1. first, the apostle refutes their error

1. first, he refutes their error on the authority of the gospel message

1. first, by showing their fickleness in lightly dismissing the gospel teaching

2. second, by commending the authority or dignity of the gospel teaching, as he intimates that in view of the precious value of that which they so lightly regard, their error is seen to be so much the greater

1. first, he commends the authority of the gospel teaching itself

2. second, he commends the authority of the gospel teaching on the part both of the other apostles and himself, at then after fourteen years

1. first, he commends the authority of his teaching because of its approval by the other apostles

1. first, he shows that the other apostles approved his teaching

1. first, he treats of the discussion he had with the apostles

1. first, he gives the circumstances of that discussion

2. second, what they discussed, at and communicated to them the Gospel

2. second, he narrates the consequences of that discussion, at but neither was Titus

1. first, that he did not depart from his opinion

1. first, he shows with respect to one definite point that he did not depart from his teaching

2. second, that on no other point did he depart from it, at but because of false brethren

2. second, that nothing was added to his teaching, at but of them who seemed

1. first, he describes the status of the apostles who were unable to add anything, and he describes their status from three standpoints

1. first, from the authority they held in the Church, for it was great, at but of them

2. second, their status on the side of what they were before their conversion, i.e., the status they had in the synagogue, at what they were at one time

3. third, he describes their condition by reason of their election by God, at God does not accept the person

2. second, he proves his proposition, at for to me

3. third, that his teaching was approved, at but contrariwise, when they had seen

1. first, he gives the reason for this approbation, and he cites the two causes of the approbation (which moved the apostles to approve the opinion of the Apostle)

1. first, the office of teaching enjoined by Christ on the Apostle

1. first, he mentions the office to which he was appointed which moved them to approve him

1. first, he says therefore: I say that those who seemed to be something, added nothing to me; but rather, contrary to the opinion of the adversaries who came up to Jerusalem to oppose me in this matter, it was I that the apostles approved

2. second, and this when they had seen that to me was committed the Gospel, i.e., the office of the preaching

3. third, of the uncircumcision, i.e., the injunction to preach to the uncircumcised, namely, the gentiles: for all the nations are uncircumcised in the flesh, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart (Jer 9:26)

1. first, just as to Peter was entrusted the authority to preach to the Jews alone, so to Paul to the gentiles

2. second, but later, Peter, too, preached to the gentiles and Paul to the Jews

2. second, the manifestation of this office, at for he who wrought

1. first, but because someone might say: what evidence have you that the commission to preach the Gospel to the gentiles was given you, he interjects that it was through certain works of Christ

2. second, for just as it is evident that Peter received the Gospel from Christ because of the marvels Christ wrought through him, so it is evident that I received it because of the miracles Christ worked and does work in me.

3. third, therefore he says, he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship, i.e., made Peter an apostle in Judea, namely Christ, also made me an apostle among the gentiles; and this is the reason which moves them

2. second, and the effect of this appointment, at and when they had known.

1. first, but because one’s appointment and authority to preach are not enough, unless he carries it out through good understanding and discrete eloquence and commends it by a good life, he adds how he used his authority or the effect of his office, saying, and, when they had known the grace of God

2. second, this is a dependent clause, i.e., when they saw that my preaching enjoyed favor and was fruitful, then James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship

2. second, he mentions the approbation, and in this passage is mentioned the approval or fellowship entered into by them and Paul, at James and Cephas

1. first, the persons are mentioned with whom the fellowship was formed, namely, James and Cephas, i.e., Peter, and John

1. first, James is mentioned first, as being the bishop of Jerusalem where these events took place

2. second, he John mentioned was John the Evangelist who did not leave Judea until the time of Vespasian

2. second, who seem to be pillars; this is a metaphor standing for the support of the entire Church

for just as a whole edifice is supported by the pillars, so the whole Church of the Jews was supported and governed by these men

of those pillars it is said: I have established the pillars thereof (Ps 74:4), i.e., the apostles of the Church; his legs as pillars of marble, that are set upon bases of gold (Song 5:15)

3. third, he adds a condition that was placed on the approbation, at only that we should be mindful

2. second, that he fearlessly rebuked the other apostles in matters where they opposed his teaching, at but when Cephas was come

2. second, from the example both of himself and of the other apostles, at we by nature are Jews: and not of the gentiles

2. second, by reason of the Old Testament; by reason and authority he proves the same thing, namely that the works of the law must not be observed

1. first, from the insufficiency of the law

1. first, he utters the rebuke

2. second, he begins his proof, showing the insufficiency of the law and the power of the faith, at this only would I learn

1. first, he proves the insufficiency of the law

1. first, he proves the defiency and insufficiency of the law by appealing to what they experienced

1. first, he proves his propositions by appealing to something they experienced

1. first, he discusses the gift they have received

2. second, the defect into which they have fallen, which is twofold, at are you so foolish

1. first, the gifts they had received from Christ

2. second, and the evils they endured for him, at have you suffered such great things in vain?

2. second, by using something he himself experienced, at he there who gives to you

2. second, by authority and reasons, at as it is written

1. first, he proves the power of the faith to justify, which he does by using a syllogism

1. first, he proves the minor premise

1. first, he proposes a certain authority from which he takes the minor

2. second, he concludes the minor, at know, therefore

2. second, the major premise, at and the Scripture, foreseeing

3. third, he draws the conclusion, at therefore, that they who are of faith

2. second, in this he proves the insufficiency of the law, at for as many as are of the works of the law

1. first, through the authority of the law

1. first, he shows the curse brought on by the law

1. first, he sets forth his intended propositions

2. second, he proves the proposition, at for it is written

2. second, the law’s inability to remove that curse, at but that in the law

3. third, the sufficiency of Christ by whom that curse has been removed, at Christ has redeemed us

1. first, he shows how through Christ we are set free of that curse

2. second, how in addition we receive help from Christ, at that the blessing of Abraham

2. second, through a human custom, that is, he proves it with human reasons, and he does four things, at brethren, I speak after the manner of a man

1. first, he mentions a human custom

2. second, he touches on a divine promise, at to Abraham were the promises made

3. third, he draws his conclusion, at now this I say

4. fourth, he shows that the conclusion follows from the premises, at for if the inheritance is of the law

2. second, he raises two questions and solves them, at why then was the law?

1. first, with respect to the first question, he does three things

1. first, he raises the question

2. second, he solves it, at it was set because of transgressions

1. first, he sets down the purpose of the law

2. second, the fruit of the law, at until the seed should come

3. third, the ministers of the law, at being ordained by angels

4. fourth, the Lord of the law, at in the hand of a mediator

3. third, he elucidates something he presupposed in the course of his solution, at now a mediator

2. second, the second question, at was the law then against the promises of God

1. first, he raises the question

2. second, he answers the question, at for if there had been a law given

1. first, he shows that the law is not contrary to the promises of God

2. second, that the law is in keeping with the promises, at but the Scripture has concluded

1. first, he shows that law serves God’s promises

1. first, and it should be noted that the law serves the promises of God in two way

1. first, because it exposes sin

2. second, because it reveals human infirmity, in the sense that man cannot avoid sin without grace which has not been given by the law

2. second, and just as these two things, namely, the knowledge of a disease and the infirmity of the patient are a great inducement to seek medical treatment, so the knowledge of sin and of one’s impotency lead us to seek Christ

1. first, thus, therefore, is the law the servant of grace, inasmuch as it affords a knowledge of sin and actual experience of one’s impotency

2. second, hence he says

1. first, the Scripture, i.e., the written law,

2. second, has concluded, i.e., held the Jews enclosed,

3. third, under sin, i.e., showed them the sins they committed

1. first, for I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: you shall not covet (Rom 7:7)

2. second, again, has concluded, because with the coming of the law they took occasion to sin: for God has concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all (Rom 11:32)

3. third, and all this in order that they would search for grace, hence he says:

1. first, that the promise, i.e., the promised grace,

2. second, might be given not only to the Jews,

3. third, but to all those who believe, because that grace was able to free from sin;

4. fourth, might be given not only to the Jews, but to all those who believe, because that grace was able to free from sin;

2. second, how this service was made manifest in the case of the Jews, at but before the faith came

3. third, how the gentiles even without the law obtained the promises of God, at for you are all the children of God

2. second, from the dignity of those who have been converted to Christ; he shows here the dignity of grace

1. first, with a human example

1. first, he shows the pre-eminence of grace over the primitive state of the old law by a simile taken from human law

1. first, he lays down the simile, and he touches upon four things in the simile

1. first, eminence, because he speaks not of a servant but of an heir

1. first, this applies to the Jews

2. second, to Christ

2. second, smallness

1. first, because the Jews were children according to the state of the law

1. first, because the Jews were children according to the state of the law

2. second, who shall raise up Jacob, for he is a little one? (Amos 7:5)

2. second, Christ too was a child through the incarnation; for a child is born to us and a son is given to us (Isa 9:6)

3. third, but note that the Apostle sometimes compares the state of the law

1. first, to a child, as he does here

1. first, the reason for this is that the state of the old law, because of the imperfection of knowledge, is as a child

2. second, compared to the state of grace and truth which came through Christ

2. second, and sometimes to the state of the present life: when I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child (1 Cor 13:11)

1. first, in like manner, the state of the present life, in which we see through a mirror in a dark manner, is as a child

2. second, compared to the state of the future life, in which there is perfect knowledge of God, because he is seen as he is

3. third, subjection

1. first, some Jews were servants really, but others were living like servants but actually lords

2. second, Christ too was like a servant

4. fourth, correspondence of time

1. first, there was a fixed time for the Jews to be under the law

2. second, there was a fixed time for Christ not to do miracles

2. second, he adapts it to his proposition, at so we also, when we were children

1. first, he applies it regarding the Jews

1. first, under the law which promised temporal things and threatened temporal punishments

2. second, or

3. third, or

2. second, regarding Christ

1. first, he makes the application to Christ

1. first, correspondence of time, at but when the fullness of the time was come

1. first, it should be noted

1. first, that above, in the simile he proposed, there were four items pointed out in order, as has been said

2. second, but now, in applying them to Christ, he begins with the last, namely, the fixing of a time; the reason for this is that the time in which Christ was humiliated and in which the faithful were exalted turns out to be the same

3. third, hence he says: but, when the fullness of the time was come, i.e., after the time fixed by God the Father for sending his Son had been accomplished; and this is how it is taken in Luke: her days were accomplished, that she should be delivered (Luke 2:6)

2. second, the meaning of fullness