V. 1. Stand therefore in liberty, that Christ may set us free, and be not entangled again in the bondage of the yoke.
1. [I impress upon you to excess that this is freedom and bondage, of which Paul says Rom. 6:20, 18, 22: "If ye were servants of sin, ye would be free from righteousness. But being made free from sin, ye are become servants of God." But we want to set this before you in an order and figure:
The freedom from justice:
The bondage of sin.
The bondage of justice:
Freedom from sin]
For he who is free from sin has become a servant of righteousness. But he who is a servant of sin is free from righteousness, and again. All this I repeat, knowing that through the multitude of locusts (locustarum) and bruchorum (bruchorum) with the fruits of our land 2) it has come to pass that this bondage and liberty is everywhere not understood, so much is the little human flesh
2) "Fruits of our land" is called here the right understanding of the word of God.
of those who oppose or contradict both, namely of free will, torn down and completely ingrained. Yes, they also have a carnal opinion of freedom. The apostle also had to confront these people in the very same 6th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans [v. 12 ff.] [who thought], 3) as if it were free to do anything we want in Christ, whereas this freedom is such that by it we do voluntarily and cheerfully, without regard to punishment or reward, what is said in the law; but bondage, that we do it out of servile fear or childish inclination (amore).
2. there is therefore [in such doing] 4) nothing; nor is there any difference between a servant of sin and a servant of the law, because he who is a servant of the law is always a sinner, in that he never fulfills the law otherwise than with the outward appearance of works, to whom a temporal reward is given, 5) as to the sons of maids and concubines, but the inheritance is given to the son of the free. "Christ (says he) has set us free with this liberty." It is a
3) Added by us.
4) Added by us.
5) In the editions of the first Redaction and in the Erlanger dstur instead of datur.
Spiritual freedom, which must be held in the spirit [not the pagan freedom, which even the pagan Persius knew was not sufficient], it is freedom from the law, but in the opposite way than it tends to take place among men.
3 For this is human freedom, when the laws are changed without men being changed. But this is Christian freedom, when men are changed without the law being changed, so that the same law that was previously abhorrent to free will now becomes pleasant, since love has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit. He teaches that we are to stand firm and steadfast in this freedom because Christ, fulfilling the law for us and overcoming sin, sends the spirit of love into the hearts of those who believe in him. By this they become righteous and lovers of the law, not by their works, but by Christ's meek gift, by grace. If you depart from this, you are ungrateful to Christ and proud of yourself, wanting to make yourself righteous and free from the law without Christ.
Note the emphasis in the words: "Do not let yourselves be taken in turn," "do not let yourselves be taken into bondage," "do not let yourselves be taken into a servile yoke," "do not let yourselves be held" (contineri), or, as it is more significantly expressed in Greek: "Do not let yourselves be taken" (μη ένέχεσ&ε), almost as he said above [Cap. 3, 23.): "Keep yourselves under the law" as in a dungeon, that is, so that you are not kept under the exceedingly heavy and unbearable burden of the law, under which, after all, you can be nothing but servants and sinners, become unfree people (possideamini), (as Erasmus says:) be beaten into ropes, 1) be entangled. It is worse (minus) to be held (teneri), but to be held in bondage, that is hard, the very hardest, to be held in the bondage yoke, especially after having obtained freedom.
5. "Insist," he says, providing a better (majora) to them than he sin-
1) Jenaer, lom. Ill: iUaquoiniiii, Wittenberg and Weimar: illa^ussmini, instead of illuHusamiui.
He said that they had not yet fallen, otherwise he would have said: Look up again. Now he says more mildly: "Stand", so that at the same time he instructs that no one should punish immediately as if he despaired of the repentance of the punished, but rather clearly indicate that one has good hope, which is not done by the banishers (fulminatores) of our time, who are satisfied with the fact that they have atoned for their terrible desire to show their violence.
V. 2. Behold, I Paul say unto you: Wherever you are circumcised, Christ is of no use to you.
6. After the apostle has nullified the righteousness of the law with many and very strong reasons of proof, and has abundantly shown the reason for faith in Christ, he now exhorts with no less effort of all forces (impetu); he terrifies, he threatens, he promises, watering what he had already planted, and tries everything and adapts (temperat) everything to the circumstances with quite apostolic ardor and zeal, so that it is exceedingly lovely to see such a glorious picture (tantum speculum) of apostolic care.
(7) First of all, he says that it is of no use to Christ if they are circumcised, and I, Paul, proclaim this to you, adding his name to it in order to make his words all the more emphatic. Again, I also say here anew that it is not evil to be circumcised, but to seek righteousness in circumcision (because that is why they were circumcised) is ungodliness. And it is easier to see the false confidence in righteousness in ceremonial works than in the moral works of the holy ten commandments; for even in these one must not seek righteousness, but in faith in Christ.
(8) I say this so that no one will think from this that the apostle is arguing against the ceremonial things of the law alone, but he has only taken the clearest work of the law before him, but at the same time understands all the works of the law.
9 This seems to be contradicted by Rom. 2, 25: "Circumcision is of good use if you keep the law." How, says Hierony-
mus, can circumcision be of any use in keeping the law, since even Christ is of no use to the circumcised? Here the holy man brings in many things. [In short, it is impossible for the law to be fulfilled without Christ, as has already been said many times, for the apostle has this as a fixed premise (pro constanti hypothesi), and has proved it sufficiently. But for those who keep the law (that is, who have Christ, the fulfiller of the law, through faith), it is free to be circumcised and not to be circumcised, for everything is useful to them, everything serves for the best [Rom. 8:28]. But those who allow themselves to be circumcised in a servile way and out of fear of the law, so that they thereby do justice to the law and want to become righteous as a necessary righteousness, throw Christ and the grace of God away by presuming to fulfill the law in another way than through Christ. Thus Christ is of no use to them for the sake of circumcision, while circumcision for the sake of Christ does no harm to them.
(10) To the same foolishness, yes, godlessness, perish those who, either out of anguish of conscience or in imminent danger of death, when they finally realize that their life is exceedingly evil and see how far they are from the law of God, either despair or fall into a similar godlessness, doing enough for the sins and wanting to keep the law in the future in order to satisfy their conscience, since they believe they will be good if they fulfill what the law prescribes. Furthermore, they do not understand "fulfill" to mean that one believes in Christ alone (the fulfiller of the law), but that they fulfill the law with many works. These ungodly righteousnesses we learn from the statutes of men and the abominable theology, whose head is Aristotle and whose feet are Christ, since these alone rule. For in such a way they raise their miserable satisfactions high, and it is to be marveled at how high they raise them by the fair of indulgences, as if it were too little to believe in Christ, in whom, by faith alone, is our righteousness, redemption, satisfaction, life, and glory.
11 Therefore, when you have come to the knowledge of your sins through the guidance of the law, beware that you do not first take it upon yourself to do enough for the law from now on, wanting to lead a better life, but despair completely of your past life and your future life, and firmly believe in Christ. But by believing, and thus being justified, and fulfilling the law, call upon him that sin may be destroyed in your heart also, and that the law may be fulfilled there also, as it is already fulfilled in your heart by faith, and only then do good works according to the law.
(12) Therefore I like the way that nothing but Christ crucified is held up to people who are dying, and that they are exhorted to faith and hope. Here at least (however much the deceivers of souls may have deceived us throughout our lives) free will falls away, good works fall away, the righteousness of the law falls away, leaving only faith and nothing but the invocation of the mere mercy of God, so that I have often come to the opinion that in death there are either more Christians or better Christians than in life. For the freer the trust is from one's own works, and the more exclusively it is directed to Christ alone, the better Christian it makes, and all good works of the whole life must be directed to this faith. But now we are pressed upon our merits by the mists and clouds and whirlwinds of human statutes and laws, then also by unlearned interpreters of Scripture and preachers; We do enough for sin by our own efforts, and do not direct our works to sweep out the vices of the flesh and destroy the body of sin, but, as if we were already completely pure and holy, we heap up, like the grain in a barn, that by which we want to make God a debtor and sit in heaven, I do not know how high. Blind, blind, blind people! Christ is of no use to all of them; they know other counsel to make themselves righteous.
(13) Now it follows that this word, "Where ye are circumcised," does not mean both the outward work and the inward work.
The apostle speaks in the spirit of what is going on inwardly in the conscience. For the outward work is something indifferent. The whole difference lies in the opinion, the mind, the conscience, the intention, in the position of the heart (dictamine) etc. Therefore, if the works of the law are done in such a conscience as if they were necessary, and in the confidence of thereby obtaining righteousness, then one walks in the counsel of the wicked, treads in the way of sinners, and he who teaches such things sits where the scoffers sit [Ps. 1:1]. But if they are done in the godly attitude (pietate) of love and in right confidence (fiducia) and in freedom, in that righteousness is already attained through faith, then they are merits.
14 But they are done in the godly spirit of love, when they are done for necessity or according to the will of another. For then they are not works of the law, but works of love, and are not done because the law commands them, but for the sake of the brother who wants them or needs them, just as the apostle himself did them. This opinion must be fixed for you in all works according to any law. For in this way a priest or a monk, if he has done the works of his ceremonies, even keeping chastity and poverty, in order to become righteous and good by them, is an ungodly man, and denies Christ, since one who is already justified by faith should use these works to put off the flesh and the old man, so that faith in Christ alone may increase and rule in him, and so the kingdom of God may come. Therefore, he will do this with a cheerful heart, not so that he may earn much, but so that he may be cleansed.
But how great a sickness is now in these herds, who are monks and priests with the greatest reluctance and only for the sake of this life, not even seeing a hair's breadth of what they should be, what they should do and what they should seek. Forgive me, dear reader, for making so many words. This Midian has come upon the Church in such great multitudes that six hundred people
like Gideon, let alone three hundred trumpets and jars to destroy them [Judges 7:16]. The strong waters of the Assyrians have come up to the neck of Judah, they have spread their wings to fill your land, O Immanuel, as far as it is, because we have despised the waters of Shiloh, which are still [Isa. 8:7, 8, 6]. Therefore we have earned nothing with the binding keys but innumerable cords of souls.
V. 3. Again, I testify to everyone who is circumcised that he still owes to do the whole law.
The first evil that should terrify you is that Christ is of no use to you, which means nothing else than that the law has not been fulfilled by you. Therefore the other evil is that the burden of the law is still upon you, and that you are guilty of doing the whole law. For both are certainly a great pity: to lack so great a good that is in Christ, and to be oppressed by so great an evil that comes from the law.
(17) But I beseech thee, dear Paul, by what inference can this conclusion stand, or rather have its course? You let yourself be circumcised, therefore you are guilty of the whole law? Does he who is circumcised not at least keep the law of circumcision? Jeremiah answers, Cap. 9, 26: "All the Gentiles have uncircumcised foreskin, but the whole house of Israel has uncircumcised heart." Again, 1) the apostle is speaking from his presupposition that the work of no law is a right work unless it is done in the faith that purifies the heart. Therefore neither circumcision nor any other work does justice to the law, but only outwardly and hypocritically. For this alone is a good work, which proceeds from a good and pure heart. But a good heart can only be born of grace; grace does not come from works, but from faith in Christ.
18 Thus the circumcision of Abraham would have been nothing if he had not first believed. Justified by this faith, that
1) Here we have assumed with the editions of the first Redaction and the Erlanger iterurn instead of item.
He did a good work by circumcising himself. This is what he says Rom. 2, 25. "If you do not keep the law, your circumcision has already become foreskin." What is this different from: A circumcised man is not circumcised, and he who keeps the law does not keep the law? because he does not keep it according to that part of him which is the greater and better, namely, with the heart, but only with the flesh. Thus Jacobus says [Cap. 2, 10.], "He that sinneth against One is wholly guilty of it." For he who fulfills One Law by faith fulfills all. For faith is the fulfilling of all laws for Christ's sake, who fulfilled it. Now if thou lackest faith in One thing, thou hast it already in no thing. So he rightly says: Whoever circumcises himself without faith, without inward circumcision, does not circumcise himself, but does not do the work of any law, and is still guilty of the whole law. [Jerome understands it this way: if they were circumcised, it was necessary that they also kept the rest of the law, as if the Galatians had only kept circumcision. I do not like this opinion, because the false apostles had imposed the whole law of Moses on the Galatians, as he said above [Cap. 4, 10.]: "You keep days, and moons, and feasts, and seasons", therefore he rather wants to show that just the opposite occurred by keeping the law, namely, that they did not keep it, but rather transgressed it really and worse.
V. 4. Ye have lost Christ, who would be justified by the law, and have fallen from grace.
19 Behold what I have said: Not the work of circumcision, but reliance on righteousness is condemned by the apostle, saying, "Who desire to be justified by the law." This is a sin of ungodliness, that ye would be justified by the works of the law. The works of the law can be done rightly by the righteous, but no ungodly person can be justified by them. Indeed, even the righteous, if they fail to be justified by them, lose the righteousness they have and fall from the grace by which they were justified, that is, they lose their righteousness by the works of the law.
The first step is to make sure that the people have been transferred from a good country to a barren one.
20 Again, he seems to be secretly alluding here to the name "Galatians" by pointing to the "turning away," 1) that they have fallen back from grace into the law. So you see how steadfastly the apostle insists that we are justified by faith alone, and that works are not the principia for bringing about righteousness, but a duty of the righteousness already attained, and a service to increase the same.
21] Jerome rebukes the Latin translator for the word: Evacuati estis, because it indicates more: You have ceased in the work of Christ. But I like the emphasis that lies in this word extraordinarily. It means: You are idle, you are vain, you are empty of the work of Christ, and Christ's work is not in you, since (as said above) a Christian does not live, does not speak, does not work, does not suffer, but Christ in him. For all his works are the works of Christ, so unspeakably great is the grace of faith.
22. Whoever, therefore, allows himself to be turned away from the law, he then lives in himself, he does his work, his life, his word, that is, he sins and does not fulfill the law, he is idle in regard to Christ, Christ does not dwell in him, he does not use his either, he keeps an exceedingly wicked and quite unholy Sabbath, that he abstains from the works of the Lord, whereas he should abstain from his works (sabbatissare), be empty and idle, so that the works of the Lord might be done in him, which, as St. Augustine teaches, was once done by St. Augustine. Augustine teaches, was once modeled by the Sabbath. Therefore, he who believes in Christ is emptied of himself, he becomes free (otiosus) from his works, so that Christ may live and work in him. He who seeks to be justified by the law is emptied of Christ, he is set free from the works of God, so that he may live and work in himself, that is, so that he may perish and perish.
V. 5. But we wait in the Spirit through the faith of righteousness, which must be hoped for.
1) Compare Cap. 1, § 38.
23. "In the Spirit through faith" seems to be spoken in the Hebrew way, instead of: We wait by the Spirit, which is of faith; or, because we believe, therefore we wait, not carnally, but spiritually, for the righteousness which must be hoped for. But those who do not believe are empty of the Spirit, therefore from works they carnally expect the righteousness that must be hoped for. Faith makes spiritual people, works] carnal people.
(24) I have told you before that a man without grace cannot do the law except either for fear of punishment or for hope of a promised reward; but both are done in a carnal way and out of desire for reward, so there they do not expect in the spirit what they hope for, but in the flesh they desire a thing which they may enjoy. For they do good not for the love of righteousness, but for the benefit of reward.
25) What is this: "We wait for the hope of righteousness"? 1) Who waits for a hope? Some take "hope" for the thing hoped for, as it is said in the third book of Seneca, that with Athanasius "faith" is taken for the thing believed or for the words of faith: "This is the right Christian faith" etc. But I do not like to hear that faith and hope are taken in this way. For, just as it is right to say, I live a life, it seems to me that it may be said without inconsistency: I hope for a hope; but I will not quarrel about it. Let each one accept what he can or wants. I know that this is generally the way of speaking of Scripture, that it attaches to faith and hope what is obtained by faith and hope. For in this way [men] are called gods, they are called true, righteous, holy, which is God's alone; in that they have a part in him and are attached to him, they are of this nature. Thus hope (spes), because it is attached to things to come, is called hope (speratio) or the hoped-for "hope" for the sake of this attachment to these things.
1) The Vulgate text reads: 8pem ju8titiae exLpsetainus.
2) Added by us.
(3) since faith is righteousness before God for this reason, because it is attached to divine righteousness and truth and agrees with them, which is due to grace, not to nature.
V. 6 For in Christ neither circumcision nor foreskin counts for anything, but faith working through love.
26 Here it is clearly proven that circumcision is permitted, which St. Jerome and his followers deny with great vehemence (strepitu); for if it were not permitted, the foreskin would have to be necessary. But he says: "the foreskin counts for nothing", therefore it is not necessary. Again, the foreskin is also permitted; for if it were not permitted, circumcision would be necessary. But circumcision counts for nothing, so it is not necessary. [What remains, then, but what St. Augustine says here correctly? For it cannot be said that even to Timothy Christ was of no use because Paul circumcised him, since he was already a Christian. For he did this because of the aversion that others took to it, in that he did not in any way hypocritically perform it, but regarded it as a middle thing (ex indifferentia) according to the words (1 Cor. 7:19.): "Circumcision is nothing, and the foreskin is nothing." For circumcision does no harm to him who does not believe that blessedness does not lie in it].
(27) To show that this is a middle thing, Paul has very wisely put both; for if he had said, Circumcision is not useful, it would have seemed as if the foreskin were necessary. Again, if he had said, Foreskin is not useful, it would have seemed as if circumcision were necessary. But only the opinion that one has about it, the confidence that one places in it, and the conscience that one has about it, make a difference between the two,
3) These brackets find set by us.
both of which are permissible, indifferent, and mediocre, as are all other works of the law. Thus it is said in 1 Cor. 7:18, 19: "If anyone is called circumcised, let him not be circumcised. If anyone is called in the foreskin, let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and foreskin is nothing, but keeping God's commandment."
28 What is this? Doesn't "having had God's commandment" mean being circumcised? Didn't God command this through Moses and Abraham? I have said above that those who are circumcised in the flesh, without circumcision of the heart, are uncircumcised before God, although it is true that the ceremonial things of the Law had to be kept by the Jews until Christ. For the promise of Abraham and the Law of Moses lasted until Christ, as Moses, Deut. 18, 15, clearly says that they should hear the prophet whom God would raise up, like Moses himself. So Moses did not want to be heard beyond this prophet, who is Christ, as the apostle Peter says the same passage in the Acts of the Apostles, Cap. 3, 23, against the Jews. And since God commanded Abraham to be circumcised, He certainly wanted it to last only until the appearance of the promised blessing. For when the seed came, in relation to which the promise had been made, the promise and the covenant of the promise with its seal certainly came to an end at the same time.
29. after Christ, therefore, circumcision is nothing, yet a middle thing (neutra) and permitted, like any other things, as days, foods, garments, places, sacrifices etc., though they were also nothing before Christ, since they were done without the inherent righteousness, as Isaiah Cap. 1, 11. says, "What shall the multitude of your sacrifices profit me?" and Micah Cap. 6, 6. [Vulg.], "What due sacrifice shall I offer to the Lord?" etc. Thus it is said in Heb. 9, 10. that all these things are "laid up until the time of correction." But even the works of the holy ten commandments were outside of grace; therefore they too must have an end, that the right works of the same may follow in the Spirit.
30 I have said this so that no one may think that I am saying that circumcision, even in the sight of Christ, is a mediocrity and indifferent.
or it was permitted for the Jews to have a foreskin. For Job and many others in the east, Naaman the Syrian, the son of the woman of Sarepta, King Nebuchadnezzar, when he was converted, were righteous and yet uncircumcised, because they were not bound by the Law of Moses, but only the Jews who had received it.
This, that he says: "The faith which is active through love", is an explanation, which explains the speeches and gives the weak a right understanding, so that we recognize of which faith he speaks so often, namely of the right and sincere one, of which he says in the first letter to Timothy [Cap. 1, 5]: "Of a good conscience and of undyed faith. The colored (ficta) faith, however, is that which our theologians call the (acquisitam) acquired [by its own powers] 1) then also the faith which, although infused (infusa), is without love.
32 And here I do not treat their useless questions and wretched opinions, by which they suppose that for the infused faith the acquired faith is necessary, as if the Holy Spirit needs us, and not rather we need him in all things. For that they dream that if a child who has just been baptized were brought up among Turks and unbelievers without a Christian teacher, he could not know what a Christian man ought to know, is a sham, as if we 2) did not daily learn in the most horrible way what the Christian doctrine is good for those who are not drawn inwardly from God; again, how great things are done by those who are not taught by heart in so many and great things as the theologians teach and are taught to them. It is something living, indeed, the life and the thing itself, when the Spirit teaches; he knows, speaks, works all things in all; he whom GOtt teaches is certainly no different than when GOtt creates a man anew. For who teaches the shapeless seed of man to live, to see, to feel, to speak, to work, and the whole world to be vigorous in all its works.
1) Added by us. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. VIII, 2145, § 290.
2) In the editions of the first redaction, in Weimar's and Erlangen's 6xp6riantur instead of oxperiarnur.
show? Those little friends are ridiculous and put forward exceedingly foolish thoughts about God.
(33) Therefore he that heareth the word of Christ sincerely, and cleaveth unto it in faith, shall also be clothed with the spirit of love shortly, as he said above [Cap. 3:2], "Received ye the Spirit by the preaching of faith, or by works?" For it is not possible that thou shouldest not immediately love Christ also, if thou hearest him with a sincere heart, seeing that he hath done and suffered so great things for thee. If thou canst love him that giveth thee twenty florins, or doest thee any service, how shouldst thou not love him that giveth not gold, but himself for thee, that receiveth so many wounds for thee, sweateth and shedeth blood, dieth, and suffereth all things that are most dreadful (extrema)? But if you do not love him, it is certain that you will not sincerely hear this, nor rightly believe that it has happened for you; for that you do so, the Spirit works. [But the other faith, which works miracles, is a free gift of God, which is also spread over the unbelievers, who do what they do for their own glory, of whom it is said in 1 Cor. 13:2, "And if I had all faith," etc.]
34: So, with great elegance and emphasis, he says: "The faith that works through love", that is, "is active", as Erasmus teaches from the Greek, not the one that snores by acquiring it by itself (per acquisitionem sui), but the one that is active through love, as he said above [Chap. 2, 8]: "For he who was powerful with Petro was also powerful with me among the Gentiles", because he expresses the powerful working.
V. 7. You were running fine.
(35) It is a way of speaking in Scripture that to walk, to stroll, to run, to journey, to step, to tread, and the like are taken for the whole Christian walk (conversari). Way, journey, step, footsteps and the like are taken for the whole Christian walk (conversari), yes, also for believing and loving. For one approaches God (as Augustine says) not by space, but by the position of the heart and love; that is, with the feet of the heart and mind.
deln. Therefore he also says that our walk is in heaven [Phil. 3, 20.), dealing (sapimus) with what is above, where Christ is.
Although this is quite common in Scripture, it is nevertheless necessary to mention it, because now everywhere the widespread error prevails that they run for religion against religion to Rome, Jerusalem and St. James and to a thousand other places, as if the kingdom of God were not in them. [This godlessness is aided not a little by the splendid and impudent splendor of indulgences, by which the unlearned great multitude (who do not know how to distinguish) are seduced and far prefer this wandering to the practice of love, by which alone one runs to God; this they could practice abundantly in their homeland. But the shameful gain blinds the shepherds, so that they do not oppose this common error]. But the apostle does not say, "Ye walked," but, "Ye ran," by which he praises them especially highly, and flatters them in a fatherly manner. For "running" is found among the perfect, as Ps. 19:6. says, "She rejoiceth as a hero to run the way," and in the first Epistle to the Corinthians [Cap. 9:24.], "Run therefore, that ye may seize it." Again, of those who are perfect and hardened in evil, it is said in Proverbs, Cap. 1:16, "Their feet run to evil, and hasten to shed blood," and the same is repeated by Isaiah, Cap. 59:7. Therefore, to "run in Christ" is to hasten, to be fervent, to be perfect in faith and love of Christ.
Who stopped you from disobeying the truth?
Who has hindered you in the good course, and hindered you so completely that you do not believe the truth? as if to say: No man's cunning, no man's influence (auctoritas), no man's reputation (persona) or outward appearance, however great it may be, should have moved you. Sleepy people and those who hardly crawl in Christ (that is, even weak Christians), someone might well deceive, endure and seduce, but that those who run, are in heat, and now even
Those who received me like Christ, who would have opened their eyes, who endured all dangers of life and property for me, are so quickly, not only kept away, but even turned away so far that they do not believe the truth, who should not be surprised at this? You are truly Galatians and all too easily turned away, since you were so soon pushed down from such a great height of perfection into such a great depth of the opposite superstition.
At the same time, remember what human nature is, what free will is, when God removes His hand; then what the people (populi) should do if they lack the good service of shepherds, since the Galatians, who were so great in Christ, fell so soon and so hard when Paul was absent. Now let those grab themselves who want to be shepherds of many oerters, yes, shepherds over many shepherds, and boast of their authority, while in the meantime they do not even provide pasture for themselves. [For even today these people, according to their exceedingly depraved disposition (corruptissimae affectiones), interpret what Christ said to Petro (John 21:16), "Feed my sheep," thus: Be a superior (praelatus) over the sheep and rule over them. And this alone is feeding Christ's sheep today, even though they have not seen a syllable of the gospel (which alone is the feeding of the sheep). They also interpret the word (Matth. 16, 18.): "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church: On the rock, that is, on the authority of the church; while Christ has shown the firm foundation of faith in the spirit; and they make of the most spiritual faith in Christ a completely earthly authority. Therefore it is not necessary for us to say, "Who has kept you from disobeying the truth?" but: Why has no one kept you from obeying the lies in which you walk so exceedingly shamefully (pessime)? For what should we do otherwise, since the shepherds have in view not that whither we should run, but how mightily they themselves would reign]? Jerome thinks that this bit: "You will not come to an agreement with anyone" is entirely
1) because it is not found in the Greek books, nor in any of the writings of those who have interpreted this letter of the apostle, therefore we also want to pass it over.
V. 8 Such persuasion is not from him who called you.
St. Jerome reads: "Your persuasion", and disputes much about free will, which must be taken with caution, especially since he tells the views of others, that is, compiles interpretations of others (commentaria scribat). I like the opinion of Erasmus, who says:] Neither vestra, nor est, nor haec is written in the Greek, and it is an answer to the previous question, in this way: "Who stopped you from disobeying the truth?" Surely nothing but persuasion, which is not from God who called you. But "persuading" can be taken in two ways, in an active way and in a suffering way, only that it implies a more severe rebuke and fits better to the previous question if it is taken in a suffering way (passive), so that the meaning is: Ye were kept away, because ye were too soon persuaded. You are Galatians, you [soon] let yourselves be turned away from Him who called you, as I said 2) above [Cap. 1, 6.]. Such perfect people should not have been persuaded so soon, however much the persuaders penetrated them. Again, note that he rather calls faith a persuasion, because it is such a thing that cannot be proved unless it is believed by him who persuades. For faith does not suffer the persuasion of the sophists.
V. 9. A little leaven leavened the whole dough.
40 In our editions (codicibus) it is not well said: "A little leaven spoils the whole dough", and the interpreter has rather expressed his opinion than translated the words of the apostle. But St. Jerome translates this thus: A little
1) Nor does it appear in the Vulgate.
2) In four editions available to us: üixi. Erlanger and Weimarsche: ctixit.
Leaven leaveneth the whole dough.) He expresses the same opinion, even uses the same words 1 Cor. 5, 6: "Do you not know that a little leaven leaveneth the whole dough?" and it seems that the apostle used this as a common saying, which is admittedly very beautiful and emphatic. But the apostle clearly indicates 1 Cor. 5, 7. 8. that there is a twofold leaven, since he says, "Feast on the old leaven," and again, "Not in the old leaven." So there is also a new leaven.
41 The old leaven is a harmful teacher, a harmful doctrine, a harmful example. The apostle speaks here of the first and second; of the third 1 Cor. 5, 6. 7. where he commands that the fornicator be cast out from them as old leaven, "so that you (he says) may be a new dough". Likewise Matth. 16, 6. and Luc. 12, 1.: "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy", which the evangelists themselves interpret later from the teaching of the Pharisees. The mass or dough is the people, a disciple, or the godly teaching of pure faith. But as leaven is like dough, so perverse doctrine always attracts the appearance of truth, and cannot be distinguished otherwise than by taste, that is, by the discernment of the spirit 1).
42. The new leaven is Christ, the word of Christ, the work of Christ, and all 2) Christians, that is, teacher, doctrine, example. But the dough is the people, the wisdom of the flesh, the old man, the life of the world etc. Hence it is said Matt. 13:33: "The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and mingled it together with three measures of flour, until it was thoroughly leavened." The woman, the Church or the wisdom of God, takes the leaven (that is, the word of the Gospel) and hides it (abscondit); for the word of faith works powerfully within the conscience, not in the outward works of the law, as is said. "In my heart (it is said [Ps. 119, 11. Vulg.]) I have heard thy
1) In the editions of the first Redaction, in the Weimar and Erlangen spirituum instead of Spiritus.
2) In the editions of the first redaction, in the Weimar and Erlangen oncinis instead of omnes.
Sayings hidden." For it justifies in the spirit before God. "Under three bushels of flour," in a certain number and measure of His elect. For it is, as Jerome testifies, satum 3) in Hebrew a kind of measure [according to the sages of the land of Palestine, which holds a bushel and a half (and this is about how much our wives use to take to leaven the flour). Now let someone interpret the three bushels by some secret interpretation, we must allow that, only he must understand a certain number and measure of the people, be it according to the choice of the holy trinity or otherwise. "Until it is leavened," that is, as I said above, faith, by which we are justified in spirit, is, as it were, a hiding of leaven and a kind of mixing (temperatura) of the Word of God with our souls. Faith accomplishes this by mortifying the flesh, by destroying sin, and by sweeping out the old leaven, so that it alone reigns in all the members and leavened the whole.
(43) Since we are called in Scripture one bread, one drink, and the doctrine likewise bread and drink, we must be accustomed to this figurative speech, and understand the mixture of the flour and the leaven, and the changes thereof, from the doctrine and from the changes of the people (populorum) in their minds. Therefore, although the apostle speaks of evil doctrine in this passage, yet, because he makes use of a general saying, he must also be understood of any evil desire. [If we begin to be tickled by such a one, we are to repel it immediately with this saying, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump," for if we do not resist it in the beginning, it gains strength, and will stain the whole body and soul by consenting to it or liking it. But if the law of Moses is a leaven, as the apostle thinks, though there is nothing sinful in it, what will our statutes be, whose breath stinks so strongly and grossly of flesh and blood)?
3) Hebrew: NXO. - The Greek vä-ov is formed from the form. (Gesenius.)
V. 10. I promise you in the Lord, you will not be of a different mind.
44 He beautifully arranges his word so that one should not think that he trusts in men. I have good confidence in you, but I trust not in you, but in the Lord. (And though it would be the same sense: I trust, as to you, in the Lord, yet I know not what hidden emphasis is far more pleasing to me, since he says, as it were, with Hebrew idiom (Vulg.), "I trust in you in the Lord." For this also seems to be a kind of sweet flattery, to which the fatherly care induces him, that he trusts in them, yet not otherwise than "in the Lord."]
45 This word now: "You will be minded" (sapietis), which is so frequent in the New Testament, and is sometimes expressed by "wisdom" and "prudence," as Rom. 8:6: "The prudence (prudentia,) of the flesh is death," should become familiar to us straight (tandem). For all that which in other languages is expressed by the most diverse words, as, of the heart (endeavor, endeavoring concern, well-disposed, feeling, feeling for, thinking for, judgment, resolution, presumption, counsel, remembrance, disposition etc., is expressed by this Greek word (fpm^pa, φρόνησις from
pressed. Therefore it says Ps. 1, 1: "Blessed is he who does not walk in the counsel (consilio) of the wicked." ("Counsel" is that,] 1) which is called in Deut.
The term "conceit" 2) is used when we say: "It seems right to me.
46 "Not otherwise" cannot be referred to the first preceding, but it refers to the content of the whole epistle and the whole epitome of it, so that the meaning is: You have learned the gospel from me; I hope that you will set your minds on nothing new, on nothing different, that you will not be fickle (mutabitis), in that he again speaks kindly (blandiens) and in a godly way expresses a courageous opinion, while they had already begun to be of a different mind, or something else had begun to seem good to them.
1) Added by us.
2) Erlanger and Weimarsche: "Gutdunkel. In the editions of the first redaction: "Gutdünken.
But he who deceives you will bear his judgment, whoever he may be.
47. "Misleads", that is, by its teachings, turns you away from the right faith and pushes you out of the position you held.
(48) But will not the one who misleads them be excused by his godly zeal and good opinion ([bona intentio] as they say) or his ignorance, or that he is a disciple of the apostles, and a great one at that? No (he says), every one [who misleads you,) 3) be he who he will, however great, has done no small sin, "he shall bear his judgment." This is a scriptural expression: "to bear his burden," "to bear his judgment," "to bear his iniquity," by which their condemnation is expressed. For those who are in Christ do not bear their burdens, but, as Isaiah, Cap. 53, 4. 6. says, "Christ bore our sickness," and "the Lord cast upon Him all our sin." But each one's sin is unmistakable, and yet he must bear it, as the 38th Psalm, v. 5, says: "For my sins are upon my head, like a heavy burden they have become too heavy for me."
49 It is therefore frightening that Paul says here, "He will bear his judgment. Likewise, see with what pride he denies the prestige of the person: "Let him be who he will." I do not care whether he is an apostle or a disciple of the apostles; I do not care about the person. We see in Paul such a deep contempt for the reputation of men, and that under the pretense of persons and the outward appearance (larvis) of men so much evil is committed, and yet we cannot be dissuaded even by this, that we should not willingly let ourselves be seduced with eyes to see and with willing hearts under the pretense of holiness, great reputation, power, liberties (praescriptionis), prerogatives, and such quite trifling things. For this must not be said now in the church, "Let him be who he will"; but it is enough for someone to say, This is how he holds it, this is how he wills it, this is how he commands: then the whole Christian church has said it. [Finally, some of the heralds of the Antichrist are there
3) Added by us.
They have come to gossip in the most abominable manner that no one, especially not the Roman Pontiff, should say, "Why are you doing this? He has no judge on earth, and Christ would not have provided sufficiently for his church if he had not given men such great power as he has. Our time is worthy to hear such words, which are more nonsensical than the most unspeakable ungodliness; for such it deserves in Christ.
But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I suffer persecution?
50 For as he said above Cap. 1, 10: "Do I intend to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ's servant." Bkit these words he expresses the same as here, namely, that he suffered persecution from the Jews for the sake of the word of Christ, by which circumcision is exalted, as is written in the Acts of the Apostles and many epistles. So he says, "By this evidence also you know that circumcision is nothing, that I myself, as I write to you, do so, that I also suffer persecution for its sake, which I would not have to suffer if I agreed with them and taught circumcision.
St. Jerome thinks that those false apostles also misused the name of Paul to turn away the Galatians, namely, because Paul also circumcised Timothy and made a vow in Keuchrea, as was said above. But notice, he does not say: If I still "allow" circumcision, but "preach" it. It should not be preached as necessary, although it could be suffered as harmless, if only faith in Christ prevails.
Thus, the aggravation of the cross would have ceased (evacuatum est).
(52) When circumcision is preached, the Jews are satisfied, so their anger ceases. For it is the same word that he used above [Cap. 5, 4]: Evacuati estis, that is, the trouble is without work, idle, futile; this word indicates that the trouble among the Jews is, to be sure
will have nothing more to do with it. But what kind of conclusion is this: Circumcision is preached, therefore the aggravation of the cross ceases? Then: Is it not to be wished that there should be no more trouble about the cross? Or do you, dear Paul, want as many people as possible to be vexed? Who can suffer that?
With regard to the first, the apostle actually accuses the Jews of being offended by Christ. Thus 1 Cor. 1, 23, 24: "We preach Christ crucified, an offense to the Jews and a foolishness to the Greeks, but to us who believe divine power and divine wisdom." And Luc. 2, 34. Simeon says of the Jews: [This one is shredded to a fall and resurrection of many in Israel", and Isa. 8, 13. 14. it says: "Sanctify the Lord of hosts. Let him be your fear and your dread, and he shall be your sanctification: but a stumblingblock and a rock of offence unto the two houses of Israel, a snare and a fall unto the inhabitants of Jerusalem." Therefore it is rightly said that if he made himself agreeable to the Jews by preaching circumcision and approving of their ungodly righteousnesses, they would not be offended nor persecute him.
54 As to the second, it may be said: The apostle does not want there to be trouble, but he cites the clear experience that the trouble of the cross has not ceased, in order to prove that he does not preach circumcision, so that the meaning is: Just from this you see that I do not preach circumcision, because you see that the trouble of the cross has not ceased; for the Jews' rage and trouble continue, as does my persecution; both of which would undoubtedly have ceased if I had preached circumcision. So this very experience on both sides, that I suffer and they are angry, must prove to you superfluously that we disagree about circumcision. This is enough for the unintelligent Galatians. By the way, whoever is looking for a more detailed solution of this question, treat the saying [Matth. 18, 7]: "There must be trouble", and Rom. 11, 8: "God has given them a fierce spirit" etc., and how it had to happen this way, so that the Scriptures would be fulfilled. This great sea we want to pass over here, although I
does not want to deny that the apostle only lightly touched on this 1).
N. 12. Would to God that they also were cut off who disturb you.
Jerome thinks that the apostle is cursing here, but he takes great pains to excuse it, or at least to make it seem minor. But since we have learned from what has been said before that the saints are wont to curse, and were wont to curse formerly, and that Christ also cursed the fig tree; or if it should seem too small a thing for a fig tree to be cursed, Elisha certainly cursed men, the boys at Bethel, in the name of the Lord, and Paul has 1 Cor. 5, 5. the fornicator to Satan and says, Cap. 16, 22., in the same epistle, "If any man love not the Lord Jehovah Christ, let him be Anathema, Maharam Motha" (άνά&εμα, μαράν ά^ά\ which, as Burgensis says, is the worst kind of cursing among the Hebrews (where ours, I believe, quite wrongly interpret μαράν ά&ά by: "The HER is coming"): so we must not 'wonder if he curses here also, wishing them evil according to the outward man, by whom, as he saw, the good of the Spirit was hindered. [The word: "May they also be cut off" (abscindantur) Jerome refers to the parts of shame, for he remembers those who are cut off. This is such a great evil (passio) that if it has been inflicted on someone against his will, it is avenged by the public laws; but if it is done voluntarily, he becomes dishonorable. We read Deut. 23, 1. (Vulg.): "A man who has been circumcised, whose testicles have been crushed or removed and whose member has been cut off, shall not enter the congregation of the Lord", and Cap. 25, 11. 12. it is commanded that the woman's hand be cut off without all mercy, which, when men quarrel with each other, that she may save her husband, seizes the other by his shame. Is this not foolish and
1) We have assumed tuetum with the editions of the first redaction of the Weimarschen and the Erlanger. In the first edition of the second redaction we find: traeturn, from which in the Wittenberg and in the Jena, lom. Ill: traetaturn has been made.
ridiculous, if it were also written in the books of the pagans? Yes, of course, if God did not like to turn the wisdom of the world into foolishness, who did not want our pride to reject with disgust such great mysteries (sacramenta) in such shameful (but they are only through our sin) things. The two testicles are certainly the two testaments. For a scribe, being learned in the kingdom of heaven, will bring forth out of his treasure things old and new. Does not the mother (uterus) of the woman mean the will and the conscience? But I pass over this, because those who are pure will find this for themselves, but the unclean will not hear this without danger. But the hand of the woman, which is to be cut off because she has attacked the shame of a strange man, seems to me to be the sacrilege of those who, in the dispute between a right and a false teacher, put Scripture in the rear, even pervert it, and seek to gain the victory through their sense and human opinions. But what is this? That Paul, who understands the law exceedingly well, since he deals with circumcision and the teachers of circumcision, seems to wish them not only to be circumcised, but also to be entirely circumcised, not only in the foreskin, but also both the testicles and the member? With this he obviously alludes to the mystery, which is also indicated by the Greek text, which adds the little word "also" 2), namely: "Would God that they were also cut off" (abscindantur), as if he wanted to say: If then they certainly wish to be circumcised, I wish that they may also be circumcised, and be those circumcised ones from whom the testicles and the member have been taken away, that is, who cannot teach and beget spiritual children, and are to be expelled from the church. For a bishop, indeed, Christ is the man of the Church, which he makes fruitful by the seed of the Word of God, by means of his testicles and member in complete chastity and holiness. But the members of the ungodly shall be cut off, because they put forth a strange seed and an adulterous word].
2) et is missing in the Vulgate.
But ye, brethren, are called to liberty. But see to it that through freedom you do not give place to the flesh, 1) but through love serve one another.
(Others read: "Through the love of the Spirit, one serves the other"; but there is little in this. That which here Origen, as Jerome relates, imposes of the darkness, of the flesh of the law, I neither understand nor accept. It seems to me that the apostle's meaning and the context are clear]. For (says he) "unto salvation ye are called," that is, from the bondage of the law unto the salvation of grace, of which I must so often speak, because those so often waver. The law (I say) makes servants, since it is fulfilled by them for fear of threats, and to obtain the promises (amore promissorum); not in vain; and so it is not fulfilled. But since it is not fulfilled, it holds them as guilty and as servants of sin. But faith, having received love, makes us do the law, neither by constraint nor by temporal stimulus, but freely and continually.
(57) To be circumcised, then, is a work of bondage, but to love one's neighbor is a work of freedom, because the former is done by unwilling people because of the threat of the law, but the latter is done out of overflowing (fluente) and joyful love, by willing people.
58. Furthermore, the words: "Only see that you do not give place to the flesh through freedom," he says for this reason, so that we do not understand freedom according to a false delusion, by which we wish that each one would be allowed and free to do what he desires, as also occurs in Rom. 6, 14, where he says, teaching the same freedom: "You are not under the law but under grace. Here it is asserted that we are free from the law, but immediately he makes the objection to himself [v. 15.], "How now? Shall we sin because we are not under the law? Let that be far off!" This is the same thing he calls here, "giving place to the flesh," if freedom were thus taken in a carnal way. We are not free from the
1) In Luther's edition üstis was missing, which is in the Vulgate. Therefore he inserted here: "Remember to add: 'pray', because he did not put the word 'pray', but concealed it."
Laws according to human ways (as I said above), by which the law is abolished and changed, but according to divine and theological ways, by which we are changed and become friends of the law from enemies of the law.
59. On this opinion it is also said in 1 Peter 2:16: "As freemen, and not as having liberty to the cover of wickedness, but as the servants of God." See what it means to "give place to the flesh," namely, a "cover of wickedness," by which one thinks that he does not have to do good works and live rightly, because he is no longer bound by any law; whereas rather freedom has to do with the fact that one no longer does good works out of compulsion, but cheerfully and freely. 2)
60 But also in this passage the apostle himself says that this freedom is a bondage of love. He says, "By love serve one another." For this is freedom, that we should love only our neighbor. But love teaches exceedingly easily to do right in all things, and without the same nothing can be taught rightly (satis).
(61) Therefore, behold, how foolish men are, when they think that by the liberty whereby we are set free from the law and from sin, liberty is given to sin; why, again, do they not also understand that by the liberty whereby we are set free from righteousness, liberty is given to us to do good? For if they think that one can rightly conclude: I am made free from sin, therefore I can do sin, one must also make this conclusion: I am made free from righteousness, therefore I will perform righteousness. If this is not correctly concluded, then that conclusion is not correct either.
62) This foolish conceit comes from human reasoning (sensu) and the need to make oneself righteous (as I said), because human justification is by works; therefore the
2) In the editions of the first redaction, in the Weimar and Erlangen: oxsrsmur instead of: opsrsntur.
Freedom from righteousness and the idleness (otium) of righteousness understood after (post) the end of [by one's own efforts] 1) acquired (acquisitae) righteousness. But the righteousness of faith is given before works, and it is the foundation (principium) of works. Therefore it is the freedom to do something, as the latter is a freedom to leave something, in that both behave in a completely opposite way, as it is said in Is. 55, 9: "As much as heaven is higher than earth, so are my ways higher than your ways."
This carnal conceit, then, understands freedom from righteousness rather in such a way that it makes a hateful bondage out of it. For it hates the law and its works, therefore it is anxious (metitur) for no other freedom than that the law be changed and abolished, while its hatred remains.
So "the flesh" is not understood figuratively here, but is taken in its proper meaning for the sins of the flesh, or the flesh in which are the sins by which we are moved to seek what is ours and to neglect what is our neighbor's. But this is contrary to love, and he who uses freedom in such a way uses it to give room to the flesh, so that it may have room for its lusts. But this is contrary to love, and he who uses freedom in such a way uses it to give room to the flesh, so that the flesh, now that it has been given freedom, has room to serve its lusts with contempt for the neighbor.
V. 14. For all the laws are fulfilled in One Word, in which: Love your neighbor as yourself.
65 In the third book of Moses, Cap. 19, 18, and Rom. 13, 8, 9, it says: "Owe no man anything, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For that which is said, Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not bear false witness; Thou shalt not lust after any thing; and such other commandments as these are written in this word: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." In Greek, instead of "instauratur," it is capitulatur or summatur, as Hierony-
1) Added by us.
The word "fulfilled" is translated in different places. Therefore, also in this place "fulfilled" must be understood as: brought together into a short epitome or "verfasset".
I say this so that no one may think that the apostle teaches that the old law is fulfilled by the new, that this is a spiritual mind (intelligentia) and spiritual words, since grace alone is the fulfillment of the law, and words are not fulfilled by words, but things fulfill words, and powerful teachings (virtutes) confirm a speech. Otherwise, is not this supremely spiritual commandment to love one's neighbor written in the third book of Moses, Cap. 19, 18? So by this word the whole law is summed up, but by grace it is fulfilled. Therefore we are called to freedom, we do the whole law, if we, if the neighbor needs it, serve him only through love.
Therefore, it is rightly said above [Cap. 5, § 1) that the bondage of the spirit and the freedom from sin or from the law are one and the same, just as the bondage of sin and of the law is one and the same with the freedom from righteousness, or from righteousness and the spirit. One passes from one bondage to another, from one freedom to another, that is, from sin to grace, from the fear of punishment to the love of righteousness, from the law to the fulfillment of the law, from the word to the thing, from the image to the reality, from the sign to the being, from Moses to Christ, from the flesh to the Spirit, from the world to the Father; all this happens at the same time. But since this commandment is called by the apostle the complete short epitome (summa summarum) of all laws, and in this one main piece (capitulo) of love everything is concluded (concluduntur) (as Jerome translates), so we have to bear with it a little.
First of all, how many people there are who describe what one should speak, what one should do, what one should suffer, what one should think, for there are many things that men can do one against another, since they have so many senses, so many members, since there are so many objects, so many cases, so that there is no end to giving laws and making books.
For how many commandments does the tongue alone need? How many the eyes? How many the ears? How many the hands? How many the taste? How many the feeling? Then, how many the household? How many the friends? O what an innumerable ulcer! If you do not believe it, just look at the nowadays extremely unfortunate study of the rights and the laws.
(69) But with what brevity, how quickly, how effectively does this commandment sum up everything! it seizes all these things at the head, at the source, at the root, at the heart (I say), from which, as wisdom says (Proverbs 4:23), either life or death comes. For among the works of man, some are more inward, others more outward, but none is more inward than love; nothing more secret than this is found in the human heart. When this movement of the heart (affectu) is set on the right track, then the other members no longer need any commandments. For everything flows from this position of the heart (affectu); as this is constituted, so is everything else constituted; without this everything else is altogether futile effort. Of this it is said in Ecclesiastes, Cap. 10, 15: "The work of fools is sour to them"; whereas in Proverbs, Cap. 14, 6: "To him who has understanding, knowledge is easy." Hence in the prophets the righteousness of men is called toil and misfortune (dolor). Ps. 7, 15: "With calamity he is with child, but he shall bring forth a defect"; likewise, v. 17: "His calamity shall come upon his head"; and elsewhere in the Psalms [Ps. 140, 10:] "Let the calamity of which my enemies counsel fall upon their heads"; and Ps. 10, 7: "Let his tongue cause toil and labor." [For thus the Hebrew XXX is translated sometimes by "calamity," sometimes by "toil," signifying ungodliness, or more properly the ungodly righteousness of laws and works, which can never quiet the heart of man. Hence this word is in frequent use: XXX XXX, that is, the house of an idol. For thus the prophet calls the house in which Jeroboam set up the golden calves, and made Israel to sin]. For in these righteousnesses, which are without love, there is much toil and labor, but no fruit.
Therefore, St. Jerome here complains about the people who live in his time, 1) saying: "But now, when everything is more difficult, we do only a few things in part. Only that we do not do, which is easiest to do, and without which everything we do is in vain. The body feels the harshness (injuriam) of fasting, vigilance debilitates the body, charity (eleemosynas) is sought with great effort, and the blood of martyrdom, though fervent in faith, is not shed without pain and fear. There are people who want to do all this; love alone is without work etc. What do you think he would have said if he had seen that in our time, through the multitude of laws and superstitions, love is not only without work, but is completely extinguished? For in my judgment, nothing else can be brought up that is more corrupting to love than the great multitude of laws and statutes by which men are seduced to build on works, and are so taken up with human righteousness that they are forced to forget love also. Now let us also see what an emphasis lies on the words, and how heavy they weigh (epitasin).
First, he describes the noblest virtue, namely, love. For he does not say: Be kind to your neighbor, shake his hand, do him good, greet him, or do any other outward work, but: "Love," since there are also people [Ps. 28:3] "who speak kindly to their neighbor, and have evil in their heart.
Secondly, he describes the noblest object of love, because he puts aside all respect of the person, and says: "Your neighbor. He does not say, Thou shalt love a rich, powerful, learned, wise, righteous, just, handsome, pleasant man etc., but without all limitation (absolute), "Thy neighbor," declaring by this very fact that though we are all different according to persons and statuses, yet before God we are One Dough and have equal standing. For if there is a difference of persons
1) 608 we have rendered by: "The people who live in his time".
This completely obliterates this commandment, for those who do this have an abhorrence of the unlearned, the poor, the weak, the lowly, the foolish, the sinful, the sullen, for they do not have people in mind, but rather their larvae and their outward appearance, and so they are deceived.
Thirdly, he holds up to us the noblest example of both of these, saying, "like yourself. We must look for the examples of other laws outside ourselves, but this is shown to us in ourselves. Furthermore, external examples do not move sufficiently, because they are not felt and are not alive. But this example is felt within, lives and teaches most powerfully, not with letters, not with the voice, not with thoughts, but through the perception (sensu) of experience. For who does not feel alive [how he loves himself], how he seeks everything, is intent on it, and strives for that which is wholesome, honorable, and necessary to him? But this whole feeling is a living indicator, an inward admonition, a very tangible testimony of what you owe to your neighbor, namely the same as to yourself, and likewise from the bottom of your heart. What is it, then, that we trouble ourselves with many books? Why do we seek many masters? Why do we toil with works and righteousness? All laws, all books, all works are to be judged according to this innermost feeling and heart attitude (affectus). A Christian man must be trained in this throughout his life by all works.
Therefore, no more effective example of this divine teaching could be held up to us, because we do not see and hear it like the examples of the other laws, but we experience and live it, and we can never be separated from it, nor can it be separated from us. Nor could a more worthy object be held up to you than your neighbor, that is, one who is completely like you and most closely related to you; nor could a more perfect kind of virtue be held up to you than love, which is the source of all good, just as covetousness (cupiditas) is the root of all evil. And in this very short commandment there is absolutely everything that is high (summa), so that it is with full truth the epitome, the head, the perfection (perfectio), the end
of all laws, without which all other laws are rightly regarded as nothing.
Therefore, you have no reason to complain that you do not know what or how much you owe your neighbor. Away with those sharp distinctions of the school theologians (magistrorum). "The word is near thee in thine heart" [Rom. 10:8.], written with such coarse letters that thou canst grasp it with thy hands, since thou livest and feelest this rule: "As thyself," saith he, thou shalt love, no less than thou lovest thyself. But how much you love yourself, no one can tell you better than you yourself, who feel this yourself, what another could only guess in you. Therefore, no one can tell you better than yourself what you should do, say and wish for your neighbor. For here the proverb does not apply that he who teaches himself is a very bad teacher; rather, here you will be the very best teacher for yourself, who deceives you the least of all, while all others are deceitful. The law of God is so easily and so closely laid out for us that no one can excuse himself if he does not live rightly.
76. And God be lamented that nowadays this matter is so neglected, both by preachers and listeners, while in the meantime so many caterpillars and locusts, yes, bloodsuckers swarm forth in heaps, who proclaim indulgences, vigils, sacrifices, building of churches, They are always coming back to it and preaching it, while the only thing that covers the multitude of sins, brotherly love, is left behind.
It follows that those theologians who say that no work is good without love are right, but they teach very badly when they say that we do not know when we are in love. They really force us to imagine that love is, as it were, a quiet, hidden quality in the soul. What does this dream amount to but that they say that we do not feel that which is closest to us and is the most vital thing that is in us, namely precisely the heartbeat (pulsum) of life, that is, the attitude of the heart? Or does
this Mercurius a kind of Sofias, as he is found in the comedy of Plautus, make of us that we should neither feel nor know ourselves 1)? Dear, can I not feel whether I like or dislike another? Why then do I express my displeasure (criminor) at a person who is repugnant to me, or praise the one to whom I am attached? Or do I not realize it when I speak evil of people, do evil to them, speak well of them, do good to them?
78. but (they say) 2) this disposition of the heart may be derived from nature, but nature is a very deceitful imitator of grace. I answer: I admit that nature is very desirous of grace, but only to the cross; but it has something quite different in mind than suffering the cross, indeed, the opposite, and opposes grace in the most hostile way.
But "cross" is what I call repulsiveness. For nature loves, praises, does good and speaks good only as long as it has not been offended. But if you come too close to it or oppose its will, then nature does its own work, and its love falls away and turns into hatred, screaming, malice etc. For she has clung to reputation, not to truth; she has loved the person and the appearance, not the thing itself. She has been a friend, not of the neighbor, but of the neighbor's goods and things. Love, however, never falls away, it suffers everything, it believes everything, it tolerates everything, it loves enemy and friend in the same way, and does not change even if the neighbor changes. For just as a neighbor remains a neighbor, no matter how much he may change, so love remains love, no matter how much it may be harmed or helped.
Therefore, the cross is the test and (as they say) the touchstone of love, which contains nothing in itself that could justify saying it is a hidden quality, and you do not know and feel whether you love your neighbor.
1) In the editions of the first redaction, in the Weimar and in the Erlangen aZuoscamus instead of coAHO86NNLU8.
2) Wittenberger: inyuit instead of inyuiunt.
If you feel in the cross (ibi) that you retain a sweet heart, do not doubt that you have come higher than nature, and that Christ has endowed you with love; but if you are bitter, realize that it is nature fei, and seek love.
The love of nature seeks a sweet and quiet life, yes, as the poet says 3), it values the friendships after the benefit, seeks its own, and is only intent on receiving good. But love (caritas) is a strong love (amor), which endures in the midst of adversity, proves friendship with its services, seeks what is the other's, intent not on receiving but on giving; yes, right love distributes good and receives evil. But a carnally minded man (carnalitas) receives good and distributes evil, or at least withdraws from his neighbor.
(4) But also beware of those who think that a prayer or any other work of love is done without regard for the neighbor, if it is only the result of an inner and hidden quality. This is a very crude, indeed, an exceedingly harmful mind. Rather, you pray in love when, moved by a kind heart toward your brother, whether he be friend or foe, you pray for him. Then you speak good in love when you confront the one who speaks evil (detractori) for no other reason than because you have taken your brother to your heart, be he friend or foe, and cannot suffer his good reputation to be stained, not because you hope (I say) for honor or friendship, but out of pure benevolence, wishing him well. So you do everything else in love, if in it you have only the best and the advantage of your neighbor in mind, and in general of every man, whether he be friend or foe. Behold, this instruction will teach you how far you have advanced in Christianity. Here you will find out whom you love and whom you do not love, how much you have progressed or fallen behind. For
3) Ovid. (Weim.)
4) Wittenberg oavete instead of oave.
If you have one against whom you are not friendly, you are already nothing, even if you do miracles.
Finally, through this rule, you will learn to make a distinction between works and good works, by yourself, without a teacher. Then you will see clearly that it is better to do good to your neighbor, to speak good of him, to do good to him, and to direct your whole life to be a service to your neighbor in love (as the apostle said just before), than to build up all the churches of the world, to have the merits of all the monasteries, and to perform all the miracles of all the saints, without this, that you may serve your neighbor thereby.
(84) Behold, this is the doctrine which today they not only do not know, but with their statutes, as with innumerable troops, they utterly destroy. Their pretense is that they teach never to love one's neighbor other than according to his person, making distinctions among works and the outward appearance of the same, and arguing only about them. [And the very common distinction between the natural law, the written law, and the evangelical law is to be received with no less caution. For since the apostle here says that all laws come together in the One and in the Summa, surely love is the end of the whole law, as he also says 1 Tim. 1, 5. But also Christ makes this natural law (as it is called) Matth. 7, 12.: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them," expressly that which the law and the prophets are, since he says: "For this is the law and the prophets." But since he himself teaches the gospel, it is clear that these three laws are not distinguished both according to their office and according to the wrong understanding of those who understand it in this way].
Therefore this written law, "Love thy neighbor as thyself," teaches exactly the same thing as the natural law, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you (for that is to love yourself), do ye even so to them" (which surely means to love others as oneself, as is evident). But what does the whole Gospel teach otherwise? Therefore
A law which passes through all times, which is known to all men, is written in all hearts, and leaves no excuse to anyone from beginning to end, although the Jews added the ceremonies, then also the other peoples their own laws, which were not binding for the whole world, but only this One, which the Holy Spirit prescribes without ceasing in the hearts of all men.
86. Also this must be very well observed, that some fathers have drawn from the words of this commandment this opinion that the ordered love begins with oneself, because (so they say) the self-love is prescribed as the rule according to which you should love your neighbor. I have considered this on all sides in order to understand it, but, as I consider, it is futile labor. I do not want to impose my opinion on anyone, but only to indicate my view. I understand this commandment in such a way that self-love is not commanded, but only love toward one's neighbor; first, because self-love is already by itself in all men; second, because God, if He had willed this order, would have said: You shall love yourself, and your neighbor as yourself. But now he says, "Love your neighbor as yourself," that is, as you already love yourself, without need of a commandment to do so. But also the apostle Paul imposes this 1 Cor. 13, 5. on love, that it does not seek its own by completely denying self-love. Christ commands [Marc. 8, 34. f.] that one should deny oneself and hate one's life, and Phil. 2, 4. clearly states: "Each one does not look to what is his own, but to what is another's." Finally, if a man had the right self-love, then he would no longer need the grace of God, because this love, if it is the right one, loves himself and his neighbor. 1) For this commandment commands that it be not another love, but the same love. But (as I have said) this commandment presupposes that man love himself, and Christ, when he says Matt. 7:12, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you," no doubt gives the explanation
1) In the editions of the first Redaction and in the Erlanger UiliMt instead of UitiMt.
He does not believe that people already have a favorable disposition and love for themselves, and he does not command it there, as is evident.
Therefore, in my opinion (as I said), the commandment seems to speak only of perverse love, with which each one, forgetting his neighbor, seeks only his own; but it becomes a true love when man again forgets himself and wants to serve only his neighbor. This is also indicated by the members of the body, each of which serves the other at its own risk. For the hand fights for the head and receives injuries for it; the feet step into the dung and into the water to save the body. But through this ordered self-love, which Christ wanted to destroy completely through this commandment, the seeking of one's own benefit is maintained in a very dangerous way.
88. If, however, it must be admitted that self-love is ordered here first, I will at least go higher and say: Such love is always ungodly, since it is in itself, and it is also not good, if it is not outside itself in God, that is, that, since my favorable disposition toward myself (voluntate mei) and my love toward myself are completely dead, I seek nothing but that the will of God alone 1) be done in me, that I be ready for death, for life and for every form that my potter wants to give me. This comes sour, is very difficult and impossible for nature. For here I love myself not in myself, but in God, not in my will, but in the will of God. And in such a way I will then also love my neighbor as myself, by wishing and working that only God's will be done in him, but in no way his own will. But I believe that they did not understand it that way, and the commandment does not seem to speak of this love either. Therefore I will warn every one to beware of these heathen doctrines, Thou shalt be thy own neighbor, and the like. For these are perverse [and also perverted against the grammatical meaning].
1) Dei is missing in the editions of the first Redaction and in the Erlanger.
meaning. For "neighbor" is used no differently than in reference to another person. Therefore, a Christian must say: You shall be neighbor to another], as this commandment also indicates.
But here the question arises: How can the whole law be included in this one commandment, especially in the Old Testament, where there are so many customs and so many ceremonies? Does he who loves his neighbor also do all these? For that the commandments of the Decalogue are included in them is no difficulty, as is evident from the apostle's letter to the Romans, Cap. 13:9. But who then immediately also sacrifices cattle, is circumcised, keeps times and years etc., just as we honor parents, do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal etc.
Jerome, as is his way, holds that the ceremonial laws are to be fulfilled in a spiritual way. But what shall we then say of the laws of other peoples, which the apostles and even Christ Himself have likewise commanded to be kept? Finally, in this way we shall make the apostle uncertain 2) since he is to teach that the holy ten commandments are fulfilled in a different way from the ceremonies, and yet uses the same word. I say, in agreement with what I said before, that after the spirit of love has been received from the preaching of faith, it is permissible to do everything else that is ordained in ceremonies and in a human way, whether among Jews or Gentiles, and that this must not be held as if salvation lay in it, But these things must be kept for the sake of love, because of those with whom we must live, as long as they themselves require us to keep them, so that peace may not be disturbed and divisions and turmoil may not arise, for love tolerates everything. And in this we have not so much to fear that these laws may not be acted against as that those who live by them may not be vexed, since love commands us to
2) In the editions of the first redaction, in Weimar's and Erlangen's aeyuivoeuna instead of arndiAuum.
according to their wishes. Therefore, if God had willed that the ceremonies of the Law should continue, or if for some reason one or more of them had to be kept, it should be done by all means. But after he has done them, they do not bind us at all. In this way one must keep the imperial laws, the pope's laws, the city laws, the secular and national laws, only for this reason (as Christ says [Matth. 17, 27.)), "so that we do not offend them" and do not violate love and peace.
91. And thus it is clear that not even a law can be conceived which is not also written in love. For without a doubt, you would want to be obeyed if you had commanded anything; therefore, by the law of nature and the law of love, you are urged to do the same to another, especially to God and to those who have authority as God's representatives, if only you observe that you do not place your happiness in these commandments of men, but know that you must serve others through love.
But the legislators themselves are much more indebted to love, so that when they see that their laws are oppressive or even harmful to their subjects, they take care in every way that they serve the benefit of others and do away with them. This, however, concerns by far the ecclesiastical legislators the most. For without a doubt they would not like to be burdened with a syllable of the law. If they do not want to do this to others, they are not bishops, but tyrants, who burden people with infallible burdens, which they themselves do not want to touch even with a finger.
From this you will understand, dear reader, why I call some papal laws tyrannies, because nowadays they have to be abolished for very many and quite just reasons; first, because they are burdensome and odious for the whole world; the bishops should give in; second, because they are mere money nets and are sold outrageously by dispensations; third,
1) In the editions of the first Redaction unö in the Erlanger: arsäsiulurri instead of osätziMuiri.
because they serve ungodliness, but in doing so they destroy true righteousness, in which our salvation lies, and love from the bottom up. [Nevertheless, they should be kept for the sake of love, where trouble would arise from their contempt.]
94 Finally, I believe that it is clear enough that the apostle is not only speaking of ceremonial laws, but of all laws in general. For love, after faith is received, fulfills all laws cheerfully and freely (that is, fulfills them in truth), and does not base on them or on the works of the law the confidence that he will be saved thereby; that is, keeps them in a servile way and fulfills no law.
V. 15 But if you bite and devour one another, see to it that you are not consumed one by one.
In all the epistles where the apostle wants to persuade them to love, he almost always adds that they should be of the same mind, that they should not exalt one above the other because of the different gifts given to them. For he holds up to them the image of the body and its members, Rom. 12, 4. ff. and 1 Cor. 12, 12. ff. as the members of one are concerned for the other, and one serves the other and does not hurt it.
The apostle knows that the Galatians are men, and that the more excellent the gifts are, the more harmful they are if love is lacking. Knowledge puffs up, the administration of power puffs up, everything else puffs up, except love, which edifies. It alone uses all things rightly, because in all gifts of God it does not please itself, but serves others. Where it is not, there is strife, strife and strife, and as it is said in Romans 12:3, people do not think moderately of themselves, but think more highly of themselves than is proper. This evil (I say) seems to me to be touched by the apostle here, which is most contrary to the service of love. For because each one puffs himself up with the gift that has been given to him, and is not concerned how he may serve the other with it, but only how he may gain an advantage, strife and rivalry must inevitably arise, mutual contempt, and evil.
Defamation, condemnation, sacrilegious judgment, anger, envy, clamor, malice etc. The same opinion is explained in Eph. 4, 31. f. and Phil. 2, 1-4. more extensively, because here he passes over it briefly.
97. The meaning is thus: I know that you are human beings and can fall into temptation, since one wants to be considered more excellent than the other, and you do not want to be good stewards of God's manifold grace toward you. But take care that you do not speak evil of one another, that you do not bite one another, that you do not give way to such temptation, but (as I have said) serve one another through love, each with the gift that he has abundantly received, the one with teaching, the other with giving, as Rom. 12:3, but not that he who teaches should be puffed up against him who is able to give, because he does not give as much as he wants, nor that he who is able to give should be puffed up against him, because it seems to him that he has no need of his teaching, and so in all other gifts. For (as I have said) such pomposity is very near to those who are able, so that they boast of not needing others, and so do not serve one another in love, but consume themselves in mutual contempt, hatred, arrogance, slander etc.
V. 16 But I say, walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not carry out the lusts of the flesh.
98. He means to say that what I have said, "that you do not bite and devour one another," is as much as that I want you to live in the spirit, then it will happen that you do not do such things. I know that such lusts sometimes arise in you, but do not obey them, but walk in the spirit, that is, increase and become more spiritual, as he says Rom. 8:13. on the same opinion: "If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye kill business by the spirit of the flesh, ye shall live." "Killing business by the spirit of the flesh" is what he calls it here: "walking in the spirit" and resisting temptation, lest 1) they should bite one another and die. It
1) In the editions of the first redaction and in the Erlanger: ae statt: H6.
is impossible that we should not be moved to bite and devour one another, but these impulses must be resisted by the Spirit. But this is a beautiful figurative speech: "biting and devouring", which is very frequent in the holy scriptures. Hence it is said in the Psalms [Ps. 57:5], "The children of men, their teeth are spears and arrows;" and Ps. 3:8, "Thou shatterest the teeth of the wicked;" and Proverbs 30:14, "A kind that hath swords for teeth, that eateth with their molars, and devoureth the wretched of the land, and the poor of the people." Proverbs 1:12: "We will devour them alive, as hell"; and Ps. 52:6: "Thou speakest gladly all things to destruction (that is, to devour, to devour) with a false tongue." But he seems to understand by "biting" the innocent, the slander, the reproach; by "devouring" revenge and oppression from the other side; by "being devoured" the destruction of both parts.
Notice the meaning of the word when he says: "You will not perform" (perficietis). For between the "doing" and the "accomplishing" of the lusts of the flesh or of the spirit, according to Paul's opinion, there is this difference (as it is said by St. Augustine in the third book against Julian in the last chapter), that "to do the lusts" means: to have them [the lusts], to be tickled and moved by them, whether to anger or to pleasure. But "to perform them" means: to consent to them and perform them; these are the works of the flesh. But that we do not have them or do them, that will, as St. Augustine says in the first book of his Retractations Cap. 24, will take place only when we will no longer have the mortal flesh. Therefore he says that all saints are still partly carnal, although they are spiritual according to the inner man; in the sixth book against Julianus. Thus love lusts after the desire of the spirit, so that it cannot lust after the flesh, but it does not accomplish this, because it cannot be without the desire of the flesh. And I want to remind you that he not only calls unchastity a lust of the flesh, but also all the works that he will soon list.
For this reason Augustine says these words: "The pleasures of the flesh are not accomplished unless one consents to them; though one is moved by impulses, they are not accomplished by works. That is why Paul said in his letter to the Romans [chap. 7, 18]: "I will, but I cannot do good." For "to do what is good" means not to pursue the lusts, but "to accomplish what is good" means not to be lusted after. Thus the lusts of the flesh are not accomplished, though they are, but neither are our good works accomplished, though they are (fiant).
(101) From all this it is evident what the Christian life is, that is, a contesting, a struggling, and how to instruct those who are contested by various impulses, so that they do not despair when they feel that they are not yet free from evil impulses to sin of any kind. Thus it is said in Rom. 13:14: "Wait for the body, but so that it may not become lustful"; and Rom. 6:12: "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to give obedience to it in its lusts." No one can be without lust, but we are able not to obey the lusts.
I have explained this more carefully and extensively because of the theologians who everywhere say that it is improperly spoken (propter impropriistas meos), who deny that every good action is at the same time partially evil, and who say that the sin of lust is only improperly called a sin. But you believe the apostle and Augustine, who say that the good is "done", but not "accomplished". That the good is done is good, but that it is not accomplished is evil, because the law of God must be accomplished. But all the saints also have shortcomings in this, and so they sin in every work.
It is not merely inauthentic sin, but sin in truth; for it is not inauthentic grace, nor even inauthentic God, nor even inauthentic Christ, nor even inauthentic the Holy Spirit who forgives and sweeps it away. It is true, of course, that, as Augustine testifies, in baptism the guilt (rea
tus) of sin has been taken away, but nevertheless the mainspring (actus) of it remains, that is, that God (according to Ps. 32, 2.) does not impute sin, but heals it. For if he wanted to impute, as he could in truth and rightly, then everything (totum) would be mortal sin and damnable sin.
V. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
(104) Now, as "the spirit" in this passage does not mean chastity alone, so it necessarily follows that "flesh" does not mean unchastity alone; I have said this because of necessity, 1) because the custom is ingrained in almost everyone that "lusts of the flesh" are taken only for unchastity. If one wanted to follow this custom, one could not understand the apostle. Since he treats this subject well in Rom. 7, 22. f. and explains it in more detail, he says: "For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, which is contrary to the law in my mind, and takes me captive under the law of sin, which is in my members." etc. For Paul did not speak this in the person of others, as St. Augustine says in the sixth book against Julianus Cap. 11, that he once understood it this way, indeed, did not understand it. But he says that the Manichaeans and the Pelagians understood it this way. Thus says St. Peter, 1 Ep. 2, 11: "I exhort you as strangers and pilgrims: abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul."
Jerome is deeply involved in the question of how he might find a middle between spirit and flesh and media opera; and, following his Origen, he distinguishes spirit, soul and flesh; therefore, he separates the spiritual man from the natural (animalem) and the carnal man. And even though this three-headedness seems to be established from the passage 1 Thess. 5, 23: "Your whole spirit, together with soul and body, must be kept" etc.,2 ), it is nevertheless
1) äixi is missing in the editions of the first redaction and in the Erlanger.
2) Instead of the following until the end of this paragraph, the first redaction offers: "so I dare not tell the
From 1 Cor. 2:14 it is completely obvious that the natural man is also condemned, since it says: "The natural man hears nothing of the Spirit of God. Therefore, since the natural man does not live in the life of the Spirit, nor does he have spiritual impulses, there is no doubt that the apostle wants the natural and the carnal man to be the same. Therefore, no one can rightly conclude from Origen's opinion that there is a kind of middle-work. Thus we also see in Genesis 2:7 that this is called a natural (animalis) man, who has natural life and movement about him.
I do not separate flesh, soul and spirit at all. For the flesh lusts not, except through the soul and spirit by which it lives, but by spirit and flesh I understand the whole man, especially the soul itself. In short, to give a very rough simile: Just as I can call a sore or diseased flesh both healthy and diseased (for it is not a flesh that is wholly disease), since, insofar as it begins to become healthy and is healthy, it is called health, but where the wound or disease remains, it is called disease; and just as the disease or wound hinders the remaining healthy flesh, so that it cannot fully do what the healthy flesh could do: so the same man, the same soul, the same spirit of man, because he is mixed and defiled with the mind of the flesh, insofar as he hears what is of God, is spirit; but insofar as he is moved by the lure of the flesh, is flesh; if he assents to the same, he is all flesh, as Gen. 6, 3.1 ). Again, if he completely agrees to the law, he is completely spirit, which will happen when the body will be spiritual.
So you don't have to imagine that these are two different people, but that they are two different people.
I do not want to join, nor even to renounce it, partly because in the quoted passage Peter evidently takes 'spirit' and 'soul' for the same thing, since he calls it the soul, against which the lusts contend, while Paul says that the flesh lusts against the spirit, and partly because it seems to me that the apostle takes the carnal man for the same thing as the natural fnillialsi') man."
1) In all editions except Weimar's, erroneously: 66". 8.
It can, however, be called both, but the name day fits better, since it leans from the darkness of the night to the day.
Both are beautifully shown in the half-dead man in Lucas [Cap. 10, 30. f.], who, when he was taken in by the Samaritan, began to be healed, but was not yet completely healthy. In the same way, we too are made well in the church, but we are not yet completely well. Because of this circumstance we are called flesh, because of that spirit. It is the whole man who loves chastity; the same whole man is tickled by the lure of unchastity. There are two whole men, and yet only One whole man. Thus it comes about that man fights against himself and stands against himself, he wants and he does not want. And this is the glory of God's grace, that it has made us our own enemies. For in this way it overcomes sin, just as Gideon overcame the Midianites, namely by an exceedingly glorious triumph, so that the enemies strangled one another [Judges 7:22].
(109) In this way the water which is poured into the wine on the altar fights at first with the wine until it is consumed and becomes wine: so it goes with grace, and, as was said above, the leaven is hidden in three bushels of flour until the whole is leavened.
These are against each other, that you do not do what you want.
See how bold the apostle is; he is not afraid of fire, he denies free will: this is something marvelous to our ears. He says that what we want cannot be done, while we have made the will (this is probably what Aristotle said) the king and lord of all powers and actions. And this error and exceedingly great heresy would still be tolerable if he had said this of those who are apart from grace. But now, so that he would have no excuse why he should not be burned, he claims this about those who live in the spirit of grace. He says
Rom. 7, 14. 19.: "But I am carnal, sold under sin. The good that I want I do not do, but the evil that I do not want I do." If a righteous man and a saint complain about his sin, where will a sinner and an ungodly man remain with his works before those who are good in nature and morally good? The grace of God has not yet made free will perfect, and he himself wants to make himself free? How can we be so nonsensical?
Enough has been said about the difference between the spirit and the flesh; neither completely destroys the other in this life, although the spirit subdues the flesh against its will and makes it subservient to itself. Hence it is that no one may presume to boast that he has a pure heart or is pure from his filth. For my flesh does nothing that it would not be said that I do. But if the heart is unclean, then neither is any work clean; for as the tree, so is the fruit. This I say again against those who speak of inauthentic meaning (im- propriistas), who find in themselves good actions without any infirmity or inauthentic so-called sin, opposing their shameful 1) opinions to the so clear text of Paul. He says: "You do not do what you want" because of the rebelliousness of the flesh, which is contrary to the law in your mind and your spiritual will.
Here the apostle does not observe the distinction he made above between "to do" and "to accomplish," for he takes "that ye do not do" for "that ye do not accomplish," as is evident: "that you do not accomplish," as is evident. But also Rom. 7, 19. he does not keep this difference, because he says: "The good that I want, I do not do", that is, I do not accomplish it. But [since he says), "The evil that I hate, that I do," here he keeps this distinction, because he does the evil, but does not accomplish it. Now, if someone should find this distinction of Augustine's
1) In the editions of the first Redaction and in the Erlanger: iinxropris dieto vitiosos, suas sto. instead of: impropris dieto, vitiosus 8nu8 sto. which the Weimar edition offers. -
let him think otherwise, only let him not abandon this understanding that there is a battle in us between the spirit and the flesh, by which we are prevented from fully fulfilling the law, and that therefore we are sinners as long as we are in the flesh, and that in every good work we need the pardoning mercy of God and should say [Ps. 143:2]: "Lord, do not enter into judgment with your servant, for before you no living person is righteous."
V.18. But if the Spirit governs you, you are not under the law.
113. He says, "I have said that you should walk in the spirit, following the desires of the spirit, resisting the desires of the flesh, so that you do not bite and devour one another, but serve one another through love, which is the fulfillment of the law. For if you do this, and are thus led by the spirit, and obey the lusts of the spirit, behold, you are not under the law, you owe nothing to the law, but fulfill the law. Why then did you want to return to the law? Why do you try to fulfill the law in another way?
(114) I have said above that to be under the law is not to fulfill it, or to fulfill it in a servile way without a joyful heart. But this joyful heart is not obtained by the law, not by nature, but by faith in Christ. And this being governed by the Spirit, this obeying the desires of the Spirit, this struggle and effort (and this is our whole life) causes God to mercifully forgive us for not doing what we want. For we are not yet spirit, but we are governed by the spirit. For the word John 3:6, "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit," indicates what we are to be, but this passage indicates what we are; we are to be spirit, but we are still under the guidance of the Spirit and, that I say so, in the process of the Spirit giving us our right form (in formatione spiritus).
115. but those who are under the law are also in the works of the flesh, as it says in Rom. 7:5: "When we were in the flesh, sinful lusts, which were caused by the flesh, were in us.
Law aroused, strong in our members, to bring forth fruit unto death." So also Rom. 8, 14.: "Whom the Spirit of God impels, they are the children of God." For this "governing" (poorer) and "driving" is the same as "drawing," whereof it is said in John 6:44: "No man can come unto me, except the Father draw him"; likewise Cap. 12:32.When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw them all to me," that is, I will move them sweetly, I will make them joyful and willing, I will awaken the desire of the Spirit 1) in those whom Moses and the law compelled as sad and unwilling, or enticed, as it were, as children for a while with temporal promises. Thus the bride says in the Song of Songs, Cap. 1, 4. [Vulg.], "Draw me, we will run after thee, to smell thy ointment," as if to say: Moses and the prophets by the word of the law terrify and urge with terrifying threats the powerless (aridam) and unwilling, but thou draw me gently by the word of grace, and by the remembrance of the mercy which thou hast shown me, and anoint me sweetly. For the smell of the ointment is the gospel of the grace of God, in which the ointment of the grace of God is smelled, that is, perceived by faith. Therefore also in Sirach, Cap. 24, 19. 20. [Vulg.], it is said, "In the streets I have given a lovely smell of me, like cinnamon and balsam, like the best myrrh I have given a lovely smell of me," and Ps. 45, 9. "Thy garments are vain myrrh, aloes, and kezia." So Paul says [2 Cor. 2, 15.], "We are unto God a good smell of Christ, both of us, among them that are saved. "etc. [The same "draw" is also called "hiss" in Isaiah, Cap. 7, 18. "At that time the Lord will hiss at the fly that is in the uttermost border 2) of Egypt" etc., that is, he will blow with the Holy Spirit, he will stir up their spirit to lust against the flesh etc. Thus it is written in 1 Kings 19:11, 12 that Elijah did not perceive the Lord.
1) Wittenberger and Erlanger: Kpiritug eoneupigesutiam, Weimarsche: spiritu. That the former reading is correct follows from z 114.
2) Here the text offers: in sxtrsmis ünibus, while the Vulgate offers: in sxtrsmo üurninurn.
not in the strong wind, nor in the earthquake, nor in the fire (which are all terrors of the law), but in a quiet, gentle drinking, because the law of the Lord is not fulfilled in sadness or out of necessity, but in gladness and with pleasure (suavitate)].
V. 19-21 But the works of the flesh are manifest, which are adultery, fornication, uncleanness, fornication, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, envy, wrath, strife, dissension, divisions, hatred, murder, drinking, eating, and such like.
Here it is most evident that "the flesh" is used not only for the lusts of unchastity, but for all that is contrary to the spirit of grace. For the heresies or sects and discords are faults of the most sagacious men and of those who shine by an exceedingly holy appearance. I say this to confirm what I said above, that "flesh" means the whole man, likewise "spirit" means the whole man, that is, the inward man and the outward man; or the new man and the old man would not be distinguished according to the difference of the body and the soul, but according to the disposition (affectus).
(117) For since the fruits or works of the Spirit are peace, faith, chastity, etc. and this is done in the body, who can deny that the Spirit and His fruit are in the body and in the bodily (carnalibus) members, as 1 Cor. 6:19, 3) is expressly said? "Know ye not (saith he) that your members are a temple of the Holy Ghost?" Behold, not merely the soul, but the members also are a spiritual temple. And again [v. 20. Vulg.), "Praise and carry God in your body"; he does not say: in your soul. On the other hand, if envy and enmity are the faults of the mind, who will deny that "the flesh" is in the soul? Therefore, a spiritual man is the whole man, as far as his mind is directed (sapit) to what is God's; a carnal man is the whole man, as far as his mind is directed to what is his.
118 The apostle knows nothing of Aristotelian philosophy and does not mention these vices.
3) Weimarsche: 1 Cor. 6, 15. 3, 16.
He calls them works, to all of which he attributes one and the same habitum, the flesh, that is, the whole man born of Adam. For even today they search for the source (subjectum) of the vices and virtues, and have not yet found whether it is to be placed in the rational or in the unreasonable part of man. 1) "Blessed is he whom thou, O Lord, chastenest and teachest by thy law (that he may be delivered from these foolish and vain thoughts), 2) that he may have patience in evil, until the pit be prepared for the wicked" [Ps. 94:12, 13]. Therefore, with the apostle, you should despise these "conditions" (habitibus) and other folly of moral philosophy, and know that you are either flesh or spirit, and that both are known by their fruits, which the apostle here clearly enumerates.
In the number of vices almost no one agrees with the other. St. Augustine takes thirteen, St. Ambrose sixteen, our Latin translation (noster) seventeen. St. Jerome lists fifteen, omitting fornication (impudicitiam) and murder, and says: "In the Latin manuscripts it is reported that in this register of sins adultery, fornication, and murder are also written, but it must be known that no more than fifteen works of the flesh are mentioned, of which we have dealt. Thus far Jerome. [Erasmus and Stapulensis almost agree with our translator, except that they add "adultery" and take away either "indulgence" (luxuriam) or "fornication.)
120) The apostle does not contrast each fruit of the Spirit with one work, but confuses one work with many, and many works with many fruits, so that he contrasts love and joy with fornication, impurity, and indulgence, which are perverse love and perverse joy; peace, patience, gentleness, kindness, goodness with enmities, strife, discord, wrath, quarrels, etc.; faith with the herds (haeresibus),
1) In the editions of the first redaction, in the Weimar one and in de^ Erlanger: sint instead of: sit.
2) These brackets are set by us.
of idolatry, sorcery; chastity (continentiam) to bingeing and eating.
The first vice is "fornication," which is well enough known.
122; The second, "impurity"; by this St. Jerome understands all disorderly (extraordinarias) pleasures, and such as cannot be spoken of.
The third is "lewdness" (luxuria) (for "lewdness" (impudicitia) in our text seems to have been brought into the text from the margin, since someone has written it either over "impurity" or "lewdness" [luxuria] for the sake of explanation or has wanted to indicate that it is so in other books). Although Jerome has extended this quite broadly (generaliter), also to the excess in marriage, the Greek άσέλγεια means lewd being (lascivia).
or, as Ambrose says, lewdness (ob- scoenitas), which may extend to manners, also to gestures and words.
The fourth, "idolatry," is also sufficiently known, but now at least it is not the gross "idolatry" as it was among the Gentiles. But those to whom the belly is their god, and who are miserly, are, as the apostle indicates, also idolaters. Idolaters are all flatterers and courtiers, and all who seek their glory in a man, either in themselves or others. Thus, not a small number of princes and bishops today are idols.
12.]. The fifth is "sorcery". This evil increases nowadays in a marvelous way. Thus (, namely φαρμακεία,)3) is called, as Jerome testifies, the art of magic (ars malefica). For φάρμακο means in Greek.
a poison or a medicine; therefore a woman who prepares medicines (pharmaceutria) is a sorceress. 4) Therefore the apostle points to sorcerers (magos), black artists (maleficos), blessing-speakers (carmina- trices) and any others who deceive their neighbor, harm him, steal from him through an alliance with the devil. But it is also through the testimony of such a great apostle.
3) Added by us.
4) In the Jenaer, Tom. Ill: vonskoin instead of: vsnsü<?n.
stels evident that such sorceries are not nothing, but that they can harm, which many do not believe.
The sixth, "enmity," seems to be resentment and secret hatred of one against the other.
127 "Hader" (lites), which our Latin translation expresses by contentiones, the Greek text by, that is, Hader (lis), is a work of enmity, which has been called above "envy" (aemulationes) or jealousy (zeli). ["Wrath" is known.)
(128) "Quarreling" (rixae), which Jerome thinks is more appropriately expressed in Greek by ίρι&είαι, takes place when someone who is ready to contradict takes pleasure in another's anger, and quarrels with feminine scolding and irritates the quarreler.
All this can be seen better by experience and by the example of two adversaries than by a description. For at first they are enemies and at odds; then, if any opportunity presents itself, they immediately quarrel; but when they quarrel, they are jealous of each other (aemulantur), each striving to be superior to the other; but when they are jealous, they are angry; But if they are angry, they seek on both sides to say, or do, or omit something that will injure (mordeat) and irritate the other, that is, they quarrel; but if they quarrel, they are at odds, and each is ready to defend his own, to belittle that of the other. Hence sects and heresies arise, as each draws other people to his side and turns them away from the other. From this arises envy (invidia), a terrible evil; at last they get into murder and bloodshed. And that is the end of this evil. Take as an example two adversaries quarreling in court, or two states hostile to each other, or two sophists and bad theologians arguing for their opinions. He has distinguished this bitter and wrathful lust of the flesh into nine grades or main divisions; so much does the apostle abhor the adversaries of love. [Here St. Jerome adds that every one should be a heretic.
who understands the Scriptures differently than the sense of the Holy Spirit requires, even if he should not be detached from the Church. This is a harsh judgment on the Aristotelian theologians].
130] After that, 1) the seventh is "drinking," which not only refers to wine, but is also forbidden for any other kind of drink. Therefore it says Luc. 1, 15: "Wine and strong (i.e. intoxicating) drink he shall not drink." Of course, it is recommended in many passages of Scripture that one abstain from wine and be moderate. What follows from drinking, however, is sufficiently proven by the histories of Noah and Lot of the same scripture, whose drunkenness took place through no fault of their own, but not without the misfortune of others. But the histories are known everywhere. Therefore Christ says Luc. 21, 34: "Beware lest your hearts be burdened with eating and drinking." [And surely it is clear enough that drinking in other lands is a kind of plague sent upon us by God's wrath. Everywhere we flee the pestilence of the body and arm ourselves with all diligence against it, and take care that we are not harmed by it. But we plunge ourselves into this plague with extraordinary blindness, and there is no one to even warn us, let alone prevent us. Yes, it rages more fiercely than one could hope to eradicate it).
The last is "eating" (comessa- tio), which is called crapula in Luc. 21, 34. As drunkenness weighs down the heart by excess in drinking, so eating (crapula) by excess in eating. [And this frequent evil increases enormously, even among the rulers of the people and the great ones in Israel, with such great splendor, with such great expense, with such great quantity and variety of dishes, so that it seems that they aim to make a mockery of the horrible (insignificant) eating of the ancients). But the word comessatio comes from the name Comos, 2) which was called by the Greeks the god of the banquet and of eating, so that,
1) In the Wittenberg: äecnmuro instead of: äeiväe.
2) (Weim.)
just as Venus is said to be unchaste, 1) so Komos is said to be eating. Both are very powerful and close friends of the deities; the belly is serviceable to the latter, what is under the belly to the latter, and Komos sustains Venus and gives her support (vegetat), otherwise, without Ceres and Bacchus, Venus is cold.
132 At the end he adds: "and the like", because who could enumerate the whole swamp of the carnal life? For he has already sufficiently included arrogance and vain honor under envy (aemulationem) and jealousy (zelo); slander, cursing, shouting, blasphemies under anger, hatred (invidiam), discord; deceit, fraud, stalking, persecution (insidias), lying under the same. He has only indicated some parts, so that the Galatians would not claim that they did not know how to resist the lusts of the flesh.
Of whom I have told you before, and still say before, that those who do these things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
See, this is "walking in the spirit" and "not performing the lusts of the flesh," "being ruled by the spirit," "not being under the law," and understanding the whole law under the One piece of love, namely, when this is not done. Now you see how faith alone is not enough, and yet faith alone makes righteous, for if it is the right faith, it obtains the spirit of love. But the spirit of love flees all this and thus fulfills the law and attains the kingdom of God. Therefore, all things must be attributed to faith, and faith to the word, and the word to the mercy of God, who sends apostles and preachers of the word, so that all our fullness (sufficientia) is from God, from whom comes all good and all perfect gifts [Jac. 1:17].
134 This is what should be done among the people, and to act in the order which the apostle observes, namely, that first those who despair of their strength should hear the word of faith, the hearers believe it, the believers call, the callers
1) In the editions of the first Redaction, in the Weimar and in the Erlangen: Uioitur instead: Uioutur.
the ones who are heard receive the spirit of love and, having received the spirit, walk in the spirit and do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh but crucify it, the ones who are crucified rise with Christ and possess the kingdom of God.
But we leave souls with our self-chosen works and statutes, always teaching and never coming to the knowledge of the truth, yes, setting up free will and our virtues against godliness, teaching presumption, vainly boasting of merits according to equity and dignity (congrui et condigni), and finally completely annulling the knowledge of Christ, and making men have an evil conscience in an exceedingly large number of things.
St. Augustine says the following about the word "those who do these things: Those (he says) do such things who consent to their carnal lusts, and resolve to accomplish them, though it is not in their capacity to do so, and he adds a wonderful distinction. Something else (he says) is not to sin, and something else is not to have sin. For he in whom sin does not reign does not sin; it is he who does not obey its airs. But he in whom these airs are wholly absent, not only does not sin, but has no sin. Although this can be accomplished in many respects in this life, it can be hoped for in all respects only in the resurrection, and when the flesh is transformed.
This distinction teaches the same thing that has already been sufficiently said above, that man, as far as he walks in the spirit, is righteous and holy and does not sin, and as far as he is still moved by the lusts, he is a sinner and carnal. So he has sin in his flesh and his flesh sins, but he himself does not sin. A wonderful saying: one and the same man sins and does not sin at the same time. Here the two sayings of the apostle John are brought into agreement with each other; the former 1 John 1:8: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves"; the other 1 John 3:9 and Cap. 5:18: "He that is born of God sinneth not." So all saints have
Sin and are sinners, and no one sins. They are righteous according to that which grace has made whole in them; sinners they are according to that they have yet to be made whole.
V. 22. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience (longanimitas), kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, chastity. 1)
There is no doubt that Paul enumerated only nine fruits, as is evident from St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and the Greek text, where they are listed thus: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience (longanimitas), kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, chastity" (continentia). It is evident, however, that their number has risen to twelve through the diligence of some ignorant people, who, having found patientiam either in the glossa, or in the margin, or in Jerome, put it in the text in the fourth place, where longanimitas should have been; but this they have put in the seventh place. Furthermore, they saw from St. Jerome that continentia meant the same as modestia and castitas, and they added these two words to the text and changed the position of "faith" and "meekness.
(139) Thus, (2) the basis of their doctrine of the twelve fruits is completely defeated, not only because of the insufficient number, but also because of the way in which they understand it. For they make of the fruits their "states" (habitus), which are in the soul according to their own opinion (subjective). But the apostle makes them living works of the Spirit, which are also spread through the whole man, for he opposes them to the works of the flesh. But also "spirit" means in this place (although Jerome opposes it) not the Holy Spirit, but the spiritual man.
1) In order to make Luther's following argument, which refers to the Vulgate, understandable, we put its text here: I?ruotu8 nut^rn Kpiritng 68t: oaritU8, AnuNiura, pax, patient, Ü6niMitn8, donitn8, lonAnniinitns, inan8N6tu<1o, tüw", Mocl68tin, eontinentin, 6N8titN8.
2) In the editions of the first redaction, in the Weimar and Erlangen psrit instead of: periit.
so that the contrast is: works of the flesh, fruits of the spirit. The flesh is the evil tree, which bears thorns and thistles; the spirit is the good tree, which brings forth grapes and figs, as Matth. 7, 16. ff. says. For Ambrose also says that the law of the Spirit works this, and St. Jerome, coming again on the right track, interprets "Spirit" as the good tree. Likewise, he [Paul] calls it works, not fruits of the flesh, fruits, not works of the Spirit. Why is this? Certainly because the works of the flesh are useful to no one, for thorns and thistles no one can enjoy, but they are evil works that only harm. But the works of the spirit are useful, and we can enjoy them forever, they are figs and grapes of the land of promise, therefore they are rightly praised by the name fruits.
The first fruit is "love," of which it has been said that it is not a hidden quality, but, as St. Augustine says of faith, that each one sees it with the utmost certainty when he has it, so also feels with certainty that he has hope when he has it, so he also sees love with the utmost certainty, especially at the time of temptation. So it is this sweet impulse against God, who is angry, and against the neighbor, who offends. For then love against God proves itself when He strikes and gives tribulation, as we see in the martyrs and in the suffering Christ. But then love proves itself against the neighbor, when the neighbor offends us and seems to deserve hatred. Otherwise, almost no virtue is more accessible to hypocrisy, to such a degree that the apostle Rom. 12, 9. is only concerned about this one thing, since he says [Vulg.]: "Let love be without hypocrisy." For God has many lovers, of whom it is written in the Psalms [Ps. 49:19, Vulg.], "He will praise you if you are pleasing to Him," and Ps. 78:36 [Vulg.], "And loved Him with their mouths, and with their tongues they lied to Him." So, though it may be hidden in peace, in war nothing is felt more vividly than love, hope and faith, regardless of the fact that they do not feel mistrust (diffidentiam), despair and hatred.
141. "Joy", the second fruit, is (as well as love) against God and the neighbor. Against God, when we are joyful because of divine mercy, even in the midst of the storms of the world, and praise and bless the Lord in the furnace of fire by day and by night. But against our neighbor, if we do not envy his goods, but wish him happiness in them as if they were our own, and praise God's gifts to him 1).
But just as those who follow the flesh pretend to love only in peaceful times, so it is with joy. They praise God and God's gifts to man, but only until they are offended; then the works of the flesh burst forth, they belittle the gifts of God which they praised before, they grieve when their belittling is unsuccessful, and when the honor of the neighbor suffers no damage. For no one believes how deep the wickedness of the flesh is; so many it corrupts in their security until they are challenged and proven.
The words of the apostle seem simple and clear, but if you apply them, you will find how difficult it is not to do the works of the flesh, which those foolish people believe to be very far from them, while they are exceedingly full of them, because with full impetuosity they break out because of their spiritual state (religione), their habits (observantiis), their good works, their rules, their statutes, their traditions, their human customs. But here they take for their cloak their zeal and their love of righteousness, and according to this their holy spiritual nature they ravage in all certainty love and peace and joy. Of this frenzy are nowadays possessed almost all the monasteries, all the churches, and, as the Psalm [Ps. 78, 31.] says, the best in Israel. For in those who are publicly wicked these things are easily recognized. But under the plates, bishop's caps, and other holy usages, this behemoth is finely fattened, and reigns in safety, while they believe to be doing God a service when they are
1) We have assumed illo with the Wittenberg and Weimar editions; in the other editions illis is found.
love the flesh of their party, but persecute and innocent all who are not in it (extraneos) with infinite hatred.
The third fruit is "peace," which is also twofold. Towards God it is the good conscience, which is based on the mercy of Christ; but sometimes it is higher than all reason, when it is disturbed by God hiding and turning away his face, and the conscience is left to itself. But against the neighbor, when one gives way to his will. For this peace with men can never exist if everyone wants to be right with regard to his own, protects it, seeks it, demands it, as nowadays the Roman See and the right have overwhelmed the church with quarrels, disputes and legal battles, and are satisfied with a small crumb of peace in which they agree with their own, and make for themselves a cover of wickedness, so that they believe nothing less than that they are drowned in the works of the flesh. For they are not careful how many they disagree with, but how many they agree with, and are ready to teach peace to all others also. These understand nothing at all of peace, which the apostle Rom. 12, 18. praises by saying: "If it is possible, as much as is in you, be at peace with all men," and Matth. 5, 9.: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God."
But the jurists excuse the dissolution of this peace in a very learned way, because they teach that one should drive out violence with violence, and exalt that one must uphold justice, as if this were not the highest justice, that one should leave his right (justitiam) and give way to the adversary, so that one does not refuse the skirt to the one who takes the cloak [Luc. 6, 29]. In short, it is impossible to keep the gospel and the rights of men at the same time. Therefore it is impossible for peace to exist at the same time as rights, especially in our time, when the gospel is nothing, but rights are everything in everything. [This is the angel in Revelation
2) In the editions of the first redaction and in the Erlanger: 8uK instead of: siki.
(Cap. 6, 4.), whom God sent in His wrath to take peace away from the earth].
146. the fourth fruit is "Langmuth" (longanimitas), Greek μαχρο&υμία. For it is
Here not δπομονη, that is, patience, nor άυοχη, that is, endurance (tolerantia), although St. Jerome wants to take patientia and longanimitas for the same. But it seems to be something else to endure (tolerare) the wicked, and something else to suffer their injuries and still expect their improvement, to wish that it may go well with them (salutem), not to think of revenge; this is peculiar to longanimitatis. Rom. 2:4: "Or despisest thou the riches of his kindness, patience, and longsuffering?" It is "goodness" according to which he is kind to them; "patience" according to which he suffers them to abuse his benefits, bears the ungrateful, repays good with evil; "longsuffering" according to which he expects their correction.
The fifth fruit is "kindness," the sixth "goodness," which, as Jerome indicates, are distinguished thus: Kindness is a gentle (lenis), loving, quiet virtue, suitable for the fellowship of all the good, inviting to confidential intercourse, sweet in its speech, moderate in its manners, hence St. Ambrose has "lenity" (lenitas). This is called everywhere and in bad Latin (barbare) amicabilitas, in German: freundlich [holdselig], leutselig, Greek γρηστότης, which2 Cor. 6, 6. is translated suavitas, since it says, "In kindness (suavitate), in the Holy Spirit," and hence he has Rom. 16, 18. called "sweet words" χριστολογίας. And to my mind the Latin translator would more properly have said suavitas than benignitas, because malignitas, the opposite vice, is too gruesome to denote the sullen and unkind. For of the unkind one says: He is a good man, but he does not know how to accommodate himself to the ways (moribus) of men; "he is well 1) pious, but altogether too unkind and not leut-
1) "wohl" is missing in the editions of the first Redaction, in the Weimarsche and in the Erlanger. - The words in speech marks are given by Luther himself in German.
blessed". "Kindness" (bonitas) can thus be somewhat more unkind (tristior) and have a brow crinkled with sternness (moribus); but it is ready to do good, harms no one, is useful to all; but it lacks somewhat the affable behavior (humanitatis).
The seventh fruit is "faith. This is what St. Jerome understands by faith, which is called by the apostle Hebr. 11, 1 "a certain confidence of that which is hoped for" (substantia rerum sperandarum). (For he interprets the word substantia as "possession" by saying: "For we hope that what we possess in faith will come to pass. I too have long been of the opinion that I perceived substantia to be used almost everywhere in Scripture for goods (kusultatidus) and possessions, especially as I adhered to Jerome's saying about this passage. For what the writers of sentences (sen- tentionarii) have gathered about the word substantia, of what use should it be to enumerate it? But after my dear Philipp Melanchthon, 2) who is a youth in body but an old man in spirit with a venerable gray head, whom I use as a teacher in Greek, has not allowed me to adhere to this opinion, and has shown that substantia, when it means goods (facultatem), in Greek is not υπόστασις (this word is used by the Apo
stel Hebr. 11, 1.), but either ουσία, or βροτδς, or υπαρξις, I have changed my opinion, and admit that according to my understanding δπόστασις or substantia actually means existence (subsistentiam) and essence (substantiam), by which each consists in itself, as Chrysostom holds for it, or also a promise, a covenant (pactum), of which it is not now time to speak more extensively, an expectation, which the meaning and proper opinion of the verb from which δπόστασις comes admits.] But it may be taken faith in this place without inconsistency for truthfulness (veritate), or Zu-.
2) This spelling of the name is found in the editions of the first Redaction, while Melanchthon himself writes "Melanthon" throughout the prefaces to the Wittenberg Gesammtausgabe of Luther's writings (German and Latin).
The first one is against God, whom we believe (fidelitate), or simplicity (simplicitate), which deceives no one, which is highly necessary in the intercourse and common life of men; so that in such a way we also find a twofold faith: one against God, to whom we hold faith (fideles sumus), not so much because we keep our promises as because we believe his promises; the other against a man, to whom we hold faith by remaining firm and unwavering (tenaces) in the contracts (pactorum) and promises.
The eighth fruit is "meekness," which Jerome opposes to anger and quarreling, and which is distinguished from long-suffering only with great difficulty. But meekness and gentleness are known as the virtue that does not allow itself to be provoked to anger and does not take revenge. Beyond this goes long-suffering, which expects the wicked to mend their ways 1) [, who have continually given cause for anger].
The ninth fruit is "chastity" (continentia) or more correctly temperance (temperantia), which must be understood not only of chastity (castitate), but also of food and drink, therefore the opinion of this word 2) comprehends chastity and temperance (modestiam). Therefore, here he also restrains the lewdness (licentiam) of the spouses, so that they live chastely (continenter), keeping the lust of the flesh in check by moderation (modestia,).
V. 23. The law is not against such.
151 He is always mindful of the proof he wants to provide that the law does not make those righteous who put their trust in it. Thus it is said in 1 Tim. 1, 9: "No law is given to the righteous, but to rebels and murderers of fathers" etc. Those who are of this nature have no need of the law. So why do the Gala-
1) Here, in the first redaction, also in Weimar's, still follow the words: Hui otiam non irriturunt, of which we must say that they do not seem to us to fit into the context. Perhaps otiurnnurn or otiuinuullo is to be read instead of: etiain uon. After that we have translated.
2) In the Wittenberg: Hira, soutontia, instead of: "jus 86Nt6Utiu.
ter return to the law, not only to that of the holy ten commandments, but also to the ceremonial laws? For you see that the apostle is not speaking of the ceremonial law alone, but mainly of the moral law as well.
But here again the apostle speaks theology (theologisat) according to his way of speaking, therefore one must beware of the foolish understanding, as if a righteous man should not lead a godly life and do good; for unintelligent people understand "not being under the law" in such a way. But the righteous man has no law because he owes nothing to the law, since he has the love that does and fulfills the law. Just as three and seven (this is an example Augustine uses) do not have to be ten, but are ten, nor does any law or rule have to be sought for them to be ten, so a house that is already built does not have to be built first, for it already has what the master builder's art sought, as it were, as a law: so the righteous man does not have to live godly (bene), but lives rightly and does not need a law to teach him to live godly. So a virgin does not have to be a virgin. Now if she sought to become a virgin by any law, would she not be senseless? But the unrighteous must live godly, because he does not live godly, which the law requires. He emphasizes all this so emphatically that they may not presume to be justified by law and works, but may receive the Spirit through faith without law and works, by which they may be sufficient for the law, as has been said enough and superfluously in the foregoing.
V. 24 But those who belong to Christ crucify their flesh along with their lusts and desires.
He is answering a hidden question that someone might be moved to ask by what has been said before. If the law is not against such people, and they are righteous and not debtors to the law, why then do you command that they not do the works of the flesh, but walk in the spirit and do other things? Do you not
a debt from them? Do you not prescribe the law? Are not your commandments against them? Why do you contradict yourself? What do you think he would answer other than what we learned above, that' those who are perfect in this are not under the law; they fulfill the law completely. Therefore the law is in no way against them. But since there is no one in the flesh who could perfectly accomplish this goal, 1) those who belong to Christ are at least preserved in crucifying their flesh and fighting against its lusts and thus fulfilling the law of God in the spirit, even though they serve the law of sin with the flesh (as he says in Rom. 7:25).
Therefore, the description of the fruits of the spirit, against which the law is not, is rather the intended goal for which those who are spiritual should strive, than that he should consider that some have arrived there. So the law is not against them only in so far as they live in the spirit; it is against them in so far as they are moved by the lusts of the flesh. And that this is a guideline for understanding everything else in which the righteous and the saints on earth are praised is beautifully and abundantly demonstrated by St. Augustine in his book "Of Nature and Grace". Thus it says in Rom. 6, 6: "Our old man is crucified together with Christ," and above, Cap. 2, 19, 20: "I am crucified with Christ. But I live; yet now not I, but Christ liveth in me." [I pass over what St. Jerome teaches here from Origen, and I do not like it well either].
The apostle had said that the law was not contrary to the Spirit, who had
1) In the editions of the first redaction, in the Weimar and Erlangen: rrttinZit instead of: uttinAnt.
If they do not do the works of the flesh, they do good and turn away from evil. Why? Because they are Christ's, they belong to Christ, not to Mosi, not to the law. But if they are Christ's, they undoubtedly have a crucified flesh, not through the law, which only agitated the flesh more, but through Christ, as if to say: You cannot belong to Christ if you want to belong to the law. If you belong to the law, you will not crucify the flesh, and the law will be against you. Therefore, those who are Christ's are not under the law and at the same time crucify the flesh together with the lusts (vitiis) and desires. "Lusts" (vitia) or in Greek "passions" (passiones [πα&ήματα]), according to Jerome, is an all-embracing word.
The word "passion" is a more common expression, so it should be added to "desires" (concupiscentiis), because the passions (passiones) can also bring pain with them. But how, if by vitia or passiones he should understand the disorderly impulses of a mind inclined to anger, which rage in bitterness of heart, and by "desires" the impulses (affectus), which are pleasant through the tickling of the flesh inclined to desire (concupiscibilis)? (Everyone may follow his opinion).
The manner (forma) of this crucifixion is known. For the nails are the word of God, which penetrate by the hammering (impulsum) of God's grace and prevent the flesh from following its lusts. Thus it is said in Ecclesiastes Cap. 12, 11: "The words of the wise are thorns and, as it were, nails, deeply driven in, which are given by the counsel (consilium) of the masters from One Shepherd," that is, from Christ through the apostles and prophets.