V. 1. Paul, an apostle.
Since Greek is now spoken throughout the Christian world, and the notes of the great theologian (theologicissimi) Erasmus are in the hands of everyone and are used diligently (teruntur)], it is not necessary to indicate what apostolus means in Greek, unless for those for whom fruit Erasmus, but] I write. For "apostle" means the same as a "messenger", and as St. Jerome teaches, it is a word of the Hebrews, which among them is called sila 1), a man who was called a "messenger" by "send". So it is said in John, Cap. 9, 7. "Go to the pool of Siloah (that is interpreted, sent) and wash." Well aware of this mystery, Isaiah, Cap. 8, 6. says: "This people despises the waters of Siloah, 2) which goeth still." [But also Gen. 49, 10. it says: "until Shiloh come," which Jerome translated: Who shall be sent.
1) Probably means XXX, Piel of XXX
2) Hebrew:
From this passage, Paul in his letter to the Hebrews (Cap. 3, 1.) seems to call Christ an "apostle," that is, a Sichs. Lucas also remembers a certain Silas in the Acts of the Apostles (Cap. 15, 22.)].
2. but this is more to be noted, that "apostle" is a humble (verecundus) name, but at the same time a wonderfully high and venerable one, which expresses a special humility [but at the same time also a great sublimity]. The humility lies in the fact that he is sent, and the name proclaims an office, a servitude and obedience; then it serves so that no one, moved by the name, as if it denotes a high dignity, puts his trust in it and boasts of it, but by the name of the office is immediately pointed to the one who caused it and sent him. The glory and majesty of the messenger and servant can already be taken from the sender, so that he is received with reverence. This is not like our time, when the names apostleship, bishop's office and the like have begun to be words that do not denote an office, but a dignity and a benefice.
Christ calls these, John 10:8, by the opposite name, not sent ones, but "they that are come," and, interpreting himself, "thieves and murderers," since they are such people as bring not the word of him that sends them to feed with it, but seek their gain, wherewith they kill the sheep. He says, "All who came before me," that is, were not sent, "have been thieves and murderers." And, as the apostle says, Rom. 10:15, "How shall they preach, where they are not sent?"
Would to God that in our time the shepherds and leaders of the Christian people would consider these teachings! For who can preach if he is not an apostle? But who is an apostle but the one who brings the Word of God? But who can bring God's word but he who has heard God? But whoever brings his own teachings, or those of human laws, or decrees, or philosophers, can he be called an apostle? Rather, he is a man who comes from himself, and a thief, and a murderer, and a corrupter, and a strangler of souls. In Shiloh the blind man washes himself and receives his sight [John 9:7], and the waters of Shiloh are healing, not the strong and proud waters of the king of Assyria [Isa. 8:7]. "He (namely, God) sent his word and made them well." [Ps. 107, 20.]
4. if a man comes with his own word, it only becomes worse with the woman who has the issue of blood [Marc. 5, 25. f.That is, to put it plainly: as often as the word of God is preached, it makes consciences cheerful, wide and secure against God, because it is the good and lovely word of grace and forgiveness; as often as the word of a man is preached, it makes a conscience sad, narrow and trembling in itself, because it is a word of law, wrath and sin, indicating how much man has not done and how much he is guilty of.
5 Therefore, the church has never been more unhappy since its beginning than it is now, and it becomes more so every day, since it is tormented to the utmost with so many decrees, laws, statutes, with almost innumerable tortures, and indeed far more horribly inflicted than it was in the time of the martyrs.
tyrer by the executioners; and the popes and bishops (pontifices) do not care at all about this ruin of the souls, they do not care at all about the damage of Joseph [Amos 6, 6.], that they even heap pain on pain of the wounds (as if they were doing God a service).
Not of men, nor by men, but by JESUS Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.
Immediately from the beginning he secretly stabs at the false apostles of Galatia, covertly indicating that they were not sent by Jesus Christ, but either by themselves or by other apostles, whose teaching, however, they treated falsely.
(7) It is important to note that Christ did not want anyone to become an apostle through men, or through the will of men, but only through his calling. Therefore the apostles did not dare to choose Matthias, but obtained him through their prayer from heaven [Apost. 1, 23. ff.]; and Paul he also called from heaven [Apost. 9.] and made him an apostle, but especially through the voice of the Holy Spirit, Apost. 13, 2. which says, "Separate unto me Paulum and Barnabam for the work whereunto I have called them." So he boasts Rom. 1, 1. that he was "set apart to preach the gospel of God". By this 1) he is set apart with Barnabas to minister to the foreskin and the Gentiles, since the other apostles were sent to the circumcision (that is, the Jews).
8) And notice that Paul emphasizes so strongly that the name "apostle" is the name of an office and not of 2) dignity, that he uses it as a participle, as it were, saying: 3) "An apostle, not an apostle.
1) "By this," that is, by the Holy Spirit. Instead of quod in the Wittenberg, Jena, Dow. Ill, the Erlangen, and the Weimar, which seems to us to be incorrect, we have adopted quo with the Jena, Dow. I, and the Basel edition we have adopted quo.
2) "not" is inserted by us, because after what is said in ? 2, a non seems to be missing in the text.
3) Here we have resolved "<l." with "liosns. The resolution by vivus, which is found in the Jenaer, Dow. Ill, seems to us inadmissible here according to the context.
From men", which is as much as: not sent from men, if the speech is not formed according to the Hebrew way 1), as Ps. 45, 9 [Vulgate]: "Myrrh and aloes and cassia from your garments, from the ivory houses"; all of which is intended that you see with how great care Christ founded and fortified his church, so that no one should presume to be a teacher if he was not sent by him or through those who were sent by him. For just as the Word of God is the first and greatest benefit for the Church, so the Church cannot be corrupted by any greater harm than by the word of men and the statutes of this world. God alone is true, all men are liars [Ps. 116:11]. Finally, just as David once left behind all the means (impensas) with which Solomon could build the temple, so Christ left behind the gospel and other writings so that by these, not by human regulations (decretis), the church would be built. How miserably this has been neglected, even perverted, for more than three hundred years now, is sufficiently shown by the condition of all things in the church as it is before our eyes today.
9 From this passage, St. Jerome states that there are four kinds of apostles: the first, who were called neither by men nor through men, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, as the prophets and all the apostles were called in the past.
10. the second kind are those who are called by God but through men, as the disciples of the apostles, and those who follow the apostles in right order (legitimate) until the end of the world, as the bishops and the priests; and this kind cannot exist without the first, from which it has its origin.
11. the third kind are those who are appointed by men or through men, not by God, as happens when someone is appointed by the favor and efforts of men, as we now see that very many are appointed not by God's will (judicio), but by God's will.
1) namely, that the verbum is to be omitted and completed from the context.
The people are elected to the priesthood by the purchased favor of the people. Thus says Jerome. If, then, this evil was already rampant in Jerome's day, what is it to wonder if it triumphs and reigns today? For to this kind must belong all those who impose themselves on episcopal and priestly offices before they are called; these are naturally vassals and seek their own honor, and therefore we see sufficiently what benefit the church may have from them.
The fourth kind are those who are called neither by God, nor by men, nor by men, but by themselves, such as the false prophets and the false apostles of whom Paul speaks. Such false apostles are people who carry out their wickedness by pretending to be apostles of Christ; and the Lord says, John 10:8: "All who have come have been thieves and murderers." Jer. 23:21: "I sent not the prophets, neither did they run; I spake not unto them, neither did they prophesy." One must be on the highest guard against this evil. For this reason Christ did not want the devils to speak, even though they spoke the truth, lest under the pretext of truth they should lie to death, since he who speaks from himself can speak nothing but lies, as Christ says John 8:44. Therefore, 2) so that the apostles would not speak from themselves, he gave them the Holy Spirit, of whom he says [Matth. 10:20]: "It is not you who speak, but it is your Father's Spirit who speaks through you." And again [Luc. 21, 15.], "I will give you mouth and wisdom. "etc.
(13) I cannot pass over here (although it is something small) a complaint which is raised especially by many clergymen and priests, and which is foolish, but nevertheless a very strong temptation, namely, that they complain that they have their pound from the Lord, and therefore, compelled by the evangelical commandment, they are driven to teach. Therefore they believe, biased
2) In the Erlangen edition, as in the Jena, 1'oin. I, and the Basel edition, which contains the first redaction, uncls is placed before John 8.
1370 Lr. Ill, 118-1SI. Interpretations On the Epistle to the Galatians. W. IX, SS-LV. 1371
in a very foolish conscience, that if they do not teach, they will bury their Lord's gold and be guilty of damnation. This is what the devil does to make them waver in the profession to which they are called.
(14) O my dear brother, by one word Christ delivers you from this lamentation. See the Gospel, which thus says [Matt. 25:14], "He called his servants, and committed his goods unto them." It says, "He called them." But who called you? Wait for the one who calls you, and in the meantime be unconcerned (securus). Yea, if thou wert wiser than Solomon and Daniel, yet flee it more than hell, unless thou be called to spread the word. If God has need of you, he will call you. If he will not call you, you will not burst with wisdom. Finally, it is also not true wisdom (scientia), but it only seems so to you, and quite foolishly you imagine that you can create fruit. Through the word, only he creates fruit who is called to teach without wishing to do so. For one is our master, Jesus Christ [Matth. 23, 8]. He alone teaches and produces fruit through his appointed servants. But he who teaches without being called does not teach without harm to himself and his hearers, for Christ is not with him.
(15) By saying that he was sent "not by men", the apostle confronts the false apostles; by saying "not by men", he confronts the believers who were sent by the apostles. Therefore he uses this entrance (exordium) against three kinds of apostles, and Jerome testifies that some Jews who believed in Christ came to Galatia and taught there, that Peter and James and John also kept the law, as we will see below.
16 But it seems to have no purpose that he inserts the resurrection of Christ here. But the apostle likes to remember the resurrection of Christ, especially against those who trust in their own righteousness. So he remembers it also in the greeting of the letter to the Romans, and that with many words, because there he also argues violently against the righteousness of works. For those who are such people must inevitably accept the resurrection of their own righteousness.
deny, even ridicule, the resurrection of Christ. For Rom. 4:25 says, "Christ was given up for our sins and raised for our righteousness. Whoever, therefore, misses the fact that he wants to be justified in another way than through faith in Christ, rejects Christ and considers his suffering and resurrection to be useless. But he who believes in Christ who died also dies with Christ to sin, and he who believes in Him who rose again and lives also rises in the same faith and lives in Christ, and Christ lives in him [Gal. 2:20].
(17) Therefore the resurrection of Christ is our righteousness and our life, not only as an example, but also in virtue. Without the resurrection of Christ no one rises, no matter how many good works he does, but through his resurrection everyone rises, no matter how much evil he may have done, as is further explained in the letter to the Romans. Perhaps he may also always remember the resurrection in his greeting, because the Holy Spirit was given through the resurrection of Christ, and through this Spirit the gifts of the apostleship and others were distributed, 1 Cor. 12, 4-11, so that he [Paul] affirms (asserat) in such a way that he is an apostle by divine power, through the Spirit of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
V. 2. And all the brothers who are with me.
18. "All the brethren," he says, by which, as it seems, he also opposes the same false apostles who (as Jerome says) pretend that even Paul himself preached a different doctrine among others than among the Galatians; then it is also very useful to rebuke the people by stating that many have the same opinion and agree on one thing.
To the churches in Galatia.
In other epistles he writes only to the congregation of one city, but in this epistle he writes to the congregations of many cities and in the whole country. [And it is to be especially noted what St. Jerome here very beautifully remarks, namely, that also the "congregations" are called which the
Apostle 1) accuses them of being corrupted by error. From this it is to be learned (he says) that "church" can be said in two ways, both of one that has neither spot nor wrinkle (Eph. 5, 27.) and is the true body of Christ, and of one that is gathered in Christ's name without complete and perfect virtue, just as "the wise" is taken in two ways; it denotes both those who have complete and perfect virtue, and those who are only beginning and are in the process of increasing. Of the perfect it is said (Matt. 23:34), "I send unto you wise men"; of those who are only beginning (incipientibus) it is said (Prov. 9:8), "Punish the wise, and he shall love you." According to this opinion the other virtues must be understood, namely, that strong and prudent, chaste, just, temperate, are sometimes taken in perfect measure (plene), sometimes not in full measure (abusive). But this, of course, is to be understood of perfection. For in this life no man is so perfect, not even an apostle, that he cannot become still more perfect, as the wise man says (Sir. 18, 6. according to the Vulgate): "When a man has brought it to the highest, let him begin again." Thus, in comparison with others, some may well be called perfect, otherwise they too begin daily, and increase. Therefore St. Augustine does better that he assigns to the future life the church without spot or wrinkle, which no longer needs to say, "Forgive us our trespasses." But in this Jerome and Origen are quite right, that this passage from the apostle's letter serves very well for the argument against the heretics, who immediately attach to a congregation the name of a Babel, in which also evil ones are mixed, so that they alone, as if they were the right saints, can arrogate to themselves the name church. For if there are wicked in a church, one should certainly hasten to it, and after this example of Paul, call, exhort, plead, pray, terrify, and try everything to make them good people, but not in this god-robbing fear of God (as they call it) and in godlessness.
1) In the Erlanger "tunturn" held: Mines.
(The first two are called "churches"). And here notice that they are still called churches, even though they were in danger through error in the faith. But because they have the Word and baptism, they are called churches. But error in faith and word is a weakness in which the love of the church is exercised. For what kind of love would 2) that be, which has firmly decided neither to bear the wicked nor to stand by them? It is a raging that adorns itself with the name of love in a completely inconsistent way. What do they want to answer here? The apostle calls those "churches" that were not in a life of trouble (for only the hopeful are bothered by it, but it does not make them heretics), but stumbled in faith through error, and the whole being perished, from which they could be called churches.
V. 3. Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.
20 The apostle distinguishes this grace and peace from that which the world and a man can give to himself. For the grace of God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ takes away sins, being spiritual and hidden. Thus the peace of God makes the heart of man cheerful, calm and joyful before God in secret, and, as it is said elsewhere: Grace takes away guilt, peace takes away punishment, so that righteousness and peace kiss each other and come together [Ps. 85, 11].
(21) But when this happens, we soon lose grace and peace with men, the world, and the flesh, that is, with ourselves and on the part of the devil; and the wrath and anger of all is stirred up against us. For he who is in the grace of God does what pleases God. Therefore, he soon displeases the devil, the world and his own flesh, and while he is righteous before God, he is a sinner before his flesh and the world, and thus war arises. War out-
2) The editions of the first Redaction and the Erlanger have [st instead: [ssst.
3) Here, only the Jena edition, ^orn. Ill, has a uon, in all other editions it is missing. Heidnecker offers, "for such churches alone vex and make heretics."
wendig, peace inwardly. Inwardly, I say, not tangibly, and not with a sweetness that one experiences (experimentali suavitate), which, of course, is always there, but invisibly and by faith. For the peace of God is higher than all reason, that is, it is incomprehensible except by faith. So also conversely, whoever is in grace with the world and with himself, and is well pleased, immediately sins before God and incurs His wrath. For, says Jacobus, Cap. 4, 4, "whoever wants to be the friend of the world will be God's enemy." Therefore, war soon follows here as well, war within with God, peace without with the world, for [Isa. 57, 21.], "The wicked have not peace, saith my God." And yet Ps. 73, 3. fAccording to the Vulg.], it is said that He sees the peace of sinners, and Ps. 37, 7., 1) that the sinner's will of courage happily departs. Therefore this war is also hidden, and without being perceived [one has it, at least at times].
22. so these four pieces weigh against each other as in a scale: the grace of God and the indignation of the world, the peace of God and the restlessness of the world, the grace of the world and the indignation of God, the peace of the world and the restlessness before God. Thus Christ says John 16:33: "In the world you are afraid, but peace in me, be of good cheer; I have overcome the world", and Paul further on [Gal. 1:10]: "If I were still pleasing to men, I would not be Christ's servant", that is, I would not please Him.
(23) Therefore, in this greeting, he set forth a brief epitome of his doctrine, namely, that no one can be righteous except by the grace of God, certainly not by works, and that the restlessness of conscience cannot be satisfied except by the peace of God, that is, not by the works of any virtue or satisfaction.
(24) What is the reason that the apostle was not satisfied by saying, "of God the Father," but added, "and of our Lord Jesus Christ"? He says this to make a difference
1) Only the Jena edition, ?om. I, and the Weimar one have this citation correctly.
between the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory. The kingdom of grace is the kingdom of faith, in which Christ reigns as a man who is set over all things by God the Father, as it says in the 8th Psalm, v. 7; in this kingdom he has received gifts from God for men, as the 68th Psalm, v. 19, says, until the last judgment. For then, as the apostle teaches 1 Cor. 15, 24. he will hand over the kingdom to God and the Father, and will be God all in all [Eph. 1, 23.], when he will abolish all rule and all authority. This is the kingdom of glory in which GOtt will rule through Himself, no longer through mankind, awakening faith. Not as if they were different kingdoms, but in different ways, now in faith and in a dark word through the humanity of Christ, then in seeing and in the revelation of the divine nature. That is why the apostles in general call Christ a Lord, but the Father God, although both are the same God, but, as I said, because of the difference of the kingdom, which we are, who will be purified in faith, but blessed in sight.
V. 4. 5. Who gave Himself for our sin, that He might save us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.
(25) Every word in these words has a special weight and emphasis, since he now says that the law and the human will are nothing unless we believe that Christ was given for our sins. "Who gave himself," he says, "as a gift of grace for those who did not deserve it; he did not give it as a reward for those who were worthy of it, as it is said in Rom. 5:10, "While we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son." But he did not give gold, nor silver, nor man, nor all angels, but rather "himself"; there is nothing greater, and he has nothing greater. He has given, I say, a treasure so immeasurable for our sins, for something
so contemptible and exceedingly hateful. O what a mercy and love of God toward us, which He lays on our hearts with glorious and skillfully chosen words, and makes the mercy of God the Father exceedingly sweet to us.
Where are those who proudly boast about free will? Where is moral philosophy with its erudition? Where is the virtue that is supposed to come from spiritual (sacrarum) and secular laws?" If our sins are so great that they could not be taken away otherwise than by the surrender of so great a treasure, what do we do when we presume to make ourselves righteous by our free will, laws, and doctrines, but cover our sins with a false semblance of righteousness and virtue, and make of ourselves incurable hypocrites? What good is virtue if sins remain? Therefore, one must despair of all these things, and where faith in Christ is not taught, we should consider all virtue to be nothing but a cover of wickedness and a whitewash of all filthiness, as Christ [Matt. 23:27] describes the Pharisees. The virtues of the Gentiles are nothing but deception, unless you want to claim that Christ was given in vain for our sins, so that he wanted to cost so much in vain what we could do with our strength.
(27) But do not pass by this pronoun "our" with contempt. For it is of no use to you to believe that Christ passed away for the sins of other saints, but to doubt whether this was also done for your sins. For this is what the wicked and the devils also believe. On the other hand, you should rely with a steady confidence that he is also passed for your sins, and that you are one of those for whose sins he is passed. This faith justifies you and will cause Christ to dwell, live and reign in you. This faith is the testimony of the Holy Spirit, which He gives to our spirit that we are children of God [Rom. 8:16]. Therefore, if you pay attention, you will easily realize that such a position of the heart (affectum) comes from dei-
It is not with you by your own powers; therefore, it must be obtained by a spirit that is humble and despairs of itself.
28 These are the fables of the school theologians, who only deal with opinions (opinatorum), that man is uncertain whether he is in the state of blessedness or not. Beware that you are not even uncertain, but certain that you are a lost man, as much as you are, but that you must strive to be certain and firm in the faith of Christ, who was given for your sins. How can it be that you should not feel this faith, if you have it, since St. Augustine assures us that it is most certainly perceived by him who has it?
29 Now behold! Paul does not say: for your sins, but: "for ours", because he was sure; so also this: "that he saved us", he does not say: "you". By this word he casts down again, as with a thunderclap, the insistence on our free will, and on the works of the law and our own righteousness. It is not these, he says, that save us, but Christ, who is given up, if you only believe that you will be saved. But this salvation is a spiritual, not a bodily one. This happens when the soul dies to the world and is crucified to it, that is, to the evil lusts that are in the flesh of all men, of which he says Tit. 2:12, expounding more broadly, "that we should deny the ungodly nature and worldly lusts, and live chastely, righteously, and godly in this world." In this passage he has expressed both living in this world (that this world is not evil), and worldly lusts, because there are many evil lusts in this world. Therefore, since he is talking about the present world, he also adds the word "evil" here. Otherwise, if he wanted the evil world to mean only the course of time, he would teach that all who believe in Christ must soon be taken away from this life. He also explains in 1 Cor. 5:10 that this is not his opinion by saying: "Otherwise you would have to leave the world", as if he wanted to say: I did not want this, that you should flee from life,
1378 Lri. 6-a. Ill, IS8-I60. Interpretations of the Epistle to the Galatians. W. IX, gt-ss. 1379
but flee from the vices and evil lusts that are in the world, as it is also said in 2 Pet. 1:4,1 ), "Flee the corruptible lust of the world."
30. But the figurative nature (tropum) of this speech is beautifully and expansively interpreted by St. Jerome, who says: "Just as the forest mountains have an evil name because many robberies take place in them, just as we detest a sword with which human blood has been spilled and a cup in which poison has been prepared, not through the fault of the cup and the sword, but because those who have used them evil deserve hatred: so also this world, that is, a period, is not in itself good or evil, but through those who are in it it receives the name "good" or "evil." Likewise, St. Augustine understands by the evil world the evil people in the world.
But you have to take all this in such a way that you also recognize yourself as a part of this evil world, because [Ps. 116, 11]: "All men are liars", and there is no one who is righteous on earth [Rom. 3, 10. Ps. 14, 3.], so that you do not exalt yourself too much over others in hope. Therefore, since Christ saves you from the [evil] world2 ), he surely saves you from yourself as from your very worst enemy, as Paul says, Rom. 7, 18.: "In me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." Therefore, by your powers you will not overcome the wicked world and your vices; works are in vain unless Christ alone saves you. Therefore, beware lest fasting, watchfulness, study, temperance, sobriety and other virtues make you an incorrigible hypocrite.
32. "According to His will", that is, that we are saved, is not due to running in our strength, but to the merciful will of God, as it is said in the 51st Psalm, v. 20 [according to the Vulg.]: "Lord, do good to Zion according to Your good will", and Luc. 2, 14 [Vulg.]: "And on earth peace to men of a good will", not theirs,
1) Only in the Jena edition, Dom. Ill, and in the Weimar edition this citation is correct, in the other editions we find: 2 Petr. 2.
2) In the old editions: "ssoulo.nscz"; instead of: suseulo nsquaiv. The Erlangen offers: sasoulo, [nscznol.
but of God's will, as it is said in the Greek: εύδοχία. For just as it is said, "men of mercy" [and "vessels of mercy"], not because they are accepted by their merit, but by GOd's mercy, so also it is said, "men of a good will," not because they are blessed by their powers, but because they are blessed by the good pleasure of the divine will, so that GOd alone is entitled to glory from everlasting to everlasting, Amen; as here the apostle said. For if we were able to do something, it would certainly not be to God's glory, but to ours. But let this be far off, that he who is dust and nothing should have praise and honor. See, then, with how great force (impetu) Paul strikes (percutit) the Galatians and their teachers by the greeting alone, as with an entrance that is exceedingly fitting to what this epistle contains.
V. 6, 7. I marvel that ye are so soon turned away from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel, when there is none other; except there be some that confound you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
3 St. Jerome says that here there is a transposition of words (hyperbaton) and orders it in this way: I marvel that ye are so soon turned away from Christ JEsu, who hath called you into grace. In Greek, instead of "Christ's" it is "God's" [,and it can be translated in Latin by both the genitive and the ablative, as Erasmus indicates]. Likewise, "if there be no other," he understands to be as much as, "which is nothing or no gospel," whereas, if I might make a decision according to my sense, I should like to believe that the apostle's opinion was that there was no other gospel than that which he himself had preached; and if the connective "without that" were changed to "but," the sense would be clearer, so that the text would read [according to that of which I presume]:
3) This whole paragraph is missing in Heidnecker's translation. In order to keep the same count with Walch, we have combined the two following paragraphs into one.
I am surprised that you so soon let yourselves be turned away from God (who called you by grace) to another gospel, since there is no other gospel. But there are some who confuse you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. Now if you want to read this with the displacement of the words (cum hyperbato), you will not be able to read improperly like this: from him who called you by the grace of God, or from God.
34 It is a vehement statement of Pauli and yet very restrained. He says that he is surprised, while afterwards he shows that he is indignant and in great zeal; namely, by attacking them neatly, not with the impetuosity he had set before himself, certainly to set a good example for all those who rule in spiritual matters, especially for those who, even for trivial things, are ready to come out with thunderbolts at once. He does not say that they err, that they sin, but that through a greater evil they are completely turned away from the Gospel and alienated from God. For it is easier for a tree to remain, even though some of its branches are broken or it is injured by some other damage, than for it to be completely torn out of its ground and moved to another place, where it must inevitably wither and become unfruitful.
(35) It is so terrible to seek one's own righteousness and trust in the works of the law and free will. For this is to deny Christ, to cast away grace and truth, and (as he will teach below) to cast oneself up as an idol, concerning which Job, Cap. 31, 27. 28. [Vulg.], says: "If I had kissed my hand with my mouth, it would have been the greatest impiety and a denial against God, the Most High." For to kiss one's hand with one's own mouth is (as the holy fathers hold) to praise one's works, to trust in one's righteousness, and by this ungodliness it happens that we glory not in God but in ourselves, and deprive God of His glory. [This sin is attributed to the worshippers of Baal 1 Kings 19:18. (Vulg.), where it is said, "Who have not bowed their knees to Baal, and every mouth that has not worshipped him by
kissed his hand."] And Isa. 2, 8. "They have worshipped the work of their hands, which their fingers have made." On the other hand, in the 2nd Psalm, v. 12, it is said, "Kiss the Son," as it is in the Hebrew, instead of, "Take discipline" (Apprehendite disciplinam in the Vulg.), that is, believe in Christ with pure faith, and serve Him. For faith must be directed to the truth; but there is no other truth than God alone. Therefore, faith is the true and inward service of God.
From this we understand that the writings of St. Augustine indicate that there is a twofold evil, namely, one that goes against faith, the other against a good life. The evil in faith, even in the best life, makes heretics, arrogant people, who create mobs (schismaticos), whom the Scripture actually calls godless (Hebrew: XXXXX). Evil living makes sinners, but without touching the faith, at least of others, that is, they do not fight against faith, although they know that they do not have it, and yet should have it; therefore they are easily helped. But a bad faith (malum fidei) immediately suspects and persecutes the faith of others to establish its faith. About the word "to pervert" St. Jerome remarks: Because it comes from the Greek μεταστρέφω,
it means to put what is before the eyes behind the back, and to put what is behind the back before the eyes. Because it is the infinitive of the future time.
This, then, is the opinion of Paul: Those who dare to drag the gospel, which is the teaching of the Spirit and of grace, back to the letter, which has long since been left behind, although it is through the gospel that one increases more and more in the spirit of freedom. They want it, I say, but they will not be able to accomplish it.
38) And nowadays the gospel has truly been overturned in a large part of the church, since they teach people nothing but the decrees of the popes and the statutes of men who turn their backs on the truth, or the gospel is handled in such a way that it is not at all
from laws and moral teachings. The knowledge of faith and grace is contemptible even to theologians. St. Jerome also thinks that the word "you let yourselves be turned away" was well adapted to the Galatians, because Galatia in Hebrew means "turning away," 1) as if the apostle had taken the occasion for this entry from their proper name, as if he wanted to say: You are in truth Galatians, and at once ready to be turned away; the thing agrees with your name; namely, by allusion to the Hebrew. And such allusions from foreign languages are not inadmissible (injucundae), if they are introduced in the right place, as if it were said of Rome, Verily thou art a Roma in Hebrew (XXX), that is, a proud and haughty one. For what does the apostle do in the letter to the Romans but to nullify their pride and arrogance? by taking, as it were, from the matter itself the allusion to the name of Rome.
But if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have now said, so say we again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
39. the Greek word Ανάθεμα. is, like.
Jerome testifies, actually a word of the Jews, which is called nmn by them. Jos. 6, 17: "This city and all that is in it shall be banished (/Κά/Α/,ια)." Hebrew: l^y, and means as much as desolation, doom, death. Hence, because it is a word of cursing, it is taken for cursing, execration, and banishment (detestatione). Thus in the 42nd Psalm, v. 7: "Therefore I remember thee in the land of Jordan and Hermonim (XXXXXXX), in the little mountain," where a soul troubled because of its sins consoles itself by remembering Christ crucified for it and become a curse. For also "the dew of Hermon," of which it is written in the 133rd Psalm, v. 3, that it is
1) Compare the detailed explanation of the Epistle to the Galatians, Walch, alte Ausg-, vol. VIII, 1639, § 118.
Fall down on the mountain Zion, is badly a word of the crucified son of God. But the Latin would say: Anathematisatus (an accursed one), or if you want to express it exactly according to the word: 2) He is something accursed. The Hebrews often use abstract words. But whether the Greek word (which denotes that which is hung up and laid down in the temples) accurately reflects the meaning of the Hebrew word, let the grammarians see. 3) It is enough for us that the apostle, in his ardent zeal for the gospel, would rather that he himself and the angels from heaven, let alone the apostles, should be set apart, cursed, cut off, and maledicted, than that the truth of the gospel should be in danger. And he repeats the same again, 4) and doubles it, not because he believed that the angels from heaven, or he himself, or the apostles would preach something else, but because he had to suppress, as it were, by a fierce attack, and (as he writes to Titus) shut their mouths and cut them out completely and root and branch, those who, invoking the name and example of the apostles, taught the law, as if to say: You boast to me of the name and reputation of the apostles; but put on top of that the case that both I and the angels from heaven taught or could teach otherwise, I will that they also be accursed; how much less must you be frightened by the pretense that the apostles taught thus.
40 Would to God that even in our times there were such trumpets of Christ against the relentless and violent drivers of the papal decrees and decrees, which, under the name of the apostles Peter and Paul and of the Roman Church, press upon us that they dare to declare us heretics with a completely insolent face, if we do not believe everything that is said, written, sometimes even dreamed, as necessary for salvation.
2) "ssntius" is missing in the Erlanger and in the Weimarschen.
3) The whole section from the beginning of this paragraph to here is missing in Heidnecker's translation.
4) Erlanger and Jenaer, Dom, III: rsxstitio instead of rsxstito.
Only he is a heretic who sins against the word of faith. Those words of men concern so much only life (moralia) and are so much without faith that no greater service could be rendered to the faith by any act of charity than if they were all at once fundamentally and completely removed.
What do you think Paul would have done if he had seen that in our time so many useless, even harmful, human laws are raging over the whole world and destroying Christ from the foundation of the world, since he is so incensed against the laws which God gave through Moses and which, in the Galatians, harmed Christ in only one article?
(42) Therefore we must confidently say with Paul, Let all doctrine perish and be accursed from heaven, from earth, or whencesoever it is brought, which teaches to trust in other works, other righteousness, other merits, than those who belong to Jesus Christ. And also in this we are not rebellious against the popes and successors of the apostles, but godly and truly against Christ. For this must be preferred to them, and if they do not want to suffer this, they are to be completely fled as accursed people (anathemata).
V. 10. Am I now preaching to men or to God?
Those who read this letter of the apostle only in Latin, or rather in a translation, understand the first part of this question in such a way that an affirmative answer 1) is expected to it, and to the second part a negative one, so that only remains that he preaches to men for service, because no one can preach to God for service to whom everything is revealed. But "to preach" (suadere) in this passage is as much as: to cause to believe, as Apost. 28, 23: "And preached unto them of Jesus out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets", because no one can be forced to believe by force, but can only be drawn and caused, as it is written in Joh. 6, 44: "No man can come unto me.
1) In the editions containing the first redaction, and in the Erlanger: aLriimirt, while in the second atUrrnstivam is found.
unless the Father draws him". [However, in our time the Roman court forces Turks, yes, also Christians to the faith, that is, that one hates it (the faith) and plunges oneself into ruin]. But although Jerome, Augustine, and Ambrose have this mind, we like more the opinion [of Erasmus], 2) that in the Greek accusative:homines suadeo, an Deum? (cbΟρώπους πεΐ&ω, η τον ΰ-εόν;) this is contained, "Do I now preach men or God?" That is, the doctrine which I teach is not of men, but of God, as he will immediately declare himself more expansively, since he will say that his gospel is neither human, nor of man [v. 11. 12.].
But this figurative way of speaking 3) is not rare in the Latin language either: I read Virgil, I interpret Jerome. And 1 Cor. 1, 24. it is said: "We preach Christ, divine power" etc. [So it is a metonymy. 4)] To this understanding the preceding fits perfectly, as if he wanted to say: Why should I not wish that those should be accursed who teach other things? Do I then teach human things, and not rather divine things, before which all things, whether they be of heaven or of earth, must justly keep silence and depart? And it is worthy of cursing, because it sets itself against the divine. But our 5) translation can also be drawn here, if the word "I preach" is taken in such a way that it governs no other (absolutum sit a regimine), so that, as Rom. 14, 6."Whosoever eateth, eateth unto the Lord," so also here the sense is: That I preach, or that I am a preacher, I do not do to men, or for the glory or service of men, but to God, and for the glory of God I render this service, and to this sense the following rhymes very well: "If I still please men, I do not preach to them.
2) The reading of the first redaction: ^rasrni [sntsntiu, gut iä quoä sto. has been incorporated into the text by the Erlangen edition, although Luther has eradicated the name of Erasmus everywhere in the second redaction.
3) This "tropus" consists in the fact that the person is named instead of what comes from that person.
4) Compare Crull, die Figuren und Tropen, p. 16 f. See the previous note. - Everything preceding in this paragraph is missing in the old translation.
5) namely Luther's.
1386 o-a. Ill, I6S-IS8. Interpretations on the epistle to the Galatians. W. IX, II-H. 1387
etc., as if he wanted to say that he did not want to please men by his preaching, but only God. And the circumstantial word "now" refers to the whole time of his apostleship, but not to the time when he wrote this epistle, because in this epistle he does not actually begin to teach the gospel anew, but he calls the fallen back to it, and fortifies those who already know it. Therefore he speaks further below (Cap. 4, 22. sf.] also in images (άλληγοριχώς), which is not fitting for such as are first to be instructed, to whom, as he says 1 Cor. 14, 22. "tongues are for a sign"; so that the meaning is, Cursed be they that teach otherwise, for, having been converted from the statutes of the laws, I now teach not human things, but divine; and. Dear one, notice with all diligence that he presumes to call the law of Moses human things, which is given through the angels, as will be explained in more detail below.
Or do I intend to be pleasing to men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ's servant.
44 He says this because the false apostles also taught righteousness from the law for this reason, so that they would not have to suffer persecution from the Jews for the sake of the gospel, who raged against all men for the law of Moses, against the word of the cross, as he writes in 1 Thessalonians 2:14 ff. 2, 14. f.; and afterwards in the sixth chapter of this epistle, v. 12, he says: "They that would make themselves acceptable according to the flesh, compel you to circumcise them, only that they be not persecuted with the cross of Christ." Therefore Paul, who stands firm against such pusillanimity of spirit, teaches that out of love for Christ one must despise men, and not hold forth the word to please them.
45 "To men" is said here with emphasis, because there are only men after the first birth of Adam, except Christ and his faith. For these, because they are alienated from the truth, must necessarily be full of lies and hatred against the truth. In the same way all men are liars. In this way it is said in 1 Cor. 3, 4:
"Are you not men?" and it is almost a disgrace to be called a man according to the scriptural custom, because it does not call him according to his nature, metaphysically (for in such a way theologians see in man only praiseworthy things), but in a theological way, and how he is in the eyes of God. On the other hand, the righteous are almost not called men, but gods, Ps. 82, 6. 7: "I have well said, Ye are gods, and all the children of the Most High. But ye shall die as men." Therefore, as the53. Psalm, v. 6. [according to the Vulg.], rightly says: "God has scattered the bones of those who are pleasing to men; they have become ashamed, because God has spurned them." Why? Because they deny God and His word to men for love, fearing persecution; so again Ps. 34:21: "The Lord keepeth all their bones." What people? The righteous. Who are they? Those who are displeasing to men. They are honored because God accepts them. And Luc. 16, 15: "What is high among men is an abomination in the sight of God." But since we are also human beings, we must necessarily also be displeased with ourselves, according to the words of Christ [Matth. 16, 25.]: "He who loves his life will lose it."
(46) Let those who have learned from the tree of Porphyry 1) and the teachings of Aristotle and other philosophers to praise, extol, and love the reasonable man, then to trust in their resolutions (dictamina), to justify their motives, how right their opinion is when it is held against the truth of Scripture. This assigns everything that is human to falsehood, vanity, and corruption, and teaches for this reason that we must grieve as often as it happens to us that we are praised as reasonable men under the pretense (titulis) of free will, yes, even of all our works, since the one who is a servant of Christ, that is, of the truth, cannot be
1) Porphyrius Malchus, a Neoplatonic philosopher and opponent of Christianity, born 233 A.D. at Tyre, died 304 at Rome, is the author of a table of logical categories, which is contained in his "Introduction to the Categories of Aristotle". A Latin translation made by Boethius (died 525 A.D.) was a much used teaching aid for logic in the Middle Ages.
can be, as Paul expresses, pleasing to himself or to men.
The word "to please" must be understood here in the spirit, that is, for the will to please, since it is not up to us whom we please [or dislike], which the apostle himself sufficiently explains here. Although he had first said, "Or do I intend to please," he says immediately after, not, "If I still intend to please," but, "If I still would please." So also 1 Cor. 10:32, 33: "Be pleasing (placete) to all in all things, even as I also make myself pleasing to all in all things." How then do you make yourself pleasing to everyone? It follows: "And seek not what is pleasing to me, but what is pleasing to many." Behold, "to make oneself pleasing" is to seek to please all, though one may please no one or very few. For this is the rule with Christ and His, that they displease, while they seek to please, and do that whereby they should please, as it is written [Ps. 109:4]:. "For that I love them, they are against me," and again [Ps. 69:5], "They hate me without a cause"; likewise [Ps. 120:7, Vulg.], "They make war against me without a cause," that is, since I gave them cause to love me. Therefore, according to the example of Christ, we must lose our good deeds, so that we seek to please everyone, but in no way seek how we may please, but, as it says in Rom. 15:2, "Let each one of us so place himself as to please his neighbor for good (he says), for the better," not at all for their lusts and vanity etc.
V. 11, 12. But I declare unto you, brethren, that the gospel which is preached of me is not of man. For I neither received it nor learned it from man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
(48) Here he shows how just it was that he cursed them, declaring in long speech (tractu) and with many reasons that he taught not human but divine things. First, (he says) so that you may know that my gospel is from God: "I did not receive it from man, nor did I myself receive it from God.
but by the revelation of Jesus Christ". Here St. Jerome makes this distinction between "receiving" and "learning": that he receives to whom something is first made known, and who is led to believe in it. But he learns who learns to understand by interpretation what was taught in a figurative way (figurata sunt) at that (receiving). I understand this as follows: He who begins receives; he who progresses in the knowledge of the Gospel learns; as if the apostle wanted the verb "I have received" to be connected with the noun "from a man," and the verb "I have learned" to stand alone (absolute), so that this sense would come out: I have not received it from a man, nor by anyone's instruction (magisterio), nor has it been handed down to me by anyone; but neither have I learned it from myself, I have not found it by my effort, nor have I sought it. From God alone I received it through the revelation of Jesus Christ, and since he himself taught it to me, I learned it; namely, on his way to Damascus he heard the voice of Christ, as St. Jerome considers.
49 The same St. Jerome notes that Christ is praised by Paul as God, because he says: "not of a man", but "through Christ", so Christ is more than a man. He also adds the extremely salutary admonition that there is great danger in speaking in the Church without the revelation of Christ, that through wrong interpretation the Gospel of Christ becomes the Gospel of a man, as now happens everywhere where the Scriptures are falsified, either by opinions received from men or by glosses invented by one's own cleverness (magisterio).
50 In this passage he uses "men" not only for evil men, but also for the apostles themselves, as he will say shortly after that he did not receive any instruction from them, nor did he confer with them soon after the revelation. He does this so that he may confirm what he said above, namely, that even if the apostles, or
he himself should teach something else (since they are men), one must nevertheless not cede what he would have taught once and for all (semel), since he had this neither from the apostles nor from himself. Therefore, everything that the false apostles taught differently, whether under the name of the apostles or also under that of Paul, must be considered accursed, because they could only have a gospel received from men or rather error; but he had the truth from Christ.
(51) The difference between the gospel and the law is that the law preaches what one should do and not do, or rather what one has already done and not done, and that quite impossible things should be done and not done, therefore it only serves for the knowledge of sin; but the gospel preaches that sins are forgiven, and everything is fulfilled and done. For the law saith, Pay that thou owest. But the gospel saith, Thy sins be forgiven thee. Thus it is said in Rom. 3, 20: "Through the law comes knowledge of sin," and Cap. 4, 15: "The law only causes wrath, for where the law is not, there is no transgression." But of the Gospel it says Luc. 24, 46. f.: "So Christ had to suffer, and rise from the dead, and preach repentance and forgiveness of sins in His name (note: 'In His name', not ours) among all nations." Behold, the preaching of the forgiveness of sins through the name of Christ, that is the gospel. And Rom. 10:15, "How sweet are the feet of them that preach peace, that preach good," that is, the forgiveness of sins and grace, the fulfillment of the law through Christ. Therefore he that is justified by grace, fleeing from the law unto the gospel, saith, "Forgive us our trespasses."
(52) But why does Christ command and teach many things in the gospel, when this is the ministry of the law? Likewise the apostles also command many things, although they are preachers of the gospel. I answer: Such doctrines, which are preached apart from faith (for believers are promised salvation and forgiveness of sins in the Gospel), are not taught in the Law.
announces, as it is Joh. 1, 12. states: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, who believe on his name"), are either interpretations of the law, by which sin should be more clearly recognized, so that grace would be sought the more ardently, the more one would become aware of sin, or they are means (remedia) and prescriptions (observationes) by which the grace already received and the faith given should be preserved, nourished and perfected, just as it happens when a sick person begins to undergo medical treatment.
Therefore the voice of the gospel is sweet, as the bride in the Song of Songs says: "Your voice is in my ears, for your voice is sweet"; and again [Cap. 1, 2, 3, Vulg.], "Thy breasts 1) are better than wine, fragrant as the best ointment," that is, the words of Christ, with which He feeds His faithful, are better than the words of the law, because they are fragrant with the ointment of grace, by which, sins being forgiven, the wounds of nature are healed. Thus Ps. 45:3 [Vulg.] says: "Grace is that of which thy lips overflow"; not knowledge, not knowledge, of which also Moses' lips overflow, but grace, that is, thy words are sweet and pleasant to lost sinners, because they announce forgiveness and grace to them. This is what David also prays in the 51st Psalm, v. 15: "I will teach the transgressors thy ways, that sinners may turn unto thee," as if to say: I beseech thee, let me not teach the ways of men, and doctrines of our own righteousness, for by these they are not converted to thee, but only further turned away; I beseech thee, that thou wouldest open my lips, that my mouth may rather declare thy praise, that is, the grace by which thou forgivest sins. For by this it shall come to pass, that a man may praise thee, glorify thee, and love thee, feeling the benefits of thy mercy, and not praise himself in his own righteousness.
1) According to the Vulgate, uksru must be read, as it is also in the first redaction. Instead, the editions that reproduce the second redaction have: vsrka.
righteousness. For those who are righteous are not taught, are not converted to you, do not praise you but themselves; they are healthy and have no need of a physician. Therefore the praise of your grace cannot be proclaimed to them. Of these it is said immediately after (v. 16, according to the Vulgate): "Deliver me, O God, who art my God and Savior, from the bloodthirsty (sanguinibus), and my tongue shall praise thy righteousness", not our righteousness, the righteousness of men, but thy grace, according to which thou dost impute righteousness to us, by which thou art also the God of our salvation.
54 Now it has been asked which gospel Paul preached, whether that of Lucas, of Matthew, or of another, and St. Jerome, according to some saying of Eusebius or Origen, thinks that the gospel of Luke is that of Paul, as if there were no more gospels than our four ordinary ones, while every apostle preached the same thing that all the others preached. For the Gospel is a good speech, the message of peace from the Son of God, who became man, suffered, rose again through the Holy Spirit for our blessedness, as it is described in Rom. 1, 1-4. and as Zacharias, Luc. 1:68, says: "He hath visited and redeemed his people"; and soon after [v. 77 ff]: "That thou mightest give knowledge of salvation, which is in the forgiveness of sins, through the tender mercies of our God." Therefore, the gospel is preached rightly wherever the grace of God and the forgiveness of sins, which came about through Jesus Christ, are preached.
55 Therefore the epistles of Paul, Peter and John are in truth evangelia, and Paul did not preach the gospel of Lucas or any other man, as he explicitly says here that the gospel preached by him was not revealed to him by men or through men, but only by Jesus Christ, as it is also said soon after [v. 16]: "That he might reveal his Son in me, that I should preach him through the gospel among the Gentiles. Behold, the gospel is the doctrine of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
V. 13. 14. For you have ever heard my conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the congregation of God exceedingly, and cast them off, and increased in Judaism above many of my like in my generation, and zealously enforced the law of my father exceedingly.
(56) This must be understood from the context that it was said by the apostle to confirm what he had already begun, that is, that his gospel was not from men, but that he taught divine things; although I know that St. Jerome has something else in mind and leaves the order of the sentence aside. So the apostle wants to say: "So that you may know most accurately that I was not taught by my ancestors, nor by the apostles, nor by any man, but only by God, so that you may be sure and not be turned away to human things under any pretext, whether my name or the apostles' names, behold, I tell you my story anew and insert it here: "For you have ever heard well" etc.
57. But here (as St. Jerome says) there is a wonderful and beautiful choice of words and a great emphasis on them: "change" (he says), not: grace; "in the past", 1) not: now; "in Judaism", not: in the faith of Christ; not like other persecutors, but like a destroyer (grassator) and robber he devastated "the community of God"; not as if he had believed then that it was so, but now he calls it so, after having recognized it as such. And again: "I increased in Judaism", not: in the faith of Christianity; "over many", not: over all (to remain modest).
1) weiland --- formerly. Because de Wette either did not know this meaning of the word or did not pay attention to it, he omitted the word "weiland" from the heading of the letter in his edition of Luther's letters, vol. 222, he omitted the word "weiland" from the title of the letter: "An Johann Mantel, weiland Kirchendiener zu Wittenberg," thinking that it also meant "deceased," although it is found in the Wittenberg edition, vol. XII, p. 169 and in the Jena edition, vol. VII, p. 371. It has also been incorrectly omitted in the Erlanger, vol. 55, p. 250 and in the St. Louis edition, vol. X, 2006. Mantel was in Mulhouse at the time. Cf. Rsbsnstpok, vol. II, p. 39.
den); "over my like," not: over the ancients (senes); "in my generation," not: among the Gentiles. For thus he is wont to call the Hebrew people, as, 2 Cor. 11:26: "In peril among the Jews (ex genere), in peril among the Gentiles." But I do not wish to deny that he did not at the same time also incidentally, while proving from his history that he had taught divine things, wish by his example to draw the Galatians away from the law, so that, while hearing, they might also at the same time be admonished and moved. If such a great zealot for the law, who can boast much more of the law and exalt himself according to the flesh than the false apostles (as he does in 2 Cor. 11:21 ff. and Phil. 3:4 ff. 1), nevertheless considers it filth and leaves it behind, how much more must we, who are in grace, not return to the law.
(58) It should be noted that Jerome uses the word "paternal law" to refer to the Pharisaic doctrines and commandments of men, but I would venture to believe that Paul means the whole law of Moses. I will not prove this from any other source than from the writings of the apostle himself, 2) who says Phil. 3, 4-7: "If another man thinketh to boast of the flesh, I much more, being circumcised the eighth day, one of the people of Israel, of the family of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and according to the law a Pharisee, according to zeal a persecutor of the church, according to righteousness in the law having been blameless. But that which was gain to me I counted loss for Christ's sake." Behold, even the circumcision and the blameless (sine querela) righteousness in the law he esteems for harm for Christ's sake. And further on [v. 9.], "That I might be found in him, not having my righteousness which is of the law, but which is by faith in Christ." Therefore he calls the law "the paternal law," because he was instructed in it by men, by his fathers and forefathers, then also because his
1) In the editions: "Col. 3"; correct only in the Weimar one.
2) Instead of Uoeebor in the editions will read äo66bo.
Fathers had received the same from Moses and passed it on to their sons, according to the commandment Ps. 78, 5: "That he commanded our fathers to teach their children." For the apostle adapts everything to the controversy and opposes it to the false apostles, so that he makes it certain that his gospel is from God, and thus he forces the Galatians to remain firm in it. Therefore, he also contrasts the paternal law with the gospel with a certain diminution (tapinosi), since he wants this to be taken for the divine law.
(59) But in order not to give anyone any cause for conscience, let us deal with this matter in a little more detail, thus paving the way for what is to be said hereafter. The law, not only the ceremonial law, but also the moral law, yes, even the most holy Decalogue, which contains the eternal commandments of God, is the letter and a tradition of the letter, which neither makes alive nor just, as St. Augustine superfluously proves in his writing "Of the Spirit and the Letter", but kills and makes sin exceedingly abundant. For however much it may be taught or held, it does not thereby purify the heart itself. But if the heart is not purified, what are good works, whether they be according to the . What are good works, whether they are done according to the ceremonial law or according to the moral law, but a mere appearance of godliness and hypocrisy? as Christ says, that the Pharisees appear beautiful on the outside, but are full of filth on the inside. Hence it comes about that such a one, although he does not commit theft, does not outwardly break marriage with the deed, but is inwardly inclined to do so, and abstains from it either out of the desire of his advantage or out of fear of punishment, and thus overcomes one sin by another, as St. Augustine says in his book "Of Marriages and of Evil Lusts". For the desire of advantage and the fear of punishment are sins and a kind of idolatry, because only God deserves love and fear.
(60) Nothing can set us free from this impurity of the heart but faith, as it says in Acts 15:9: "He cleansed their hearts through faith. 15:9: "He purified their hearts through faith" so that Paul's word would stand, Titus 1:15: "To the pure all things are pure,
But to the unclean and unbelieving nothing is pure." According to the same rule he says Rom. 2, 21: "You preach that one should not steal, and you steal" etc., which St. Augustine interprets thus: You steal, namely, not with the work of which you preach that it should not be done, but with your guilty will. If therefore the doctrine of faith is not revealed, by which the heart is purified and made righteous, the instruction in all the commandments is a letter and a paternal law. For the commandment teaches what one should do. Since this was impossible, the teaching of faith (that is, the gospel) teaches how to make it possible. For it teaches to take refuge in the grace of God and to implore God Himself as Master and Teacher, that with the finger of His Spirit He may write in our hearts His living, luminous and burning letters, by which, enlightened and inflamed, we may cry, "Abba, dear Father," and this is not paternal but divine instruction.
61 But notice, dear reader: If the apostle condemns the apparent change in his Judaism and the righteousness of the law, so much so that he considers it filth and harm, what will these praisers of nature and the praisers of moral works object to? If this "increasing" of the apostle was evil, which, after all, is approved by every judgment of reason and even by the law of God Himself, since also the purpose (finis) (as they say) of his life was zeal for God and His law: what, then, will be their actions which they highly praise for another purpose or for a similar purpose? Of course, what Jeremiah 1) said of such prophets [Klagel. 2, 14. Vulg.]: "Thy prophets have preached unto thee foolish visions, and sermons, that they might preach thee out of the land, and have not revealed unto thee thine iniquity, that they might provoke thee to repentance." Therefore they take away the fear of God from men, teaching safety by babbling that their
1) Caused by a printing error in the Jena edition, Dom. I: Hioro. instead of Hioro., the Erlangen edition offers here: Hieronymus, while all other editions have "Hiere." or Hierenrias.
The first is that moral works are good, and that works done according to the rule of reason are not sins.
V. 15. 16. But it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I should preach Him among the Gentiles through the gospel.
It is something else to know the law and to have excelled in its righteousness, and something else to know the Son of God, for the former brings blessedness, the latter brings condemnation. And behold, what a grateful and sincere confessor of divine grace he is! He says: "The Son of God was revealed to me not because I had increased in the righteousness of the Father's law, not through my merit, but because it pleased God that this should happen, whereas I deserved just the opposite. But that it pleased Him without my merit is proof that He set me apart for this office (sortem) before I was born, and prepared me for it in my mother's womb, and then also called me by His grace, so that you might know by all these things 2) that faith and the knowledge of Christ were not granted to me by the law, but by the grace of God, who provided and called me beforehand. Therefore, even for you, salvation cannot come from the law.
Others refer the word "set apart" to what Apost. 13, 2: "Set apart for me Barnabam and Paulum for the work" etc., but in a forced way, since they must then understand the synagogue by the "mother's womb" in figurative speech. I pass over what St. Jerome does here in a quite precarious and dangerous way. It seems to me that he speaks here entirely of having been provided, but only briefly and obscurely, considering it sufficient for the understanding of the Galatians that he simply affirmed that he had not known Jesus Christ, the Son of God, through himself or through others, but that he had been provided with a mother's womb.
2) Wittenberger: is instead of: iis.
through the revelation of the Father, and that he had preached him and proclaimed him in the Gospel, so that they might know that they had learned divine things from Paul. Now he continues, adding a history to the simple narrative to show that he was not instructed by men, nor did he teach human things.
Immediately I drove to and did not discuss it with flesh and blood.
Here St. Jerome tortures himself extraordinarily and twists the text. First, so that he would not have to admit that the apostles are called flesh and blood, and so that he would not be forced to admit to the blaspheming Porphyrius that Paul is presumptuous (Paulinam fiduciam), he understands by flesh and blood the Jews and the sinners, especially since he (Paul) pronounces that he afterwards discussed his gospel with the apostles, which he here denies (for the same word discussed me, in Greek προςανε&έμην,1 ) which is here rendered acquievi, is afterwards [Cap. 2, 2.) translated by contuli). But we want to let this go; let it be taken care of whoever wants to. In the meantime, I have enough to show that Paul, who wants to show that he taught the Galatians from the revelation of God, did not discuss his revelation with any man beforehand, but immediately after receiving the revelation preached Christ, as Apostles 9:19, 20. 9:19, 20: "He was with the disciples at Damascus for several days, and immediately he preached Christ in the synagogues. "Immediately," namely, by not conferring with them beforehand. Therefore we see here also that Paul omitted something in his words, so that the sentence would read completely like this: Immediately I preached the Son of God or proclaimed him through the gospel; I did not first confer with men; so that the adverb "immediately" completely denies that he was instructed by men, but rather, on the contrary, that men were immediately instructed by him in Christ.
1) What is enclosed here in square brackets is our addition.
den. For as I have said [§58], the apostle here acts everything in such a way that it serves to dispute, in order to prove that he taught divine things. For this having been proved, as it were, to be his main ground, it has no difficulty in casting down all that had been presented to the Galatians in opposition to him.
65. However, as Jerome testifies, "to discuss", which is expressed by acquievi in this passage, is something different from what we understand by it; for we discuss what we already know with a friend, and leave it, as it were, to his heart (sinum) and conscience, that he may either approve or reject it with impartial counsel; and though the (Latin) interpreter has not expressed this meaning of the word (id verbi), yet he has not entirely missed the sense. For he who thus converses with friends certainly already acquiesces (acquiescit) in his mind and proves docile toward them. But Paul did not want to be instructed, nor did he ever have in mind to tolerate a discussion (animum disputandi) whether what he had heard from GOtte was right or not; and with full right. For it would have been ungodly to establish the divine revelation, as if he had doubted it, by the counsel of men.
So Porphyrius does not judge anything that accuses Paul and punishes arrogance in him, because not out of arrogance, but for the honor of the divine reputation and the most certain truth, he did not want to discuss, but could not do it without hurting the divine reputation. However, he (Porphyrius) also errs in thinking that Paul is speaking here of the apostles, while he is speaking of those who were in Damascus, whoever they may have been. For of the apostles he says immediately after [v. 17.), "Neither came I unto them which were apostles before me." So it is others whom he calls flesh and blood, and as it seems to me, according to his way and that of the Hebrews, he alludes to the name Damascus, which, according to its derivation, means blood (XX) and a sack (XX), and in Scripture not infrequently denotes the hom-
The apostles also call the saints of God flesh and blood to their chagrin when they are held against the majesty of divine revelation, for when one begins to extol the words or examples of even such great holy men against the divine ones, it is time that we confidently regard everything that is not divine as flesh and blood, indeed, as nothing.
V. 17. Neither came to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me.
Not only did I not ask the people of Damascus for advice, but I also did not ask the apostles who were in the apostleship before me (for this means antecessores meos), which should have happened if I had wanted to be taught by a man or by a man. For me, the certain and infallible revelation of the Father was sufficient. Notice here Paul's necessary hopefulness, or more correctly, his equity. He confesses that the other apostles were earlier than he, but does not say that he is greater, but again also not that he is less. For even though he says that he is inferior in person and the least of the apostles, and even that he is not worthy to be called an apostle, he still holds the office and ministry in such high esteem (for this is God's and not his) that he does not want to yield to any of the apostles. For the person of the apostle may be what he wants, but the office is certainly the same.
They teach the same Christ, have the same authority and are sent by him in the same way. And yet he says 2 Cor. 11, 5: "I consider myself to be no less than the high apostles are," and Cap. 12, 11: "I am nothing less than the high apostles are." Behold, he gives them great precedence, and yet he equals them; in dignity he humbly yields to them, in office and authority he confidently equals them.
But he went into Arabia, and came again to Damascus.
In the Acts of the Apostles Cap. 9, Lucas does not remember this journey to Arabia, but only writes briefly that Paul was let down through the wall and came to Jerusalem. Therefore, St. Jerome tries different ways of explanation (rationes), the second of which I follow, namely, that after his baptism Paul was at Damascus for some days, as Lucas writes, during which he preached Christ in the school; then (which Lucas omitted) he left for Arabia and returned to Damascus, as he says here, and further that with which Lucas continues, namely, that because he was being pursued, he was let down through the wall in a basket and came to Jerusalem. Therefore, St. Jerome struggles to explain why Paul tells what Lucas did not. I dare to assert this opinion: that he reports this, as well as everything else, in order to show that he did not come to the apostles, nor did he learn from them, but rather, trusting in the divine revelation, he went to Arabia beforehand to teach there, and then, when he returned to Damascus, he taught the same; for he was so certain of this through the revelation of Christ that he had received. For he would not have taught this even in different places if he had thought it such that he had to discuss it first with the apostles or men. But that St. Jerome thinks he has been in Arabia in vain, and seeks to investigate some mysteries, must be credited to such a great man.
V.18. After three years I came to Jerusalem to see Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days.
69 Note how carefully he adds: "over three years", and not to hearon, but "to see Petrum". For the fact that he says that he taught three years in Damascus (until he was forced to leave through the wall) certainly proves that he was not made a preacher of the Gospel by Peter, but that he had been one for a long time when he came to Peter. [He says this 1) to shut up the false apostles, who had used this evidence to claim that Paul had been taught by Peter, by whose example they had incited the Galatians to keep the law. 2) But St. Jerome states that in this passage he assumes a twofold understanding, both that according to which it is asserted that Paul was taught by Peter, and that according to which this is denied. But in the "Letter to Paulinus" he leans towards the former opinion by wanting the teacher of the Gentiles (to use his words) to have been instructed in the mystery of the numbers eight and seven (ogdoadis et hebdoadis), which I mention for the sake of this, so that the discerning reader may understand Jerome in such a way that he does not teach against the apostle Paul, who rejects (detonates) all this with such a spirit that he is convinced by the strongest reasons of proof that he has not learned anything from the apostles, but has received everything from God alone (as has already been said sufficiently). That St. Jerome likes to play with the mystery of the fifteen days is not to be despised, but one must definitely believe that they (the fifteen days) were put in this place by Paul, not only for the pleasure of the secret interpretation (mysterii), but also out of necessity, for the sake of the matter and history, perhaps so that he showed that he had been with Peter long enough, if he had come to teach; but that on the other hand he did not come to learn, but only to teach.
1) Added by us.
2) From here to the end of this paragraph is missing in the old translation.
to see him as a guest had stayed with him, since it would have taken a longer time if he had wanted to learn.
V. 19. But I saw none of the other apostles, except Jacob, the brother of the Lord.
70 [This he states,] 3) so that they would not say: If not from Peter, at least you have been taught by the other apostles. But he did not see them, because (as Jerome says) they were scattered over the whole world to preach the gospel. If this is true, how can the fable of the division of the apostles stand, in which it is said that the apostles were divided in the thirteenth year after the resurrection of Christ, while here Paul finds them already scattered three years or at most four years after his conversion, who, as can be seen, was converted in the same year in which Stephen received his crown? But I leave this to other, idle people. See what Lucas writes in Acts Cap. 9, 26. ff. that Paul, since the disciples were afraid of him, was led by Barnabas "to the apostles," and went out and in with them etc., while here he confesses that he saw none of the apostles but Peter and Jacob. So either Lucas calls Peter and Jacob "apostles" in the plural, or what St. Jerome says is true, that under the name of the apostles many others are also included, especially in Paul's letters, because they were ordained by the first apostles.
Of this Jacobus, who is usually called the lesser Jacobus by the people, Eusebius says in the second book of his Church History, Cap. 1, that he was called the brother of the Lord, because he was a son of Joseph, who was considered to be the father of Christ. This is stated by St. Jerome in his book "Of Illustrious Men", but he rejects it and says: Jacobus is, as some suppose, the son of Joseph by another woman, but as it seems to me, the son of Mary, the sister of the mother of the Lord, whose John in his Evan-.
3) Added by us.
gelio commemorates etc. For John says Cap. 19, 25: "And standing by the cross of Jesus was his mother, and Mary his mother's sister, Cleophas' wife, and Mary Magdalene." Likewise Marcus Cap. 15, 40.: "Among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of little Jacob, and Joses, and Salome." With this agrees Matthew Cap. 27, 56.: "Among whom (he says) was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Jacobi and Joses, and the mother of the children of Zebedee." From this it may be concluded that Mary the mother of Jacobi, and Mary the wife of Cleophas, are one and the same person, namely, the sister of the Virgin Mary, who is called "of Cleophas" by her husband, but "Jacobi" by her son, and she is also the mother of Simon and Judas. For also Eusebius says in the third book of the church history that Cleophas was the brother of Joseph, and therefore Simon is called the cousin (consobrinujm) of the Lord. But you see that Marcus Cap. 6, 3. says this quite clearly: "Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of Jacob, and Joses, and Judae, and Simonis?" Therefore, the error of those who have invented a third Mary, whom they call Mary Salome, is quite obvious. For Salome is a female name, and the woman whom Marcus calls "Salome", Matthew calls "the mother of the children of Zebedee". But that there were only two Marys, namely Mary Magdalene and Mary Jacobi, is sufficiently proven by Matthew, who almost always calls Mary Jacobi "the other Mary" [Matth. 28, 1]. 2) [But we want to put an end to the vexatious trade (taedii), and understand it in such a way that this Jacobus is called a brother of the Lord, that is, a matron (fratruelem) or rather a cousin of the Lord, in order to distinguish him from others who are also called Jacobus. For all confirm that among the disciples of Christ several had the name Jacobus, and although St. Jerome in his book "Against Helvidius" says about this passage that he was rather called a brother of the Lord, because he was like him in virtue and wisdom, than that he was his brother according to the flesh.
1) The following section up to the end of this paragraph is missing in the old translation.
would be more related, we like more the opinion which has been drawn above from the writings of famous men].
V. 20. But what I write to you, behold, God knows I am not lying.
(72) The apostle swears in such a minor matter (as it seems) that they should believe that it is true that he came to Jerusalem, that he did not see any of the apostles, and what else he mentioned. Why is this necessary? He is concerned and feels that he is being harshly reproached with the name and conversation of the apostles, on which the false apostles rely. Therefore he swears, since he has nothing else to confirm his story, and acts holy and godly in this, so that the reputation of the divine revelation, in which he had taught the Galatians, would not be diminished by the pretense and the glorious appearance (pompa) of the apostolic and human reputation, to the detriment of the faith and the gospel. He swears not only for what he has previously said, but also for the sake of what he must say afterwards. For in this way those who are very distressed are wont to swear in the middle of their speech.
V. 21. After that I came to the countries of Syria and Cilicia.
73 This is described by Lucas Apost. 9, 29. f. [He also talked with the Gentiles (at Jerusalem) and consulted with the Greeks, but they persecuted him and killed him. When the brothers heard this, they led him to Caesaria and sent him to Tarsen," which is in Cilicia. See, there you have it, what he did during the fifteen days with Peter. He did not learn, but taught the Gentiles (for he was supposed to be the same apostle, or rather he already was), and disputed with the Greeks, of course also with the Jews, just as Stephen before him, Apost. 6, 9. ff. Cap. 7. Why is it necessary for us to hear that he came to Syria and Cilicia? This is the reason: He proves that he did not have the apostles as teachers anywhere, but that he himself was a teacher everywhere, by
The purpose of the story is that he will finally feriate all those who taught and held such things against him, because he taught divine, not human, things, and they taught human, not divine, things.
V. 22-24. But I was unknown to the Christian community in Judea. But they alone had heard that he who persecuted us before now preaches the faith which he destroyed before; and they praised God above me.
74 He means that he was not only not instructed by Peter and the other apostles, but also not by any others who were Christians in Judea and kept the law mixed with faith; indeed, what serves most to recommend Paul's teaching: although he was not even known to them face to face, he nevertheless had the testimony of them that he taught the faith (for this alone he seeks to strengthen in the whole epistle).
(75) Thus he already proves by the reputation of all the churches that he taught rightly, since he was praised by those churches and praised God for preaching the faith. Since, nevertheless, the false apostles forced the Galatians to the law by the example of those churches, he clearly proves that they had not rightly led the Galatians by the example and reputation of the churches in Judea. Those praise God that Paul preaches the faith, who used to grieve that he disturbed the faith; they er
but they do not raise a complaint 1) of the law. Why then do those people try to turn away the Galatians through legal righteousness by falsely claiming the name of the apostles?
It only remains that the churches in Judea kept the legal things, not as if they were forced to keep them for the sake of their salvation, but out of free love, by serving the weakness of others. Oh, God would that our laws in the Church today would be taught and kept with the same 2) prudence! But now they rule in such a way that one thinks that salvation is in them, and that faith has completely 3) gone out. Paul makes faith the completely free lord over all human laws. We make human laws the tyrants of faith, but the great and noble ones do not keep them a hair's breadth, in that they do not swallow up the church without immense aversions (scandalorum vastissimo gurgite) and alone oppress the subjects with so many unbearable burdens, or sell their Christian liberty, which is caught by monetary snares, anew in the most shameful way, dispensing and giving indulgences.
1) It will be read here with the Basel edition and Heidnecker (zuorsutss instead of Huasrsutss in the other editions. This confusion of pisror and quasro occurs often elsewhere as well. Cf. tz 32 of the 2nd chapter.
2) Wittenberger: simxliei instead of: siwili.
3) In the editions of the second redaction the reading is xsnitus, while in those of the first redaction and in the Erlanger xroxs is found.