V. 1. O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you not to obey the truth?
1 Now he returns to the Galatians. For St. Jerome thinks that up to this point he has spoken against Peter. But I do not know whether he spoke all this in the presence of Peter. I would like to assume that he stopped talking to Peter from the passage [Cap. 2, 16]: "For by the works of the law no flesh is justified," because he repeats what he said to Peter shortly before [v. 16]: "For we know that man is not justified by the works of the law," etc., and that from this point on he again deals with the Galatians and refutes the works of the law with the other reasons of proof. But in this each one may have his own judgment.
2 Paul now glows with a godly zeal. Although he has filled almost the entire letter with proofs and refutations, he still intersperses exhortations and punishment a few times; at times he also repeats the same and inculcates it by saying with
apostolic concern tries everything. He calls them unwise [v. 1.), foolish [v. 3. Vulg.), nonsensical people; as Jerome says, either because he reproaches them with their country's way, as he calls the Cretans liars in the letter to Titus (Tit. 1, 12.) and reproaches other peoples with other vices, or because they had turned from great things to small ones and, as it were, had begun to become children again by returning to the disciplinarian of the law. And I like this one better, because in the following he deals with the initial reasons (elementis [Cap. 4, 3.)), with the disciplinarian, with the heir who is a child, with which he clearly punishes their foolishness and childish nature.
3 This is also shown by the word "enchanted". For it is said, as Jerome also notes, that children and those who are in infancy are particularly harmed by the spell. But it means "to charm" by an evil (malefico magical) look a harm anthun, as Virgil 1) says: I do not know which eye bewitches me the tender lambs. Whether this true
1) Lueoliea, Del. Ill, v. 103.
or not, God knows, says Jerome, because it is possible that the devils are at work in this sin. I believe that this is the disease of small children, which our wives usually call "the Elbe" or "the heart-ache", in which we see that the children shrink, become skinny and squirm miserably, sometimes screaming and crying incessantly. This disease they try to counteract, again I don't know, with what kind of letters and superstitions. For it is believed that such things are done by envious and sorcerous old cads when they envy a mother her beautiful little child. That is why the Greek word (βασκαίνω) means not only to charm, but also to envy, as Jerome testifies.
4) So also the Galatians, when they were as it were just born children in Christ and had good prosperity, were damaged by the false apostles who charmed them, and brought back to the leanness, even to the misery of the law, so that they are now fading away. And this is a very beautiful likeness. For just as a sorcerer sets his mischievous eyes on a child until he has done him harm, so a pernicious teacher sets his evil eye, that is, his ungodly wisdom, on simple souls until he has corrupted right knowledge. For the eye, as Luc. 11, 34, means in Scripture the teaching, the knowledge, yes, also the teacher himself, as Job 29, 15: "I was the eye of the blind man," and [Matth. 18,2 ) 9: "If thine eye offend thee," etc. These are the ones whom Scripture calls treacherous men, scoffers, deceivers of the soul. Ps. 1, 1. [Vulg.]: "Still sits on the seat of destruction", Hebrew: "on the chair of the scoffers". Proverbs 3:32 [Vulg.]: "Every scoffer is an abomination to the Lord, and to the simple he addresses his speech."
But here the question arises whether one should believe that the apostle in this passage approves the opinion that the magic is something. St. Jerome thinks that he has used a trivial way of speaking and has taken an example from the delusion of the mob,
1) Here we have with the Jena edition, lom. Ill, suut adopted instead are in the other editions.
2) Weimar edition: Matth. 19, 9.
not that he knew the magic was something, as one sees that also some other things from the fables of the pagans were included in the Scriptures, as in Job [Cap. 9, 9. 38, 31. 32.] the chariot, Orion, the Pleiades, and in Isaiah [Cap. 13, 21. f. 3) 34, 14.] the sirens, the Ohim (onocentauri), the field devils (pilosi).
(6) I believe (as I have said) that those sorceresses by the help of devils, under God's permission, can in truth do harm to little children, for the punishment of unbelievers and for the probation of believers, since many other things also, as experience is clear, do harm to both men and cattle in their bodies, and to all things, and that the apostle knew this very well.
To whom Christ Jesus was painted before the eyes, and is now crucified among you.
7 I see that this passage is interpreted in different ways. St. Jerome understands "proscriptus" to mean that the Galatians knew Christ crucified not only by the word of the apostles, but also from the writings of the prophets, and since they had come to know him in this way beforehand and rather by scripture (scriptum) than by speech (dictum) or sermon, and since they had been strengthened by this twofold instruction by means of scripture and the oral word, they should not have fallen away from Christ. St. Ambrose, whom Lyra follows, thinks that among the Galatians, because they trusted in the works of the law, Christ was banished (proscriptum), as the jurists speak of proscriptio, that is, he was cast out, condemned, and became an exile. St. Augustine reads praescriptus, and just as one possession is lost by the objection (praescriptionem) of another, so Christ lost the Galatians because objection was raised against him (praescriptus), namely by the false apostles. I cannot agree with any of these opinions. Erasmus, but also Stapulensis 5) almost likewise, take it in such a way that.
3) Weimar edition incorrect: "Isa. 13, 23." and: "OnO66LtUUri PÜO8I."
4) Erlanger und die Weimarsche Ausgabe: ei, while the other editions offer seü.
5) Ktapulensis is Jakob Faber (le Mvr" ä'DtApIesy who rendered great service to biblical literature.
Christ was, as it were, drawn and painted in a picture for the Galatians, so that they would have recognized him most clearly, and yet they did not recognize him because they were bewitched and deceived. For in this way, those who are captivated by sorcery and dazzle are used not to see even what is clearly before their eyes, and to see what is nowhere. And for this mind the Greek word προεγράφη seems to speak. The
but moves me that] "Christ is crucified in someone," is never taken in Scripture in a good sense, as Heb. 6:6. "Who again crucify in themselves the Son of God," and above [Cap. 2:20.] he does not say, Christ is crucified in me, but, "Christ liveth in me." But here he says, "crucified among (in) you," no doubt sighing and raging over the fact that Christ is not alive in them, but is dead, that is, that faith in him is extinguished in them by the righteousness of the law.
Therefore (, if I may dare to set up my assumption, so it would be this: Firstly, may the word "pre-painted" now be understood by writing or picture, so I pay attention that "pre-painted" (praescriptus) is that what has been made present (coram positus) and shown before eyes, because therefore he adds "before the eyes" to express this sense. Second, the connective "and" is to be deleted (as in Greek), then the text would read thus: To whom Jesus Christ was painted under the eyes, or before the eyes, crucified among you, that is, Behold, ye yourselves see, and by the foregoing evidences it is set forth by me, so that it is clearly painted and written before your eyes, that Jesus Christ is crucified among you. That this is the meaning, if one pays attention to the preceding, yes, to what the whole epistle is about, I believe, cannot be denied. For he had sent before [Cap. 2, 21.], "I do not cast away the grace of God." [v. 20.:] "But I live; yet now not I"; 1) likewise [v. 21.], "If by the law righteousness come, Christ died in vain."
1) The Weimar edition has merged this citation with the previous one into one.
All this points to the fact that Christ is crucified among all those (as among the Jews) who do not trust in him but in themselves and the law. For if 2) the grace of God is cast away, then Christ does not live in them. So what is left but that he is dead and crucified among them?
(9) But the apostle, in his great zeal, uses very emphatic, ardent and, as it were, impetuous words. He says: "Painted before your eyes", as if he wanted to say: I do not know how I could show it to you more clearly. Then he does not mention the name of Christ alone, but says, "Jesus Christ," calling both names to them very emphatically; at last he says, "Who is crucified among you." It would have been lighter if it had not happened "among you," who were such great people, and it would have been lesser if he had died, or suffered, or been sick, but he was cruelly (he says) "crucified among you," that is, treated most ignominiously by you.
(10) Dear, what would he do if even now he saw that Christ is crucified in the church even more than by the laws of men? He would certainly say the same thing that is written in Apost. 20, 29, with tears: "After my departure, there shall come among you grievous wolves, which shall not spare the host" etc.
V. 2. I will learn this from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by the preaching of faith?
11 See how effectively he treats this object (locum) from experience. For what can they plead here? The other reasons for proof (he says), which I have used, may be weak, but what do you want to say here? That alone teaches me! Well, I will be your student here. You who have gone about with the works of the law, say whether you ever received the Spirit before you came to believe when I preached Christ? So he confidently mocks them, and says to those who are already entangled, as it were, with unbreakable bonds:
2) In the editions of the first Redaction, in the Weimarschen and in the Erlanger dune instead of euin.
V. 3. Are you so foolish? You began in the spirit, will you now complete it in the flesh?
(12) But it seems as if the apostle wrote this for those who had believed out of Judaism, and had previously dealt with the works of the law, and had then visibly received the Holy Spirit as a sign, as he was given at that time; otherwise this passage would not sufficiently corner them (urgeret), or at least he writes for both Jews and Gentiles with one another, but for such Gentiles as had previously been drawn under the law by the Jews. Unless you want to say that the apostle is talking about the works of the law into which they had fallen back after they had left the faith in Christ, I think this is more likely. For this was quite certain, that they had not received the Spirit from the false apostles, as they had received it before through Paul.
But that St. Jerome makes a distinction between the works of the law and good works in this passage, and means that Cornelius received the Spirit through the works, Apost. 10, 44. ff., I certainly do not believe this, since it is clear that during Peter's preaching, that is, during the "preaching of faith" (as he says here) the Holy Spirit fell upon them. For even Abraham, Moses and other saints were not (as one dares to claim) justified by the works of the natural law, but by faith, as is written here and Rom. 4, 3. The apostle rejects (notat) not only the ceremonial law, but every law, for since faith alone justifies and does good works, it follows that no works of any law can justify, nor can the works of any law be good, but only the works of faith. I have mentioned this in order to remind those who read Jerome's writings of what he himself demands, both in his preface and in his letter to St. Augustine, namely, that he wrote the interpretations in which he used to cite the opinions of others, but did not give the truth of the matter to the reader.
The church is not to be considered as a church. For since not a few theologians and jurists disregard this, they sometimes follow strange (monstra) opinions instead of the right known (domestica) teaching of the church.
14 But the word "by the hearing of faith" (as everything) so Erasmus interprets it beautifully (as everything),] stands for that which can be heard, [as he says,] for the sermon itself which is heard, so that "the hearing of faith" is the same as the word of faith which one has heard. Apost. 10, 44.: "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell upon all them that heard the word." So Is. 53, 1.: "Lord, who believes our preaching?" (auditui) and Habakkuk 4, 2.: "O Lord, I have heard thy rumor (auditionem), that I am astonished." Similarly, this expression is also frequent in Scripture, Jer. 49, 14. Obadiah 1, 1: "We have heard from the Lord a heard thing" (auditum audivimus) etc. But here Jerome again tries to explain how deaf people can become Christians, especially since Rom. 10, 14 says: "How can they hear without a preacher? How shall they believe, of whom they have heard nothing?" and how there the sequence of steps of the apostle is, first that they be sent, then that they be preached, then hear, then believe, then call, and so attain to blessedness. [I will add: How are infants blessed, and how are they baptized, since they do not hear either? He (Jerome) answers first of all: that faith comes from hearing, which can be taken in such a way that it happens in part (in parte) and that it happens completely (in toto). But Paul overturns (evincit) this, saying, "How shall they believe, of whom they have heard nothing?" Second, that even deaf people can learn the gospel through giving and intercourse with other people. But how can this be done with children? Therefore, I follow the opinion he expresses last, namely: that nothing is deaf before the word of God, and that it speaks to the ears, of which it is said (Matth. 11, 15.): "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!" This answer is very dear to me because even by adults and by those who can hear, the word of God is not heard, if the spirit does not give it to flourish inwardly. Therefore it is a word of power
and grace, because it hits the ears at the same time and pours the spirit inside. But if the spirit is not poured in, the hearer is not at all different from a deaf person. Therefore, even the sound of the word, which is pronounced through the ministry of the church over a child, works all the more easily through the spirit, the more capable (capacior) the little child is of receiving it, that is, the more he is only suffering against it (quo patientior), since he is not occupied by any other things.
(15) So Paul most powerfully puts down the works of the law here, then also the dreams of our theologians who have invented the merit that must be given in equity (meritum congrui) in order to obtain grace. But the apostle says: "Not by works, but by the preaching of faith", that is, if you suffer the word (patiaris), you can rest from your works and celebrate the Sabbath of the Lord, so that you may hear what the Lord your God speaks to you.
16 Therefore, remember this remarkable testimony (documentum) of Paul. If you want to obtain grace, make it your business both to hear the word of God attentively and to consider it diligently; the word, I say, and the word alone is that by which the grace of God is brought to us (vehiculum). For what you call works that are meritorious in equity (opera congrui) are either evil, or grace must necessarily have already come to work them. The saying stands firm that one receives the Spirit through the preaching of faith. In this way all those have received the Spirit who have received it. [Therefore, do not forge your own clever suggestions and do not despise the counsel of God.]
17 Note that he says, "to finish in the flesh," that is, to come to an end, to cease, to fall away. From this passage it is clear that "flesh" is taken not only for the sensuality or the lusts of the flesh, but also for all that is apart from the grace and the Spirit of Christ. For it is certain that the Galatians are not "made perfect in the flesh" because they lived in indulgence and pleasure, or otherwise.
In any way they followed the flesh in their conduct (moribus), but because they sought to obtain the works of the law and righteousness, but abandoned faith. But righteousness and the works of the law are not only sensual things, since delusion and trust, which are in the heart, also belong to them. Therefore everything that is not of faith is flesh. Hebr. 9, 10. [Vulg.]: "With divers baptisms and righteousnesses of the flesh." 1) So it is said in Gen. 6:3 [Vulg.], "My Spirit shall not abide in man, because he is flesh." It is not said, For he hath flesh, but, "For he is flesh." And Rom. 7:18 [Vulg.], "I find in myself, that is in my flesh, no good thing." So he himself and his flesh are one and the same, as much as is born of Adam. So again it is said [1 Cor. 15, 50.], "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," and Matt. 16, 17. "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee." But also 1 Cor. 3, 3. He [Vulg.] says: "Ye are yet carnal, ye are men," since they were only arguing about the names of the apostles.
(18) Hence all doctrine and righteousness of all men, philosophers, orators, even of the popes, is carnal, since they do not teach faith; and you will see, when you hear the apostle here, that the laws are very wrongly called holy rules (canones), which are given for the sake of dignities and riches. Again, nothing is so carnal and external that it should not also be spiritual, if it is done by the action of the Spirit of faith. Thus the Galatians accomplish it in the flesh, since they take the mind and the delusion to base themselves on any works of the law [especially], while they abandon faith. [But that Origen and St. Jerome conclude from the apostle's words that there is a threefold man: a spiritual, a natural (animalem) (of which they have the opinion that he is neither good nor evil [neutralem] and stands in the middle between the two [medium]), and a carnal, about this we shall perhaps see later what is to be thought of it.
1) In the text, this saying is inaccurately stated.
V. 4. Have you suffered so much for nothing? Is it otherwise in vain.
19 St. Jerome interprets this passage in various ways, but to be brief, I follow one opinion, namely, that the Galatians, when they were running fine in the faith of Christ, had suffered many things, especially from the Jews, who left no Christian unpersecuted, as is evident from the Acts of the Apostles and many of Paul's letters. But all this they suffered in vain, if, having fallen back under the law, they should remain apart from the faith; nevertheless, because he hopes that they will return, he says, "Is it otherwise in vain?" as if to say: If ye return, 1) ye have not suffered in vain. For he makes a conclusion, in which he points out to them their harm and their vain labor, in order to move them, because through the law they are forfeiting not only the righteousness of Christ, but at the same time all his merits and rewards.
V. 5. He then that giveth you the Spirit, and doeth such works among you, doth he it by the works of the law, or by the preaching of faith?
But he repeats and reinforces what he had already said above. For he consults experience, by which he binds them most strongly, but at the same time also to add the following and to connect it with it. Previously he had only held against them that they had received the Spirit [v. 2], but now also "the doing of deeds," that is, the miraculous works of which they could not deny that they had not done them before by the works of the law.
V. 6. Just as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.
21. this example and this reason for proof he deals with extensively Rom. 4, 9. where he proves that Abraham was circumcised before the circumcision.
1) Jenaer, Dorn. Ill, has oreüiäeritis instead of reäieritis in the other editions. A single edition offers roä6i66ritis, from which the reading of Jenaer may have sprung.
2) In the 'first redaction it says here: "Add: .gibt' or .thut'." We have omitted this because Luther already added this addition in his translation.
and this faith was counted to him as righteousness. It is probable that he had also treated the same doctrine orally with the Galatians and now reminded them of it and tried to bring them back to the former understanding.
V. 7. Now therefore ye know that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham.
(22) You see from the scripture just quoted that those who come from the seed of Abraham or from circumcision 3) are not Abraham's children. Rom. 4, 11: "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith, which he still had in the foreskin, that he might be a father to all who believe in the foreskin, that it might be counted to them also for righteousness", and Rom. 9, 7. 8: "In Isaac the seed shall be called unto thee, that is, they are not the children of God according to the flesh, but the children of promise are counted for seed."
23 From this passage you see how carefully and thoughtfully he wants the Scriptures to be read. For who would have drawn these reasons of proof from the text of the first book of Moses, that Abraham believed before the circumcision, that he received Isaac only by the promise, and by this is meant: Just as Isaac was conceived (acceptus) by the faith of Abraham, who believed the promise of God, and he was given (vocatus) to him for a seed, so no other 4) should be Abraham's son or seed but the one promised and conceived in faith, and that so long before the glory of the Jews should be dashed to the ground, by which they boast of the fathers according to the flesh? I believe that this expression "being of faith", "being of works" is already sufficiently known. "They are of faith" (sunt ex fide) those who believe, and afterwards [v. 10.], "they are of the works of the law" (sunt ex operibus legis) those who handle the works. Such are the expressions "from the law
3) Inserted by us.
4) Here, in the editions of the first redaction and in the Erlanger, an <iuanr is inserted.
To be," "to be of the circumcision," and similar in Paul.
(24) But the apostle does not remain (non servat) with the rules of the dialectical conclusion. For he says that the Spirit was given and deeds done through the preaching of faith, and proves this by saying that faith was counted for righteousness to Abraham in this way. Is not, then, faith being counted for righteousness the same as receiving the Spirit? Either he proves nothing, or "receiving the Spirit" and "being counted for righteousness" must be one and the same thing, which is also true [and therefore is stated, lest one think that divine imputation is nothing apart from (extra) God, as those do who think that the apostle's word "grace" designates 1) more a gracious disposition (favorem) than a gift. For if God is gracious and imputes, then in truth the spirit, the gift and the grace are received. For otherwise the grace would be from eternity and would remain in (intra) GOtte, if it meant only a gracious disposition, therefore that it would be only a gracious disposition toward men. For just as God loves by deed, not merely by words, so also He is gracious by the present gift (re), not merely by words]. This also does not seem to be a correct way of concluding that he says: Abraham believed God, therefore those are Abraham's children who are of faith. According to the same dialectics, you could say: Abraham begot a son with his wife, or he ate, or did something else, so he is his son who does the same. Finally, the Jews would also like to have their opinion confirmed: Abraham was circumcised, therefore the circumcised must be his children.
25 But the apostle looks at Abraham, because he received Isaac (who alone was promised to him as a seed) by means (merito) of faith. For he was not praised because of his faith when he begat Ishmael, but only then was he appointed father of the faith and of many nations when
1) Instead of siZniüeari in the editions, we have adopted siZviLeare, because otherwise it should read: verbo "iZniüoari; not to stray".
he received his right son and the legitimate (legitimum) seed. Therefore, Isaac is not both a son of the flesh and of faith; Abraham's flesh could not produce him, but Abraham's faith produced him, but from his flesh. Therefore, he is not both Abraham's son and the son of him who believed in the promise of God. That is why so many words are used in the first book of Moses to describe the promise of the seed, and Abraham's faith in it, and the naming of the seed in Isaac, who was thus promised and believed, so that it may be shown that these are not Abraham's children who are born of the flesh, but those who are born to him by faith. Therefore, he continues what he said very briefly, how the children of Abraham are those who are of faith, because of the promise that was not made to Ishmael; therefore, he was not counted as his seed.
V. 8. But the Scriptures have seen before that God justifies the Gentiles through faith. It proclaims to Abraham: "In you all the Gentiles will be blessed.
26 "Foreseen," that is, seen long before. ["The Scripture," that is, the Spirit in the Scripture. If we take what is said here, "In thee shall all the Gentiles be blessed," for what is written in Gen. 12:3, the apostle does not alone make us understand the difficulty with which St. Jerome struggles with, that the apostles express the meaning more than the words, but rather the difficulty that Abraham at that time had not yet received the promise concerning the son, nor had he been commended because of his faith, which did not happen until the 15th chapter. Therefore Jerome takes the passage Gen. 22, 18. where after the temptation of Abraham it is said: "Through your seed all nations on earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice." But the apostle does not say in this place, "In thy seed," but, "In thee," as it is said in Gen. 12. And I follow Jerome] I believe that the apostle, for the sake of brevity.
The words "in your seed" were left out, because he wanted to put both soon after. He says [v. 16], "Now the promise is ever made to Abraham and to his seed," and so both are true, that in Abraham and in his seed the promise is fulfilled. But it does not matter which of the two he said here.
27. Since this is said to Abraham, not to any man of the flesh, but to him who already believed, who was obedient, who was a spiritual man and a completely different man, who also had the promise, it follows that the Scripture intended to teach us that only those were Abraham's children, who were of such a nature, that is, who were Abraham's children and seed, to the extent that those who were not of his flesh, namely the Gentiles, would also become children, as he says here that God also justifies the Gentiles through faith, as the Scriptures had previously seen and proclaimed to Abraham.
So we are blessed in Abraham. But in which Abraham? Without doubt in the believing one. Now if we are apart from Abraham, we shall rather be under the curse, though we belong to Abraham's flesh, for the Scripture does not deal with Abraham's flesh. So there are those in Abraham who believe God, just as Abraham did.
V. 9. So now those who are of faith will be blessed with the believing Abraham.
(29) Note the epithet added to the name Abraham, "the believer"; they will be blessed with the believing Abraham, not with the flesh that begets or does other things. For the Scripture ascribes children or seed only to the believer. So those who are without faith do not obtain their father's image (imaginem), nor his inheritance. Therefore they are not children, but bastards.
30 But here a Klügling would still like to raise the objection: even so the way of the conclusion is not yet valid: Abraham believes, therefore the believers are his children; because by faith Abraham indeed obtained the son and the seed, but from this it does not follow that his sons must believe.
Otherwise, all the things he obtained by faith would necessarily have to believe, or they would not belong to Abraham. But it would be necessary for the land of Canaan to believe. So it is enough that Abraham believed and obtained children, but therefore his children do not have to believe.
First, the apostle believes that it is enough for the Galatians, as simple-minded people, to know that they cannot be Abraham's children if they are not like him. The deeper reason (rationem) of this mystery, which he elaborates on in Rom. 9, 6. ff. 1), he intentionally ignores here. For in fact only the children of Abraham's promise are children. But since the divine promise and provision (praedestinatio) cannot be lacking, it follows without difficulty and with infallible conclusion that all those who have been promised are also believers, so that the faith of those who have been promised is fixed, not because works and their faith compel this (necessitate), but because the divine election (electionis) is fixed. At this point it was enough to recommend the succession of Abraham, but not to inculcate the sublimity of the promise and the provision.
32 Although therefore this conclusion does not exist: Abraham believes, therefore his children will also believe, unless you consider the children of the promise (who cannot stand firm either in their own righteousness or in the righteousness of Abraham, but in the choice of God; nor do they believe because they are children of Abraham, but become children of Abraham because they most certainly believe, since they are given to Abraham by God, who cannot lie in his promise), yet this conclusion stands: Abraham believed, so his children must also believe if they want to be children. This was enough, I say, for the unintelligent Galatians; for the wise Romans something else had to be said. Therefore, those who believe are Abraham's children, others are not.
V. 10 For those who do the works of the law are under the curse. For it is written
1) In all editions: "Rom. 10."
written: Cursed be every man that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
(33) He had said that those who have faith are blessed. Now he says in another argument, which is taken from the opposite, that those who deal in works are under the curse. But see the wonderful conclusion of the apostle. He takes from Deut. 27:26 that those who do not do what is written in the book of the law are cursed. From this negative sentence (negativa) he concludes this affirmative sentence (affirmativam): Cursed are those who do the works of the law. Does he not affirm what Moses denies? And to make the inconsistency even greater, he proves his affirmative sentence by the negative sentence of Moses. Here a Festus Portius would like to say [Apost. 26, 24.], "Paule, you are raving, the great art makes you raving." What shall we say now? Are then they blessed who do not do the works of the law, even according to the teaching of so great an apostle? But Moses says that those who do not do them are cursed.
34 Therefore it remains, as we said above, that all those who are without faith do the works of the law, but do not keep the law. For the works of the law are pretended works, as he also says later, Cap. 6, 13: "For even they themselves, who are circumcised, do not keep the law," and Cap. 5, 3: "But I testify to every one who is circumcised that he still owes to keep the whole law. Behold, he fulfills nothing of the whole law who allows himself to be circumcised, so not even if he does any other work of the law. From this it follows that by this word Moses forced all men under the curse, and that when he said, "Cursed be every man," etc. he meant to express the same thing as if he had said, "No man shall do these things which are written, therefore all shall be under the curse, and have need of the Savior of Christ.
35 Therefore it is established by the apostle and by the truth itself, that those who do the works of the law do not fulfill the law, and in doing it, do not do it,
Just as Christ said [Matth. 13, 13.] that they do not hear if they already hear, and do not see if they already see. For they make themselves believe that they are fulfilling the law and doing the works of the law, but rather they are pretending, since without grace they can neither purify their hearts nor their bodies. Therefore it is necessary that nothing be pure for the unclean.
(36) I now consider that my neutral opponents (neutralenses) are sufficiently defeated by this passage, who have invented certain neutral works and those that are good as far as the moral life is concerned (in genere morum). Here the apostle curses the works of the law, of the law of God, I say, which have undoubtedly been better than the works that are done according to the input of reason (dictaminis naturalis), which still make the snorers safe. But they say that the apostle speaks of ceremonial laws, which are now fatal. On the other hand, ceremonial things are not evil, nor have they ever been evil, but when trust is placed in them, as St. Augustine teaches. Then it is evident that the apostle speaks of all the laws, that he also (to which Jerome objects) added to Mosiah's words "every man" and "all that" by saying, "That which is written in the book of the law"; but this is most evident from the fact that he immediately [v. 13] says that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law; but the Gentiles were never under the curse of the ceremonial law. So all the redeemed have been under the curse of the law.
For, as I said before, Christ would have done very little if he had freed us from circumcision, from Sabbaths, from clothing, from food and washing, and not much more from the more serious sins against the law, from evil desire, from lust, from anger, from ungodliness. Then, in truth, he would not have been a savior of souls, but of bodies, because these were all bodily things. Therefore, in truth, the work of any law is sin and a curse if it is done apart from faith, that is, without purity of heart, innocence and righteousness.
I will leave this to the reader's judgment.
Whether it is the same or different what Paul says: "Those who do the works of the law", and what Moses says: "He who does not abide in all things", or (as it is written in Hebrew): He who will not confirm all things etc., "that he may do them". Perhaps "doing the works of the law" is different from "doing what is written," so that "doing what is written" may be the same as "fulfilling," and "doing the works of the law" may be the same as "standing with some outward works, as if fulfilling," as Christ says [Luc. 6:46], "Why call ye me Sir, Sir, and do not those things which I say unto you?" and Rom. 2:13, "They that hear the law are not righteous, but they that do the law shall be righteous." For it is certain that the curse remains on both, both on those who do not do it, as Moses says, and on those who deal with the works of the law, as the apostle says. Therefore, as I have said, Paul's way of speaking contains in itself that those who do the works of the law do not do what is written in the law, in which faith is undoubtedly written. This alone does everything that the law requires.
V. 11. But that by the law no one is justified before God is evident, for the just shall live by faith.
This is a reason of proof (subsumtio) by which he wants to explain the word quoted from Moses, as if he said: You hear from Moses that he is accursed who has not done what is written, and I have likewise assumed that such people are those who deal with the works of the law. That both are true is proven from the fact that no one is justified before God by the Law; if he is not justified before God, then he does not do what is written. If this is so, then he is in truth accursed. For those who do what is written will be justified.
40 But that the perpetrators of the law do not do so is proven by the fact that the righteous lives by his faith, Habak. 2, 4. If this 1) Scripture passage is true, as it is
1) The editions of the first Redaction, the Weimar and the Erlangen: Nie: statt Uns".
must be true, and the works of the law, since 2) they are without faith, are undoubtedly dead, then he who does them is also unrighteous. But if he is unrighteous, it follows that he does not do what is written. Here I would also like to note that in lege is said for "by the law" (per legem seu lege), so that the meaning is: By the law no one can become righteous before God, so that it also includes the works of the law at the same time.
V. 12. But the law is not of faith.
(41) This is what I said, that therefore by the law no one is justified, because the justified is justified by faith alone. But law and faith are not the same. Neither the law itself nor its works are of faith nor with faith. Therefore, they are righteous only before men, but not before God, as follows:
But the person who does it will live through it.
This word from the third book of Moses, Cap. 18, 5, is also used in Rom. 10, 5. But this is the opinion of the apostle: The law does not make alive, nor does it justify before God. But whoever does what the law contains will live as a man by it, that is, he will escape the punishment of the law and gain the reward of the law, but he will not live in God, not even as a child of Abraham. Therefore, consider the meaning of the words, Man shall live by the works of the law, who yet is dead in the sight of God. "Man," I say, not: the righteous; and in those works, I say, in his own, he shall live, that is, he shall preserve his life, that he be not slain by the judgment of the law, but he shall not thereby live as a righteous man, but by faith.
43) Remember, then, that in this passage you learned from the apostle that works of the law are those by which we appear righteous before men and as people who keep the law, but inwardly, because faith is lacking, we are nothing less than righteous; therefore, by the law only hypocrites can be righteous.
2) In the editions of the first Redaction and in the Erlanger euna is missing.
The graves that are beautifully decorated on the outside are full of filth on the inside.
44 For the fact that St. Jerome did not understand Paul in this and similar passages was due to the fact that he did not correctly recognize the works of the law and the excessive allegorizing of Origen. For he says in this passage that Moses and the prophets were under the works of the law and under the curse, which is quite false. For they lived justified by faith and sanctified before God, even before the law and the works of the law were commanded, of which he himself expresses the opinion that they concern only the ceremonies. [But afterwards he comes back on the right track by the power of truth, saying that they were sinners according to the saying of Ecclesiastes, 7, 21. 1) (Vulg.): "There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin", which must be understood in a bad way from the moral law].
45 He also understands "the righteous lives by his faith" in such a way that if faith is added to the righteous, his righteousness comes to life, so that he claims that even without faith there are virtues, but deficient ones (vitiosas). But this and other things should be read by the sensible reader in such a way that he remembers that this is quoted by St. Jerome from others. There is none righteous before faith, but he is made righteous in vain, and receives good for evil. For the apostle wants the man to live by the law with men, but the righteous man by faith with God, that is, that the righteousness, life and blessedness of man with God is faith; not righteousness earlier than faith, but by faith righteousness and life.
V. 13. 14. But Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being a curse for us (for it is written, Cursed be every man that hangeth on the tree), that the blessing of Abraham might come among the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, and that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
1) Weimarsche: 7, 20,
(46) First, I argue against those who are neither under the curse of the law nor in need of the Savior Christ. These are they who say that it is another thing for a thing to be contrary to the law, and another thing for it to be contrary to the intention of the law. He who acts against the law sins, but he who acts against the intention of the law does not sin, but only has infirmities of good. Who can suffer such poisonous speeches? But listen to how they prove it ("the intention" they call it, that God demands that the works of the law be done in love): If a man (they say) should be held to the intention of the law, it would follow that he who is apart from grace sins without ceasing, in that he does not kill, does not break marriage, does not steal etc. I answer: He does not sin by not killing, etc. but sins inwardly, by hating, having evil desires, being secretly full of covetousness, and evidently provoked to anger. For this hidden uncleanness of heart and flesh is not removed except by faith through the grace of Christ.
(47) So it is not the intention of the law that it should be kept in grace, as if grace were a kind of compulsion, but the law has the intention (intendit) that it should be kept. But it cannot be kept without grace, so it compels one to seek grace. Therefore we are all under the curse of the law, who are without the grace of faith, as has already been sufficiently said. For since the righteous lives by faith alone, the curse of the law against unbelievers is manifest, lest we make the redemption of Christ vain, or refer it only to ceremonial things, from which a man also could have redeemed us. Finally, the works of the law could also have been done out of our ability (ex nobis).
(48) It only remains, then, that he redeemed us from wrath, ungodliness, evil desire, and other evils in the heart and flesh, which were planted by Adam and Eve, since we all, being defiled by them, [brought about stained righteousness and so] fulfilled nothing of the law. Therefore
we were rightly consigned to curse and damnation. Thus we have through the law not a help, but a reminder and a reminder of our evil. Just as he says in the second letter to the Corinthians [Cap. 5, 21] that Christ was made sin for us, so that we might become in him the righteousness that is valid before God, so he says here, speaking in exactly the same way (tropo), that he became a curse, so that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles in the same Christ. 1)
(49) So he died that we might be life in him, so he was put to shame that we might be glory in him; he became all things to us that we might become all things in him. That is, if we believe in him, we fulfill the law and are free from the curse of the law. For what we deserved, to be cursed and condemned, he suffered and paid for.
Jerome agonizes so that he does not allow Christ to be cursed by God. First, he complains that the apostle does not accurately reproduce the words of the Law, which read thus, Deut. 21:23: "A hanged man is accursed by God." But the apostle followed the seventy interpreters and says: "Cursed be every man that hangeth on the tree," omitting the little word "by God" which they put. In short, although the Hebrew does not say "on the wood" and "everyone", what precedes in the text forces that Moses must be understood by anyone who has been hanged on a wood. Therefore the apostle did not change anything, in which something could have been attached. But the fact that he omitted "by God" is not the reason either; the apostle was sure that this would be understood as having been done by God.
St. Augustine tells us that some unlearned men would have understood it of Judas the betrayer, who arose. [But the clear text of the apostle, that Christ therefore became a curse, does not stand there,
1) Here we have not followed the punctuation of the Weimar edition, which puts a punctum before 8imili ornnino tropo, and draws it to the following. The Wittenberg, like us, has drawn it to the preceding.
that he had committed something worthy of cursing, but because it is a very general judgment of Scripture that everyone who hangs on the wood is cursed by God. Perhaps the apostle, because it was terrible that Christ should be called accursed, softened this by immediately quoting the saying of Scripture.
52 It is therefore nothing that St. Jerome does not want this word to be understood of Christ, since the apostle considers it a general saying, and wanted to prove of Christ what he had said. For since Christ himself [Luc. 22, 37.] from Isaiah, Cap. 53, 12., says that he is counted equal with the wicked, what is it then monstrous that he should be called an accursed man with the accursed? If he was counted among the wicked, he must also be called what the wicked are called, and suffer what they suffer.
(53) Now man is twofold, one within and one without; so also there is a twofold blessing and a twofold curse. The inward blessing is grace and righteousness in the Holy Spirit. This was actually promised to Abraham in Christ. The inward curse is sin, ungodliness, as the 119th Psalm, v. 21, says: "Cursed are they that do not keep thy commandments," and Matth. 25, 41: "Depart from me, ye cursed," etc., and Jer. 48, 10: "Cursed be he that doeth the work of the Lord unadvisedly," and there [Cap. 17, 5.]: "Cursed is the man that trusteth in man." The outward blessing is the abundance of bodily things. This is peculiar to the old law. The curse is poverty, as Mal. 3:9: "Ye are cursed, that all things should melt away from under your hands." Thus Christ cursed the fig tree and it withered [Matth. 21, 19.). This is also what Elisha did [2 Kings 2:24] to the children of Bethel. So it should not cause any offence that Christ with all his saints is cursed with an outward curse, and at the same time blessed with an inward blessing, as it is said in Ps. 109, 28: "If they curse, thou blessest them." So also it is no abomination that Christ died, suffered, was crucified, rather he says [Matth. 5, 11. Vulg.], "Blessed are ye when men curse you."
54. but you will say: you are still proving
not that he was cursed by God, because that moved St. Jerome. I answer: The curse of men undoubtedly befalls a man when God has commanded it, as 2 Sam. 16, 10: "The Lord hath commanded him, Curse David," and there, v. 11: "Let him be restrained to curse, for the Lord hath commanded him." The Lord did not command Shimei to curse, but since he was full of curses, he wanted him to pour out his curses against David in order to use the evil in him.
55) But that St. Jerome boldly says that it is not found in Scripture that anyone was cursed by God, and that the name of God is never connected with a curse, I wonder how he could have understood that Gen. 3, 14. the serpent is cursed by God, and, v. 17. the field at the work of Adam. But also Cain is cursed by God, Cap. 4, 11.; likewise Elisha cursed, 2 Kings 2, 24., the children of Bethel in the name of the Lord; and Habakkuk 4, 14., "Thou wouldest curse the scepter of the head," and Malachi 2, 2., "I will curse your blessing, and will bless where ye curse." [Perhaps the holy man will understand it in such a way that more the curse is announced than that a cursing takes place, because according to the usual way of speaking "curse" is almost as if all things, especially the spiritual and eternal, should perish, and it is certain that in this way Cain and the earth were not cursed, because it is said (Gen. 4, 11.): "Cursed be you on earth." For it is also said in Matth. 25, 41: "Depart from me, you cursed."] 1)
But let us return to the apostle. "That the blessing of Abraham might come among the Gentiles in Christ JEsu," that is, that the blessing might be fulfilled which was promised to Abraham, that he should be a father of many' Gentiles in faith. This faith, I say, has been promised in the blessing.
57. therefore touches here again briefly and
1) What is enclosed here in square brackets is so badly interpung in the editions that there is no suitable sense.
dark that the Gentiles would be Abraham's children, not because they followed him, but because the promise had been made to them, and therefore they would follow because they were to be children by God's promise and fulfillment, not by the Gentiles doing it and following. It was not discipleship that made children, but filiation that made followers. But he adds, "in Christ," so as not to go off track, because the Gentiles did not become children of Abraham by their merit, but also not by any other way than through Christ, who earned this for them and was received by them through faith, as follows, "so that we might receive the promised Spirit," that is, the promise that the Holy Spirit should be given to us, "through faith." For the Holy Spirit is promised to Abraham when [he] was promised the blessing of faith. Also faith is given by the Holy Spirit through Christ's merit in the word and preaching of the Gospel.
V. 15 Dear brethren, I will speak in a human way: Do not despise a man's testament when it is confirmed, and do nothing about it.
58 Here the apostle leaves out the last part of the speech (apocopen facit), because it must be added: So much less must one despise God's testament and do something about it after it has been confirmed. He says: "In a human way", as Jerome thinks, in order to teach the unlearned Galatians divine things through a human similitude. But, as I judge from this, no one is so learned that he should not need such parables to learn Christ rightly; yes, this example of the parable was extremely necessary, otherwise it would have been even more difficult to understand than Rom. 4, where he does the same without such a parable, and I have not yet seen anyone who would have interpreted this passage correctly (digne).
(59) Let us therefore set both before our eyes, the likeness and the thing itself, and we shall see with how mighty a reason of proof he again thrusts the justice of the law to the ground. He be-
but intends to make this conclusion: If we can have righteousness of ourselves by the law and its works, then the promise of blessing given to Abraham is already in vain, because without it we can be righteous by the law, or at least it is not sufficient to make us righteous, if the righteousness of the law must still be added, and so the testament and promise of God is either superfluous or lacking, so that it is necessary to add something else to it. But both are quite abominable; so the opposite is true, that the righteousness of the law is neither necessary nor sufficient. Behold, this is certainly an exceedingly strong ground of proof.
60 So let us see: In every will there is a testator; there is one for whom the will is made; there is the will itself; there is a thing that is promised or bequeathed. So here God is the testator, for he promises and bequeaths. Abraham and his seed are the ones for whom the will is made as heirs of God, the Testator. The testament is the promise Gen. 12,1 ) 2. 3. and 17, 7. The bequeathed thing is the inheritance, that is, the grace and righteousness of faith, namely the blessing of the Gentiles in the seed of Abraham. If, then, the grace of the promise and the righteousness of God, which is given through Christ (and so the testament of God is confirmed by his death, even already executed and given out), is not sufficient, unless you also have the righteousness of the law: will not the testament of God, which is not only made, but also confirmed and fulfilled, also be in vain, and something added to it, which even in a man's testament may not be done? But if grace is sufficient, and the testament of God is firm, it is evident that one should not seek the righteousness of the law. The same is said in Rom. 4:14: "For where they that are of the law are heirs, faith is nothing, and the promise is abolished"; for if the righteousness of the law were sufficient, faith and the promise of the law would not be sufficient.
1) Weimar wrong: Gen. 21, 2. ff.
The grace promised to Abraham would not have been necessary.
61 You see how correctly the apostle treats the Scriptures, so that it is impossible for those to understand him who think he is speaking only of the ceremonial law. For with the same reason of proof he concludes against righteousness from the holy ten commandments: If we can be justified by the works of them, faith and the blessing promised to Abraham, which is to be spread among the Gentiles, is in vain, since without faith and [that] blessing we are justified.
V. 16. Now the promise is ever made to Abraham and his seed.
62 That is, the testament of God, which has been decreed with reference to him, which he calls here "the promise", immediately afterwards [v. 17] "the testament". Now notice how he applies the simile given by the testament. He says, "The promise is promised," that is, the things bequeathed, the testament. But what things? The blessing of the Gentiles in his seed, that is, the grace of faith in Christ. Therefore it follows:
He does not speak: through the seeds, as (quasi) through many, but as (quasi) through One, through your seed, which is Christ.
This quasi is badly chosen, it would be better to say "as (ut) through many", "as (ut) through one", which is obvious from the grammatical sense. See how he teaches that through the seed of Abraham Christ is signified, lest the Jews should boast that it is they in whom the Gentiles should be blessed, since they are so many that it could never be certain in whom enough of the promise would happen, and again the promise would be put in jeopardy, and the testament of God would fall to the ground. Therefore, one seed had to be named to whom this blessing was to be given, not only for the sake of certainty, but also because of the unity of the One People of God, in order to prevent sects.
So you have the testator, the will, the thing the will is about, and those for whom it is made. Now all that remains is that it be confirmed that
that which has been confirmed is made manifest and distributed, that is, that the Gentiles receive this blessing in Christ.
V. 17. But I say of it.
65 That is, what I had in mind, I now say, now I explain myself and make the application.
The testament, which is confirmed by God beforehand on Christ.
That is, it came into effect through the death of Christ (ratum factum). But "confirmed in Christ" means that it was laid down in Christ and distributed to the Gentiles. For through Christ the testament of God to Christ was fulfilled. For Christ did not die in such a way that the grace of faith was poured out, by which we are to believe in someone other than Christ, but only in this Christ.
It is not abolished, that the promise should cease by the law, which is given four hundred and thirty years after.
In his great zeal, the apostle speaks in a very dark and veiled way. He says that the testament of God, which is confirmed in Christ, does not have to be annulled by the law and its righteousness. But it would be annulled, and the promise would be completely destroyed, if works of the law were necessary for righteousness, as if the grace of the promise were insufficient or ineffective for our justification.
67 But that he adds: "The law, which was given four hundred and thirty years afterward," seems to be a way of diminishing the law, as if to say, "If the promise had been given according to the law, it might have seemed that it was rightly obtained through the righteousness of the law: If the promise had been given according to the law, it might have seemed as if it had been rightly obtained through the righteousness of the law. But now grace and righteousness are given so completely 1) without the works of the law, that it was promised even so many years before the law, much more before the righteousness of the law, since no one deserved it,
1) In the Wittenberg, the Weimar, and the first single edition of the second redaction udeo; in the other editions: a veo.
no one asked for it, but in that God's mercy gave this promise by grace alone. Why, then, should the law nullify this promise of mercy, and now the showing of mercy, since the law did nothing to either? And Rom. 3:21 says: "Without the law the righteousness that is before God is revealed"; indeed, Rom. 4:14-16 says that the law has done the opposite, since it rather causes wrath and increases sins. Far be it, then, that righteousness should be based on the law and our works; rather, it should be based on the completely reliable promise of God, who does not lie, even though we become worse and more unworthy through the law.
V. 18 For if the inheritance were acquired by law, it would not be given by promise.
68 That is, if the righteousness promised to Abraham in the blessing is of the works of the law and of us, then the promise is off and superfluous. It cannot be one and the same from us and from God, since he is true, but we are liars. He proves by this word what he has already said, that the promise by the law does not cease, for, he says, if by the law [righteousness comes], 2) the promise by the law is taken away, as he also says Rom. 4:14, "Where we are heirs of the law, the promise is taken away."
(69) I have sufficiently discussed the apostle's way of speaking above, that he considers the law and the works of the law and the righteousness of the law to be one and the same, that such righteousness does not come from us willingly, but only by compulsion of the law. Our theologians call this: from us, or from our powers, or from purely natural ability (ex puris naturalibus). Therefore, they cannot understand Paul, who seems to accuse the law.
But God gave it freely to Abraham by promise.
70. he did not give it by the law, but gave it freely by the promise,
2) Added by us.
when the law was not yet there, much less did he fulfill it by the law coming. So you have all the evidence of the apostle.
71 Now we must consider that he says the law was given four hundred and thirty years later. For these years are counted from the departure of Abraham from his land, when he first received the promise, Genesis 12:1-3, until the departure of the children of Israel in this way: Abraham was seventy-five years old when he went out of his land, Gen. 12:4, but when he was a hundred years old, Isaac was born to him [Gen. 21:5]; so you have twenty-five years. Isaac being sixty years old, Jacob and Esau were born unto him, Gen. 25, 26.; mark sixty years. Jacob was ninety years old when Joseph was born to him; mark ninety years; as may be inferred from many chapters of the first book of Moses. Joseph lived one hundred and ten years, Gen. 50:26, after which the bondage in Egypt lasted sixty-five years, as seen in Philo. 1) Then Moses was born, in whose eightieth year the children of Israel went out. So from the seventy-fifth year of Abraham to the eightieth year of Moses there are four hundred and thirty years. [Whether this is so, let others see. I am of the opinion of St. Jerome, who says: "This thing has been sought by many, and I do not know whether it has been found"].
For I believe that the apostle did not say this according to a calculation he made, but from the 12th chapter of the 2nd book of Moses [v. 40.], where it says: "Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt is four hundred and thirty years." So also Stephen, Apost. 7, 6, when he tells the story from the first book of Moses, where God, in the 15th chapter, v. 13, foretold to Abraham that his seed would serve four hundred years. He (Paul) 2) summarizes both passages (miscens) and counts four hundred and thirty years.
1) In the editions of the first Redaction, the Weimar and the Erlangen: ut 3o. Junius ex I'Uiloue ckicüt.
2) ip86 me to Paul. For if one wanted to refer it to Stephen, as Heidnecker did, then what is said here would be in contradiction to Apost. 7, 6.
73 Note also that the apostle calls the promises of God a testament, as they are also called in other passages of Scripture, by which he [God] secretly indicated that it would happen that God would die, and so that in the promise of God, as it were in a made testament, the incarnation and the suffering of God would be recognized at the same time, for, as it is said in Heb. 9, 17: "A testament becomes firm through death. Therefore also God's testament was not to become firm, unless God died, as it is said there, v. 15, of Christ: "Therefore he is a mediator of the new testament, that they might receive the promise by means of death." And this is [as Christ says John 8:56] 3) the day of Christ, which Abraham recognized from the promise of God and rejoiced.
74 By this can be brought at the same time into agreement that St. Jerome says that in Hebrew rather "covenant" (pactum) than "testament" stands. The one who remains alive makes a covenant, the one who will die makes a testament. Thus Jesus Christ, the immortal God, made a blind, but at the same time also a testament, because he should be mortal; just as he is God and man at the same time, so he also makes a covenant and a testament.
V. 19. What is the law for?
(75) Since he has said that righteousness cannot be attained by the law, and supports this with very strong reasons, he sees that it can be rightly argued against him what the law is good for, since it is seen that every law is given for the sake of righteousness and good conduct (mores). And you see sufficiently that he speaks of every law, also of the holy ten commandments, in all things, as in the fourth and fifth chapters of the letter to the Romans. But he answers:
V. 19. 20. It came about because of sins, until the seed came to whom the promise was made, and was provided by the angels through the hand of the mediator. But a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
3) Added by us.
Who would ever have expected such an answer, which is certainly contrary to all those who understand and talk about the benefits of the law? He says that the law was given, or added, and set for the purpose, that sins might abound, in the same sense that he says Rom. 5:20: "The law came in beside, that sin might be made more powerful."
But that St. Jerome understands it in a negative way, namely that sins should be kept in check by the law, is contrary to this: First, that then it should rather have been said that it was given for the sake of justification, because the law is given for the reason that one should keep it.
Secondly, that this is a common expression of the apostle: The law is the power of sin [1 Cor. 15:56], the cause of sin [Rom. 7:11], a law of death [Rom. 7:10], a law of wrath. Thus it is said in Rom. 4:15, "The law worketh wrath: for where the law is not, there is no transgression." It is also certain that where there is no transgression, there is no forgiveness; where there is no forgiveness, there is no salvation. Therefore, as forgiveness is for the sake of blessedness, so transgression is for the sake of forgiveness, so the law is for the sake of sin. The law is the cause of sin (lex ponit peccatum), sin causes forgiveness, forgiveness is the cause of blessedness: all this because without the law sin is dead and not recognized, Rom. 5 and 7. Sin was in the world, but it was not imputed until Moses. So the meaning is: The law was given for the sake of sin, so that it would be sin and become powerful, and man, brought to self-knowledge by the law, would seek the hand of the merciful God, while without the law he would not recognize sin and consider himself healthy.
79 Thirdly, the following is not right either: "until the seed comes. For it is inconsistent to say that sin is held in check until Christ comes, as if it should then no longer be held in check, whereas the apostle wants the opposite, that sin should not be held in check by the law alone.
The sin of Adam was not limited, but became even more powerful, until Christ came and put an end to sin by fulfilling the law and giving grace, as Gabriel says in the prophet Daniel, Cap. 9, 24: "That sin might be ended and everlasting righteousness be brought", as if he wanted to say: Sin took its beginning from 1) Adam, also increased through the law, but will take its end through Christ alone, who brings eternal righteousness after sin has died, as it is said in Ps. 111, 3. and 112, 3. "His righteousness endures forever."
Fourthly, it does not agree with this [v. 21]: "Is then the law against God's promises?" This would not be introduced if the apostle wanted it to be understood that the law was given to keep sins in check, because then it would not be against the promises, but for the promises. But now, since it increases sin and provokes anger, it is evident that it does not move God to fulfill His promises, but rather to provoke Him to anger and to prevent [it]. If it is understood in this way, everything in the text hangs together quite nicely; otherwise, however, it becomes necessary that you invent as many opinions as there are sentences (constructiones). [Fifth, that he says, "By the hand of the Mediator," he says this, as I hold, because the law is not put into our hand to fulfill it, but into the hand of the future Christ, who will fulfill it. Therefore it was not given to make righteous, but rather to accuse sinners and to require the hand of the Mediator. For it was necessary to resist human hope, so that man would not believe that the Son of God became man because of his merits, and he would become ungrateful against such great mercy. Now that we have fallen into debt 2) through the law, we love God as a God all the more faithful and merciful, the more unworthy we are, to whom He has shown such great love. For we
1) In the editions of the first Redaction and in the Erlanger: in instead of: ab.
2) Erlanger: indninnrita instead of: in dornorita.
have only knowledge through the law, but Christ alone fulfills and does it].
Until the seed should come to whom the promise was made," that is, in which the blessing, the righteousness, and the fulfillment of the law should be given, and the sins which were by the law should no longer be conquered, but should be blotted out, which is by faith in Christ. [What now follows I do not find properly interpreted by any teacher. Jerome, Augustine and Ambrose pass over it, and say nothing more than that Christ is the mediator between God and men, but do not show what the connection is, or how the words are to be understood. Furthermore, the newer exegetes also bring up quite strange things here. Therefore, I present to the godly reader what I think about it].
He says, "Made by angels through the hand of the Mediator," and St. Stephen also says, Acts 7:53: "You received the law through the business of angels and did not keep it. 7:53: "Ye have received the law by the ministrations of angels, and have not kept it," and Heb. 2:2: "For if the word which was spoken by angels be established," etc. It is evident, then, that the apostle intended the law to be a letter, and therefore it is nothing but the power of sin, and, as he says 2 Cor. 3:6, "The letter killeth, but the Spirit quickeneth." It is indeed something great that it is provided by the angels, but that does nothing for righteousness, because the angels can neither fulfill it for us, nor give that by which it can be fulfilled; only the one thing they can do, that they have delivered it to us as God has ordained. But because it is given by God's decree, it is undoubtedly given to be understood at the same time that it must be completely fulfilled, for the angels were not the authors of the law, but the servants of it. [Through the angels it was to come to us in order. So this order is to be broken, and now between God and man not an angel is to be the mediator, but he himself, who through the angels gives (ordinates) his decrees and keeps us far from him, he himself, I say, is to come and teach us the law, whose words will be spirit and life. For it is of no use that he sends any messengers, if
he himself does not come. The law may be set by the angels, but it is not set by the hand of the angels, but rather by the hand of a mediator who acquits and justifies those accused by the law].
83) "By the hand of the mediator. This is Moses, who as a mediator (sequester) between God and the people received the law from the angels and delivered it to the people. Therefore he is a servant of sin and a mediator of death. But Christ is the mediator of a better testament, says the letter to the Hebrews [Cap. 8, 6.]. From this Paul concludes that the people could not be justified by the law at all, that they could not even suffer and hear the law, but accepted Moses as a mediator, which would not have been necessary if they had been able to hear the law through themselves. How, then, could they do so or be justified by it? 1)
84. "A mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. That is, God had no need of a mediator for Himself, neither in giving the law nor in bestowing grace. But for us both have been necessary, that we might suffer the law and receive grace, because a mediator necessarily mediates between the two. But God is one and does not need a mediator with another God or with Himself. But we need a mediator with him, who does not need a mediator. 2)
1) Instead of this paragraph the following is found in the first redaction: For this "by the hand of the mediator" I understand in such a way that he alone had the law, which was provided by the angels, in his power, as he alone was not subject to the law, since he owed nothing to it and could free from it whom he wanted. But the law has us in its hand, and we are subject to it through sin. With all this he wants to say that it is impossible for us to be saved by ourselves, but that this is easy through the hand of another, namely the mediator. If someone should think that "provided by the angels through the hand of the mediator" must be understood in this way: through the power and by the command of the mediator, then I have nothing against it, if someone only does not think that Moses, who is the mediator of the Old Testament, must be understood by the mediator, just as he calls Christ, Hebr. 8, 6, the mediator of a better and of the New Testament.
2) Instead of this paragraph, the following is found in the first redaction: Now concerning the word, "But a mediator is not a mediator of one," he concludes from the name "mediator" that we are sinners so even that
V. 21. Is the law against God's promises? Let that be far off.
For now that one question is answered in this way, he raises another. For if the law increases sins, it is seen to make the goodness of the Promised One vain. This would be true if the promise of blessing was based on the law or on our righteousness in the law. But now it is based only on the truthfulness (veritati) of the Promiser; therefore, the law is not against the promises of God, but rather for the promises of God.
How does this happen? While it shows the sins and proves that no one can be justified by it, yes, because it also happens that sin is increased by it, it forces that now the fulfillment of the promise is sought, requested and expected all the more, since it now seems much more necessary than when the law was not there. So much is lacking in the fact that it is against the promises, that it rather puts them very much to the heart (commends) and makes them exceedingly desirable to those whom it has humbled by the recognition of their sins.
But if there were a law that could give life, then righteousness would truly come from the law.
That is, it is not contrary to the promises, because it is given to kill and increase sin, that is, so that man may know through the law how much he needs the grace of the promise, since he is in need of it.
the works of the law cannot be sufficient. He says: If you are justified by the law, then you no longer need a mediator; but also God does not need one, since he is one and agrees with himself in the best way. So a mediator is sought between two, between God and man; as if he wanted to say: This would be the most ungodly ingratitude, if you reject the mediator and turn him back to God, who is one. But you reject him if you can be justified by the law, and so it will happen that he can neither be a mediator for you, since you do not want him, nor for God, who has no need of him. Therefore, the law will also be in your hand and will not be set by the angels in such a way that it should be fulfilled through the mediator, but it is completely fulfilled through yourselves. But what lies hidden deeper may be sought by others; I retract my sails.
by the good, righteous, holy law, so that he does not lean on the law and become secure by trusting in the works of the law, but seeks something far different and better through the law, that is, the promise. For if the law could have made alive) we would be righteous, and it would work against the promise, even annul it in truth. 2) But now it rather kills and makes sinners exceedingly sinful (amplius facit), and just by this it works for the promises by urging (cogit) that one should desire them all the more, and destroys all righteousness of works from the ground up. For if it did not destroy them, the grace of the promise would not be sought, it would be received with ingratitude, even rejected, as happens by those who do not rightly understand the law. But it would not destroy them, unless it not only did not justify or make alive, but also became the cause of more sins and more death.
For evil desire, when it is forbidden, is always provoked and increases. Therefore, even though the law seems to be contrary to the promises, since it increases sin in those who do not recognize sin through the law, 3) this is not because of the law, because it is not even a law where it is not rightly understood. But then it is rightly understood when sin is recognized by it. But where it is understood and sin is recognized, it certainly works for the promises, because it serves to make one also sigh for the grace of the promise, by showing at the same time how grace is due to man through no merit, so that through the understanding of the law the sincere condescension of the promisor and the completely sincere gratitude for the granted grace is established and strengthened.
1) In the editions of the first Redaction, in the Erlanger and the Weimarschen u leZe instead of per ledern.
2) The last part of this sentence: "und es... aufheben" is missing in the editions of the first redaction and in the text of the Erlangen and Weimar editions.
3) In the editions of the first redaction, in the Erlanger and in the Weimarschen nZnoseunt instead of aZnoseunt.
V. 22. But the Scripture has decreed it all under sin, that the promise might come through faith in Jesus Christ, given to those who believe.
By this word he answers both, that the law was given to increase sin, but that by increasing sin it is not contrary to the promises of God. He says: "God has decreed all men to sin through the Scriptures, that is, He has shown through the Law and the letter that we were sinners and unable to bring about righteousness or the fulfillment of the Law. By revealing sin through the law in such a way, and convincing people that they were unable to fulfill it, God wanted to drive the humble, who despaired of themselves and were in terror, to run to the mercy of God, which was given to them by grace and held out to them in Christ, and so they would be given (as he says here) - "would be given", I say, not "would be paid for" - but would be given to those who are not worthy of it and who, according to the law (per legem), would by far have deserved the opposite, the promise that happened to Abraham, that is, the grace and blessing of justification by faith in Christ to all those who would believe in him.
90. likewise he says, Rom. 11, 32: "God has decreed all men to sin, that he might have mercy on all," and [Rom. 3, 19. 20.] "that every mouth should be stopped up, and that all the world should be guilty of God, so that no flesh should be justified before him by the works of the law." How did he [God] decide? By the Scriptures, by the Law, by the letter; this is that He confidently declared above [v. 10.] of the works of the Law, that Moses had written, "Cursed be every man that abideth not in all these things," this is that He Rom. 3, 9. says that he confidently charges that all, Jews and Greeks, are under sin, and he pronounces without wavering (constanter) the word of the 14th Psalm [v. 3] over all [Rom. 3, 10-12]: "There is not he that is righteous, there is not he that is understanding; they are all gone astray.
and all of them have become incompetent", that is why he also declares the Jews guilty in the second chapter of the letter to the Romans, who trust in the appearance of their works, while he does not consider this beautiful appearance to be anything. He says [Rom. 2, 21.]: The same thing that you judge others, you do yourself. "You preach that one should steal, and you steal," namely, through your evil desire etc.
He was so certain, as it is indeed certain, that everything that happens outside of grace is only sin and mere hypocrisy. St. Augustine also says this very beautifully, since he treats in his book "Of the Letter and the Spirit", Cap. 9, 1) Proverbs 31, 26: "The law and the hold 2) is on their tongue": Therefore, it is written of wisdom that she carries the law and happiness on her tongue; the law to make the arrogant guilty; happiness to make the humble righteous.
92) So the judgment is certain [Rom. 3, 4. Ps. 116, 11.]: "All men are liars"; the judgment is certain [Ps. 143, 2.]: "Before you no living man is righteous", so that at the same time the honor of God, the praise of His grace and the glory of His mercy are certain. In the prophet Daniel, Cap. 9, 7, it says: "You, Lord, are righteous, but we must be ashamed" etc.
You see what it is to be justified by faith in Christ, namely, that after you have recognized your ungodliness and your inability through the law, you despair of yourself, of your powers, of your knowledge, of the law, of works, and of everything in general, and that with fear and confidence in humility you implore the right hand of Christ alone, or the hand of the mediator, in the firm belief that you will obtain grace, as it is said in Romans 10:13 from the prophet Joel: "For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. 10:13 from the prophet Joel [Cap. 3:5], "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
94. and at the same time you see that the whole human race, by whatever great wisdom or righteousness it may have before the
1) In the Jena, lom. I, and in the Erlangen: "10."
2) Instead of: lex elernentiae in the Vulgate is in Augustine: lex et 6l6rn6ntiu.
The people who shine are nothing but a lost and cursed multitude. This can also be seen from the words of the promise: "In your seed all nations shall be blessed." But what is this, that all nations shall be blessed, but that all nations are accursed? Thus it means that they shall be made righteous and blessed, and all that is signified by the word "blessing," nothing else but that they are sinful and lost, and all that is signified by the word "curse."
95 Thus the law was given to increase sin. But not only the increase of sin was intended, but that the hopeful man would also recognize this and would be frightened by the law, and that he, forced to despair of himself, would thirst for mercy like the author of the 42nd Psalm [v. 2]: "As the deer cries for fresh water, so my soul cries to you, O God." Likewise [v. 4.], "My tears are my food day and night, because they say to me daily, Where is now thy God?" Hence comes all the crying, groaning, and longing of the fathers and the prophets, and the anxious waiting for Christ, and the question of the exceedingly heavy burden of the law. So the law is good, just and holy, but it does not make righteous. It shows me who I am, while I am irritated by it and hate righteousness more than before, since I am deterred from evil works only by the terror of the threatening law. The law alone keeps me from evil works, but never from evil desire.
96 And to present the matter to you in a parable: Water is good, but when it is poured on lime, it ignites it. Is it the fault of the water that the lime becomes hot? Rather, the lime, which was thought to be cold, has been overpowered by the water of what it had in it. Thus the law stirs up evil lusts and spitefulness and brings them to light, but does not cure them. But when oil is poured on lime, it does not become hot, but its hidden heat is quenched. So also the grace poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit quenches hatred and evil desire. I have said this in so many words because this matter in our time.
cannot be sufficiently inculcated, where the tyranny of legal justice is again so badly torn down.
97. But you notice: If the exceedingly holy law of God has not been able to justify us, but has only made us more sinners, then what should these inexhaustible masses (maria) of our laws, statutes and ceremonies do in the church, especially since they are held in the opinion that one is justified by them, and they also do not want to admit that one knows what Christ is, or why one must believe in him? For they do not use these laws to recognize sin by them, nor to practice faith in Christ in willing (gratuita) love, but they trust that they are righteous when they have kept them, and do not believe that they need anything else in addition. Or when they invoke the grace of Christ, they invoke it so that they may do such works, not so that they may be free from the inward corruption and uncleanness of the flesh. Therefore, as I have often said, through so many unwise and unfortunate laws, the Church must perish from the bottom up, if God has not prepared a remedy for us.
V.23. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, and shut up unto the faith that should be revealed.
For all, he says, who are under the law before they are justified by faith, the law is as it were a prison, in which they are shut up and kept, because they are kept from sinning freely by the power and terror of the law, since the evil air does not give its will to it and resists it. For the evil desire rages and hates the law, its prison, but is nevertheless forced to abstain from the works of sin.
(99) But those who have known this misery groan for mercy, utterly humiliated, and cannot trust in the righteousness of the law, because they feel that the law makes them unwilling to obey it and inclined to sin. For they want-
would rather that there were no law, so that they might be free to fulfill their lusts with impunity. But this "preferring" is hating the law; hating the law means hating truth, justice, holiness. This is then no longer sin alone, but also love of sin; not being righteous alone, but also hating righteousness; that is, in truth, sin being increased by the law. Therefore St. Augustine says in this passage: "That they have been found by the law to have transgressed the law is not to the destruction but to the profit of them that believe, because by the knowledge of the greater disease it hath caused them to desire the physician the more, and to love him the more fervently. For he who is forgiven most loves most [Luc. 7, 47.]; and this is also expressed in Rom. 5, 20. "Where sin has become mighty, grace has become much mightier."
(100) The law, then, was not given for the sole purpose of revealing and increasing sin, or it would have been better to postpone it until the last judgment, lest we be consumed by double trouble (contritione), but to humble and drive us to Christ through revealed sin.
(101) The word, "Before faith came," is not only to be understood of the faith that was revealed after Christ, but of all the faith of all the righteous. For even to the fathers the same faith came in time past, because the law of God, which was also first revealed to them, urged them to seek grace. Although it was not preached in the whole world at that time, it was preached especially (privately) in the families of the fathers. 1) Likewise, see that you do not connect the words, "shut up in faith" (in fidem), as if he meant that we were shut up in faith (in fide) as in a prison, since he says this of the law, but we were shut up in the prison of the law, and that in faith (in fidem), that is, to the faith to come (ad fidem), or to be set free by the faith to come, since the
1) From here to the end of the paragraph is missing in the old translations.
Law, by its imprisonment, caused us to desire to be set free by faith, as he said above [v. 17]: "The testament, which God confirmed beforehand in Christ," that is, that it would be confirmed in the future Christ, and now immediately following: "The law has been our disciplinarian in Christ," that is, to Christ.
V. 24, 25: So the law was our disciplinarian unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under the disciplinarian.
This is certainly a beautiful simile. Paedagogus (child leader) is his name from puer and ago, because he is to lead and train the children. He says: "Just as young children (parvulis) are assigned a disciplinarian to keep the youth in check, so the law is given to us to limit sins. But just as children are kept in check only by fear of chastisement, and also usually hate their disciplinarian and prefer to be free, and do everything either out of compulsion or induced by words of flattery, but never out of love for the thing itself or out of free will: so those who are under the law are kept from the works of sin by fear of the threats of the law, hate the law, and prefer to have their lusts free. But they do everything forced by the terror of punishment, or moved by the love of the temporal promise, but never of happy (gratuita) and free will.
Afterwards, when the children have attained the inheritance and realize how useful the disciplinarian has been to them, they also begin to love him and to praise the disciplinarian's service, and to condemn themselves for not having obeyed him gladly and willingly. But now, without the disciplinarian, they freely and cheerfully do what they did unwillingly and unwillingly under the disciplinarian. After we have thus attained faith 2),
2) The editions of the first Redaction, the Weimar and the Erlangen: ueHuisita instead of oktentu. Luther changed ULHuisiM to ovtentu because üäss ae^uisita was a
which is our rightful inheritance promised to Abraham and his seed, and recognize how holy and wholesome the law is, but how shameful the evil lust, we love, praise and approve the law to the highest. Again, the more we like the law itself, the more we condemn and reprove our evil lusts, and now we cheerfully and gladly do that, which at that time, when we did not recognize it, the wholesome law forced from us by heart with violence and terror, and yet this could not dissuade us inwardly. This is it that he says we are now no longer under the disciplinarian after faith has come, but the disciplinarian has become our friend and is more honored than feared by us. Again (as I have said), beware lest you read the text thus: The law has been our disciplinarian in Christ (in Christo), as if for us who already live in Christ the law were our disciplinarian, as our translation has and seems to mean (sapere). But this completely overturns the meaning of the apostle.
104. But as the children are under the disciplinarian for the inheritance, that is, to be instructed by him, that they may attain to the inheritance, so the law is our disciplinarian from Christ, that is, that we, being driven and exercised by the law, may be prepared to seek Christ, the faith, the inheritance, and to groan after it. For the law (as I have said) prepares for grace by revealing and increasing sin, humbling the proud so that they desire help from Christ. And this mind the apostle strengthens by the following little word: "Upon Christ," I say, namely, "that we might be justified by faith," who became sinners by the law, as the 69th Psalm, v. 17. [Vulg.], says: "For thy mercy is sweet, O Lord." Why? Because thy law is bitter, O Lord. So let not the child remain under the disciplinarian, but.
scholastic expression by which is designated the faith that we ourselves produce through many acts of faith. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. VIII, 2145, § 290.
The law is to be instructed so that it receives the inheritance as an all the more sweet gift (dulcius). So also the law makes the grace of God all the more sweet and pleasant (commendat).
(105) Therefore, he explained the purpose (finem) of the law in an excellent way, namely, that it is not our righteousness and fulfillment, but that we should groan for Christ, so that through faith in him we may seek to attain to fulfillment. But our works saints have for the purpose of their laws the laws themselves and the works of these laws; neither do they ordain them for Christ, but only for the works, so that they are eternally lost with the Jews whom they follow, understanding neither the law nor its works.
V. 26. For you are all children of God through faith in Jesus Christ.
Since faith is the blessing itself, the inheritance of Abraham himself, which is promised in his seed, Christ, therefore he who has faith in Christ has the inheritance of God. If he has the inheritance, he is no longer under the disciplinarian, but free, and a lord and heir. But the inheritance is given to no one but the children. From this it follows that he who believes in Christ is God's child, as John 1:12 says: "He gave them power to become the children of God, to those who believe in His name."
For as many of you as have been baptized have put on Christ.
He declares that they are children of God through faith in Christ. Baptism (he says) makes you put on Christ. But to put on Christ is to put on righteousness, truth, and all grace, and the fulfillment of the whole law. Therefore, through Christ you have the blessing and inheritance of Abraham. But if you have put on Christ, then Christ is the Son of God, and you are children of God through this very garment. This is the apostle's way of speaking, which he also uses in Rom. 13, 14: "But put on the Lord Jesus Christ." Eph. 4, 24: "Put on the new man who is after God.
is created in righteous justice and holiness." He says: "righteous", because if the law alone is there, it only attracts a feigned holiness and righteousness.
V. 28. Here is neither Jew nor Greek, here is neither bond nor free, here is neither male nor female.
He says, "You are not righteous because you are a Jew and keep the law, but because you have put on Christ as a believer in Christ. Why then do you allow yourselves to be drawn to Judaism by the false apostles? As with Christ the reputation (persona) of the Jewish observance of the law does not apply, neither does any other. This is the nature of human and legal righteousnesses, that they are divided into sects and distinguished according to their works, in that one confesses and does this, the other that, and follows that. But in Christ all things are common, all things are one, and one is all. Thus he says below, Cap. 5, 6: "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor foreskin counts for anything, but faith" and [2 Cor. 5, 17] "a new creature".
Therefore the Christian or the believer is a man without name, without outward appearance, without outward distinction, without reputation. Ps. 133:1: "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in one accord." Where there is unity, there is neither outward appearance nor difference, nor even a name. Thus the famous martyr Attolus answered very well when asked about the name of God: Where there are several, they are distinguished by names; He who is One needs no name.
110 And for this reason the church is called in the Scriptures a hidden and secret one, and it is very well observed that as often as the righteous are described, they are described without any sect or personal name, as Ps. 1, 6: "For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous"; he does not say: of the Jews, of men, of old men, of children; and Ps. 15, 1. 2: "Lord, who shall dwell in thy tabernacle?" He answers, "He who walks without change"; he does not say: a Jew, or who belongs to this and that order (professionis); and Ps. 111, 1: "In the
He does not say: the priests, the monks, the bishops.
The same judgment is to be made about every other outward appearance (persona), because God does not look at the person [Apost. 10, 34]. So neither rich nor poor, neither beautiful nor ugly, neither citizen nor peasant, neither Benedictine nor Carthusian, neither Minorite nor Augustinian. All this is of such a nature that it does not make a Christian if it is there, nor an unbeliever if it is not there, and is absolutely begun and done for the purpose of training the Christian and making him better.
Therefore St. Augustine says in this passage: "This difference of Jew and Gentile, or of class, or of sex, remains in this mortal life for the sake of the body, but is abolished by the unity of faith in the spirit, because about this not only the apostles, but also the Lord himself has given the most salutary teachings. For Christ commands that what is Caesar's is to be given to Caesar, and the apostles command that servants are to obey their masters, wives are to be subjects of their husbands, but that everyone is to be obedient to the authorities, giving the womb to whom the womb is due, honor to whom honor is due. But these are all things that concern the person (personalia).
Only this is required, that we serve these persons not against the unity of the faith, but for the unity of the faith, that the inequality of the outward estate be not stronger than the equality of the inward faith, as we see, alas! see that now, under the pretense (titulos) of orders, dignities, spiritual ranks, churches, arts, peoples, countries, families, friendships, alliances, fights and disputes of the most manifold kind take place, that already by this one reason of proof it can be considered proven that the faith in the church is (almost) extinct, and only larvae and (as Isaiah [Cap. 13, 21. 22.) says of Babylon) field spirits, owls and dragons dwell in it.
For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
(114) That is, you are one in the faith of Christ, though it is necessary that you be one in the faith of Christ.
you must be divided into different persons according to the need of this body and life, like many members, yet you are one body under one head.
V. 29. But if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(115) Since he said that we have put on Christ and have become one in Christ, it is certain that what was said of Christ must be understood as being said of us for Christ's sake. For Christ cannot be separated from us, nor we from him, being one with him and in him, as the
Members are one in the head and with one head. Therefore, just as the promise of God cannot be understood by anyone other than Christ, it must also be understood by us, because we are nothing other than Christ.
We are therefore in truth Abraham's seed and heirs, not according to the flesh, but according to the promise, because we are those who are remembered in the promise, namely the peoples who are to be blessed through the seed of Abraham. So it says in Rom. 9, 8. that the children of the promise are counted for seed, not those who are children according to the flesh are God's children etc.