood him as an adversary, the answer is that the Apostle opposed Peter in the exercise of authority, not in his authority of ruling.Ex praedictis ergo habemus exemplum: praelati quidem humilitatis, ut non dedignentur a minoribus et subditis corrigi; subditi vero exemplum zeli et libertatis, ut non vereantur praelatos corrigere, praesertim si crimen est publicum et in periculum multitudinis vergat.Therefore from the foregoing we have an example: to prelates, indeed, an example of humility, that they not disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; to subjects, an example of zeal and freedom, that they fear not to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude.78. Consequenter cum dicit priusquam venirent, etc., manifestat ea quae dixit. Et78. Then when he says, for before some came, he manifests what he has said.primo hoc quod dixit eum reprehensibilem esse;First, that he said he was to be blamed;secundo vero hoc, quod dixit Petrum reprehendisse, ibi sed cum vidissem, et cetera.second, that he rebuked Peter, at but when I saw.Circa primum tria facit.As to the first he does three things.Primo ostendit quid Petrus sentiebat;First, he shows what Peter’s opinion was;secundo quid faciebat, ibi cum autem venisset, etc.;second, what he did, at but when Cephas had come;tertio quid inde sequebatur, ibi et simulationi eius, et cetera.third, what resulted from it, at and to his dissimulation.79. Dicit ergo circa primum, quod Petrus sentiebat legalia non esse servanda. Et hoc facto ostendebat, quia priusquam venirent quidam, Iudaei scilicet zelantes pro legalibus, a Iacobo, Ierosolymitanae ecclesiae episcopo, edebat, scilicet Petrus, cum gentibus, id est, indifferenter utebatur cibis gentilium; et hoc faciebat ex instinctu Spiritus Sancti, qui dixerat ei quod Deus sanctificavit, tu ne commune dixeris, ut habetur Act. X, 15, ut ipse ibidem sequenti cap. dixit Iudaeis, qui contra eum insurrexerunt, quia cum incircumcisis comedisset, quasi rationem reddens.79. He says therefore, as to the first point, that Peter felt that legalism ought not be observed. This he showed by the fact that before some came, namely, Jews zealous for the law, from James, bishop of the church at Jerusalem, he ate, namely, Peter did, with the gentiles, i.e., without compunction he ate the food of gentiles. He did this through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who had said to him: that which God has cleansed, do not call common (Acts 10:15), and as he himself in the following chapter said in answer to the Jews who rose up against him, because he had eaten with the uncircumcised.80. Quid autem faciebat, ostendit hic Paulus dicens, quod cum erat cum Iudaeis, subtrahebat se a consortio fidelium qui fuerant ex gentibus, adhaerens Iudaeis tantum, et congregans se cum eis.80. What Peter did Paul now shows, saying that when he was with the Jews, he withdrew from the company of the faithful who had been converted from the gentiles and adhered to the Jews alone and mingled among them.Et ideo dicit cum autem venisset, scilicet a Iudaea, subtrahebat se Petrus a gentibus conversis, et segregabat se ab eis. Et hoc ideo, quia erat timens eos, qui ex circumcisione erant, id est, Iudaeos, non quidem timore humano sive mundano, sed timore caritatis, ne scilicet scandalizarentur, sicut dicitur in Glossa. Et ideo factus est Iudaeis tamquam Iudaeus, simulans se cum infirmis idem sentire; sed tamen inordinate timebat, quia veritas numquam dimittenda est propter timorem scandali.Therefore he says, but when they had come, namely, from Judea, Peter withdrew from the converted gentiles and separated himself from them. This he did because he was fearing them who were of the circumcision, i.e., the Jews, not with a human or worldly fear but a fear inspired by charity, namely, lest they be scandalized, as is said in a Gloss. Hence he became to the Jews as a Jew, pretending that he felt the same as they did in their weakness. Yet he feared unreasonably, because the truth must never be set aside through fear of scandal.81. Quid autem ex hac simulatione sequebatur, subdit dicens, quod simulationi eius, scilicet Petri, consenserunt caeteri Iudaei, qui erant Antiochiae discernentes cibos, et segregantes se a gentibus, cum tamen ante simulationem huiusmodi hoc non fecissent.81. What resulted from this dissimulation he mentions when he says that to his dissimulation, i.e., Peter’s, the rest of the Jews consented who were at Antioch, discriminating between food and separating themselves from the gentiles, although prior to this act of dissimulation they would not have done this.Et non solum illi consenserunt Petro, sed ita fuit illa simulatio in cordibus fidelium, ut etiam Barnabas, qui mecum erat doctor gentium, et contrarium fecerat et docuerat, duceretur ab eis in illam simulationem, subtrahens se ab eis, scilicet gentibus. Et hoc ideo, quia, secundum quod dicitur Eccli. X, v. 2: qualis est rector civitatis, et cetera. Et ibidem: secundum iudicem populi, et cetera.And not only did they consent to Peter, but such was the effect of that dissimulation upon the hearts of the faithful that Barnabas also, who along with me was a teacher of the gentiles and had done and taught the contrary, was led by them into that dissimulation and withdrew from them, namely, from the gentiles. And this on account of what is said: what manner of man the ruler of a city is, such also are they that dwell therein, and, as the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers (Sir 10:2).82. Consequenter cum dicit sed cum vidissem, etc., manifestat ea quae dixerat de reprehensione sua, qua Petrum reprehendit.82. Then when he says, but, when I saw, he explains what he had said concerning the rebuke with which he rebuked Peter.Et circa hoc tria facit.As to this he does three things.Primo ponit causam reprehensionis;First, he gives the reason for the rebuke;secundo reprehendendi modum;second, the manner of rebuking;tertio reprehensionis verba.third, the words of the rebuke.83. Occasio autem reprehensionis est non levis, sed iusta et utilis, scilicet periculum Evangelicae veritatis. Et ideo dicit: sic Petrus reprehensibilis erat, sed ego solus, cum vidissem quod non recte ambularent illi qui sic faciebant ad veritatem Evangelii, quia per hoc peribat veritas, si cogerentur gentes servare legalia, ut infra patebit.83. The occasion of the rebuke was not slight, but just and useful, namely, the danger to the Gospel teaching. Hence he says: thus was Peter reprehensible, but I alone, when I saw that they, who were doing these things, did not walk uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel, because its truth was being undone, if the gentiles were compelled to observe the legal justifications, as will be plain below.Quod autem recte non ambularent, ideo est quia veritas, maxime ubi periculum imminet, debet publice praedicari, nec fieri contrarium propter scandalum aliquorum. Matth. X, 27: quod dico vobis in tenebris, dicite in lumine. Is. XXVI, 7: semita iusti recta est, rectus callis iusti ad ambulandum.That, they were not walking uprightly is so, because in cases where danger is imminent, the truth must be preached openly and the opposite never condoned through fear of scandalizing others: that which I tell you in the dark, speak in the light (Matt 10:27); the way of the just is right: the path of the just is right to walk in (Isa 26:7).84. Modus autem reprehendendi fuit conveniens, quia publicus et manifestus. Unde dicit dixi Cephae, id est, Petro, coram omnibus, quia simulatio illa in periculum omnium erat. Tim. V, 20: peccantem coram omnibus argue. Quod intelligendum est de peccatis manifestis, et non de occultis, in quibus debet servari ordo fraternae correctionis.84. The manner of the rebuke was fitting, i.e., public and plain. Hence he says, I said to Cephas, i.e., to Peter, before them all, because that dissimulation posed a danger to all: them that sin, reprove before all (1 Tim 5:20). This is to be understood of public sins and not of private ones, in which the procedures of fraternal charity ought to be observed.85. Cuiusmodi autem verba Apostolus dixerit Petro, cum eum reprehenderet, subdit dicens si tu Iudaeus cum sis, etc., quasi dicat: o Petre, si tu cum Iudaeus sis, natione et genere, gentiliter et non Iudaice vivis, id est, gentium et non Iudaeorum ritum servas, cum scias et sentias discretionem ciborum nihil conferre, quomodo cogis gentes, non quidem imperio, sed tuae conversationis exemplo, iudaizare?85. The words the Apostle spoke to Peter when he rebuked him, he adds, saying, if you, being a Jew, by nature and race, live after the manner of the gentiles and not as the Jews do, i.e., if you observe the customs of gentiles and not of Jews, since you know and feel that discriminating among foods is of no importance, how do you compel the gentiles, not indeed by command, but by example of your behavior, to live as the Jews do?Et dicit cogis, quia secundum quod Leo Papa dicit validiora sunt exempla quam verba. In hoc ergo Paulus reprehendit Petrum, quod cum ipse esset instructus a Deo, cum Iudaice prius viveret, ne postea amplius cibos discerneret Act. X, 15: quod Deus sanctificavit, tu ne commune dixeris, ipse contrarium simulabat.He says, compel, because as Pope Leo says, example has more force than words. Hence Paul rebukes Peter precisely because he had been instructed by God that although he had previously lived as the Jews do, he should no longer discriminate among foods: that which God has cleansed, do not call common (Acts 10:15). But now Peter was dissembling the opposite.86. Sciendum est autem quod occasione istorum verborum, non parva controversia est orta inter Hieronymum et Augustinum. Et secundum quod ex eorum verbis aperte colligitur, in quatuor discordare videntur.86. It should be noted that these words occasioned no small controversy between Jerome and Augustine and, as their writings clearly show, they are seen to disagree on four points.