Acts 21:20

It is quite clear, I think, that James gave this advice in order to show the falsity of the views supposed to be Paul's, which certain Jews who had come to believe in Christ, but who were still "zealous for the law," had heard about him, namely, that through the teaching of Christ the commandments, written by the direction of God and transmitted by Moses to the fathers, were to be thought sacrilegious and worthy of rejection. These reports were not circulated about Paul by those who understood the spirit in which the Jewish converts felt bound to those observances, namely, because of their being prescribed by a divine authority and for the sake of the prophetic holiness of those ceremonies but not for the attaining of salvation, which has now been revealed in Christ and is conferred by the sacrament of baptism. Those who spread this rumor about Paul were the ones who wished to make these observances as binding as if without them there could be no salvation in the gospel for believers. For they had experienced him as a most vigorous preacher of grace and as one who taught the exact opposite of their view, that one is not justified by these but by the grace of Jesus Christ and that all the ordinances of the law were foreshadowings meant to announce him. That was why they tried to stir up hatred and persecution against him, making him out to be an enemy of the law and of the divine commandments, and there was no more fitting way for him to repel the injustice of this false charge than by performing personally the ceremonies that he was supposed to condemn as sacrilegious. In this way [Paul] would prove two things: that the Jews were not to be prevented from observing these obligations as if they were wrong and that the Gentiles were not to be forced to observe them as if they were necessary.

I say, therefore, that circumcision and other ordinances of this sort were divinely revealed to the former people through the Testament which we call Old, as types of future things, which were to be fulfilled by Christ. When this fulfillment had come, those obligations remained for the instruction of Christians, to be read simply for the understanding of the previous prophecy, but not to be performed through necessity, as if people had still to await the coming revelation of the faith that was foreshadowed by these things. However, although they were not to be imposed on the Gentiles, they were not thereby to be removed from the customary life of the Jews, as if they were worthy of scorn and condemnation. Gradually, therefore, and by degrees, through the fervent preaching of the grace of Christ, by which alone believers were to know that they were justified and saved—not by those shadows of things, formerly future but now present and at hand—through the conversion of those Jews whom the presence of the Lord in the flesh and the times of the apostles found living thus, all that activity of the shadows was to be ended. This was to be enough praise for it, that it was not to be avoided and despised as idolatry was, but was to have no further development and was not to be thought necessary, as if salvation either depended on it or could not be had without it. This is what some heretics thought, who wanted to be both Jews and Christians and could be neither Jews nor Christians. You [i.e., Jerome] were so kind as to warn me very earnestly against that opinion, although I have never held it.

Now, if the apostle had even absolutely permitted marriage when one's partner has been lost subsequently to (conversion to) the faith, he would have done (it), just as (he did) the other (actions) which he did adversely to the (strict) letter of his own rule, to suit the circumstances of the times: circumcising Timotheus on account of "supposititious false brethren; "and leading certain "shaven men" into the temple on account of the observant watchfulness of the Jews-he who chastises the Galatians when they desire to live in (observance of) the law.

See accordingly: "when they heard it," it says, "they glorified God," - not praised nor admired Paul: for in such wise had he narrated, as referring all to Him - "and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believed." Observe with what modest deference they too speak: "they said to him:" not James as Bishop discourses authoritatively, but they take Paul as partner with them in their view; "Thou seest, brother:" as though immediately and at the outset apologizing for themselves, and saying, "We did not wish this. Seest thou the necessity of the thing? 'How many thousands,' say they, 'of Jews there are which' have come together." And they say not, "how many thousands we have made catechumens," but, "there are. And these," say they, "are all zealous for the law." Two reasons - the number of them, and their views. For neither had they been few, would it have been right to despise them: nor, if they were many and did not all cling to the law, would there have been need to make much account of them.

"You see, brother, how many thousands." They advise, they do not impose this upon those around James; therefore they persuade. For it was condescension of economy, not of legislation. Therefore this was not a cutting off of the preaching, but an economy. For those in …