V. 1. 2. But I say, as long as the heir is a child, there is no difference between him and a servant, though he be lord of all the goods; but he is among the guardians and custodians, until the appointed time of the father.
Paul makes another hard push against righteousness and the works of the law, in that he now already takes the third simile of men, which is related to the previous simile of the disciplinarian, since it deals with the same young child, but also this one of the testament refers to the young child or at least to the heir. This is how rich the apostle proves to be in explaining the promise of God.
First, there is no difference between an heir who is a child and a servant; he has no more power over the paternal goods than a servant. Secondly, he is nevertheless a lord over all goods in the hope and by the disposition (nuncupatione) of the father. Third, he is under the guardians and custodians except for the time appointed by the father. Whether the apostle here follows the Roman laws or others, there is nothing in it. For, as Jerome says, according to the Roman laws the legal time for an heir ends with the twenty-fifth year. We will use this example as much as it is necessary.
V. 3. So also we, being children, were captives under the outward statutes.
He carries it out in detail. The heir who is a child is us. The guardians are the outward statutes. There is no difference between us and the servants, because we served, and yet we were masters, namely according to the providence of the heavenly Father. Of the heirs and the inheritance it has been sufficiently said that the heirs are Abraham's seed, that is, Christ and the Christians; but the inheritance is the grace and blessing of the Christian faith among the Gentiles. But the servitude of the heirs has been spoken of in other words above [Cap. 3, § 102 ff]. For servants are those who do not serve for the inheritance of the father of the house, but do works for wages, or also forced by the fear of punishment; therefore, as Christ says [John 8:35], the servant does not remain in the house forever, but the son remains in the house forever. This is beautifully illustrated in the first book of Moses Cap. 21, 14. where the son of the maidservant, Ishmael, is cast out and given food, and Cap. 25, 5. 6.: "Abraham gave all his goods to Isaac. And unto the children which he had of the concubines he gave gifts, and caused them to go by his son Isaac."
4. this is also what we do when we are without the
1510 Dri. 6ai. Ill, 307-ä09. interpretations on the epistle to the Galatians. W. IX, 198-201. ' 1511
grace in the law, the works of the law are in bondage, that is, either forced by the fear of punishment, or induced by temporal reward. But through all this we are so instructed that we groan for the inheritance, that is, faith and grace, by which, having been snatched from this bondage, we can fulfill the law in freedom of spirit, no longer fearing punishment or desiring reward, that is, no longer being servants. Meanwhile, we are masters of all goods, since God has provided and prepared this inheritance for us, and instructs us through the servile fear of punishment and love of the goods that are in the law, that we may desire the inheritance, but by no means remain in servitude with the Jews and the hypocrites, which we would do if we felt that the fear of punishment and the desire (per amorem) for reward would not increase our love for the law, but rather our hatred of it, because (as I said) we would rather there were no law. Thus the law drives us to the inheritance by which we become masters of all goods, that is, possessors of the blessing in Christ through faith.
5 Of the external statutes (elementis mundi), the guardians and custodians, one has had different thoughts. In short, "elements" is not taken here in a philosophical way for fire, air, water and earth, but according to the apostle's own way of speaking and according to the grammar for the letters of the law itself, of which the law consists, as he also calls it 2 Cor. 3, 6. and elsewhere [Rom. 2, 27. 29.] "the letter", so that "elements" in the plural is the same 1) as writing or the written law. And no other proof is needed than the reputation of the apostle, who says, "We were among the elements of the world"; and immediately after [v. 5.)] follows: "That he might redeem them which were under the law," to show that he understands the same thing by "law" and "elements"; otherwise even the redeemed in the time of fulfillment are among the natural elements. And below [v. 9.] it is said: "How do ye apply
1) In the editions of the first redaction and in the Erlanger: sint instead of: sit.
Do you then return to the weak and meager elements of this world, which you want to serve anew?" and, explaining himself, follows [v. 10.): "You keep days and seasons" etc. So keeping days and seasons, that is, returning to the elements, that is, to the letter of the law.
(6) But also reason does not allow that by "elements" one understands idols or the natural elements, as some have meant, partly because one does not read anywhere that the Jews ever worshipped the elements, partly because then he would rather have had to say: We were under the power of idols or of darkness, as he expresses it against the Romans [Cap. 1, 23.] and against others [Eph. 5, 8.]; finally, because he speaks in a very general way, that all men, as many as there are of them, have been servile under the elements apart from the faith of Christ; if this is not understood of the law, it cannot be understood in any way. For the law has put all things under sin, as he said above [Cap. 3, 22], especially since he does nothing else here than compare the law and grace with each other, in order to lift the latter up, but to put the latter down. But especially because this is a very familiar way of speaking to the apostle, as Col. 2:8: "See to it that no one deprives you through philosophy and loose seduction according to the doctrine of men, and according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ." [For one must not believe St. Jerome either, who speaks things that do not belong here, and says that "elements" in that passage are not the same as in this epistle; for they are absolutely the same. For he calls "elements" the writings and teachings of the world, that is, of men, or rather the teachings that deal with the affairs of the world. There it says a little later (Col. 2, 20.): "If then ye are dead with Christ unto the elements of the world, why are ye entangled with statutes, as though ye lived yet in the world?" "That this is the apostle's opinion is immediately proven by the following, where he teaches about the Jewish superstition, as he also does here. But also Hebr. 5, 12. he speaks in the same way: "You need (he says) to be taught the first letters (elementa) of the divine words.")
But he calls the law "elements of the world," using these two words to diminish (tapinosin), that is, to belittle and condemn, to diminish the glory and delusion of the righteousness and works of the law, as if to say above: What have we from the law but letters, and those in which there is no spirit, since they do not give that by which they would be fulfilled, nor can we fulfill them? But he calls them "of the world," because they have to do with the things that are in the world, as with external works, just as one calls the science of God (scientia Dei) what one knows about God. For the law has never brought anyone to the spirit, but it has only been kept in the flesh, while inwardly the evil desire rebelled against it and hated it.
8 Now see how people can understand the apostle, who call plates, clothes, places, time, churches, altars, ornaments and all the splendor of the ceremonies spiritual things, since they must deny that these are worldly things, if they do not want to be called worldly themselves (which they abhor most). But since they deny that all these things are worldly, they at the same time cut off from themselves the understanding of the apostle, who understands all these things under the name of "world," calling the statutes (decreta) and doctrines, which are set forth in these outward things, even the outward works according to the holy ten commandments, contemptuously "elements of the world.
9 Therefore, in our time, spiritual things are: wealth, tyranny, court, liberty, or in the highest degree the prayers, 1) which are babbled with the mouth without understanding, and garments and places which have been raised by the teachings of men. The works of mercy and any other works and places of men are bodily, though they are supremely holy when they come from the full spirit of faith.
But we want to return to the apostle. So the elements are 2) the pre-muni-
1) In the editions of the first Redaction and in the Erlanger omnes statt oration"".
2) In the editions of the first Redaction, the Weimar and the Erlangen ista instead of itaqu".
The law is the disciplinarian, because the letter of the law, since it compels the unwilling to its works through the fear of punishment, drives them at the same time to acknowledge this unwilling will and to run to Christ, who gives the spirit of freedom.
(11) Therefore, the law does not destroy you, but is of the best use if you only realize that through it, as through a faithful nurse, you are led to Christ, to the inheritance, yes, driven. If you do not recognize it in this way, it will become your driver and adversary, handing you over to the tormentors; it will become your judge and persecutor, because it will never leave you a quiet conscience, since you can never find in yourself and in your works that by which it would be satisfied. But this is how those understand it who do not let themselves be led to Christ by it, but assume that they must fulfill it out of their own strength.
V. 4. 5. When the time was fulfilled, God sent His Son, born of a woman and made subject to the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption.
12) Here 3) he reproduces by the words: "When the time was fulfilled" 4) what he had called above "the time determined by the Father". For God had also determined the time in which the blessing promised to Abraham was to be fulfilled in his seed Christ, 5) not as if the holy fathers had not received the same blessing in the meantime, but because it was to be revealed in Christ over the whole world, and he himself was also to be made manifest, in which both they and we are blessed, and this he calls "the fullness of time", that is, the fulfillment of the determined time. (Others call "the fullness of time" the time of fulfillment, that is, of grace. That writer, whom Jerome cites, who calls himself the in
3) In the Wittenberg, the Basel and the Erlangen edition "Uni" instead of Nie.
4) In the editions of the first redaction, in the Weimar and in the Erlangen plknitncUnkrn instead of xlenitu6o in the first redaction and in the text.
5) Here we have followed the reading of the first redaction imxleretur, instead of jinpwtnr in the second.
If it was necessary for him (Christ) to be under the law in order to redeem those who were under the law, it would also have been necessary for him to be without the law in order to redeem those (namely, the Gentiles) who were without the law, or if this is not necessary, then this is also superfluous: I say that the apostle understood the ceremonial law alone, whereas the apostle speaks of the whole law. For Christ has not redeemed us from ceremonies alone, but rather from evil lusts, or from the law which forbids evil lust, for he was indebted to no one, and yet made himself a debtor, walking as a sinner].
(13) Therefore the apostle's way of speaking must be observed. For "to be under the law" is not the same as to live at the time and under the decreto of the law; in this way neither Job, nor Naaman the Syrian, was under the law, nor the woman of Sarepta in Sidon [Luc. 4:26J.], but it means to be a debtor to the law, not to have the means to fulfill it, and to be guilty of all the punishments imposed by the law. But Christ, not being able to be under the law, was nevertheless put under the law as a sin and a sinner, not acting contrary to the law as we do, but taking upon himself the punishments of sins ordained by the law for us as an innocent man. Therefore, all Gentiles have been under the law, at least under the natural law and the holy ten commandments. So Christ was not under the law in the same way as we are under the law, just as he was not a curse and sin in the same way as we are; he was only under it in body, we are both under it in body and soul, and as St. Augustine says in the 4th Book of the Trinity, 1) Cap. 3, says: He agrees with our double by his single and brings about a beautiful harmony.
14. does this word seem: "Born of
1) In the Jena, lom. I and ^om. Ill, and in the Erlangen: "Irip." i.e. tripartita instead of "tri". For the matter, compare Tischreden, cap. 7, l 44. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XXll, 299.
a woman" not to the 2) dishonor of the virgin mother? For he could just as easily say: Born of a virgin. St. Jerome thinks 3) that this was said for the sake of Manichaeus, who says that Christ was born through (per) a woman, not from (ex) a woman, pretending that he had not true but only putative flesh.
15 It can also be said that the apostle praises the divine condescension, which descended so low that he wanted to be born not only from human nature, but also from the weaker sex of the same, therefore the name that indicates the sex was more appropriate than the name that indicates the status. At the same time, he reminds us that Adam was not born of woman, but Eve came from man, not from woman, so that just as the woman, who was made from man, was the cause of sin and destruction, so the man, who was born of woman, would be the cause of righteousness and blessedness, since the opposite sexes work in opposite ways, which could not be indicated without the name indicating the sex; but in this he also did not leave the virginity of Mary unindicated. For since all others come from man and woman, this one alone comes from a woman; thus he sufficiently praises the miracle that the mother is a virgin woman, and he the son of a virgin.
Finally, because he had to be a natural man and a son, it was also necessary that he be born. But to give birth, the female sex is also necessary. For he would not be a son as a man if he were not born of a woman, just as neither Adam 4) was a son as a man, nor Eve a daughter as a man.
17. "filiation" (adoptio filiorum) is more appropriately called in Greek υιοθεσία,
from ponere and filius, as the word legispositio arose by the same composition.
2) In the editions of the first Redaction, in the Weimar and Erlangen propo instead of pro.
3) putat is missing in the editions of the first Redaction and in the Erlanger.
4) In the first redaction: in
that is. But this childship happens, as he taught above [Cap. 3, 9.], through faith in Christ, which God promised Abraham that he would be in him [Christ]. For to believe in Christ is to put on Him, to become one with Him. [But Christ is the Son; therefore they also that believe on him are children with him.
For the sake of those who are not yet sufficiently instructed in Christ, I repeat what I have often said above, namely, that these words, "redeemed," "that we might receive the adoption," "ye are children," "he hath sent the Spirit," "it is not a servant, but a child and an heir," and the like, are not to be understood in such a way that these things are accomplished in us, but that Christ accomplished them so that they might also be accomplished in us. For all things were begun in such a way that they should be accomplished more and more from day to day; therefore it is also called the Passover of the Lord (that is, Passage [Ex. 12:11, 12]), and we are called Galileans, that is, wanderers, because we go on and on out of Egypt through the wilderness, that is, through the way of the cross and suffering, to the land of promise. We are redeemed and are redeemed again and again, we have received the adoption and are still receiving it, we have become, are and will become children of God, the Spirit is sent, is sent and will be sent, we recognize and will recognize.
19 And so you must not imagine that the life of a Christian is a standstill (statum) and a rest, but a passage and a journey from vices to virtue, from one clarity to another, from one virtue to another, and whoever is not in the passage, you must not believe that he is a Christian either, but people of peace and rest, over whom the prophet [Jer. 8:11, 12.) brings their enemies.
20 Therefore, do not believe those seductive theologians who tell you that if you have one love, and that is the first stage of love, you have enough for salvation, while in their foolish delusion they invent an idle love in the heart, which is like wine in a cup. Love is not idle, but continually crucifies the flesh, and cannot be
The first stage will not remain complacent on its own level, but will spread over the whole person in order to purify him. But those "nit of their one stage will have neither the first nor the second stage at the time of temptation and death.
V. 6. Because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, dear Father!
21. St. Jerome has "our hearts", which also the Greek text 1) has; yes, so he agrees with Rom. 8, 15. "You have received a childlike spirit, by which we cry: Abba, dear Father!" He does not say, By whom ye call, though he did speak to them in the second person; so he does here also. One asks why in "Abba, dear Father!" he put the word Father (in two different languages, and so) 2) twice? Since there is no grammatical reason for this, I like the usual solution of this mystery: that Jews and Gentiles have the same spirit of faith, that both peoples belong to the One God, as the apostle Rom. 1, 16. and 2, 10. says: "The Jews first and also the Greeks."
(22) Take heed: Because the apostle spoke of the children of God, he calls the Holy Spirit the Spirit of the Son of God, to show that the same Spirit is sent to believers who is in Christ, the Son of God. But he clearly indicates that the holy Trinity is One God. For since the Son is true God, He lives in His Spirit, in whom without doubt the Father also lives, and this, which he elsewhere (Rom. 8, 9.) calls the Spirit of God, he here calls the Spirit of the Son. Thus we also are in God, live and weave in Him (Apost. 17, 28.). "We are" because of (propter) the Father, who is the essence (substantia) of the Godhead. "We weave" (movemur ----- move us) by the image of the Son, who is born of the Father, being moved, as it were, by a divine and eternal movement. "We live" according to (secundum) the Holy Spirit, in whom the Father and the Son rest and
1) namely in several manuscripts.
2) Added by us.
live, as it were. But this is too high for it to be suitable here.
(23) It is more important to note that the apostle testifies that the spirit of children is given to the believers immediately. He says: "Because you are children (not otherwise than by faith, as has often been said), God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts." Hereby the question is easily answered which those people raise: how can one teach that man is justified and saved by faith alone? You should not be challenged by this. If your faith is right and you are a child in truth, you will not lack the Spirit. But if the Spirit is there, he will pour out love and bring with him the whole chorus (concentum) of virtues, which he ascribes to love in 1 Cor. 13:4 ff: "Love is longsuffering and kind" etc. Therefore, when he speaks of justifying faith, he speaks of the faith that is active through love, as he says elsewhere (Gal. 5:6). For faith deserves that the Spirit be given, as it is also said above (Cap. 3, 2.): "Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the preaching of faith?" (By the way, the faith in which the devils tremble and the ungodly perform miracles is not the right faith, since they are not yet children nor heirs of the blessing).
V. 7. So now there is no longer a servant, but only children. But if they are children, they are also heirs of God through Christ.
24 "Through Christ" 1) reads St. Jerome, and so it is also written in the Greek. For he adds this so that no one may hope to obtain this inheritance either through the law or otherwise than through Christ, for in the seed of Abraham (which is Christ) the blessing is promised and imparted. Thus it is also said in Rom. 8:17: "If we are children, we are also heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ." What a servant and bondage is has been sufficiently said, namely one who keeps the law and does not keep it. He keeps it with works either out of fear of punishment or out of
1) xsr Oüristurn is missing in the Vulgate.
Request of the benefit. He does not keep it willingly, because he has such a will that he would rather there were no law, and so he inwardly hates the righteousness of the law, which he pretends by heart before men. But a child, supported by grace, keeps it of his own free will; he would not that there were no law, yea, he rejoices that the law is there; the former has the hand [in the law of the Lord], the latter the will in the law of the Lord.
V. 8. But at the time when you did not know God, you served those who are not gods by nature.
25. he clearly indicates that "God" is said in a twofold way; namely, "God by nature," that is, the true, one, living and eternal; the others being many, false, dead, that is, men, animals, birds, as it is said in Rom. 1:23: "And have changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image, like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed, and creeping beasts."
(26) Thus they are not gods by nature, but by the delusion and error of men, to whom they have attached the name and honor of the true God uselessly, contrary to the second commandment, just as the name of God is now used for countless superstitions. For since it is holy and terrible, it cannot but be used to the greatest harm for any ungodliness and deceit, because men are most powerfully carried away by the terror that is aroused in them by this name. 2) By nature, reverence for the divine name is implanted, but it is very difficult to know when it is being invoked in truth. For this ignorance deceitfully draws away from the true God, and he says that the Galatians also were deceived by it with the other Gentiles.
Newer teachers distinguish [three kinds of] 3) ignorance: the insurmountable, the gross, and the wanton (affectatam) ignorance. The insurmountable (they say) excuses from
2) In the editions of the first Redaction, the Erlanger and the Weimarschen tratiantur instead of traUuntur.
3) Added by us.
of all sin; the gross not entirely, but in part, but the wanton only accuses more.
(28) This seems to me to have been invented for the sake of breaking off (injuriam) the grace of God and to exalt free will, then also to make men safe in their destruction. For if a man does as much as is in him, he is safe, because the insurmountable ignorance does not harm him. In short, ignorance is called insurmountable, either in relation to us and our powers, then it is certain that there is no insurmountable ignorance, at least in the things that concern God. Joh. 3, 27: "A man can take nothing, except it be given him from heaven", and Joh. 6, 44: "No man can come to me, except the Father draw him." For we can do no good of ourselves, but can only err, increase ignorance, and sin.
(29) Therefore, he who attempts to escape any ignorance by his own efforts blinds himself through twofold sin and ignorance, first, because he is ignorant, second, because he does not know that he is ignorant and fails to dispel ignorance through ignorance and to accomplish the work that is God's alone. While he thus strives to become better without God through himself, he commits one sin upon another, and lies that he has found in himself what he should have sought from God. Christ alone is the light and life of all men, not our reason. Or 1) ignorance is called insurmountable in relation to the grace of God against us. In this way, none is insurmountable because "all things are possible to him who believes" [Marc. 9, 23.].
(30) Therefore, it is not necessary to teach people not to fear insurmountable ignorance, lest they trust in themselves and their own and abandon the fear of God. Rather, whether they have done as much as is in them, or whether they have not done it, they must in themselves
1) This "or" corresponds to the "either" in the middle of the previous paragraph.
despair and trust in God alone, fear His judgment even in good works, hope in His mercy even in evil works, so that they never do anything in which they are certain, never commit such a sin in which they despair. Thus ignorance is always insurmountable, but in that they fear and hope, they are without all ignorance. Therefore, the insurmountable ignorance does not excuse, but the confession and sighing acknowledgement of the insurmountable ignorance excuses, or rather it obtains grace.
V. 9. But now that you have known God, or rather are known by God, how do you turn back to the weak and meager statutes that you want to serve anew?
I do not know whether the apostle uses here the reason of ingratitude or the conclusion from the lesser to the greater (a minori); we will try both. From the lesser to the greater: If at that time, when you did not know God and served false gods, you did not turn to the weak statutes, how do you turn to them now that you have known God, since at that time you seemed to need them more, because Judaism was significantly higher than Gentileism? But now you have also become incomparably higher than Judaism and do not need them at all. From ingratitude in this way: You are mindful in how shameful idolatry you served the unclean gods, and are now called by the mercy of God to the service of the true God. Are you not ashamed of such great ingratitude that you again depart from God, who called you from such great evil to such great goods? Perhaps Paul included both reasons at the same time, as he usually does.
32 St. Augustine thinks that these words, "Yea, rather, are known of God," are said in order to give a more detailed explanation to the weak, because the unintelligent would like to understand it as if the knowledge of God, of which he says that they have known God with it, were face to face.
The apostle said that they had not understood the apostle, so he explained to himself that they had known more than they had recognized.
But under these simple words is nevertheless hidden the high understanding that our doing is that we suffer, that God works in us, as we see that the tool of a master is more suffering than active. This also says Isaiah, Cap. 26, 12: "Everything that we do, you, O Lord, have given us." Thus our recognition is that we are recognized by God, who also worked in us this recognition (for he speaks of faith); thus he first recognized us.
34 And very appropriately he uses this way of speaking against those who now began to base themselves on their righteousness, as if they wanted to precede God with their works and prepare for God the righteousness that they should confess to have received from Him. This furor is found in all works saints who want to derive their righteousness from laws and ceremonies.
(35) But at the same time he touches with this word the mistake in a hidden way, as he also only indicates it above in one place and then passes over it. For they are not recognized because they recognize, but vice versa: Because they are recognized, therefore they recognize, so that all good and all glory of the good does not lie in someone's will or running, but in God's mercy [Rom. 9, 16.fi].
36 But see 1) the emphasis on the words and the wonderful way of the diminishing speech (tapinosis). "To the statutes" (elementa), that is, to the letter and to the sign of things, since they were approaching for it, that they had turned to the thing itself. Then: "weak", because the law could not help at all to righteousness, yes, rather made sin greater. And: "scanty," empty, because the law not only could not further, but could not even sustain you in that and
1) autem is missing in the editions of the first redaction, in the Erlanger and in the Weimarschen.
You cannot maintain what you are, but it is necessary that you become worse through it. But the grace of faith in Christ is powerful not only to preserve, but also to bring to perfection. [It has been said above (Cap. 4, § 5 ff.) what "elements" are, and why they are. You see, then, how contemptuously he speaks of the law, against the boastful false apostles].
Here St. Jerome asks whether Moses and the prophets knew God and thus did not keep the law, or whether they kept the law and thus did not know God, because the apostle sets these two things as contradictory, and it would be dangerous to assert either of them about the prophets. But the apostle removes this difficulty with one word. He says, "Whom ye will serve anew."
(38) To keep lawful things is not evil, but to serve lawful things is evil. But he (as has often been said) who does them, compelled by the fear of threats, serves as if they were necessary, and by them one deserves to be justified. But if they are done freely, they do no harm. This is how the prophets kept them, not to attain righteousness, but to practice love toward God and neighbor; but through faith they became righteous.
V. 10. You keep days, and moons, and feasts, and seasons.
39 St. Augustine interprets this passage in a doubtful way, but more of the worship customs (ritu) of the Gentiles than of the Jews. For he says, "It is a common error among the Gentiles that they observe, both in their undertakings and in expected events in their lives and businesses, the days, months, times, and years designated by the astrologers and Chaldeans. And in this sense the decrees everywhere cite the apostle after their manner, in which they have also cited many other things for the sake that they are said by the holy fathers, not from what cause they are said. But immediately St. Augustine says that this is to be understood also of the Jews]. St. Jerome takes it
simply and correctly only from the Jews. "Days" (he says), as Sabbaths and new moons. But "months" as the first and the seventh month. "Lines" on which they came to Jerusalem three times a year. "Years," however, the seventh year of remission and the fiftieth, which they call the year of jubilee.
40 He also asks if we are not in the same sin because we keep Wednesday (quartum sabbati), Friday (parasceuen), Sunday, the forty-day fast, Easter and Pentecost, and, according to the custom of different countries, different times appointed in honor of the martyrs. He answers, first, that we do not keep the days of the Jews, but other days; secondly, these days are appointed, not that the day on which we meet may have any preference (celebrior sit), but that an untidy gathering of the people may not detract from faith in Christ; Thirdly, daring to give a sharper answer, he asserts that all days are the same; the day of resurrection is always holy, it is always free to fast, one can eat the body of the Lord at any time, always pray. Therefore, fasting and meetings on certain days (inter this) are ordered by prudent men 1) for the sake of those who devote more time to betting than GOtte etc.
41 This is true. For Isaiah also foretold that it would be so, Cap. 66:23: "There shall be one Sabbath after another, and one moon after another." For indeed, in the new law, every day is a feast day, except that by the commandment of the Church, special days are appointed to hear God's Word, and to receive the Sacrament, and to pray with common prayer.
42.] But now the feast days have been turned into far greater superstition than among the Jews, so that they now think they are doing God a service by making much of these days, not to pray, not to hear God's word, not to receive the sacrament, but only to celebrate; and indeed they celebrate more perfectly than the Jews.
1) Here we have adopted the reading of the Weimar edition: viris pruäentidus instead of: juris prucientidus.
For these at least read Moses and the prophets, but we serve neither God nor man, and abstain entirely from all things, except that we serve the belly and idleness and other abominations (portentis).
(43) Even though this is the case, the bishops do not have mercy on the people and cancel and reduce some festivals, perhaps fearing the prestige of the Roman Pontiff who has decreed this, as if it were not ungodly to think that the Roman Pontiff had this intention or could have instituted or tolerated such days in which the devil is served with so many abominations to the greatest dishonor of the Christian name and to the blasphemy of the divine majesty. Or if they think that he intended and would tolerate this, it is quite ungodly to obey and not to tear down and abolish from the ground up and quite confidently a human order that is to such great dishonor of the Creator.
44 No bishop or priest is excused if he sees that the feast days in his congregation are spent in drinking, gambling, fornication, death, idleness, useless talk, plays, as almost all of them are, with the exception of a few high feasts (celeberrimos), and he does not stop them. I say that he is not excused by the fact that he may not do this without the consent of the pope, because, even if an angel from heaven would have ordered it so, we owe more to the glory and honor of God. Anything that is instituted for his dishonor (injuriam) or tolerated by anyone should be confidently rejected, unless someone would rather become guilty of all evil deeds by allowing it. "The commandment of the Roman Church does not bind unless it can be kept with God's honor and glory. But if it cannot be kept in such a way, then I boldly pronounce that those are ungodly people who force that one should observe such commandment. How then the exceedingly godless people mock us, who esteem the fear of a man higher than the fear of God, and crown the devil in the church under the name of the pope and St. Peter.
Christ, yes, worship him. We think of war against the Turks, but in this matter and in other troubles of the church, which are far worse than the tyranny of the Turks, we are safe and asleep on both ears, as if it were not better that the Turk should come, which in truth is a ruth of God, and make us well by our misfortune or by the death of the body, than that by so great licentiousness of the people, by so great sleepiness of the shepherds of the church, the people should become worse than the Turks. The Turk, of course, will kill the body and deprive us of the earth; but we kill the souls and deprive them of heaven, if otherwise the decision of the last Concilii 1) is true, namely that the souls are immortal, especially those of Christians].
But let us return to the apostle. Just like circumcision, the feast days did not contribute to righteousness, nor did other things, which he describes in more detail in Col. 2:16. So they were not to be kept as if they were necessary; certainly no more than our feast days, if we keep them, give us righteousness, or any other burdens of the statutes, but our righteousness is from faith in Christ, which is not brought about by the ceremonies,' but of the ceremonies freely used for the showing of love toward God and toward the neighbor. But this gain may have brought you the many feast days, that you have abandoned the work of your hands, and have reduced your wealth, and thus gradually come to the suffering of lack, as it says in the Gospel [Matth. 5, 3.Blessed are the poor," so that the feast days are good, not for the service of God, but to bring about poverty, or to nullify the exceedingly wholesome commandment of God, which is laid upon the old man [Gen. 3:19]: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread." [But this and other things have been spoken of elsewhere. Misery is upon the church of Christ, in that heaven and earth are angry at our sins].
1) According to the Table Talks, Cap. 27, H119, Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 908, it was already decided at the Council of Basel that one should not dispute whether the soul is mortal or immortal. Here the Lateran Council of 1512-1517 is meant.
V. 11. I fear you, lest perhaps I have labored with you in vain.
Jerome thinks that "I fear you" (timeo vos) is said instead of "I stand in fear because of you" (de vobis), and it seems to me that something is left out of the speech, as if the apostle wanted to frighten them by the danger in which they stood and say: I fear that you will be lost forever, and thus all my work on you has been in vain. But he turns the words and suppresses this, which would have sounded harsh, and speaks only of the harm he suffers. For this befits apostolic gentleness, that he should not attack too harshly those whom he wishes to recover, since, as the human heart is constituted, a man, especially when he is caught in a fault, is more easily moved and guided by gentleness than forced by threats and terror. And it makes a great impression when you make the misfortune of others your own and complain about it, so that you can finally bring it about that they also 2) at least complain about their misfortune with you.
47 So Paul wants to say: O Galatians, although your misfortune does not move you very much, at least have pity on me, bear with me, who fears that I have lost with you not money and goods, not good reputation, not honor, not even one word or one work, but all my work. It would have been easier if he had only said: 3) Now I have labored for you, prayed, suffered many things, stood in many dangers, as he relates in more detail in the second epistle to the Corinthians [Cap. 11, 23. ff.], and all this I have now turned to you in vain. These words of Paul show that he spoke with tears.
V. 12. Be like me, for I am like you.
Here, too, the obscurity of the speech gives rise to different interpretations. St. Jerome brings two of them. The first is: "Be like
2) 6t is missing in the editions of the first Redaction, in the Weimarsche and in the Erlanger.
3) Jenaer, Lom. Ill: lnisset with the marginal gloss: ^lii luissem. The other editions available to us offer luisssm.
1528 Lri. Kai. Ill, 328-330. shorter interpretation of the Epistle to the Galatians 4, 12. W. IX, 221 s. 1529
I", that is, be strong and men in the faith of Christ, as I am now, so that it is an exhortation to become more perfect. "For I am like you," that is, I was like you, that is, when I gave you the milk of the gospel. For I made myself a young child and a weak man, withholding from you that which is more perfect, and giving you the lesser doctrines of faith (infirmiora fidei), proving myself to be such a teacher as you can understand in your weakness. So I was like you at that time. Therefore, give me this in return, that you may be like me, that is, strong enough to understand, since I present you with stronger food. The other is: I too was once caught up in ceremonies, as you are now, but I considered them filth, that I might win Christ. Do ye also so, and be as I am now. St. Augustine interprets it like this: "Be like me", who despises legal things, even though I am a Jew. "For I am like you," that is, I am a man like you. If, since I am like you as a man, I am free to set aside the statutes, this will also be permitted to you. But one can also have these thoughts of it Because he had scolded them harshly, he comes before them and asks them that they should show themselves against him as he shows himself against them, so that they would not be upset and would not feel hurt, so that the meaning would be: Of course I have not been hurt by you; you have not angered me. So also you again do not let yourselves be hurt by me and do not become bitter against me, but we both want to lament 1) the common evil. My evil is that you have fallen back again; therefore I am not offended by you, but by the evil which is now mine; so do not be offended by my reproaching, but rather by your evil. The following text also seems to speak for this sense. He says, "Ye have done me no hurt." [Not very unlike this sense is the sense when it is so connected with what has already been said before: Since I am not otherwise touched by this evil of yours than if it were mine, so that in truth I become weak with
I ask again that you also become like me, who fear that I may have worked in vain, and fear with the one who fears, and mourn with the one who mourns because his work is lost, so that if you are not moved by your evil, you may be moved by mine, so that in this way you may also come to mourn your evil. For so also Christ, as St. Bernard testifies, when our sins did not torment us, bore and suffered sorrow for us, that by his sorrow for our sins he might much more move us to sorrow, even as he said to the women who followed him (Luc. 23:28.), "Weep not for me, but weep for yourselves." In these matters I leave the reader free to judge].
Dear brothers, I beg you, you have done me no harm.
St. Jerome connects this with the previous sentence and reads thus: Dear brothers, I beg you, be like me, because I am like you, you have done me no harm. But since the apostle is in the habit of beginning a new sentence when he says: "Dear brethren, I beseech you," I do not know whether this order can be kept. The apostle might have omitted something (per eclipsin), by which he might have wanted to say this or something similar: I beg you, forgive me. I have been a little harsh, but it was necessary; bear with my zeal for a little while. St. Jerome interprets it thus: Since you did me no harm so long as I taught you weak things (infirma), having become weak for you young children and weak, why then am I now injured by you by provoking you to greater things (majora)? And this mind he strengthens by what follows, where Paul says that he preached to them in weakness and yet was received as an angel of God etc. So] it is certain that by this text the apostle, out of fatherly concern, soothes and mitigates his harshness in all the preceding discourse. He had scolded them as unwise, as people who soon let themselves be turned away, who turn to the outward statutes, who accomplish in the flesh, who
are bewitched, among whom Christ is crucified, grace is despised, the testament of God is nullified, who have become servants from children, and to whom he had now indicated in a short epitome (in summa) that he had done everything in vain and had lost all his work, and thus now almost everything stands with them in the worst and most desperate way, and all this with very fierce and burning zeal, in order to take the grace of God in protection. Therefore, he now moderates this and soothes the punishment with the oil of gentleness, asking them to be patient and to credit something to the zeal of God with which he is zealous for them, just as he himself has been patient and has credited them with many things, including this present evil. I beg you (he says), dear brothers, I have not said this out of hatred against you; I tell you the truth, but therefore do not take me for your enemy.
50 For that he feared that they felt hurt too much is sufficiently indicated by the fact that he says afterwards [v. 16]: "Have I then become your enemy, that I reproach you with the truth?" and again [v. 20]: "But I would that I were with you now, and could change my voice", as if he wanted to say: I fear that my writing offends you too much, as we shall see. And in order to persuade them in the most effective way that he does not have a bitter heart against them, that he did not speak out of hatred, he begins to praise them very highly. I am not hostile to you, dear brothers, because you have never done me any harm, yes, you have not hurt me at all, that you have also received me wonderfully like an angel of God.
V. 13, 14: For ye know that in weakness according to the flesh I preached the gospel unto you the first time: and my temptations which I suffer according to the flesh ye despised not, but as an angel of God ye receive me, even Christ Jesus.
51. "Weakness of the flesh" [refers St. Jerome to the Galatians, since he could not have preached spiritual things to them as weak and still carnal people, which I do not like, but it] is a speech
This is Paul's way of indicating the poor condition (vilitatem) of the external situation. For weakness is an inability (imbecillitas), according to which the apostles, being poor, despised, were also subjected to many persecutions, and, as he says in the first Epistle to the Corinthians [Cap. 4, 9.], the very least according to the flesh and before men, were considered utterly powerless and nothing. Nevertheless, under this weakness the powers proved themselves, and they were mightier in words and works than the whole world. Therefore the genitive "of the flesh" must neither be referred to the apostle nor to the Galatians, but without closer relation (absolute), as it is put by the apostle, "to the Spirit" must be contrasted, as Rom. 1, 3. f.: "Who was born of the seed of David, according to the flesh, and powerfully proved a son of God, according to the Spirit, who sanctifies" etc., and 1 Pet. 3, 18: "And is slain according to the flesh, but made alive according to the Spirit." So also here is "weakness of the flesh," that is, the inability that is according to the flesh, when you do not see the power that is in the Spirit.
52] But that "weakness" signifies what I have said is evident from 2 Cor. 11:18 ff. and 12:9, 10, where, enumerating all that he had done and suffered, he says, "Therefore I will most gladly boast of my weakness, that the power of Christ may dwell with me," and, "My power is mighty in the weak," and, "When I am weak, then am I strong." It is, therefore, an excellent praise of the Galatians that they were not vexed by those offences at which the whole world was vexed and laughed the apostles to scorn, both because of the weakness of the flesh, and because of the foolishness of the cross, according to which they taught the life to come, and that all things of this life (praesentia) ought to be despised, in which men boast of their power, yea, that they received him as an angel, as Christ himself, no doubt with the greatest reverence and humility.
53. but the contestation of the Galatians 1) has
1) In order to understand this and the following paragraphs, it must be noted that Luther interprets the text of the Vulgate, which here reads: Idututiovern vs-.
St. Jerome interprets it in many ways, but in the end I think he says correctly: The reproach, persecutions and such things, which they saw that he suffered especially from the Jews and also from the Gentiles for the sake of the word of Christ, and still suffers according to his flesh, that is, before men (for in the spirit God always triumphed over 1) him through Christ, as he says elsewhere), they did not despise nor disdain, although they were nevertheless most strongly challenged by them, that they should leave the word of faith for fear of them.
54) For even today this temptation quickly brings down many who look upon those who suffer and have tribulation because of the truth of God. This did not move the Galatians at all at that time, that they saw that the apostle had tribulation in all things. He praises this in them as a truly apostolic virtue, that they despised everything and as victors over this challenge received the apostle as Christ. Do you not think that they did this at the risk of their lives and all their goods? Did they not, for Paul's sake, bring upon themselves the power and wrath of all Paul's enemies? They could not receive Paul without hurting Paul's persecutors; indeed, they provoked them all the more, because they not only received him, but received him as an angel, as Christ, that is, with the highest reverence, whom the adversaries, burdened with the highest ignominy, sought to put to death as the very worst.
55 Here St. Jerome exhorts the bishops, saying: "Let them learn from the apostle that the Galatians, who do not understand, are called brethren; let them learn that, after scolding, he uses kind words: "I beseech you." What he asks is this, that they should be his followers, even as he is Christ's follower. This meets the hope of the bishops, who, as it were on a
stram in carno inen non sprsvistis nv^no respnistis, that is, Your temptation in my flesh you have not despised nor spurned.
1) per is missing in the editions of the first Redaction and in the Erlanger.
2) Wittenberger: movedant instead of rnovedat.
The bishops, placed in a high position, can hardly bring themselves to see the mortals and speak to their fellow servants. I have mentioned this because in our time it is considered a miraculous presumption (miraculum), even more than impiety, to tell the sins of the bishops. He would have spoken quite differently if he had seen that in our time the bishops for the most part display greater splendor than kings and princes, but that in Christian life and knowledge they are not equal even to unlearned men and women.
But the apostle is well aware of this, that he wrote to Timothy [2 Tim. 4, 2]: Punish, ask, rebuke, stop, whether in season or out of season, with all patience etc. The same he teaches in this epistle by his example; he does not put them under ban, he does not cry, "Into the fire with them! he does not immediately declare them heretics, nor does he lay on them one burden after another, but praises the fire of his love and the flames of his heart, because he is not eager to kill men, but to take away their sins and errors. He knows nothing of the lightning of a judgement (latae sententiae), but only of the lightning of the Word of God and the thunder of the Gospel, by which alone sinners are killed and made alive again.
V. 15: How blessed you would have been at that time. 3)
57 Thus he says, either because he had called them blessed people at that time, because of their so great constancy in the faith, or because those who are of such a nature as he had praised the Galatians can truly be called blessed, unless someone thinks that apostolic modesty (verecundiam) is manifested here; since he had wanted to say: Where then is your reverence for me, your reverent behavior and, as it were, your worship? he would rather have attributed this to their blessedness than to his honor, according to the example of Christ, who also used to attribute his miracles (virtutes) to the faith of those on whom they were performed; or if one
3) Here again it is the text of the Vulgate which Luther explains: Ubi 68t erZo kentitucio vsstra? That is: Where then is your blessedness?
If he wants to remain with the simple mind, he imposes on them the faith in Christ in which they were blessed, and therefore reproaches them.
I am your witness that if it had been possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.
58 St. Jerome thinks that it is an exaggerated speech (hyperboles). But I do not believe that it is necessary to assume hyperbole here, since it is obvious from what has been said before that they also put their lives in danger for the apostle. Therefore, it is not strange that if it had been possible, that is, if he had allowed it to happen, and it should have happened that way (otherwise, how could it not be possible if they wanted it?), they would also have plucked out their eyes; if by the secret interpretation (mysterium) of the eyes he does not allude to a hidden rebuke, namely, that they, who at that time submitted their eyes, that is, their mind, to the apostle quite willingly, in order to be instructed in the faith, which makes the wise foolish, and makes those who see not, are now again reversed, so that they are vexed by their eye, of which the Lord commanded that we should pluck it out and cast it from us.
59. See what it means when a shepherd neglects the sheep of Christ. Such great love, such great faith, such sincere service of the Galatians, the false apostles overthrew so quickly in a short time, since the apostle was gone: what should the devil do now, where there is no shepherd, or if there is one who never visits or feeds the sheep of Christ? Can then the sheep be preserved by the title, name, and power of the shepherd 1) alone? For if these [the titles etc.] remain unharmed, one thinks that the church is unharmed.
V. 16. Have I then become your enemy, that I should tell you the truth?
60 Jerome interprets this correctly from the truth that he speaks to them in this letter, not from the truth in which he
1) In the first redaction and in the Erlanger: pastores instead of xastoris. - "the sheep" is added by us.
first instructed. For, as I said, the apostle has to deal with it, so that the Galatians would not be too unwilling about what he had told them until then, some of which was quite hard, but still true. Therefore he precedes them and says: "Do not take it for granted that my words are harsh, 2) but rather see how true they are. Nevertheless, I may have attacked you somewhat harshly, but will you therefore consider me your enemy and not rather your friend, because I speak the truth to you, even though it is necessarily harsh?
61 O a most beautiful example to teach the truth! For you must strike the wound in such a way that you know how to soothe and heal it, be severe in such a way that you do not forget the goodness. So God also puts lightning into the rain and dissolves the clouds and the black sky into fruitful showers. The proverb also says that the thunderstorm in which lightning is mixed with rain does no harm, but that which comes without rain and alone is to be feared and harmful. For even God's word shall not be angry without ceasing, nor shall it threaten forever.
V.17. They are not jealous for you, but they want to make you disgusted with me, so that you will be jealous for them.
62 He counters the excuse, which he sees that they can put forward and say: That we obeyed those people, we did so because they seemed to seek our salvation with godly zeal and (as one says now) in good intention (bona intentione), especially since no one should be his own master and, as it says in Deut. 12, 8, should not do what seems right to him. He answers: I know that they have a zeal, but not a good one, nor do they understand the matter well.
(63) Here it should be noted that although the word "zeal" is often the same as "to follow," the apostle takes it in its ordinary meaning to mean to envy with love, or to strive out of love for someone.
2) The Weimar edition has here the conjecture: aeeixitis instead of: aeeipits.
and make efforts. And to state this matter more fully in our opinion, "loving" is done in two ways, in a good way and in an evil way, so is zeal. For we love at times, but not in a good way [, so we zeal at times, but not finely]. But as love is to love the good, hatred to hate the evil, so zeal (aemulatio) or jealousy (zelus), in that it includes both, is actually: to hate the evil in a beloved object, and the more fiercely you love it, the more ardently you will hate and not want to allow evil in the one you love.
Therefore, by "zeal" (zelum) I use to understand an enraged love or an envy out of love 1). Thus the apostle 2 Cor. 11, 2. 3. says: "I am zealous for you with godly zeal", where one cannot even pretend that he speaks of following (imitatione), because it follows: "For I have trusted you to one man. But I fear lest your senses be moved" etc., as if he wanted to say: I love your chaste faith in such a way that I cannot help fearing and hating lest you should be perverted; clearly interpreting what it is to "zeal with godly zeal." Yes, by this very word he indicates the twofold zeal. "Divine zeal," that is, the zeal which is according to God, is the hatred of evil in the beloved object (according to truth), or the love of good and the hatred of evil in the beloved object according to truth; "human zeal" is the hatred of evil in the beloved object, or the love of good and the hatred of evil in the beloved object, but according to appearance and in an erroneous way. Such is the zeal of the false apostles, of whom he says, "They are iron about you, but not fine," that is, they seek your good and abhor your evil, but in a bad way, because they sought to raise up among the Galatians the evil piece (malum) of the righteousness of the law, as if it were something good.
1) In all editions except the Weimar one the form urnurosuiu is found here, which Heidnecker, who has derived it from aruurus, has translated with: "bitter envy". But from the context it is clear that it speaks of "love", so umorosurn will have to be read. In the great interpretation of the Epistle to the Galatians, Walch, old edition, vol. VIII, 2497, cap. 4, § 231 we find "a godly zeal" (xia inviclia).
This is the foolish zeal with which, as he writes Rom. 10, 2, also the Jews are zealous for God, that is, for what is of God.
For "zeal" (aemulari) cannot be taken for "follow" (imitari) in this place, because the false apostles did not follow the Galatians at all, but on the contrary (he says), "they want to make you fall away" (excludere), namely from Christ and the trust in him, that you should be imprisoned in the trust in the law, "so that you should zeal for them". In this place it may be put for "to follow," though nothing can be objected to the other meaning, if you understand it to mean that the false apostles wished to be loved by the Galatians, that they [the Galatians] should strive (ambiri) for them with godly zeal, and (as disciples are wont to do for their teachers) become jealous of them, that they should love what belonged to those, and hate what was against them, so that he would not have said improperly: They want to exclude us. But in order not to seem to be suspected of presumption, he says, "They want to exclude you," 2) so that, when we are excluded, they may at the same time exclude you.
V. 18. Zeal is good when it is always for good, and not only when I am present with you.
66 He now refutes the second part of their excuse. For the first was that they sought their blessedness with godly zeal, which the apostle denies. He says: "They do not care for you finely", they do not seek yours, but their benefit, so that they may boast of you, as he says later, Cap. 6, 13. The other part of the excuse is that one must obey and not believe oneself. To this he replies, "It is indeed good to be zealous and to follow others, but always do this in a good cause, never in an evil one, not only when I am present, but also when I am not present, so that it may be seen that you do not do it because of me,
2) According to the Vulgate. - The conjecture of the Weimar edition: ut vodis sxelusis simul nos <mo<M6 oxaiuüunt does not make sense to us. It seems to us that the reading of the editions is completely in accordance with the context.
but for the sake of the cause itself. [Therefore I am surprised that the interpreter and St. Jerome have passed over this text in such a way, although it is quite dark when one says: "Zeal for the good in the good." What is it to zeal for the good in the good In Greek it is said thus: 1) It is good to zeal always in a good cause, or: The zeal, if it is always in a good cause, is good. For it is the infinitive "zeal", not the imperative "zeal", 2) unless a prudent forger has done violence both to the interpreter and to Jerome.
What the apostle wants is this: "Test everything and keep what is good" [1 Thess. 5:21]. We see that he gave this rule to all churches, and yet it has been completely lost for many centuries.
V.19. My dear children, whom I bear again with fears until Christ takes form in you.
See the wonderful love of the apostle, how he is nothing else at all than the Galatians (for he transfers everything to himself so that he completely forgets about him), how he suffers in them, how he labors, how he glows, not being concerned about any of his own affairs, but about the Galatians. O what an apostolic example for a Christian shepherd! True 3) love does not seek its own. My dearest children! My motherly heart is full of anguish; I have been a father, I have become a mother, I carry you in my womb, I give you your form, I form you. I would like to give birth to you and bring you into life, if only I could do it somehow. St. Jerome praises this tender love (affectum) with many words. Because only this means to search the souls, not the money.
Be careful how he chooses his words. He does not say, "So that I may have Christ in you.
1) Instead of: "In Greek it is called so," the editions of the first redaction read: "Therefore Erasmus and Stapulensis have translated it from the Greek suitably so."
2) In the Vulgate: akmulavaivi.
3) Wittenberger: vere instead of vera.
He does not give them a form, but so that he "gains a form" by attaching more importance to the grace of God than to his work; like a mother, he carries them in his body as an unformed (rude) seed until the Spirit cooperates and forms them in Christ. A preacher can be concerned with how he gives birth to Christians, but he cannot give them their form, just as a mother in the flesh (carnis) does not give the fruit its form, but only carries it so that it is formed and born. He also did not say, "until you are formed in Christ," but "that Christ may take form in you," because the life of a Christian is not his own, but Christ's, who lives in him, as he said above Cap. 2, 20. "But I live; yet now not I, but Christ liveth in me." We must be destroyed and lose our form, so that Christ may gain a form and be in us alone.
V. 20. But I would that I were now with you, and that my voice might walk.
70 [Jerome thinks that he says this because the holy Scriptures, when read, edify, but create much more benefit when brought from the letters into the voice, as he also writes to Paulinus of the efficacy (energia) of the living voice. This, however, is not the only thing the apostle intends, but] he says, "I would that I were with you now," for the sake of it, "that I might change my voice," not in musical change, but in theological, that is, because a written epistle, if it scolds too harshly, causes offence, but if it is too friendly, does not have the right effect on people without understanding. In so serious a matter the Scripture is dead, giving as much as it has. But if he were present, he could arrange his speech according to the different listeners, scolding those, pacifying those, pleading with those, punishing those, and striking the right note each time according to the circumstances.
71 For it is clear that the apostle is therefore concerned that he might have become too punitive in the foregoing, and too praiseworthy here in praising and speaking kindly, fearing in a godly way that he might miss the mark on both sides, either hurting too much or not hitting hard enough.
as was necessary after all. And so he is in limbo between the two and is at a loss, does not know what to do, does not consider it harmless (integrum), neither to punish nor to praise. This opinion is proven by the following word:
For I am mad about you.
That means (as Erasmus translated quite correctly), I am wavering, I am troubled, and I do not know what to do with you. (On this opinion also St. Jerome has contributed much to the explanation. At last he says peevishly and almost carelessly, and while he has to do with other things: "I am wrong about you", and I am steered here and there by my ignorance, and since I do not know what to do, I am torn and mangled on different sides. For I do not know which words to choose first etc. This is what Jerome has pronounced here and there].
V. 21. Tell me, you who want to be under the law, have you not heard the law?
73) Jerome and the Greek text have: "Have you not heard the law? 1) Jerome labors that in this passage the first book of Moses, from which the apostle took what he says, is called "the law." But since among the Hebrews the five books of Moses are called XXXX, that is, the Law, the apostle not inappropriately calls the first book of Moses the Law, in which, if nothing else, at least circumcision is commanded, the noblest law of the Jews and the first of all.
V. 22-24 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one of the maidservant and the other of the free woman. But he that was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh: but he that was of the freewoman was born through the promise. The words mean something.
74 Not as if these words in the first book of Moses were to be understood figuratively, but the apostle indicates that he is saying this in figurative speech.
1) "The Vulgate offers: IsZistis instead of audistis.
(per allegoriam) said what was literally said there.
75 The question arises, how it is that Ishmael was not also born through the promise, about whom, Gen. 16, 11. 12. so many promises are given to his mother by the angel of the Lord before he was born. Again, Cap. 17, 20, many more promises are given to Abraham about him by God Himself before he was born. [But it is clear that Ishmael was not born by God's promise, but he was conceived by natural power from the young Hagar at the command of Sarah, but Isaac was conceived from a barren and old mother by the supernatural power of the Promiser.
For the angel's saying to Hagar [Gen. 16:11], "Behold, you have conceived and will bear a son," are certainly not words of a promise that she should conceive, but a prophecy of things to come concerning the one who has already been conceived, or the words of a commandment. Therefore Isaac is the son of promise, yet born of the flesh, but not by the power of the flesh, 2) nor even conceived after the flesh.
For these are the two testaments, one from Mount Sinai, which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar.
Because the Galatians were believers, they could be instructed by figurative teachings. Otherwise, as it says in 1 Cor. 14, 22, tongues serve as a sign for unbelievers 3). But nothing can be proven to unbelievers by figurative things, as Augustine also teaches in the letter to Vincentius. Or at least the apostle, out of fatherly concern and with will, paints the matter in parables and figurative speeches to the Galatians, who are weak people, in order to make the word understandable to them.
2) earuis is missing in the editions of the first redaction and in the Erlanger.
3) Here we have adopted with Weimar's the reading of the first redaction: iuüätzlidus, kläslikus, which is found in the editions of the second redaction, contradicts 1 Cor. 14, 22.
to the needs of the people. For unlearned people are captivated (capiuntur) by parables, parables and allegories, they also enjoy them. That is why Christ also teaches in the Gospel, as Matthew (Cap. 13, 13], teaches in parables, so that everyone could understand it.
Now let us see how he treats this figurative teaching against the righteousness of the Law. He says: "These are the two testaments", that is, the two women, Sarah and Hagar, have been a figure of the two testaments under one and the same Abraham, which means the heavenly father. [But, what I almost passed over, of the secret interpretations and the figurative speeches we must also say something, since the matter and the time require it]. One is used to assume four kinds of understanding of the Scriptures, which they call the letter, the tropology, the allegory and the anagogy (as, Jerusalem according to the literal understanding is the capital of Judea, tropologically it is a pure conscience or faith, allegorically the church of Christ, anagogically the heavenly fatherland. Thus Isaac and Ishmael are in this place, according to the letter, the two sons of Abraham; in a figurative sense (allegorice) the two Testaments, or the synagogue and the church, the law and grace, tropologically flesh and spirit, or virtue and vice, grace and sin; anagogically glory and punishment, heaven and hell; yea, according to others, the angels and the devils, the blessed and the damned. One may, of course, allow those who wish to do so this playfulness, if only they do not get into the habit of the presumption of some people, that they tear up the Scriptures according to their liking and make them uncertain; Rather, 1) they may add this to the main and right understanding, as it were, as a secondary ornament, by which either the speech may be more richly adorned, or, according to the example of Paul, the unlearned people may be more sweetly nourished as with a milk doctrine; but this must not be brought forward in the dispute in order to fortify the doctrine of faith with it. For this fourfold (qua- driga) (though I do not reject it)], this has
1) Instead of uäjieiunt in the issues we have assumed uchieiunt.
neither 2) in the reputation of Scripture, nor in the custom of the fathers, nor in grammar [sufficient] reason. For [first of all, it is evident that] the apostle does not distinguish in this passage between allegory and anagogy; indeed, what those call anagogy he calls allegory, interpreting Sarah [v. 26.) as the heavenly Jerusalem which is above, our mother, that is, her anagogical Jerusalem. [Then the holy fathers treat the allegory in a grammatical way together with the other figures in the holy scripture, as St. Augustine teaches even abundantly in his book "of the Christian doctrine". And anagogy does not denote a figure of its own, but also a general quality of the sayings, that is, it is called anagogy when in the recessu and in the particular 4 something else can be understood than the words read, therefore it is also translated as "going back" (reductio). The word "allegory" also means the same thing, namely, speaking of strange things (alieniloquium), that is, as St. Jerome says, the speech pretends in the words something other than it means in the sense. In this it is agreed that tropology is a speech that concerns morals, 5) and there is nothing to prevent it from sometimes being an allegory, since something else is said by which good or evil morals are signified. Now the free use which the Fathers made of these names seems to have been forced into the captivity of this fourfold distinction (quadrupli) by a certain timidity, just as many have also sacrilegiously distinguished many other things which are the same in substance and in word].
79 It must rather be remembered, what has also been said above, that with Origen and Jerome the spiritual
2) In the editions of the first Redaction and in the Erlanger non instead of nse. - "this" added by us to continue the sentence of the second redaction, which is started before the parenthesis, here.
3) Cf. § 80 at the beginning.
4) Instead of iiEpuruto of the issues, we have adopted with the Weimar in sexurato.
5) Therefore, tropology is also called moralis. Cf. Tischreden, Cap. 52, § 5. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1341.
Mind seems to be, which the apostle calls allegory here. For they take "the letter" for the outward appearance (figuram) and the history. But the secret interpretation and the allegorical sense they call the spiritual mind, and a spiritual man they call he who understands everything in a high way (sublimster), who (as they say) admits nothing of the Jewish statute (traditionis). According to this rule, almost all the writings of Origen and Jerome are directed, and, to say it boldly, they not infrequently fall into difficulties from which they cannot extricate themselves.
For, in order to pass over the fact that the hidden sense (mysticus sensus) is either an allegorical or 'anagogical one, or in general, which has something else in reserve (recessu) than it shows at the first sight (in fronte), and this is opposed to the historical or figurative sense, these two words "letter" and "spirit", then also literal and spiritual sense, must be separated and preserved in their proper meaning. For the letter, as Augustine 1) says beautifully and briefly about the 70th Psalm, is the law without grace. If this is true, then every law is a letter [, may it be an allegorical or a tropological one], indeed, as we said above, everything that can only be written, said, or thought without grace. But grace alone is the mind. Hence spiritual mind is not called the hidden or anagogical, in which even the ungodly excel (praestant), but quite properly life itself and the law which comes to exercise (experimentalis), since it is written in the soul by the finger of God through grace, and in general all that is fulfilled which the law commands and requires. For he also calls the holy ten commandments Rom. 7, 14. a spiritual law, while yet the commandment "Do not let yourself be lusted after" is a letter. If it is called a spiritual mind because it indicates the spirit that the law requires in order to be fulfilled, there is no law that is not spiritual.
1) In the editions of the first redaction, in the Weimar and in the Erlangen iäem instead of ^uZustinus.
would be. But then it is only a letter (literalis), if the grace, which it should fulfill, is not there. But then it is not a letter for itself, but for me, especially if it is understood in such a way that grace is not necessary.
We conclude, then, that the law is always spiritual in itself, that is, it indicates the spirit which is its fulfillment. For others, but never for itself, it is a letter. For when I say, "Thou shalt not kill," you hear the sound of the letter, but what does it indicate? Certainly this, thou shalt not be wrathful, that is, the thing itself, which is a kind, loving conduct toward one's neighbor. But this is love and the spirit by which it is fulfilled.
Because the law indicates the real and only spiritual thing, the law is also called spiritual, because it always indicates it. But because it does not and cannot give it to us, it is called a letter for us, however spiritual it may be. But since no work is done rightly (bene) without love, it is clear that every law which commands a good work indicates and demands a good work, that is, a work of love, and is therefore spiritual. Therefore we rightly call the spiritual mind of the law the one by which we know that the law requires the spirit, and convicts us of being carnal. But the literal mind we call that according to which one thinks, yes, is caught in the error, that the law can be fulfilled by our works and powers without the Spirit of grace. Therefore the letter kills, because it is never rightly understood if it is understood without grace, just as it is never rightly kept if it is kept without grace; on both sides is death and wrath. This is taken from the book of St. Augustine against the Pelagians. 2)
83 But we return again to the apostle. "One from Mount Sinai that gives birth to bondage." It has been sufficiently said what the bondage of the law is, into which we are given if we accept the law without grace. For
2) Baseler, Weimarsche and Erlanger: exuota instead of: exn-eta.
1546 ^l'1- Oai. Ill, 348-351. interpretations on the epistle to the Galatians. W. IL, 241 f. 1547
we keep it, either prompted by fear of evil or by hope of reward, that is, hypocritically, acting on both sides as servants, not as freemen.
But he calls it a testament. Therefore, in order for it to be understood, we must also see here how the testament is recognized (symbolum). First, there is the testament itself, which was the appointment (nuncupatio) of the land of promise, as it is written in Exodus 3:8. The testator was the angel in the person of God; the inheritance itself, which is disposed of (testata), is the land of Canaan; those in whose favor the will is made are the children of Israel, as all this is described in the second book of Moses. But this testament was confirmed by the death and the blood of the cattle, with which they were sprinkled, as one reads 2 Mos. 24, 8. because the carnal sacrifice (hostia) coincided with the carnal promise and the carnal testament and the carnal heirs. "Which is Hagar" (he says), that is, this testament of servitude, which gives birth to servants, is the allegorical Hagar, the handmaid.
V. 25 For Hagar is called in Arabia Mount Sinai, and goeth unto Jerusalem, which is at this time, and is servant with her children.
First of all, it is striking (movet) that he says that Mount Sinai is long to Jerusalem, the city in Judea, while he says that it is in Arabia (St. Jerome reads: "which adjoins" (conterminatus est), and in explaining it he says: which is in the neighborhood (confinis est)); perhaps that for this reason Mount Sinai is rightly said to be in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, not because the mountain reaches the city, but because Judea (in which Jerusalem lies, as it were, in the middle) and desolate Arabia (in which Mount Sinai is) are adjacent. For Judea has on the east rocky Arabia, and next to it [toward the south] it abuts desolate Arabia, so that because of the proximity of the whole it can also be said of the part that it is adjacent to a part, and at it long. [Stapulensis, who investigates the meaning of the Greek word, says that it is to be understood in such a way that Sinai is a mountain range hanging together (mons
conjunctus), that is, it goes and reaches in a kind of mountain chain (tractu), or, to use a geographical (cosmographico) expression, extends to Jerusalem; which cannot be understood otherwise than that Mount Sinai is connected by the country in which it lies (continente sua) with the country in which Jerusalem lies, just as Wittenberg reaches to Leipzig, that in the Saxon country to this in the Meissen country]. 1)
In the Greek it is written: "Hagar is the mountain Sinai in Arabia", and Hagar is here used neuter, so that it refers to "mountain", which is in the Greek neuter gender. But immediately it (Hagar) is also put in the feminine gender, since he says, "Which (quae) is the Hagar." So that the order is, "Which one is Hagar. For here Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia" etc. (and he (Erasmus) says that in the Greek notes it is remembered that Sinai in Arabic means Hagar. And the text of the apostle himself has perhaps this opinion, since he says: "Hagar is the mountain Sinai in Arabia"), that is, Hagar is and is called in Arabia the mountain which with us is called Sinai, or: The Arabs call Mount Sinai Hagar in their language; so that he would give the reason that he had said that the one testament was from Mount Sinai, and this was therefore Hagar, because by an allusion taken from Arabic (allusione Arabica), Mount Sinai was called Hagar, therefore, since God had so ordered it, Hagar was made a figure of Mount Sinai, which gives birth to bondage through the law.
We have said above (Cap. 1, § 38) that the apostle does not disdain to use allusions from foreign languages, since he indicated that the Galatians, if their name is seen as a word taken from Hebrew (hebraica allusione), means "turned away", as he indicates here by an allusion taken from Arabic to the maid Hagar. But also Solomon in his Song of Songs (Cap. 4, 8.) calls the
what Jena TÄW. I. finds.
Mount Amana with the names Senir and Hermon and Lebanon, according to the different languages (as it is also written 5 Mos. 3, 8. 9.: "As far as Mount Hermon, which the Zidonians call Sirion, and the Amorites call it Senir"), taking from a foreign language an allusion and an image for the praise of his bride. Therefore, because he foresaw (v. 24) that he would use figurative speech, it was entirely fitting that he put the name of the maid Hagar together with Mount Sinai (where the testament signified by Hagar (Agarenum) began) by some allusion, and that by the conveniently presented opportunity that both had the same names. (Also no other reason (ratio) is to be required here from the apostle, since he uses the figurative speech for the sake of the weak ones).
(88) But what is the use of saying that Mount Sinai is long unto Jerusalem? Was it not enough that the one testament was from Sinai and from the maid Hagar? There is nothing that I could say about it, since all the others pass over this. Therefore I must express my assumptions. He seems to want this, that (as under the Allegorisiren one allegory again another to produce uses), since he came from the maid Hagar by the equality of the name on the mountain Sinai, At the same time, he occasionally came from the earthly Jerusalem to the heavenly one in an allegorical way (ä^^o^xw^), caused by the same reason (argumento) of the name, since it is interpreted as "seeing peace" and yet should be more correctly called Sinai, that is, "contestation". But before transferring the name Jerusalem to the heavenly Jerusalem, he is content with having compared both with each other, and weaves in (implicat) many allegories. For otherwise he would have said clearly, For Jerusalem is the city in heaven which gives birth to liberty; for by this word he would have done away with a very dark speech (anapodoton)1 ). Therefore (he says), since the heavenly Jerusalem is so far from this earthly one, there is nothing in it,
1) ^napoaeoton is an irregularity of speech that is not continued in the way one should expect after the beginning.
that this is not Sinai, but in Judea. Since this borders on Arabia, it is the same as if it were Sinai itself, on which it borders. It agrees with this mountain by the common land border, also by common birth of the law, since it is adjacent to that heavenly in no piece, also does not belong to it, but rather to SinaiHagar, to which it is adjacent. [I pass over here many strange ways to allegorize, which the apostle indicates here, so that I do not add still greater darkness to the darkness]. Therefore this: "Jerusalem, which is at this time", must be referred to the future Jerusalem, just as Hagar referred to another Hagar, so that the sense is: Jerusalem, which belongs to this life, and both the thing, and the secret interpretation (mysterio), is adjacent to the mountain Sinai.
89) Then he adds: "And is servant with his children", which 2) he does in order to exclude those who were in Jerusalem and belonged to the Jerusalem "which is above". This (he says) I call "Jerusalem, which is at this time" and will not be in the future, not even the whole, but that "which is servant with its children", that is, those who in it are servant to the law, whose border they are adjacent to. (What it means to be subservient to the law has been said enough and to excess. Note also the Hebrew way of speaking: "Children of Jerusalem" they are called; because the city is the mother, those who dwell in her are called children, as in the 147th Psalm, v. 12, 13: "Praise, O Jerusalem, the Lord; he blesseth thy children in thee." But this is frequent and quite common in the prophets).
90 (Now we also want to show the allegories of the names according to Jerome.) "Sara" means a princess (princeps genere feminino) or a mistress. Therefore the children of Sarah, the children of the mistress, the children of the princess, are rightly called children of the free, whereas the children of the handmaid are called children of the servants (servae) and of bondage. For the apostle has also called the name of the
2) Ü06 is missing in the editions of the first redaction, in the Erlanger and in the Weimarsche.
Sara almost expressed, since he calls her "the free one". For princes are also called XXXXX in the Scriptures, 1) that is. Free and willing.
91. But "Hagar" means a wanderer or a stranger, a resident, a temporary sojourner (mora), which is rightly opposed to the citizens and householders of God. He says: You are not strangers and sojourners, as if he wanted to say: You are not 2) relatives of Hagar (Agareni), but of Sarah (Saraceni), not strangers, but children of the free and the mistress. "A servant does not remain in the house forever, but the son remains forever" (John 8:35.). The righteousness of the law is temporal, but the righteousness of Christ remains for all eternity, because the former serves in this life for reward (mercenaria), but the latter is free, by grace (gratuita), an heiress of the life to come.
Arabia" is the setting (of the sun) or the evening that turns to night, but the church and the gospel is called in many places the dawn and the morning time. So finally the law and the synagogue are subject, but grace reigns and is undisturbed (cubat) in the midsummer of eternity. How? if the apostle also wanted to indicate that Arabia was a desert, for that also means "Arabia", indeed, Arabia in the holy Scriptures is almost always taken for the desert Arabia. (For happy Arabia is called by the name of Sheba and other special names;) stony Arabia is called Kedar, Ammon, Moab, Midian 3) and by many other names, so that Arabia seems to be so called from its desert nature, so that it signifies the barren and desolate synagogue or righteousness of the law before God; whereas the church is the fruitful one before God, though it is a solitary one (deserta) before men.
93, "Sinai" means temptation, as St. Jerome testifies, that is, unrest and disturbance of peace, which we have from the law; for from the law comes knowledge of sin, therefore also unrest of conscience.
1) In the Erlanger wrong: röI'Np
2) of is missing in the editions of the 'first Redaction and in the Erlanger.
3) MsüLan is missing in the editions of the first redaction, in the Erlanger and in the Weimarsche.
"Jerusalem" means seeing peace, peace of conscience. For through the Gospel we see in the Church forgiveness of sins, which is peace of heart.
94. Ishmael means the hearing of God or one who hears God, and is the people who went before and heard that Christ would come after them, but they did not see Him before their eyes and clearly. They heard the prophets, they read Moses, but still they did not recognize the present Christ, because they always had Him at their back, always heard Him and never saw Him. So is everyone who wants to be justified by the law. He hears about the righteousness of the law and does not see that it is in Christ. He looks at one thing 4) and hears another. He looks at what is before him and at his powers, not at the virtues of Christ, but he always hears that he will be forced by the law to righteousness, to which he never comes.
Isaac" means laughter, because this belongs to the grace, which makes the face of man happy with its oil. This is opposed to weeping, namely over the guilt that comes from the law. Therefore, all these names, when compared with the opposite ones, beautifully indicate the difference between law and gospel, between sin and grace, synagogue and church, flesh and spirit, the old and the new being (vetustatis et novitatis).
V. 26. But the Jerusalem that is above, that is the free one, that is the mother of us all.
96 He should have said: The other testament is from the Jerusalem that is above; but in the meantime he has turned his attention to the other Jerusalem, changed the division and put something that does not correspond to the previous (anapodoton fecit) 5), but suffices the sense with other words. For in fact the other testament took its beginning in Jerusalem, in that the Holy Spirit was sent from heaven to Mount Zion, as Isaiah, Cap. 2, 3. says: "From Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem", and
4) In the editions of the first redaction and in the Erlanger ulio instead of ulia.
5) Compare the note to s 88.
Ps. 110:2 says: "The Lord will send the scepter of your kingdom out of Zion". But, because the earthly Jerusalem was indeed the inheritance promised at Sinai by the first testament, but another has been promised to us in heaven, therefore we also have another Jerusalem, which is not adjacent to Mount Sinai, and not near the bondage of the law, nor a kindred of it. But there is also this difference. The law of the letter is given from Mount Sinai to the people to whom temporal things are promised, but the law of the Spirit is not given from Jerusalem, but rather from heaven on the day of Pentecost; to it heavenly goods are promised. Therefore, just as Jerusalem is the mother of all, and a capital of those who are her children and her citizens under the Sinaitic law, so Jerusalem, which is above, is the mother of all those who are her children and her citizens under the law of heavenly grace. For these ttachten (sapiunt) after the things that are above, not after the things that are on earth, because they have the pledge of the Spirit and the deposit of the promise and the firstfruits of the future inheritance, the eternal citizenship and the new Jerusalem.
V. 27. For it is written, Be glad, thou barren that bearest not, and break forth and call, thou that conceivest not; for the lone woman hath many more children than she that hath a husband.
97 This is written in Isaiah, chap. 54, 1, and argues against itself by a wonderful contrast and contradiction. The barren and widow rejoices in her many children; again, the married and fruitful one has no children. Who can understand this? He speaks in images and in the spirit, in that the likeness is taken from the fleshly birth, in which children are born from a woman who is inseminated by a man. This man in figurative speech (allegoricus), who makes both married and widowed, both barren and fertile, is the law, which in Greek reads better (as St. Augustine says), because in this language "the law" (νόμος) is of male gender, just like the
Death (θάνατος), whom the apostle likewise calls in the male gender "the last enemy" [1 Cor. 15:26].
98. The law (I say), the man of the synagogue, or of any people who are outside the grace of God, indeed begets many children, but to his great sorrow; But all sinners, trusting in the wisdom of the law and in the righteousness of works, boast of the law, that they became such people through the law, and resemble their father, that is, the law, in all the outward appearance of life, while inwardly they are far different in spirit from the likeness of the law, since (as I have said) sin rather increases through the law, which indicates sin, not takes it away, whereof Rom. 7, 5. is more extensive. He says: "While we were in the flesh, the sinful lusts which were stirred up by the law were strong in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." Now this man inseminates his wife, that is, he teaches the synagogue good things. But this, abandoned by the grace of the Spirit, only gives birth to sinners, who hypocritically pretend to the law, but are only more provoked against the law, like the Jews against Moses in the wilderness, who was a figure of the law and of this man.
99. the church or any nation becomes free from this man by grace, by which he dies to the law in such a way that he now does not need the urging and driving of the law, but willingly and freely does everything that is of the law, as if there were no law, because no law is given to the righteous [1 Tim. 1:9]. Thus it comes about that she who was subject to the law as a fertile woman with sinful offspring is now a widow and without law and lonely and barren, but in a good and desirable widowhood and barrenness, for by this she becomes the wife of another man, namely of grace or Christ.
For grace follows the law, and Christ follows Moses. Gifted by this man with another fruitfulness, she speaks the word Is. 49, 21. f.: "Who begat me these? I am barren, single, cast out and rejected. Who has begotten me these-
went? Behold, I was left alone; where then were they? Thus says the Lord God: "Behold, I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and I will raise up my banner to the nations, and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and bear thy daughters in their shoulders". This is because the children of the Church are not instructed by the teaching letter, but by the effect (tangente) of the Spirit of God, as it is said in John 6:45: "They shall all be taught of God." For where the Spirit does not work, there the law teaches, and there the multitude of the people give birth, but nothing but sinners, as I have said, and only the work of men is done there; they make such people as they themselves are; but neither of them are good. But good come into being (fiunt) without law, by the grace of the Spirit alone.
We must familiarize ourselves with this figurative expression of Paul, so that the strange rarity of the meaning does not spread darkness over Paul's words. For St. Augustine also shows in an excellent way that the lying of Lot's daughters with their father means this present trade. For Lot is the law, namely the law, which his daughters make drunk, that is, they abuse the law, nor do the synagogues of the nations understand it rightly; with the wine of their opinion they make it drunk, and forcefully insist that this is the law and is considered to be what it is not. Then they become pregnant by the law made drunk in this way, are taught it, receive it, fall in with it, and give birth to Moabites [and Ammonites], that is, superstitious people, without the grace of the Spirit, who are presumptuous of the works of the law, who for all eternity do not enter into the church of God. Therefore, "Moab" is rightly interpreted: He who is of the Father, and "Ammon": The people of sorrow, because this is the only glory of the saints of works and the hypocrites, that they come from the law, that they live according to the law, that they presume on the Scriptures alone, as if they were legitimate children of the law. Therefore it is also said in Jerome that Moab is very proud. However, they do not pay attention to it, as it is not.
that their conscience is calm, and that they are a people of sorrow, since without grace, which makes the heart firm, they cannot be calm in the works of the law, bearing the burden and heat of the day in vain.
(102) Of course, the elder daughter is more insolent and boasts that she has her son from the father; Moab (she says) from the father. This is the sensuality and the flesh in which the saints of works boast that they are of the law. For before men the works of the law [and those who do the works of the law] shine. But the younger does not boast, but calls her son: an unhappy people. This is the conscience, which has not rest through the law and its works, but rather unrest and fear. Let this be enough.
103 The apostle says that our mother has many children, although she is lonely, barren, a widow, without a husband, without the law, without children who are instructed and prepared from the law, therefore she should "rejoice and break forth" and shout for joy that she is barren in this way and neither gives birth nor is in labor, while in the meantime the children of the law decrease and the children of grace increase in number. The figure of Hannah and Peninna, 1 Sam. 1, 4. 5. fits very well to this matter, especially when the hymn of praise of Hannah is added, so that it can seem that Isaiah took his prophecy from this passage, which the apostle introduces here, in that the same spirit was present and enlightened him: "Until the barren woman gave birth to very many (she says [Cap. 2, 5. 9. according to the Vulgate]) and she who had many children decreased", "for no man is strong in his strength" etc.
But we, brethren, are the children of the promise according to Isaac.
104 He applies the allegory. "We are, Isaac's, after," that is, we are children of the free and the mistress like Isaac, and just as he was a son, not according to the flesh, but "according to the promise" through the flesh, so are we, because we were promised to Abraham in his seed, as is more extensively said above. But the Jews are after Ishmael, that is, they are
Children of the handmaid, not according to the promise, but children according to the flesh; so also all who rely on being justified by the law and its works.
V. 29. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.
105) The first book of Moses in the 21st chapter does not indicate what kind of persecution Ishmael was after Isaac, but this can be concluded from the words of Sarah, who said to Abraham when she saw that the son of Hagar, the Egyptian, was mocking her son Isaac: "Drive out this maid with her son, because this maid's son shall not inherit with my son Isaac", as if she wanted to say: I see that he trusteth to be the heir, and despiseth my son: but he hath forgotten that he is the maid's son. But it is clear that this mockery was such that Ishmael, puffed up by the firstborn, exalted himself, mocked and insulted Isaac, as if he were the first son of Abraham. When Sara saw this, she established the opposite: "I say that the son of the maid shall not inherit", calling him "the son of the maid" in a diminutive way (per tapinosin).
(106) And this understanding is fortified by the Hebrew text, where we read: "And when Sarah saw that the son of Hagar, the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, was mocked" (ridentem) or made a mockery of (ludentem) (for "with her son Isaac" is added in our Bible [namely in the Vulgate]), as if she wanted to say: At this he showed himself puffed up [, therefore he mocked], and vented his displeasure on Isaac, that Hagar had borne him to Abraham; therefore he most certainly mocked Isaac, the true heir, because of the inheritance. And to this is true the secret interpretation of the figure which the apostle treats. For so it is now with Israel (he says), whose pomposity (vesica) is that they alone are the seed of Abraham, that they alone are heirs of the promise. But no one has persecuted the true children of Abraham more cruelly than they of all people, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles.
For they are Ishmael, who hear in the writings of the prophets that God will come after them, but since He appears before them (coram positum), they do not recognize Him, having in them both the name and the attitude and manner of their father Ishmael.
Finally, the word "a mocker" (ludentem [XXXX]) is the same from which the name Isaac [XXXX] is formed, which is interpreted: Laughter or joy, to indicate that no doubt Ishmael had been a mocking man 1) and had used the name "Isaac" with sharp derision to ridicule him, as if he had thought him a truly ridiculous heir and good-for-nothing man. For the Scripture does not emphasize this word "a mocker" (ludentem) or "a mocker" (ridentem) in vain, and tells that by it the so holy woman was moved. But the apostle cites this to strengthen the Galatians, so that they will not cease to be Isaac's successors (Isaaceni) because of the persecution of the Ishmaelites, because it must be so. But it will happen that they will be cast out, as follows:
V. 30. But what does the Scripture say? Cast out the maid with her son; for the son of the maid shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.
He speaks emphatically (epitatice), things that are quite opposite to the presumption of the maid and her son. She is a maid (he says) and misses being mistress; he is a son of the maid and ridicules the son of the mistress and mocks him bitterly. But let this be far off; rather let them be cast out. From this it is again seen that the maid Hagar consented to this, or at least allowed her son Ishmael to mock Isaac, because she hoped the same as her son, namely that she would be mistress. And it is not said: Push out your son, but: "Her son", by which it is asserted that Ishmael was also not Abraham's son, but the maid's son. He says: "So it goes now also." Not the children according to the flesh are heirs, but the children of promise. Therefore, if you
1) Wittenberger: piaeulum instead of: äieseülum.
If you do not want to be cast out with the children of the maidservant, wait as children of the free. The Scripture will not lie, which says that the son of the maidservant is to be cast out, even against the will of Abraham, yet also by God's command.
V. 31. They are we now, brethren, not the children of the handmaid, but of the free.
He makes the application of history and allegory, and draws the whole summa in a short conclusion, which can already be abundantly understood from what has been said. For "to be a child of the handmaid" means to serve the law, to be a debtor to the law,
Being guilty of doing the law, being a sinner, being a child of wrath, being a child of death, being a stranger to Christ, being cut off from grace, being without part in the inheritance to come, being a child of the flesh, being a hypocrite, being a hired servant, living in the spirit of bondage in fear, and all that he has enumerated here and elsewhere. For this evil has innumerable names. And although our translator 1) has added at the end of this chapter: "With this freedom Christ has set us free", we want to treat this, just as the Greeks, as the beginning of the fifth chapter.
1) This is the Vulgate.