His renown had been growing for a long time among all the Jews, though he had not been seen face to face . . . but on account of the law he had acquired a bad reputation among the Jews, as though his preaching was out of harmony with the preaching of the other apostles. Many were having doubts on account of this, which were sufficient to make the Gentiles anxious, in case they had been trained in something other than that which was preached by the apostles who had been with the Lord. For on this precise occasion the Galatians were undermined by Jews who were saying that Paul taught something other than Peter taught. This is the reason for his going up to Jerusalem, at the bidding of the Lord’s revelation, disclosing to them the implications of his preaching, with Barnabas and Titus as witnesses of his preaching, one from the Jews and one from the Gentiles, so that if any took offense at him it might be assuaged by their testimony.

These men he had as witnesses, through whom he proved that his gospel was given to him through revelation, seeing that he said Barnabas went up with me, and he also took Titus, whose faith and gospel were approved by everyone.

Both [Barnabas and Titus] spent an extended time in Antioch, making a large body of converts and binding them to live according to the law of grace. But some supporters of the law who arrived from Judea tried to persuade the Gentiles to adopt the way of life according to the law^[1] But those great heralds of the truth, Paul and Barnabas, repudiated the teaching they promoted. They wished to persuade the congregation of the faithful that this was also the view of the great apostles. So they immediately went straightway to Judea, to apprise the apostles of what was going on.

The purpose for his saying through revelation was that even before the solution to the question [why he spoke of running in vain] no one should accuse him of any ignorance, knowing that what occurred was not of human origin but of a certain divine dispensation which had in view many things, both present and to come. What then is the reason for this journey? When he first went up from Antioch to Jerusalem it was not for his own sake, for he himself knew that he ought to follow strictly the teachings of Christ. Rather he wanted to win over those who opposed him. He himself had no need at this point to ascertain whether he ran in vain, but [he went up] to satisfy his detractors.

That is, those through whom the commandments and gospel of God were being handed down, such as apostles and the rest. To these men, he says, I privately explained my gospel, which I preach among the Gentiles, so that if there was anything that they were handing on otherwise, they could correct it or could emend anything that I myself was handing on otherwise. This therefore was the cause of my going up to Jerusalem, and for this reason it was revealed to me that I should go up, so that it might be more readily known that my gospel to the Gentiles and their gospel to the Jews were the same. Now the purpose of his expounding it privately was that shame might be taken from among them, and they might communicate to one another the mysteries that they knew. Since they all shared one opinion and one gospel, what was it that he labored to persuade them of? That they should not add anything new or join anything to it. That is the cause of the present sin of the Galatians in following Judaism and the practice of circumcision, the sabbath and other things.

What he says [about meeting privately] could be understood as meaning that the grace of evangelical liberty and the obsolescence of the law that was now abolished was discussed in confidence with the apostles on account of the many Jewish believers who were not yet able to hear that Christ was the fulfillment and end of the law. And these men, when Paul was absent, had boasted in Jerusalem that he was running and had run in vain when he supposed that the old law was not to be followed.

It is indeed true that one who is eager to set right a common doctrine undertakes this not privately but in public. But it was not so with Paul, for he did not wish to learn or correct anything but rather to overthrow the pretext of those who were intent on deception. For since everyone in Jerusalem was scandalized if someone transgressed the law . . . he did not attempt to come forward openly and reveal his own preaching.

Who could be so presumptuous and blind as to dare to trust his own judgment and discretion, when the vessel of election bears witness that he needs the partnership of his coapostles?

So that I should not run or have run in vain. That is [he says], lest I should fail to preach a full gospel. For if I have preached anything less, I have run in vain or I now run in vain.

So that I should not run or have run in vain we should understand to be addressed as if in a question, not to those with whom he compared his gospel in private but to those to whom he was writing, so that it might appear that he was not running and had not run in vain from the fact that by the testimony of the others he was certified not to dissent from the truth of the gospel.

The implication is Why should you be circumcised, when Titus was not compelled to undergo circumcision by the apostles? Titus, who had an important role, was accepted without circumcision.

It was because of the intrigues of false brethren that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. It was not possible to require circumcision of him. Those who had crept in to spy on their liberty had a vehement expectation and desire for the circumcision of Titus. They wanted, with Paul’s testimony and consent, to preach circumcision as necessary to salvation.

No small thing is at stake here. The question is, if the apostles at this point consented to circumcision, why did Paul apply the term false brothers to those who also imposed circumcision in accordance with the sentiment of the apostles? First of all, it is one thing actively to impose an act and another passively to consent to it once done. For the one who zealously imposes it makes it necessary and paramount. But the one who, without imposing it, does not prevent the one who wants it, does not consent to it as a necessity but rather through passive consent seeks to accomplish other purposes.^[1] . . . Second, the apostles did this only in Judea, but the false apostles had gone about everywhere. They had all the Galatians in their grip.

By secretly he means that they had entered by deception, passing themselves off as brothers when they were enemies. By slipped in he means that they came in a humble manner, feigning friendship. . . . To spy out is to enter in such a way as to invent one thing and discover another, whereby they may challenge our liberty. . . . Liberty in Jesus Christ means not being subject to the law. That they might bring us into bondage means . . . to subject us to the law of circumcision.

See how noble and emphatic his words are. . . . For [the false brethren] did not do this in order to teach anything profitable but that they might subject and enslave them. For this reason, [he says,] we yielded to the apostles but not to [the false brethren].

Not even for a short while, [he says,] would we endure their arrogant opinions, but we preferred the truth of the gospel before all things. . . . He says this about those who obeyed the law by custom. For since it was likely that the Galatians would say that even the first of the apostles also kept the law, and the divine apostle knew that they were forced to do this in deference to believers from among the Jews who were still weak, he was caught in the middle. It would have been highly perverse to condemn them, yet he did not wish to reveal their aim, in case he might do harm to the new dispensation.^[1] So he steers a middle course. And while he does indeed profess to be angry at what occurred, he is nonetheless not disposed to say anything more about them. So he commits everything to the verdict of God.

[He means] those who have sprung from those same pseudoapostles but nonetheless are something, that is, have undergone change and now follow the gospel. Even if they have sprung from these phonies they are now whole, for that is what it is truly to be something. It is nothing to me, he says, what kind of people they were before, at some past time. And he adds the reason: God shows no partiality but looks at one’s mental attitude and faith. Whether one be Greek or Jew, whether one was anything, is not what God accepts, but what one is and whether one has received faith and the gospel.

Here he not only offers no defense of the apostles but is hard on the saints so that he may assist the weaker among them. What he is saying is something like this: If these men enjoin circumcision, they will give an account to God. For God will not accept their persons because they are great and in authority. Yet he has not said this openly, but sparingly. . . . And he does not say what they are but what they were, indicating that they also later gave up the preaching of circumcision, once the gospel was manifest everywhere. . . . It is as though he were saying, I do not condemn or disparage those saints; for they knew what they were doing, and they will give an account to God.

If people were reputed to be anything, that was a human reputation, for they themselves are not anything to boast of. For even if they are good ministers of God, it is Christ in them, not they through themselves, who are something. For if they were something through themselves they would always be something. What they were at one time means that it is nothing to him that they themselves were sinners. God accepts no one because of the office one holds. He calls all to salvation, not imputing their transgressions to them. . . . No one should suppose that Paul said [this] to disparage his predecessors, for they too, as spiritual people, wished to stand against the carnal people who thought themselves to be something on their own rather than out of Christ in them. They were extremely glad when persuaded that they themselves, Paul’s predecessors, like Paul had been justified by the Lord from a state of sin. But carnal people, if anything is said about their previous life, grow angry and take it as disparagement. So they assume that the apostles are of their own mind. Now Peter, James and John were more honored among the apostles because the Lord showed himself on the Mount to these same three as a sign of his kingdom.^[1]

This intricate passage, full of intervening matter, might be briefly construed as follows: Those who were conspicuous added nothing to me, but on the contrary gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas. An alternative sense is hidden to avoid boasting of himself: Those who were conspicuous added nothing to me, but on the contrary I have added to them, and they have become more steadfast in the grace of the gospel.

The apostles were not therefore found to disagree in anything. Otherwise, when Paul claimed to have received the gospel perfectly, they might have denied this and wished to add to his teaching, as though he were incomplete. On the contrary, instead of reproving Paul’s imperfection, they approved his perfection. . . . His saying on the contrary might also be understood in such a way as to yield the following meaning: Upon me those who had a reputation imposed nothing further. On the contrary, they consented with me and Barnabas, joining the right hand of fellowship, that we, for our part, should go among the Gentiles, who are contrary to the circumcision, while they for their part should go to those of the circumcision.

He names Peter alone because he has received the primacy in the founding of the church;^[1] and he himself had likewise been chosen to have the primacy in the founding of Gentile churches, but with the proviso that Peter should preach to the Gentiles, should cause arise, and Paul to the Jews.

Paul allows that Peter, following Jewish custom, was without blame in his temporary observation of what was amiss so as not to lose those entrusted to him. But it was Paul’s own duty for the sake of the gospel truth to do what was entrusted to him among the uncircumcised, so that the Gentiles would not depart from their faith and belief in Christ through fear of the burdens and rigor of the law.

They knew this from the facts; for [he says] just as divine grace worked with Peter for the preaching to the Jews, so it collaborated with me for the salvation of the Gentiles.

That is, those who supported the church were like pillars supporting roofs and other things. These men, then, he says, being of such quality and so great, gave me their right hands, that is, joined in friendship, peace and steadfastness and declared that they had only one gospel. In view of this accord, Galatians, you are sinning and follow neither my gospel nor that of Peter, James and John, who are the pillars of the church, when you add things that are not approved by any of them.

Three times above we read that the apostles were reputed.^[1] . . . And so I was wondering what this word meant. Now he has delivered me from all doubt when he describes them as those who appeared to be pillars. Therefore it means the apostles, and above all Peter, James and John, two of whom were deemed fit to go up the Mount with Jesus. One of these introduces the Savior in the Apocalypse saying He who has overcome I shall make him a pillar in the temple of my God.^[2] This teaches us that all believers who have overcome the enemy can become pillars of the church.

Since we must also ascertain how it is possible to become a pillar, so that we too may become worthy of this calling, we ought to hear this again from the dictum of the apostle Paul, who says that the pillar is the foundation of truth.^[1]

Not to me alone, [he says], did they give the right hand of fellowship, but also to Barnabas who was my companion. He made the addition so that it should not appear that he alone had received the trust.

Just as he allots to Peter companions who were the outstanding men among the apostles, so he joins to himself Barnabas, who was associated with him by God’s appointment. Yet he claims that the grace of his primacy was entrusted to him alone by God, just as the primacy among the apostles was entrusted solely to Peter.

When Paul and Barnabas were having these discussions with John and Peter and James, the gospel was accepted and established in the way that Paul describes. The only thing that they did not hear willingly in this dispute was that works were not part of salvation. Their sole injunction, however, was that they should be mindful of the poor. Thus they agree on this point also, that the hope of salvation does not reside in the activity of doing works for the poor, but they simply enjoin—what?—that we be mindful of the poor. Not that we should spend all our efforts on it but that we should share with those who have not what we are able to have. We are instructed simply that we should be mindful of the poor, not that we should place our care and thought upon our own capacity to hold on to our salvation by this means. Thus he is almost corrected and admonished in this matter, but this is not all Paul says. That we should be mindful, he says, not that we should do this but that we should keep them in mind, which is less than putting our work into this and fulfilling this alone. He adds that he took thought even for this matter outside the gospel that he preached, which consisted in being mindful of the poor and bestowing whatever he could upon them. In truth, indeed, no one is poor if, simply keeping faith and trusting in God, he awaits the riches of his salvation.

Many believers of Jewish origin in Palestine had been robbed of all their goods and were being persecuted on all sides. . . . Those who had been converted from Greek backgrounds did not suffer such antagonism from those who had remained Greek as much as the believers of Jewish origin had suffered from their own people. Therefore he takes great pains that they should receive all assistance, as also when writing to the Romans and Corinthians.^[1]

The holy poor, care of whom was specially committed to Paul and Barnabas by the apostles, are those believers in Judea who brought the price of their possessions to the feet of the apostles^[1] to be given to the needy, or because they were incurring hatred and punishment from their kin, family and parents as deserters of the law and believers in a crucified man. How much labor the holy apostle expended in ministering to these his letters bear witness, as he wrote to Corinth, the Thessalonians and all the churches of the Gentiles that they should prepare this offering to be taken to Jerusalem through himself or others. For this reason he now says confidently which very thing I have been careful to do.

It is not that Peter and Cephas signify different things, but what we would call in Latin and Greek petra (stone) the Hebrews and Syrians both, because of the affinity of their languages, call cephas. . . . Nor is it surprising that Luke was silent on this matter, when there are many other things that Paul claims to have suffered which Luke omits with the freedom of a historian.

Many of those who read this passage of the letter superficially believe that Paul rebuked the hypocrisy of Peter. But it is not so—it is not so, far from it! For we shall find that there was here a deep though hidden understanding between Paul and Peter for the good of those who listen.^[1] . . . How could one who risked his life before such a multitude have ever played the hypocrite? . . . Paul does not now say this to condemn Peter, but in the same spirit as when he said those who are reputed to be something, he now says this too. . . . The apostles, as I said before, consented to circumcision in Jerusalem, because it was not possible to tear them away from the law all at once. But when they came to Antioch they did not henceforth observe anything of the kind but lived indifferently with believers of Gentile origin. Peter also did this. But when people came from Judea and saw him preaching there in this way, he gave up this practice, fearing to disturb them, and changed his ways. He had a twofold purpose, to avoid scandalizing the Jews and to give Paul a plausible reason to confront him. For if Peter himself, having included circumcision in his preaching in Jerusalem, had changed in Antioch, those of Jewish origin would have surmised that he did this from fear of Paul, and his disciples would have condemned his excessive complacence. . . . And so Paul rebukes and Peter voluntarily gives way. It is like the master who when upbraided keeps silent, so that his disciples might more easily change their ways.

Perhaps indeed he would at this point have kept silent about the sin that he says he reproved in Peter, for it was enough that Peter had been corrected by popular reproof and Paul’s open accusation. But it is profitable and extremely requisite for this letter. He has two reasons for relating the incident. First, his own gospel was not reproved, and he himself, when he reproved Peter, heard no reproof from Peter. Next, this too, as I said, was extremely pertinent: it is because the Galatians thought that they needed to add to the principles of the gospel to obtain life . . . that this letter is being written to them. Hence it is very good to tell the story, because it is this very fault that was reproved by Paul in Peter and by the people also.^[1] In this way it follows that the Galatians too are sinning.

While active in Judea the holy apostles were forced to live according to the law on account of the weakness of the believers from Jewish backgrounds, for they held fast to the regulations of the law. But when they shifted to the cities of the Gentiles they had no need of such an accommodation but lived according to the freedom of the gospel. This is what the godly Peter did when he arrived in Antioch. He ate freely with the Gentiles. But when some of the Jews came he separated from the Gentiles, so that he might not give those who came from the Jews any pretext for doing harm. This is the meaning of fearing those of the circumcision. For he who did not fear the whole host of the Jews did not succumb to fear of men, but he did not wish to furnish them with a pretext for scandal.

But in what way was Peter sinning? He had not adopted this ruse to bring in the Jews, meeting them on their own terms (which Paul himself had done and glories in having done,^[1] meeting the Jews on their own terms but for their profit). Rather, the sin of Peter lay in the fact that he withdrew, through fear of those who were of the circumcision.

He was not afraid of his own endangerment; for one who had no fear at the beginning would have all the less at that time. Rather, he feared their apostasy. Just as Paul himself says to the Galatians, I am afraid I have labored over you in vain.^[1]

Paul never fell into any pretense, for he everywhere observed a principle which seemed fitting both to Gentile and to Jewish churches, that he should nowhere take away a custom whose observation did not prevent the receiving of God’s kingdom. . . . Peter, however, when he came to Antioch, was rebuked by Paul not because he observed the Jewish custom in which he was born and reared, although he did not observe it among the Gentiles, but because he wanted to impose it on the Gentiles. This happened after seeing certain persons come from James—that is, from Judea, since James was the head of the church in Jerusalem. It was therefore in fear of those who still thought that salvation resided in these observances that Peter separated himself from the Gentiles and pretended to consent in imposing those burdens of servitude on the Gentiles.

What then should we understand by their insincerity? Even Peter and Barnabas and the other Jews had not truly gone to the length of living their lives according to Jewish practice. They even pretended to do so as an ad hoc measure, because of the fears of those around them. And therefore, he says, even Barnabas acquiesced in their insincerity.

Those who wish to defend Peter from error and from the depravity of life into which he had fallen^[1] overturn the very way of religion in which lies the salvation of all. This shatters and diminishes the authority of the Scriptures. They do not see that in this defense they are implicitly charging the apostle Paul not only with the crime of lying but even with perjury in the very teaching of piety, that is, in the letter in which Paul proclaims the gospel. It is for this reason he says, before narrating these things [in 1:20], What I write to you, understand before God that I do not lie.

That he rebuked him before all was necessary, in order that everyone might be bettered by his rebuke. For it was not expedient to correct in secret an error that was doing public harm. It should be added that in his steadfastness and charity Peter, to whom the Lord had said three times, Do you love me? Feed my sheep,^[1] was very ready to bear this rebuke from a junior shepherd for the salvation of the flock. For the one who was being rebuked was himself more remarkable and more difficult to imitate than the one rebuking. For it is easier to see what one should correct in others than to see what ought to be corrected in oneself. It is easier to correct others by admonishing and rebuking than to be corrected readily even by yourself, let alone by another, still less if you add another and before all.

The apostle Peter would not have been rebuked if he had separated himself from the Gentiles for fear of giving scandal to the Jews. But what was rebuked in the apostle Peter was that, when he previously had been living in Gentile fashion with believers, he started to teach that the Gentiles ought to follow Jewish practice because he was overcome by fear upon the arrival of Jews from James. Therefore it was said to him, If you, being a Jew, live in Gentile fashion, why do you force the Gentiles to follow Jewish practice? For he had introduced doubt about discipleship in the gospel, which is a crime, since he was destroying what he had built. Thus it is that the apostle Paul calls this insincerity.

He says this so that Hebrews no less than Gentiles may be compelled to accept the grace of faith, not the impositions of the law, which no one could fulfill.

What is Paul’s design? To preempt suspicion in his reproach. For if Paul had said, You do wrong in observing the law, those from Judea would have reproached him, as one who insulted the teacher. But now, rebuking Peter on account of his own disciples—those of Gentile origin I mean—Paul makes his argument palatable. And not in this way only, but by declining to reproach everyone and making the whole reproof fall on the apostle [Peter] alone.

So that one might fulfill the works of the law, his infirmity being assisted not by his own merit but by the grace of God,^[1] they were not to demand from the Gentiles a fleshly observation of the law but were to understand that through the same grace of God they were able to fulfill the spiritual works of the law.

A Jew by nature is one of Abraham’s stock, who has been circumcised by his parents on the eighth day.^[1] One who is a Jew not by nature is one of Gentile origin who has been subsequently made so. That I may embrace the whole argument in a brief discourse, the sense of the text is as follows: We are Jews by nature, doing those things that were precepts of the law. We are not sinners who come from the Gentiles—either in the sense of those who are sinners generically because they worship idols or those whom Jews now regard as unclean. Yet we know that we cannot be saved by the works of the law but rather by faith in Christ. We have believed in Christ that what the law had not given us our faith would guarantee to us. Seceding from the law in which we could not be saved, we have gone over to faith, in which not the circumcision of the flesh but the devotion of a pure heart is demanded. But what if we now belatedly declare by seceding from the Gentiles that whoever is uncircumcised is unclean? In that case faith in Christ—by which we previously thought we were saved—would rather be-come a minister of sin than of righteousness. For faith would under that assumption take away the circumcision without which one is unclean.

The Jews had given the name of sinners to the Gentiles through a certain pride, already inveterate. It is as though they themselves were just, seeing the mote in another’s eye and not the beam in their own.^[1]

Some say that if Paul is right in asserting that no one is justified by the works of the law but from faith in Christ, the patriarchs and prophets and saints who lived before Christ were imperfect. We should tell such people that those who are said not to have obtained righteousness are those who believe that they can be justified by works alone. The saints who lived long ago, however, were justified from faith in Christ, seeing^[1] that Abraham saw in advance Christ’s day.

In this place we must consider how many are the precepts of the law which no one can fulfill. And it must also be said that some works of the law are done even by those who do not know it. But those who perform it are not justified, because this happens without faith in Christ.

The necessary commandments of the law were taught even by nature. That is, You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor, honor your father and mother, and the rest of this kind. But the commandments about the sabbath and circumcision and lepers and menstruation and sacrifice were peculiar to the [Jewish] law, since nature taught nothing about these matters. These are what he now calls works of the law. The transgression of these is sin, yet the mere keeping of them is not the way of maintaining perfect righteousness. For these were symbols of other things. Nonetheless they were appropriate to the Jews in their due time.

Suppose that we, after receiving faith in Christ, do in Christ what the Jews do. Suppose we have received faith in Christ and wish to be justified in it. Suppose we have understood that a man is not justified by the works of the law. Would we not then, by observing the works of the law, be made sinners? Then it would be the case that Christ, whom we received in order not to sin, would himself become a minister of sin. Now, when after receiving him we return to sin—that is, to the old covenant—is Christ made a minister of sin? Let this possibility, Paul says, be far from us. One ought not to think in this way and act so as to make Christ a minister of sin, when he suffered in order that sin might perish.

Paul says in effect: We have forsaken the law and come over to Christ, expecting to enjoy righteousness through faith in him. But suppose that this itself is counted as a transgression. The fault would then pertain to Christ the Lord himself. For it was he who gave us the New Testament. Far be it from us to tolerate such blas-phemy!

Note the shrewdness of Paul. For they wanted to show that the one who does not keep the law is a transgressor; but he turns the argument upside down, showing that the one who observes the law is a transgressor not against faith but against the law itself. What he says is as follows: The law has ceased, as we ourselves agree, in so far as we have left it and taken refuge in the salvation of faith. If we now strive to establish it, we become transgressors by this very fact, as we strive to observe the precepts dissolved by God.

Now it is possible to see Paul as speaking of two laws—one of Moses, the other of Christ—so that he is saying he is dead to that law, which was given to the Jews, through the law that was given through Christ . . . that is, I am dead through the law of Christ to the law formerly given to the Jews. But Paul may also be seen as doing what both he and the Savior himself often do, so that he speaks of two laws because it is itself, as it were, twofold: one thing when it is understood carnally^[1] another when understood spiritually. . . . Thus the sense will be For I through the law, which is now spiritually understood, am dead to the law—that law obviously which is understood carnally. And since this is so, I am dead to the carnal law because I understand the law spiritually, so that I live to God. For what it means for someone to live to God is that he understands those precepts contained in the law not carnally but spiritually, that is, what it is to be truly circumcised and what the true sabbath is.

This means, Not I, who once ate from the earth [like Adam]. Not I who was once grass, as all flesh is grass,^[1] but Christ who lives in me. That is, there lives that living bread which comes from heaven, there lives wisdom, there lives righteousness, there lives the resurrection.

The human spirit, cleaving to the Spirit of God, struggles against the flesh^[1] that is, against itself and on its own behalf. Those impulses natural to humanity, whether in the flesh or in the soul, which remain because of our acquired debility, are restrained by discipline for the sake of obtaining salvation. So the human being who does not live according to human nature can already say, I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me. For where I am not I, I am more happily I. Thus when any reprobate impulse arises according to my old human nature, to which I who serve the law of God with my mind do not consent, I may now say this: now I am not the one doing that.^[2]

Since Christ was in Paul, who will doubt that he was also likewise in Peter and John and in every individual among the saints, and not only in those who are on earth but also in those in heaven? For it is absurd to say that Christ was in Peter and Paul but not in the archangel Michael or Gabriel.

One who is fixed to the cross of Christ is one who, in imitation of his footsteps, is not ensnared by any worldly desire. Living to God, he appears dead to the world.

There is no doubt that Christ lives in the one who is delivered from death by faith. When Christ forgives the sins of one who is worthy of death, he himself lives in that person, since by his protection the person is snatched from death.

What are you doing, Paul, making common things your own, and claiming for yourself what was done on behalf of the whole world? For he says not who loved us but who loved me. . . . But Paul speaks in this highly personal voice, aware of the culpability of human nature and the ineffable compassion of Christ, aware of what he redeems us from and what grace he confers upon us. Burning with desire toward him, he utters this. In just this way did the prophets often make the universal God their own, crying, My God, my God, I invoke you.^[1] He shows that each of us ought to render as much thanks to Christ as though Christ had come for him alone. For God would not have withheld this gift even from one person. He has the same love for every individual as for the whole world.

Judas and the priests, with the princes, handed him over, and Pilate, to whom he was finally handed over, handed him over again. But the Father handed him over that he might save the abandoned world. Jesus gave himself, that he might do the Father’s will. But Judas and the priests and elders of the people and Pilate unwittingly handed over their lives to death.

Since a future life is promised to Christians, the one who now lives with God’s assistance lives in the faith of the promised life. For this one contemplates his image, having the pledge of the future life, which was procured for us by Christ’s love in accordance with God’s will. The one who is grateful to Christ is therefore the one who endures in faith toward him. He knows that he has no benefit from anyone but Christ and treats Christ with dishonor if he compares any other to him.

The law could not give remission of sins, nor triumph over the second death nor free from captivity those who were bound because of sin. The reason for Christ’s death was to provide those things that the law could not. He did not die in vain, for his death is the justification of sinners.

How could an act so great, so awesome and surpassing human reason be to no purpose? How could a mystery so ineffable, for which the prophets yearned in travail, the patriarchs foresaw and the angels were astonished to behold, acknowledged by all as the crown of God’s loving care—how could one say that this was vain and futile? Considering therefore how exceedingly absurd it would be for them to say a deed of such significance and magnitude had been superfluous . . . Paul adopts an indignant tone toward them saying, O foolish Galatians.