V. 1. After this, for fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem.
1 Paul taught that the Gentiles were justified by faith alone, without the work of the law. After he had spread this everywhere among the Gentiles, he came to Antioch and preached it to the disciples. There, those who had been accustomed to the law from their youth rose up against Paul because they were displeased that he preached to the Gentiles that they were free from the law, and a very bitter dispute arose, which later caused new unrest. Paul and Barnabas stood firm, testifying and saying:
Everywhere we preached among the Gentiles, the Holy Spirit came and fell on those who heard the word, and this happened in all the churches of the Gentiles. We did not preach circumcision, nor did we require the observance of the law, but we preached only faith in Christ. And for this preaching of faith in Christ, God gave the Holy Spirit to those who heard it.
2 So the Holy Spirit approves the faith of the Gentiles without law and circumcision. For when this preaching of the gospel is preached to him
and the faith of the Gentiles in Christ had not fallen, he would not have come down visibly as a sign (visibili signo) on the uncircumcised who heard the word. Since then, although they alone heard by faith, he fell upon them, it is quite certain that the Holy Spirit approved the faith of the Gentiles by this sign. For it has never been known before that this was done in the preaching of the law. This was the proof reason of Paul and Barnabas.
(3) Then the Jews and many of the Pharisees, who had become believers, and yet were still fiercely zealous and contended for the preservation of the honor of the law, arose with great impetuosity against Paul, who maintained that the Gentiles were justified by faith alone, without the work of the law, and insisted that the law must be kept and the Gentiles must be circumcised, otherwise the Gentiles could not be saved. And this was no wonder. For the very name: God's law, is holy and terrifying. Even a pagan who has never known anything about the law of God will truly be moved when he hears: This teaching is the law of God. How should those not be moved and fight fiercely for the law of God who have been trained in it from their earliest youth and to whom it has become flesh and blood, as they say? Nowadays we see with what tenacity the papists fight for the preservation of their statutes and doctrines of the devil. It was much less surprising that the Jews fought with such great diligence and zeal for their law, which they had received from God.
4. so great is the power of habit, which makes nature, which already has an inclination to the law, so stiff and firm [in holding above the law] that when habit is added, which has been confirmed by long time and continued custom, it becomes the other (duplex) nature. 1) Hence
1) Here the Latin editions have the correct marginal gloss: Oonsustuüo altern natura. - This sentence is, as three bracketed words show, somewhat deficient and therefore difficult to translate. Menius has therefore also helped himself here with a 'paraphrase'.
it was impossible for the Jews who had been converted to Christ to leave the law immediately. They had accepted faith in Christ, but nevertheless believed that the law had to be kept at the same time.
5 And this weakness of theirs God bore for a time, until the doctrine of the gospel might be purely separated from the law. He also bore the weakness of Israel in the time of Ahab, when the people limped on both sides. Yes, he also bore our weakness under the papacy, for he is patient and very merciful. But we do not have to abuse this goodness of God, nor do we have to persist in weakness and error, since the truth is revealed to us through the light of the Gospel.
6 Furthermore, those who insisted against Paul that the Gentiles must be circumcised had for themselves the law of the fathers, the example of the apostles, and finally the example of Paul himself, who had circumcised Timothy. Therefore, when Paul said that he did this not because it was necessary, but in Christian freedom and love, so that the weak in faith would not be annoyed, who would understand or believe this? Here the whole crowd answered him simply: "Since it is obvious that you circumcised Timothy, you may say what you will; you did it anyway. For this matter is far beyond human understanding. Then even a defense is of no use if someone has lost the favor (plausum) of the people and has gotten involved in such a hateful matter. Therefore, when Paul saw this strife and clamor increasing daily, and he was also warned by a divine revelation, he went up to Jerusalem after fourteen years (not counting the years he had been preaching in Damascus and Arabia) to discuss his gospel with the apostles, not for his own sake, but for the sake of the people.
2) But this dispute, which arose over whether one must keep the law, subsequently weighed Paul down for a long time and caused him much trouble. However, I do not believe that this is the same trade that Lucas
2) This whole paragraph is missing in Menius.
In the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, which seems to have occurred immediately in the beginning of the Gospel, but the story that Paul tells here seems to have happened long after, since he had already preached the Gospel for almost eighteen years.
With Barnaba and took Titum also with me.
He takes two witnesses with him, Barnabas and Titus. Barnabas helped Paul preach freedom from the law among the Gentiles. Then he also witnessed all that Paul had done. He had seen how the Gentiles, who were not circumcised and free from the law of Moses, had been given the Holy Spirit only when preaching faith in Christ, and he alone held to Paul in this article that it was not necessary to interpret the law to the Gentiles, but that it was sufficient for them to believe in Christ. Therefore, he testified from his own experience, together with Paul, against the Jews who were zealous for the law, that the Gentiles would become children of God and be saved through faith in Christ alone, without law and without circumcision.
8. but Titus was not only a Christian, but also an archbishop, to whom Paul had given the commission to order the churches in Crete, Tit. 1, 5. he had been a Gentile etc.
V. 2. But I went up out of a revelation.
9 For if Paul had not been warned by a revelation, he would not have gone. But because God warned him by a special revelation and commanded him to go up, he went, so that he might silence, or at least pacify, those who had believed from the circumcision and claimed that the law must be kept, so that the truth of the gospel might shine all the brighter and be confirmed.
And discussed with them about the Gospel.
10 So you hear that he came to Jerusalem only after eighteen years, and had an interview with the apostles about his gospel.
That I preach among the Gentiles.
(11) For among the Jews he tolerated the law and circumcision for a time, as did the other apostles. He says, 1 Cor. 9, 22: "I have become all things to all men", but in such a way that the teaching of his gospel would remain unharmed, and he absolutely wanted that the law, the circumcision, the apostles and an angel from heaven should depart from it. For this is what he says to the Jews, Apost. 13,38: "Through this Jesus Christ forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you (and emphatically he adds), of all things by which you could not be justified in the law of Moses." That is why he everywhere pushes out the doctrine of the Gospel and nowhere suffers it to be put in danger. However, he did not force his way through once, but took the weak into consideration. And so that the weak would not be annoyed, he undoubtedly spoke to the Jews in such a way: If the useless observance (cultus) of the Mosaic Law pleases you - for it does not serve to attain righteousness - I will not take it away from you, keep it, only that the Gentiles who do not observe it will not be burdened with it etc.
(12) So Paul admits that he discussed the gospel with the apostles, but he says, "They did not give us anything or teach us anything, but rather, in order to preserve the freedom of the gospel, in view of the apostles, we fiercely resisted those who demanded and insisted that the Gentiles be charged with the law, and we overcame them. Therefore your false apostles lie when they say that we circumcised Timothy, that we had the head circumcised at Keuchrea, that we went out to Jerusalem, [all] by command of the apostles. On the contrary, we boast that when we went to Jerusalem by a revelation of God, not by command of the apostles, and there discussed the gospel with them, we did just the opposite, that is, we obtained that the apostles applauded us, not those who stood against us.
13) In this discussion about the Gospel, this question was dealt with: whether men are justified without the Law.
118 ki-i. s "i. i, 1W-I2S. Interpretations on the epistle to the Galatians. W. vni, 1715-1719. 119
or whether keeping the law is necessary for justification? Then Paul said: "According to my gospel, which I received from God, I preached faith in Christ to the Gentiles, not the law, and in this preaching of faith they received the Holy Spirit, and for this I have Barnabas as a witness. Therefore I conclude that the Gentiles do not have to be burdened with the law, that they are not to be circumcised either. But I do not deny this to the Jews; if they want to keep the law and be circumcised, I allow it; only they may do it with a free conscience. In this way I have also taught and lived among the Jews, I have become a Jew to the Jews etc. [1 Cor. 9:20], but always in such a way that my gospel remained unharmed.
But especially with those who had the prestige.
14 That is, I did not confer with the brothers alone, but also with those who were the most distinguished.
So that I would not run or have run in vain.
(15) Not that Paul doubted whether he was running in vain or had run, because he had already preached for eighteen years, and it immediately follows in the text that he had remained steadfast in his teaching and had been right in it; but [he says this^ because many thought that he had preached in vain for so many years, because he delivered the Gentiles from the law. Then also the false opinion grew stronger day by day that the law was necessary for justification. Therefore, when he went up from Revelation, he wanted to remedy this evil in such a way that it would become clear to everyone from this conversation that his gospel did not deviate from the teaching of the other apostles, in order to shut the mouths of the adversaries who would otherwise have said that he was running or had run in vain.
16. casually take heed to this, that this is the fruit (virtutem) of one's own righteousness or law, that those who teach the same run and live in vain.
V. 3. But neither was Titus compelled to circumcise himself, who was with me, though he was a Greek.
(17) This word, "he was compelled," sufficiently indicates the nature of the discussion and its conclusion, namely this: Circumcision is not to be imposed on the Gentiles, but it is to be permitted to the Jews for a time, not as if it were necessary for righteousness, but out of reverence for the fathers, and also for the sake of love, so that the weak may not be vexed until they too become strong in the faith. For it would have been very ungentlemanly (incivile) if the law and the paternal worship, which had been given to this people by God Himself with such great glory, had been dropped all at once.
So Paul did not reject circumcision as if it were condemned by God, nor did he urge the Jews away from it by word or deed. For he says 1 Cor. 7, 18: "If anyone is called circumcised, let him not bear witness to foreskin." He rejects circumcision as something that is not necessary for righteousness, since even the fathers were not justified by it, but it only served them as a seal of righteousness [faith], Rom. 4, 11, by which they testified and practiced their faith.
19 But the believing Jews, who were still weak and zealous for the law, hearing that circumcision was not necessary for righteousness, could not understand this other than that it was completely useless and condemned. And the false apostles strengthened the weak in this delusion, so that the people's minds, embittered by this adversity - for it seemed to be such - were made completely suspicious of Paul's teaching.
(20) So also today we do not condemn fasting and other pious practices as damnable things, but we teach that by these practices we do not obtain the forgiveness of sins (2c). As soon as the people hear this, they immediately judge that we condemn good works, and the papists strengthen the people in this opinion by their sermons and writings; but they lie and do us wrong.
right. For for many hundreds of years no one has taught better and more godly of works than we do now etc.
Therefore, circumcision was not rejected by Paul in such a way that it was a sin to receive or keep it, for that would have caused the Jews a great deal of trouble, but in the council and in this discussion it was determined (definitum) that it was not necessary for justification and therefore not to be imposed on the Gentiles. Thus, the means and the cheap provision (έπίείχεί") was made that the Jews should have a period of
They should not, however, seek to be justified by it, nor should they impose it on the Gentiles, because it would appear to them as a kind of innovation, but would then also be an unbearable burden, Acts 15:10. In short, no one should be forced to be circumcised, but no one should be kept from circumcision by force.
(22) This passage of Paul was the subject of a heated argument between Jerome and Augustine. The word "he was forced" shows that Augustine was right. Jerome did not understand the matter. For here it is not spoken of what Peter or Paul had done in circumcising or not circumcising, as Jerome thinks, and therefore wonders how Paul could have presumed to blame Peter for what he himself had done, for, he says, Paul circumcised Timothy, and lived Gentile with the Gentiles and Jewish with the Jews etc. He does not think that this is a serious matter. Therefore, he concludes that neither of them sinned, but fabricates that both of them were guilty of hypocrisy by lying out of favor (officioso mendacio). But all these questions here were and are serious and concern the most important things, therefore they [Peter and Paul] did nothing hypocritically.
This was the main question, whether the law was necessary for justification or not. Paul and Peter argue about this main proposition, which is the epitome of the entire Christian doctrine. Paul was a
He is too important (gravior) a man to attack and punish Peter so freely in the face of the whole church at Antioch for the sake of a very trivial matter. So he attacks him for the sake of the main article of Christian doctrine. For when there were no Jews, Peter ate with the Gentiles, but when Jews came there, he separated himself [from the Gentiles] etc. This is why Paul chastises him, that by his hypocrisy he urges the Gentiles to live Jewishly (ju- daisare). The whole emphasis is on the word: "you force"; Jerome did not see that.
24 Thus Paul did not force anyone who wanted to be circumcised to remain uncircumcised, only that he should know that circumcision was not necessary for justification. Paul wanted to eliminate this compulsion. He allowed the Jews to keep the law with a free conscience, because he always taught both the Jews and the Gentiles that they had to be free in conscience from law and circumcision, just as all the patriarchs and saints in the Old Testament were free in conscience and were justified by faith, not by law or circumcision.
25 And Paul could have allowed Titus to be circumcised, but he did not want to do it because he saw that they wanted to force him to do it. For if those who insisted on circumcision had obtained it, they would have immediately concluded that it was necessary for justification, and would have gained the upper hand by such permission.
26. so we also leave everyone free to put on or take off a cap, to enter or leave a monastery, to eat meat dishes or vegetables, only that he does this freely and without offense of conscience, or at least to serve the brother, or as an example of love, and not of faith, and know that all this does not serve to do enough for the sins and to earn grace etc.
(27) But just as the false apostles did not leave the keeping of the law and circumcision free, but held them up as necessary for salvation, so today our adversaries claim most strongly that humanity is not a matter of the law and circumcision is not a matter of the law.
These laws could not be omitted without risking salvation, thus turning the example of love into an example of faith, since there is only one example of faith, namely, that one believes in Jesus Christ. And as this alone is necessary for salvation, so it also concerns all men.
But our adversaries would rather worship the devil ten times in God's stead than admit this. Therefore they become more and more hardened day by day and want to bring in their ungodly nature and their blasphemies against God again as before, and defend them by force, but do not give way to us a finger's breadth. Therefore, in the name of the Lord of hosts, we too want to continue fearlessly to glorify the glory of Christ and to fight against the kingdom of the Antichrist with word and prayer, so that only the name of God may be sanctified, His kingdom come, and His will be done. That this may happen in a short time, we ask with all our heart, amen, amen.
(29) This was a glorious triumph for Paul, that Titus the Gentile, who had been placed in the midst of all the apostles and believers, where this question was so vehemently disputed, was not forced to be circumcised. This triumph Paul carried away, and he says that it was established by this conversation, with the consent of all the apostles and with the approval of the whole church, that Titus should not be circumcised. This is a strong and firm and very weighty proof against the false apostles. And Paul knows how to drive his enemies into a corner and to press them hard with this proof: "Titus was also not forced" etc., as if he wanted to say: How the false apostles speak so lyingly against me, that I was forced to keep the circumcision, while it is the apostles who have just made this determination (mandantibus) [that Titus should not be forced to circumcision], since I have the testimony of all the believers in Jerusalem, yes, also of the apostles themselves, that at my instigation the opposite was decided. And there I did not only win the victory that Titus remained uncircumcised,
but have obtained the victory by the consent and approval of the apostles. So your false apostles are lying, that they are hypnotizing me under the name of the apostles and deceiving you with it, because I did not have the apostles and all believers against me, but on my side, and I prove this with this example of Titus.
(30) But Paul, as I have often said, did not condemn circumcision as something useless, nor did he force anyone to be circumcised, because in it there is neither sin nor righteousness, whether one is circumcised or uncircumcised, just as eating and drinking is neither sin nor righteousness. For whether thou eatest or eatest not, thou shalt not be better or worse for it, 1 Cor. 8:8. But if any man come and put sin or righteousness into it, saying, If thou eatest, thou sinest; if thou eatest not, thou art righteous; or again, he would be foolish and ungodly.
Therefore, it is ungodliness if one wants to deal with ceremonies in such a way that sin or righteousness is attached to them, as the pope does, who threatens in his banishment formula that all who do not obey the pope's laws would thereby put their souls in danger. Therefore, he makes all his laws necessary for salvation.
Therefore the devil speaks through the pope and his decrees. For if salvation is in keeping the laws of the pope, what need have we of Christ as a justifier and a beatifier? 1)
For when some false brethren had intruded, and crept in beside us, to make known our liberty which we have in Christ JEsu, that they might take us captive, we departed not one hour from being subject unto them, that the truth of the gospel might stand with you.
Here Paul shows the reason why he went to Jerusalem and discussed his gospel with the apostles.
1) Here Menius has inserted a longer section as § 32, which is not found in the Latin original. In order to maintain the same numbering of paragraphs as in Walch's old edition, we have separated the preceding section from § 31 and made a special paragraph out of it.
and did not want Titus to be circumcised, not so that he could be assured of the gospel through the apostles and be strengthened in it, for he had no doubt about that, but "so that the truth of the gospel might stand" among the Galatians and all the churches of the Gentiles. Therefore you see that this trade of Paul was not a joke or a small thing.
(34) When he says, "The truth of the gospel," he indicates that there is a twofold gospel, one true and one false. The gospel itself is only one, simple, true and pure, but it is counterfeited and perverted by the wickedness of Satan's servants. Therefore, since he says, "The truth of the gospel," he wants to be understood also that which is contrary [to the truth], as if to say: The false apostles also preach the faith and the gospel, but both are false; and therefore I have so vehemently opposed them, and by this my obstinacy, that I would not yield to them 1) I have brought this about, that the truth of the gospel endures with you.
(35) Thus, today, the pope and the spirits boast that they teach the gospel and faith in Christ. They do teach this, but with the same benefit as formerly the false apostles, of whom Paul says above, Cap. 1, 7, that they confuse the churches and pervert the gospel of Christ etc. On the other hand, he says that he teaches the truth of the gospel, that is, the pure and true gospel, as if to say: What the false apostles teach, though they speak certain truth, is nothing but lies. Those who hear them receive from them empty talk (vanitatem) and lies instead of the gospel. In this way, all heretics pretend to the name of God, Christ, the Church etc. They also promise that they do not want to teach lies and errors, but the absolute truth and the completely pure gospel.
(36) Now it is the truth of the gospel that our righteousness is by faith alone, without the works of the law. The untruth (falsitas) or the falsification
1) Wittenberger: ersäsrs instead of esäsrs.
of the gospel is that we are justified by faith, but not without the works of the law. With this condition attached, the false apostles preached the gospel.
(37) The school theologians (sophistae = scholastics) and our papists have done the same, namely, one must believe in Christ, and faith is the reason for salvation, but it does not justify if it has not gained a form through love (fides formata caritate). This is not the truth, but an appearance and fictitious pretense of the gospel. The true gospel, however, is that works or love are not the adornment or completion of faith, but that faith, in itself, is the gift of God and the work of God in the heart, which therefore justifies because it takes hold of the Savior Christ Himself. Human reason has to do with the law (objectum habet legem): I have done this, I have not done that. But faith, when it is in its actual office, has nothing else to do with than with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was given for the sins of the whole world. He does not focus on love, he does not say: What have I done? What have I sinned? What have I deserved? but: What did Christ do? What did he deserve? There speaks the truth of the gospel: He has redeemed you from sin, from the devil, from eternal death. Therefore faith recognizes that in this person, Jesus Christ, it has forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Whoever steps out of this circle (objecto = objects, with which faith has to do), does not have true faith, but an empty appearance and delusion and turns his eyes from the promise to the law, which arouses terror and drives to despair.
(38) Therefore, what the scholastic theologians have taught, that faith justifies when it has gained a form through love, is nothing but a ringing with strange words (mera verborum portenta). For the faith that takes hold of Christ, the Son of God, and is adorned by him, justifies; not the faith that includes love. For if faith is to be certain and firm, it must take hold of nothing but Christ alone,
and can lean on nothing else in the struggle and terror of the conscience but this pearl. Therefore, no matter how much the law terrifies him, no matter how much the burden of sins weighs him down, he who takes hold of Christ in faith can still boast that he is righteous. How or by what? Through the precious stone of Christ, which he possesses in faith.
(39) Our adversaries do not understand this, so they throw away the precious stone of Christ and put in its place love, which they say is the precious stone. But since they do not know what faith is, it is impossible for them to have faith, much less to teach it to others. But what they have is a dream, a delusion and natural reason, not faith.
40 I say this for this reason, so that you may understand that Paul says with special emphasis, "the truth of the gospel," in order to rebuke the opposite. For with these words he drags through the false apostles and accuses them of having taught a false gospel, for they insisted on circumcision and the keeping of the law as necessary for salvation. Then they persecuted Paul with great cunning and deceit. They were waiting to see if he would circumcise Titus and if he would dare to resist them in the presence of the apostles. Therefore he smites them with very fierce words. They wanted, he says, to make known our freedom, which we have in Christ, that they would take us captive. Therefore, the false apostles prepared themselves with all their might and had everything ready against Paul in order to denigrate and suppress him in every possible way in front of the whole church.
(41) And to this they would take advantage of the reputation of the apostles, accusing him in their presence, saying, "Paul, though uncircumcised, brings Titus into the assembly of all believers, denying and condemning the law in your presence, the apostles. If he now dares to oppose it here, what should he not presume to do among the Gentiles, where you are not present? When he saw that he was being attacked with these plots, he resisted the false apostles most strongly and said:
We did not want to let our freedom, which we have in Christ JEsu, be endangered, however much the false brethren pursued us and pressed us, but, since the apostles themselves were judges of it, we overcame them and did not want to give way to them even for one hour (for no doubt they will have said: Dear Paul, give in to this freedom at least for a little while), because we saw that they insisted on the law in such a way as if it were necessary for salvation. If they had only asked for an indulgence out of brotherly love, Paul would have given way to them, but they were looking for something else, namely, that they might imprison Paul and all who adhered to his teaching. That is why he did not want to give way to them even for a moment.
(42) Thus we also offer ourselves against the papists in all things that can be refrained from, and more than we ought to do, excepting only the liberty of conscience which we have in Christ Jesus. For we do not want to be forced or have our consciences bound to any work, as if, if we do this or that, we are righteous, but if we omit it, we are condemned. For we want to use the same food as they do, we want to keep their holidays and fasts, if they would only let us keep all this of our own free will, and let these threatening words, with which they have so far frightened and subjugated the whole world, stand: We command, we impose, we impose again, we put under ban etc. But this we cannot obtain, that they let us have this freedom, just as Paul could not obtain it at that time. Therefore we do just as he did. For since he could not obtain this liberty, he would not yield one hour to the false apostles.
43 Just as the adversaries do not want to leave us unharmed that faith alone in Christ alone makes us righteous, so we do not want to and cannot give way to them in this matter either, that faith, which has gained a form through love, justifies. Here we want to and must rebel against it and be persistent, otherwise we would lose the truth of the gospel, we would-
We would lose our freedom, which we do not have in the emperor, kings, princes, not in the pope, the world, flesh, blood, reason etc., but in Christ JEsu; we would lose faith in Christ, who, as I said above, grasps nothing else but the precious stone Christ.
(44) If the adversaries would leave us untouched (salvam) this faith, by which we are born again, justified and implanted in Christ, we offer to do everything, if only it does not conflict with this faith. But since we cannot obtain this from them, we in turn do not want to yield to them in the slightest. For this is a serious and great matter, namely the death of the Son of God, who became man according to the will and by the command of the Father, was crucified and died for the sins of the whole world. If faith gives way here, this death, resurrection etc. of the Son of God is in vain, it is then also a fable that Christ is the Savior of the world, indeed, God Himself is invented a liar, because He did not keep what He promised. Our persistence in this matter is therefore a godly and holy one. For by this alone we seek to preserve our freedom, which we have in Christ Jesus, and to keep the truth of the gospel. For if we lose this, we lose God, Christ, all promises, faith, righteousness and eternal life.
(45) But someone would say, "The law is divine and holy. It has its honor after all, but no law, be it as divine and holy as it can be, shall teach me that I am justified thereby and attain life. I admit that it teaches me that I should love God and my neighbor, likewise live in chastity, patience, etc., but it should not show me how I should be freed from sins, the devil, death and hell.
Here I am to consult and hear the gospel, which teaches, not what I should do, for that is the proper office of the law, but what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has done for me, namely, that he suffered and died for me to set me free from sin and death.
This is what the gospel commands me to accept and believe, and this is and is called the truth of the gospel.
(47) And this is the main article of the whole Christian doctrine, in which the knowledge of all godliness consists. Therefore, it is most important that it be well known and constantly emphasized. For, as it is exceedingly tender, so it is also very easily violated. Paul experienced this, and so do all the godly.
48 In short, Paul did not want to circumcise Titus for no other reason than, as he says, because some false brethren had intruded with him to make known the freedom etc. who wanted to force Paul to circumcise him. When Paul saw this compulsion and need, he would not yield to them even for an hour, but resisted them with all his might, and therefore says: "Even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he were a Gentile" etc. If they had demanded this of him according to the law of love or as a brotherly service, he would not have refused them, but because they wanted it and insisted that this should be done as an evil example to take the consciences captive and destroy the whole gospel, he resisted them most strongly and prevailed and obtained that Titus should not be circumcised.
(49) It seems to be a very small matter whether one is circumcised or not, but if it is because one puts his trust in the fact that he has been circumcised, or is afraid if circumcision has not been performed, then God is denied, as well as Christ, grace and all the promises of God. Otherwise, if circumcision were kept without this addition, there would be no danger.
50 So also, if the pope required his statutes to be nothing but ceremonies, it would not be burdensome for us to observe them. For what burden could it be if one had to wear a cap? or a plate? as we also use ceremonies. But if one hangs this great evil on the fact that in this trivial,
The fact that the name of a man is to stand for either life and salvation or death and eternal damnation is diabolical and blasphemous. Whoever does not raise his voice against this, let him be accursed. I can eat, drink, wear a cap and do everything that the pope has prescribed, if he only wanted to let all this be free. Now, however, since he wants to demand this as necessary for salvation, and bind consciences to it, and make these things a service pleasing to God, one must completely oppose it. There would be no harm in making a sculpture out of wood or stone, or a cast image pillar, but to make a service out of it, and to attach the deity to the wood or stone or the image pillar, that is, to worship an idol as God.
(51) Therefore, we must pay careful attention to what Paul is talking about here, so that we do not fall into inconsistencies with Jerome, who thought that the question and the trade was about the matter [of circumcision] itself. In this he was mistaken. For this is not the trade whether wood is wood, whether stone is stone, but of the addition, that is, how these things are to be used, whether this wood is God, or whether in this stone the Godhead dwells. Here we answer: Let wood be wood etc. Circumcision is nothing, foreskin is nothing, says Paul [1 Cor. 7:19], but if one bases his righteousness on it, pays reverence to it, places confidence in it that he will be saved by it, or fears that he will earn [eternal] death by these things, that is, attaches deity to external statutes (ceremoniis). Therefore one must not give way to the adversaries even in the smallest part, just as Paul did not give way to the false apostles, because neither circumcision nor foreskin, neither plate nor cap, belongs to righteousness, but only and pure grace. This is the truth of the Gospel.
V. 6 But of those who had the reputation of what they once were, I have no concern.
This speech is one in which something is left out (ecliptica), because it is missing: "I have received nothing". But it must be credited to the Holy Spirit who speaks in Paul.
He is very eager to speak, but he does not hold his tongue when he violates grammar. He speaks with great zeal. But the one who is in the heat cannot observe the grammatical rules and the rhetorical regulations very carefully when speaking.
But this is a very vehement and proud refutation. For he does not even give the right apostles their title of honor, but says with a kind of disparagement: "who had the prestige", that is, who had the authority (erant in auctoritate), on whose wave and shaking of the head (renutu) everything depended. But in fact, the apostles had a very great prestige among all the churches, and Paul does not take away any of their honor. But he answers the false apostles so contemptuously, who everywhere held against Paul the reputation and the greatness of the apostles and their disciples, in order to belittle the reputation of Paul and to make his whole ministry suspicious.
Paul could not suffer this in any way. In order that the truth of the gospel and the freedom of conscience in Christ might endure among the Galatians and all the churches of the Gentiles, he answered the false apostles very proudly that he did not care how great the apostles were or what kind of apostles they had been in the past; furthermore, it did not bother him much that the prestige of the apostolic name was held against him by them. The apostles are certainly something important, and their reputation must be highly honored, but for this reason it cannot be admitted that for the sake of any name or title, no matter how great, whether that of an apostle or an angel from heaven, his gospel or his ministry should be endangered.
155) And this reason was one of the strongest among those which the false apostles insisted on very strongly, namely in this way: The apostles lived with Christ for three years on quite intimate terms, heard and saw all his preaching and miracles, yes, they themselves also preached and did miracles while Christ still walked on earth. Paul, however, never saw him in the flesh.
1) The following until towards the end of § 56 is used by Aurifaber for the Table Talks, Cap. 1, § 61, and introduced with the words: "Doctor Luther said". In our edition of the Tischreden, this section is omitted.
132 Lru 6"1. 1, 142-144. Exec. Explanation of Galatians 2, 6. W. VIII, 1739-1742. 133
(in carne) and was converted only long after his glorification. What they [the Galatians] meant, which of the two should be believed? The one Paul, who was only a disciple and a later one at that, or the highest and greatest apostles, who were sent and confirmed by Christ himself long before Paul?
(56) To this Paul replies, "What else? This reason proves nothing. They may be great apostles after all, they may be angels from heaven, I do not care about that. We are not talking about the greatness of the apostles, but about the word of God and the truth of the Gospel. It is very important that this be preserved unharmed, and this must also have priority. Therefore, we are not interested in how great Peter and the other apostles were, how many and how great miracles they may have performed. We deal with this, that the truth of the gospel may stand with you. This responsibility seems to be quite weak, that he deliberately despises the reputation of the apostles, which is held against him by the false apostles, and does not oppose this their strongest reason of proof with any other counterproof than this: "There is nothing in it for me." But he adds a reason to this refutation:
For God does not respect the reputation of men.
57. he draws this saying from Moses, who used it more often [Deut. 1, 17. 16, 19. 2 Deut. 23, 6.]: "No person shall you look upon in judgment, neither the rich nor the poor" etc. and it is a guideline
(γνώμη = a generally valid saying) or a theological judgment: God does not look at the person, and with this saying he shuts up the false teachers, as if he wanted to say: You hold against me those who have the reputation etc. But God does not care about such things, he does not look at apostleship, not at bishopric, not at principality, he does not look at honor, at prestige etc. and therefore as a sign he let one of the most distinguished apostles, namely Judas, fall and be condemned, likewise also one of the highest kings, namely the first one, namely Saul. Ishmael and Esau, who were both
who had the firstborn, he rejected. Thus, you will find throughout Scripture that God very often rejected those people who were the best and holiest in reputation.
And sometimes it seems as if God was cruel in such examples. But it was and still is of the utmost necessity that these horrible examples should happen and be described. For this error is inherent in our nature, that we admire the persons and regard them more than the word. On the other hand, God wants us to pay attention to the word and to base ourselves firmly on it; He wants us to choose the kernel and not the shell, to care more about the father of the house than about the house. He does not want us to admire and revere the apostleship of Peter and Paul, but Christ, who speaks through them, and God's word itself, which they bring and preach to us.
The natural (animalis) man cannot distinguish this, only the spiritual man distinguishes the person from the word, the divine larva from God Himself. But all creatures are the larva of God. Moreover, God does not deal with us face to face in this life, but veiled and under a larva, that is, as Paul says [1 Cor. 13:12]: "We see Him now through a mirror in a dark word, but then face to face."
(60) Therefore, we cannot do without the larvae, but wisdom is needed to distinguish God from the larva, which the world does not have. When a miser hears that man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that passes through the mouth of God, he eats the bread, but does not see God in the bread, because he only looks at the larva. He does the same with gold and other creatures; he trusts only as long as he has them, but when they are lacking, he despairs. Therefore, he does not worship the Creator, but the creature, not God, but the belly.
(61) I say this so that no one will think that Paul absolutely rejects and despises persons and bodies. For he does not say that there must be no person, but that before God there is no respect for persons. For.
they must be persons and larvae, and God has given them, and they are His good creatures, but we are not to worship and adore them. In the custom of things, not in the things themselves, lies all power, as I also said above [§51]. The fault is not in the circumcision or in the foreskin (for circumcision is nothing, foreskin is nothing), but in the custom. But if one wants to worship and adore circumcision and make a righteousness out of it, and a sin out of the foreskin, this is a damned custom which must be done away with; when this is done away with, circumcision and foreskin are good things.
Thus, the authorities, emperor, king, prince, mayor, doctor, preacher, teacher, pupil, father, mother, children, master, servant etc. Persons or larvae whom God wants recognized as His creatures and held in all honor, which must also be in this life. But he does not want us to attach deity to them, that is, to fear and revere them, to trust in them and forget him.
63) And in order that God may the more easily draw us away from the admiration of persons, He causes sins to be committed against them, and causes them to fall, grievously and shamefully, 1) so that we may be reminded to distinguish between God and a person. So that David, the best king, would not be considered a perfon in whom one should put one's trust, God caused him to fall into heinous sins, as adultery, death etc. The apostle Peter denied Christ. 2) These and similar examples, of which Scripture is full, are to warn us that we should not be attached to the person, nor should we think that if we have the person, we have everything (as happens in Pabbism, where everything is judged according to outward appearance; therefore it is quite unacceptable to think that we have everything).
1) Here, too, Menius translates incorrectly: "That is why our Lord God allows it to happen that one sometimes runs hard against such larvae and sins grossly" etc. From this we see that Luther did not check this translation more closely, or at least did not have his improving hand on it.
2) The following, from here to the end of this paragraph, is included by Aurifaber in Cap. 1, ß 61 of the Table Talks. In our edition of the Table Talks, this piece is omitted.
and nothing at all but a reputation of the person) (προσωποληψία).
God has given all creatures for use and custom, not for worship and service. Use therefore the bread, wine, garments, goods, gold etc., but do not trust in them and do not boast in them. For God alone is to be boasted of and trusted in; he alone is to be loved, feared and honored.
But here Paul understands by "the reputation of men" the apostolate or ministry of the apostles, who certainly performed many miraculous signs, taught many and converted them to the faith, and kept in intimate contact with Christ; in short, "the reputation" (persona) means the whole outward conduct of the apostles, which was holy, and their authority (auctoritatem), which was great. But GOtte does not care about this, he says, not that he does not care about it at all, but that he does not care about it where justification is concerned, no matter how great and glorious these things may be.
For we must carefully keep in mind this difference, that we speak of things quite differently in theology than in the world regiment. In the world regiment, God wants these persons to be honored, as I have said, as His larvae and instruments through which He governs and sustains the well. But when you come to the area of religion, where it concerns conscience, fear, trust, worship, no one should fear any person, no one should trust in him, no one should expect comfort from him, no one should hope that through him he can become physically or spiritually free.
3Therefore, God does not want the person to be considered in the court. For the judgment is God's business. Therefore, I shall neither fear nor love the judge, but my fear and confidence shall be in God, who is the right judge. I should indeed honor the worldly judge as a larva of God, and give him all honor for God's sake, but my conscience should be set on the judge.
3) This and the following paragraph is used by Aurifaber for Cap. 1, ß 61 of the Tischreden. In our edition of the Table Talks, this paragraph has been omitted.
I will not trust and rely on his justice and righteousness, nor be frightened by his injustice and tyranny, that I should do anything against God, that is, that I should offend [God] with lies, with speaking false testimony, with denying the truth. Otherwise, I will gladly do honor to the judge.
(68) So I would honor the pope and do all honor to his person, if he left my conscience free and did not force me to sin against God. But he wants to be so feared and honored that one thereby offends the divine majesty. If one must lose one of the two, then let the person go and keep God. We would gladly bear the rule of the pope, but because he abuses it against us and wants to force us to deny and blaspheme God and to acknowledge him alone as Lord, and wants to bind and force our consciences against fear and trust in God, we are forced by God's command to oppose the pope, for it is written [Apost. 5:29]: "One must obey God more than men."
69 Therefore, we despise the reputation of the pope without offense of conscience, which is very comforting to us. Muenzer and other furious people also wanted the pope dead. But they wanted to do it with weapons, not with words, so they resisted him for the sake of the person, not for the sake of God. We would gladly grant the Behemoth and his scales all the prestige of the persons (personas) and dignities they have, if only they would let us have Christ. But since we cannot obtain this from them, we despise their being built on the distinction of persons (personatum) and confidently say with Paul: "God does not respect the reputation of men."
Therefore, the emphasis is on the word "God," for in matters of religion and the word of God, the person is not to be considered in any way. But if one asks about it outside of religion and where it does not concern God, then the answer is that
1) i.e. the pope and his entire appendix.
There must be respect for the person, and the person must look at the person, so that a disorderly being does not arise, and all respect and good order is not abolished. For in this area God wants order, respect and distinction of persons to be maintained. Otherwise, a son, a disciple, a subject, a servant would say: I am as much a Christian as my father, teacher, prince, lord etc. Why then should I give him honor? Therefore in the sight of God all distinction of person ceases, there is neither Greek nor Jew, but all are one in Christ [Gal. 3, 28], but in the sight of the race it is not the same etc.
Thus Paul refutes the argument of the false apostles, which is taken from the reputation of the apostles, by saying that it is not timely, does not prove anything here, and therefore does not belong to the matter, because here a much more important matter is dealt with than the reputation of the persons, namely, a divine matter, of God, of the word of God, namely, whether it should be preferred to the apostleship or vice versa. Paul answered: "So that the truth of the gospel may stand, so that the word of God and the righteousness of faith may be preserved unharmed and pure - away with the apostleship, away with an angel from heaven, away with Paul and Peter.
But those who had the reputation taught me nothing else.
72 As if to say: I did not confer with the apostles for this reason, or set myself to confer with them, that they should teach me. For what could they have taught me? Since Christ had taught me abundantly about everything by His revelation, and I had been preaching the gospel among the Gentiles for eighteen years, and Christ had performed so many miracles through me, by which He confirmed my preaching. Therefore it was only a friendly conversation (collatio), not the discussion of a doubtful question (disputatio), in which I learned nothing, neither recanted nor defended myself, but I simply told what had happened through me.
This is that I preached faith in Christ alone without the law to the Gentiles, and that during this preaching of faith the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles, who immediately spoke in different languages. When the apostles heard this, they testified that I had taught rightly. Therefore, the false apostles who pervert this do me wrong etc.
73 And this pride of Paul's, that he says the other apostles taught him nothing, is not reprehensible, but exceedingly necessary. For if he had given way here, the truth of the gospel would have perished. Much less should we give way to our adversaries, who against us extol the prestige of their idol, the pope, since Paul here did not want to give way to the false apostles, who against him extolled the prestige of the true apostles. I know that the godly should be humble, but against the pope I want and must be hopeful with holy pride, namely thus: "Pope, I do not want to be subject to you, nor do I want to have you as a teacher, because I am certain that my teaching is right and divine.
But the pope does not want to hear these, yes, he wants to force me to obey his laws and decrees, and if I do not obey, he puts me under ban and condemns me as a heretic and apostate from the church. Therefore, our pride against the pope is most necessary, and if we did not have this pride, and through the Holy Spirit despised him with fine doctrine, and the devil, the father of lies, who speaks in him, we could in no way keep the article of justification by faith. Therefore, we do not despise the prestige of the pope because we ourselves want to rule 1) nor do we deal with it by wanting to exalt ourselves above the highest rulers, since it is in the day that we teach that every man should be humble, submissive, subject to authority, but that we seek that the glory of God may remain and the righteousness of faith may be preserved unharmed, so that we may also remain well (salvi).
1) ipsi is not dative, as Menius took it, but nominative x>1uruli8.
(75) If the Pope were to admit to us that God alone justifies sinners by mere grace through Christ, we would not only want to carry him on our hands, but also to kiss his feet. But because we cannot attain this, we are again proud beyond measure in God, and will not yield one finger to all the angels in heaven, nor to Peter or Paul, nor to a hundred emperors, nor to a thousand popes, nor to the whole world. Far be all humility here, because they want to rob us of our honor, God Himself, who created us and gave us everything, Christ Himself, who redeemed us through His blood.
This shall be the sum of this matter: 2) We are to let ourselves be robbed of our goods, our good name, our life and all that we have; that the gospel, the faith, Christ etc. should be taken from us, we are not to tolerate that, and cursed be the humility which can be found here yielding. Here every man should be proud and quite stubborn, if he will not deny Christ.
Therefore, if God wills, my head shall be harder than the head of all men. Here I want to be hard and also be considered hard; here I lead the motto: I yield to no one, and rejoice with all my heart that I am called rebellious and stubborn in this matter. Here I publicly confess that I am tough and want to be tough, and will not yield a hair's breadth.
78) Love, which endures everything, believes everything, hopes everything [1 Cor. 13:7], on the other hand faith does not yield, yes, it can tolerate nothing at all, as this common saying says: discipline and honor, faith and eye suffer no joking. 3) Therefore a Christian should be exceedingly proud and stubborn in everything concerning faith, suffer nothing at all, yield to no one even a hair's breadth, for through faith man becomes God, 2 Petr. 1, 4. But God suffers nothing, yields to no one, for He is unchangeable. So also faith is unchangeable, therefore it should not suffer anything.
2) Menius has drawn these words to the preceding, but they belong to the following.
3) Thus Luther cites this proverb (Xon patitur luciuin kaum, ÜU68, ooulu8) with the addition: "one soon corrupted all three", in the interpretation of the 17th Psalm, v. 8, Walch, old edition, vol. IV, 2017.
suffer, give way to no one. But after love the Christian should yield and suffer everything, because there he is only a pure man.
V. 7. 8. But again, when they saw that I was trusted with the gospel to the foreskin, as Petro was with the gospel to the circumcision (for he that was strong with Petro to the apostleship among the circumcision, the same was strong with me among the Gentiles).
This is a very strong responsibility against the false apostles. Here Paul claims and attaches to himself the same prestige that the false apostles boasted of the true apostles, and uses their own oratory against them. The false apostles, he says, invoke the prestige of the great apostles for their cause against me, but I invoke the same for my cause against them. For the apostles are on my side. Therefore, dear Galatians, do not believe those who boast about the prestige of the apostles against me, for when they saw that the gospel was entrusted to my foreskin and recognized the grace that was given to me, they gave me and Barnaba their right hands and became one with us, acknowledging my ministry and thanking God for the grace that was given to me.
Thus he masterfully turns the evidence of the adversaries against themselves. And in these words he is all fire and flames and his emotion is stronger than he could have expressed in words. That is why Paul did not pay attention to the grammar and broke the construction.
(81) But when he says, "Who were regarded as pillars," this was not an empty expression (fucus), but they were indeed regarded as pillars. For the apostles were held in high esteem and honor throughout the church, and they had the authority to approve and proclaim the right doctrine and to reject the wrong doctrine.
This is a strange text, that Paul says that the gospel to the foreskin is familiar to him, to Peter to the circumcision, since Paul preached almost everywhere to the Jews in their schools, and Peter also to the Gentiles. For both we have testimonies and examples
in the Acts of the Apostles. Peter converted the centurion [Cornelius] with his whole household, who was a Gentile [Acts 10], after which he wrote to the Gentiles, as his first letter testifies. Paul, who preaches Christ among the Gentiles, nevertheless also goes to the schools of the Jews and teaches the gospel there [Apost. 9, 20. ff.]. And in Marcus [Cap. 16, 15.] and Matthew [Cap. 28, 19.] Christ commands all the apostles, saying, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." And Paul says, Col. 1, 23, that the gospel is preached to every creature under heaven. Why then does he only call himself the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter and the others the apostles of the circumcision?
This question is not difficult to answer. Paul has in mind that the other apostles remained mainly in Judea and Jerusalem until, when God called them, they went elsewhere. For a while, the situation was such that as long as the Jewish empire lasted, they were in the Jewish land, but when the destruction was imminent, they scattered all over the world. Paul, however, as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, Cap. 13, 2. s9, 15.], was chosen by a special calling to be an apostle to the Gentiles, and since he was sent from the Jewish country, he wandered through the countries of the Gentiles. Moreover, the Jews at that time were scattered almost all over the world and lived everywhere in the cities and towns of the Gentiles. Therefore, when Paul went there, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, he used to go to the schools of the Jews, and on that occasion he first brought them, as the children of the kingdom, this joyful message that the promises which the fathers had received were now fulfilled in Christ etc. Since they did not want to hear this, he went to the Gentiles, as Lucas testifies Apost. 13, 46, where he introduces Paul speaking against the Jews who were zealous for the law and contradicted what he said, and reports that he confidently said: "The word of God had to be spoken to you first, but now you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles." And Apost. 28, 28: "So be it unto you
that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it.
For this reason he was sent mainly to the Gentiles. Because he was everyone's debtor (Rom. 1, 14) and became everyone of all kinds (1 Cor. 9, 22), he went, when he had the opportunity, to the schools of the Jews, where not only Jews but also Gentiles heard him preach the gospel of Christ. Otherwise, he preached publicly to the Gentiles in the marketplace, in houses, and by rivers. He was therefore mainly the apostle to the Gentiles, as Peter was the apostle to the Jews, but in such a way that the latter also preached Christ to the Gentiles when the opportunity presented itself etc.
He calls the Gentiles the foreskin, the Jews the circumcision according to the synecdoche, a figure of speech, which is used very often in the holy scriptures, namely, that one part stands for the whole. So the gospel to the foreskin is the one that should be brought to the Gentiles. Of this he says that it was entrusted to him, just as Peter was entrusted with the gospel to the circumcision, for as Peter spread the gospel of Christ among the Jews, so he spread it among the Gentiles.
Here it must be noted in passing that the Hebrews use the construction of the genitive in different ways, sometimes active (activa, i.e. genitivus subjectivus), sometimes suffering (passive, i.e. genitivus objectivus), whereby the meaning often becomes obscure. There are frequent examples of this everywhere in Paul and in all of Scripture, as, this speech: "the glory of God" is somewhat obscure, because it can be interpreted in an active and in a suffering way. The glory of God in an active way is the glory that God Himself praises in Himself; but in a suffering way the glory that we praise in God. Likewise also: the faith of Christ etc. We usually interpret such sayings in a suffering way, so that "the faith of Christ" is the faith through which we believe in Christ. Thus, "the gospel of God" in an active way means the gospel that God alone gives and sends into the world; "the gospel of the foreskin and the circumcision" in an active way means the gospel that was sent to the Gentiles and the Jews and received by them.
(87) Paul continues to emphasize that James, Peter and John, who were considered pillars, did not teach him anything, and that they did not command him the ministry of the gospel as fine superiors and superiors (ordinatores = who ordain someone to the ministry of preaching), because they had no authority to teach him, to command him or to send him. Therefore he does not acknowledge them as fine teachers and as his superiors who ordained him, but he says, "When they saw that the gospel was entrusted to me," that is, that it was rightly commanded to me; not by Peter. For as I did not receive or learn the gospel from a man, neither did I receive from a man the command to preach it, but both the knowledge of the gospel and the command to preach it among the Gentiles I received directly from Christ, in all things just as Peter was given the gospel by God and commanded to preach it among the Jews.
This passage clearly testifies that all the apostles had the same calling and command and the same gospel. Peter did not preach a different gospel than the others, nor did he command the ministry of the other apostles, but there was complete equality among them. For all were taught and called by God, that is, both the calling and the command of all the apostles were badly direct from God. So no apostle is greater than the other, and no person has any privilege. Therefore, it is an impudent lie that the pope boasts that Peter was the most distinguished among the apostles, and thus he wants to confirm his primacy etc.
V. 8. for he who with Petro was strong for the apostleship etc.
This is the refutation of another reason of the false apostles. What do the false apostles boast, he says, that Peter's gospel was powerful, that many were converted through him, that he performed many and great miracles, that he raised the dead, that his shadow healed the sick? I admit all this. But Peter has
received this power from heaven, God gave power to his voice so that many believed that many miracles were done through him. I have also had the same power, which I did not receive from Peter, but the same God and Spirit that was powerful in Peter has also been powerful in me. I have had the same grace, taught many, and done many miracles, even healing the sick with my shadow. And this is testified by Lucas in the Acts of the Apostles Cap. 19, 11. 12.: "And God worked no small deeds by the hands of Paul, so that they also from his skin held the sweatcloths and the boils over the sick, and the plagues departed from them, and the evil spirits were carried out from them." You can read more about this in the 13th, 16th, 20th and 28th chapters of Acts.
In short, Paul does not want to be considered inferior to the other apostles in any way and has a godly and holy pride in this. Therefore Julianus and Porphyrius slander Paul without cause, saying that he is insolent against the head of the apostles. Paul was here ambitious and proud against Peter out of necessity, and indeed because of a necessity of God, because the zeal for God's honor forced him to show himself so proud. These slanderers did not see this, and therefore thought that this pride of his was a carnal one, as it is found today in the pope and his bishops. But this was not something that concerned Paul, but the faith.
In matters of faith, however, we must not allow ourselves to be overcome, we must be unbending, quite stubborn, and, if we could, harder than a demon; but where love is concerned, we must be softer and more yielding than any reed or leaf, and willing to do anything. So here the dispute was not about the honor of Paul, but about the honor of God, about the word of God, about true worship, about religion and the righteousness of faith, so that all this would remain unharmed.
V. 9. And knowing the grace that was given to me, Jacob and Cephas and John, who were esteemed pillars, gave it to me
the right hand and became one with us, so that we preached among the Gentiles, but they among the circumcision. 1)
That is, when they heard that I had received from God the calling and command to preach the gospel among the Gentiles, that God had done so many miracles through me, and that through my ministry so many Gentiles had come to the knowledge of Christ, that the Gentiles, without the law and circumcision, had received the Holy Spirit through the preaching of faith alone, they praised God for the grace that was given to me. Grace he calls all that he had received from God, that he had become an apostle from a persecutor and destroyer of the church, taught by Christ, richly gifted with spiritual gifts etc.
And by this account Paul indicates that Peter had given him the testimony that he was a true apostle, not taught and sent by him or by other apostles, but by God alone. And so he did not humbly acknowledge the authority and prestige (auctoritatem) of Paul and the gifts of the Spirit in him as divine things, but approved and confirmed me, not as a superior and author, but as a brother and a friend. The same thing did Jacobus and John. Therefore, those who are the pillars among the apostles stand on my side, not against me.
They gave me sand Barnabas the right hand and became one with us (Dextras societatis).
That is, [they gave me the right hand as a sign of] fellowship or ministerial fellowship; that is, they said, "We preach the gospel with you, dear Paul, in the same sense. So we are comrades in doctrine and have fellowship in the same, that is, we have the same doctrine, because we preach the same gospel, the same baptism, the same Christ, the same faith as you. Therefore, we cannot teach you anything, nor command you anything, since we are one with you in all things. For we do not teach anything
1) Because in the Latin of the Vulgate the predicate is missing here, so in the original here is added in brackets: sailiaet pnneaiaunsM evau^Miuru.
Other or better or higher 1) than you, but see in you the same gift that we have, only that you are commanded the gospel to the foreskin, but we to circumcision. But we here resolve that the foreskin and the circumcision shall not hinder our fellowship, since it is the same gospel that we both preach.
95. This passage reminds us that it is the same gospel everywhere, for Gentiles, Jews, monks, laymen, young men, old men, men, women etc. It does not look at persons, but is a common word and teaching for all men; whoever hears and believes this [teaching] will be saved, and it does not prevent him from being uncircumcised or circumcised.
Up to this point, Paul has proved that he taught the gospel rightly and godly, not only with divine testimony, but also with human testimony, namely, that of the apostles. Therefore, he shows that everything the false apostles said to diminish his reputation was fabricated, and that the testimony of the apostles was on his side, not on the side of the false apostles. But because he alone tells this, he swears and calls God as a witness that what he said is true.
V. 10. Only that we may remember the poor, which I have been diligent to do.
97 A good shepherd, after preaching the gospel, must also see to it that the poor are not left unprovided for. For where the church is, there must necessarily be the poor, who alone are usually the true disciples of the gospel, as Christ says: "To the poor the gospel is preached. For the devil and the world persecute the church and plunge many into poverty, who are subsequently abandoned and neglected.
Then the world not only sins in this, but also does not care to preserve the gospel, true godliness and right worship. No one wants to contribute or help etc. that the servants of the church are fed and schools are established. For superstition and for sincerity, no one wants to contribute.
1) ant kuMimiora is missing in the Erlanger.
Everyone has gladly given with both hands to the support and preservation of false religious services. So many monasteries, so many cathedrals, so many bishoprics have been founded in the papacy, where nothing but godlessness reigns, and so much income has been decreed to maintain them.
Now it is burdensome for a city to feed one or two ministers of the Gospel, while in former times, when the godless being ruled, it fed without difficulty several monasteries, and missal monks without number, not to mention mendicant monks, stationers 2) etc. In short, true religion always suffers lack, and Christ complains that he is hungry, thirsty, a guest, naked, sick etc., whereas the godless being is in full bloom and has abundance of all goods. Therefore, a right bishop must also care for the poor, which Paul did, as he confesses here.
V. 11. But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him under my eyes, because a complaint had come against him.
Paul continues his refutation and says that he not only has the testimony of Peter and the other apostles in Jerusalem for himself, but that he also resisted Peter in the presence of the church in Antioch. Here he tells an event that did not happen in the corner, but in the presence of the church.
This wonderful story has given many people cause for blasphemy, such as Porphyrius, Celsus, Julianus and others, who accuse Paul of arrogance, because he has attacked the highest of the apostles in the face of the church, thereby exceeding the limits of Christian modesty and humility. But it is not surprising that those think and speak such things who do not recognize the purpose of Paul's statement.
Paul does not deal here, as I also reminded above, with a quite insignificant thing (de lana caprina), nor even with that,,
2) Stationers are itinerant monks who sell indulgences and relics. Cf. Tischreden, Cap. 27, U 72 and 143, Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XXII, 880 and 923.
The main thing is not how to earn one's living, but the main article of Christian doctrine. Whoever recognizes how great the benefit and the majesty of this is, puts everything else aside and regards it as nothing. For what is Peter? what is Paul? what is an angel from heaven? what is all creation compared to the article of justification? For if we know him, we walk in the brightest light; if we do not understand him, we are in the deepest darkness etc. Therefore, if you see that one wants to make him waver or endanger him, do not be afraid to resist Peter, yes, even an angel from heaven, because he cannot be lifted high enough.
Porphyrius and others, on the other hand, look at the high dignity of Peter, admire his person, and forget the sublimity of this article. Paul does the opposite; he does not attack Peter's person vehemently, but treats him with great reverence. But because he sees that for the sake of Peter's dignity the majesty of the article of justification is endangered, he does not take his dignity into consideration in order to preserve and defend only this article. So do we, for it is written [Matth. 11, 37. ff.]: "Whoever loves father or mother, yes, even his life etc. more than me, is not worthy of me."
104 Therefore, when it comes to defending the truth of the gospel, we are not ashamed that the hypocrites accuse us of being proud and stiff-necked, wanting only to be wise, to hear no one, to yield to no one. Here it is extremely necessary that we be unbending and stubborn, because the cause for which we fall short against a person, that is, for which we trample on the great reputation (majestatem) of a person or of the world, is such a great one that the offenses which the world considers the greatest become and are the highest virtues before God.
We do well to honor our parents, to show honor to the authorities, to show reverence to Peter and other ministers of the Word. But now we do not have to deal with things that would harm Peter, the parents, the emperor, the world or any creature.
but with the cause of God. Then I do right that I do not give way to the parents, the emperor or also an angel from heaven etc. Cause: Hold God and the creatures against each other. What are all creatures as a whole against God? A droplet against the sea. Why then should I so admire Peter, who is a little drop, that I forsake God, who is the sea? Therefore, let the drop give way to the sea, let Peter give way to God.
I say this so that one may pay careful attention to the matter with which Paul has to deal. But he is dealing with the word of God, which no one can elevate high enough. Augustine judges this matter of Paul better than Jerome, who only looks at the dignity and reputation of Peter and therefore concludes thus: Peter was the highest apostle, therefore he could not be rebuked by Paul, or if he rebuked him, he did it only in pretense.
Thus, he ascribes a hypocritical behavior to Paul, that he had pretended for Peter's sake that he was blameworthy, so that he could carry out his apostleship more effectively and protect his Gentiles. On the other hand, he excuses Peter in all respects and credits him with remaining truthful. This is a very clumsy reversal of the text, which clearly expresses that Peter was criminal and had strayed from the truth, as well as that other Jews had been hypocritical with him, so that Barnabas had also been seduced by them into the same hypocrisy. Jerome does not see these clear words, but sticks to this one: Peter was an apostle, therefore blameless, and could not sin. Augustine rightly opposes this statement. He says: "It must not be tolerated that a hypocritical behavior is imposed on Paul, because he swears with an oath that he is telling the truth.
For this reason, Jerome and Erasmus do injustice to Paul, who explain the word "under eyes" as "as it could be seen," that is, not from the heart, but only in appearance. Paul did not say this out of conviction, but in hypocritical complacency (simulatione officiosa).
Peter resisted, so as not to give the Gentiles an upset [which would have happened] if he had kept completely silent.
But "under eyes" means: in his presence. For eye to eye (in os) he resisted Peter, not in the corner, but when Peter was present and the whole church was there. And this word "in sight" he puts quite emphatically against the poisonous vipers, Satan's apostles, who disparage people behind their backs, in whose presence they do not even dare to open their mouths, as the false apostles did, whom he also heckles here in a hidden way, since they did not dare to speak disparagingly of him in his presence, but did so behind his back. In this way, he says, I did not belittle Peter, but resisted him freely and openly, not out of hypocrisy, ambition, not out of any carnal irritation or bitterness (morbo animi), but because complaint had come upon him etc.
Here let others debate whether an apostle can sin. We should not try to make Peter's sin smaller than it is. For even the prophets sometimes err and deceive themselves. Nathan said out of his own spirit to David that he should build the house of the Lord [2 Sam. 7:3]. This saying of the prophet was soon corrected by a divine revelation, namely that not David, who was a man of war and had shed much blood, should build a house for the Lord, but his son Solomon [1 Chron. 23, 8. ff].
The apostles also erred in this way. They dreamed that the kingdom of Christ would be a fleshly one, Apost. 1:6: "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" and Peter would not have gone to Cornelius, even though he had heard from Christ: "Go into all the world" etc., if he had not been admonished to do so by the vision etc. But here in this matter he not only erred, but fell into a serious case and committed a great sin. And if Paul had not resisted him, all who had believed from among the Gentiles would have been forced to receive circumcision and keep the law, and the believing Jews would have been affected in their opinion.
The people had been convinced that the observance of these things was necessary for salvation, and in this way they had again accepted the law instead of the gospel, Moses instead of Christ. And Peter would have given rise to this exceedingly great sin and unspeakable harm by his hypocrisy. Therefore, we must not attribute such great perfection to the saints as if they could not sin.
In the Acts of the Apostles, Cap. 15, 39, Lucas reports that between Paul and Barnabas, who were both set apart for the ministry of the gospel among the Gentiles and had already traveled through many countries and preached the gospel to them, such a violent disagreement arose that they departed from each other. Here either Paul or Barnabas went too far, and it must have been an exceedingly violent discord, because it separated these most closely united comrades from one another, as the text in the Acts of the Apostles testifies. Such examples are written for our comfort, because it is very comforting to us to hear that even the saints who had the Spirit of God sinned. This consolation is snatched from us by those who say that the saints cannot sin.
Samson, David and other famous people who were full of the Holy Spirit fell into great sins. Job and Jeremiah curse the day of their birth; Elijah and Jonah ask God to let them die because they are tired of life. Such errors and sins of the saints the holy scripture holds up for the comfort of the afflicted and despairing, but for the horror of the arrogant. For no one has ever fallen so hard that he could not get up again. On the other hand, no one has gained such a firm foothold that he could not fall. If Peter fell, so can I fall; if he got up again, so can I get up again.
114 And such examples should be highly esteemed by pusillanimous and frightened consciences, that they may the better understand what they pray when they say, "Forgive us our trespasses," and, "I believe the forgiveness of sins." The same faith and the same prayer the apostles and all the saints have with
We have the same goods as they have, the same Christ, the same death, the same word, the same forgiveness of sins. They also had need of all these things and were sanctified and saved in the same way as we are.
(115) This I say against the mad boasts and intemperate exaltations with which the foolish school theologians (sophistae) and the monks have singled out the saints. Likewise, they have said that the Church is so holy that it is entirely without sin. It is true that the church is holy, as our faith confesses: "I believe a holy church" etc., and yet it has sin. Therefore she believes forgiveness of sins and prays, "Forgive us our trespasses." It is not for this reason that she is called holy, that she is holy by her nature (formaliter), as a wall is called white, from the whiteness clinging to it. This clinging holiness is not sufficient, but Christ is its perfect and entire holiness; where clinging holiness is not sufficient, Christ is [1 Cor. 1:30].
V.12. For before some of Jacob's people came, he ate with the Gentiles.
The Gentiles who were converted to the faith ate food that was forbidden by the Law. Peter ate the same food with the converted Gentiles as long as he was alone with them, and drank forbidden wine, knowing that he was doing right. Therefore he confidently transgressed the law with the Gentiles. Paul also confesses that he did this when he says, 1 Cor. 9:20, 21, that he became a Jew to the Jews, and without law to those who were without law etc., that is, he ate and drank with the Gentiles in a Gentile way and kept no law at all. With the Jews, according to the law, he abstained from all that was forbidden in the law, for he strove to serve and please all, to win all. Therefore Peter did not sin in this, but did well, knowing that he was free to do so. And by this transgression of the law, he also showed that the law was not necessary for righteousness, and freed the Gentiles from observing the law. For it stood to the
If Peter was free to transgress the law in one piece, he was free to transgress it in all pieces. Paul did not punish Peter for this transgression of the law, but for hypocrisy, as follows:
But when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, because he feared those of the circumcision.
117 There you see Peter's sin, which Paul clearly describes. He complains about him, not because of malice or ignorance, but because of his hypocrisy and weakness, namely, that he abstained from common food, which was forbidden in the Law, fearing that the Jews, who had come from James, would take offense at it. And so he showed more consideration for his Jews than for the Gentiles, and thereby gave cause for Christian freedom and the truth of the gospel to be endangered. For by withdrawing and separating himself completely, abstaining from the food forbidden by the law, which he had eaten before, he put a sting (scrupulum) in the conscience of the believers, so that they concluded from this behavior of his: Peter abstains from the foods forbidden in the law, so everyone who eats what is forbidden in the law sins and transgresses the law; but he who abstains fulfills the law and is righteous; otherwise he would not abstain. But because he abstains and deliberately avoids the food he ate before, this is a sure sign that those who eat sin against the law, but that those who abstain from the food forbidden by the law fulfill the law and attain righteousness.
This is the article that is dealt with here. Jerome did not recognize this; he only looked at what happened, not what the consequences of what happened would be (finem facti). What Peter did was not evil in itself, because eating and drinking, or not eating and drinking, is nothing. But that which is attached to it: If you eat, you sin; if you abstain, you are righteous; this is evil. Likewise, circumcision in itself is something good, but that is evil if
is hung on it: Unless you are circumcised according to the law of Moses, you cannot be saved. Likewise, it is not evil to eat such food as is forbidden in the Law, but it was evil for Peter to abstain and separate himself, because this conclusion is drawn from it: Peter abstains from the foods that are forbidden in the law, so unless you also abstain from them, you cannot be saved. Paul could not ignore this and remain silent because the truth of the gospel would be endangered; so that it would remain unharmed, he resisted Peter in plain sight.
(119) A distinction must be made here, because one can abstain from food in two ways. First, to serve the brother with love alone in mind. There is no danger, but it is good to serve the weak brother in this way. This is what Paul himself did and taught, 1 Cor. 9, 19. ff.
120 Secondly, that he who abstains from food becomes righteous and blessed, and he who does not abstain from it sins and is condemned. Here love is to be condemned, and all its ministrations and compliances. For to abstain from food in this way is to deny Christ, to trample His blood underfoot, to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, yes, God and all that is God. Therefore, if one of the two must be lost, rather let a friend go and lose the brother, who is a man, rather than the Father, who is God. For if the father, who is God, is lost, the brother, who is a man, will not remain long.
Since Jerome did not recognize this, he could not understand this passage or the entire Brie. He thinks that Paul punished Peter only for appearances. Therefore, he belittles Peter's sin and excuses it, saying that it was done out of ignorance. But he sinned out of hypocrisy, and by doing so he would have again established the law as necessary, and would have forced Gentiles and Jews to depart from the truth of the gospel, and would have given them a very good reason to leave Christ, to deny grace, and to become a Christian.
Judaism and to bear all the burdens of the law, if Paul had not punished him and thereby brought Jews and Gentiles back to freedom in Christ and the truth of the gospel, who had been angered by Peter's example.
Therefore, if someone were to judge Peter's sin harshly and make it great, it would indeed be a very great sin, but only one that, prompted by circumstances, happened occasionally and out of fear, and was not committed out of malice or ignorance. It is so easy for the fall or error of a single person to bring tremendous harm if it is not resisted. Therefore, the article of justification is not to be trifled with, and it is not in vain that we inculcate and press it so diligently.
And it is very surprising that Peter, such a great apostle, did this, since he had previously obtained at the Council of Jerusalem almost solely through his statement that believers attain righteousness through faith alone, without the law. The very same one who had been the author of the truth and freedom of the gospel comes to ruin by this strange occasion and accident, that he abstains from the foods that were forbidden in the law, and becomes the author of such a great offense and sins against his own saying.
Therefore, let him who stands take care that he does not fall Cor. 10:12J. No one believes how dangerous statutes and ceremonies are, which we cannot do without. What is more necessary in the whole world than the law and its works etc.? And yet there is always the danger that one might thereby come to deny Christ. For often a trust in works grows out of the law. But where this is, there can be no confidence in Christ.
(125) So it is easy to come to denying and losing Christ, as we see in Peter (who knew the article of justification better than we do), how easily 1) by his deeds and example he very soon lost faith in Christ.
1) We have adopted the Wittenberg reading: kacnls instead of kacili in the Jena and Erlangen, although Menius also followed the latter reading.
to such great harm that all the Gentiles would have fallen away from the preaching of Paul, would have lost the gospel and Christ, etc. under a pretense of holiness. For they could have said: Paul, thou hast hitherto taught that we are justified by grace alone without the law. But now you see that Peter does the opposite. For he abstains from the forbidden foods of the law, and by this he shows by his own example that we cannot be saved if we do not accept circumcision and keep the law etc.
V.13. And the other Jews hypocritized with him, so that Barnabas also was deceived into hypocrisy with them.
Here you see clearly that Paul blames Peter for hypocrisy. Jerome, on the other hand, puts it on Paul. If Peter was hypocritical, he certainly knew what was the truth and what was not the truth. For he that hypocrites does not sin through ignorance, but knowingly deceives men by pretending something other than what is the truth. And others, he says, fell in with Peter's hypocrisy, so that Barnabas also, who had been Paul's companion and had been preaching with him among the Gentiles for a long time the faith in Christ without the law, was deceived into the same hypocrisy. Here, then, you have a clear description of Peter's sin, namely, that it was hypocrisy that would have given rise to the disturbance of the gospel accepted [by the Gentiles] if Paul had not stood against Peter.
It is an admirable thing that God preserved the young church and even the gospel at that time through one person. Paul alone stands, for he has lost his comrade Barnabas; Peter he has against him. So sometimes one person in a concilium can do more than the whole concilium. The papists themselves write this and cite Paphnutius as an example, who resisted the entire Council of Nicaea, which was the best after the Apostles' Council in Jerusalem, and retained the upper hand.
1I say this so that we may learn the article of justification with the utmost diligence, and distinguish the gospel from the law in the purest way, and in this matter do nothing at all hypocritical, yielding to no one even a hair's breadth, if we wish otherwise to keep the truth of the gospel and the faith pure and unharmed, which, as I have said, are very easily violated. Therefore, let reason, the enemy of faith, remain far away, which in the temptations of sin and death does not rely on the righteousness of faith, because it does not know it at all, but on its own righteousness or at most on the righteousness of the law. But as soon as the law and reason are combined with each other, the virginity of faith is immediately gone. Nothing is stronger and more hostile to faith than the law and reason, and these two cannot be overcome without great effort and exertion, and yet must be overcome if one wants to be blessed otherwise.
Therefore, if your conscience is troubled by the law and wrestles with the judgment of God, consult neither reason nor the law, but rely solely on grace and the word of comfort. Do not think otherwise than if you had never heard of the law of God, but go into the darkness [Exodus 20:21], where neither the law nor reason shines, but only the dark word of faith, which [faith] surely trusts to be saved apart from and above the law, in Christ.
Thus the gospel leads us beyond the light of law and reason into the darkness of faith, where law and reason have nothing to do. The law must also be heard, but in its place and time. Since Moses is on the mountain, where he is face to face with
1) This paragraph is introduced by Aurifaber in the Table Talks with the words: "I truly say, said D. Martin, not without great cause" etc. It forms the first half of § 73 of the 12th chapter of the old Table Talks. In our edition of the Table Talks, this section is omitted.
God speaks, he does not have the law, he does not give and administer it; but after he came down from the mountain, he is a lawgiver and governs the people with the law. So the conscience should be free from the law, but the body should obey the law.
From this it is quite clear that Paul did not punish Peter for a very minor matter, but for the main article of Christian doctrine, which Peter almost disturbed (parabat ruinam) by his hypocrisy. For Barnabas and the other Jews were hypocritical with him, all of whom sinned, not out of ignorance or malice, but out of fear of the Jews, which had darkened their hearts so that they did not realize that they were sinning. It is truly a marvelous thing that such great men, Peter, Barnabas, and others, should so quickly and easily fall into the very work they knew and had previously taught to be right.
That is why D. Staupitz rightly warned that it is very dangerous to rely on our powers, no matter how holy and learned we may be, no matter how well we may have recognized and grasped something. For precisely in what we know best, we can still fall and err, not only to our own detriment, but also to the detriment of others. Therefore, let us devote ourselves to the study of the Scriptures with the greatest diligence and the deepest humility, and let us pray earnestly, lest we lose the truth of the Gospel.
So we are nothing with all our gifts, however great they may be, if God is not with us. If He withdraws His hand from us, our wisdom, our knowledge etc. is nothing. If he does not constantly sustain us, then the highest knowledge is of no use to us, yes, even if we attained the highest degree of perfection in theology. For in the hour of trial it can soon happen that all comforting words are torn from our eyes by the wiles of the devil, and only the threatening words come to our mind and crush us. Therefore, we should learn that when God withdraws His hand from us, we may fall and be overthrown exceedingly easily. Therefore, let no one be proud
And boast not of his righteousness, wisdom, and gifts, but humble himself, praying with the apostles [Luc. 17:5.], "Lord, strengthen us in the faith."
V.14. But when I saw that they did not walk rightly according to the truth of the gospel.
Here, the greatest men and pillars of the church are held up to us as a strange example. Paul alone has open eyes here and sees the sin of Peter, Barnabas and the other Jews who were hypocrites together with Peter. On the other hand, they themselves do not see their sin, yes, they believe that they do right and serve the weak Jews through love. Therefore, it was of utmost necessity that Paul could not overlook their sin, but had to punish it. Therefore, he publicly accused Peter, Barnabas and others that they did not walk correctly according to the truth of the gospel, that is, that they had deviated from the truth of the gospel.
Now it is a great thing that Peter is accused by Paul as one who has fallen and departed from the truth of the gospel. He could not have been punished more severely. And yet he bears this patiently, and no doubt also accepted it with great gratitude.
I have noted above (34 ff.) that many have the gospel, but not the truth of the gospel. Thus Paul says here that Peter, Barnabas and the other Jews do not walk correctly according to the truth of the gospel, that is, they have the gospel, but they do not walk correctly according to it. For as much as they preached the gospel, yet by their hypocrisy, which could not stand with the truth of the gospel, they set up the law; but he that setteth up the law abolisheth the gospel, and bringeth it to nought.
Therefore, whoever knows how to distinguish the gospel from the law, thank God and know that he is a theologian. Admittedly, I do not yet understand this in the challenge as I should. But both are to be
1) This paragraph is used by Aurifaber for Cap. 12, § 67 of the Table Talks. In our edition of the Table Talks, this section is omitted.
distinguish that you place the gospel in heaven, the law on earth, that you call the righteousness of the gospel heavenly and divine, the righteousness of the law earthly and human, and that you distinguish the righteousness of the gospel from the righteousness of the law as carefully as God distinguished heaven from earth, light from darkness, day from night. The one shall be light and day, the other darkness and night, and would God that we could still further separate them.
Therefore, when one acts by faith or by conscience, the law should be completely excluded and remain on earth; but when one acts by works, let the lamp of works or of the righteousness of the law be lit by night. Thus the sun and the immense light of the gospel and grace shall shine by day, but the lamp of the law by night. Therefore a conscience that is frightened by the feeling of its sin should think: Now you have to work on earth, there the donkey should work, serve and carry the burden that is laid on it, that is, the body with its members should be subject to the law. But when you ascend to heaven, leave the donkey with its burden on earth. For the conscience has nothing to do with the law, with works and with earthly righteousness. So the donkey stays in the valley, but the conscience climbs the mountain with Isaac and knows nothing about the law and works, but has only the forgiveness of sins in mind, and nothing but the righteousness that has been held out to us and given to us in Christ.
In the worldly regime, however, obedience to the law is to be demanded most strictly. There one should know nothing of the gospel, of conscience, of grace, of forgiveness of sins, of heavenly righteousness, of Christ, but only of Moses, of the law and works. If this distinction is carefully observed, neither of them comes out of its bounds, but the law will remain out of heaven, that is, out of the heart or conscience. On the other hand, the evangelical freedom will remain from the earth, the
that is, it will remain outside the body and its members. Therefore, as soon as the law and sin come into heaven, that is, into the conscience, they are to be thrown out immediately, because the conscience, which is frightened by the fear of the wrath and judgment of God, should know nothing of the law and sin, but only of Christ. And again, when grace, liberty etc. comes on earth, that is, into the body, one should say: You do not have to move in the stable and filth of the bodily life, but belong up to heaven etc.
This difference between the law and the gospel was blurred by Peter's hypocritical behavior and led the believers to believe that they had to be justified by the gospel and the law at the same time. Paul could not tolerate this, so he punished Peter, not to disgrace him, but to separate these two things again, namely, that the law justified on earth, but the gospel justified in heaven.
The pope has not only mixed the law with the gospel, but has made of the gospel all laws, and only ceremonial laws, and has thrown the secular and the ecclesiastical into confusion, which is a truly satanic and hellish confusion.
This doctrine of the difference between the Law and the Gospel must be known, because it contains the sum of the whole Christian doctrine. Therefore, let every one who strives for godliness strive with the greatest care to learn the distinction, not only in words, but also in truth (affectu) and in experience, that is, in the heart and conscience. Otherwise, as far as words are concerned, this distinction is easy. But in temptation you will realize that the gospel is a rare guest in the conscience, while the law is a daily housemate. For reason by nature has the knowledge of the law.
143 Therefore, when the conscience is frightened by the sin indicated by the law, the conscience is frightened by the sin indicated by the law.
1) Instead of stksetu in the Wittenberg, we have adopted nKsotu with the Jena and Erlangen.
and made great, then you shall say: There is a time to die, there is a time to live, there is a time to hear the law, there is a time not to be concerned about the law, there is a time to hear the gospel, there is a time not to know the gospel. Now roll over the law, and let the gospel come to you, for now is not the time to hear the law, but the gospel. But you have done no good, rather you have sinned grievously. I admit that, but I have forgiveness of sins through Christ, for whose sake all my sins are forgiven. But if the conscience is not in battle, and outward works of office must be performed, where thou art a minister of the word, a person in authority, a husband, a teacher, a disciple etc. then it is not time to hear the gospel, but the law, thou shalt perform thy profession etc.
I said to Petro publicly in front of everyone, "If you, who are a Jew, live as a Gentile and not as a Jew, why do you force the Gentiles to live as Jews?
(144) That is, you are a Jew who is obligated to live according to the Jewish law, that is, to abstain from the foods forbidden in the law, and yet you, who are a Jew, live paganly, that is, you act freely against the law, you transgress it and trample it underfoot. For you eat (and in this you do right) common or unclean food, like a Gentile who is free from the law. But precisely because you have allowed yourself to be intimidated by the presence of the brothers from the Jews who have converted, and now abstain from the foods that are forbidden in the law, and keep the law, you force the Gentiles to live Jewishly, that is, to keep the law as necessary. For by this example of yours, that you abstain from unclean foods, you give the Gentiles cause to think thus: Peter now avoids the foods of the Gentiles, which he ate before, so we must also avoid them and live according to the Jewish way, otherwise we will not be justified nor saved. So you see that Paul is not punishing Peter for his ignorance, because he knew that he was free to eat any food with the Gentiles, but for his hypocrisy, by which he forced the Gentiles to live Jewishly.
Here again I remind you that it is not evil in itself to live according to the Jewish way, for it is a matter of no concern whether you eat pork or other meat. But if you live Jewishly in such a way that you would abstain from certain foods for the sake of conscience, that is denying Christ and disturbing the gospel. Therefore Paul, when he saw that Peter's conduct would lead to this, objected and said to him, "You know that the observance of the law is not necessary for righteousness, but that it is given to us through Christ alone, and therefore you do not keep the law, but transgress it and eat all kinds of food. Nevertheless, by your example you force the Gentiles to fall away from Christ to the law, because you give them reason to think that faith alone does not justify, but at the same time the law and works are required, and Peter shows this by his example; therefore, besides faith in Christ, the observance of the law is equally necessary if one wants to be justified.
Therefore, Peter's behavior not only violated the purity of doctrine, but also the truth of faith and Christian righteousness. For the Gentiles assumed that the law was necessary for righteousness. If this error persists, Christ is of no use.
147 From this it is completely clear what the disagreement and the dispute between Paul and Peter was about. Paul acts in earnest and from a sincere heart, he does not expose himself as if he were punishing him. But with Peter, as the text clearly says, there is hypocrisy, which Paul punishes in him. Therefore, there is no hypocrisy in Paul, but a pure and wholly Christian earnestness and a holy pride, which would have been blameworthy if Peter had committed any minor sin and had not sinned against the main article of Christian doctrine. But because the truth of the gospel suffers through Peter's guilt, Paul will not and cannot leave it unprotected. Therefore, in order to keep it unharmed, he does not care about Peter; Barnabas and all the others are nothing to him.
Therefore Porphyrius and Julianus do Paul an injustice, who blaspheme that he punished Peter only out of presumption. Yes, even reason itself must admit, if it recognizes otherwise what the matter of which Paul is concerned has in view, that it is better that no consideration be given to Peter than that the divine majesty should give way or the faith be endangered. For here it is a question of either Peter must be severely punished or Christ must be removed from the remedy. Here, if it could not be otherwise, Peter would rather perish and go to hell than Christ be lost. Porphyrius and all must agree with this judgment, and everyone must confess that Paul acted rightly and godly in this case.
If the dispute had been about something in the middle (like the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas Apost. 15, 39. is a joke compared to this matter and something quite insignificant), then Paul could have given way; but in this exceedingly great matter he could not give way at all.
According to the example of Paul, every Christian should be proud. Love should tolerate everything, believe and hope (1 Cor. 13, 7.), faith, on the other hand, should rule, take a commanding position, present itself as victor (triumphet) and give way to no one, but everything should be submissive to it and give way, people of low and high rank (plebes, populi), kings and judges on earth, as the 2nd Psalm, v. 10-12, says: "Let yourselves therefore be instructed, you kings, and let yourselves be chastened, you judges on earth. Serve the Lord with fear etc., or ye shall perish in the way." Therefore, faith and love are completely opposed to each other in their activity, service and nature.
151 Therefore all power lies in the word: "You compel the Gentiles to live Jewishly", that is, you compel them to fall away from grace and faith to the law and works, and to deny Christ, as if he had suffered and died in vain etc. This word: "You compel" includes all the dangers and sins of which Paul speaks in this passage.
The whole letter speaks so urgently, and which he presents as so great. For if this compulsion is maintained, or if it is taught that the observance of the law is necessary, then faith must necessarily be lost; but if it is lost and disturbed, then all the promises of God are in vain, all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are trampled underfoot, and all men must perish and be condemned. Paul attributes many such characteristics to the righteousness of the law throughout this letter.
1Since it is so dangerous to deal with the law, and since this fall happens so easily and is so violent, as if one were falling from the highest heaven into hell, let every Christian learn to distinguish these two things most carefully. Let the law rule over the body and its members, but not over the conscience. For this queen and bride is not to be defiled by the law, but to remain undefiled to the one and only bridegroom Christ, as Paul says elsewhere [2 Cor. 11:2]: "I have entrusted you to one man" etc.
Therefore, it [the conscience] should not have its bridal bed down in the valley, but up on the mountain, where Christ alone lies and reigns, who neither terrifies nor crushes sinners, but comforts them, forgives their sins and makes them blessed. Therefore, a troubled conscience should think nothing, know nothing, hold nothing against the wrath and judgment of God but the word of Christ, which is a word of grace, forgiveness of sins, blessedness and eternal life. But to carry this out is laborious and exceedingly difficult. For reason and human nature do not remain firmly in the arms of Christ, but fall again and again on the thoughts of the law and of sin, and thus always seek to be free according to the flesh, but a handmaid and prisoner according to the conscience.
154. paul has given to Peter the
1) This paragraph is used by Aurifaber for the second half of § 73 of the 12th chapter of the Table Talks. In our edition of the Table Talks, this section is omitted.
He put the first article of justification into a short form (summa) with these words: "So you who are a Jew" etc. up to the passage: "For by the works of the law" etc. where he addresses his speech again to the Galatians. But he said these words to Peter, not to instruct him, but to exhort him to constancy in the presence of the whole church, which heard such things. He now says to Peter:
V. 15. We are Jews by nature, not sinners from among the Gentiles.
That is, we are Jews by nature who are born with the righteousness of the Law, of Moses and of circumcision, and as soon as we are born, we bring the Law with us. Not at our pleasure, like the Gentiles, but by nature we have the righteousness of the law, as Paul says above in the first chapter, v. 14: "I zeal for the fatherly law" etc. Therefore, when we are compared to the Gentiles, we are not sinners without law and works, like the Gentiles, but we are born and raised as Jews and righteous. Our righteousness has its beginning immediately at the Goburt, for Jewishness is innate in us. For God commanded Abraham in Genesis 17:12 that every child should be circumcised on the eighth day etc. This law of circumcision, which the fathers received, Moses confirmed afterwards. So it is a great thing that we are Jews by nature, but even though we have this advantage, that we are righteous by nature and are born into the law and its works, and are not sinners like the Gentiles, we are still not righteous before God.
Therefore, even if you were to introduce me to the best Jew, who was born righteous and kept the law perfectly from birth, he would still not be righteous before God. We are circumcised, but because of circumcision we are not justified, for it is only a seal of righteousness, Rom. 4, 11. and even the children who were circumcised in the faith of Abraham were not blessed because of their circumcision, but because of their faith. May
Even if we are born as Jews and are still so holy, even if we can boast so much against the Gentiles that we have the justification of the law, the service of God, the promises, the fathers, which is truly a mighty glory, we are still not righteous before God, nor better than the Gentiles.
157 From this it is quite clear that Paul is not talking about external customs (ceremoniis), that they are deadly after Christ has appeared, as Origen and Jerome think, but he is talking about an extremely great and serious matter, namely the birth of the Jews. He says that they are not righteous, although they are born holy, are circumcised, keep the law, the filiation, the honor, the testaments, the fathers, the worship, God, Christ, the promises, live in them and boast of them, as they say Joh. 8, 33: "We are Abraham's seed"; likewise, v. 41: "We have one Father, God", and Rom. 2, 17: "Behold, you are called a Jew" etc.
And so Peter, Paul and the other apostles were children of God, righteous according to the Law, yes, apostles of Christ, but still they were not righteous before God. Therefore, even though you would put all this together as a bundle, the law, the works and the righteousness of the law, the circumcision, the adoption, the testaments, the promises, the apostleship etc., you still do not attain Christian righteousness, because all this is not faith in Christ, which, as follows in the text, alone justifies, not the law etc.
159 Not that the law is evil or condemned; for the law, circumcision, worship etc. are not condemned for the sake of it, because they do not justify, but Paul denies them justification for the sake of it [i.e., because they do not justify], because the false apostles claimed that through these things without faith, only if they performed the work (ex opere operato), men would be justified and saved. Paul could not tolerate this. For if faith ceases, all things are unto death, the law, circumcision, the adoption, the temple, the worship, the promises, yea,
God and Christ themselves are of no use without faith. Paul therefore speaks flatly and generally against everything that is against faith, not only attacking the ceremonies.
V.16. But because we know that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.
160 The word "work of the law" includes a great deal in itself and has a very great emphasis. I note this because of the sure and idle sophistas and monks who darken and corrupt such words in Paul's writings, indeed, his whole trade of justification, by their foolish and ungodly interpretations (glossis), which they themselves do not even understand. So take "the work of the law" simply in contrast to grace. Everything that is not grace is law, whether it be a judicial law, or a ceremonial law, or even the holy ten commandments. Therefore, even if you do a work of the law according to this commandment [Matth. 12, 37.]: "You shall love God, your Lord, with all your heart" etc. (not to mention that no man has done or can do this), you will not be justified before God by it, for no man is justified by the works of the law. But we will speak of this more fully later.
161 In Paul, then, "the work of the law" means any work of the whole law, whether of the ceremonial law or of the ten commandments. But if a work of the ten commandments cannot justify it, circumcision can much less, which is a work of the ceremonial law.
162 Therefore, when Paul says, as he often does, "By the law" or "by the works of the law (both of which are synonymous in Paul) no man is justified," he is speaking of the whole law, placing the righteousness of faith in opposition to the righteousness of the whole law; the latter can be brought about from the law either by divine power or by human power, for the sake of the latter,
1) The following up to the end of this paragraph is used by Aurifaber for the beginning of § 75 of l2. Chapter of the Table Talks. In our edition of the Table Talks, this section is omitted.
he says, no man is declared righteous before God. But the righteousness of faith is imputed to us by God, without merit, out of mercy, for the sake of Christ. Therefore he said emphatically and with a certain vehemence, "By the works of the law." 2) For there is no doubt that since the law is holy, just and good, the works of the law are also holy, just and good, and yet man is not justified before God by them.
Therefore, the opinion of Jerome and others must be rejected, who dream that Paul is not speaking of the works prescribed in the Ten Commandments, but of works according to the ceremonial law. Nevertheless, they must confess that the ceremonial law was also good and holy. For the circumcision and other laws of the customs in the temple etc. were just and holy, and just as much commanded and decreed by God Himself as the moral laws. Here they say: But after Christ they were fatal. They invent this out of their heads. Then Paul does not speak of the Gentiles, to whom the ceremonies would bring death, but of the Jews, for whom they were good; Paul himself also kept them. So they could not justify them even at the time when the ceremonial laws were holy, just and good.
164 So Paul does not speak of a part of the law that is also good and holy, but of the whole law, that a work done according to the whole law does not justify. And he does not call it law sin or work of the flesh, but "work of the law," that is, a work done according to the law. Thus, if one does not kill, does not commit adultery, etc., whether it be by natural ability, by human powers, by free will, or by God's gift, or by divine power, it does not justify.
The works of the law can be done either before justification or after justification. Before justification, many good people, even among the
2) The following to the end of the paragraph is missing in Menius.
Pagans kept the law and did excellent works, like Lenophon, Aristides, Fabius, Cicero, Pomponius Atticus etc. Cicero steadfastly suffered death in a just and good cause. Pomponius was a truth-loving and constant man, who did not tell lies and did not like them in others. But constancy and love of truth are exceedingly good virtues and very beautiful works of the law; and yet they have not been justified by them.
After justification, Peter, Paul and all Christians do works of the law, but they are not justified by them. Paul says [1 Cor. 4:4], "I am conscious of nothing, but in this I am not justified." So it is obvious that he is talking about the whole law and the works of the whole law, not about the sins against the law.
Sophistic Theology.
Therefore, the pernicious and ungodly opinion of the papists must be condemned, who attribute to a mere work (operi operato) performed without faith that it deserves grace and forgiveness of sins. For they say that a good work before grace serves to obtain grace, that the same must be given according to equity (de congruo). But after the grace is already obtained, the following work deserves eternal life, that this must be given for the sake of worthiness (de condigno).
168 For example: If a person living in mortal sin without grace does a good work out of good intention, that is, reads or hears mass, gives alms etc., he deserves grace in equity (de congruo). But after he has obtained grace in equity in this way, then he can do a work (opus condignum) worthy [of reward], which deserves eternal life. In the case of the first, God is not obligated [to reward it] (debitor), but because He is good and just, it behooves Him to approve such a work, even if it is accomplished in mortal sin, and to give grace as remuneration for such service. According to grace, however, God is already a debtor.
and is compelled by law to give eternal life, because it is now no longer merely a work of free will done according to essence (secundum substantiam), but also accomplished in pleasing grace, that is, in love.
This is the theology of the antichristic empire, which I mention for the sake of a better understanding of Paul's disputatio, because when opposing things are held together, they appear all the clearer; then, so that it may become apparent how far these blind men and blind leaders have strayed from the truth, and how they have not only obscured the gospel with their ungodly and blasphemous doctrine, but have abolished it altogether and obscured Christ.
For if, while living in mortal sin, I can do any work, however small, which is not only pleasing to God in its nature, but can also merit grace in equity, and if, having grace, I can do works of grace, that is, in love, and merit eternal life by right, what need have I of the grace of God, the forgiveness of sins, the promise, the death and victory of Christ? Christ is now of no use to me at all. For I have the free will and powers to do a good work, by which I earn grace according to equity, and afterwards also eternal life according to dignity (de condigno).
Such insane monstrosities and horrible blasphemies should have been presented to Jews and Turks, but not to the Church of Christ. And this matter shows sufficiently that the pope with his bishops, doctors, monks etc. had neither any knowledge of the holy things, nor had he taken care of them, nor had he been concerned about the blessedness of the abandoned and miserably scattered host. For if they had seen even in the remotest way, as through a mist, what Paul had said, they would not have seen it.
1) Thus Luther translates de condigno, Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XIX, 1161, §226.
If they had called sin what grace is, they would not have imposed such abominations and such ungodly folly on the Christian people.
They understood by mortal sin nothing other than an outward work committed against the Law, such as murder, adultery, theft etc. They did not consider it mortal sin that one does not recognize God, that one has hatred and contempt for God in one's heart, that one is ungrateful to God and grumbles against Him, that one resists God's will, that the flesh can do nothing but think, speak and do against God and serve the devil. If they had recognized that this exceedingly great corruption is inherent in the nature of man, they would not have so ungodly played their foolish game with the merit of equity and dignity etc.
Therefore, it is necessary to give a clear explanation of what an ungodly man or a man in mortal sin is. But this is such a holy hypocrite and bloodhound as Paul was, since he traveled to Damaseus to persecute Jesus of Nazareth, to destroy the teaching of the Gospel, to kill the believers and to completely disturb the church of Christ. These were certainly the greatest and most horrible sins against God, but Paul could not see them. For he was so blinded by his ungodly zeal for God that he thought that these accursed shameful deeds were the highest righteousness, worship of God, and an obedience exceedingly pleasing to God. Of course, such saints, who defend such horrible sins as the highest righteousness, should deserve mercy!
Therefore, we deny with Paul the merit of equity and dignity altogether, and declare most confidently that these speculations are nothing but the antics of Satan, which have never had any reality or been demonstrated by examples. For God has never given His grace and eternal life to any man for the merit of equity and dignity.
175 These disputations of the scholastics about the merit according to equity and dignity are only fictions and dreamy musings (speculabilia somnia) of idle men about trivial things, on which the
The whole papacy is still founded on it and is still based on it today. For every monk imagines this: I can earn grace according to equity by keeping the holy rule, but by the works I do after I have received grace, I can accumulate such great merit that it is not only sufficient for me to attain eternal life, but I can also communicate and sell it to others. This is how all monks have taught and lived, and today the papists are doing everything possible against us to defend this blatant blasphemy against Christ. And the holier such a hypocrite and workman is, the worse an enemy of the Gospel he is.
The right Christian way to teach.
176. On the other hand, the correct Christian way of teaching is this: that man should first recognize through the law that he is a sinner, to whom it is impossible to do any good work. For the law says: You are an evil tree, therefore everything you think, speak and do is against God. Therefore, you cannot earn grace by your works. If you nevertheless undertake this, then you make evil out of evil, because, since you are an evil tree, you can bring forth nothing but evil fruit, that is, sins, because "whatever does not come from faith is sin" [Rom. 14:23]. Therefore, whoever wants to earn grace through previous works, wants to propitiate God through sins, which is nothing other than heaping sins upon sins, ridiculing God and provoking His wrath.
When a man is thus instructed, frightened and humbled by the law, and sees in truth the greatness of his sin, and does not find the slightest trace of love for God in himself, he justifies God in his words, and confesses that he is guilty of eternal death and damnation. The first part of the Christian doctrine is therefore the preaching of repentance and right self-knowledge.
The second part [of this teaching] is: If you want to be blessed, you can take the
1) justitiarius - one who deals with his own justice.
Salvation is not obtained by works, but "God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him" [1 John 4:9]. He was crucified and died for you and "sacrificed your sins in his body" [1 Petr. 2, 24]. There is nothing that God would have to look upon favorably (nulla congruitas), or any work before grace, but nothing but wrath, sin, terror and death. Therefore, the law only shows sin, frightens and humbles, and in this way prepares for justification and drives to Christ. For God has revealed through His Word that He will be a gracious Father, who, since we can earn nothing, will give us forgiveness of sins, righteousness and eternal life for Christ's sake without our merit. For he is a God who gives his gifts freely to all, and this is the glory by which his divinity is praised. But he cannot defend this deity of his against the works righteous, for they do not want to accept grace and eternal life from him free of charge, but earn it with their works; therefore they want to rob him of the honor of deity. In order for him to keep it, he had to send the law beforehand to frighten and shatter these extremely hard rocks, as if by a thunderclap and lightning from heaven.
This is in brief our theology of Christian righteousness against the abominations and monstrosities of the sophists of merit according to equity and dignity, or of works before grace and after grace. For such utterly trivial dreams have been invented out of their heads by sure men, who have never been exercised by temptations and real fright from sin and from death, therefore they do not understand what they speak or about what they assert. Then no example of a work before grace and after grace can be given. Thus, the papists deceive themselves and others with the most trivial fables. Reason: Paul says here very clearly that a man is not justified by the works of the law, whether they precede [before grace] (of which he speaks here) or follow. You see, then, that Christian righteousness is not a [pre
The term "human being" is used by the Sophists when they say: "inhaerens forma":
(Scholastic Theology.) 1)
When a man does any good work, God is pleased with it and pours love into him for this work. This infused love, they say, is a quality (qualitatem) adhering to the heart, and call it an essential justice (formalem justitiam) (it is well for you to know how to speak in this (scholastic) way), and can hear nothing less than that this quality, which gives a shape to the heart (informantem oor), like the white paint of a wall, is not a justice. They cannot come higher than to this thought of human reason: man is just by his essential justice (formali sua justitia), which is the grace that makes man GOtte pleasant (gratia gratum faciens), that is, love. Thus they attribute to this constitution (habitui) and form (formae) which attaches to the soul, that is, to love, which is a work and a gift that comes from the law (for the law says: "You shall love the Lord your God" etc. (Deut. 6, 5.)), the essential (formal) righteousness, and say that the same is worthy of eternal life, and of him who has it they say that he is essentially (formaliter) righteous, but then also (righteous) in his doing (effective), because he now does good works, to which eternal life is due. This is the opinion of the sophists, namely those who are the best.
Others are not so good as Scotus and Occam, who said that the love given by God is not necessary to obtain the grace of God, but man can bring about by natural forces that he loves God above all. For Scotus concludes thus: If a man can love the creature, a young man a girl, a miser money, which are lesser goods, then can
1) This heading appears here in all editions. Because the following is most closely related to what precedes here, and the heading thus has a disturbing effect, we have placed it in brackets. At the end of the previous paragraph, the editions erroneously have a punctum.
He must also love God, who is a greater good. If man has love for the creature by natural forces, he has much more love for the Creator.
182 All the sophists were overcome by this reason, and none of them could refute it. But they said: Scripture compels us to confess that God requires, in addition to natural love (amorem), with which He is not satisfied, love (caritatem), which has been given by Him. By this they accuse God of being a ferocious tyrant and cruel driver, who is not satisfied with my keeping and fulfilling His law, but above the law, which I can fulfill quite well, also demands that I fulfill it in a special way (circumstantia) and adornment or in a certain clothing.
It is as if a housewife were not satisfied with the fact that the cook had prepared the food in the best possible way, but was angry with her because she had not prepared the food, dressed in a delicious garment and adorned with a golden crown. What kind of mistress would that be, who, in addition to what the cook is obliged to do and also does in an excellent manner, would demand of her that she should also wear a golden crown, which she cannot have? Also, what kind of God would this be, who would demand that we fulfill His law, which we otherwise keep by natural means, in such jewelry, which we cannot have?
(184) But here they make a distinction, lest they should be regarded as asserting contradictory things, and say that the law is fulfilled in two ways; first, according to the essence of the thing (secundum substantiam facti), and secondly, according to the intention of him who commands (secundum intentionem praecipientis). According to the essence by the deed, that is, as far as the thing itself is concerned, we can certainly fulfill everything that the law commands, but not according to the intention of him who commands, for this is such that God is not satisfied that you have done and fulfilled everything that is commanded in the law, even though he can demand nothing more of you; but beyond that, he is not satisfied that you have done and fulfilled everything that is commanded in the law.
He demands this of you, that you fulfill the law in love, not in the natural love that you have, but in the supernatural and divine love that He gives. What does this mean other than making a tyrant and torturer out of God, who demands of us what we cannot perform? And there was little need for them to say publicly that it was not our fault, but God's fault that we were condemned, because He demands that we fulfill the law in this peculiar way.
I repeat this and state it clearly in many words (inculco), so that you may see how far they have strayed from the right understanding of Scripture, saying that we can love God above all things by natural powers or at least earn grace and eternal life through a work done by faith (ex opere operato). But since God is not satisfied that we fulfill the law according to its essence through action, but wants it to be fulfilled also according to the intention of Him who commands, therefore the Holy Scriptures compel us to have a supernatural ability (habitum) infused from heaven, which is love, of which they said it is the essential (formal) righteousness, which gives faith its proper form (informantem fidem) and adorns it and causes it to be justified by it [love]. Thus faith is the body, the shell, the color, but love is the life, the core, the essence (forma). These are the dreams of the school theologians.
and love the living colors and the complete execution, we say, on the other hand, that faith takes hold of Christ, who [Christ] is the essence (forma) that adorns faith and gives it its proper form (informat), like the color of the wall. Therefore, Christian faith is not an idle quality (qualitas) or an empty shell in the heart, which could also be present in mortal sin, until love comes along and makes it alive, but if it is the right faith, it is a certain confidence of the heart and a firm trust, by which it is possible for the heart to be able to take hold of Christ.
ches Christ is grasped, so that Christ is the object to which faith is directed, yes, not the object, but that I say so, Christ is present in faith itself.
So faith is a knowledge or rather a darkness that sees nothing, and yet Christ sits in this darkness, seized by faith, as God sat on Mount Sinai and in the temple in the midst of the darkness. So it is our essential (formalis) righteousness, not love, that gives faith its proper form, but faith itself, and the darkness (nebula) of the heart, that is, the confidence in something that we do not see, that is, in Christ, who is nevertheless present, even though he is not seen at all.
So faith justifies because it takes hold of and possesses this treasure, namely the present Christ. But in what way he is present cannot be grasped by thought, for it is, as I have said, a darkness. Now where there is right confidence of heart, Christ is present in this darkness and faith. And this is the essential (formalis) righteousness for the sake of which man is justified, not for the sake of love, as the Sophists speak. In short, as the Sophists say that love gives form to faith and brings it about, so we say that Christ gives form to faith and brings it about, or that he is the essence (formam) of faith. Christ, then, taken in faith and dwelling in the heart, is the Christian righteousness for whose sake God esteems us righteous and gives us eternal life. There is certainly no work of the law, no love, but a far different righteousness, and a kind of new world outside the law and above the law. For Christ or faith is not a law nor a work of the law. Of this matter, which the Sophists neither taught nor understood, we shall speak more fully hereafter. For now it is enough that we have briefly shown that Paul is not only speaking of the ceremonial law, but of the whole law.
189 I remarked above that it was a very
It is a pernicious error that the scholastic theologians have taught that man obtains forgiveness of sins and justification in this way, if he earns, through previous works, which they call merits in equity (merita congrui), the grace, which they call a quality attached to the will (qualitatem), which God has bestowed over the love that we have by natural powers. If one has this, they say, man is essentially (formaliter) righteous and in truth a Christian. This opinion, I say, is ungodly and pernicious, for it makes nothing but Turks, Jews, Anabaptists, enthusiasts etc. For who should not be able to do a good work by human ability without grace, and in this way earn grace etc.? Thus those dreamers have made faith an empty quality (qualitatem) in the soul, which alone is worth nothing without love; but if love is added, then it is powerful and justifies.
190. But the following works, they said, serve to earn eternal life according to dignity (de condigno), in such a way that God, for the sake of the love that He has poured into the will of man, accepts this following work, so that He gives eternal life for it. For so they say: God accepts a good work [so that it serves] to eternal life (acceptare ad vitam), but He does not accept an evil work (deacceptare) [so that it serves] to damnation and eternal punishment. In the dream they heard something about acceptance (de acceptatione) and then related this to the works and attributed it to them. All this is erroneous and blasphemous against Christ, although not all speak so well of it, but some, as I have said, have taught that by purely natural powers we can love God above all things. It is useful to know this, so that what Paul says here may become all the clearer.
Right Christian way to teach.
191. against these foolish things and quite futile dreams we teach, as we have also recalled above [§ 176 ff], the faith and the right way of the Christian being thus, that
Man shall first be taught by the law to know himself, that he may learn to pray with the prophet: "They are all sinners, and lack the glory which they ought to have in God", likewise: "There is none righteous, neither is there any, there is none understanding, there is none that asketh after God; they are all gone astray" etc. [Ps. 14, 1. 2. 3.]; likewise [Ps. 51, 6.]: "In you alone have I sinned" etc. Thus, in the opposite way, we deter men from merit according to equity and according to dignities. But when man has been humbled by the law and made to know himself, then he has become truly penitent (for true repentance begins with the fear and judgment of God), and sees that he is such a great sinner that he cannot be freed from sins by his powers, efforts, and works.
Only then does he understand what Paul means when he says that man is a servant and prisoner of sin; likewise: God has decided everything under sin; the whole world is guilty before God etc. [Then he sees that the theology of the sophists about merit according to equity and dignity is a useless babble 1) and that the whole pabstry falls to this. Here now arises such a groaning: Who can help here? For the man who is frightened by the law completely despairs of his strength, looks around and sighs for a mediator and savior.
193 Then the healing word of the gospel comes at the right time and says: "Be of good cheer, my son, your sins are forgiven. Believe in Jesus Christ, who was crucified for your sins etc. When you feel your sins, do not look at them on yourself, but remember that they are laid on Christ, whose wounds have healed you etc. Is. 53, 5. l Petr. 2, 24.
194 This is the beginning of blessedness. In this way we are freed from sin, we are justified, and eternal life is given to us, not for the sake of our merits and works, but for the sake of faith.
1) ματαιολογία - theologia a play on words.
for the sake of which we take hold of Christ. For this reason we also assume a [special] quality (qualitatem) and an essential righteousness (formalem justitiam) in the heart, but not, as the Sophists do, love, but faith, but in such a way that the heart has nothing else in mind and grasps but the Savior Christ. But then it is necessary that you know what Christ really is (definite). Because the sophists did not know this, they made him a judge and a tormentor, and they invented this quite foolish little fiction of merit according to equity and dignity.
But Christ is not really a legislator, but a reconciler and savior. Faith grasps this and believes without a doubt that he has accomplished works and merits according to equity and dignity more than superfluously, for he could have done enough for the sins of the world with a single drop of his blood. But now he has done enough for us. Hebr. 9, 12: "By His own blood He entered into the Holy Place" etc., and Rom. 3, 24: "We are justified without merit by His grace, through the redemption that came by Christ, whom God made a mercy seat by faith in His blood" etc. Therefore it is a great thing that one should take hold of Christ in faith, who bears the sin of the world, and this faith alone is counted as righteousness, Rom. 3, 28. 4, 5.
Here it is well to note that these three things, faith, Christ, and the acceptance or imputation of Christ's righteousness, belong together. Faith grasps Christ and has Him present and enclosed, as a ring encloses a precious stone, and anyone who is found to have grasped Christ with this confidence in his heart, God counts him righteous. This is the way and the merit by which we attain to the forgiveness of sins and to righteousness. Because you believe in me, says God, and your faith takes hold of Christ, whom I have given you to be your mediator and high priest, therefore you shall be righteous.
197. so God accepts us or reckons us
etc. and this acceptance 1) or imputation is very necessary, firstly because we are not yet perfectly righteous, but in this life sin in the flesh still clings to us. This sin, which is still left in the flesh, God sweeps out in us. On the other hand, we are sometimes also abandoned by the Holy Spirit and fall into sins, like Peter, David and other saints. But we always have access to this article, that our sins are covered and that God will not impute them to us, Ps. 32, 1. 2. Rom. 4, 7.It is not that sin is no longer there (as the Sophists taught that one must do good works [bene operandum esse] until we are no longer aware of sin), rather, sin is truly there, and the godly feel it, but it is hidden and not imputed to us by God for Christ's sake; because we take hold of Him in faith, all sins must not be sins. But where Christ and faith are not, there is no forgiveness of sins, no covering of them, but only imputation and condemnation of sins. Thus God wants the Son to be glorified, and He Himself wants to be glorified in us through Him.
198. Having taught faith in Christ in this way, we also teach about good works: Because you have received Christ in faith, through whom you are justified, begin to do good works, love God and your neighbor, call on God, thank Him, praise, extol and confess Him, do good to your neighbor and serve him, carry out your ministry honestly. These are truly good works that flow from this faith and from the gladness of heart that we have obtained because our sins have been forgiven in vain through Christ.
All the crosses and sufferings that are to be borne afterwards can be borne easily. For the yoke that Christ lays out is gentle and the burden is light [Matth. 11, 30]. For since sin is forgiven and the conscience is freed from the burden and biting of sin, a Christian can easily bear everything.
1) Jena and Erlangen acceptio instead of the otherwise consistently used acceptatio, which the Wittenberg also offers here.
Because inwardly everything is gentle and sweet, he does and suffers everything willingly. But when man walks in his own righteousness, everything he does and suffers is difficult for him, and it is burdensome to him because he does it unwillingly.
(200) Therefore we make the declaration that he who has no sin or feels no sin is a Christian, but his sin is not imputed to him because of his faith in Christ. This doctrine gives a firm comfort to consciences that are in real terror, and therefore it is not in vain that we try so often and with so much diligence to impress upon people that sins are forgiven us and righteousness is imputed to us for Christ's sake; likewise that a Christian should have nothing at all to do with the law and with sin, especially in temptations. If he is a Christian, he is above the law and sin. For he has Christ, the Lord of the law, present and enclosed in his heart, as a ring encloses a precious stone. Therefore, when the law accuses him, when sin terrifies him, etc. he looks at Christ. When he has grasped Him in faith, he has with him the victor over the law, over sin, death and the devil, who rules over all these so that they can do him no harm.
Therefore, a Christian, in the true meaning of the word (proprie definitus), is free from all laws and absolutely subject to no one, either inwardly or outwardly. But I say with special emphasis: if he is a Christian (not if he is a man or a woman), that is, if he has a conscience that is clothed, adorned and made rich by this faith, by this great and immeasurable treasure, or, as Paul says, this unspeakable gift, which cannot be exalted and praised highly enough, because it makes children and heirs of God. Therefore, a Christian is greater than the whole world because he has this, as it seems, small gift in his heart, but this [seemingly] small gift and thing of value, which he holds in faith, is greater than heaven and earth because Christ is greater, who is this gift.
(202) Where this doctrine exists and remains inviolate, which leads the consciences to peace.
Christians are made judges of all doctrines and are masters of all the laws of the whole world. They can most certainly judge that the Turk is damned with his Alkoran, because he does not walk on the right road, i.e., does not recognize that he is a wretched and damned sinner, nor does he grasp Christ in faith, believing that his sins are forgiven him for Christ's sake. So he also confidently pronounces against the pope the verdict that he is damned with his whole kingdom, because he and all his monks and high schools are based on the idea that we attain grace through merit according to equity, but are later admitted to heaven through merit according to dignity. Then a Christian says: This is not the right way to become righteous, this is not the way to enter heaven. I cannot earn grace according to equity by the preceding works, nor gain eternal life according to dignity by the following merits, but to him who believes in Christ his sin is forgiven and righteousness imputed. This confidence makes him God's child and heir, who has in hope the eternal life that has been promised to him. Through faith in Christ, therefore, we are given everything: grace, peace, forgiveness of sins, blessedness and eternal life, not through merit according to equity and dignity.
Therefore, this doctrine of the writers of sentences of merit according to equity and dignity, all services, masses and the innumerable endowments of the papal kingdom are abominable blasphemies, theft of God and denial of Christ, as Peter, 2 Peter 2:1, foretold with these words: "There shall be false teachers among you, which shall bring in corrupt sects, and shall deny the Lord that bought them," etc. as if he wanted to say: "The Lord hath redeemed us, and bought us, to make us righteous and blessed; this is the way of righteousness and salvation: The Lord hath redeemed us, and bought us with his blood, to make us righteous and blessed; this is the way to righteousness and blessedness. But false teachers will come who will deny the Lord, blaspheme the way of truth, righteousness and salvation, and invent new ways of falsehood and destruction, and many will follow their destruction etc.
In this whole chapter, Peter has excellently portrayed the papacy, which has set aside the gospel and faith in Christ and taught works and human statutes, such as merit according to equity and dignity, the distinction of days, meals, and persons, vows, the invocation of the saints, pilgrimages, and purgatory etc. The papists have so imbibed these enthusiastic opinions of statutes and works that it is impossible for them to understand even one syllable of the Gospel, faith and Christ.
205. And this shows the matter itself sufficiently. For they arrogate to themselves the right which Christ alone has. He alone frees from sin, gives righteousness and eternal life. That we can attain this without Christ through merit according to equity and dignity, they lie impudently and ungodly. This is what Peter and the other apostles call "introducing corrupt sects", "denying Christ", "trampling underfoot the fine blood", blaspheming the Holy Spirit and the grace of God. Therefore, no one can sufficiently see how horrible papist idolatry is. As unspeakable is the gift that is offered to us through Christ, as horrible are the papist desecrations of the sanctuary (profanationes).
Therefore, one should not disregard these [abominations] or let them be forgotten, but diligently observe them, which also serves to make the grace of God and the good deeds of Christ more glorious through the opposite. The more I realize how horribly God is desecrated by the Papist Mass, the more horror and disgust I have for it, and I grasp the right custom of the Mass [i.e., of the Lord's Supper], which is to be observed by all. of the Lord's Supper], which the pope has abolished and made a bad commodity out of it, which, if one buys it, can be of use to someone else, for he says that an apostate sacristan, who denies Christ and blasphemes the Holy Spirit, who stands at the altar, does a good work, not only for himself, but also for others, for the living and the dead, and for the whole church, for no other reason than that the accomplishment of the work brings this about (ex opere operato) etc.
Therefore one can already see from this that God's patience is immeasurably great, that he has not long since destroyed the whole of Pabstism and turned it back with fire and brimstone, like Sodom and Gomorrah. But these lovely people want to cover and decorate their godlessness and shamefulness; one should not be silent about this.
Therefore, we must illuminate the article of justification with the utmost diligence, so that, like the sun at noon, it may bring them out of the darkness and gloom of their hypocrisy into the light and expose their shameful nature and shame.
For this reason, we are pleased to pursue the righteousness of faith with the utmost vigor and emphasis, so that the adversaries may be put to shame and this article may become firm and certain in our hearts. And this is extremely necessary, because if we lose this sun, we will fall back into the former darkness. But it is quite frightening that the pope has been able to bring this about in the church, that Christ has been denied, trampled underfoot, insulted and blasphemed, namely through the gospel and the sacraments, which he has so obscured and turned into such a shameful abuse that they have served him against Christ to raise up and strengthen his diabolical abominations. O, darkness and immeasurable wrath of God!
So we also believe in Christ JEsum (for what?), that we may be justified etc.
This is the right Christian way to teach, that we are justified by faith in Christ, not by the works of the law. Here you must not allow yourself to be challenged by the ungodly gloss of the Sophists, who say that faith justifies only when love and good works are added. With this pernicious gloss, the sophists have obscured and corrupted this and similar sayings in Paul's writings, in which he most clearly ascribes justification to faith.
But when a man hears that he must believe in Christ, but that faith does not justify unless this form (forma) is added, namely love, then he immediately falls away from faith and thinks:
If faith without love does not justify, then faith is idle and useless, and love alone justifies, for if faith has not gained the right form (fides formata) and is adorned by love, it is nothing.
212. and to prove their harmful and pernicious gloss, the adversaries draw on the passage 1 Cor. 13, 1. 2: "If I spoke with the tongues of men and with the tongues of angels etc. and had not love, I should be nothing." This passage is their iron wall.
But they are people without understanding, therefore they understand and see nothing of what Paul teaches, and with this false interpretation they have not only done violence to Paul's words, but also denied Christ and destroyed all his benefits. Therefore one should avoid it [this gloss] like a hellish poison and conclude with Paul that we are justified by faith alone, not by faith that has gained a form through love (fide formata caritate). Therefore, the power of justification must not be ascribed to this pleasing form (formae gratificanti), but to the faith which grasps Christ the Savior Himself and possesses Him in the heart. This faith justifies without love and before love.
We admit that one must also teach about good works and love, but in its own time and place, namely when dealing with the question of works outside of this main article. Here, however, it is the question by which we are justified and obtain eternal life. Here we answer with Paul that we are declared righteous because of faith in Christ alone, not because of the works of the law or because of love; not that we reject works or love, as the adversaries blame us, but we do not want to be distracted from the main point around which the present trade revolves, which Satan would like to do. Since we are now dealing with the doctrine of justification, we reject and condemn works, for this article does not allow us to deal with good works at all. In this matter, therefore, we cut short all laws and all works of the law.
215 But the law is good, just, and holy. Very well; but since we are now dealing with the doctrine of justification, it is not now the place to speak of the law, but the question is, what is Christ, and what good deed has he shown us? But Christ is not the law, he is not my work or a work of the law, he is not my love or the law's love, he is not my chastity, obedience or poverty, but the Lord over life and death, the mediator and savior of sinners, the redeemer of those who are under the law. In Him we are through faith, and He in us, Joh. 6, 56. This bridegroom must be alone with the bride in the chamber, but all servants and the whole household must remain outside. But after that, when he opens the door and steps out, the servants and maids may run in, serve, bring food and drink. That is when the works and love begin.
In order to describe Christ correctly, we must carefully distinguish all laws, including divine laws, and all works from the promise of the gospel and from faith. Christ, however, is not a law, therefore not a driver of either the law or works, but he is "God's lamb who bears the sin of the world," John 1:29. This is grasped by faith alone, not by love, which must follow faith, but as a kind of gratitude.
Therefore, victory over sin and death, blessedness and eternal life are not granted to us by the law, not by the works of the law, not by the powers of free will or by our will, but only through Jesus Christ.
1)218. So only the faith that grasps this justifies what results from the sufficient division and the right conclusion (a sufficienti divisione et inductione): The victory over sin and death is in Jesus Christ alone, therefore it is not in the works of the law nor also in our will etc. Here we will gladly dul-
1) At the end of this section Menius inserted a paragraph which is not found in the Latin original. Therefore, in order to keep the same count as Walch, we have been forced to start a new paragraph here.
The opponents call us Solaris, because they do not understand the matter Paul is dealing with here etc.
That we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law.
219 All these words should be emphasized in the reading, because they are of great importance. Paul, as I have reminded you above, is speaking not only of the ceremonial law, but of the whole law. For the ceremonial law was as much divine as the moral law; as, circumcision, the institution of the priesthood, the service of God and the customs of worship were as much commanded by God as the holy ten commandments. Likewise, it was a law when Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac. This work of Abraham pleased God, as did other ceremonial works, yet he was not justified by this work, but by faith, for the Scripture says [Rom. 4:3]: "Abraham believed God, and this was counted to him for righteousness."
3(220) But after Christ is revealed, they say, the ceremonial laws are fatal. 4) Yes, [so we teach,] even the law of the ten commandments is deadly without faith in Christ. Further, there must be no law in the conscience, but only the spirit of life, by which in Christ we are freed from the law of the letter and of death, from its works and its sins; not that the law is evil, but because it cannot justify, since it has the quite opposite effect. So it is an exalted and great thing to have a God who is reconciled. Therefore, a completely different mediator is needed than Moses or the
2) This mocking name is directed against Paul's teaching that we are justified by faith alone (sola fide), without works of the law, Rom. 3, 28, therefore he does not revile Luther and his followers as well as the holy apostle and God's own word.
3) This paragraph (with the exception of the last sentence) is used by Aurifaber for § 74 of the twelfth chapter of the Tischreden. In our edition of the Table Talks, it has been omitted.
4) The Erlanger edition has here before imo only a comma instead of a point, whereby the sense is completely distorted. Also in many other places the Erlangen edition has wrong, sense-distorting punctuation.
Law or our will or even grace, which they call love towards God. Here we do not have to do anything at all, but only receive the treasure, which is Christ taken in the heart through faith, however much we may feel that we are full of sins. These words, "that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law," are therefore very meaningful words, not empty and idle ones, as the Sophists think, and therefore confidently skip over them.
This is how far Paul's words go, which he spoke to Peter, by which he briefly summarizes the main article of Christian doctrine, which in truth makes Christians. Now he addresses his speech again to the Galatians, to whom he is writing, and concludes by saying: "Since the matter is that we are justified by faith in Christ, therefore by the works of the law no flesh can attain to righteousness.
Therefore, by the works of the law no flesh is justified (non justificabitur omnis caro).
The expression in the Vulgate "not all flesh" is a Hebrew way of speaking, which violates the grammar 1). This expression occurs frequently in the holy Scriptures; Gen. 4, 15: "that not everyone slay him (ut non interficiat eum omnis) who found him" etc. The Greeks and the Latins do not speak thus: "not everyone", that is, "no one"; "not all flesh", that is, "no flesh"; but "not all flesh" in Latin means so much as: some flesh (aliqua caro). The Holy Spirit does not bind himself to this strictness of grammar. 2) "Flesh" in Paul does not mean, as the sophists dream, only the gross sins, for these he uses to call by expressed names, as, adultery, fornication, uncleanness etc., below in the fifth chapter, v. 19-21. but Paul calls the same "flesh", which is so called by Christ, who says John 3:6: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." Thus flesh means the whole nature of man with reason and all
1) grammatica, was used in Luther's time in a much broader sense than today, in that it also included the meaning of words.
2) Menius has omitted the piece from the beginning of this paragraph to here.
their powers. This, he says, is not justified by works, not even by works of the law. He does not say, The flesh is not justified by works against the law, as there are murder, fornication, gluttony etc., but the works which are done according to the law, which are good. "Flesh," then, in Paul means the highest righteousness, wisdom, worship, religion, understanding, will, as great as these can be in the natural man.
If a Jew is not justified by the works done according to the law of God, a monk is much less justified by his order, a priest by the mass and the [seven] times of prayer (horas canonicas), a philosopher by his wisdom, a theologian by theology, a Turk by the Alkoran. In short, however wise and just men may be according to reason and the divine law, they are not justified by all their works, merits, masses, supreme righteousness and worship.
The papists do not believe this, but as blinded and obdurate people they defend their abominations against their conscience and persist in this blasphemy, and to this day they still praise these predatory sayings: Whoever does this or that work deserves forgiveness of sins; whoever accepts this or another holy order and keeps its rule, we promise him eternal life for sure.
(225) It cannot be said what an abominable blasphemy it is to ascribe to the doctrines of devils, to the writings and rules of men, to the impious statutes of the pope, and to the works of monks, that which Paul, the apostle of Christ, denies to the divine law and its works. For if no flesh is justified by the works of the divine law, much more will it not be justified by the rule of Benedictus, Franciscus etc., in which there is not a syllable of faith in Christ, but only insistence on it: He who keeps these things has eternal life.
For this reason, I have often wondered beyond measure that for so many centuries, during which these pernicious sects have existed, the Church has nevertheless preserved....
could remain in such great darkness and error. There have always been some whom God has called in pure doctrine through the text of the Gospel (which has nevertheless remained in the sermon) and through baptism. These walked in simplicity and humility of heart, thinking that only the monks and those who were smeared by the bishops were holy and spiritual (religiosos), but they were unholy and secular (saeculares), in no way to be compared with them; and because they therefore found nothing of good works or merits in themselves, which they could have held against the wrath and judgment of God, they took refuge in the suffering and death of Christ and became blessed in this simplicity.
227. It is a terrible and immeasurable wrath of God that for so many centuries He has punished the ingratitude and contempt of the Gospel and Christ in the papists by giving them over to a wrong mind, so that they completely denied and blasphemed Christ, as far as the custom of the same is concerned, and instead of the Gospel they accepted the abominations of rules and human statutes, which they worshipped only and preferred to the word of God, until finally marriage was taken from them and they were forced into this unchaste celibate state. Then they were also defiled outwardly with every kind of shameful deed, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, sodomy etc. This was the fruit of the impure celibacy.
Thus God, punishing sin with sin, gave them over inwardly to a perverse mind and outwardly to such abominable vices, and rightly so, because they blasphemed the only begotten Son of God, in whom the Father wants to be glorified; he gave him to death, so that those who believe in the Son would be saved through him, not through their orders. "Whoever honors me," says God 1 Sam. 2, 30, "I will also honor." But God is honored in His Son, John 5:23. Therefore, whoever believes that the Son of God is our Mediator and Savior, honors the Father, whom God also honors in turn, that is, he adorns Him with His gifts, with forgiveness of sins, with righteousness, with the
Holy Spirit, with eternal life etc. But those who despise me, he says, they also shall be despised (ignobiles) etc.
229 The main conclusion is this: "For by the works of the law no flesh is justified. This you further strike out and apply to all classes: Thus no monk will be justified by his order, no nun by her chastity, no citizen by his righteousness, no prince by his good deeds etc. The law of God is greater than the whole world, for it passes over all men, and the works of the law are more excellent than all the self-chosen works of the works saints; and yet Paul says that neither the law nor the works of the law justify; therefore faith alone justifies.
Now that this main proposition (propositione) is established, he begins to confirm it with reasons of proof, and the first of these reasons of proof, which is taken, as it were, from the opposite of what is stated in the conclusion (ex opposito consequentis), is this:
V.17. But if we ourselves, who seek to be justified by Christ, should also be found sinners, Christ would be a minister of sin.
This is not Latin, but Hebrew and theological language. If this is true, that we are justified by Christ, then it is impossible for us to be sinners or to be justified by the law. On the other hand, if it is not true, but we must be justified by the law and works of the law, then it is impossible for us to be justified by Christ. One of the two must be false; either we are not justified by Christ, or not by the law. But we are justified by Christ, therefore not by the law. He thus concludes, "But if we seek," etc. that is, if we seek to be justified by faith in Christ, and, having been thus justified, we are still found sinners who need the law to justify us sinners; if, I say, the keeping of the law is necessary to justification, so that those who are justified in the law may be justified in the law.
If the one who has been justified by Christ is not to be justified, but still needs the justifying law, or if the one who has been justified by Christ still needs to be justified by the law, then Christ is nothing but a lawgiver and servant of sin. Therefore, he who is justified and holy through Christ is not justified and holy, but still needs the righteousness and holiness of the law.
232 But we are certainly justified and righteous through Christ, because the truth of the Gospel teaches that man is not justified by the law, but by Christ. But if those who are justified by Christ are still found to be sinners, that is, they still belong to the law and are under the law, as the false apostles teach, so they are not yet justified, because the law accuses them and convicts them that they are still sinners, and demands that they do works of the law so that they may be justified, it follows that those who are justified in Christ are not justified. And so it necessarily follows that Christ must not be a justifier, but a minister of sin.
With these words he most severely accuses the false apostles and all works saints of perverting everything, because they turn the law into grace, grace into the law, Moses into Christ, Christ into Moses. For they teach that after Christ and after all the righteousness of Christ, the observance of the law is still necessary if one wants to become righteous. Thus, by an intolerable perversion, the law becomes Christ, because to the law is ascribed that which properly belongs to Christ. They say: If you do the works of the law, you will be justified. If you do not do them, you will not be justified, no matter how much you believe in Christ. But if it is true that Christ does not justify, but is a minister of sin, as necessarily follows from their doctrine, then Christ is a law, because we have nothing else from him, since he teaches that we are sinners, than what we have also by the law; and so the minister of sin, Christ, sends us to the law and to Moses as the justifier.
Therefore, the papists and all those who do not know the righteousness of Christ or do not hold fast to it, must make Christ into Moses and the law, and the law into Christ. For they teach that faith in Christ justifies, but at the same time the commandments of God must be kept, because it is written [Matt. 19:17], "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments of God." Then immediately Christ is denied and faith is destroyed, because to the commandments of God or to the law is ascribed that which belongs to Christ alone. For Christ is, if one wants to describe him properly, the justifier and redeemer of sins. If I attribute this to the law, then the law itself is my justifier, in that it frees me from sins because I do its works. And so the law is Christ, and Christ completely loses his name, office and honor, and he is nothing but a servant of the law, who accuses, terrifies, abandons and sends the sinner to another who can justify him, which in truth is the office of the law.
But the real ministry of Christ is that he receives the sinner, who has been put in the dock by the law and convicted of his guilt, in the most friendly way and absolves him of sins, if he believes the gospel. "For Christ is the end of the law; he who believes in Him is righteous" [Rom. 10:4]; "He is the Lamb of God who bears the sin of the world" [John 1:29]. But because the papists and the enthusiasts do not hold to the doctrine of justification, they reverse everything, make a Moses out of Christ and a Christ out of Moses, and it is indeed (although they say otherwise in words) their most noble doctrine: Christ is a Moses etc. Then they ridicule us, who inculcate and insist on faith with such great care, and say: Ha, ha, faith, faith, wait until you go to heaven by faith. You must seek higher things, you must fulfill the law of God, as it is written [Luc. 10, 28.], "Do this, and you shall live." You must suffer many things, shed your blood, leave your house, wife and children, follow the example of Christ.
follow. The faith you exalt so much makes people secure, sluggish and sleepy. Thus they become mere teachers of the law and doers of works, falling away from Christ to Moses, likewise leading people from baptism, faith and the promises of Christ back to the law and works, turning grace into law and law into grace.
But who could ever have believed that these two things could so easily have been mixed up? No one's mind is so clumsy that this very slight difference between law and grace should not be obvious to him, 1) because the nature of things and words brings this difference with it. For everyone understands that these words: "law", "grace", are different in matter and in name. Therefore, it is an exceedingly strange phenomenon that, while this quite clear difference is certain, the adversaries have nevertheless fallen into this devilish falsity, that they mix the law and grace and transform Christ into a Moses.
2Therefore, I often say that this doctrine of faith is very easy, and that everyone can easily understand this difference between law and grace, as far as the words are concerned, but that the same is the most difficult thing in application, in life, in the heart and conscience (affectu).
The pope with his scholastic teachers clearly says that the law and grace are distinct, and yet, where it comes into use, he teaches the very opposite. Faith in Christ, he says, may it be acquired (acquisita) by natural powers, actions and behavior (habitus), or may it be infused (infusa) by God, is nevertheless dead, if love does not follow. Where is the distinction between law and grace here? According to the name he distinguishes them
1) In Latin in old editions: cui non appareat ... distinctio facillima esse. To lift the grammatical error in these words, either distinctionem facillimam must be read, or 6886 is to be deleted. We have preferred the latter, because it corresponds best to the context.
2) This paragraph is used by Aurifaber for the first paragraph of ? 68 of the twelfth chapter of the Table Talks. In our edition of the Table Talks, this piece is omitted.
He calls grace "love" with the deed. In this way, all those who practise the law attribute justification to works. For this reason, all those who do not rightly hold to the article of justification necessarily confuse the law and grace.
3Therefore let every godly man carefully learn to distinguish the law from grace, in heart 4) and in practice, and not, as the pope and the enthusiasts do, only in words. As far as words are concerned, they admit that these two things are different, but as far as deeds are concerned, as I have said, they mix them up, because they do not admit that faith without works justifies. If this is true, then Christ is already of no use to me. No matter how much I may have the right faith, I will not be justified, as they think, if my faith is without love, and no matter how much I may have it, I do not love enough. And so, if Christ is taken by faith, he is not a justifier, grace is of no use, nor can there be true faith without love (or as the Anabaptists say, without the cross, suffering, and shedding of blood); but if love, works, and the cross are present, it is true faith and makes one just.
240 With this doctrine, the enthusiasts today again obscure the good deeds of Christ, deprive him of the honor of a justifier, and make him a minister of sin. They have learned nothing from us except that they repeat the words; they do not hold to the matter itself. They want to be regarded as teaching the gospel and faith in Christ purely, as we do, but when it comes to application, they are teachers of the law, in all respects like the false apostles. For just as they insisted in all the churches that circumcision and the observance of the gospel should be added to faith in Christ, so they also insisted that the gospel and the faith in Christ should be taught purely, as we do.
3) The first half of this paragraph is used by Aurifaber for the second paragraph of § 68 of the twelfth chapter of the Tischreden. In our edition of the Table Talks, this piece is omitted.
4) Instead of affectu, which the Jena and Erlangen offer, the Wittenberg has effectu. Cf. § 471 of the 3rd chapter.
of the law, without which, as they said, faith has no justifying power, for they said Apost. 15:1: "Unless ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved": so nowadays, besides the righteousness of faith, the legalists also demand the fulfillment of the commandments of God according to this word [Luc. 10:28]: "Do this, and thou shalt live"; likewise [Matt. 19:17]: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Therefore no one among them understands the difference between law and grace, however wise they may think themselves to be, for they are convicted of it by the custom they make of it and by the judgment they pass on the matter.
But we make a distinction here, and say that we do not now deal with the question whether one should do good works, nor do we ask whether the law is good, holy, righteous, or whether one must keep it, for that is quite a different doctrine; but our business and our question is of justification, whether the law makes righteous. Our adversaries do not hear this, nor do they answer this question, nor do they make any distinction, as we do, but only cry out: one must do good works, one must keep the law. Well, we know that. But because these are different doctrines, we will not suffer them to be mixed up with each other. In time we will also deal with this teaching, that one must keep the law and do good works. But since we are dealing here with the doctrine of justification, we now reject the works that the adversaries stubbornly (mordicus) hold on to and ascribe justification to. This means that we take away Christ's glory and attribute it to works.
242 This, then, is a very solid ground of proof, which I have often used for my great comfort, since Paul says [v. 17], "But should we who seek" etc., as if to say: If we, who are justified by Christ, are not yet reckoned justified, but sinners, who must first be justified by the law, it follows that we cannot seek justification in Christ, but by the law. But if justification is through the law, it is not through grace,
what results if one divides rightly (a sufficienti divisione). If then justification is not by grace, but by law, what did Christ accomplish by his suffering, by his preaching, by his victory over sin and death, and by the sending of the Holy Spirit? So we are either justified by Christ, or we are made sinners and guilty (rei) by him. But if the law justifies, it follows inevitably that we are made sinners through Christ, that is, that Christ is a minister of sin. Therefore, let this sentence be established: Everyone who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ is a sinner and guilty of eternal death, and unless he takes recourse to the law and does the works of the law, he cannot be saved.
The holy Scriptures, especially those of the New Testament, everywhere inculcate faith in Christ and praise him gloriously. They say: Whoever believes in Him will be saved, will not perish, will not be judged, will not be put to shame, and will have eternal life [John 3:16, 18]. In contrast, they say: He that believeth on him is damned etc., because he hath faith without works, which condemneth. Thus they pervert everything; out of Christ they make a destroyer, and out of Moses they make a beatifier. But is it not an immense blasphemy that they teach in this way? If you do the law and its works, you will be worthy of eternal life, but if you believe in Christ, you will be guilty of eternal death; the law, if kept, makes you blessed, but faith in Christ condemns you?
The adversaries do not use such words, but in fact they teach in this way, because, as they say, infused faith (fides infusa) (which they actually call faith in Christ) does not make one free from sin, but faith that has gained a proper form through love (fides formata caritate). From this it follows that faith in Christ alone, without law and works, does not make one blessed. This is certainly the same as saying that Christ leaves us in sins and God's wrath and makes us guilty of eternal death. On the other hand, if you keep the law and do works
then faith justifies, because it has the works, without which faith is otherwise of no use. So it is works that justify, not faith, because that from which anything else has its special nature must have the same nature in a higher degree. If faith justifies for the sake of works, then it follows that works justify more than faith. The abominations of this blasphemous doctrine are immeasurable.
Thus Paul's proof is based on the fact that [if the false teachers were right] the impossible would follow, and that they would have to admit this conclusion as correct if they were right. 1) If we, who are justified by Christ, are still sinners who must be justified by something other than Christ, namely, by the law, it follows that Christ cannot justify us, but only accuses and condemns us. Therefore he died in vain, and these and similar sayings are false [Joh. 1, 29.]: "Behold, this is the Lamb of God" etc., likewise [Joh. 3, 36.): "He who believes in the Son has eternal life", yes, the whole Scripture, which testifies that Christ is the Justifier and Savior of the world, is false. For if we are still found sinners after we have been justified by Christ, it must necessarily follow that those who keep the law without Christ are justified. If this is true, then we are Turks, Jews, Tartars, who only keep the word and the name of Christ in appearance, but in fact and truth completely deny Christ and his word.
But Paul wants faith to be unadorned (1 Tim. 1, 5.). Therefore, it is an error and impiety to claim that the faith given by God (fidem infusam) does not justify if it is not adorned by the works of love. But if the adversaries want to defend this, why do they not throw away faith in Christ altogether? Especially since they make nothing else out of it than a useless something (inanem qualitatem) in the soul, which is of no use without love. Why
1) Latin: Argumentatur ergo Paulus ab impossibili et sufficienti divisione.
Do they not rather call the thing by its right name? That is, why do they not say in clear words that works justify, and not faith? Likewise, why do they not publicly deny the whole gospel in general and renounce Paul (which they do in truth), since these alone ascribe righteousness to faith and not to works? For if faith justifies with works, then the whole exposition (disputatio) of Paul is false, who clearly says that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.
So Christ would be a servant of sin
247 Here again a Hebrew way of speaking is used, which Paul also uses in 2 Cor. 3, 7-9. There he speaks gloriously and most clearly of these two offices (ministeriis), namely of the letter and of the spirit, of the law and of grace, or of death and of life, and he says that Moses, the minister (ministrum) of the law, has the office of the law, which he calls the office of sin, of wrath, of death and of condemnation. For Paul uses very disgraceful names for the law of God, and he alone among the apostles speaks in this way; the others do not speak in this way. However, it is very useful for those who study the Holy Scriptures to record (tenere) this way of speaking of Paul.
But a minister of sin is called nothing else than a lawgiver or exactor of the law, who teaches good works and love, who teaches that one must bear the cross and suffer, that one should follow the example of Christ and the saints. Anyone who teaches this and insists on it is a servant of the law, sin, wrath and death, because he does nothing else with his teaching than to frighten and weigh down the consciences, and to resolve them under sin. For it is impossible for human nature to fulfill the law; indeed, in the justified who have the Holy Spirit, the law in the members opposes the law in the mind etc. [What should it not do in the ungodly who do not have the Holy Spirit?
(249) Therefore, he who teaches that righteousness is obtained through the law does not understand what he says or what he claims, much less keeps the law, but deceives himself and others and burdens them with an unbearable burden, teaches and demands the impossible, and finally leads himself and his disciples into despair.
The very custom and purpose of the law, therefore, is that it may convict men, who live quietly and securely, of their guilt, that they may be guilty of sin, wrath, and death, that they may be terrified, despair, despondency, and fear of a rushing leaf. And inasmuch as they are so constituted, they are under the law. For the law demands perfect obedience to God, and condemns those who do not render the same. But it is obvious that no one does or can do this perfect obedience to the law, which God nevertheless strictly demands. Therefore the law does not justify, but condemns, as it is written [Deut. 27, 26. Gal. 3, 10.]: "Cursed be everyone who does not remain in all this" etc. Therefore, he who teaches the law is a sin-servant.
Therefore Paul rightly calls the office of the law an office of sin in 2 Cor. 3, 9. 1) For the law indicates sin, which without the law is dead [Rom. 7, 8]. But the knowledge of sin (which is not only in thoughts [speculativa], as with the hypocrites, but the right one, in which one recognizes the wrath of God over sin and in truth tastes and feels death) frightens the hearts, drives to despair and kills, Rom. 7, 11.
Therefore, these teachers of the law and works, whom the Scriptures call "drivers" and "tyrants" [Isa. 9:4, 49:7] (for just as those drivers in Egypt burdened the children of Israel with physical bondage, so these bring souls into spiritual and exceedingly miserable bondage through the teaching of the law and works, and finally drive them into despair and corrupt them), neither recognize themselves, nor feel
1) In the quoted passage it says: "The ministry that preaches condemnation", namely because of sin.
The power of the law, nor is it possible for them to attain peace of conscience in right: The terror of the conscience and the peace of the conscience in the distress of death, even though they have kept the law, shown love, done many good works, and suffered many evils. For the law always terrifies them and accuses them, saying, "You have never done all that is commanded in the law, but cursed is he who has not done [all]." etc. Therefore, this terror remains and gradually becomes stronger and stronger, and if such teachers of the law are not straightened out by faith and the righteousness of Christ, they must despair.
253 There is a remarkable example of this in the "Life Descriptions of the Fathers" by a hermit. 2) A short time before he died, he stood sadly and motionless for three days with his eyes turned toward heaven. When he was asked why he was doing this, he said that he feared death. When his disciples comforted him that he had no reason to fear death because he had lived a very holy life, he replied: "I have lived a holy life and kept God's commandments, but God's judgments are very different from those of men. When he saw death before his eyes, he could not satisfy his heart, even though he had lived blamelessly and kept the law of God, because it occurred to him that God judges very differently from men, and so he lost confidence in all his good works and merits, and fell into despair when he was not raised up by the promise of Christ.
Therefore, the law can do nothing but strip us naked and present us as guilty. There is then no help nor counsel, but all is lost. Here the life and the tortures of all the saints cannot help us. This is also beautifully illustrated in the history of the legislation 2 Mos. 19, 16-18. and 20, 18. f. Moses led the people out of the camp to meet God, so that they would hear God speak from the dark cloud. Then the people, who had promised shortly before that they would do everything that God would command, drew back in fear and trembling, stood
2) The same story is found in the Hauspostille, Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XIII, 24, § 9.
from afar and said to Moses, "Who can hear the fire, and the thunder, and the sound of the trumpet? "Speak thou with us, and we will obey; and let not God speak with us, lest we die."
The actual function of the law is to lead us out of our camp, that is, out of peace and trust in ourselves, and to bring us before the face of God and reveal His wrath to us. Then the conscience realizes that it has not done enough for the law, nor can it do enough, nor can it bear the wrath of God that the law reveals; when it thus brings us before God's face, that is, when it terrifies, accuses and exposes sin, it is impossible for us to stand. Therefore we flee in terror and cry out with Israel: We must die, we must die! The Lord do not speak to us, you speak to us etc.
Whoever therefore teaches that faith in Christ does not justify unless the law is kept at the same time, makes Christ a minister of sin, that is, a teacher of the law, who teaches the same as Moses. Thus Christ cannot be a savior nor a dispenser of grace, but a cruel tyrant who, like Moses, demands impossible things that no one can accomplish. Thus all those who deal in their own righteousness (justitiarii) hold that Christ is a new lawgiver, and pass the judgment that the Gospel is nothing but a book containing new laws of works, as the Turks dream of their Alkoran. But in Mosi's books there are enough laws. Therefore the gospel is a preaching of Christ, that he forgives sins, gives grace, and makes sinners righteous and blessed. But that there are commandments in the Gospel, they are not Gospel, but interpretations of the law and appendices of the Gospel.
Furthermore, if the law is an office of sin, then it follows that it is also an office of wrath and death, because the law, as it exposes sin, so also terrifies man, reveals the wrath of God, and puts terror of death into him. For the conscience immediately concludes thus: You have not kept the commandments, so God is offended and
is angry with you, and this is the inevitable conclusion: I have sinned, therefore I must die. Thus, according to the correct conclusion (per consequens), the office of sin is also an office of God's wrath and death. For when sin is revealed, wrath, death and damnation immediately follow. For thus the conscience concludes: You have sinned, so God is angry with you; but if he is angry, he will kill you and condemn you eternally. And hence it is that many who cannot bear the wrath and judgment of God, which are made known by the law, kill themselves, cut their necks, or drown themselves etc.
That is far away.
258 As if he wanted to say: Christ is not a servant of sin, but he gives righteousness and eternal life. That is why Paul separates Christ from Moses by a long way. Moses should therefore remain on earth, be a teacher of the letter and a lawgiver, and crucify sinners. But the believers, Paul says, have another teacher in their conscience, not Moses, but Christ, who has abolished the law, overcome sin, wrath and death 1) and abolished them. He calls us, who are weary and burdened with all evil, to come to him. Therefore, when we flee to him, Moses disappears with his law, so that his grave is nowhere to be seen, and sin and death can no longer harm us. For Christ our teacher is the Lord of law, sin and death; he who believes in him is free from these. So it is the real ministry of Christ to free from sins and death, which Paul teaches and inculcates without ceasing.
And so we are condemned and put to death by the law, but justified and made alive by Christ. The law frightens us and drives us away from God, but Christ reconciles us to God and makes it possible for us to have access to him. For he is the Lamb of God who bears the sin of the world. Therefore, whoever believes in Christ has him who took away the sin of the world. If the sin
1) Erlanger: visit, which should mean vicit.
If sin is taken away from the world, it is also taken away from me who believe in him. But if sin is taken away, then wrath, death and condemnation are also taken away, and righteousness has taken the place of sin, reconciliation and grace have taken the place of wrath, life has taken the place of death, and eternal blessedness has taken the place of condemnation.
260 We should not only learn to speak this difference in words, but also to put it into practice and life out of a living conviction of the heart. For where Christ is, there must also be a calm and happy conscience. For Christ is our reconciliation, righteousness, peace, life and blessedness; in short, everything that a poor and shattered conscience seeks, it finds abundantly in Christ. Paul makes further use of this reason for proof and convinces them:
V. 18 But if I build again that which I have broken, I make myself a transgressor.
261 As if to say, I have not preached in such a way that I would do again what I once broke. For if I did so, I would not only labor in vain, but would make myself a transgressor, and, as the false apostles are wont to do, would pervert all things; that is, I would turn grace and Christ into a law and Moses, and vice versa, the law and Moses into grace and Christ. But I have broken sin, sorrow, wrath and death by the ministry of the gospel. For I have taught thus: Your conscience, O man, is subject to law, sin, and death; from which you cannot be freed by the power of any man or angel. But now the gospel comes and proclaims to you forgiveness of sins through Christ, who has done away with the law and has destroyed sin and death. Believe in Him, and you will be set free from the curse of the law, from the tyranny of sin and death, and you will be justified and have eternal life.
1) Instead of vivis, the Wittenberg has: unius.
Thus I have broken the law through the preaching of the gospel, so that it can no longer remain in the conscience. For since the new householder, Christ, comes into the new house to dwell therein alone, the old inhabitant, Moses, must depart and go elsewhere. But where Christ is the new host, there the law, sin, wrath, and death have no place, but there is only grace, righteousness, joy, life, and nothing but childlike confidence in the reconciled, favorable, and gracious Father for Christ's sake. Should I then cast out Christ and destroy his kingdom, which I planted through the gospel, and again build up the law and establish Moses' kingdom? This would happen if I taught, as the false apostles do, that circumcision and the keeping of the law are necessary for salvation. And in this way, instead of righteousness and life, I would again establish sin and death. For the law only exposes sin, incites wrath and kills.
Dear, what are the papists, when they are at their best, but destroyers of the kingdom of Christ and builders of the kingdom of the devil, of sin, of the wrath of God, and of eternal death? They destroy the church, which is the building of God, not with the law of Moses, as the false apostles do, but with the statutes of men and the teachings of the devils. So do the spirits of the swarm, who are already here today, and those who will come after us: they destroy and will destroy what we have built, and rebuild and will rebuild anew what we have destroyed.
But we, who by God's grace hold fast the article of justification, know most definitely that we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone. Therefore, we do not confuse law and grace, faith and works, but keep them very far apart. This distinction between the law and grace should be carefully observed by everyone who strives for godliness, and it should be given its due weight, not only in letters and syllables, but in application, so that when he hears that one must do good works, he may
He must follow Christ's example, he can judge rightly and say: Quite right, I will gladly do that. What else? Then you will be blessed. No; I admit that one should do all good, suffer all evil, even shed one's blood, if the cause, for Christ's sake, so requires, but by this I am not justified, nor do I attain blessedness.
Therefore, it is not necessary to include good works in the article of justification, as the monks did, who said that not only good works are deserving of eternal life, but also the punishments and executions inflicted on wicked wicked men for their misdeeds. For they have been so comforted when the death penalty should now be carried out on them: Suffer willingly this shameful death; if you do so, you will earn forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
It is a frightening thing that a poor thief, murderer, or robber, in his greatest fear, should be seduced in such a way that, at the moment when he must die, when he is about to be hanged or beheaded, nothing is said to him about the Gospel of Christ, which alone can comfort and make him blessed, but he is asked to hope for mercy and forgiveness of sins if he willingly suffers the ignominious death that will be inflicted on him because of his crimes. This really means to hang the greatest misfortune on the neck of someone who is in the greatest suffering and to show him the way to hell through this false delusion and trust in his own death.
267 By this those hypocrites sufficiently show that they have not taught or understood a single letter of grace, of the gospel or of Christ. They have kept the name of the gospel or Christ only in pretense, in order to deceive the hearts of the simple all the more easily, but in fact they have denied Christ altogether and trampled Him underfoot, and ascribed more to human statutes than to the gospel of Christ. This is evidenced by the so many services, so many kinds of orders, so many ceremonies, so many works, all of which have been instituted in the opinion that they should help to merit grace etc.
In confession they made no mention of the faith or of the merit of Christ, but only inculcated human satisfactions and merits, as can be seen in the following formula of absolution, not to mention others which the monks used among themselves, namely those who wanted to be respected for living spiritually in a higher degree than others. These I will put here, so that our descendants may also recognize the immense and unspeakable abomination of the papal empire.
Formula of absolution of the monks.
God forgive you, my brother! - May the merit of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the merit of your order, the hard life in the spiritual state, the humility of your confession, the repentance in your heart, the good works that you have done and will do out of love for our Lord Jesus Christ, be sufficient for you to forgive your sins, to grow in merit and grace, and to receive eternal life as a reward, amen.
Here you hear the merit of Christ mentioned, but if you consider the words a little more carefully, you will see that Christ has nothing to do with it, and that the honor and the name of a justifier and savior are taken away from him, while this is attached to the monastic works. Does this not mean that the name of God is used uselessly? Is this not confessing Christ in words, but denying and blaspheming His power? I have been in the same mire; I thought that Christ was a judge (although I confessed with my mouth that he suffered and died to redeem the human race), who should be pacified by keeping my rule. Therefore, when I prayed or said Mass, I always added at the end: Lord Jesus, I come to you and ask you to accept the difficult service in my order as a payment for my sins.
But now I give thanks to the Father of mercies, who has brought me out of darkness.
has called me to the light of the gospel and gifted me with an exceedingly rich knowledge of my Lord Jesus Christ, for whose sake I, like Paul, count all things as evil and count them as filth, that I may gain Christ and be found in him [Phil. 3:8, 9], that I may not have my righteousness from the rule of Augustine, but that which comes through faith in Christ etc. To whom be praise and glory, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever, Amen.
272 We conclude with Paul that we are justified by faith alone in Christ, without law and works. But after a man is justified by faith, and now possesses Christ by faith, and knows that he is his righteousness and his life, he will certainly not be idle, but will bear good fruit as a good tree. For a believing person has the Holy Spirit; where He is, He does not let the person be idle, but drives him to all exercises in godliness, to love toward God, to patience in tribulations, to prayer, to thanksgiving, to showing love toward all.
For this reason we also say that faith without works is worthless and useless. This is understood by the papists and the enthusiasts to mean that faith without works does not justify, or that faith, however righteous, is useless unless it has works. This is false; but faith without works, that is, a fanciful thought, a mere delusion and dream of the heart, is false and does not justify.
274 So far we have dealt with the first ground of proof, by which Paul aims at the fact that either we cannot be justified by the law, or Christ must necessarily be a minister of sin. But this is impossible; it follows that in no way may it be admitted that we are justified by the law. We have, however, treated this doctrine in detail, as it is proper, although it cannot yet be sufficiently impressed and recorded even in this way.
V. 19. But I died to the law through the law, that I might live.
These are wonderful words and unheard-of speeches, which human reason does not understand at all. And this is spoken briefly, but very emphatically. But it is evident that Paul is speaking from a heated, ardent spirit and in great zeal, after the manner of a man who is very indignant, as if he wanted to say: Why do you insist on the law, of which I want to know nothing? Why do you so often deafen my ears with it? If one must have a law, then I also have a law.
276 So he calls grace itself a law, as it were out of an indignation wrought by the Holy Spirit, calling the work of grace (rem gratiae) by a new word, to the shame of the law, Most and the false apostles, who claimed that it was necessary for justification, and so he sets law against law.
277 And this is a very lovely way of speaking, which is exceedingly full of comfort, that in the Scriptures, especially in Paul, law is set against law, sin against sin, death against death, captivity against captivity, devil against devil, hell against hell, altar against altar, lamb against lamb, Easter against Easter etc. Rom. 8, 3.: "He condemned sin by sin" etc.; Ps. 68, 19. and Eph. 4, 8.: "He caught the prison." Hos. 13, 14.: "Death, I will be a death 1) to thee; hell, I will be a pestilence to thee." So here he says he died to the law through the law, as if to say: The law of Moses accuses me and condemns me. Against this accusing and condemning law I have another law, which is grace and freedom. This accuses the accuser and condemns the condemning law.
2Thus death kills death, but this death that kills death is life itself. But he is called the death of death because of the exceedingly great unwillingness of the Holy Spirit against death. Thus, righteousness puts on the name of sin because it condemns sin, and this condemning sin is the right righteousness.
1) According to the Vulgate.
2) In this and the preceding paragraph, Menius has added much that is not found in Latin, also changing the order.
And here Paul is a heretic above all heretics, and his heresy is outrageous, because he says that he who died to the law lives GOtte. The false apostles taught: If you do not live by the law, you are dead to God, that is, if you do not live by the law, you are dead to God. Paul says just the opposite: If you have not died to the law, you cannot live to God. Our adversaries today have the same teaching that the false apostles had at that time. They say: If you want to live according to the law, then live according to the law. We, on the other hand, say: If you want to live godly, you must be completely dead to the law. Human reason and wisdom cannot grasp this doctrine, therefore it constantly teaches the opposite, namely: If you want to live right, you must keep the law, for it is written: "Do this, and you will live. And this is the noblest doctrine and the only principle (maxima) of all theologians: He who lives by the law lives GOtte.
But Paul says something quite different, namely that we cannot live if we have not died to the law. Therefore, we must rise to this heavenly height, that we have certainly died to the law. But if we have died to the law, then the law has no right over us, just as it has not the slightest right over Christ, who redeemed us from it, so that we might live through Him. The purpose of all this is that we are not justified by the law, but only by faith in Christ.
But Paul is not talking about the ceremonial law, because he sacrificed in the temple, circumcised Timothy, circumcised his head in Keuchrea [Acts 21:26, 16, 3, 18, 18]. He would not have done this if he had died to the ceremonial law, but he is talking about the whole law. Therefore, for a Christian, the whole law, whether it be the ceremonial law or the holy ten commandments, has perished, because he has died to it. It is not as if the law had perished; rather, it remains, lives, and reigns in the ungodly; but a godly man is not subject to the law.
He died to sin, to the devil, to death, to hell, which nevertheless remain, and the wagering and the ungodly will keep them.
Therefore, while a sophist thinks that the law, and the ceremonial law at that, has passed away, you, on the other hand, hold to the understanding that Paul and every Christian was caught up from the law and died, and yet the law remains. For example: Since Christ rises from death, he is free from the grave, and yet the grave remains. Peter is free from prison, the gout-ridden man from a fine bed, the young man from his coffin, the maiden from her deathbed [Apost. 12, 9. Matth. 9, 6. Luc. 7, 14. f. 8, 55.], and yet the prison, the bed, the coffin and the deathbed remain. So also the law is taken away when I am taken away from it; the law dies when I die to it, and yet it remains. But because I die to it through another law, it also dies to me. Similarly, the tomb of Christ, the prison of Peter, the deathbed of the maiden etc. remain, and yet Christ dies to the tomb by his resurrection, Peter is taken from the prison by his deliverance, the maiden is got rid of by the life of the deathbed.
Therefore these words: "I died to the law" are very weighty and emphatic. For he does not say: I am free from the law for a time, or I am a master of the law, but he says par excellence: "I am dead to the law," that is, I have nothing at all to do with the law. Paul could not have said anything stronger against justification by the law than this, since he says, "I died to the law," that is, I do not care about the law at all, because I cannot be justified by it.
But "to die to the law" does not mean to be bound by the law, but to be free from it and to know nothing of it. Therefore, if anyone wants to live before God, let him seek to be found apart from the law and come out of the grave with Christ. The guardians were astonished when Christ rose from the grave, and those who saw the maiden being raised were also astonished [Matth. 27, 4 Marc.
5, 42.]. So also reason and human wisdom is terrified and becomes a fool when it hears that we are not justified unless we have first died to the law, because it cannot understand this. But we know that when we take hold of Christ in faith, as far as conscience is concerned, we come under a new law, which swallows up the old law that held us captive. Just as that tomb in which Christ lay, having died when he was raised, opens and is seen empty, and Christ disappears from it, so also I rise with Christ when I believe in him, and die to my grave, that is, to the law that held me captive, and the law is now empty, I have escaped from my prison and grave, that is, from the law. Therefore, it now no longer has the right to accuse and hold me, because I am resurrected.
The consciences must be diligently instructed so that they learn the article of the difference between righteousness by law and righteousness by grace.
The righteousness of grace or the freedom of conscience is of no concern to the flesh. For the flesh shall not be free, but shall remain in the grave, in prison, on its deathbed; it shall be subject to the law and be tormented by the Egyptians. The Christian conscience, however, should be dead to the law, that is, free from the law, and have nothing to do with it. It is very necessary to know this, because it serves to comfort the troubled conscience.
Therefore, when you see a man who is frightened and distressed because of the sins of which he is conscious, say to him: You do not discern rightly, dear brother, you put the law on the conscience, which should be put on the flesh. Wake up, straighten up, and remember that one must believe in Christ, who overcame the law and sin; in this faith you will pass over the law and enter into grace, where there is no law and no sin; and although law and sin are present, they are none of your business, because you have died to the law and sins.
This is easy to say, but to him who understands it well in the battle of conscience, that is, who then, when sin comes upon him and the law accuses and terrifies him, could say: What is it to me that you, Law, accuse me, that you convict me of having committed many sins? Yes, I still commit many sins daily; that is none of my business, I am now deaf, I do not hear you, therefore you are telling a story to a deaf man, because I have died to you. But if you really want to dispute with me about sins, go to my flesh and my members, my servants; instruct them, afflict them and crucify them. But thou shalt not trouble my conscience, the Lord and King, for I have nothing to do with thee. For I died to you, and now live in Christ, where I am in another law, that of grace, which rules over sin and over the law. By what? Through faith in Christ, as Paul indicates below.
But this is a strange and outrageous saying, that "to live by the law" is as much as to die by it, and "to die by the law" is as much as to live by it. These two sentences are highly repugnant to reason, therefore no sophist or teacher of the law (legista) understands them. But you learn to understand them correctly. He who lives by the law, that is, he who seeks to be justified by the works of the law, is and remains a sinner, therefore he is dead and condemned. For the law cannot justify and make blessed, but accuses, terrifies and kills him. So "to live by the law" is to die, and again, "to die by the law" is to live. Therefore, if you want to live GOtte, you must die to the law, but if you will live to the law, you will have died to GOtte. But to "live unto the law" is to be justified by grace, or by faith for Christ's sake, without law and without works.
290 Therefore, a Christian, if one wants to describe him properly and clearly, is a child of grace and forgiveness of sins, who0 has absolutely no law, but is above
1) Wittenbergers: quia. Jenaer and Erlanger: qui.
Menius: the.
over sin, death and hell. And just as Christ is free from the grave, Peter free from prison, so a Christian is free from the law, and just as the relationship of Christ risen from the grave and Peter freed from prison is to the grave and prison, so is the relation of a conscience justified by faith to the law, and just as Christ, by his death and resurrection, dies to the grave, so that it no longer has any right over him, nor can it keep him, but he, since the stone and seal etc. and the guardians were terrified, he rises and goes away free, and Peter, through his deliverance, dies to the prison and goes away wherever he wants, so the conscience is freed from the law through grace.
So is every one that is born of the spirit, but the flesh knoweth not whence this cometh, or whither it goeth, for it can only judge according to the law. The spirit, on the other hand, says: "The law may accuse me, sin and death may frighten me, but I do not despair, because I have law against law, sin against sin and death against death.
Therefore, when I feel the biting of conscience because of sin, I look at the serpent of brass, Christ on the cross. There I find another sin against my sin, which accuses me and wants to devour me. But this other sin, namely in the flesh of Christ, which takes away the sin of the whole world, is almighty, condemns and devours my sin. Thus my sin, lest it should accuse and condemn me, is condemned by sin [Rom. 8:3.], that is, by Christ crucified, "who was made sin for us, that we might become in him the righteousness that is before God" [2 Cor. 5:21.]. So I find death in my flesh, which beats me and kills me, but I have a death against this death, which is the death of my death; the same crucifies and devours.
All this is not through the law or works, but through Christ crucified, on whose shoulders rests all the evils of the human race, law, sin, death, devil, hell, all of which die in him,
because he kills them by his death. But we must grasp this benefit of Christ with firm faith, for as neither the law nor any work but Christ alone is offered to us, so nothing else is required of us but faith, which is to grasp and believe that my sin and death have been condemned and taken away in the sin and death of Christ.
294 Thus we always have certain reasons for proof, from which it must be concluded that faith alone justifies. For how could the law and works contribute to justification, since Paul argues (agat) against the law and works and clearly says that we must have died to the law if we want to live? But if we have died to the law, and the law has died to us, then surely it has nothing to do with us. How, then, should it contribute to justification? Therefore, it must be said that we are declared righteous by grace or faith in Christ alone, without law and works.
The blind sophists do not understand this, therefore they dream that faith does not justify unless it does works of love. In this way, faith that believes in Christ becomes idle and futile, because it is deprived of the power to justify if it has not received its proper form through love (formata caritate).
But you now set aside the law and love to another place and time, and turn your attention to the matter at hand. This is the matter of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying on the cross, bearing my sin in his body, the law, death, the devil and hell. These insurmountable enemies and tyrants press me and trouble me now, therefore I am troubled how to become free from them, righteous and blessed. Here I find no law, no work, no love that could set me free from them, but Christ alone takes away the law, kills my sin, destroys my death in his body, and in this way he makes hell empty, judges the devil, crucifies him, and pushes him into hell; in short, everything that previously crucified and oppressed me
Christ has "done this out of the means, stripped them, made a public display of them, and made a triumph of them through Himself" [Col. 2:14, 15], so that from now on they can no longer rule over me, but must serve me.
From this it can be sufficiently understood that nothing must be done here but to hear that this has happened and to grasp it with undoubted faith, and this is in truth the rightly formed faith (fides formata). After that, if I have taken hold of Christ through faith 1) and have died to the law, justified from sin and through Christ freed from death, the devil and hell, then I do good works, love God, thank Him, show love to my neighbor. But this love or the following works neither give my faith its proper form nor do they adorn it, but my faith gives love its proper form and adorns it. This is our theology, and it is a strange, absurd and paradoxical thing in the sight of reason that I am not only blind and deaf to the law, and free from it, but completely dead to it.
But this saying of Paul, "I died to the law through the law," is exceedingly full of comfort. If this consolation could come to a man at the right time and be firmly fixed in his heart with the right understanding, he would be able to stand strong against all the dangers of death, against the terrors of conscience and sin, no matter how much they assailed him, accused him, and wanted to bring him to despair. Surely every one is tempted, if not in life, yet in death. When the law accuses and exposes the sin, then 2) the conscience immediately says: You have sinned.
If you then hold what Paul teaches here, you can answer: It is true, I have sinned. - So God will punish and condemn you. - No. - Yes the law of God says this. - I have nothing to do with this law. - Why? -Because I have another law, which this law
1) üäs is missing in the Wittenberger.
2) Erlanger: äisut instead of äistut.
forces to fall silent, namely freedom. - What freedom? - Christ's. For through Christ I am made free from the law. Therefore the law, which is and remains a law for the ungodly, 3) is no law for me, but my law is freedom and binds the law that condemns me, and so the law that bound me and held me captive is already bound and held captive by grace or freedom, which is now my law. From this that law which accuses me hears, Thou shalt not bind this man unto me, nor hold him captive, nor accuse him; but I will hold thee captive, and bind thy hands, that thou mayest not hurt him, because now he liveth unto Christ, and is dead unto thee.
(300) That is, to strike out the teeth of the law, to blunt its sting and all its weapons, and to take away its power altogether. Nevertheless, it remains a law for the ungodly and unbelievers, and it also remains for us weak ones, as far as we do not believe; there it still has its sharpness and its teeth. But if I believe in Christ, however much sin tries to plunge me into despair, I still speak in confidence of this freedom which I have in Christ: I confess that I have sinned, but my sin, which is a damnable sin, is on Christ, who is the damnable sin. But the condemning sin is stronger than the condemned sin, because it is the justifying grace, righteousness, life and blessedness.
Likewise, when I feel the terror of death, I say: I have nothing to do with you, death, because I have another death that kills you, my death; but the death that kills is stronger than the death that is killed.
302) Thus, the believer can only be uplifted by faith and take a certain and firm comfort, so that he will not pale in the face of sin, death, the devil and all evil, and no matter how much the devil storms against him with all his impetuosity.
3) Here the text of the editions needs an addition: läso lsx, HUU6 impiis 68t st raunst Isx, sinitn non 68t I6X, 8sck Isx^ 68t raivi Iibsrtu8 6te. The omission Will be caused by the frequent recurrence of the word Isx. Menius translates according to our addition
and wants to shower him with the terror of the whole world, yet in the midst of this terror he sits hope and says: Lord Satan, your threats and terrors do not move me, for there is One called Jesus Christ in whom I believe. He has done away with the law, condemned sin, destroyed death, broken hell, and he is, Satan, your Satan. For he has taken you captive and bound you, so that you can no longer harm me or anyone who believes in him. This faith the devil cannot overcome, but is overcome by it, for "our faith," says John, "is the victory which overcomes the world. But who is he that overcometh the world, except he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" [1 John 5:4, 5.]
Thus, in a great zeal and indignation of the Holy Spirit, Paul calls grace itself a law, while in truth it is nothing other than the supreme and immeasurable freedom of grace that we have in Christ. Then, for our consolation, he also gives the law this disgraceful name, so that we know that it is now baptized with a new name, that it is no longer alive, but dead and condemned, and (this is a very lovely spectacle) he presents the law and performs it, as it were, as a thief or robber who has already been condemned and sentenced to death. For by representing the law as a person (per proso-popoeian), he describes how it is held captive, how its hands and feet are already bound and all power is taken from it, so that it can no longer exercise its tyranny, that is, can no longer accuse and condemn; and by this exceedingly lovely painting he makes it contemptible before the conscience, so that he who believes in Christ now also dares in a holy pride to defy the law in this way: I am a sinner; if you, law, are able to do something against me, do it! So much is lacking that the law should still frighten the believer.
304 Since Christ had risen from death, why should he still be terrified before the grave? After Peter was released from prison
was freed, why should he fear it? The maiden might have feared her bed of rest when she was dying, but now that she was raised again, why should she fear it? So also a Christian who truly possesses Christ by faith: why should he fear the law?
A Christian, though he feels the terror of the law, is not overcome by it, but, trusting in the freedom which he has in Christ, he says: I hear, O law, that thou murmurest, that thou wilt accuse and condemn me, but this does not move me; thou art as much to me as the empty tomb was to Christ. For I see that thou art bound and tied hand and foot, which my law hath bound thee. What is this law? The freedom that is called a law, not because it binds me, but because it binds my law. The law of the Ten Commandments bound me; against it I now have another law, namely the law of grace, which is not a law for me, nor does it bind me, but makes me free. But it is a law against the condemning law; this is bound by it, so that it can no longer bind me.
306 So I also have another death against the death that binds me, namely the life that makes alive in Christ, and this death releases me and frees me from the bonds of my death, and binds him himself with it. So the death that bound me is now bound, he who wanted to kill me is now killed by this death, that is, by the true life.
1Thus Christ is called by the sweetest names: My law, my sin, my death against the law, sin and death, since in truth he is nothing other than pure freedom, righteousness, life and eternal bliss. Therefore he became a law for the law, a sin for sin, a death for death, that he might redeem me from the curse of the law etc. and make me righteous and alive. Thus Christ is twofold: while he is law, he is liberty; while he is sin, he is righteousness; while he is sin, he is righteousness.
1) This paragraph is used by Aurifaber for s 58 of the seventh chapter of the Tischreden. In our edition of the Table Talks, it has been omitted.
While he is death, he is life. For just by allowing himself to be accused by the law, condemned by sin, devoured by death, he has done away with the law, condemned sin, destroyed death, and made me righteous and blessed. Thus Christ is both the poison against the law, sin and death, and the medicine to obtain freedom, righteousness and eternal life.
This quite Pauline way of thinking and speaking is very sweet and comforting. Thus he contrasts the law in the mind with the law in the members, Rom. 7, 23. Because this is spoken in a new and strange way (mirabiliter), it enters the heart more easily and remains more firmly in the memory. Then it is also more lovely when he says: "I died to the law through the law", than if he had said: "I died to the law through freedom: I died to the law through freedom. He holds up a kind of painting, as if one law were fighting against another law, as if to say: Law, if you can accuse, terrify and bind me, I will set another law over you, that is, another tyrant and tormentor, who shall in turn accuse, bind and oppress you. You are indeed my tormentor, but I have another tormentor, Christ, who will torment you; but if you are tormented by him, I am free through him. Likewise, if the devil torment me, I have a stronger devil who torments him again 1) and overcomes him. So grace is a law, not for me, for it does not bind me, but for my law, which it binds so that it can no longer bind me.
Therefore Paul would like to withdraw us completely from the law, sin, death and all evil, so that we no longer look at them, and would like to lead us to Christ, so that we there look at the most beautiful duel, namely that the law fights against the law, so that I may be free; sin against sin, so that I may be righteous; death against death, so that I may have life; that Christ may be my devil against the devil, so that I may be God's child; that he may destroy hell, so that I may have the kingdom of heaven.
1) We have followed the reading of the Wittenberg: üaxeUat. In the Jena and in the Erlangen: UaMÜbt.
That I may live GOtte.
That is, so that I may be alive before God. So you see that there can be no life if you are not without law, yes, if you are not completely dead to the law, namely in conscience. But in the meantime, as long as the body lives, the flesh, as I have often reminded you, must be exercised by laws and be afflicted by the doings and punishments of laws. But the inward man, who owes nothing to the law, but rather is free from it, is a living, righteous, and holy person, not by himself or in his being, but in Christ, because he believes in him, as follows:
I am crucified with Christ.
He adds this because he wants to describe the law that devours the law. He says: "I did not die to the law through the law alone, so that I might live, but I was also crucified with Christ. But Christ is the Lord of the law, because he was crucified to the law and died, therefore I also am a Lord of the law. For I also was crucified to the law and died, because I was crucified with Christ and died with him. By what? Through grace and faith. Since through this faith I am crucified to the law and die, it loses all right to me, just as it lost its right to Christ. Therefore, just as Christ himself was crucified to the law, to sin, to death, to the devil, so that they no longer have any right to him, so I also, through faith, am crucified in spirit with Christ, crucified to the law, to sin, etc. and die to them, so that they also no longer have any right to me, but are crucified to me and have died.
312 Paul does not speak here of the crucifixion, which consists of following him or imitating his example, because to follow the example of Christ also means to be crucified with him; this crucifixion concerns the flesh, of which it is said in 1 Pet 2:21: "Christ suffered for us and left us an example, that you should follow in his footsteps", but he speaks here of the sublime
2) Thus the Wittenbergers. Jenaer and Erlanger: vobis. Menius: euch.
Crucifixion, by which sin, the devil, death is crucified in Christ, not in me. Here Christ does all things alone, but, believing, I am crucified with Christ through faith, so that sin, death etc. are also dead and crucified to me.
V. 20. But I am alive.
He speaks clearly and actually. He says: "I do not speak of my death and crucifixion as if I were no longer alive, but rather I am alive, because through this death and crucifixion, by which I die, I am made alive, that is, because through grace and faith I am freed from the law, from sin and from death, so I truly live. Therefore, crucifixion and death, by which I am crucified and die to the law, sin, death and all evil, is resurrection and life to me. For Christ crucifies the devil, kills death, condemns sin, and binds the law; believing this, I am freed from the law etc. So the law is powerless, bound, dead and crucified to me, and again, I am powerless, bound, dead and crucified to the law. So I live just by this death and crucifixion, that is, just by this grace or freedom.
Here, however, as I have already reminded you above, the Pauline way of speaking is to be noted, namely, that he says that we die to the law and are crucified to it, while the law rather dies to us and is crucified. But he uses this expression on purpose, that we are crucified to the law and have died, so that the speech is more sweet. For the law, which otherwise remains, lives and reigns in the whole world, which accuses and condemns all men, is crucified and dies for those alone who believe in Christ. Therefore they alone have this honor, that they have been crucified and died to the law, to sin etc.
But now not me.
315 That is, not in my person or in my being. He clearly shows how he lives and teaches what Christian righteousness is.
It is the one through which Christ lives in us, not the one that is in our person. Therefore, if we are to speak of Christian righteousness, the person must be set aside altogether. For if I cling to the person or speak of him, the person becomes a work-saint who is subject to the law, whether I like it or not. But here Christ and my conscience must become One Body, so that I keep nothing else before my eyes but the crucified and resurrected Christ. But if I only look at myself and exclude Christ, then it is all over for me. For then this thought immediately comes to my mind: Christ is in heaven, you are on earth; in what way can you come to him? I will live holy and do what the law requires, and so I will enter into life. If I now turn to myself and look at myself as I am or should be, as well as what I should do, I lose sight of Christ, who alone is my righteousness and my life. When I have lost this, there is no more counsel or help, but despair and damnation must inevitably follow.
316 And this evil is a very general one, for this is the misfortune of men, that when we are in temptation or in mortal peril, we soon forsake Christ, and look upon our life and doings. If we are not raised up by faith here, we must perish. Therefore we must get used to the fact that in such struggles of the conscience we let go of ourselves, the law and the works, which only drive us to look at ourselves, and turn our eyes straight to the brazen serpent, namely to Christ, who is nailed to the cross, and, clinging to him with unwavering gaze, certainly believe that he is our righteousness and our life, and do not care about the threats and terrors of the law, of sin, of death, of the wrath and judgment of God. For Christ, to whom we cling unwaveringly and firmly, in whom we are, and who lives in us, is the victor and the Lord over law, sin, death and all evil; in him we are offered a certain comfort and given victory.
But I live; yet now not I, but Christ liveth in me.
317 That he says: "But I live" is as if it were spoken of a person, as if Paul spoke of his person. Therefore he immediately uses a sharper expression and says: "but now not I", that is: I do not live in my person, but "Christ lives in me". The person lives, but not in himself or for his person. But who is the "I" of whom he says: "yet not I"? It is the "I" who has the law and must do works, and is a person separated from Christ. Paul rejects this "I" because the "I" as a person separated from Christ belongs to death and hell. Therefore he says: "yet now not I, but Christ lives in me"; he is my form (forma), which adorns my faith, as a color or light gives its adornment to a wall. This is how crudely this matter must be explained, for spiritually we cannot conceive of Christ adhering to us and remaining in us as closely and as intimately as light or white paint adheres to a wall. So he says: Christ, who is so attached to me and so closely connected with me, and remains in me, lives this life, which I live, in me, indeed, the life, through which I live in this way, is Christ himself. Therefore, Christ and I are now one thing in this piece.
But since Christ lives in me, he abolishes the law, condemns sin, and kills death, because these must necessarily disappear where he is present. For Christ is eternal peace, comfort, righteousness and life; but to these must give way the terror of the law, affliction of soul, sin, hell and death. Thus Christ, who abides and lives in me, takes away and devours all evil that torments and afflicts me. Therefore, this indwelling [of Christ^ causes me to be delivered from the terrors of the law and sin, to be taken out of my skin and transferred into Christ and into his kingdom, which is a kingdom of grace, righteousness, peace, joy, life, blessedness, and eternal glory. But since I live in him, no misfortune can harm me.
In the meantime, at least on the outside,
the old man, who is subject to the law, but as far as justification is concerned, Christ and I must be intimately united, so that he lives in me and I in him (this is a strange way of speaking). But because he lives in me, therefore all that is in me of grace, righteousness, life, peace, blessedness, belongs to Christ himself, and yet it is also mine through the close union and indwelling which takes place through faith, whereby Christ and I become, as it were, One Body in the Spirit. Therefore, since Christ lives in me, grace, righteousness, life and eternal blessedness must be there at the same time, and the law, sin and death must be gone, yes, the law must be crucified, swallowed up and taken away by the law, sin by sin, death by death, the devil by the devil.
Thus Paul endeavors to turn us away completely from looking at ourselves, at the law and at works, and to plant us in Christ Himself and in faith in Christ, so that in regard to the question of how we are justified, we should look at nothing else but grace, and separate this as far as possible from the law and works, which must remain completely apart here.
Paul has his own special way of speaking, not a human but a divine and heavenly one, which the evangelists and the other apostles (with the exception of St. John, who sometimes also speaks in this way) did not use. And if Paul had not first used this way of speaking, and prescribed it to us with expressed words, no one, not even from among the saints, would have presumed to use it, for it is quite unusual and unheard of. As: I live, I do not live; I am dead, I am not dead; I am a sinner, I am not a sinner; I have a law, I have no law; but this manner of speaking is very sweet to those who believe in Christ. For as far as they look to themselves, they have the law and sin, but as far as they look to Christ, they are dead to the law, have no sin etc. Therefore, if you make a distinction in the matter of justification 1) between the
1) Wittenberger äiseerni instead of: äiseervis.
person of Christ and your person, then you are under the law and remain under it, and live in yourself, not in Christ, which is nothing else than to be condemned by the law 1) and to be dead before God, because you have such a faith, as the Sophists speak of it in their ludicrous way, which has been formed by love (informatam caritate).
322 Thus I speak for the sake of the example. For no one can be shown to have been saved by this faith. Therefore, what the Sophists have taught about faith formed by love is nothing but the devil's folly. However, we admit that a man can be found who has such faith, but if he has it, he is not righteous, because he only has the historical faith of Christ, which the devil and all the ungodly also have [Jac. 2:19].
For this reason faith must be taught purely, namely, that through it you may be so closely united with Christ that you and he may become, as it were, one person, who cannot be separated from him, but constantly cling to him, so that you may confidently say: I am Christ, that is, Christ's righteousness, victory, life etc. is mine; and Christ in turn says: I am that sinner, that is, his sins, death etc. are mine, because he is attached to me, and I to him, because we are joined by faith to one flesh and one bones, Eph. 5, 30.: "We are members of the body of Christ, of his flesh and of his bones", so that this faith joins Christ and me more closely than a husband is joined to his wife. Therefore this faith is not an idle quality (qualitas), but its greatness is so tremendous that it obscures the quite foolish dreams of the sophistical doctrine, and completely annuls what they invent of faith formed by love, of merits, of our worthiness or quality etc. I would like to elaborate on this if I could.
So far we have indicated that this was Paul's first reason for proving that either Christ must necessarily be a sin minister, or that the Law must be a sin minister.
1) Wittenberger: dnnannrk instead of: danannri.
could not justify. After Paul had given this proof, he set himself up as an example, made a kind of personal poetry, and said that he had died to the old law by a new law. Now he adds two άνθυποφοράς, 2) that is, pleas of the opp.
The first refutation is directed against the slander of proud spirits and the annoyance of the weak. 3) The first refutation is directed against the slander of proud spirits and the anger of the weak. For when forgiveness of sins by grace is preached, wicked people immediately slander this preaching, saying, as Rom. 3:8, "Let us do evil, that good may come of it." For as soon as such people hear that we are not justified by the law, they immediately draw this slanderous conclusion: So let us leave the law in place. Likewise: If grace is made mightier where sin is made mightier [Rom. 5:20], let us therefore commit many sins, that we may be justified, and that grace may be made mightier. These are malicious and hopeful people who like to pervert the holy scriptures and the sayings of the Holy Spirit, as they also perverted the writings of Paul to their own condemnation when the apostles were still alive, as 2 Petr. 3:16 says.
(325) Then the weak also, who are not malicious, as the slanderers, but good men, are vexed, when they hear that the law is not to be kept, and that good works are not to be done, that they may be justified thereby. These must be helped, and it must be explained to them how works do not justify, in what way they must be done, and in what way they must not be done. But they must be done, not as the cause, but as the fruit of righteousness. Now that we have become righteous, we must do them, not the other way around, so that we as unrighteous may become righteous thereby. The tree brings forth the fruit, not the fruit the tree.
Above [v. 19] he had said: "I died" etc. This could easily have been blasphemed by a malicious man: What do you say, Paul? You have died? How come
2) In the editions this word is erroneously written nntipo püorus instead:
3 ) Latin: ooouMtionos, that is, a figure of speech, as one interjects and refutes oneself.
it then that you speak and write? Even a weak person could have easily gotten angry: Who are you? Do I not see that you live and carry out your ministry?
He answers: I do live, "yet now not I, but Christ lives in me." So there is a twofold life, my natural life or my life in the flesh (animalis) and a foreign one, namely the life of Christ in me. After my life in the flesh I died and now I live a foreign life. I am now no longer living as Paul, but Paul has died. Who then lives? The Christian lives. So Paul, as he lives in himself, is completely dead by the law, but as in Christ, or rather, as Christ lives in him, he lives in a foreign life, because Christ speaks, works, and performs all actions in him. This now no longer belongs to the life of Paul, but to the life of the Christian.
328 Therefore you, wicked one, should not now blaspheme that I have said I am dead, nor you. Weak one, vex thee; but discern aright: because life is twofold, mine is another. I do not live according to my life, otherwise the law would rule over me and hold me captive. So that it cannot hold me, I have died to it through another law, and this death gives me a foreign life, namely the life of Christ, which is not innate to me, but given through Christ in faith.
329 Now follows the second objection with its refutation. For one could have further countered Paul: What do you say? You do not live in your own life or in the flesh, but in Christ? I see your flesh, not Christ. Do you, then, want to deceive us with a deceptive work, so that we should not see that you are present in the flesh and still live in the former life, have five senses and do everything that another man does in the bodily life? He answers:
For what I now live in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God.
That means: I live in the flesh, but I do not consider this life, which is led in me, however big or small it may be, to be a life. For it is not in truth a life, but only a larva.
of life, under which another lives, namely Christ, who is in truth my life, which you do not see, but only hear, as you hear the wind blowing, but do not know from where it comes or where it goes, John 3:8. So you see that I speak, eat, work, sleep etc., and yet you do not see my life, because this time of life that I live, I live in the flesh, but I do not live out of the flesh or according to the flesh, but in faith, out of faith and according to faith.
So he does not deny that he lives in the flesh, because he does all the works of the natural (animalis) man, then also uses bodily things, as food, clothing etc. This certainly means living in the flesh. But he says that this is not his life, nor does he live according to (secundum) these things. He uses bodily (carnalibus) things, but he does not live for them, as the world lives from the flesh and after the flesh, because it neither knows nor hopes for another life apart from this bodily life.
Therefore he says: This life, however great or small, which I live in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God, because this word, which I speak in the flesh, is a word, not of the flesh, but of the Holy Spirit and of Christ. The seeing (visus) that enters or comes out of the eyes is not of the flesh, that is, my flesh does not rule over it, but the Holy Spirit. So my hearing is not of the flesh, though it is in the flesh, but it is in and of the Holy Spirit.
A Christian speaks only chaste, sober, holy and godly words, which belong to Christ and serve the glory of God and the blessedness of his neighbor. These do not come from the flesh, nor are they done according to the flesh, and yet they are in the flesh. For I cannot teach, pray, give thanks, write, except through these instruments of the body (carnis), which are necessary to perform such works, and yet these do not come from the flesh, nor originate in the flesh, but are given by God and revealed from heaven. Thus I look at a female with my eyes, but
with chaste sight, not desiring them. This seeing does not come from the flesh, although it is in the flesh, for the eyes are the bodily instrument for this seeing, but the chastity of seeing comes from heaven.
Thus a Christian uses the world and all creatures, so that there is no difference between him and an ungodly man. It is the same food, the same clothing, the same hearing, seeing and speaking, in everything else the same behavior, the same way of life, the same outward appearance (as Paul also says of Christ [Phil. 2, 7]: "He was found to be like another man"). Nevertheless, there is a very big difference, because although I live in the flesh, I do not live from myself, but "what I now live in the flesh, that I live in the faith of the Son of God. What you hear me speak now flows from a different source than what you heard from me before. Before his conversion, Paul spoke with the same voice and tongue, but the voice and tongue was blasphemous at that time, so it could speak nothing but blasphemies and abominations against Christ and His Church. Afterwards, when he was converted, he had the same flesh, tongue and voice that he had before, and there was no change at all in them, but the voice and tongue thereafter no longer spoke blasphemies, but spiritual words, namely thanksgiving and praise to God, which came from faith and the Holy Spirit. So I live in the flesh, but not from and according to the flesh, but in the faith of the Son of God.
33Z. From this one can understand where this strange and spiritual life comes from, which the natural man does not hear. For he does not know what this life is like; he hears the sound of the wind, but does not know where it comes from or where it goes. He hears the voice of the spiritual man, knows his face, his manner and gesture, but where these words come from, which are now no longer blasphemous and predatory as before, but holy and divine, where these [spiritual] movements and actions come from, he does not see. For this life is in the heart through faith, where, after the flesh is killed, Christ with his Holy Spirit comes.
The life of the Son of God is ruled by the Holy Spirit, who sees, hears, speaks, works, suffers and, in short, does everything in him, even though the flesh resists. In short, this life is not a life of the flesh, although it is in the flesh, but of Christ, the Son of God, whom the Christian possesses by faith.
Who loved me and gave Himself for me.
Here you have a description of the right way of justification and an example of the certainty of faith. Whoever could say these words with Paul: "I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me," in certain and constant faith, would be truly blessed. And just with these words Paul completely abolishes the righteousness of the law and works and cancels them, as we will say later.
These words, "The Son of God loved me and gave himself for me," must be carefully considered. From them it follows that I have not loved the Son of God, nor have I given myself for him, as the sophists invent that they love the Son of God and give themselves for him. For they teach that a man, by purely natural powers, can bring about a merit that must be given to him according to equity (meritum congrui), that he can love God and Christ above all things. These come before the love of God and Christ, because they do as much as is in them, become monks, and keep not only the commandments of God, but also the counsels, and perform superfluous good works (opera supererogationis), and sell their superfluous merits to the laity, and thus give themselves, as they dream, for Christ, and thereby make themselves and others blessed.
338 These turn Paul's words, "He who loved me," etc. badly around, and read thus: We have loved Christ and given ourselves for him. While these ungodly people, in their vain pomposity, which flows from their carnal sense, let themselves dream and fool that they do as much as is in them, that they love God, that they offer themselves for Christ, they destroy in this manner
the gospel, ridicule, deny, blaspheme, spit on Christ and trample him underfoot. In words they confess that he is a justifier and a beatifier 1) but in deed they take away his power to justify and to make blessed and ascribe it to their own chosen services. This does not mean living in the faith of the Son of God, but in their own righteousness and works.
Which means: A man shall do as much as is in him.
Therefore, this is not the right way to attain justification, that you begin to do as much as is in you (for the Sophists and scholastic teachers use this way of speaking). They say: If a man does as much as is in him, then God infallibly gives him grace, and this sentence is an article of faith with them. And in order to make it clear that they do not understand even a little bit of the teaching of Paul and the Gospel, they speak like this: This word, "do as much as is in him," need not be interpreted most sharply, but it is enough that it be understood from the way founded in nature (de medio physico), not from the unexceptional (indivisibili) mathematical way, which is impossible to attain, that is, it is enough if a man does what is sufficient according to the judgment of a good man; then grace will surely follow, not through merit in equity (merito congrui) per se, but through God's infallible goodness (infallibilitate Dei), who is so 2) good and just that he cannot do otherwise than give his grace for what is good etc. And that is where this little verse came from: Ultra posse viri non vult Deus ulla requiri [God does not require a man to do more than he can). 3) This is indeed a good saying, but it must be used in the right place, namely, of the things that belong to the world and house regiment and of purely natural things; as when I am in the realm that is subject to reason,
1) st satvatorsni is missing in the Erlanger.
2) Wittenberger: Huiänm instead of: Hui tarn.
3) This is how Menius translated this verse.
If I rule my family, build a house, administer an office of authority, and do as much as I can, or as much as is in me, then I am excused. This realm has its limits, and that is where these sayings really belong: "Do as much as is in him", or "do as much as I can".
(340) The Sophists, on the other hand, draw these sayings into the spiritual realm, in which a man can do nothing but sin, for "he is sold under sin" [Rom. 7:14]. But in those outward things, that is, in those things which concern the government of the world and housekeeping, man is not a servant, but the master of these bodily things. That is why the Sophists acted ungodly by bringing into the church these sayings that belong to the world and house government. For the realm of human reason is to be separated from the spiritual realm as far as possible.
How far the natural powers of man are unharmed.
Furthermore, they have also taught that nature is indeed corrupted, but the natural powers are still unharmed, and these they also attribute to the devils. On this premise they then further concluded: If the natural powers are unharmed, it follows that the mind is also pure and the will good and unharmed, and so consequently everything is perfect. It is very useful for you to know this, so that the doctrine of faith may be preserved in its purity.
342 Since the sophists say that the natural powers are inviolate, I admit this. But if they conclude from this that man can fulfill the law and love God, etc., I deny the conclusion and make a distinction between natural and spiritual powers, and say: The spiritual powers are not unharmed, but corrupted, yes, completely eradicated by sin in man and in the devil, so that there is nothing but a corrupted mind and a will that is hostile and opposed to the will of God, that thinks nothing but what is against God.
343. that is why the natural forces are indeed
unharmed, but what natural powers? That man, who is drowned in ungodliness and a servant of the devil, has a will, reason, free will and the power to build a house, to administer a magisterial office, to steer a ship and to manage other things that are subject to man, Genesis 1:28. This is not taken away from man; reproduction, the rule of the world, the management of the house are not taken away from him, but confirmed by these sayings. The Sophists, however, applied them to spiritual things, perhaps drawing them from the Fathers, and, not understanding them correctly, misapplied them to spiritual things, thus confusing the temporal and spiritual governments.
Our task, therefore, is to sweep this out again and to remove these aversions from the church. We therefore admit that these sayings are true, but only in their place, namely in the physical realm. But if one wants to drag them into the spiritual realm before God, we deny them completely. For here we are completely drowned in sins. Everything that is in our will is evil, everything that is in our mind is error. Therefore, in divine things, a man has nothing but darkness, error, wickedness and falsehood in his will and mind. How should he therefore be able to work good, to love God etc.?
Therefore Paul says here that it was not we who made the beginning, but Christ. He says, "He loved me and gave himself for me." As if he wanted to say: He did not find good will and right mind in me, but Christ had mercy on me, he saw that I was ungodly, caught in error, turned away from God, and went further and further away from Him, and that I was fighting against God, imprisoned, ruled and led by the devil. So he loved me out of mercy that preceded my reason, my will, my understanding, and he loved me so much that he gave himself for me, so that I would be freed from the law, from sin, from the devil, from death.
346 Furthermore, these words: "The Son of God", "He loved me", and "He gave Himself for me" are all thunderbolts and fire from heaven against righteousness.
of the law and the doctrine of works. So great wickedness, so great error, darkness and ignorance was in my will and mind that I could only be delivered by such an unspeakably great ransom.
347. What then do we boast that our reason guides us rightly (de dictamine rationis), that our natural powers are unharmed, that our reason is inclined to the best, that everyone must do as much as is in him? Why do I bring before the angry God, who, as Moses [Deut. 4:24] says, is a consuming fire, these stubbles of mine, yes, my terrible sins, and want to quarrel with Him that He should grant me grace and eternal life for them, while I hear here that there is so much evil in my nature that the world and all creatures have not been sufficient to propitiate God, but that God's Son Himself had to be offered for this?
348. But pay careful attention to this ransom, and look at this one who is captured and offered "for me", namely the Son of God, and you will see that he is infinitely greater and more excellent than all creatures. What will you do when you hear Paul say that such an immeasurably precious ransom has been given for you? Will you still come here with your cap and plate, with your chastity, obedience and poverty? What is all this? Yes, what is the law of Moses and the works of the law? What are all the works and all the sufferings of all the martyrs? What is all the obedience of the holy angels to the Son of God, who was given, and most shamefully given, to the death of the cross, so that his most precious blood was completely shed for your sins?
If you were to look at this treasure, you should curse all caps, plates, vows, works, merits according to equity and merits according to dignity, kick them into the dung, spit on them, curse them and cast them into hell. Therefore, it is an intolerable and frightening blasphemy if you invent any work by which you miss reconciling God, seeing that He cannot be reconciled otherwise than through this immense and infinite treasure,
namely through the death and blood of His Son, for one drop of His blood is more precious than all creatures.
For me.
Who is the "me"? Of course, I, the lost and damned sinner, whom the Son of God so loved that he gave himself for me. So if I could have loved the Son of God by works or by merits of equity or dignity and come to him, what would it have taken for him to be offered for me? From this it is clear how coldly the papists have treated the holy Scriptures and the doctrine of faith, yes, how they have neglected them altogether. For if they had only considered these words, that the Son of God had to be given for me, it would have been impossible for any order or sect to arise, because faith would have answered immediately: Why do you choose this way of life, this order, this work? Is it so that God may be reconciled and you may be justified by it? Do you not hear, wicked man, that the Son of God was offered for you and shed His blood for you? In such a way, faith in Christ could easily have resisted all sects.
For this reason I often say that we have no other power or means of resisting the cults than this one article of Christian righteousness. If we have lost that, it is impossible for us to resist any errors or sects. We can see this today in the case of the fanatics, the Anabaptists and Sacramentans, who, having fallen away from this article, will fall, err and seduce without ceasing, ad infinitum, and will undoubtedly create countless sects and devise new works.
But what is all this, even if it seems very good and very holy, compared to the blood and death of the Son of God, who gave Himself for me? Dear one, look at who this Son of God is, how he is constituted, and how great he is. What is heaven and earth against him? Rather may all papists and instigators of
Sects with their righteousness, works and merits go to hell, even if all the world would adhere to them, than that the truth of the gospel should be darkened and the glory of Christ should perish. What is it then that works and merits are so highly praised? If I, a lost and damned sinner, could have been bought by any other ransom, what need would there have been for the Son of God to be given for me? But because there was no other in heaven and on earth than Christ, the Son of God, therefore there is the highest necessity that he be given for me. Then he did this out of the highest love, for Paul says, "He who loved me."
Therefore these words: "He who loved me" etc. are completely full of faith, and whoever could speak this little pronoun "me" in the same faith and apply it to himself as Paul, would, just like Paul, be a very good disputant against the law. For he [Christ] did not offer a sheep, an ox, not gold or silver for me, but all that he was, the whole of God, that is, himself he offered for me, for me, I say, who was the most miserable and condemned sinner. So, through this offering of the Son of God into death, I breathe again and appropriate Him to myself, and this appropriation (applicatio) is the right power of faith. Thus, a saint of works does not say: "Christ has loved me" etc.
These words, which are the purest preaching of grace and Christian righteousness, Paul contrasts with the righteousness of the law, as if to say: Although the law is in truth a divine doctrine and has its honor, yet it has not loved me, nor given itself for me; rather, it accuses me, terrifies me, and brings me to despair. But now I have another who has freed me from the terror of the law, from sin and from death, and has set me free, into the righteousness of God and into eternal life, who is called the Son of God, who loves me and gives Himself for me. To Him be glory forever and ever, Amen.
355. So the belief, as I said,
240 Li-i. i, 2Z9-261. Exec. Explanation d. Galatians 2, 20. W. viii, i-W-E. 241
grasps and grasps Christ, the Son of God, who was given for us, as Paul teaches here; if we have grasped him in faith, we have righteousness and life. For Christ is the Son of God, who out of pure love gave Himself to redeem us.
And with these words Paul beautifully describes the priesthood and the offices of Christ, that is, to reconcile God, to represent sinners and pray for them, to give himself as a sacrifice for their sins, to redeem them, to teach and comfort them. etc. Therefore, you should describe Christ correctly, not as the sophists and teachers of works do, who make a new lawgiver out of him, who, having done away with the old law, has given a new one. To these Christ is a driver and tyrant; but you must describe him as Paul does here, that he is the Son of God, who gave himself up, not because of any merit or righteousness that we have, but out of pure mercy and love, and presented himself as a sacrifice to God for us poor sinners, that he might sanctify us forever.
Therefore Christ is not a Moses, not a driver or a lawgiver, but a giver of grace, a savior and a merciful one, and in short nothing but pure and infinite mercy, which is given to us and gives itself to us. In this way you paint Christ correctly; if you let Him paint Him differently, you will soon fall in the hour of challenge.
But as this is the highest art of Christians, to be able to describe Christ in this way, it is also the most difficult. For even I, who have studied it diligently and am well trained in it, find it very difficult, even though the gospel seems so bright, to describe Christ in the way Paul does here. So much has that pernicious teaching and the delusion that Christ is a lawgiver penetrated my bones like oil.
You young people are much better off in this matter than we old people. For you have not imbibed those pernicious opinions which I had been taught from childhood, so that I paled with fright when I heard the name of Christ merely because I was convinced that he was a judge. Therefore
I have to work in two ways to get rid of this evil; first, to forget this old, deeply ingrained opinion of Christ as a lawgiver and judge, and to condemn and cast it out, because it always comes back and returns to me; second, to take the new opinion, that is, the right confidence in Christ, that he is a justifier and savior. You can, if you only want to, recognize Christ with much more ease.
Therefore, if any sadness or affliction grieves the heart, it is not to be attributed to Christ, though it should come under Christ's name, but to the devil. The devil uses to come under the name of Christ by disguising himself as an angel of light [2 Cor. 11:14].
Therefore we should learn diligently, not only in word, but also in deed and in life, to make a right distinction between Christ and a lawgiver, so that when the devil comes under the guise of Christ and torments us under Christ's name, we may know for certain that it is not Christ, but truly the devil. For Christ is joy and sweetness to a frightened and anguished heart, as Paul says, who adorns Him here with the very sweetest name, namely, He who loves me and gives Himself up for me. So Christ loves those who are in anguish, in sin and in death, and loves us so much that he offers himself for us, becomes our high priest, that is, that he places himself as mediator between God and us poor sinners. I beg you, what could be said that is more lovely or more joyful? If this is true, and it must be true, or the whole Gospel would be an empty fable, then surely we are not justified by the righteousness of the Law, much less by our own righteousness.
Therefore read these words "me", "for me" in such a way that you lay great stress on them and get used to grasping and appropriating this "me" with certain faith, and do not doubt that you belong to the number of those of whom this "me" is said; likewise, that Christ not only loved Peter and Paul and gave himself up for them, but that this grace, which is expressed in the "me
The first thing you must do is to tell them that you are a part of us, and that you belong to us as well as to them.
For as we cannot deny that we are all sinners, and must say that Adam corrupted us by his sin, made us enemies of God, subjected us to the wrath and judgment of God, and made us guilty of eternal death (for this is felt and confessed more than is good by frightened hearts), so neither can we deny that Christ died for our sins that we might be justified. For he did not die to make the righteous righteous, but to make sinners righteous, friends and children of God, and heirs of all heavenly goods. Therefore, since I feel and confess that I am a sinner because of Adam's transgression, why should I not say that I am righteous because of Christ's righteousness, especially since I hear that he loved me and gave himself up for me?
Paul believed this most firmly, therefore he also speaks with such great joy of faith (πληροφορία). This also wants us,
at least to some extent, the very one who loved us and gave himself for us, amen.
V. 21. I do not throw away the grace of God.
Now he prepares the way for the second reason in this epistle. But here you must be careful that wanting to be justified by works of the law is as much as throwing away the grace of God. Dear, what could be more ungodly, or what sin could be more terrible, than to throw away God's grace and not want to be justified by faith in Christ? Surely it is enough and more than enough that we are ungodly and transgressors of all God's commandments. Now we also add this sin above all sins, that we so surely reject the grace and forgiveness of sins offered to us by Christ. Believe me, this blasphemy is greater and more terrifying than any man could express in words.
366. Paul and the other apostles did not magnify and attack any sin so violently as the contempt of grace and the denial of Christ, and yet
This sin is committed very easily. Especially for this reason Paul attacks the Antichrist so harshly, that he annuls grace and denies the benefits of Christ, our high priest, who gave himself as a sacrifice for our sins. But to deny Christ in this way is to spit on him completely and trample him underfoot, and to put himself in his place and say: I will make you righteous and blessed. By what means? By masses, pilgrimages, indulgences, keeping the [monastic] rule etc.
For this reason, the Antichrist has raised himself against and above God and has taken the place of Christ, throwing away grace and denying faith. For he taught that faith is of no use unless it has works; and by this false opinion he completely obscured and destroyed the good deeds of Christ, and in place of the grace of Christ and his kingdom he established the doctrine of works and a kingdom of ceremonies, and fortified it with nothing but foolish works, and thus tore the whole world away from Christ, who alone should work and reign in the conscience, and forcibly thrust it into hell.
From this it can be sufficiently understood what it is to throw away the grace of God, namely, if one wants to attain righteousness from the law. But who has ever heard that by keeping the law we throw away grace? Do we sin, then, by keeping the law? No. But then we throw away grace when we keep the law thinking that by doing so we will become righteous. The law is good, holy and useful, but it does not justify.
Therefore, whoever keeps the law and claims that he wants to be justified by it, throws away grace, denies Christ and his sacrifice, and does not want to be saved by this inestimable ransom, but wants to be justified by the righteousness of the law, or to earn grace by his righteousness. Such a one certainly blasphemes God and throws away God's grace. But it is frightening to say that a man can be so horribly wicked that he should also throw away the mercy and grace of God. And yet this is what the whole world does, even though it is not regarded as such.
wants her to do this, but says that she shows GOtte the highest honor. Now follows the second reason of proof:
For if righteousness comes through the law, Christ died in vain.
Here again I remind you that Paul does not speak of the ceremonial law, as the sophists constantly blather. And the first authors of this error were Origen and Jerome, who were extremely harmful teachers in this matter, and who were subsequently followed by all scholastics, and their error is approved and confirmed today by Erasmus. Godly people must absolutely keep away from the foolish work of these people, who turn the writings of Paul in such a way with their foolish glosses. For they speak of a thing which they have never known nor experienced, as if the ceremonies were not also good and holy. Certainly the order of the priesthood, circumcision, sacrifices, the service, the customs of worship, and similar holy works were all ceremonies; therefore he speaks of the whole law.
But these words of Paul must be carefully considered in this way: Is it true, or not, that Christ died? Likewise: Did he die in vain? Here we must surely answer, if we are not completely nonsensical, that he died, likewise that he did not die in vain, not for himself, but for us. If, then, he did not die in vain, it follows that righteousness does not come from the law.
372. Now therefore, take each of these two laws before you, the ceremonial law and the moral law, or the holy ten commandments, and imagine that through merit in equity (congrui) you have come to be given the Holy Spirit, that you have love (although this is something quite monstrous and is nowhere found in reality), but imagine, I say, that by doing as much as is in you, you obtain grace, are righteous, have the Spirit. From where? From merit according to equity? Then it follows that you have no need of Christ, but he is of no use to you and died in vain.
373. Then also take the ten commandments
The same is true of the law of the ten commandments, which command the highest service of God, namely the fear of God, faith, and love for God, as well as love for one's neighbor, and provide a man who has been justified by the law of the ten commandments; nevertheless, it remains true that Christ died in vain. For he who has been justified by the law of the holy ten commandments has in himself the power to attain righteousness, because by not 1) putting up a bar and doing as much as is in him, he infallibly earns grace, and the Holy Spirit is infused into him, so that he can love God and his neighbor. If this is certain, then it follows with necessity that Christ died in vain. For what does a man need Christ, who loves him and offers himself for him, if without Christ, through merit according to equity, he can attain grace and then do good works and earn eternal life (through merit) according to dignity (de condigno) or at least attain righteousness by keeping the law?
Therefore take away Christ with all his benefits, because he is of no use at all. But why is Christ born, why is he crucified, why does he die? Why does he become my high priest, who loves me and offers the unspeakably delicious sacrifice, himself, for me? Why does he do all this? In vain, if the way of justification taught by the Sophists is true, because then, apart from grace and apart from Christ, I find righteousness in the law or in myself.
Is it permissible to suffer such blasphemy and remain silent, that the Divine Majesty, who does not spare His own Son, but gives Him up for us all, does not act seriously in this, but only plays a game? Before I would allow this, I would rather that the holiness not only of all papists and works saints, but also of all saints and angels be cast into the abyss of hell with the devil himself and be damned for eternity. I do not want to see anything else but Christ. He shall be for me a
1) Wittenberger: nos instead of: non.
I want him to be such a great treasure that I consider everything else as dung. He shall also be such a great light unto me, that, having received him in faith, I shall not know whether there be any law, or whether there be sin, or whether there be any righteousness or unrighteousness in the world. For what are all things in heaven and on earth compared with the Son of God, Jesus Christ, my Lord, who loved me and gave himself up for me?
Therefore, throwing away the grace of God is the greatest sin, and an exceedingly common one, which all works saints commit, for since they seek to be justified either by merit according to equity (congrui) or by their works and their sufferings, or by the law, they throw away, as we have said, the grace of God and of Christ.
377 And the author of all these abominations was the pope. For after the gospel of Christ had been darkened, even completely eradicated, he filled and burdened the world with his ungodly statutes, as is evidenced, among other things, by the indulgences and his bulls, in which he absolves not those who believe, but those who have repented [sufficiently], confessed [purely], and lent a helping hand etc. Thus it is sufficiently testified that Christ died in vain, and that his grace is void and in vain.
Therefore the abominations and blasphemies of the papal kingdom are unspeakably great, and yet the blind and obstinate sophists, even now, when the light of truth shines so brightly, persist in their impious and utterly null opinions, saying that the natural powers are inviolate, and that men can prepare themselves for grace by their good deeds and merits: so much is lacking that they should recognize their impiety and their error, that they defend it even against their conscience.
But we insist with Paul firmly and constantly (for we do not want to throw away the grace of God) that either Christ died in vain, or that the law cannot justify. But Christ did not die in vain, so the law cannot justify. Christ, the Son of God, gave us salvation out of grace and mercy.
The law could not do this, because if it had been able to do this, Christ would have acted foolishly. For if it could, Christ would have acted foolishly in giving himself for our sins that we might be justified thereby. Therefore we conclude that we are not justified by merit in equity or dignity (congrui aut condigni), nor by the cross or suffering, nor even by the law, but only by faith in Christ.
If my salvation is so dear to Christ that he must die for my sins, then it is clear that my works and also the righteousness of the law are quite bad and completely nothing compared to this so glorious and so great ransom (pretio), because I will certainly not be able to buy what cost many thousands of tons (talentis) of gold for a penny. But the law, to say nothing of other far lesser things, with all its works and righteousnesses, is but a penny (terunciolus) compared to Christ, by whose death and resurrection my death has been overcome and righteousness and eternal life have been purchased for me. Should I then despise and throw away this incomparable ransom, and seek by the law or by works of equity and dignity (by this filth and dung, as Paul calls it, especially when held against Christ) to obtain the righteousness of which Paul here testifies that Christ gave it to me freely and out of pure love, and that this cost him so much that he had to give himself for me? This, as I said, is what the whole world does, especially those who want to be considered the best and holiest in the world. And thus they sufficiently testify, no matter how much they may say otherwise with their mouths, that Christ died in vain. This means to blaspheme Christ to the highest degree, to spit in his face, to trample the Son of God underfoot, to regard the blood of the testament as impure etc. [Heb. 10, 29.]
381 And since Paul is here thinking of righteousness (let it be well observed), he is dealing with a doctrine concerning spiritual things, not the worldly or domestic government, that is, he is not dealing with the civil law.
This is the righteousness that God approves of and wants to see done, and to which He also assigns His rewards.
This civil righteousness can also be achieved to some extent by reason. But Paul is speaking here of righteousness before God, through which we are freed from law, sin, death and all evil, and become partakers of grace, righteousness and life, and are finally made lords over heaven, earth and all creatures. No law, neither human nor God's, can bring about this righteousness.
(383) Although the law is added to reason, so that it may enlighten and help man and show him what he should do and what he should not do, nevertheless man cannot attain righteousness with all his powers and with his reason, even with the addition of this exceedingly great light and the divine benefit, namely the law. But if the best that the world has on earth (namely the law, which is added to [reason] like a sun to the earthly light or to a human torch, which is nevertheless weak, so that it may illuminate and guide it) cannot make righteous, I ask you, what should reason be able to do without the law? What then? Nothing other than what the pope has done with his schools and his whole synagogue, monks etc., who have also darkened the light of the first commandment with human statutes. Therefore, all of them, as many as there are, cannot understand even one letter of the law, but walk in the darkness of reason, and this is a much more pernicious error than that which arose from the doctrine of the works of the law.
384 Therefore these are mighty words, when he says: "For if righteousness comes through the law" etc. He is silent about human powers, about reason, about any wisdom, however great (for the greater it is, the more easily and swiftly it deceives man), but simply says: "For so by the law" etc. Therefore, even if the divine law comes to its aid, human reason can not prove the righteousness of man.
It cannot bring about righteousness, but tears away from righteousness and casts Christ away. For if it could accomplish righteousness, Christ would have died in vain.
Therefore, set the death of Christ squarely against all laws, and be like Paul, that you know nothing but Jesus Christ crucified [1 Cor. 2:2], so that apart from Him nothing else is a light. Then you will be taught, righteous, and holy, and will receive the Holy Spirit, who will keep you in the pure word and in the right faith. But if Christ is put out of sight, then all is in vain.
Here again we see a beautiful praise of righteousness from the law or one's own righteousness, namely, that it is, as Paul says, a despising and a throwing away of divine grace, an emptying and making futile of the death of Christ. Paul is not a great orator, but see how great occasion (argumenta) he gives [others] to prove their oratory. For, I pray thee, where is the ability found to bring to light these words, "grace," and that is, "to cast away the grace of God," likewise, "that Christ died in vain," in such powerful speech that thereby the matter would be done enough? The shamefulness that is committed here is so great that the eloquence of the whole world would not suffice to explain it sufficiently.
It is a small thing to say that a man dies in vain, but to say that Christ dies in vain is to nullify him altogether. Whoever wants to prove his eloquence has here ample material to make a great point and to explain how terrible blasphemy is the doctrine of righteousness from the law and from works. Could anything more frightening or more blasphemous be attributed to me than that I made the death of Christ in vain? [But this I would do,] if I would keep the law with a view to be justified thereby. But to make Christ's death a vain one, that is also to make His resurrection, His victory, His glory, His kingdom, heaven and earth, God Himself and the majesty of God, in short, all things vain. Is this then something small ? If you said that the kingdom of the King
of France or the Roman Empire were founded in vain, one would think that you had completely lost your mind. But that cannot be compared to this at all, when you say that Christ died in vain.
These thunderbolts and lightnings from heaven in the writings of Paul against the righteousness of the law and against our own righteousness should rightly deter us from it. For in Paul's writings, everything concerning the monastic life, the spiritual states, and the righteousness that is sought through worship, whether these flow from the law or from one's own choice, is suddenly thrown to the ground and condemned as if by a thunderbolt. But who should not take his vows,
plates, caps, and statutes of men, yea, even the law of Moses, when he heareth that by these he casteth away the grace of God, and maketh the death of Christ vain?
When the world hears this, it does not believe it to be true, for it thinks that the human heart is incapable of such great wickedness that it should throw away the grace of God and regard the death of Christ as nothing, and yet this terrible sin is quite general. For anyone who seeks to attain righteousness apart from faith in Christ, whether by works, atonement, or suffering, or whether by the law of God, casts away the grace of God and despises the death of Christ, no matter how much he asserts the opposite with his mouth.