After fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem once with Barnaba, and took Titum also with me. And I went up for a revelation, and consulted with them concerning the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, and especially with them that were in authority, lest I should run or walk in vain.
1. having sufficiently proved that he was made an apostle by no man's instruction (magisterio), but by divine revelation, he now proves that he had this revelation so firmly and certainly that he was not at all afraid to have any men, even the apostles, as judges; then also that
he had not given way to the impetuous urging of any man.
2 First, he says "over fourteen years". If you add to these the three years he mentioned above, you will find that he had already been preaching seventeen or eighteen years before he wanted to confer with the apostles, so that it seems impossible that what he had preached in so many places, among so many peoples, Therefore, he did not go to Jerusalem for his own sake, as if he feared (as Jerome thinks) that he might have preached falsely for seventeen years, but to show others that he had not run in vain, since the other apostles also approved of his running. For if he had doubted whether he taught rightly or wrongly, it would have been an exceedingly great and outrageous presumption and impiety that he had postponed the necessary discussion and deceived so many nations with uncertain doctrine.
3. secondly. He would never have gone to Jerusalem if he had not been prompted to do so by a revelation of God, but not moved by the impetuous urging of others: so much is lacking that he undertook the meeting out of mistrust in the certainty of his teaching, since there was absolutely no need to go there because of this matter.
4. thirdly. [He went] 1) straight to Jerusalem, where were the rulers both of the synagogue and of the church, and was ready to confer with all, not being afraid of the multitude of the Jews, nor even of the most vehement zealots for the law.
(5) Fourthly, not alone, but with Barnabas and Titus, who were of different nations, and were very proper witnesses, that he could not be thought to have acted differently when he was under eyes (praesens), and to act differently when he was absent. Namely, if he had done too much for the Jews, Titus the Gentile would have betrayed him; if, on the other hand, he had done too much for the Gentiles, Barnabas the Jew would have opposed him. Therefore, behold, what a good
1) Added by us.
Confidence he has. He took these two with him and had both of them as witnesses.
6 Finally, he stands with both of them (sese offerens) to make it clear that he was allowed to live with Titus as a Gentile, with Barnabas as a Jew, and to prove the evangelical freedom in both of them: that one may be circumcised, and yet it is not necessary to be circumcised. This is also how one must think of the entire law.
(7) Enough has been said above [Cap. 1, § 65] about the word "to discuss" (contuli et acquievi). Now note also the Hebrew, or rather the figurative speech peculiar to the Scriptures, that "to run" means the office of teaching or proclaiming the Word of God. This is taken from the messengers who are sent and run. Thus I have quoted above from Jeremiah [Cap. 23, 21: "I sent not the prophets, neither did they run," and Ps. 147, 15.: "His word runneth fast." And in the holy Scriptures there is much of this kind, whereby it is indicated that the heralds of the divine Word must be ready and faithful messengers, so that they run more than they walk. Thus it is also said in Isa. 52, 7: "How beautiful are the feet of those who proclaim peace" etc., and Ezekiel, Cap. 1, 7. 14., describes his animals in such a way that they have feet and run, and Eph. 6, 15. commands that they should be booted on the legs, as ready to drive the gospel. 2) And the service, the running, the sending of all feet and the like means in the holy Scriptures the service of the word of God, and also the poets describe in their Mercurius things that are not very dissimilar to these.
8 Again, note that after fourteen years Paul finds the apostles in Jerusalem, or at least Peter and James and John, if not all of them, and he consults with them. It is not that the fable of the division of the apostles, which is said to have happened in the thirteenth year [after the resurrection of Christ] 3) and which is so highly praised, should grieve me at all (torqueat), but it only prompts me to admonish that we should
2) With the Weimar, Basel and Erlangen editions, we have here the reading xaratu angenonimen, instead of upxaratu in the other editions.
3) Added by us.
not easily fall for such antics (of which there are many nowadays) against very clear passages of the Holy Scripture, accepting without judgment any fiction of superstition, adorned only with some appearance (titulo) of godliness. This is already known [from the notes of Erasmus] what the words: Qui videbantur esse aliquid mean. For also St. Jerome has: Qui videbantur (that is, those who had a greater prestige and of whom one had a high opinion), therefore esse aliquid is an addition.
V. 3, 4, 5: But neither was Titus compelled to circumcise himself, which was with me, though he were a Greek. For when some false brethren had intruded with us, and crept in beside us, to make known our liberty which we have in Christ JEsu, that they might take us captive, we yielded not one hour to them to be subjects, that the truth of the gospel might stand with you.
9 St. Jerome indicates that earlier in the Latin manuscripts (codicibus) it was written: "To whom we have departed for an hour" (Quibus cessimus ad horam), in an affirmative way, which he refutes, both from the Greek and from the clear sense of the preceding sentence, in which Paul says that Titus was not forced to circumcise himself, and rather states that he did not depart. After that he struggles with the connective word "but" or "however" 1) and says that it must be deleted, so that it would then stand in this order: "But Titus was also not forced to circumcise himself for the sake of the brethren who had joined in" etc. But if my assumption is valid, Paul has here shifted the words (hyperbaton), or again, according to the Hebrew way, omitted something (eclipsin), so that the connective word "but" belongs to the tense word "we did not retreat", or also another tense word must be thought in beside the same [connective word] (subaudiatur), namely: we resisted, or: we fought against it and carried the victory there-.
1) "86<Z" Vtzl "auteiu". At the beginning of the fourth verse the Vulgate says: [su.
from. And this we did not out of hatred or contempt against the law or against the works of the law, but for the sake of the false brethren, who wanted to make a captivity out of freedom for us etc. But also in other places he is wont to omit something in such a manner (eclipses facere), in very violent agitation, and this also occurs not infrequently in the Old Testament, which, I believe, is sufficiently known]. 2) Better thus: "But for the sake of the false brethren, 3) who intruded themselves with" etc., that is, that he was not compelled to circumcise himself, this was done, not out of hatred or contempt of the law, or of the works of the law, but for the sake of the false brethren, who wished to make a captivity of liberty for us. - Also this: Quibus neque ad horam cessimus subjectioni could have been said more clearly: Neither did we yield to them for a time (so Jerome has it) to be subjects, or that we had submitted, that is, so firmly did we stand for evangelical liberty that they could not even obtain that from us, that we yielded for a time, and that only for this once, as if we could turn back again afterwards, after this yielding had satisfied the minds of those who are zealous for the law, since we are in the habit of doing so many things according to the opportunity of the time, the place and the persons, which we are free to refrain from again later. But this may be done in those things where divine truth and evangelical liberty are not endangered; for the sake of these, neither time nor place nor person need be regarded. [So much of the grammar.]
(10) Incidentally, this dispute is not about what works of the law are, but about whether works of the law are necessary or free. For the works of the law and the law itself are not declared dead and abolished by Christ in such a way that one may not do them in any way (as St. Jerome, instructed by his Origen, repeatedly asserts), but only that without them one believes to attain salvation through Christ alone, who is the end of all things.
2) Instead of the preceding, the following is found in the second redaction up to the dash.
3) In the Erlanger: ant instead of: untern.
of the law, in relation to whom, as the one who was to come, they were commanded. For after Christ came, he did away with the works of the law in such a way that they could be kept as indifferent things, but no longer compulsory, as he later gives a beautiful example (paradigm) in the fourth chapter of the heir who is a child. Therefore the other apostles kept the same with the believing Jews. Paul and Barnabas did this sometimes, but sometimes not, in order to show that they were completely middle class and of the same nature as the one who did them, as he says in 1 Cor. 9:20 ff: "To the Jews I became a Jew, that I might win the Jews. To those who are under the law I became as under the law (though I myself was not under the law). To those who are without law, I have become as without law."
How could he have interpreted the evangelical freedom more clearly? I came (he says) to the Jews to preach Christ. But in order for them to hear me, I did not have to use this freedom for their sake, and I did not have to despise them with their works. I therefore did what they did until I taught them that it was not necessary, but only faith in Christ was sufficient. So I came to the Gentiles, but then did nothing of what I did with the Jews, but ate and drank entirely the same as they, until I preached Christ to them. How would they have admitted me if I had immediately aroused their disgust in these indifferent (neutralibus) things? If it is otherwise free, yes, meritorious, to suffer, to endure, to die, to work for one's brother and for one's neighbor, how much more may any works of the law be done, if this is required by brotherly love, if only you know that this must not be done out of compulsion of the law (for this driver is overcome by the child who is given to us), but out of love that serves voluntarily and cheerfully? Therefore, if the brother's need should require that you be circumcised, you may do it not only without danger (because you are not doing it for the law's sake, and because it requires you to be circumcised), but also because you are doing it voluntarily and cheerfully.
nöthigt), but rather let yourself be circumcised with great merit.
(12) Wherefore the apostle saith with good consideration, not, He would not, he would not; but, He was not compelled to be circumcised. Circumcision would not have been evil, but now that Christ justifies us by his grace alone, to force you to be circumcised as if it were necessary in order to be justified would be ungodly and an insult to the justifying grace of Christ. Therefore, after you have received Christ, the works of the law are like wealth, honor, power, civil righteousness and any other temporal things: if you have them, you are not better before God; if you lack them, you are not worse. But you would be exceedingly bad if you wanted to claim that they were necessary in order to please God. Therefore look at the words of the apostle, in which it is expressed how the matter is to be understood. He says: "forced," "freedom," "to take captive," "to be subject," by which he sufficiently interprets this, namely, that such people were among them who held on to him, because he sometimes kept the law, as he was allowed and free to do, and sometimes did the opposite, depending on whether he saw that it served to win souls and to preach the gospel. But they betrayed him and accused him of not keeping the law, of not circumcising the Gentiles, etc., and wanted to force him, which 1) he calls "taking captive" and "being subject" here.
(13) For this is the liberty of which he boasts that we have it in Christ, that we are by no means bound to any outward work, not even to one, but are free in all things, against every person, at all times, and in every way, unless brotherly love and peace be violated, as it is said in Rom. 13:8, "Owe no man anything, but to love one another." Therefore a true Christian, as he says later Cap. 3, 28, is neither free nor bond, Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, priest (clericus) nor layman, spiritual (religiosus) nor worldly (religiosus).
1) Latin: Hnarn, which will either refer to legern, or it is to be added eoaetionem.
He does not pray, he does not read, he does not do, he does not refrain, but is completely free (indifferent) to all things, doing and refraining as a matter comes before him or steps away, as Samuel (1 Sam. 10, 6. 7.) said to Saul: "You will become a different man," and: "Do what comes under your hand, for God is with you. But when one takes a wife, another enters a monastery, one joins in this work, another in that (mancipat), he does not do this out of compulsion of the law, but voluntarily submits to servitude; if he does this out of love, he does very well, but if he does it compelled by need or fear, he does not act Christianly, but humanly.
14. Therefore, people in our time are caught in a very serious error, especially the clergy and the monks (clerus et religiosi), who for the sake of the splendor of the external worship, because of their customs and ceremonies (in which they are so deeply involved that they lead the souls to perdition without salvation, They so arrogantly despise others who do not shine in such appearance (speciuntur) that they also quarrel without ceasing, and dare to testify publicly that they never want to make common cause with them, nor do they want to keep it with them.
15 To the last. "The truth of the gospel" seems to be taken here not as "the right understanding of the gospel," but as "the right custom of the gospel," for the gospel is always true, but its custom is not infrequently perverted by false pretenses (simulatione). For it is "the truth of the gospel" that we know that we have all power [1 Cor. 6:12], that all things are pure to the pure [Titus 1:15], and that no work of the law is necessary for salvation and righteousness, 1) since the law is dead and no longer compels; but that for love's sake the law may be kept, but not as if it were a law.
V. 6. But of those who had the reputation of what they once were, I am not interested, for God does not respect the reputation of men (personam hominis).
1) sit is missing in the editions of the first Redaction and in the Erlanger.
In this one place Paul adds "esse aliquid" to the time word "videbantur", therefore it is added by the scribes (librariis) also in the other two places 2). Here again something is omitted. "But from those who had the prestige," to this add: I received nothing, which he expresses below, since he repeats it, "they taught me nothing else"; he uses the same word contulerunt [i.e., taught by discussion] 3) as above. [St. Augustine refers the words: "What manner of men they were" to the unworthiness that the apostles were also once sinners, but he does not care about that. Although he could have answered those who reproached him that he had been a persecutor of the church and therefore could not be compared with the other apostles: Now that God does not regard the person of man, neither the apostleship of those, nor his apostleship, become small, for the sake of former sins, for God calls all in like manner to blessedness: yet I like the opinion of St. Jerome (better), 3) who refers it to worthiness and supposes it to be said against the false apostles). "Which they have been" must be referred to worthiness, and is said against the false apostles, 4) who boasted of the honor of the apostles, that they had walked with Christ, had seen, heard, and received all things, since Christ was present, and therefore they must be preferred to Paul, and the law kept with them. Paul, however, does not rebuke the apostles in anything, and admits that what is held against him is true, but meets them with a very good and salutary answer, namely, that all this, with which they flourish, does not belong to the matter at all.
17 For not for that reason is anything true or good, because it is brought forward by a great man, a saint, or whatever other reputation it may have, but because it comes from God alone. For what did it profit the traitor Judas,
2) The other two passages are: V. 2 of this chapter, and here, immediately following in this verse. Compare K 8 in this chapter.
3) Inserted by us.
4) The words of this sentence up to here are in the second redaction instead of the section in square brackets.
that he walked with Christ and had everything in common with the apostles? Therefore, those vainly praise the outward reputation (larvam) and outward fame of the apostles against the word of God, which God reveals and teaches without this "person". If God did not respect the prestige (personam) of the apostleship in Judas, He certainly did not respect it in the others either.
(18) You must note that personam is taken far differently in this passage than it is now in use in the schools, for it means 1) not a rational and self-existent being (rationalem individuamque substantiam), as those say, but an external quality of life, work or conduct, according to which a man can judge another, praise him, reprove him, call him [and everything that is not in the spirit, according to the saying (1 Sam. 16, 7]: "A man looks at what is before his eyes, but the Lord looks at the heart," and Ps. 7, 10: "God, you test hearts and kidneys." So this, what is before the eyes, of whatever kind it may be, you understand by person (personas), appearance (facies), outward appearance (apparentias) and these things concerning the person (personalia), if you want to understand the Scripture correctly, where it speaks of the appearance of the person. Man always looks at the person, never at the heart, therefore he always judges wrongly (male). God never looks at the person, but always at the heart, and therefore he judges the nations right [Ps. 96, 10]. At last he [the interpreter of the Latin Bible) translates πρδςωπου by faciem. Facies however in the
Scripture actually refers to everything that appears outwardly. Thus Marc. 12, 14: "You do not respect the appearance (faciem) of men", and 1 Sam. 16, 7: "Do not look at his form" (vultum ejus). Since the word persona has long since taken on a different meaning, it seems to me that it would be a good idea to write "facies" instead of "person" everywhere in the Bible.
(19) You see, then, how very salutary Paul instructs us, so that we may not be influenced by empty appearances (titulo), names, reputations, persons, and so on.
1) significat is missing in the editions of the first Redaction and in the Erlanger; in the Weimarsche it stands.
2) Inserted by us.
deceived, let his counsel stand, since he says [1 Thess. 5:21.], "Test all things, and keep that which is good." What do you think he would say now, if he heard that in the church everything is taught without all examination by those who boast of the authority, the holiness, the learning of their warrantors (auctorum)? He boldly asserts that the reputation of the apostles does not serve the cause at all. But the prestige of the apostles was holiness, authority, intimate contact with Christ, and much greater things than you can now find in any pope, although now only the authority of the pope is sufficient. Only the holiness of the teachers rules that they teach what they like. But the authority of the pope is certainly not regarded by God, since it is the reputation of a man, nor the delusion of holiness, nor the glory of science: all these are things that are based on the reputation of men (personalia), therefore not firm enough that it should be necessary for their sake to believe as truth what they hold.
20 But it is certain that even the apostles themselves did not like this boasting of their reputation, since they knew that one should boast of the Lord, not of himself or of what is seen in him, be it power or holiness; and this reminder of Paul's is very good for you to remember.
But those who had the reputation taught me nothing.
(21) They did not again expound Paul's gospel and discuss it with him (for this is what the word conferre means, as has already been said), but they did not need to. It was enough that they approved it and (as follows) saw that the gospel to the foreskin was familiar to him. He says this to show that he taught correctly even according to the judgment of the apostles, who boasted against Paul, and that the apostles stood on his side against the false apostles who boasted of the reputation of men. Therefore, he now goes into more detail:
V. 7-10. But again, when they saw that I was trusted with the gospel to the
Foreskin, as Petro preached the gospel to the circumcision (for he that was strong with Petro for the apostleship among the circumcision was strong with me also among the Gentiles), and knew the grace that was given unto me, Jacob, and Cephas, and John, which were esteemed pillars; they gave me and Barnaba the right hand, and became one with us, that we should preach among the Gentiles, and they among the circumcision, only that we should remember the poor, which also I have been diligent to do.
22 [St. Jerome thinks that there is a rearrangement of the words here (hyperbaton), and that what is inserted in the middle must be omitted and read like this: "But again they gave me and Barnaba the right hand and united with us" etc. It seems to me that after his manner he (Paul) is lacking something in the speech, for in the meantime he gets carried away and digresses to other things, so that he has also inserted an intercalation (parenthesi), and so he does not return to the speech he has begun. I would add one word, as: But again they saw and approved the things which were mine which I had taught, and seeing from this discussion etc.] Behold, Paul and Peter have one and the same gospel, the one being sent as an apostle to the Gentiles, the other to the Jews. How then can the false apostles boast of Peter and the apostles against Paul, since they teach the same thing? If Peter, James and John had not agreed with what Paul taught the Galatians, they would certainly have punished him. But now they even praise him and give him the right hand as a sign of fellowship (dextras societatis). There were not yet disputes in the church about the primacy of the churches and the popes. Peter, John, and James do not consider it beneath their dignity that Paul and Barnabas should be their comrades and equal (aequales) to them (but in the course of time and vices, as Jerome says, commonality [societas] has ceased and force and precedence have taken its place), as follows "Gave they their right hands to me and Barnabas."
1) quod sequitur is missing in the Erlanger.
23 (Also this seems to be spoken after the Hebrew way, "the rights of the covenant" (dextras societatis) instead of: "the right hand for the sign of the community (dextras socias) or for the fortification of the community; if he does not rather want that they did not give them the right hand for worship and kissing, so that they should confess their reverence. See that Paul nevertheless preserves the order and reverence due to dignity. He sets Jacobus before Peter, because he was bishop at Jerusalem, but the other apostles departed and arrived. For it is said that the apostles so ordered it that Peter, James and John, according to the teaching of Christ [Matth. 23, 11. 12.], should humble themselves, since they were higher and greater than the others during Christ's lifetime.
He does not say: He who cooperated (cooperatus), but: "He who was powerful" (operatus). But he understands what he describes in detail in 1 Cor. 12, 4. ff. that "there are many powers, but One God, who works all in all". But also the Greek word εργήσας denotes (like Eras
mus confirms] more than the Latin operari (to act), namely, to show its effective power. (Hence Jerome says there was a hidden power working with Paul's power]. This is the grace of the Spirit, by which he multiplies the various gifts and works in the apostles, and works powerfully in the hearers.
(25) Behold, with how great delicacy Paul knows how to choose the words, "the gospel to the foreskin," "the gospel to the circumcision," "the apostleship among the circumcision," "the apostleship among the Gentiles"; he only gives the names of the ministry and the work. For he no doubt takes the word "gospel" for the office of preaching the gospel, and says, "to the foreskin," "to the Gentiles," because he administered this office among the Gentiles. "Apostleship," however, by its very name expresses the office. But in our time they are only names of dignity. (For it is appalling to think how much the gospel is despised by those who go along under its title, when we consider what the word
God is, and at what a high price it is brought about that it could be revealed to men]. It was not enough for him to say, "When they saw that the gospel was confided in me," but he adds, "When they knew the grace that was given me." The ministry they saw, the grace they recognized. How so? Namely, the grace of wisdom, by which he was rich in words before others; and of power, by which he had done wonders among the Gentiles; in word and work the grace was recognized in him. For this reason, for example, he considered it necessary to present these two things at the same time, lest someone take upon himself the ministry of the word who lacks the grace by which he can administer such a ministry. We see that many are trusted with the gospel and the apostolic office, but we do not recognize grace in them, for they cannot prove it either by word or deed.
26. "Who were regarded as pillars." Dear, why doesn't he say, "They were pillars"? Does he not grant them this glory? Far be it from him! He speaks of the thing as it is. For the fact that someone is a pillar in the church concerns the person and is according to reputation; God does not respect this. For this is indeed, as men look at it and think, necessary for the sake of those who are subject (propter subjectos), but this is not the thing itself in which one must place one's trust. It is necessary for kings and princes to be, that is, to be regarded as such and to be considered as such in the opinion of men; incidentally, they are something respectable (personae) before the world and in outward life, but inwardly, where God looks, perhaps lower than the lowest servants.
(27) Thus the episcopate, the priesthood, and every order and state in the church is something respectable (personae), but the thing itself does not remain for eternity. Therefore, he speaks of them in a very appropriate way, using the word "they were regarded for it" against the unintelligent people, who do not look at the appearance of the person differently from the right things themselves. Therefore, the word "they were regarded" (videbantur) must not be taken in the same way as one would take it.
it is now used, saying of a false or apparent thing, It seems so to me; but simply, "They were regarded for it," that is, they were thought to be pillars and respected, and they were real pillars, so far as it can be in this life, in which all that is seen is only "person" and outward appearance of things.
(28) And this is a speech in which something is omitted (ecliptica): "That we should preach among the Gentiles, but they among the circumcision"; add to this: 1) the gospel, or be apostles, and to this expression (tropo) of Paul one must already get used to (tandem). But they did not separate these offices in such a way that Paul should not have instructed a Jew, and Peter not a Gentile, because the epistles of both show the opposite (therefore the circumstantial word "alone" cannot be connected with the preceding), but (as Jerome thinks) each of these two peoples should be sent its own apostle, to the Gentiles the one who taught the free faith without the burden of the law, to the Jews the one who tolerated the deeply ingrained law in order to be able to strengthen the faith gradually.
The poor, whom he calls "the poor saints" in Rom. 15, 26, are those whom the Jews had robbed of their possessions for the sake of Christ, as he writes to the Hebrews [Cap. 10, 34], or those who had given their goods to the church, as Apost. 4, 32. is written; perhaps also those who suffered want at the time of the Theurung, which, as Lucas mentions in the Acts of the Apostles, Cap. 11, 28, happened under the emperor Claudius. But it is certain that what he reports in this chapter took place under Claudius, if you count the years right.
(30) But you see that this is also an apostolic work, the second task of the apostles, that they take care of the poor. For he seems to have added this as an exhortation, knowing that the successors of the apostles would be concerned with other things than the care of the poor. It would like to make one rightly
1) In his Bible translation, Luther added this addition: "preached".
why he equates himself primarily to Peter and remains silent about the other apostles. Yes, that he also attributes the apostleship to Peter to the circumcision, and likewise remains silent about the others. Perhaps, as he was the first among the apostles, so also the false apostles praised him the most to the detriment of the gospel; or he again wanted to give a warning against future abominations (moustris) beforehand.
V.11-13. And when Peter was come to Antioch, I resisted him in mine eyes: for there was a lamentation come upon him. For before some of Jacob came, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew himself, and separated himself, because he feared them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews hypocritized with him, so that Barnabas also was deceived into hypocrisy with him.
31 (This is the Abel (Judg. 11, 33. 1 Sam. 6, 18.) or the great plain on which the two most famous fathers Jerome and Augustine fought fiercely. Jerome based his argument on the fact that Paul had done something similar, since he, Apost. 16, 3, circumcised Timothy for the sake of the Jews who were in the same place, but by no means out of compulsion of the law, since the apostles had already determined in the 15th chapter that the Gentiles should not be burdened with the burden of the law. But the father of Timothy had been a Gentile, and what is more, in the same chapter he teaches that the doctrines and decrees of the apostles are to be kept, against which he himself circumcises Timothy at the same time. Likewise, Apost. 18, 18. he circumcised his head at Keuchrea and had a vow, and Cap. 21, 24. 26. he went into the temple with four men who had a vow upon them, and purified (sanctificavit) himself with them, and the sacrifice was offered for him. Likewise, according to his own testimony 1 Cor. 9:20, "To the Jews I became as a Jew." So St. Jerome says: How presumptuous he is, what right has he to punish Peter, who was the apostle of the circumcision, for what he, the apostle of the Gentiles, as he is (rightly) 1) blamed,
1) Inserted by us.
himself has committed? Therefore he thinks that Paul only used a hypocritical punishment against Peter, so that Paul, because Peter had put the preaching of grace in danger by his hypocrisy, punished in a new way of fighting (as he says), by a new hypocrisy or application of contradicting. The Greek text seems favorable to this opinion, because there it says "according to reputation" (secundum faciem) or "before sight" (in facie). For as Erasmus says here, the preposition χ "τα with the accusative means: after (secundum), or: for the sake of (per); but with the genitive: before (in), or: against (adversus). Here, however, ^"τά πρόςωπον means, according to reputation, before sight, apparently, before others, whereas, namely, with himself, in a pious hypocrisy, he was of quite a different opinion. This also (seems to be in favor of this view), 2) that in the Greek it is not said, "He was penal," but, "He was punished." For he could have been punished by weak and ignorant people, while yet he was not penal. 3) - St. Augustine bases himself on this word which St. Paul said above (Cap. 1, 20.): "But what I write to you, behold, God knows I do not lie," lest, when Paul calls Peter culpable, and says that he resisted him under eyes and punished him, this in truth did not happen so, without hypocrisy, and he did not tell the truth, as he had sworn to tell the truth, and yet he had lied, at least with a lie of favor (mendacio officioso). And so the reputation of the whole holy scripture will waver if in one place something different is said than is meant (aliud dicatur, aliud sentiatur). It is necessary that Peter had been punishable in truth, and had been punished in truth by Paul, or Paul must have lied, since he punished and rebuked him, and even if one could avoid the opinion of St. Augustine by the Greek text, which does not say: "punishable",
2) Added by us.
3) The understanding of this already difficult passage is made even more difficult by incorrect punctuation in the editions. It should be punctuated like this: Lt iNrni, tiuoä in Arueoo non: Rexreüensüülis ernt* 86(1: Ii6xr6N6N8U8 6rut 6te.
but "punished," as Jerome also notes, it nevertheless always remains true and certain that he was punishable, by the act of Paul, who would not have punished an unpunishable man. But let us see the text, which will be the best judge in this matter]. 1) First of all, it is certain that Paul did not punish Peter because he had lived according to pagan ways (as St. Jerome would have it), for then he would in truth have punished the same thing in himself, and Jerome's opinion would be quite firm, who thought that lawful things were not permitted after the passion of Christ and were fatal. For here the holy man erred, misled by some of his ancestors; but for this he punished him, that he hypocritized. The hypocrisy of Peter, I say, Paul did not tolerate. For this he approves, that he had lived after the Gentile manner, and again after the Jewish manner; but that, when the Jews came, he withdrew, and separated himself from the food of the Gentiles, he rejects. 2) By this deprivation he caused Gentiles and Jews to believe that the Gentile way was forbidden and the Jewish way necessary, while he knew that both were free and permitted. Therefore, the text also indicates that Peter knew very well that this was free, because "before (he says) he ate with the Gentiles"; likewise, that he feared those who had come from Jacob, so that he did this out of fear, not out of ignorance. For Paul does not say, Why do you live according to the Gentile way? Nor does he say, "Why do you return to Judaism? He was allowed to do both; but, "Why do you force the Gentiles to live Jewishly?" This compulsion was punishable because of hypocrisy and deprivation,
1) The whole section from the beginning of this paragraph to here is missing not only in Heidnecker, who translated only the second edition, but also in all other German editions, also in Walch, although he says in the preface to the 9th volume, p. 7K: "The German translation of the amended edition has been printed, but at the same time that which was omitted in the same edition and had been in the very first one has been included. Walch has turned to this statement very little. All longer sections of the first edition are also missing in his work, as already noted in the preface to this volume.
2) In the first redaction and in the Erlanger roxrokat is missing.
The Gentiles and the Jews believed that the Jewish way was necessary, but the Gentile way was forbidden.
32) So he does not complain that the other Jews allowed the food, whether it was Gentile or Jewish (because they knew that this was allowed), but about the hypocrisy of Peter and the forcing of the Gentiles and Jews to Judaism as something necessary. Likewise, he does not complain that Barnabas ate with them in a Jewish or a Gentile way, but that he was deceived into the same hypocrisy, and that he consented to forcing Gentiles and Jews into the Jewish life.
For this reason Paul fights against compulsion and for freedom. For faith in Christ alone is necessary for us to be righteous; everything else is completely free, and no longer either commanded or forbidden. Therefore, if Peter had done both with right courage (fronte), he would not have been blameworthy, just as Paul did both confidently. [To what Jerome argues, we say that it must be admitted that the "punished" (reprehensus) in the Greek refers to those who accused Peter to Paul that he had eluded them, and induced Paul to this punishment of Peter; but he was nevertheless truly punishable (reprehensibilis)]. Further, whether Peter thereby committed a mortal sin (as they call it), let others see. This I know, that those who were forced into Judaism by such hypocrisy would have been lost if they had not been set right again by Paul, because they began to seek their righteousness not by faith in Christ but in the works of the law. Therefore Peter gave a strong (efficax) offense with the others, not in life but in faith and to eternal damnation. For Paul would not have resisted him so confidently if there had been a slight danger and venial sin here. For he complains that the truth of the gospel has been abandoned; but if one does not follow the truth of the gospel, this is already a sin of unbelief.
34. it does not please me the great trouble that
3) Jena thorn. Ill has ^nasritrir instead of ^ueritur.
The saints are not to be excused and exalted too much, especially when this is against what the Scriptures say. It is better that Peter and Paul should be fallen into unbelief, even that they should be cursed, as he said above [Cap. 1:8], than that one tittle of the gospel should fall away.
35 I do not approve of the fact that the Greekχατά πρόςωπον, "before the eyes" (in facie), can be used to prove Paul's hypocrisy. Paul was not hypocritical, but resisted with full conviction (corde) the hypocrisy of Peter, and "before the eyes" is the same as "before all", or publicly, as St. Ambrose also interprets it. So it is also said afterwards, "I spoke to Petro before all." For I have also said this above [§ 18], that facies (according to the way of Scripture) signifies that which is public, and the opposite of that which is hidden, so that there a man can see and judge, but here only God. By this word he does not show his insolence and hopefulness, as the foolish Porphyrius accuses Paul, but the necessity and the highest modesty. For he did not punish Peter until all the others had given their consent, then his companion Barnabas had also been deceived, and now there was no one left at all who could stand up for the truth of the gospel, and the actions of those people had already gained a reputation against evangelical freedom. It is due to his modesty that he did not punish soon, but allowed all to be deceived first; but the misery can be seen in the fact that the gospel had already fallen.
36 Or if one wants to stubbornly stand on the meaning of the Greek word that "in sight" (secundum faciem) should definitely mean: according to appearance, as John 7:24.: "Judge not according to appearance," nevertheless this does not enforce that hypocrisy was with Paul; but rather this will be the meaning, that though he resisted him from the heart, chastising him with the outward word, yet not from a malicious heart, as it is said Sir. 7, 26. (Vulg.), "If thou hast daughters, keep their bodies, and show not thy face cheerfully against them." Thus are
Parents harshly against the children according to reputation, but not from the heart, but also not in a hypocritical way; and every Christian must be able to punish his brother and disagree with him, and yet keep a gentle heart and one mind (unitate) towards him. So it is also said of God Himself, Klagel. 3, 33: "For He does not afflict and grieve men from the heart." But who would want to say that God is pious when He afflicts and grieves men? So also Paul punished Peter with a right punishment, being hard in his eyes but kind in his heart against Peter. It is therefore a true guilt that Peter has, which was very worthy of punishment, and in both no hypocrisy, as St. Jerome thinks for it; but preceding (prior) was that hypocrisy, by which Peter forced 1) that the Jewish and legal being had to be kept.
Question: Since Peter, fearing the anger of the weak, withdrew in good opinion (pia cogitatione), what would Paul do if in the same case there were weak people on both sides, Gentiles and Jews? Whom should he give way to? Because it is not difficult to agree with a single one. For if he ate with the Jews, he would offend the Gentiles, as Peter did; if he ate with the Gentiles, he would offend the Jews, as Peter feared here. In such a case, one must preserve and explain the evangelical truth by showing the reason and cause for it, as Paul does here, since he punishes Peter in front of everyone, and shows that it is permissible to live according to the Gentile way; and above (vv. 3-5), since he did not admit that the Gentile Titus would be circumcised, he did not deviate even one hour. But if here the weak Jews do not want to follow, they must be let go. For it is better to keep one part with the gospel truth than to lose both parts at the same time with the gospel.
38) But how I would like that this passage [in the letter] 2) of the apostle would be very well known to all Christians, especially to the religious.
1) In the editions of the first redaction and in the Erlanger: roMdat instead of voMdat.
2) Inserted by us.
The Church is not a place of the religious (religiosis), the clergy (clero) and the numerous superstitious people who, for the sake of the papal laws or their statutes, do nothing else 1) but overthrow the evangelical faith and charity; Nor do they have so much sound judgment that, if brotherly love requires it, they should cast off their burdens, unless they have been bought again for money indulgence and permission (indulta); since neither the popes nor the church can impose (statuere) anything further than so far as free love is permitted and the good deeds which one exercises toward the other. For if the pope can forbear anything, and the cause exists that it is useful, or honorable, or, which is the highest, love, then you already need no other permission (dispensatione) than your own. For even no human law can extend so far as to bind you even a hair's breadth in these matters, but must always exclude these things, willingly or unwillingly. But if this cause is not present, and you follow your desires alone, then the pope's forbearance will certainly be his own and your ruin and downfall. O woe! How many torments of conscience has this ignorance of God's law and man's laws introduced into the church.
39 I cannot pass over this remarkable story, which is particularly appropriate here. Of St. Spiridion, bishop of Cyprus, it is written in the first book of the Tripartite, 2) that he took in a stranger during Lent and, because he had nothing else, served him pork, praying first and asking God's permission. But when the guest refused and confessed that he was a Christian, he said: "For this reason you must refuse no longer, for all things are pure to the pure, as God's word teaches us. [Not as if I wanted the commandments of the forefathers to be despised in any way, but (I want) them to be rightly understood, that where necessity or love is the antithesis of the commandments of the forefathers, they are to be obeyed.
1) In the editions of the first Redaction, the Erlanger Und der Weimarschen non raro instead of non ni8i.
2) For the Tripartita, see Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 466, note 1.
(especially if one has first sought the counsel of the confessor or a good man), such a commandment must be broken with godly humility and reverence, so that it is not necessary for those confessionalia and indulta to be sold and bought. For if it is not lawful for you to break the laws for some other cause, no dispensation, no letter of confession, no indulgence (indultum) in and of itself will be sufficient for you. But if there is another cause, you already have no need of these things, as I have said.]
(40) But I would admonish the bishops (pontifices) that they should at last let themselves lament the dangers of the church and repeal its laws, by which, as we see, the consciences are only entangled, or money is fished, moreover, the trust in Christ is completely stifled, that is, the true Christians are exterminated and the church is filled with hypocrites and idols.
V.14. But when I saw that they were not walking aright according to the truth of the gospel, I said publicly to Petro in the presence of all, "If you, who are a Jew, are living Gentilely and not Jewishly, why do you force the Gentiles to live Jewishly?
41 Paul reveals Peter and exposes his hypocrisy (for this alone he punishes). Peter was hypocritical that he did not live according to the Gentile way, but according to the Jewish way. But Paul says, "Yes, you live according to the Gentile way and have lived that way, and now you are pretending otherwise, and by this hypocrisy you are forcing the Gentiles to live not according to the Gentile way but according to the Jewish way, and so you are forcing them under the bondage of the law. From this it is clear that St. Jerome did not understand Paul correctly. For Jerome understands it in such a way that Peter's hypocrisy consisted in the fact that he lived Jewishly for the sake of the Jews by keeping the law, which he was not allowed to keep. But Paul does not punish this hypocrisy, nor does he care about it, but the hypocrisy with which he pretended and separated himself from the Gentile food, as if it were not allowed to use it;
because this hypocrisy was dangerous to the gospel, not that one.
There were also some who claimed that this Cephas was another, one of the seventy disciples, as it is written in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. But this is overturned by St. Jerome in a learned and powerful way. For with a perverse zeal they wanted to protect Peter, while Paul had written this to the Galatians in order to shut the mouths of those who spoke of him in a diminutive way, that his teaching was to be considered inferior to that of Peter.
43) On the other hand, he says that he did not get his teaching from men, but from God; moreover, it had not only been approved by Peter and the apostles, but Peter himself had also been punished by Him, so that they now had nothing left to offer to Paul. Paul, since Peter had also made a mistake in the truth of the Gospel by depriving others of the freedom he claimed for himself out of fear of the Jews and thus acted unjustly toward them. In this Paul certainly shows that he is higher than Peter, but this supremacy (as they say) has not been a cause of hope, because it is a reputation (persona) of men, which God does not respect. [Because of this, the See of Rome and the See of Constantinople used to quarrel in terrible discord, as if this were the only thing necessary in the Church, as if the unity of the Church lay in the prestige of a man and the primacy of power, but not in faith, hope, and love in the spirit. - This too must not be disregarded, although it is a well-known and common thing that XXX (Cephe), as Jerome says, is the same in Hebrew, and even in Syriac, as Πέτρος or πέτρα in Greek, and saxum or soliditas in Latin, as is also indicated by the decrees taken from Leo and Ambrose. So the decree of Nicolaus is in error (if the title does not lie), which says that Cephe is the same as head, so that it makes Peter the head of the Church apart from Christ with the well-known anxious concern (affectione). The Greek
χεραλη means head, but not the Syriac cephe]. 1)
V. 15. Although we are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles.
44. He compares the Jews and the Gentiles. "We," he says, "are Jews by nature." In legal righteousness, indeed, we surpass the Gentiles, who are sinners, when compared with us, since they have neither the law nor the works of the law, but by this we are not righteous before God; this righteousness of ours is an external one. And he treats this statement in great detail in the Letter to the Romans, chapters 1 and 2, where he first declares that the Gentiles were very great sinners, but when he turns to the Jews in the second chapter, he states that even though they are not such people as he had described the Gentiles, they are nevertheless sinners, because they kept the law by heart, not inwardly, and while they boasted of the law, they dishonored God by transgressing the law.
V.16. But because we know that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, we also believe in Jesus Christ, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh is justified.
(45) We are justified, he says, because we are Jews by nature, not sinners like the Gentiles, but through the righteousness of the works of the law, by which no one is justified before God. Therefore we also, like the Gentiles, consider our righteousness as filth, and seek to be justified by faith in Christ, being now sinners at the same time with the Gentiles, being justified at the same time with the Gentiles, since God (as Peter says Acts 15:9) "made no distinction between us and them, and purified their hearts by faith."
46. but because this passage seems to be inconsistent to those who have not yet got used to the theo-
1) Luther means the decree vist. 22. o. Kserosanotn Romans, which is attributed to Anaclet; in the Corpus jnris osnonwi a decree of Nicolaus precedes; hence the error.
1432 L-i. in, 217-220. shorter interpretation d, Galatians 2, 16. w. ix, 97-100. 14ZZ.
Since we have become accustomed to Paul's logic, and since St. Jerome also struggles to understand it, let us elaborate on what we began above about the paternal statutes. Also, among the existing scribes, I see none who could satisfy in this doctrine, but only Augustine, and even he not in all places, but only where he fights against the Pelagians, the enemies of divine grace. This one will make Paul easy to understand and clear to you.
(47) Therefore it must be known above all things that man becomes righteous in two ways, and that in completely opposite ways (modis); first, externally, by works of his own power, which are the human righteousnesses brought about by usage and habit (as they say), as described by Aristotle and other philosophers, as required by civil and ecclesiastical laws in ceremonies, as produced by the inspiration of reason and prudence. For thus they think that by doing righteous things a righteous man comes into being, by moderation a moderate man, and the like. The Law of Moses, and even the Ten Commandments, have such a righteousness effect, namely, where one serves God out of fear of punishment or because of the promised reward, does not swear by the name of God, honors parents, does not kill, does not rob, does not break marriage etc.
(48) This is a servile, reward-seeking, fictitious, apparent, outward, temporal, worldly, human righteousness, which avails nothing for future glory, but receives its reward in this life, glory, wealth, honor, power, friendship, health, or at least peace and tranquility, and less evil than those who behave otherwise, as Christ describes the Pharisees, and St. Augustine the Romans in the first book of his De civitatei, Cap. 8. Augustine describes the Romans in the first book of his De civitate Dei, Cap. 8. This deceives even wise and great men very much, if they are not well instructed in the holy Scriptures. This righteousness is called by Jeremiah, Cap. 2, 13, "wells full of holes that give no water." And yet (as he says there) it causes them to presume to be without sin, and it is the cause of their actions.
It is completely similar to what we see a monkey do when it wants to imitate man, or what those who are masked on the stage and in games show, and it is completely peculiar to hypocrites and idols. Therefore it is called lying and ungodliness in the Scriptures. Hence comes the name BethAven, the house of ungodliness. To this kind also belong today the deceivers of souls who, trusting in free will, make a good (as they say) resolution, and since they have brought forth the act of loving God above all things from their natural powers, they immediately presume most shamefully that they have obtained the grace of God. These are the ones who want to heal the woman who has the issue of blood (that is the sinful conscience) with works, consume all her goods, and only make it worse with her [Marc. 5, 25. f.].
Secondly, man is justified inwardly by faith, by 1) grace, where man despairs of the first righteousness altogether, and eighths it like an insolent garment [Is. 64, 6.], prostrates himself before God, sighs humbly, and confesses with the publican that he is a sinner, saying [Luc. 18, 13.), "God, be merciful to me a sinner!" "This one (says Christ) went down justified to his house." For this (righteousness) is nothing other than the invocation of the divine name. But the name of God is mercy, truth, righteousness, power, wisdom, and the calling of one's own name. But our name is sin, falsehood, vanity, foolishness, according to the words [Ps. 116, 11.): "All men are liars." [Ps. 39, 6.), "How nothing are all men!" etc. 2) But the invocation of the divine name, when it is in the heart and done rightly from the heart, shows that the heart [of the invoker) and the name of the Lord are One Thing and are connected with each other. Therefore, it is impossible that the heart should not share in the same virtues in which the name of the Lord abounds. But the heart and the name of the Lord are connected through faith. The
1) The Jena edition, Dom. I and Dom. Ill and the Basel edition have ot instead of ox.
2) In the editions of the first redaction and in the Erlanger, this "sto." is incorrectly placed after vunitus.
But faith comes by the word of Christ, by which the name of the Lord is preached, as it is said [Ps. 22, 23.], "I will preach thy name unto my brethren," and again [Ps. 102, 22.), "That they may preach in Zion the name of the Lord." Now as the name of the Lord is pure, holy, righteous, true, good etc., so it makes the heart quite like itself when it touches the heart, or is touched by the heart (which is by faith).
50. Thus it comes about that all sins are forgiven for those who believe in the name of the Lord, and righteousness is imputed to them because of your name, O Lord, because it is good, not because of their merit, for neither did they deserve to hear. But after the heart has been justified by faith based on His name, God gives them power to become children of God [John 1:12] by pouring out the Holy Spirit into their hearts, who enlarges them by His love and makes them peaceful and joyful, fit for all good works, conquerors of all evil, even despisers of death and hell. Here all laws cease immediately and all works of the law; everything is now free, permitted, and the law is fulfilled through faith and love. Behold, this is what Christ has earned for us, namely, that the name of the Lord is preached to us (that is, the mercy and truth of God), whoever believes in Him will be saved.
51 Therefore, if your conscience torments you, and you are a sinner seeking to be righteous, what will you do? Wilt thou look about to see what works thou mayest do, or where thou mayest go? No, but see to it that you both hear and remember the name of the Lord, that is, that God is righteous, good and holy, and immediately cling to him in the firm belief that he is such toward you, and immediately you are already so constituted and like him. But nowhere can you see the name of the Lord more clearly than in Christ, where you will see how good, lovely, faithful, just and true God is, since He did not spare His own Son. He will draw you to Himself through Christ. Without this righteousness
It is impossible for the heart to be pure, so it is impossible for the righteousness of men to be true. For here the name of the Lord is used for truth, but there it is used for vanity, because here man gives honor to God, but dishonor to himself; but there he gives honor to himself and dishonor to God. This is the right secret art (cabbala) of the name of the Lord, not of the Tetragrammaton, 1) of which the Jews invent fables in an exceedingly superstitious way. Faith in the name of the Lord is the right understanding of the law, the end of the law and absolutely everything in all. But this name of his he has put in Christ, as he foretold through Moses.
(52) This is the precious (liberalis) righteousness that is given freely, which is solid, an inherent righteousness, eternal, true, heavenly, divine, which neither earns nor receives anything in this life, nor does it seek anything. Rather, because it consists in Christ and his name (which is righteousness), the righteousness of Christ and the righteousness of the Christian are one and the same, ineffably connected with each other. For from 2) Christ it gushes and springs forth, as he says John 4:14: "The water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." Thus it comes to pass that, just as through alien sin all men became sinners, so through alien righteousness all become righteous, as it is said in Rom. 5:19: "Just as through one man's disobedience many became sinners, so through one man's, Christ's, righteousness many become righteous." This is the mercy that was proclaimed by all the prophets before, this is the blessing that was promised to Abraham and his seed, as we will see hereafter.
(53) Now we come back to the text and see how rightly the apostle says: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but only by faith in Jesus Christ, we also believe in Jesus Christ, that we may be saved.
1) i.e. Nipp; this name of God is called Tetragrammaton because it consists of four letters.
2) In the editions of the first redaction and in the Erlangen one, the following is missing
become righteous by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law." In these words he indicates each of these two righteousnesses, rejecting the former but accepting the latter.
54 You shall do likewise, my beloved brother. First of all, hear that Jesus means blessedness, and Christ means the anointing of mercy, and if you firmly believe this unheard-of blessedness and mercy, you will be justified, that is, believe that he will be your blessedness and mercy, and then it will be so without any doubt. Therefore, the teaching that the forgiveness of sins is obtained through insignificant, small reparations and through forced repentance, is quite ungodly and exceedingly pagan, leaving this doctrine of faith in Christ completely undone, as the great crowd of stupid teachers of sentences (senten- tiastrorum) is now doing theology.
(55) Here it is to be noted that the apostle does not reject the works [of the law], as St. Jerome also teaches in this passage, but the trust in the works [of the law^, that is, he does not say that one should not do works, but he says that by them no one can be justified. Therefore, this word of the apostle must be read with emphasis and good concern (epitasi), since he says: "Man is not justified by the works of the law", as if he wanted to say: I allow works [of the law] to be done, but I say that by them a man is not justified, except in his own sight and in the sight of men, and that they have their reward in this life. Works of the law may be done, only one should know that they are sins before God and already not right works [of the law]. And so he destroys the trust in our righteousness, and says that above all works of the law a much different righteousness is needed, namely the works of God and grace.
(56) Likewise, you must also notice that he says in general, "works of the law," not only works that pertain to the ceremonies, but also all works according to the holy ten commandments, because even these, if done without faith and the right righteousness of God, are not sufficient.
and by their shaminess inspire a false confidence in the hypocrites. Therefore, he who wants to be saved must despair of all powers, works and laws.
57) Likewise, you must remember this 1) common expression of the apostle, that he does not call "works of the law," as others have it in custom, because by them the law itself is fulfilled. For this understanding is the cause that very many do not understand the apostle, who cannot receive the works of the law otherwise than that they celebrate righteousness and good, since the law itself is good and righteous, therefore they are forced to understand by the law the ceremonial laws, that these were then evil and dead; but they err. As the ceremonial law was good and holy, so it is now, because it is ordered by God Himself.
(58) The apostle constantly says that the law is not fulfilled by works, but only by faith. Since the fulfillment of the law is righteousness, but this does not belong to works but to faith, he cannot understand by "works of the law" that by which the law is fulfilled. What then? The rule of the apostle is this: Not works fulfill the law, but the fulfillment of the law does works; not he who does righteous things becomes righteous, but he who has become righteous does righteous things. The former is righteousness and the fulfillment of the law before works can take place, since these flow from the latter. Therefore he calls them "works of the law" in contrast to the works of grace or the works of God, because the works of the law are truly of the law, not our works, since they do not come about by our will working them, but the law presses them out by threats or draws them forth by promises. But what is not done by our will of our own free will, but what is forced by another, is no longer our work, but rather that of the driver. For the works belong to him by whose command they are done. But they are done by the command of the law, not by the pleasure of the will. This is sufficiently evident if it were up to someone,
1) In the editions of the first redaction and in the Erlanger üuio instead of üuue.
to live without the law, he would never voluntarily do works of the law.
59 Therefore in Isaiah, Cap. 9, 4.The law is called a "driver," saying, "Thou hast broken the yoke of their burden, and the rod of their shoulder, and the staff of their driver, as in the days of Midian," for through the child given to us, in whom we believe, we become free and have pleasure in the law, and we no longer belong to the law, but the law is ours, and the works are not works of the law, but of grace, from which they spring forth freely and sweetly, whereas formerly the law enforced them fcharf and hard.
You will understand this if you divide the works into four classes: Works of sin, which are done while evil desire reigns, without the resistance of grace; works of the law, which are done while evil desire is outwardly subdued, but inwardly glows all the more and hates the law, that is, which are good in appearance but evil in heart; works of grace, which are done while evil desire contends, but the spirit of grace nevertheless retains the victory; works of peace and perfect health, which, while evil desire is extinguished, are done with complete ease and sweetness. This will take place in the life to come, here it begins.
For by the works of the law no flesh is justified.
61 He makes the same judgment in Rom. 3, 28. and proves it extensively from Ps. 14, 3: "There is not he that is righteous, that doeth good" etc. [Therefore the works of the law must necessarily be sins, otherwise they would certainly make one righteous; and so it is clear that Christian righteousness and human righteousness are not only different, but also opposed to each other, because the latter comes from works, but the works come from the former.
62 Therefore, it is no wonder that Paul's theology fell away completely, nor could it be understood, after those began to teach Christians who lied that Aristotle's moral doctrine was entirely consistent with the doctrine
Christ and Paul, understanding neither Aristotle nor Christ in the least. For our righteousness looks down from heaven and descends to us. But those godless people have presumed to ascend to heaven by their righteousness, and to bring from there the truth which is applied to us from the earth. So Paul stands firm: "By the works of the law no flesh is justified," as also the Psalm [Ps. 143, 2.] says: "Before you no living man is justified." So it only remains that the works of the law are not works of righteousness, unless it is righteousness that we do.
V.17. But if we ourselves, who seek to be justified by Christ, should also be found sinners, Christ would be a minister of sin. Let this be far off!
63 That is, we have already said that we believe in Christ so that we may be justified by faith in Christ. But if we are not justified in this way, even if we are still sinners and in need of justification (because you force us to be justified by the works of the law), then justification by faith is nothing, and Christ has made us sinners by his faith and in need of the righteousness of the law. This is quite inconsistent and means to reject Christ altogether, because he should have given us sin through his ministry in such a way that it first had to be taken away through the law, and now the righteousness of the law would be better than that of Christ. For the apostle bases his proof on the fact that [if the false teachers were right] 1) impossible and inconsistent things would follow, as if he wanted to say: If the law is necessary for us who seek to be justified by Christ, we who have been justified by Christ are still found to be sinners 2) and debtors to the law. But if this is the case, then Christ did not justify us, but only made us sinners, so that we might be justified by the law, which is impossible. Therefore this also is impossible, that the law (I say)
1) Inserted by us.
2) In the editions of the first redaction and in the Erlanger iuvkuiemur instead of inveuiraur.
1440 Vri. Ill, 227-2W. Shorter Interpretation of the Epistle to the Galatians 2, 17. W. IX, 108 f. 1441
and that we are justified by the works of the law. For as those who have been justified in Christ, we are not found to be sinners, but righteous, because Christ is not a minister of sin, but of righteousness. [This is the opinion of St. Jerome. St. Augustine explains it somewhat differently and in a more forced manner]. 64 But to understand the apostle, you must notice that he covertly compares Moses with Christ. For this is Paul's way of speaking, that he calls the law the cause of sin and the power of sin, therefore he dares to call the office of the law an office of death and sin, 2 Cor. 3, 7. [according to the Vulgate]: "But so the office of death, which is formed with letters in the stones" etc., and Rom. 5, 10. ff. he explains how sin killed by the law. Therefore, by Moses, the minister of the law, he understands the minister of sin and death, because through the law comes sin and through sin comes death, for he says Rom. 4:15: "Where the law is not, there is no transgression." To this he contrasts Christ, the minister of righteousness, who fulfilled what Moses required by the law, which John also does not entirely conceal, 1) but, Cap. 1, 17. says: "The law indeed was given through Moses, but grace and truth came to be through JEsum Christ," as if to say: The law, but not grace and truth, was given through Moses, so rather sin and transgression came through his ministry.
Therefore, Christ is not a lawgiver, but the fulfiller of the law. Every lawgiver is a servant of sin, because he gives cause for sin through the law. Therefore he did not give the old law by himself but by the angels, but the new one (that is, grace) he gave by himself, since he sent the Holy Spirit from heaven. (But here again the misery of the church and the Christian people confronts us, when I direct my gaze to the forests, sandy deserts, clouds and seas of the Roman laws, whose titles one could not even learn in a whole lifetime. Here speaks the
1) non omnino tacet tackt is missing in the Erlanger.
In the same way, the Apostles confidently state that the laws are the offices of sins, while our lawgivers boast that they oppose sins and strife through the great number of laws, and do not realize that even experience, which comes under their eyes, shows that this is a foolish thing to do. And to play also once with spiritual interpretation (allegoriis), so I believe that the ten plagues of Egypt were pictures, not only of the Jewish law collections (thalmu- dim), but also of the ecclesiastical. For since we read that they were inflicted by the evil angels, it cannot be denied that by them the doctrines and statutes of men are signified, since "angel" certainly signifies a preacher of the Word and a teacher, as also in the Revelation of John those angels indicate with their plagues and bowls. But the other plagues, that our water is turned into blood, that the exceedingly talkative 2) frogs, that is, the glosses, trouble us, that the lice bite and suck out all our possessions, that the vermin (muscae) also consume us who labor and make it sour for us, that the cattle, that is, the lonely of heart are killed, that we are infected with smallpox, that we are estimated and beaten by hail, that is, tyrannical violence, that we are sucked to the marrow by locusts, that would be something to suffer for the sake of our sins. But that the extreme evil is added to this, and we are made blind by such darkness that one can grasp with one's hands, and, unfortunately, finally also lose our glorious first-born, that is, the righteousness of Christ and faith in him, that cannot be lamented enough. But since paternal duty sleeps in the bishops here, I fulfill, as much as I can, at least the fraternal duty, and exhort and ask that we also cry out to the Lord, whether he might mercifully come down and deliver us from this iron furnace and the house of the hardest servitude.^
66 But I believe that some are moved by the fact that the apostle here denies that those who are
2) Instead of loquacissime, probably loquacissimae should be read.
sinners who believe in Christ and are justified, since no man is without sin, not even he [Paul] himself, as he testifies about himself in his letter to the Romans, chapters 7 and 8. I answer: Everyone who believes in Christ is righteous, not yet completely in fact, but in hope. For he has begun to become righteous and healthy, like that half-dead man. In the meantime, while he is becoming righteous and healthy, whatever sin remains in his flesh is not imputed to him, for the sake of Christ, who, because he is without all sin and has now become one thing with his Christian, intercedes for him with the Father. Thus he says Rom. 8:1, after he had said that he was in his members under sin through the law: "There is therefore nothing condemnable in them which are in Christ JEsu, who walk not after the flesh." He does not say there is no sin left, but there is much sin left, but it is not counted to condemnation. In reference to this mystery, Christ seems to have said on the cross, "It is finished" before he died. Therefore, all praise given in this way to the righteous is to be understood in the same way, that they are not completely perfect in themselves, but that God does not impute sins to them, and forgives them because of faith in His Son Jesus Christ, who is our mercy seat. St. Augustine treats this extensively in his book "Of Nature and Grace".
(67) Those who ascribe no sin to those who are baptized and repent, but only weakness, tinder (to sin) 1) and a disease of nature, especially when they say that it is not sin in itself, while they should say that it is not sin only for its own sake, because God does not impute it and forgives it, err and deceive in a harmful way.
V. 18 But if I build again that which I have broken, I make myself a transgressor.
(68) That is, when I have taught by the preaching of faith that justification is in Christ and that the law has been fulfilled.
1) Added by us.
and thereby destroyed the sins, but then again taught that one must keep the law, and it was not fulfilled, what did I do but raise up the sins again, and said that we must still overcome them with our works? By this I did nothing else than to show that I had either then or now done evil, that is, I made myself a transgressor, yes, I separated myself from Christ, in whom I had been justified, and placed myself anew under the law and sins, and would be just as much a transgressor as I was before I had Christ.
Again, Paul uses a way of speaking that is peculiar to him, so the commentators differ from each other. St. Jerome wants to understand by what is "broken" and "rebuilt" the law, namely the ceremonial law. Although this opinion is correct, it is too narrow to be sufficient to fit other passages of Scripture. St. Augustine says that what is destroyed is the works of the law, yes, the arrogance that boasts of the works of the law and is presumptuous of them. I do not reject this opinion either.
70 But if you compare the apostle with the previous and other passages, you see that he (as I said) breaks the sins, not the law, especially since he says Rom. 3, 31. that he does not abolish the law by faith, but rather establishes it. But the sins he breaketh, Rom. 6:6, [Vulg.] "That the body of sin might be broken." For by faith the sins are broken, which were by the law, and became much. For sin is not broken unless the law is fulfilled. But the law is not fulfilled otherwise than through the righteousness of faith. Thus it comes about that through faith the law is also established at the same time, and sins are destroyed. For since through faith the law is satisfied, sins cease, and the law remains in force.
(71) But to rebuild sins is to preach the law again, and to hold that it must be observed and fulfilled. But where the law must be fulfilled,
Even righteousness has not yet been established; indeed, there is still sin left. For sin is when one has not yet fulfilled the law; so the sins come again, of which it was taught that they were destroyed before by faith. Therefore, "to build up sins" is as much as to weaken, destroy, and make futile the law. "But to break sin" is as much as to establish, build, and fulfill the law. So anyone who teaches that the law is fulfilled and that righteousness is established is breaking sins. But this is what he does who teaches that through faith in Christ men become righteous, that is, fulfillers of the law. But he who says that the law must be fulfilled, and that righteousness has not been established, is in fact setting up sins again and making them alive again, and is saying that people are debtors to the law and are guilty of keeping the law. This, I say, is in my opinion the meaning of the apostle in this passage, who is wont to teach that through sin the law is broken, as he says Rom. 8:3: "Which was impossible for the law, because it was made weak by the flesh," that is, was not fulfilled. For the flesh does not fulfill the law, therefore it weakens the law. But also in other passages of Scripture the same figurative expression is found. Thus Jer. 35:16 [Vulg.], "The children of Jonadab strengthened the commandment of their father, which he commanded them"; likewise v. l4, "The words of Jonadab, which he commanded, were very strong." [And Ps. 141, 6. (Vulg.): "They will hear my words because they have been mighty" (potuerunt), that is, they have become strong, fortified, and fulfilled]. Again Ps. 18, 37. [Vulg.): "My steps (vestigia) have not become weak," that is, my ways are fortified and fulfilled. [But Ps. 11, 3. (Vulg.): "For what thou hast accomplished they have broken," that is, thy law, as it is in the Hebrew, they have scattered etc.]
(72) But also from the foregoing it can be clearly seen that this is the right understanding, since it says that those are not found sinners who have been justified by Christ; therefore it is proved that for them sins are broken. If
But if they were found to be sinners, then the sins that were destroyed before would be restored, which would be blasphemy against Christ, who has made sin and death void for us if we believe in him, and, as John says [1 Ep. 3:9], "He that is born of God doth not sin."
(73) But I think it is quite evident that the apostle is not speaking of the ceremonial laws only, but of the whole law. For Christ would have accomplished very little if he had only nullified the sins against the ceremonial law. But since he also took away the sins against the holy ten commandments, it is already clear by the conclusion from the greater to the lesser (a fortiori) that also the ceremonial laws were taken away and all laws became free.
(74) Again, I am compelled to admonish the reader, who is accustomed to ordinary theology, because he may take offense when he hears that the law is fulfilled for all who believe in Christ. For he will say, Why then is it taught that the holy ten commandments and so many commandments of the Gospel and the apostles must be fulfilled, and why are we daily exhorted to the works which they prescribe? The answer to this is as stated above: How are those who are justified by Christ not sinners, and yet sinners? For the Scripture says both things of him who is righteous. John says in his first epistle (canonica), Cap. 1, 8: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." And there, Cap. 5, 18. [Vulg.), he says: "We know that he who is born of God does not sin, but the begetting of God" (generatio Dei), that is, being born of God, "preserves him, and the wicked will not touch him." The same says Cap. 3, 9. "He that is born of God doth not sin, for his seed abideth with him, and cannot sin." Behold, he also cannot sin (he says), and yet, if he would say that he has no sin, he is lying.
75 We can see a similar contradiction in Job. God, who cannot lie, says of him, Cap. 1, 8. that he is a righteous and innocent man, and yet he confesses
this afterwards in different places that he was a sinner, especially Cap. 9, 2. and 7, 21.: "Why do you not take away my sin?" etc. But he must necessarily speak the truth, for if he were to lie before God, God would not say of him that he is righteous. He is therefore both a righteous man and a sinner. Who can reconcile these 1) different statements (facies), which are contrary to each other, or in what do they agree? Certainly in the mercy seat, from which the faces of the cherubim are directed in unison, which otherwise are opposed to each other. Therefore, since righteousness and the fulfillment of the law began through faith, what is left of sin and what is still lacking in the fulfillment of the law is not counted for the sake of Christ in whom they believe.
For faith also, after it has come into being, has this as its task, that it may cast out of the flesh what is left of sin through various tribulations, labor and the destruction of the flesh, so that in this way the law of God may please and be fulfilled not only in the spirit and heart, but also in the flesh, which still resists faith and the spirit, which delights in the law and fulfills it, as it is beautifully described in Romans 7:22, 23. Therefore, if you look at faith, the law is fulfilled, sin is destroyed, and there is no law left; but if you look at the flesh, in which there is nothing good, you must confess that those who are justified in spirit by faith are still sinners.
(77) For this reason the apostle is zealous that no one should presume to bring righteousness into the heart by the works of the law, as if the righteousness of faith did not already reign there, from which the works and fulfillment of the law flow into the flesh. And for this take this likeness: Just as Christ, who is without all sin, the head of the righteous, owes nothing at all to the law, neither is he to be instructed as to what he should do, since he has already done everything.
1) In the editions of the first redaction and in the Erlanger: üaee instead of Uas.
does, and much more abundantly than the law can teach, yet governs and exercises his body and flesh, the church, so that he may instill his righteousness into it, so that, just as he is obedient to the Father in all things, so also he may make his body obedient, yet not so obedient and without sin: so the spirit of the righteous through faith is without sin, owes nothing to the law, but still has the body, which is still unlike it and rebellious, on which it works and exercises itself, that it may also make it like itself without sin, righteous and holy.
Therefore, the commandments are necessary only for sinners. But even the righteous are sinners for the sake of their flesh, but this is not imputed to them because of the faith of the inner man, who, conformed to God, persecutes, hates, and crucifies sin in his flesh until he owes nothing to any law in the life to come, perfected in the flesh and in the spirit. So in part the law is fulfilled, in part we owe nothing to the law, in part sins are destroyed. But those who seek to attain righteousness by the works of the law even rebuild the sin of unbelief against faith in the spirit, yes, these exceedingly perverse people raise up sin in the flesh by the works of the law, which faith casts out all their lives, so that it is as it were not there, and thereby they raise up the fulfillment of the law as righteousness, not faith. For they think they are righteous when they have done the works of the law, although they have neither faith in Christ, which is inherent righteousness, nor purity of the flesh, but pretend to it. And 2) they are neither inwardly nor outwardly righteous, but deceive themselves and men by mere appearances.
(79) Therefore the commandments are necessary, not that we may be justified by works according to them, but that we, being already just men, may know in what manner our spirit should crucify the flesh, and guide us in the things of this life, that the flesh may be justified.
2) The editions of the first redaction, the Weimar and the Erlangen: ut instead of ac.
not become horny, break the reins and throw off the rider, the spirit of faith. The bridle must be put on the horse, not the rider.
V. 19. But I died to the law through the law, that I might live to God.
80 He also continues this figurative speech in Rom. 7, 2. ff. where he describes that a woman who survives the man is free from the law that affects the man after he has died. All this will be incomprehensible (barbara) to you if you do not keep bodily (metaphysicas) death and bodily changes away from the mind. Just as one death cancels another, one sin cancels another, one imprisonment cancels another, one freedom cancels another, one bondage cancels another, one life cancels another, one good cancels another, one evil cancels another, one curse cancels another, one light cancels another, one darkness cancels another, one day cancels another, one night cancels another, so one law cancels another. There are many examples of this in Scripture, especially in Paul.
Therefore he obviously has a twofold law in mind. One is the law of the spirit and of faith, by which one lives GOtte, after the sins are overcome and the law is fulfilled, as is sufficiently said. The other law is the law of the letter and of works, by which one lives to sin, in that the law has never been fulfilled, but the fulfillment is feigned. For by the law hatred against the law is awakened, but by faith love against the law is infused. Therefore, he who deals with the works of the law (operator legis) keeps the law with hatred against the law, that is, he makes it stand most shamefully; while inwardly he desires something else, outwardly he pretends to something else. But the spirit of faith keeps the law with love against the law, that is, he fulfills it in the best way, and yet, struggling with his sins by heart, he shows that he is a sinner.
82) These two are therefore contrary to each other; the one who deals with the law (legalis) sins inwardly, and outwardly he applies righteousness; the believer does good inwardly, and outwardly he bears his sin,
and persecutes them. Therefore Paul lives by the law of faith inwardly, and there he died to the law. But in the flesh he is not yet alive to the law, but is made alive to the law; he has not yet died to the law, but is being killed to the law, while diligently striving to transfer the same purity of heart that he has by faith to the flesh by heart. By this endeavor he deserves to be regarded as living wholly GOtte and having died to the law, entirely according to the same figurative speech in which he is called above a sinner and not a sinner, a fulfiller and not a fulfiller. For this is in the life to come, that we GOtte be fully alive and dead to the law. Living and dying here cannot be taken bodily or naturally, as already the expression of the apostle shows, because he does not say par excellence that he died, but: he died to the law and was alive before GOtte.
83. but it is "to live unto the law" to be under the law and its dominion, as it is said in Rom. 7" 1. "The law ruleth over a man as long as he liveth." Just as a servant, as long as he is not ransomed, lives to his master by the law of servitude and the law of the Gentiles, so also we, as long as we are out of faith, in that evil desire reigns, serve the law, do its works compulsorily, and thereby do not fulfill the law, which is fulfilled only by the love of faith. But "to die to the law" means to become free from the law. Just as a debtor, when he has died, is free from his admonisher (exactore), so we also die, while the old man begins to be killed by the grace of faith, and sin, which was increased by the law, begins to be taken away by this holy death, that is, we are made alive to righteousness, as he explains in detail in Rom. 6:2 ff. and 8:10, and uses the same figurative speech by calling those who have died to sin. Living in righteousness.
Therefore, to live by the law is not to fulfill the law. "To die to the law is to fulfill the law. This happens through faith in Christ, the other through works.
of the law. Rom. 3, 28: "Therefore we hold that a man is justified by faith", which he also calls [v. 27] "the law of faith". Likewise Rom. 8:2: "The law of the Spirit that quickeneth," that is, of faith, "hath made me free from the law of sin and death," that is, from the law that worketh and increaseth death and sin, as every law doeth, whether it be given of God or of men. Therefore, as we have begun, let us interpret these two laws more clearly.
The law of the Spirit is that which is not written in letters, is not presented in words, is not thought of in thoughts, but is the living will and the experimental life, also the thing itself, which is written in the heart by the finger of God alone, Rom. 5:5: "The love of God is poured out in our heart by the Holy Spirit." This is also spoken of by Jeremiah Cap. 31, 33. as the apostle cites Hebr. 8, 10. and 10,1 ) 16: "I will give my laws into their mind, and into their heart I will write them." I say: this spiritual (intellectualis) light of the mind and the flame of the heart is the law of faith, the new law, the law of Christ, the law of the Spirit, the law of grace, which justifies, fulfills all things, and crucifies the evil lusts of the flesh. So also St. Augustine says beautifully in this passage: He lives, so to speak, the law itself, who lives righteously with love for righteousness. Notice these words: "with love for righteousness", because nature knows nothing of this, only faith attains it. Thus it is said in 2 Cor. 3:3: "Ye are an epistle of Christ, prepared by our preaching ministry, yet written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart."
86. the law of the letter is all that is
1) In the editions of the first redaction, the reading given by us is found: "ut Hsd. VIIIL X"'ste. In contrast, in the Jenaer, lom III: "ut sx Hsd. 8. aäüuoit" 6to.; in the Wittenberger: "ut L sx Hsd. 8. aääruüt" them. It seems to us that the "L X" of the first edition has been moved, and then made sx out of it.
is written with letters, said with words, thought with thoughts, whether it is a figurative (tropologia) or a figurative speech (allegoria), or a higher mind (anagogia), or even the teaching of some mystery. This is the law of works, the old law, the law of Moses [the law of the flesh], the law of sin, the law of wrath, the law of death, which condemns all, makes all 2) guilty, increases evil lusts, and kills, and so much the more spiritual it is, like that [Ex. 20:17.], "Thou shalt not covet." This makes many more people guilty than that [v. 13], "Thou shalt not kill," or than that [Gen. 17:11], "Ye shall circumcise the foreskin of your flesh," or the like ceremonies, because without the law of the Spirit no work is done in a good way, but is always pretended.
It follows that the law of the Spirit is that which the law of the letter requires, the will, I say, Psalm 1:2: "But in the law of the Lord is his will," that is, his love. Rom. 13, 10.: "Love is the fulfillment of the law," and 1 Tim. 1, 5. [Vulg.]: "The end of the law is love," and, to speak quite plainly and comprehensibly (vulgariter): The law of the letter and the law of the Spirit differ, as the sign and the thing signified, as word and thing. Therefore the sign is now no longer necessary after the thing has been obtained, therefore no law is given to the righteous. But when we have only the sign, we are taught to seek the thing. Thus Moses and the prophets and finally John the Baptist point us to Christ. The law teaches what you owe and what you lack. Christ gives what you should do and have. Therefore, those who use the law other than as a sign to lead them to Christ, so that they may recognize their misery and seek mercy, misuse it most grievously. For such people trust in their own powers, and as soon as they have heard the law, they set about fulfilling its works, seeking and presuming.
2) In the editions of the first redaction and in the Erlanger ornnia instead of omnss.
themselves that the matter of the law is in themselves, while they see that they have not found the sign, the law itself, I say, in themselves either.
It follows that every law of the letter is spiritual, as it can also be called spiritual, just as Romans 7:14 says: "We know that the law is spiritual," and we never read in Scripture that it is called a carnal law, which is written with letters, although Origen tries much and often to show this, moved by his preconceived opinions. Paul does speak of the "law of the members" [Rom. 7, 23.] and of the evil desire of the flesh, but this is not the letter, but is signified and forbidden by the letter of the law. Therefore it is spiritual because it requires the spirit of faith, that is, it is spiritual, not because of the sign, but because of the thing, since no good work is done unless it is done out of a cheerful, willing, merry heart, that is, in the spirit of freedom. Otherwise, if only the law were to be called spiritual, which promotes nothing but spiritual works, then no law would be spiritual but that which, as our theologians say, gives commandments in regard to actions elicited from the heart (de actibus cordis elicitis); and even the works of love would not be spiritual. Are these not bodily things, that one washes the feet of guests, helps the poor, admonishes the erring, prays for the sinner, suffers injustice? Yes, no less than any ceremonial works of the Old and New Testaments. But only the spirit of faith makes a difference among the works, otherwise there is absolutely no difference among the works, neither between those that can be done with the mind and those that can be done with the body. Then all works are carnal or according to the letter (literalia), if they are done out of compulsion of the letter, and the law of the spirit is not present. Then they are spiritual when they are done because the law of the Spirit is with them, as we shall see below. [And here, I think, you see the root from which this comes, that I am unwilling about so many decrees, statutes, and decrees of the
Popes, through whose tyranny the church now lies oppressed and is being devastated more and more every day. For since love is growing cold, and God is gradually taking away the law of the spirit for the sake of our sins, the laws that cannot possibly be fulfilled without this spirit must also be taken away. Rather, they are multiplied daily, about which God is very angry, and it happens that they impose unbearable burdens on people (especially if you do not have the money to redeem yourself), which they themselves do not want to or cannot even touch with a finger, while in the meantime the so vigilant shepherds of Christ's sheep do not even think about feeding the sheep with the word of faith and the Spirit. This is what I am sighing at, that through so many useless and harmful laws nothing happens, but that the innumerable offenses against God are only increased, while the commandments should also be fulfilled by the spirit, and yet we cannot have the spirit from ourselves. But in the meantime I will give some advice. First, if you have the spirit to bear all these things willingly, do it as if you were oppressed under the Turk or some other tyrant according to the will of God, since the tyranny of laws, because it oppresses the conscience, is much greater, than the tyranny of the Turks, which oppresses only the bodies or minor bodily things, although the Turk does not precede us in this respect either, which you will see when you look at the robbery with the pallies, 1) with the annatas and the other intolerable haggling with the cops. But if you are not willing, well, give money and good words, buy what should be given to you for free, because it cannot be otherwise, and pull your neck out of this yoke by purchased redemption (indulta). But this I understand of the commandments, whose work is not against necessity or against love. For through such things, as I said above, one should break through confidently, even without paying for them, but one should seek the counsel of a good man. But I am speaking here of the
1) Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, Introduction, p. 5a. - On "Annaten" see Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 285, Amn.
Things you do unwillingly, even though necessity or love is not the reason for not doing them. For here it is better that you lose a little money than that you torment your conscience with the snares of the law. Neither shalt thou fear to make a bargain (simoniam) of spiritual things, since thou dost not buy them assiduously and willingly (for thou wouldst rather that they should be given thee for nothing), but thou dost not reluctantly yield to the impetuous urging that I say so. If you are poor, or are hindered by the great distance of the place, at least obey publicly to avoid annoyance; secretly, where you are alone, seek the opinion of a good man, and be sure that where your pastor does not take care of you, Christ will act all the more kindly toward you, if only you are heartily obedient to his commandments].
V. 19. 20. I am crucified with Christ. But I live; yet now not I, but Christ liveth in me.
He had said that he died to the law, now he shows the way of this death, namely the cross of Christ. This includes what he says in Gal. 5, 24: "Those who belong to Christ crucify their flesh along with their lusts and desires," and Peter, 1. Ep. 4, 1: "Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same mind, for he who suffers in the flesh ceases from sin," and Cap. 2, 24: "Who himself offered up our sins in his body on the wood, that we, having died to sin, might live unto righteousness."
90 For this reason, St. Augustine teaches in the third book, Of the Trinity, Cap. 4, that the passion of Christ is a sacrament and an example; a sacrament because it signifies the death of sin in us and gives it to the faithful; an example because we too must follow it through suffering and bodily death. The sacrament is Rom. 4:25: "Who died for our sins, and rose again for our righteousness." The example is 1 Peter 2:21: "Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow in his footsteps." He treats the Sacrament quite extensively Rom. 6 and 8, Col. 3 and
in many other places. So also here he says that he was crucified with Christ after the sacrament, because he put to death sin and evil desires. But what the apostle says is this: Those who seek to be justified by the works of the law not only do not crucify their flesh, but also increase the lusts of it; so much is lacking in it that they could be justified. For the law is the power of sin, stirring up the evil desire that sets its will against it, while it forbids it. But since faith in Christ loves the law, which forbids evil desire, it already does just what the law commands; it attacks evil desire and crucifies it.
(91) Therefore, sin is not removed by the law, but only recognized and increased, and in vain one seeks to be justified by it. Then the righteous man does not live by himself, but Christ lives in him, because Christ dwells in him through faith and instills grace in him, by which it happens that man is not ruled by his own spirit, but by Christ's spirit. For if we are ruled by our spirit, we follow evil lusts, but do not crucify them. So all things must be imputed to Christ, not to us, that we believe, that we are righteous, that we have died to the law, that we put to death the evil lusts.
For what I now live in the flesh I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
92 [Very well Erasmus says: "For what I now live"], that is, the life which I now live etc. [as he also interprets it in the Epistle to the Romans, Cap. 6], or: the time which I live, as it is also said in 1 Petr. 4, 2: "that he may live to the will of God, which is yet behind time in the flesh." [St. Jerome thinks that "being in the flesh" is something different from "living in the flesh", because Paul says elsewhere, Rom. 8, 9: "You are not in the flesh" (in carne == fleshly), and v. 8: "Those who are in the flesh may not please God." This I see that he 2 Cor. 10, 3.: "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not contend according to the flesh" (secundum carnem - carnal way), it always ver-
if one walks according to (secundum) the flesh. But in the letter to the Philippians (Cap. 1, 22. 24.) he writes that it is necessary to remain "in the flesh". Therefore, I do not know if this distinction holds]. But it is the opinion of the apostle: I have said that I now live not, but Christ in me. But lest ye think (or it seem as if a cause were given to future heretics) that the Christian life is apart from the flesh, in spirituality of angels [Col. 2, 18.], in a walk in great things too high 2) for him (Ps. 131, 1.), then Christ lives in me in such a way that I nevertheless bring my life in the flesh, but do not live in the flesh in such a way that my life is of the flesh, in the flesh or after the flesh, but in faith in the Son of God. The works saints, however, also live in the flesh, that is, they are in the present life, but they do not lead this life in faith in Christ, but in the works of the law, therefore they lead a life that is dead in sins.
When Paul says that 3) the life of righteousness is living, he includes both the bodily and the spiritual life. The bodily life is only a life if it is lived in Christ and the spirit of faith. For as the law kills by spiritual death those who place their worship in it (suos cultores), since it makes sin strong and abundant, so it also makes the life of the body dead, that is, sinful.
94 Where are our people, who are neither cold nor warm (neutrals), who have invented a middle state between sin and the righteousness of faith, namely the morally good, while the apostle calls the righteousness of the law a dead one? But dead is called with the apostle only that which is sin before, as he says [1 Cor. 15, 56.]: "The sting of death is sin", and Rom. 5, 12.: "Death through
1) To the question of the Weimar edition: "So sreli8iori6] indeed all editions, but whether not in roZione?" must be answered in the negative. Col. 2, 18: in reli^ione.
2) In the editions [nnru instead of super, what the Vulgate offers.
3) The editions of the first redaction and the Erlanger: äueit instead of äieit.
the sin". Therefore, not any work is dead and not a mortal sin (mortale) (as they say), or not meritorious, but what is dead is also sin.
V. 21. I do not throw away the grace of God. For if righteousness comes through the law, Christ died in vain.
It is such a great injustice to want to become righteous by one's own works through the law that the apostle calls this a throwing away of God's grace, not only an ingratitude (which in itself is already exceedingly evil), but also a contempt, since the grace of God should have been sought with the greatest zeal, but those push away the grace they have received in vain [, this is certainly a severe rebuke].
It is worth the effort to consider this final speech (syllogismum) of the apostle: "If righteousness comes through the law," etc. He confidently states that either Christ died in vain (which is the highest blasphemy), or one can have nothing but sin through the law. For let those people be driven away from the holy Scriptures who, by distinctions which they have spun out of their heads, bring different righteousnesses into theology, and say that one righteousness is moral righteousness, another is the righteousness of faith, and, I know not what other righteousnesses.
The civil being may have its own righteousness, the philosophers theirs, and each one his own. We must here take "righteousness" as the holy Scriptures understand it, of which the apostle clearly states that it is none other than through faith in JESUS Christ; all other works, even those according to the most holy laws of God, are so completely incapable of giving righteousness that they are even sins and make man worse before God; indeed, they are such great sins and so far removed from righteousness that it was necessary for the Son of God to die so that righteousness could be given to us. In theology, therefore, do not call this "righteousness".
4) In the editions of the first Redaction and in the Erlanger civile jus instead of eivilis res.
righteousness, which is outside of faith in Christ. But if it is certain that it is not righteousness, it is equally certain that it is sin, and damnable sin at that.
See, then, the new justice and the new definition of justice. For in ordinary life (usitate) it is said: Righteousness is the virtue that gives to each one what is his. But here it is said: Righteousness is faith in Jesus Christ, or the virtue by which one believes in Jesus Christ, as it is said in Romans 10:10: "With the heart one believes for righteousness," that is, if someone wants to be righteous, he must necessarily believe in Jesus Christ from the heart. And St. Jerome says Cap. 3: It is a fine saying of the wise man: The believer does not live by his righteousness, but the righteous lives by faith [Hab. 2, 4.], that is, he is not believer by his righteousness, but by faith he is righteous. This is certainly a beautiful saying.
99. It follows further that he who is justified by faith gives to no one by himself what is his, but through another, namely Jesus Christ, who alone is so just that he gives to all what must be given, even that all things are due to him (debent). But if someone believes in Christ and has become one with him through the spirit of faith, he then not only satisfies all, but also brings it about that everything is owed to him, since he has everything in common with Christ. His sins are now no longer his, but Christ's. But in Christ, sins cannot overcome righteousness, but are overcome, therefore they are swallowed up in Him. Again, the righteousness of Christ does not belong to Christ alone, but to his Christians. Therefore, the latter cannot be indebted to anyone or be oppressed by sins, since he relies on such a great righteousness.
This is the immeasurable glory of the Christians, this is the inexpressible condescension (dignatio) of divine love toward us, through which so great, so delicious things are given to us, for which Paul with
Right so eifert, so that they are not thrown away.
Therefore, this righteousness is also called righteousness before God, as 1 Cor. 1:30: "Who is made unto us of God unto wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. Rom. 1,1 , 16, 17: "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because in it is revealed the righteousness that is before God, which comes by faith in faith, as it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith,'" and Rom. 10, 3: "They do not know the righteousness that is before God, and seek to establish their own righteousness, and so are not subject to the righteousness that is before God." This is the word in the Psalms, Ps. 31, 1.: "Save me by your righteousness, yes, not by mine, which is of the law and sin"; and again in the 143rd Psalm, v. 1.: "Hear me for the sake of your righteousness", and Ps. 72, 1. 7.: 2) "God, give your judgment to the king, and your righteousness to the king's son. In his days there will be righteousness and great peace," and Ps. 96, 13: "He will judge the earth with righteousness." And what need of many words? Righteousness of God is almost always used in the Scriptures for faith.
1) Weimar edition: Rom. 7, 16. f.
2) We have repeatedly pointed out that in the case of the writings originally written by Luther in German, the biblical passages from Walch were taken over into the Erlangen edition without looking them up ourselves. Cf. St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 885, note 2; vol. XIX, 240, note 2; Col. 617, note; Col. 676, note 2; Col. 768, note; Col. 820, note I; vol. XXII, Introduction, pp. 38f. Even in the second edition of the Erlangen edition, there are several incorrect biblical citations that originate from Walch, and may not have come directly from Walch, but indirectly through the first edition. Cf. the notes in our edition, Vol. VII, 831. 834. 838. 1467 and Vol. VIII, 1021, Note II. The same is repeated in the writings that are contained only in Latin in the Erlangen edition. At this point, Walch, instead of the citation we have given, has "Ps. 72, 17." which the Erlangen edition, Oal. Ill, 249, has reprinted. All other passages that are incorrectly cited by Walch are also found in the Erlanger. In the first two chapters of this writing, they are as follows: Cap. 1, s 21: Ps. 36, 5. instead of: Ps. 37, 7.; §35: Isa. 2, 8. 9. instead of: Isa. 2, 8.; s 45: 1 Cor. 3, 3. instead of: 1 Cor. 3, 4.; z 47: Ps. 109, 4. 5. instead of: Ps. 109, 4.; §67: 2 Cor. 12, 12 instead of: 2Cor. 12, 11.; Cap. 2, 2 7: Ezek. 1, 9. instead of: Ezek. 1, 7. 14.; §72: i Joh, I, 9, instead of: 1 Joh. 3, 9. - The Weimar edition also has here in the margin: "Ps. 72, 17."
The Lord's grace and mercy are rarely taken for the severity with which he condemns the wicked and delivers the righteous, as is now the custom everywhere.
(102) But if this is called the righteousness of faith, that we give to each one what is his out of our own strength, it must rather be understood that we do this by cession of all goods, as the Lord teaches in Luke 14:28 ff. of the one who builds a tower, and v. 31 ff. of the one who wants to go into battle against another who is stronger than he. For they build a tower (after the example of those who started the tower of Babylon) who, trusting in their own strength, seek to make themselves righteous and blessed by works of the law.
and meet Christ, the exceedingly strong future judge, with a very small army of works. To them he gives the advice that they should first estimate the costs, then they will find that they are not able to do it. Therefore they should abandon all their presumption of wisdom, virtue and justice and, while he is still far away, ask for peace, despairing of themselves and throwing themselves with full confidence on the mercy of the coming king. For thus he concludes this parable [Luc. 14, 33.]: "So also every one of you who does not cut off all that he has cannot be my disciple," that is, you cannot be a Christian unless you rely on faith alone, and cast your righteousness entirely from you.