Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
I have been vaguely familiar for some time with the fact that Jerome and Augustine had clashed on their interpretation of Galatians 2:11-14. A recent thread related to Jerome’s commentary on Galatians prompted me to look into the matter a little deeper, and it is truly a fascinating historical episode.
In his Commentary on Galatians, Jerome posited an interpretation which claimed that Paul’s rebuke of Peter was not genuine. Rather, Paul’s criticism was only intended as a polite fiction, of sorts, in the interest of winning over the Judaizers, by showing them that the ceremonial Mosaic Law was entirely abrogated—and that Peter was actually complicit in this scheme.
[To be continued...]
In his Commentary on Galatians, Jerome posited an interpretation which claimed that Paul’s rebuke of Peter was not genuine. Rather, Paul’s criticism was only intended as a polite fiction, of sorts, in the interest of winning over the Judaizers, by showing them that the ceremonial Mosaic Law was entirely abrogated—and that Peter was actually complicit in this scheme.
When the Apostle Paul saw the grace of Christ in peril, the fighter in him employed a new battle tactic to counter Peter’s plan of saving the Jews with a plan of his own and to oppose him to his face, without making known his plan but acting in public as if he were contradicting Peter so that the Gentiles might be protected by his actions.
Now, if anyone thinks that Paul really opposed Peter and fearlessly insulted his predecessor in defense of evangelical truth, he will not be moved by the fact that Paul acted as a Jew among fellow Jews in order to win them for Christ. What is more, Paul would have been guilty of the same kind of dissimulation on other occasions, such as when he shaved his head in Cenchrea, when he made an offering in Jerusalem after doing this when he circumcised Timothy, and went barefoot—all of which are clearly aspects of Jewish religious ritual. The preacher to the Gentiles did some things that were contrary to evangelical freedom in order to avoid scandalizing the Jews, and he thought it necessary to say, “Do not cause Jews or the church of God to stumble, just as I please everybody in every way, seeking not my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.” [1 Cor. 10:32-33]
On what authority, or with what affront, then, did Paul dare to rebuke Peter, the apostle of the circumcised, for the very thing that he, as the apostle of the uncircumcised, had done? As I already noted, he opposed Peter and the rest so that, as far as public appearances were concerned, their hypocrisy in observing the Law, which was harmful to Gentile believers, might be corrected by his own hypocrisy in reproaching them. This was done so that both Jews and Gentiles might be saved, for the advocates of circumcision would follow Peter, and their opponents would preach the liberty espoused by Paul. When he says that Peter was in the wrong, he tempers his words to give us the impression that Peter’s conduct did not so much offend him as it did the brothers with whom he had been eating but from whom he later withdrew.
[…] For another example of how temporary deception can be expedient, let us consider Jehu, the king of Israel. He would not have been able to kill the priests of Baal unless he had feigned a desire to worship this false god, and he said, “Assemble all the priests of Baal for me, for Ahab served Baal in a few respects, I shall serve him in many.” [2 Kings 10:18-19] Another example is when David altered his appearance, pretending to be somebody else in Abimelech’s presence, and Abimelech dismissed him.
That even very righteous men resort to temporary dissimulation for the sake of their own or others’ salvation is not surprising when we recall that our Lord himself, who was free of iniquity and whose flesh was not sinful, pretended to take on sinful flesh so that by condemning sin in his flesh he might make us the righteousness of God. Paul certainly had read in the Gospel where the Lord teaches, “If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him privately; if he listens to you, you have won your brother over.” [Matt. 18:15] So how, after Christ ordered that this be done with regard to the least of the brothers, could Paul venture to rebuke publicly the greatest of the apostles so resolutely and firmly, unless Peter had consented [beforehand] to this? Paul accordingly would not have insulted the man whose praises he had sung in many instances…[e.g. Gal. 1:18-19; 2:8-9]
[St. Jerome; Commentary on Galatians, Andrew Cain, trans., (Washington DC, The Catholic University of America Press, 2010), 104ff.]
It is fairly clear that Jerome’s motive was to uphold Paul’s apostolic authority, while also upholding Peter’s actions as being good, in an attempt to clear the “Rock” of any charge of even short-lived treachery. However, in reading Jerome’ commentary Augustine was horrified by the idea, deeming it an affront to the veracity of Scripture itself, to the extent that he confronted Jerome on the matter.
I have been reading also some writings, ascribed to you, on the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. In reading your exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians, that passage came to my hand in which the Apostle Peter is called back from a course of dangerous dissimulation. To find there the defense of falsehood undertaken, whether by you, a man of such weight, or by any author (if it is the writing of another), causes me, I must confess, great sorrow, until at least those things which decide my opinion in the matter are refuted, if indeed they admit of refutation. For it seems to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say, that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false.
It is one question whether it may be at any time the duty of a good man to deceive; but it is another question whether it can have been the duty of a writer of Holy Scripture to deceive: nay, it is not another question—it is no question at all. For if you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement as made in the way of duty, there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to any one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away, as a statement in which, intentionally, and under a sense of duty, the author declared what was not true.
[…] We must therefore be careful to secure, in order to our knowledge of the divine Scriptures, the guidance only of such a man as is imbued with a high reverence for the sacred books, and a profound persuasion of their truth, preventing him from flattering himself in any part of them with the hypothesis of a statement being made not because it was true, but because it was expedient, and making him rather pass by what he does not understand, than set up his own feelings above that truth. For, truly, when he pronounces anything to be untrue, he demands that he be believed in preference, and endeavors to shake our confidence in the authority of the divine Scriptures.
For my part, I would devote all the strength which the Lord grants me, to show that every one of those texts which are wont to be quoted in defense of the expediency of falsehood ought to be otherwise understood, in order that everywhere the sure truth of these passages themselves may be consistently maintained. For as statements adduced in evidence must not be false, neither ought they to favor falsehood. This, however, I leave to your own judgment. For if you apply more thorough attention to the passage, perhaps you will see it much more readily than I have done. To this more careful study that piety will move you, by which you discern that the authority of the divine Scriptures becomes unsettled (so that everyone may believe what he wishes, and reject what he does not wish) if this be once admitted, that the men by whom these things have been delivered unto us, could in their writings state some things which were not true, from considerations of duty; unless, perchance, you propose to furnish us with certain rules by which we may know when a falsehood might or might not become a duty. If this can be done, I beg you to set forth these rules with reasonings which may be neither equivocal nor precarious; and I beseech you by our Lord, in whom Truth was incarnate, not to consider me burdensome or presumptuous in making this request. For a mistake of mine which is in the interest of truth cannot deserve great blame, if indeed it deserves blame at all, when it is possible for you to use truth in the interest of falsehood without doing wrong.
[Letters, 28:3-5; NPNF1 1:251ff.]
[To be continued...]
Last edited: