COMMENTARY[1]
OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, ARCHBISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, ON
THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE GALATIANS
By
St. John Chrysostom
CHAPTER I
VERSE I-3.
"Paul, an Apostle, (not from men, neither through man, but through
Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead ;) and
all the brethren which are with me, unto the Churches of Galatia: Grace
to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ."
The exordium[2] is full of a vehement and lofty
spirit, and not the exordium only, but also, so to speak, the whole
Epistle. For always to address one's disciples with mildness, even when
they need severity is not the part of a teacher but it would be the
part of a corrupter and enemy. Wherefore our Lord too, though He
generally spoke gently to His disciples, here and there uses sterner
language, and at one time pronounces a blessing, at another a rebuke.
Thus, having said to Peter, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona," (Matt.
xvi: 17.)and having promised to lay the foundation of the Church upon
his confession, shortly afterwards He says, "Get thee behind Me, Satan:
thou art a stumbling block unto Me." (Matt. xvi: 23.) Again, on another
occasion, "Are ye also even yet without understanding?" (Matt. xv: 16.)
And what awe He inspired them with appears from John's saying, that,
when they beheld Him conversing. with the Samaritan woman, though they
reminded Him to take food, no one ventured to say, "What seekest Thou,
or why speakest thou with her?" (John iv: 27.) Thus taught, and walking
in the steps of his Master, Paul hath varied his discourse according to
the need of his disciples, at one time using knife and cautery, at
another, applying mild remedies. To the Corinthians he says, "What will
ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in a spirit of
meekness?" (I Cor. vi: 21.) but to the Galatians, "O foolish
Galatians." (Gal. iii: 1 .) And not once only, but a second time, also
he has employed this reproof, and towards the conclusion he says with a
reproachful allusion to them, "Let no man trouble me; "(Gal. vi: 17).
but he soothes them again with the words, "My little children, of whom
"I am again in travail:" (Gal. iv: 19.) and so in many other instances.
Now that this Epistle breathes an indignant spirit,
is obvious to every one even on the first perusal; but I must explain
the cause of his anger against the disciples. Slight and unimportant it
could not be, or he would not have used such vehemence. For to be
exasperated by common 'matters is the part of the little-
2
minded, morose, and peevish; just as it is that of the more redolent
and sluggish to lose heart in weighty ones. Such a one was not Paul,
What then was the offence which roused him? it was grave and momentous,
one which was estranging them all from Christ, as he himself says
further on, "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye receive
circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing;" (Gal. v: 2.) and again,
"Ye who would be justified by the Law, ye are fallen away from Grace."
(Gal. v: 4.) What then is this? For it must be explained more clearly.
Some of the Jews who believed, being held down by the preposessions of
Judaism, and at the same time intoxicated by vain-glory, and desirous
of obtaining for themselves the dignity of teachers,. came to the
Galatians, and taught them that the observance of circumcision,
sabbaths, and new-moons, was necessary, and that Paul in abolishing
these things was not to be borne. For, said they, Peter and James and
John, the chiefs of the Apostles and the companions of Christ, forbade
them not. Now in fact they did not forbid these things, but this was
not by way of delivering positive doctrine, but in condescension to the
weakness of the Jewish believers, which condescension paul had no need
of when preaching to the Gentiles; but when he was in Judaea, he
employed it himself[1] also. But these deceivers, by withholding the
causes both of Paul's condescension and that of his brethren, misled
the simpler ones, saying that he was not to be tolerated, for he
appeared but yesterday, while Peter and his colleagues were from the
first,--that he was a disciple of the Apostles, but they of
Christ,--that he was single, but they were many, and pillars of the
Church. They accused him too of acting a part; saying, that this very
man who forbids circumcision observes the rite elsewhere, and preaches
one way to you and another way to others.
Since Paul then saw the whole Galatian people in a
state of excitement, a flame kindled against their Church, and the
edifice shaken and tottering to its fall, filled with the mixed
feelings of just anger and despondency, (which he has expressed in the
words, "I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my
voice, "--Gal. iv: 20. )he writes the Epistle as an answer to these
charges. This is his aim from the very commencement, for the
underminers of his reputation had said, The others were disciples of
Christ but this man of the "Apostles." Wherefore he begins thus, "Paul,
an Apostle not from men, neither through man." For, these
deceivers, as I was saying before, had said that this man was the last
of all the Apostles and was taught by them, for Peter, James, and John,
were both first called, and held a primacy among the disciples, and had
also received their doctrines from Christ Himself; and that it was
therefore fitting to obey them rather than this man; and that they
forbad not circumcision nor the observance of the Law. By this and
similar language and by depreciating Paul, and exalting the honor of
the other Apostles, though not spoken for the sake of praising them,
but of deceiving the Galatians, they induced them to adhere
unseasonably to the Law. Hence the propriety of his commencement. As
they disparaged his doctrine, saying it came from men, while that of
Peter came from Christ, he immediately addresses himself to this point,
declaring himself an apostle "not from men, neither through man." It
was Ananias who baptized him, but it was not he who delivered him from
the way of error and initiated him into the faith; but Christ Himself
sent from on high that wondrous voice, whereby He inclosed him in his
net. For Peter and his brother, and John and his brother, He called
when walking by the seaside, (Matt. iv: 18.) but Paul after His
ascension into heaven. (Acts. ix: 3, 4.) And just as these did not
require a second call, but straightway left their nets and all that
they had, and followed Him, so this man at his first vocation pressed
vigorously forward, waging, as soon as he was baptized, an implacable
war with the jews. In this respect he chiefly excelled the other
Apostles, as he says, "I labored more abundantly than they all;" (I
Cot. xv: 10.) at present, however, he makes no such claim, but is
content to be placed on a level with them. Indeed his eat object was,
not to establish any superiority for himself, but, to overthrow the
foundation of their error. The not being "from men" has reference to
all alike for the Gospel's root and origin is divine, but the not being
"through man" is peculiar to the Apostles; for He called them not by
men's agency, but by His own.[2]
But why does be not speak of his vocation rather
than his apostolate, and say, "Paul" called "not by man?" Because here
lay the whole question; for they said that the office of a teacher had
been committed to him by men, namely by the Apostles, whom therefore it
behooved him to obey. But that it was not entrusted to him by men, Luke
declares in the
3
words, "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost
said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul." (Acts xiii: 2.)
From this passage it is manifest[1] that the power
of the Son and Spirit is one, for being commissioned by the Spirit, he
says that he was commissioned by Christ. This appears in another place,
from his ascription of the things of God to the Spirit, in the words
which he addresses to the elders at Miletus: "Take heed unto
yourselves, and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made
you bishops." (Acts xx: 28. ) Yet in another Epistle he says, "And God
hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly
teachers." (I Cor. xii: 28.) Thus he ascribes indifferently the things
of the Spirit to God, and the things of God to the Spirit. Here too he
stops the mouths of heretics, by the words "through Jesus Christ and
God the Father;" for, inasmuch as they said this term "through" was
applied to the Son as importing inferiority, see what he does. He
ascribes it to the Father, thus teaching us not to prescribe laws to
the ineffable Nature, nor define the degrees of Godhead which belong to
the Father and Son. For to the words "through Jesus Christ" he has
added, "and God the Father;" for if at the mention of the Father alone
he had introduced the phrase "through whom," they might have argued
sophistically that it was peculiarly applicable to the Father, in that
the acts of the Son were to be referred to Him. But he leaves no
opening for this cavil, by mentioning at once both the Son and the
Father, and making his language apply to both. This he does, not as
referring the acts of the Son to the Father, but to show that the
expression implies no distinction of Essence.[2] Further, what can now
be said by those, who have gathered a notion of inferiority from the
Baptismal formula,--from our being baptized into the name of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?[3] For if the Son be inferior because He
is named after the Father, what will they say seeing that, in the
passage before us, the Apostle beginning from Christ proceeds to
mention the Father?--but let us not even utter such a blasphemy, let us
not swerve from the truth in our contention with them; rather let us
preserve, even if they rave ten thousand times, the due measures of
reverence. Since then it would be the height of madness and impiety to
argue that the Son was greater than the Father because Christ was first
named, so we dare not hold that the Son is inferior to the Father,
because He is placed after Him in the Baptismal formula. "Who raised
Him from the dead."
Wherefore is it, O Paul, that, wishing to bring
these Judaizers to the faith, you introduce none of those great and
illustrious topics which occur in your Epistle to the Philippians, as,
"Who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an
equality with God," (Phil. ii: 6.) or which you afterwards declared in
that to the Hebrews, "the effulgence of his glory, and the very image
of His substance;" (Heb. i: 3.) or again, what in the opening of his
Gospel the son of thunder sounded forth, "In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" (John i: I.) or
what Jesus Himself oftentimes declared to the Jews, "that His power and
authority was equal to the Father's?" (John v: 19, 27, &c.) Do you
omit all these, and make mention of the economy of His Incarnation
only, bringing forward His cross and dying? "Yes," would Paul answer.
For had this discourse been addressed to those who had unworthy
conceptions of Christ, it would have been well to mention those things;
but, inasmuch as the disturbance comes from persons who fear to incur
punishment should they abandon the Law, he therefore mentions that
whereby all need of the Law is excluded, I mean the benefit conferred
on all through the Cross and the Resurrection. To have said that "in
the beginning was the Word," and that "He was in the form of God, and
made Himself equal with God," and the like, would have declared the
divinity of the Word, but would have contributed nothing to the matter
in hand. Whereas it was highly pertinent thereto to add, "Who raised
Him from the dead," for our chiefest benefit was thus brought to
remembrance, and men in general are less interested by discourses
concerning the majesty of God, than by those which set forth the
benefits which come to mankind. Wherefore, omitting the former topic,
he discourses of the benefits which bad been conferred on us.
But here the heretics insultingly exclaim, "Lo, the
Father raises the Son!" For when once infected, they are wilfully deaf
to all sublimer doctrines; and taking by itself and insisting on what
is of a less exalted nature, and expressed in less exalted terms,
either on account of the Son's humanity, or in honor of the Father, or
for some other temporary purpose, they outrage, I will not say the
Scripture, but themselves. I would fain ask such persons, why they say
this? do they hope to prove the Son weak and powerless to raise one
body?
4
Nay, verily, faith in Him enabled the very shadows of those who
believed in Him. to effect the resurrection of the dead. (Acts. v: 15.)
Then believers in Him, though mortal, yet by the very shadows of their
earthly bodies, and by the garments which had touched these bodies,
could raise the dead, but He could not raise Himself? Is not this
manifest madness, a great stretch of folly? Hast thou not heard His
saying, "Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up?"
(John ii: 19.) and again, "I have power to lay down my life, and I have
power to take it again?" (John x: 18.) Wherefore then is the Father
said to have raised Him up, as also to have done other things which the
Son Himself did? It is in honor of the Father, and in compassion to the
weakness of the hearers. "And all the brethren which are with me." Why
is it that he has on no other occasion in sending an epistle added this
phrase? For either he puts his own name only or that of two or three
others, but here has mentioned the whole number and so has mentioned no
one by name. On what account then does he this?
They made the slanderous charge that he was singular
in his preaching, and desired to introduce novelty in Christian
teaching. Wishing therefore to remove their suspicion, and to show he
had many to support him in his doctrine, he has associated with himself
"the brethren," to show that what he wrote he wrote with their
accord.[1] "Unto the Churches of Galatia."
Thus it appears, that the flame of error had spread
over not one or two cities merely, but the whole Galatian people.
Consider too the grave indignation contained in the phrase, "unto the
Churches of Galatia:" he does not say, "to the beloved" or "to the
sanctified," and this omission of all names of affection or respect,
and this speaking of them as a society merely, without the addition
"Churches of God," for it is simply "Churches of Galatia," is strongly
expressive of deep concern and sorrow. Here at the outset, as well as
elsewhere, he attacks their irregularities, and therefore gives them
the name of "Churches," in order to shame them, and reduce them to
unity. For persons split into many parties cannot properly claim this
appellation, for the name of' "Church" is a name of harmony and concord.
"Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our
Lord Jesus Christ."
This he always mentions as indispensible, and in
this Epistle to the Galatians especially; for since they were in danger
of falling from grace he prays that they may recover it again, and
since they had come to be at war with God, he beseeches God to restore
them to the same peace. "God the Father."
Here again is a plain confutation of the heretics,
who say that John in the opening of his Gospel, where he says "the Word
was God," used the word <greek>Qeos</greek> without the
article, to imply an inferiority in the Son's Godhead; and that Paul,
where he says that the Son was "in the form of God," did not mean the
Father, because the word <greek>?eos</greek> without
the article. For what can they say here, where Paul says,
<greek>apo</greek> <greek>Qeou</greek>
II<greek>atros</greek>, and not
<greek>epo</greek> <greek>tou</greek>
<greek>?eou</greek>? And it is in no indulgent mood towards
them that he calls God, "Father," but by way of severe rebuke, and
suggestion of the source whence they became sons, for the honor was
vouch-safed to them not through the Law, but through the washing of
regeneration. Thus everywhere, even in his exordium, he scatters traces
of the goodness of God, and we may conceive him speaking thus: "O ye
who were lately slaves, enemies and aliens, what right have ye suddenly
acquired to call God your Father? it was not the Law which conferred
upon you this relationship; why do ye therefore desert Him who brought
you so near to God, and return to your tutor?[2]
But the Name of the Son, as well as that of the
Father, had been sufficient to declare to them these blessings. This
will appear, if we consider the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ with
attention; for it is said, "thou shalt call His Name Jesus; for it is
He that shall save His people from their sins;" (Matt. i: 21.) and the
appellation of" Christ" calls to mind the unction of the Spirit. Ver 4.
"Who gave himself for our sins."[3] Thus it appears, that the ministry
which He undertook was free and uncompelled; that He was delivered up
by Himself, not by another. Let not therefore the words of John, "that
the Father gave His only-begotten Son" (Jo. iii: 16.) for us, lead you
to derogate from the dignity of the Only-begotten, or to infer
therefrom that He is only human. For the Father is said to have given
Him, not as implying that the Son's ministry was a servile one, but to
teach us that it seemed good to the Father, as Paul too has shown in
the immediate context: "according to the will of our God, and Father."
He says not
5
"by the command," but "according to the will, " for inasmuch as there
is an unity of will in the Father and the Son, that which the Son
wills, the Father wills also.
"For our sins,[1] says the Apostle; we had pierced
ourselves with ten thousand evils, and had deserved the gravest
punishment; and the Law not only did not deliver us, but it even
condemned us, making sin more manifest, without the power to release us
from it, or to stay the anger of God. But the Son of God made this
impossibility possible for he remitted our sins, He restored us from
enmity to the condition of friends, He freely bestowed on us numberless
other blessings.
Ver. 4. "That He might deliver us out of this
present evil world."
Another class of heretics[2] seize upon these words
of Paul, and pervert his testimony to an accusation of the present
life. Lo, say they, he has called this present world evil, and pray
tell me what does "world" [age] <greek>aiwn</greek> mean
but time measured by days and seasons? Is then the distinction of days
and the course of the sun evil? no one would assert this even if he be
carried away to the extreme of unreasonableness. "But" they say, "it is
not the 'time,' but the present ' life,' which he hath called evil.'"
Now the words themselves do not in fact say this; but the heretics do
not rest in the words, and frame their charge from them, but propose to
themselves a new mode of interpretation. At least therefore they must
allow us to produce our interpretation, and the rather in that it is
both pious and rational. We assert then that evil cannot be the cause
of good, yet that the present life is productive of a thousand prizes
and rewards. And so the blessed Paul himself extols it abundantly in
the words, "But if to live in the flesh, if this is the fruit of my
work, then what I shall choose I wont not;" (Phil. i: 22.) and then
placing before himself the alternative of living upon earth, and
departing and being with Christ, he decides for the former. But were
this life evil, he would not have thus spoken of it, nor could any one,
however strenuous his endeavor, draw it aside into the service of
virtue. For no one would ever use evil for good, fornication for
chastity, envy for benevolence. And so, when he says, that "the
mind of the flesh is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can
it be, (Rom. viii: 7.) he means that vice, as such, cannot become
virtue; and the expression, "evil world," must be understood to mean
evil actions, and a depraved moral principle. Again, Christ came not to
put us to death and deliver us from the present life in that sense, but
to leave us in the world, and prepare us for a worthy participation of
our heavenly abode. Wherefore He saith to the Father, "And these are in
the world, and I come to Thee; I pray not that Thou shouldest take them
from the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil," (Jo.
xvii: 11, 15.) i.e., from sin. Further, those who will not allow this,
but insist that the present life is evil, should not blame those who
destroy themselves; for as he who withdraws himself from evil is not
blamed, but deemed worthy of a crown, so he who by a violent death, by
hanging or otherwise, puts an end to his life, ought not to be
condemned. Whereas God punishes such men more than murderers, and we
all regard them with horror, and justly; for if it is base to destroy
others, much more is it to destroy one's self. Moreover, if this life
be evil, murderers would deserve a crown, as rescuing us from evil.
Besides this, they are caught by their own words, for in that they
place the sun in the first, and the moon in the second rank of their
deities, and worship them as the givers of many goods, their statements
are contradictory. For the use of these and the other heavenly bodies,
is none other than to contribute to our present life, which they say is
evil, by nourishing and giving light to the bodies of men and animals
and bringing plants to maturity. How is it then that the constitution
of this "evil life is so ministered to by those, who according to you
are gods? Gods indeed they are not, far from it, but works of God
created for our use; nor is this world evil. And if you tell me of
murderers, of adulterers, of tomb-robbers, these things have nothing to
do with the present life, for these offences proceed not from that life
which we live in the flesh, but from a depraved will. For, if they were
necessarily connected with this life, as embraced in one lot with it,
no man would be free or pure from them, for no man can escape the
characteristic accidents of humanity, such as, to eat and drink, to
sleep and grow, to hunger and thirst, to be born and die, and the like;
no man can ever become superior to these, neither sinner nor just man,
king nor peasant, We all are subject to the necessity of nature. And so
if vice were an essential element of this life, no one could avoid it,
any more than the things just mentioned. And let me not be told that
good men are rare, for natural necessity is insuperable by all, so that
as long as one virtuous man shall be found, my argument will in no wise
be invalidated. Miserable, wretched man! what is it thou sayest? Is
this life evil, wherein we have learnt to know God, and meditate on
6
things to come, and have become angels instead of men, and take part in
the choirs of the heavenly powers? What other proof do we need of an
evil and .depraved mind?
"Why then," they say, "does Paul call the, present
life evil?" In calling the present world [age] evil, he has
accommodated himself to our usage, who are wont to say, "I have had a
bad day," thereby complaining not of the time itself, Out of actions or
circumstances And so Paul in complaining of evil principles of action
has used these customary forms of speech; and he shows that Christ hath
both delivered us from our offences, and secured us for the future. The
first he has declared in the words, "Who gave Himself for our sins;"
and by adding, "that He might deliver us out of this present evil
world," he has pronounced our future safety. For neither of these did
the Law avail, but grace was sufficient for both.
Ver. 4. "According to the will of our God and
Father."[1]
Since they were terrified by their notion that by
deserting that old Law and adhering to the new, they should disobey
God, who gave the Law, he corrects their error, and says, that this
seemed good to the Father also: and not simply "the Father," but "our
Father," which he does in order to affect them by showing that Christ
has made His Father our Father.
Ver. 5. "To whom be the glory for ever and ever.
Amen."
This too is new and unusual, for we never find the
word, "Amen" placed at the beginning of an Epistle, but a good way on;
here, however he has it in his beginning,. to show that what he had
already said contained a sufficient charge against the Galatians, and
that his argument was complete, for a manifest offence does not require
an elaborate crimination. Having spoken of the Cross, and Resurrection,
of redemption from sin and security for the future, of the purpose of
the Father, and the will of the Son, of grace and peace and His whole
gift, he concludes with an ascription of praise.
Another reason for it is the exceeding astonishment
into which he was thrown by the magnitude of the gift, the
superabundance of the grace, the consideration who we were, and what
God had wrought, and that at once and in a single moment of time.
Unable to express this in words, he breaks out into a doxology, sending
up for the whole world an eulogium, not indeed worthy of the subject,
but such as was possible to him. Hence too he proceeds to use more
vehement language; as if greatly kindled by a sense of the Divine
benefits, for having said, "To whom be the glory for ever and ever,
Amen," he commences with a more severe reproof.
Ver. 6. "I marvel that ye are so quickly[1]
removing[2] front Him that called you in the grace of Christ, unto a
different Gospel."
Like the Jews who persecuted Christ, they imagined
their observance of the Law was acceptable to the Father, and he
therefore shows that in doing this they displeased not only Christ, but
the Father also, for that they fell away thereby not from Christ only,
but from the Father also. As the old covenant was given not by the
Father only, but also by the Son, so the covenant of grace proceeded
from the Father as well as the Son, and Their every act is common: "All
things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine." (John xv: 16.) By saying
that they had fallen off from the Father, he brings a twofold charge
against them, of an apostasy, and of an immediate apostasy. The
opposite extreme a late apostasy, is also blameworthy, but he who falls
away at the first onset, and in the very skirmishing, displays an
example of the most extreme cowardice, of which very thing he accuses
them also saying: "How is this that your seducers need not even time
for their designs, but the first approaches suffice for your overthrow
and capture? And what excuse can ye have? If this is a crime among
friends, and he who deserts old and useful associates is to be
condemned, consider what punishment he is obnoxious to who revolts from
God that called him." He says," I marvel," not only byway of reproof,
that after such bounty, such a remission of their sins, such
overflowing kindness, they had deserted to the yoke of servitude, but
also in order to show, that the opinion he had had of them was a
favorable and exalted one. For, had he ranked them among ordinary and
easily deceived persons, he would not have felt surprise. "But since
you," he says, "are of the noble sort and have suffered, much, I do
marvel." Surely this was enough to recover and lead them back to their
first expressions. He alludes to it also in the middle of the Epistle,
"Did ye suffer so many things in vain? if it be indeed in vain." (Gal.
iii: 4.) "Ye are removing;" he says not, "ye are removed," that is, "I
will not believe or suppose that your seduction is complete;" this is
the language of one about to recover them, which further on he
expresses yet more clearly in the words, "I have confidence to you-ward
in the Lord that ye will be none otherwise minded." (Gal. v: 10.)
"From Him that called you in the grace of Christ."
7
The calling is from the Father, but the cause of it
is the Son. He it is who hath brought about reconciliation and bestowed
it as a gift, for we were not saved by works in righteousness: or I
should rather say that these blessings proceed from Both ; as He says,
"Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine." (John xvii: 10.) He says not "ye
are removing from the Gospel" but "from God who called you," a more
frightful expression, and more likely to affect them. Their seducers
did not act abruptly but gradually, and while they removed them from
the faith in fact, left names unchanged. It is the policy of Satan not
to set his snares in open view; had they urged them to fall away from
Christ, they would have been shunned as deceivers and corrupters, but
suffering them so far to continue in the faith, and putting upon their
error the name of the Gospel, without fear they undermined the building
employing the terms which they used as a sort of curtain to conceal the
destroyers themselves. As therefore they gave the name of Gospel to
this their imposture, he contends against the very name, and boldly
says, "unto a different Gospel,"--
Ver. 7. "Which is not another Gospel." And
justly, for there is not another.[1] Nevertheless the Marcionites[2]
are misled by this phrase, as diseased persons are injured even by
healthy food, for they have seized upon it, and exclaim, "So Paul
himself has declared there is no other Gospel." For they do not allow
all the Evangelists, but one only, and him mutilated and confused
according to their, pleasure. Their explanation of the words,
"according to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ," (Rom. xvi:
25.) is sufficiently ridiculous; nevertheless, for the sake of those
who are easily seduced, it is necessary to refute it. We assert,
therefore, that, although a thousand Gospels were written, if the
contents of all were the same, they would still be one, and their unity
no wise infringed by the number of writers. So, on the other hand, if
there were one writer only, but he were to contradict himself, the
unity of the things written would be destroyed. For the oneness of a
work depends not on the number of its authors, but on the agreement or
contra-dictoriness of its contents. Whence it is clear that the four
Gospels are one Gospel; for, as the four say the same thing, its
oneness is preserved by the harmony of the contents, and not impaired
by the difference of persons. And Paul is not now speaking of the
number but of the discrepancy of the things spoken. With justice might
they lay hold of this expression, if the Gospels of Matthew and Luke
differed in the signification of their contents, and in their doctrinal
accuracy; but as they are one and the same, let them cease being
senseless and pretending to be ignorant of these things which are plain
to the very children.
Ver. 7. "Only there are some that trouble you, and
would pervert the Gospel of Christ."
That is to say, ye will not recognize another
Gospel, so long as your mind is sane, so long as your vision
remains healthy, and free from distorted and imaginary phantoms. For as
the disordered eye mistakes the object presented to it, so does the
mind when made turbid by the confusion of evil thoughts. Thus the
madman confounds objects; but this insanity is more
dangerous than a physical malady, for it works injury not in the
regions of sense, but of the mind ; it creates confusion not in
the organ of bodily vision, but in the eye of the understanding.
"And would[3] pervert the Gospel of Christ."
They had, in fact, only introduced one or two commandments,
circumcision and the observance of days, but he says that the Gospel
was subverted, in order to show that a slight adulteration vitiates the
whole. For as he who but partially pares away the image on a royal coin
renders the whole spurious, so he who swerves ever so little from the
pure faith, soon proceeds from this to graver errors, and becomes
entirely corrupted. Where then are those who charge us with being
contentious in separating from heretics, and say that there is no real
difference between us except what arises from our ambition? Let them
hear Paul's assertion, that those who had but slightly innovated,
subverted the Gospel. Not to say that the Son of God is a created
Being, is a small matter. Know you not that even under the elder
covenant, a man who gathered sticks on the sabbath, and transgressed a
single commandment, and that not a great one, was punished with death?
(Num. xv: 32, 36.) and that Uzzah, who supported the Ark when on the
point of being overturned, was struck suddenly dead, because he had
intruded upon an office which did not pertain to him? (2 Sam. vi: 6,
7.) Wherefore if to transgress the sabbath, and to touch the falling
Ark, drew down the wrath of God so signally as to deprive the offender
of even a momentary respite, shall he who corrupts unutterably awful
doctrines find excuse and par-
8
don? Assuredly not. A want of zeal in small matters is the cause of all
our calamities; and because slight errors escape fitting correction,
greater ones creep in. As in the body, a neglect of wounds generates
fever, mortification, and death; so in the soul, slight evils
overlooked open the door to graver ones. It is accounted a trivial
fault that one man should neglect fasting; that another, who is
established in the pure faith, dissembling on account of circumstances,
should surrender his bold profession of it, neither is this anything
great or dreadful; that a third should be irritated, and threaten to
depart from the true faith, is excused on the plea of passion and
resentment. Thus a thousand similar errors are daily introduced into
the Church, and we are become a laughing-stock to Jews and Greeks,
seeing that the Church is divided into a thousand parties. But if a
proper rebuke had at first been given to those who attempted slight
perversions, and a deflection from the divine oracles, such a
pestilence would not have been generated, nor such a storm have seized
upon the Churches. You will now understand why Paul calls circumcision
a subversion of the Gospel. There are many among us now, who fast on
the same day as the Jews, and keep the sabbaths in the same manner; and
we endure it nobly or rather ignobly and basely. And why do I speak of
Jews seeing that many Gentile customs are observed by some among us;
omens, auguries, presages, distinctions of days, a curious attention to
the circumstances of their children's birth, and, as soon as they are
born, tablets with impious inscriptions are placed upon their unhappy
heads, thereby teaching them from the first to lay aside virtuous
endeavors, and drawing part of them at least under the false domination
of fate.[1] But if Christ in no way profits those that are circumcised,
what shall faith hereafter avail to the salvation of those who have
introduced such corruptions? Although circumcision was given by God,
yet Paul used every effort to abolish it, because its unseasonable
observance was injurious to the Gospel. If then he was so earnest
against the undue maintenance of Jewish customs, what excuse can we
have for not abrogating Gentile ones? Hence our affairs are now in
confusion and trouble, hence have our learners being filled with pride,
reversed the order of things throwing every thing into confusion, and
their discipline having been neglected by us their governors, they
spurn our reproof however gentle. And yet if their superiors were even
more worthless and full of numberless evils, it would not be right for
the disciple to disobey. It is said of the Jewish doctors, that as they
sat in Moses' seat, their disciples were bound to obey them, though
their works were so evil, that the Lord forbad His disciples to imitate
them. What excuse therefore is there for those who insult and trample
on men, rulers of the Church, and living, by the grace of God, holy
lives? If it be unlawful for us to judge each other, much more is it to
judge our teachers.
Ver. 8, 9. "But though we, or an angel from heaven,
should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached
unto you, let him be anathema."
See the Apostle's wisdom; to obviate the objection
that he was prompted by vainglory to applaud his own doctrine, he
includes himself also in his anathema; and as they betook themselves to
authority, that of James and John, he mentions angels also saying,
"Tell me not of James and John; if one of the most exalted angels of
heaven corrupt the Gospel, let him be anathema." The phrase "of heaven"
is purposely added, because priests are also called angels. "For the
priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at
his mouth: for he is the messenger [angel] of the Lord of hosts." (Mal.
ii: 7.) Lest therefore it should be thought that priests are here
meant, by the term "angels," he points out the celestial intelligences
by the addition, "from heaven." And he says not, if they preach a
contrary Gospel, or subvert the whole of the true one, let them be
anathema; but, if they even slightly vary, or incidentally disturb, my
doctrine. "As we have said before, so say I now again." That his words
might not seem to be spoken in anger, or with exaggeration, or with
recklessness he now repeats them.[2] Sentiments may perhaps change,
when an expression has been called forth by anger, but to repeat it a
second time proves that it is spoken advisedly, and was previously
approved by the judgment. When Abraham was requested to send Lazarus,
he replied, "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them: if
they hear them not, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from
the dead." ( Luke xvi: 31.) And Christ introduces Abraham thus
speaking, to show that He would have the Scriptures accounted more
worthy of credence, even than one raised from the dead: Paul too, (and
when I say Paul, I mean Christ, who directed his mind,)prefers them
before an angel come down from heaven. And justly, for the angels,
though mighty, are but servants and ministers, but the Scriptures were
all written and sent, not by servants, but
9
by God the Lord of all. He says, if "any man" preach another Gospel to
you than that which we have preached,--not "if this or that man:" and
herein appears his prudence, and care of giving offence, for what
needed there still any mention of names, when he had used such
extensive terms as to embrace all, both in heaven and earth? In that he
anathemized evangelists and angels, he included every dignity, and his
mention of himself included every intimacy and affinity. "Tell me not,"
he exclaims, "that my fellow-apostles and colleagues have so spoken; I
spare not myself if I preach such doctrine." And he says this not as
condemning the Apostles for swerving from the message they were
commissioned to deliver; far from it, (for he says, whether we or they
thus preach; ) but to show, that in the discussion of truth the dignity
of persons is not to be considered.
Ver. 10. "For[1] am I now persuading men: or God?"
or am I seeking to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should
not be a servant of Christ."
Granting, says he, that I might deceive you by these
doctrines, could I deceive God, who knows my yet unuttered thoughts,
and to please whom is my unceasing endeavor? See here the Apostolical
spirit, the Evangelical loftiness! So too he writes to the Corinthians,
"For we are not again commending ourselves unto you, but speak as
giving you occasion of glorying;" (2 Cor. v: 12.) and again, "But with
me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's
judgment." (I Cor. iv: 3.) For since he is compelled to justify himself
to his disciples, being their teacher, he submits to it; but he is
grieved at it, not on account of chagrin, far from it, but on account
of the instability of the minds of those led away and on account of not
being fully trusted by them. Wherefore Paul now speaks, as it were,
thus:--Is my account to be rendered to you? Shall I be judged by men?
My account is to God, and all my acts are with a view to that
inquisition, nor am I so miserably abandoned as to pervert my doctrine,
seeing that I am to justify what I preach before the Lord of all.
He thus expressed himself, as much with a view of
withstanding their opinions, as in self-defence; for it becomes
disciples to obey, not to judge, their master. But now, says he, that
the order is reversed, and ye sit as judges, know that I am but little
concerned to defend myself before you; all, I do for God's sake, and in
order that I may answer to Him concerning my doctrine. He who wishes to
persuade men, is led to act tortuously and insincerely, and to employ
deceit and falsehood, in order to engage the assent of his hearers. But
he who addresses himself to God, and desires to please Him, needs
simplicity and purity of mind, for God cannot be deceived. Whence it is
plain that I have thus written to you not from the love of rule, or to
gain disciples, or to receive honor at your hands. My endeavor has been
to please God, not man. Were it otherwise, I should still consort with
the Jews,[2] still persecute the Church, I who have cast off my country
altogether, my companions, my friends, my kindred, and all my
reputation, and taken in exchange for these, persecution, enmity,
strife, and daily-impending death, have given a signal proof that I
speak not from love of human applause. This he says, being about to
narrate his former life, and sudden conversion, and to demonstrate
clearly that it was sincere. And that they might not be elevated by a
notion that he did this by way of self-vindication to them, he
premises, "For do I now persuade men?" He well knew how, on a fitting
occasion, to correct his disciples, in a grave and lofty tone:
assuredly he had other sources whence to demonstrate the truth of his
preaching,--by signs and miracles, by dangers, by prisons, by daily
deaths, by hunger and thirst, by nakedness, and the like. Now however
that he is speaking not of false apostles, but of the true, who had
shared these very perils, he employs another method. For when his
discourse was pointed towards false apostles, he institutes a
comparison by bringing forward his endurance of danger, saying, "Are
they ministers of Christ? (I speak as one beside himself) I more; in
labors more abundantly, in prisons more abundantly, in stripes above
measure, in deaths oft." (2 Cor. xi: 23.) But now he speaks of his
former manner of life and says,
Ver. 11, 12. "For[3] I make known to you, brethren,
as touching the Gospel which was preached by me that it is not after
man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it
came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ."
You observe how sedulously he affirms that he was
taught of Christ, who Himself, without human intervention, condescended
to reveal to him all knowledge. And if he were asked for his proof that
God Himself thus immediately revealed to him these ineffable mysteries,
he would instance his former manner of life, arguing that his
conversion would not have been so
10
sudden, had it not been by Divine revelation. For when men have been
vehement and eager on the contrary side, their conviction, if it is
effected by human means, requires much time and ingenuity. It is clear
therefore that he, whose conversion is sudden, and who has been sobered
in the very height of his madness, must have been vouchsafed a Divine
revelation and teaching, and so have at once arrived at complete
sanity. On this account he is obliged to relate his former life, and to
call the Galatians as witnesses of past events. That the Only-Begotten
Son of God had Himself from heaven vouchsafed to call me, says he, you
who were not present, could not know, but that I was a persecutor you
do know. For my violence even reached your ears, and the distance
between Palestine and Galatia is so great, that the report would not
have extended thither, had not my acts exceeded all bounds and
endurance. Wherefore he says,
Ver. 13. "For[1] ye have heard of my manner of life
in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I
persecuted the Church of God, and made havoc of it."
Observe how he shrinks not from aggravating each
point; not saying simply that he "persecuted" but "beyond measure," and
not only "persecuted" but "made havoc of it," which signifies an
attempt to extinguish, to pull down, to destroy, to annihilate, the
Church.
Ver. 14. "And I advanced in the Jews' religion
beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly
zealous for the traditions of my fathers."
To obviate the notion that his persecution arose
from passion, vain-glory, or enmity, he shows that he was actuated by
zeal, not indeed "according to knowledge," (Rom. x: 2.) still by a
zealous admiration of the traditions of his fathers. This is his
argument;[2]--if my efforts against the Church sprung not from human
motives, but from religious though mistaken zeal, why should I be
actuated by vain-glory, now that I am contending for the Church, and
have embraced the truth? If it was not this motive, but a godly zeal,
which possessed me when I was in error, much more now that I have come
to know the truth, ought I to be free from such a suspicion. As soon as
I passed over to the doctrines of the Church I shook off my Jewish
prejudices, manifesting on that side a zeal still more ardent; and this
is a proof that my conversion is sincere, and that the zeal which
possesses me is from above. What other inducement could I have to make
such a change, and to barter honor for contempt, repose for peril,
security for distress? none surely but the love of truth.
Ver. 15, 16. "But when it was the good pleasure of
God, Who separated me, even from my mother's womb, and called me
through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him
among the Gentiles, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood."
Here his object is to show, that it was by some
secret providence that he was left for a time to himself. For if he was
set apart from his mother's womb to be an Apostle and to be called to
that ministry, yet was not actually called till that juncture, which
summons he instantly obeyed, it is evident that God had some hidden
reason for this delay. What this purpose was, you are perhaps eager to
learn from me, and primarily, why he was not called with the twelve.
But in order not to protract this discourse by digressing from that
which is more pressing, I must entreat your love not to require all
things from me, but to search for it by yourselves, and to beg of God
to reveal it to you. Moreover I partly discussed this subject when I
discoursed before you on the change of his name from Saul to Paul;
which, if you have forgotten, you will fully gather from a perusal of
that volume.[3] At present let us pursue the thread of our discourse,
and consider the proof he now adduces that no natural event had
befallen him,--that God Himself had providentially ordered the
occurrence. "And called me through His grace."
God indeed says that He called him on account of his
excellent capacity, as He said to Ananias, "for he is a chosen vessel
unto Me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings," (Acts ix:
15.) that is to say, capable of service, and the accomplishment of
great deeds. God gives this as the reason for his call. But he himself
everywhere ascribes it to grace, and to God's inexpressible mercy, as
in the words, "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy," not that I was
sufficient or even serviceable, but "that in me as chief might Jesus
Christ show forth all His long-suffering, for an ensample of them which
should hereafter believe on Him unto eternal life." (I Tim. i: 16.)
Behold his overflowing humility; I obtained mercy, says he, that no one
might despair, when the worst of men had shared His bounty. For this is
the force of the words, "that He might show forth all His
long-suffering for an ensample of them which should hereafter believe
on Him."
"To reveal His Son[4] in me."
11
Christ says in another place, "No one knoweth who
the Son is, save the Father; and who the Father is, save the Son, and
he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him." (Luke x: 22.) You
observe that the Father reveals the Son, and the Son the Father; so it
is as to Their glory, the Son glorifies the Father, and the Father the
Son; "glorify Thy Son, that the Son may glorify Thee," and, "as I have
glorified Thee." (John xvii: 1, 4.) But why does he say, "to reveal His
Son in me," and not "to me?" it is to signify, that he had not only
been instructed in the faith by words, but that he was richly endowed
with the Spirit;--that the revelation had enlightened his whole soul,
and that he had Christ speaking within him.[1]
"That I might preach Him among the Gentiles." For
not only his faith, but his election to the Apostolic office proceeded
from God. The object, says he, of His thus specially revealing Himself
to me, was not only that I might myself behold Him, but that I might
also manifest Him to others. And he says not merely, "others," but,
"that I might preach Him among the Gentiles," thus touching beforehand
on that great ground of his defence which lay in the respective
characters of the disciples; for it was necessary to preach differently
to the Jews and tO the heathen.
"Immediately I conferred not with flesh and
blood."
Here he alludes to the Apostles, naming them after
their physical nature; however, that he may have meant to include all
mankind, I shall not deny.[2]
Ver. 17. "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them
which were Apostles before me."
These words weighed by themselves seem to breath an
arrogant spirit, and to be foreign to the Apostolic temper. For to give
one's suffrage for one's self, and to admit no man to share one's
counsel, is a sign of folly. It is said, "Seest thou a man wise in his
own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him ;" (Prov: xxvi:
12.) and, "Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent
in their own sight!" (Isa. v: 21.) and Paul himself in another place,
"Be not wise in your own conceits." (Rom. xii: 16.) Surely one who had
been thus taught, and had thus admonished others, would not fall into
such an error, even were he an ordinary man; much less then Paul
himself. Nevertheless, as I said, this expression nakedly considered
may easily prove a snare and offence to many hearers. But if the cause
of it is subjoined, all will applaud and admire the speaker. This then
let us do; for it is not the right course to weigh the mere words, nor
examine the language by itself, as many errors will be the consequence,
but to attend to the intention of the writer. And unless we pursue this
method m our own discourses, and examine into the mind of the speaker,
we shall make many enemies, and every thing will be thrown into
disorder. Nor is this confined to words, but the same result will
follow, if this rule is not observed in actions. For surgeons often cut
and break certain of the bones; so do robbers; yet it would
be miserable indeed not to be able to distinguish one from the other.
Again, homicides and martyrs, when tortured, suffer the same pangs, yet
is the difference between them great. Unless we attend to this rule, we
shall not be able to discriminate in these matters; but shall call
Elijah and Samuel and Phineas homicides, and Abraham a son-slayer; that
is, if we go about to scrutinize the bare facts, without taking into
account the intention of the agents. Let us then inquire into the
intention of Paul in thus writing, let us consider his scope, and
general deportment towards the Apostles, that we may arrive at his
present meaning. Neither formerly, nor in this case, did he speak with
a view of disparaging the Apostles or of extolling himself, (how so?
when he included himself under his anathema?) but always in order to
guard the integrity of the Gospel. Since the troublers of the Church
said that they ought to obey the Apostles who suffered these
observances, and not Paul who forbade them, and hence the Judaizing
heresy had gradually crept in, it was necessary for him manfully to
resist them, from a desire of repressing the arrogance of those who
improperly exalted themselves, and not of speaking ill of the Apostles.
And therefore he says, "I conferred not with flesh and blood;" for it
would have been extremely absurd for one who had been taught by God,
afterwards to refer himself to men. For it is right that he who learns
from men should in turn take men as his counsellors. But he to whom
that divine and blessed voice had been vouchsafed, and who had been
fully instructed by Him that possesses all the treasures of wisdom,
wherefore should he afterwards confer with men? It were meet that he
should teach, not be taught by them. Therefore he thus spoke, not
arrogantly, but to exhibit the dignity of his own commission. "Neither
went I up," says he, "to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before
me." Because they were continually repeating that the Apostles were
before him, and were called before him, he says, "I went not up to
them." Had it been needful for him to communicate with them, He, who
revealed to him his commission, would have given him this injunction.
12
Is it true, however, that he did not go up thither?[1] nay, he went up,
and not merely so, but in order to learn somewhat of them. When a
question arose on our present subject in the city of Antioch, in the
Church which had from the beginning shown so much zeal, and it was
discussed whether the Gentile believers ought to be circumcised, or
were under no necessity to undergo the rite, this very Paul himself and
Silas[2] went up. How is it then that he says, I went not up, nor
conferred? First, because he went not up of his own accord, but was
sent by others; next, because he came not to learn. but to bring others
over. For he was from the first of that opinion, which the Apostles
subsequently ratified,that circumcision was unnecessary. But when these
persons deemed him unworthy of credit and applied to those at Jerusalem
he went up not to be farther instructed, but to convince the
gain-sayers that those at Jerusalem agreed with him. Thus he perceived
from the first the fitting line of conduct, and needed no teacher, but,
primarily and before any discussion, maintained without wavering what
the Apostles, after much discussion, (Acts xv: 2,7.) subsequently
ratified. This Luke shows by his own account, that Paul argued much at
length with them on this subject before he went to Jerusalem. But since
the brethren chose to be informed on this subject, by those at
Jerusalem, he went up on their own account, not on his own. And his
expression, "I went not up," signifies that he neither went at the
outset of his teaching, nor for the purpose of being instructed. Both
are implied by the phrase, "Immediately I conferred not with flesh and
blood." He says not, "I conferred," merely, but, "immediately;" and his
subsequent journey was not to gain any additional instruction. Ver. 17.
"But I went away into Arabia."
Behold a fervent soul! he longed to occupy regions
not yet tilled, but lying in a wild state. Had he remained with the
Apostles, as he had nothing to learn, his preaching would have been
straitened, for it behooved them to spread the word every where. Thus
this blessed man, fervent in spirit, straightway undertook to teach
wild barbarians,[3] choosing a life full of battle and labor. Having
said, "I went into Arabia," he adds, "and again I returned unto
Damascus." Here observe his humility; he speaks not of his successes,
nor of whom or of how many he instructed. Yet such was his zeal
immediately on his baptism, that he confounded the Jews, and so
exasperated them, that they and the Greeks lay in wait for him with a
view to kill him. This would not have been the case, had he not greatly
added to the numbers of the faithful; since they were vanquished in
doctrine, they had recourse to murder, which was a manifest sign of
Paul's superiority. But Christ suffered him not to be put to death,
preserving him for his mission. Of these successes, however, he says
nothing, and so in all his discourses, his motive is not ambition, nor
to be honored more highly than the Apostles, nor because he is
mortified at being lightly esteemed, but it is a fear lest any
detriment should accrue to his mission. For he calls himself, "one born
out of due time," and, "the first of sinners," and "the last of the
Apostles," and, "not meet to be called an Apostle." And this he said,
who had labored more than all of them; which is real humility; for he
who, conscious of no excellence, speaks humbly of himself, is candid
but not humble; but to say so after such trophies, is to be practised
in self-control.
Ver. 17. "And again I returned unto Damascus."
But what great things did he not probably achieve in
this city? for he tells us that the governor under Aretas the king set
guards about the whole of it, hoping to entrap this blessed man. Which
is a proof of the strongest kind that he was violently persecuted by
the Jews. Here, however, he says nothing of this, but mentioning his
arrival and departure is silent concerning the events which there
occurred, nor would he have mentioned them in the place I have referred
to, (2 Cor. xi: 32.) had not circumstances required their narration.
Ver. 18. "Then after three years I went up to
Jerusalem[4] to visit Cephas."
What can be more lowly than such a soul? After such
successes, wanting nothing of Peter, not even his assent, but being of
equal dignity with him, (for at present I will say no more,) he comes
to him as his elder and superior. And the only object of this journey
was to visit Peter; thus he pays due respect to the Apostles, and
esteems himself not only not their better but not their equal. Which is
plain from this journey, for Paul was induced to visit Peter by the
same feeling from which many of our brethren sojourn with holy men: or
rather by a humbler feeling for they do so for their own benefit, but
this blessed man, not for his own instruction or correction, but merely
for the sake of
13
beholding and honoring Peter by his presence. He says, "to visit
Peter;" he does not say to see, (<greek>idein</greek>,) but
to visit and survey, (<greek>istorhsai</greek>,) a word
which those, who seek to become acquainted with great and splendid
cities, apply to themselves. Worthy of such trouble did he consider the
very sight of Peter; and this appears from the Acts of the Apostles
also. (Acts xxi: 17, 18 etc.) For on his arrival at Jerusalem, on
another occasion, after having converted many Gentiles, and, with
labors far surpassing the rest, reformed and brought to Christ
Pamphylia, Lycaonia, Cilicia, and all nations in that quarter of the
world, he first addresses himself with great humility to James, as to
his elder and superior. Next he submits to his counsel, and that
counsel contrary to this Epistle. "Thou seest, brother, how many
thousands there are among the Jews of them which have believed;
therefore shave thy head, and purify thyself." (Acts xxi: 20 f.)
Accordingly he shaved his head, and observed all the Jewish ceremonies;
for where the Gospel was not affected, he was the humblest of all men.
But where by such humility he saw any injured, he gave up that undue
exercise of it, for that was no longer to be humble but to outrage and
destroy the disciples.
Ver. 18. "And tarried with him fifteen days." To
take a journey on account of him was a mark of respect; but to remain
so many days, of friendship and the most earnest affection.[1]
Ver. 19. "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save
James,[2] the Lord's brother."
See what great friends he was with Peter especially;
on his account he left his home, and with him he tarried. This I
frequently repeat, and desire you to remember, that no one, when he
hears what this Apostle seems to have spoken against Peter, may
conceive a suspicion of him. He premises this, that when he says, "I
resisted Peter," no one may suppose that these words imply enmity and
contention; for he honored and loved his person more than all and took
this journey for his sake only, not for any of the others. "But other
of the Apostles saw I none, save James." "I saw him merely, I did not
learn from him," he means. But observe how honorably he mentions him,
he says not "James" merely, but adds this illustrious title, so free is
he from all envy. Had he only wished to point out whom he meant, he
might have shown this by another appellation, and called him the son of
Cleophas, as the Evangelist does.[3] But as he considered that he had a
share in the august titles of the Apostles, he exalts himself by
honoring James; and this he does by calling him "the Lord's brother,"
although he was not by birth His brother, but only so reputed. Yet this
did not deter him from giving the title; and in many other instances he
displays towards all the Apostles that noble disposition, which
beseemed him.
Ver. 20. "Now touching the things which I write unto
you, behold, before God, I lie not."
Observe throughout the transparent humility of this
holy soul; his earnestness in his own vindication is as great as if he
had to render an account of his deeds, and was pleading for his life in
a court of justice.
Ver. 21. "Then I came into the regions of Syria and
Cilicia."[4]
After his interview with Peter, he resumes his
preaching and the task which lay before him, avoiding Judaea, both
because of his mission being to the Gentiles, and of his unwillingness
to "build upon another man's foundation." Wherefore there was not even
a chance meeting, as appears from what follows.
Ver. 22, 23. "And I was still unknown by face unto
the Churches of Judaea; but they only heard say, he that once
persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc."
What modesty in thus again mentioning the facts of
his persecuting and laying waste the Church, and in thus making
infamous his former life, while he passes over the illustrious deeds he
was about to achieve! He might have told, had he wished it, all his
successes, but he mentions none of these and stepping with one word
over a vast expanse, he says merely, "I came into the regions of Syria
and Cilicia;" and, "they had heard, that he, which once persecuted us,
now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc." The purpose of
the words, "I was unknown to the Churches of Judaea," is to show, that
so far from preaching to them the necessity of circumcision, he was not
known to them even by sight.
Ver. 24. "And they glorified God in me." See here
again how accurately he observes the rule of his humility; he says not,
they admired me, they applauded or were astonished at me, but ascribes
all to Divine grace by the words, "they glorified God in me."
14
"Then after the space of fourteen year's,[1] I went up again to
Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. And I went up by
revelation."
His first journey was owing to his desire to visit
Peter, his second, he says, arose from a revelation of the Spirit.
Ver. 2. "And I laid before them the Gospel which I
preach among the Gentiles, but privately before them who were of
repute, lest by any means I should be running or had run in vain."
What is this, O Paul! thou who neither at the
beginning nor after three years wouldest confer with the Apostles, dost
thou now confer with them, after fourteen years are past, lest thou
shouldest be running in vain? Better would it have been to have done so
at first, than after so many years; and why didst thou run at all, if
not satisfied that thou wert not running in vain? Who would be so
senseless as to preach for so many years, without being sure that his
preaching was true? And what enhances the difficulty is, that he says
he went up by revelation; this difficulty, however, will afford a
solution of the former one. Had he gone up of his own accord, it would
have been most unreasonable, nor is it possible that this blessed soul
should have fallen into such folly; for it is himself who says, "I
therefore so run, as not uncertainly; so fight I, as not beating the
air." (1 Cor. ix: 26.) If therefore he runs, "not uncertainly," how can
he say, "lest I should be running, or had run, in vain?" It is evident
from this, that if he had gone up without a revelation, he would have
committed an act of folly. But the actual case involved no such
absurdity; who shall dare to still harbor this suspicion, when it was
the grace of the Spirit which drew him? On this account he added the
words "by revelation," lest, before the question was solved, he should
be condemned of folly; well knowing that it was no human occurrence,
but a deep Divine Providence concerning the present and future. What
then is the reason of this journey of his? As when he went up before
from Antioch to Jerusalem, it was not for his own sake, (for he saw
clearly that his duty was simply to obey the doctrines of Christ,) but
from a desire to reconcile the contentious; so now his object was the
complete satisfaction of his accusers, not any wish of his own to learn
that he had not run in vain. They conceived that Peter and John, of
whom they thought more highly than of Paul, differed from him in that
he ommitted circumcision in his preaching, while the former allowed it,
and they believed that in this he acted unlawfully, and was running in
vain. I went up, says he, and communicated unto them my Gospel, not
that I might learn aught myself, (as appears more clearly further on,)
but that I might convince these suspicious persons that I do not run in
vain. The Spirit forseeing this contention had provided that he should
go up and make this communication.
Wherefore he says that he went up by revelation,[2]
and, taking Barnabas and Titus as witnesses of his preaching,
communicated to them the Gospel which he preached to the Gentiles, that
is, with the omission of circumcision. "But privately before them who
were of repute." What means "privately?" Rather, he who wishes to
reform doctrines held in common, proposes them, not privately, but
before all in common; but Paul did this privately, for his object was,
not to learn or reform any thing, but to cut off the grounds of those
who would fain deceive. All at Jerusalem were offended, if the law was
transgressed, or the use of circumcision forbidden; as James says,
"Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of
them which have believed; and they
15
are informed of thee, that thou teachest to forsake the law." (Acts
xxi: 20, et seq.) Since then they were offended he did not condescend
to come forward publicly and declare what his preaching was, but he
conferred privately with those who were of reputation before Barnabas
and Titus, that they might credibly testify to his accusers,[1] that
the Apostles found no discrepancy in his preaching, but confirmed it.
The expression, "those that were of repute,"
(<greek>tois</greek> <greek>dokossin</greek>)
does not impugn the reality of their greatness; for he says of himself,
"And I also seem (<greek>dokp</greek>) to have the Spirit
of God," thereby not denying the fact, but stating it modestly. And
here the phrase implies his own assent to the common opinion.
Ver. 3. "But not even Titus, who was with, me, being
a Greek,[2] was compelled to be circumcised."
What means, "being a Greek?" Of Greek extraction,
and not circumcised; for not only did I so preach but Titus so acted,
nor did the Apostles compel him to be circumcised. A plain proof this
that the Apostles did not condemn Paul's doctrine or his practice. Nay
more, even the urgent representations of the adverse party, who were
aware of these facts, did not oblige the Apostles to enjoin
circumcision, as appears by his own words,--
Ver. 4. "And that because of the false brethren,
privily brought in."
Here arises a very important question, Who were
these false brethren?[3] If the Apostles permitted circumcision at
Jerusalem, why are those who enjoined it, in accordance with the
Apostolic sentence, to be called false brethren? First; because there
is a difference between commanding an act to be done, and allowing it
after it is done. He who enjoins an act, does it with zeal as
necessary, and of primary importance; but he who, without himself
commanding it, alloweth another to do it who wishes yields not from a
sense of its being necessary but in order to subserve some purpose. We
have a similar instance, in Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, in his
command to husbands and wives to come together again. To which, that he
might not be thought to be legislating for them, he subjoins, "But this
I say by way of permission, not of commandment." (1 Cor. vii: 5.) For
this was not a judgment authoritatively given butan indulgence to their
incontinence; as he says, "for your incontinency." Would you know
Paul's sentence in this matter? hear his words, "I would that all men
were even as I myself,"(1 Cor. vii 7.) in continence. And so here, the
Apostles made this concession, not as vindicating the law, but as
condescending to the infirmities of Judaism. Had they been vindicating
the law, they would not have preached to the Jews in one way, and to
the Gentiles in another. Had the observance been necessary for
unbelievers, then indeed it would plainly have likewise been necessary
for all the faithful. But by their decision not to harass the Gentiles
on this point, they showed that they permitted it by way of
condescension to the Jews. Whereas the purpose of the false brethren
was to cast them out of grace, and reduce them under the yoke of
slavery again. This is the first difference, and a very wide one. The
second is, that the Apostles so acted in Judaea, where the Law was in
force, but the false brethren, every where, for all the Galatians were
influenced by them. Whence it appears that their intention was, not to
build up, but entirely to pull down the Gospel, and that the thing was
permitted by the Apostles on one ground and zealously practiced by the
false brethren on another.
Ver. 4. "Who came in privily to spy out our liberty,
which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage."
He points out their hostility by calling them spies;
for the sole object of a spy is to obtain for himself facilities of
devastation and destruction, by becoming acquainted with his
adversary's position. And this is what those did, who wished to bring
the disciples back to their old servitude. Hence too appears how very
contrary their purpose was to that of the Apostles; the latter made
concessions that they might gradually extricate them from their
servitude, but the former plotted to subject them to one more severe.
Therefore they looked round and observed accurately and made themselves
busybodies to find out who were uncircumcised; as Paul says, "they came
in privily to spy out our liberty," thus pointing out their
machinations not only by the term "spies," but by this expression of a
furtive entrance and creeping in.
Ver. 5. "To whom we gave place in the way of
subjection, no, not for an hour."[4]
Observe the force and emphasis of the phrase; he
says not, "by argument," but, "by subjection," for their object was not
to teach good doctrine, but to subjugate and enslave them.
16
Wherefore, says he, we yielded to the Apostles, but not to these.
Ver. 5. "That the truth of the Gospel might
continue with you."[1]
That we may confirm, says he, by our deeds what we
have already declared by words,--namely, that the "old things are
passed away, behold they are become new;" and that "if any man is in
Christ he is a new creature ;" (2 Cor. v: 17.) and that "if ye receive
circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing." (Gal. v: 2.) In
maintaining this truth we gave place not even for an hour. Then, as he
was directly met by the conduct of the Apostles, and the reason of
their enjoining the rite would probably be asked, he proceeds to solve
this objection. This he does with great skill, for he does not give the
actual reason, which was, that the Apostles acted by way of
condescension and in the use of a scheme,
(<greek>oikonomia</greek>) as it were; for otherwise his
hearers would have been injured. For those, who are to derive benefit
from a scheme should be unacquainted with the design of it; all
will be undone, if this appears. Wherefore, he who is to take part in
it should know the drift of it; those who are to benefit by it should
not. To make my meaning more evident, I will take an example from our
present subject. The blessed Paul himself, who meant to abrogate
circumcision, when he was about to send Timothy to teach the Jews,
first circumcised him and so sent him. This he did, that his hearers
might the more readily receive him; he began by circumcising, that in
the end he might abolish it. But this reason he imparted to Timothy
only, and told it not to the disciples. Had they known that the very
purpose of his circumcision was the abolition of the rite, they would
never have listened to his preaching, and the whole benefit would have
been lost. But now their ignorance was of the greatest use to
them, for their idea that his conduct proceeded from a regard to the
Law, led them to receive both him and his doctrine with kindness and
courtesy, and having gradually received him, and become
instructed, they abandoned their old customs. Now this would not have
happened had they known his reasons from the first; for they would have
turned away from him, and being turned away would not have given him a
hearing, and not hearing, would have continued in their former error.
To prevent this, he did not disclose his reasons; here too he does not
explain the occasion of the scheme,
(<greek>oikonomia</greek>) but shapes his discourse
differently; thus:
Ver. 6. "But from those who were reputed to be
somewhat[2] (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me, God
accepteth no man's person.)"
Here he not only does not defend the Apostles, but
even presses hard upon those holy men, for the benefit of the weak. His
meaning is this: although they permit circumcision, they shall render
an account to God, for God will not accept their persons, because they
are great and in station. But he does not speak so plainly, but with
caution. He says not, if they vitiate their doctrine, and swerve from
the appointed rule of their preaching, they shall be judged with the
utmost rigor, and suffer punishment; but he alludes to them more
reverently, in the words, "of those who were reputed to be somewhat,
whatsoever they were." He says not, "whatsoever they 'are,'" but
"were," showing that they too had thenceforth[3] ceased so to preach,
the doctrine having extended itself universally. The phrase,
"whatsoever they were," implies, that if they so preached they should
render account, for they had to justify themselves before God, not
before men. This he said, not as doubtful or ignorant of the rectitude
of their procedure, but (as I said before) from a sense of the
expediency of so forming his discourse. Then, that he may not seem to
take the opposite side and to accuse them, and so create a suspicion of
their disagreement, he straightway subjoins this correction: "for those
who were reputed to be somewhat, in conference imparted nothing to me."
This is his meaning; What you may say, I know not; this I know well,
that the Apostles did not oppose me, but our sentiments conspired and
accorded. This appears from his expression, "they gave me the right
hand of fellowship;" but he does not say this at present, but only that
they neither informed or corrected him on any point, nor added to his
knowledge.
Ver. 6. "For those who were reputed to be somewhat,
imparted nothing to me:"
That is to say, when told of my proceedings, they
added nothing, they corrected nothing, and though aware that the object
of my journey was to communicate with them, that I had come by
revelation of the Spirit, and that I had Titus with me who was
uncircumcised, they neither circumcised him, nor imparted to me any
additional knowledge.
Ver. 7. "But contrariwise."
17
Some hold his meaning to be, not only that ·
the Apostles did not instruct him, but that they were instructed by
him. But I would not say this, for what could they, each of whom was
himself perfectly instructed, have learnt from him? He does not
therefore intend this by the expression, "contrariwise," but that so
far were they from blaming, that they praised him: for praise is the
contrary of blame. Some would probably here reply: Why did not the
Apostles, if they praised your procedure, as the proper consequence
abolish circumcision?[1] Now to assert that they did abolish it Paul
considered much too bold, and inconsistent with his own admission. On
the other hand, to admit that they had sanctioned circumcision, would
necessarily expose him to another objection. For it would be said, if
the Apostles praised your preaching, yet sanctioned circumcision, they
were inconsistent with themselves. What then is the solution? is he to
say that they acted thus out of condescension to Judaism? To say this
would have shaken the very foundation of the economy. Wherefore he
leaves the subject in suspense and uncertainty, by the words, "but of
those who were reputed to be somewhat; it maketh no matter to me."
Which is in effect to say, I accuse not, nor traduce those holy men;
they know what it is they have done; to God must they render their
account. What I am desirous to prove is, that they neither reversed nor
corrected my procedure, nor added to it as in their opinion defective,
but gave it their approbation and assent; and to this Titus and
Barnabas bear witness. Then he adds,
Ver. 7. "When they saw that I had been entrusted
with the Gospel of the Uncircumcision even as Peter with the Gospel of
the Circumcision[2],"--
The Circumcision and Uncircumcision; meaning, not
the things themselves, but the nations known by these distinctions;
wherefore he adds,
Ver. 8. "For He that wrought for Peter unto the
Apostleship of the Circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles."
He calls the Gentiles the Uncircumcision and the
Jews the Circumcision, and declares his own rank to be equal to that of
the Apostles; and, by comparing himself with their Leader not with the
others, he shows that the dignity of each was the same. After he had
established the proof of their unanimity, he takes courage, and
proceeds confidently in his argument, not stopping at the Apostles, but
advances to Christ Himself, and to the grace which He had conferred
upon him, and calls-the Apostles as his witnesses, saying,
Ver. 9. "And when they perceived the grace that was
given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be
pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship."[3]
He says not when they "heard," but when they
"perceived," that is, were assured by the facts themselves, "they gave
to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship." Observe how he
gradually proves that his doctrine was ratified both by Christ and by
the Apostles. For grace would neither have been implanted, nor been
operative in him, had not his preaching been approved by Christ. Where
it was for the purpose of comparison with himself, he mentioned Peter
alone; here, when be calls them as witnesses, he names the three
together, "Cephas,James, John," and with an encomium, "who were reputed
to be pillars." Here again the expression "who were reputed" does not
impugn the reality of the fact, but adopts the estimate of others, and
implies that these great and distinguished men, whose fame was
universal, bare witness that his preaching was ratified by Christ, that
they were practically informed and convinced by experience concerning
it. "Therefore they gave the right hands of fellowship" to me, and not
to me only, but also to Barnabas, "that we should go unto the Gentiles,
and they unto the Circumcision." Here indeed is exceeding prudence as
well as an incontrovertible proof of their concord. For it shows that
his and their doctrine was interchangeable, and that both approved the
same thing, that they should so preach to the Jews, and he to the
Gentiles. Wherefore he adds,
Ver. 9. "That we should go unto the Gentiles and
they unto the Circumcision."[4]
Observe that here also he means by "the
Circumcision," not the rite, but the Jews; whenever he speaks of the
rite, and wishes to contrast it, he adds the word "uncircumcision;" as
when he says, "For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of
the law; but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is
become uncircumcision." (Ro. ii: 25.) And again, "Neither circumcision
availeth any
18
thing, nor uncircumcision." But when it is to the Jews and not to the
deed that he gives this name, and wishes to signify the nation, he
opposes to it not uncircumcision in its literal sense, but the
Gentiles. For the Jews are the contradistinction to the Gentiles, the
Circumcision to the Uncircumcision. Thus when he says above, "For He
that wrought for Peter into the Apostleship of the Circumcision,
wrought for me also unto the Gentiles;" and again, "We unto the
Gentiles and they unto the Circumcision," he means not the rite itself,
but the Jewish nation, thus distinguishing them from the Gentiles.
Ver. 10. "Only they would that we should remember
the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do."
This is his meaning: In our preaching we divided the
world between us, I took the Gentiles and they the Jews, according to
the Divine decree; but to the sustenance of the poor among the Jews I
also contributed my share, which, had there been any dissension between
us, they would not have accepted. Next, who were these poor persons?
Many of the believing Jews in Palestine had been deprived of all their
goods, and scattered over the world, as he mentions in the Epistle to
the Hebrews[1]," "For ye took joyfully the spoiling of your possessions
;" and in writing to the Thessalonians, (1 Thes. ii: 14.) he extols
their fortitude, "Ye became imitators of the Churches of God which are
in Judaea, . . . for ye also suffered the same thing of your own
countrymen, even as they did of the Jews." And he shows throughout that
those Greeks who believed were not under persecution from the rest,
such as the believing Jews were suffering from their own kindred, for
there is no nation of a temper so cruel. Wherefore he exercises much
zeal, as appears in the Epistles to the Romans (Ro. xv: 25--27.) and
Corinthians (1 Cor. xvi: 1--3.) that these persons should meet with
much attention; and Paul not only collects money for them, but himself
conveys it, as he says, "But now I go unto Jerusalem ministering unto
the saints," (Ro. xv: 25.) for they were without the necessaries of
life. And he here shows that in this instance having resolved to assist
them, he had undertaken and would not abandon it.
Having by these means declared the unanimity and
harmony between the Apostles and himself, he is obliged to proceed to
mention his debate with Peter at Antioch.
Ver. 11, 12. "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I
resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that
certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they
came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the
circumcision."
Many, on a superficial reading of this part of the
Epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But this is not
so, indeed it is not, far from it;[2] we shall discover great wisdom,
both of Paul and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their
hearers. But first a word must be said about Peter's freedom in speech,
and how it was ever his way to outstrip the other disciples. Indeed it
was upon one such occasion that he gained his name from the unbending
and impregnable character of his faith. For when all were interrogated
in common, he stepped before the others and answered, "Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God." (Mat. xvi: 16.) This was when the
keys of heaven were committed to him. So too, he appears to have been
the only speaker on the Mount; (Mat. xvii: 4.) and when Christ spoke of
His crucifixion, and the others kept silence, he said, "Be it far from
Thee." (Mat. xvi: 22.) These words evince, if not a cautious temper, at
least a fervent love; and in all instances we find him more vehement
than the others, and rushing forward into danger. So when Christ was
seen on the beach, and the others were pushing the boat in, he was too
impatient to wait for its coming to land. (John xxi: 7.) And after the
Resurrection, when the Jews were murderous and maddened, and sought to
tear the Apostles in pieces, he first dared to come forward, and to
declare, that the Crucified was taken up into heaven. (Acts ii.: 14,
36.) It is a greater thing to open a closed door, and to commence an
action, than to be free-spoken afterwards. How could he ever dissemble
who had exposed his life to such a populace? He who when scourged and
bound would not bate a jot of his courage, and this at the beginning of
his mission, and in the heart of the chief city where there was so much
danger,--how could he, long afterwards in Antioch, where no danger was
at hand, and his character had received lustre from the testimony of
his actions, feel any apprehension of the believing Jews? How could he,
I say, who at the very first and in their chief city feared not the
Jews while Jews, after a long time and in a foreign city, fear those of
them who had been converted? Paul therefore does not speak this against
Peter, but with the same meaning in which he said, "for they who were
reputed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to
me." But to remove any doubt on this point, we must unfold the reason
of these expressions.
The Apostles, as I said before, permitted cir-
19
cumcision at Jerusalem, an abrupt severance from the law not being
practicable; but when they come to Antioch, they no longer continued
this observance, but lived indiscriminately with the believing Gentiles
which thing Peter also was at that time doing. But when some came from
Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer
did so fearing to perplex them, but he changed his course, with two
objects secretly in view, both to avoid offending those Jews, and to
give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him.[1] For had he, having
allowed circumcision when preaching at Jerusalem, changed his course at
Antioch, his conduct would have appeared to those Jews to proceed from
fear of Paul, and his disciples would have condemned his excess of
pliancy. And this would have created no small offence; but in Paul, who
was well acquainted with all the facts, his withdrawal would have
raised no such suspicion, as knowing the intention with which he acted.
Wherefore Paul rebukes, and Peter submits, that when the master is
blamed, yet keeps silence, the disciples may more readily come over.
Without this occurrence Paul's exhortation would have had little
effect, but the occasion hereby afforded of delivering a severe
reproof, impressed Peter's disciples with a more lively fear. Had Peter
disputed Paul's sentence, he might justly have been blamed as upsetting
the plan, but now that the one reproves and the other keeps silence,
the Jewish party are filled with serious alarm; and this is why he used
Peter so severely. Observe too Paul's careful choice of expressions,
whereby he points out to the discerning, that he uses them in pursuance
of the plan, (<greek>oikonomias</greek>) and not from anger.
His words are, "When Cephas came to Antioch, I
resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned; "that is, not by
me but by others; had he himself condemned him, he would not have
shrunk from saying so. And the words, "I resisted him to the face,"
imply a scheme for had their discussion been real, they would not have
rebuked each other in the presence of the disciples, for it would have
been a great stumblingblock to them. But now this apparent contest was
much to their advantage; as Paul had yielded to the Apostles at
Jerusalem, so in turn they yield to him at Antioch. The cause of
censure is this, "For before that certain came from James," who was the
teacher at Jerusalem, "he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they came
he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the
Circumcision:" his cause of fear was not his own danger, (for if he
feared not in the beginning, much less would he do so then,) but their
defection. As Paul himself says to the Galatians, "I am afraid of you,
lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain:" (Gal. iv:
xx.) and again, "I fear lest by any means as the serpent beguiled Eve,
... so your minds should be corrupted." (2 Cor. xi: 3.) Thus the
fear of death they knew not, but the fear lest their disciples should
perish, agitated their inmost soul.
Ver. 13. "Insomuch that even Barnabas was carried
away with their dissimulation."
Be not surprised at his giving this proceeding the
name of dissimulation, for he is unwilling, as I said before, to
disclose the true state of the case, in order to the correction of his
disciples. On account of their vehement attachment to the Law, he calls
the present proceeding "dissimulation," and severely rebukes it, in
order effectually to eradicate their prejudice. And Peter too, hearing
this joins in the feint, as if he had erred, that they might be
corrected by means of the rebuke administered to him. Had Paul reproved
these Jews, they would have spurned at it with indignation, for they
held him in slight esteem; but now, when they saw their Teacher silent
under rebuke, they were unable to despise or resist Paul's sentence.
Ver. 14. "But when I saw that they walked not
uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel." Neither let this
phrase disturb you, for in using it he does not condemn Peter,
but so expresses himself for the benefit of those who were to be
reformed by the reproof of Peter.
Ver. 14. "I said unto Cephas before them all."
Observe his mode of correcting the others;
20
he speaks "before them all," that the hearers might be alarmed thereby.
And this is what he says,--
Ver. 14. "If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the
Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to
live as do the Jews?"[1]
But it was the Jews and not the Gentiles who were
carried away together with Peter; why then does Paul impute what was
not done, instead of directing his remarks, not against the Gentiles,
but against the dissembling Jews? And why does he accuse Peter alone,
when the rest also dissembled together with him? Let us consider the
terms of his charge; "If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles,
and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do
the Jews?" for in fact Peter alone had withdrawn himself. His object
then is to remove suspicion from his rebuke; had he blamed Peter for
observing the Law, the Jews would have censured him for his boldness
towards their Teacher. But now arraigning him in behalf of his own
peculiar disciples, I mean the Gentiles, he facilitates thereby the
reception of what he has to say I which he also does by abstaining from
reproof of the others, and addressing it all to the Apostle. "If thou,"
he says, "being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the
Jews ;" which almost amounts to an explicit exhortation to imitate
their Teacher, who, himself a Jew, lived after the manner of the
Gentiles. This however he says not, for they could not have received
such advice, but under color of reproving him in behalf of the
Gentiles, he discloses Peter's real sentiments. On the other hand, if
he had said, Wherefore do you compel these Jews to Judaize? his
language would have been too severe. But now he effects their
correction by appearing to espouse the part, not of the Jewish, but of
the Gentile, disciples; for rebukes, which are moderately severe,
secure the readiest reception. And none of the Gentiles could object to
Paul that he took up the defense of the Jews. The whole difficulty was
removed by Peter's submitting in silence to the imputation of
dissimulation, in order that he might deliver the Jews from its
reality. At first Paul directs his argument to the character which
Peter wore, "If thou, being a Jew:" but he generalizes as he goes on,
and includes himself in the phrase,[1]
Vet. 15. "We being Jews by nature, and not sinners
of the Gentiles."[2]
These words are hortatory, but are couched in the
form of a reproof, on account of those Jews. So elsewhere, trader cover
of one meaning he conveys another; as where he says in his Epistle to
the Romans, "But now I go unto Jerusalem, ministering unto the saints."
(Rom. xv: 25.) Here his object was not simply to inform them of the
motive of his journey to Jerusalem, but to excite them to emulation in
the giving of alms. Had he merely wished to explain his motive, it
would have sufficed to say, "I go to ministering unto the saints;" but
now observe what he says in addition; "For it hath been the good
pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the
poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem. Yea, it hath been their
good pleasure and their debtors they are." And again, "For if the
Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe
it to them, also to minister unto them in carnal things." (Rom. xv: 26,
27.)
Observe how he represses the high thoughts of the
Jews; preparing for one thing by means of another, and his language is
authoritative. "We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the
Gentiles." The phrase, "Jews by nature," implies that we, who are not
proselytes, but educated from early youth in the Law, have relinquished
our habitual mode of life, and be taken ourselves to the faith which is
in Christ.
Vet. 16. "Knowing that a man is not justified by the
works of the Law, save through faith, in Jesus Christ, even we believed
on Christ Jesus."
Observe here too how cautiously he expresses
himself; he does not say that they had abandoned the Law as evil, but
as weak. If the law cannot confer righteousness, it follows that
circumcision is superfluous; and so far he now proves; but he proceeds
to show that it is not only superfluous but dangerous. It deserves
especial notice, how at the outset he says that a man is not justified
by the works of the Law; but as he proceeds he speaks more strongly;
Vet. 17. "But if, while we sought to be justified in
Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners is Christ a minister of
sin?"
If faith in Him, says he, avail not for our
justification, but it be necessary again to embrace the Law, and if,
having forsaken the Law for Christ's sake, we are not justified but
condemned for such abandonment,--then shall we find Him, for whose sake
we forsook the Law and went over to faith the author of our
condemnation.[3] Observe how, he has
21
resolved the matter to a necessary absurdity. And mark how earnestly
and strongly he argues. For if, he says, it behooved us not to abandon
the Law, and we have so abandoned it for Christ's sake, we shall be
judged. Wherefore do you urge this upon Peter, who is more intimately
acquainted with it than any one? Hath not God declared to him, that an
uncircumcised man ought not to be judged by circumcision; and did he
not in his discussion with the Jews rest his bold opposition upon the
vision which he saw? Did he not send from Jerusalem unequivocal decrees
upon this subject? Paul's object is not therefore to correct Peter, but
his animadversion required to be addressed to him, though it was
pointed at the disciples; and not only at the Galatians, but also at
others who labor under the same error with them. For though few are now
circumcised, yet, by fasting and observing the sabbath with the Jews,
they equally exclude themselves from grace. If Christ avails not to
those who are only circumcised, much more is peril to be feared where
fasting and sabbatizing are observed, and thus two commandments of the
Law are kept in the place of one. And this is aggravated by a
consideration of time: for they so acted at first while the city and
temple and other institutions yet existed; but these who with the
punishment of the Jews, and the destruction of the city before their
eyes,[1] observe more precepts of the Law than the others did, what
apology can they find for such observance, at the very time when the
Jews themselves, in spite of their strong desire, cannot keep it? Thou
hast put on Christ, thou hast become a member of the Lord, and been
enrolled in the heavenly city, and dost thou still grovel in the Law?
How is it possible for thee to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul's
words, that the observance of the Law overthrows the Gospel, and learn,
if thou wilt, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this
pitfall. Wherefore dost thou keep the sabbath, and fast with the Jews?
Is it that thou fearest the Law and abandonment of its letter? But thou
wouldest not entertain this fear, didst thou not disparage faith as
weak, and by itself powerless to save. A fear to omit the sabbath
plainly shows that you fear the Law as still in force; and if the Law
is needful, it is so as a whole, not in part, nor in one commandment
only; and if as a whole, the righteousness which is by faith is little
by little shut out. If thou keep the sabbath, why not also be
circumcised? and if circumcised, why not also offer sacrifices? If the
Law is to be observed, it must be observed as a whole, or not at all.
If omitting one part makes you fear condemnation, this fear attaches
equally to all the parts. If a transgression of the whole is not
punishable, much less is the transgression of a part; on the other
hand, if the latter be punishable, much more is the former. But if we
are bound to keep the whole, we are bound to disobey Christ, or by
obedience to Him become transgressors of the Law. If it ought to be
kept, those who keep it not are transgressors, and Christ will be found
to be the cause of this transgression, for He annulled the Law as
regards these things Himself, and bid others annul it. Do you not
understand what these Judaizers are compassing? They would make Christ,
who is to us the Author of righteousness, the Author of sin, as Paul
says, "Therefore Christ is the minister of sin." Having thus reduced
the proposition to an absurdity, he had nothing further to do by way of
overthrowing it, but was satisfied with the simple protestation,
Ver. 17. "God forbid:" for shamelessness and
irreverence need not be met by processes of reasoning, but a mere
protest is enough.
Ver. 18. "For if I build up again those things which
I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor."[2]
Observe the Apostle's discernment; his opponents
endeavored to show, that he who kept not the Law was a transgressor,
but he retorts the argument upon them, and shows that he who did keep
the Law was a transgressor, not merely of faith, but of the Law itself.
"I build up again the things which I destroyed," that is, the Law; he
means as follows: the Law has confessedly ceased, and we have abandoned
it, and betaken ourselves to the salvation which comes of faith. But if
we make a point of setting it up again, we become by that very act
transgressors, striving to keep what what God has annulled. Next he
shows how it has been annulled.
Ver. 19. "For I[3] through the Law died unto the
Law."
This may be viewed in two ways; it is either the law
of grace which he speaks of, for he is wont to call this a law, as in
the words, "For the law of the Spirit of life made me free:" (Rom.
viii: 2.) or it is the old Law, of which he says, that by the Law
itself he has become dead to the Law. That is to say, the Law itself
has taught me no longer to obey itself, and therefore if I do so, I
shall be transgressing even its teaching.[4]
22
How, in what way has it so taught? Moses says, speaking of Christ, "The
Lord God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee of
thy brethren, like unto me; unto Him shall ye hearken." (Dent. xviii:
15.) Therefore they who do not obey Him, transgress the Law. Again, the
expression, "I through the Law died unto the Law," may be understood in
another sense: the Law commands all its precepts to be performed, and
punishes the transgressor; therefore we are all dead to it, for no man
has fulfilled it. Here observe, how guardedly he assails it; he says
not, "the Law is dead to me;" but, "I am dead to the Law;" the meaning
of which is, that, as it is impossible for a dead corpse to obey the
commands of the Law, so also is it for me who have perished by its
curse, for by its word am I slain. Let it not therefore lay commands on
the dead, dead by its own act, dead not in body only, but in soul,
which has involved the death of the body. This he shows in what follows:
Ver. 19, 20. "That I might live unto God,[1] I have
been crucified with Christ."
Having said, "I am dead," lest it should be
objected, how then dost thou live? he adds the cause of his living, and
shows that when alive the Law slew him, but that when dead Christ
through death restored him to life. He shows the wonder to be twofold;
that by Christ both the dead was begotten into life, and that by means
of death. He here means the immortal life, for this is the meaning of
the words, "That I might live unto God I am crucified with Christ."[1]
How, it is asked, can a man now living and breathing have been
crucified? That Christ hath been crucified is manifest, but how canst
thou have been crucified, and yet live? He explains it thus;
Ver. 20. "Yet[2] I live; and yet no longer I, but
Christ liveth in me."
In these words, "I am crucified with Christ," he
alludes to Baptism[3] and in the words "nevertheless I live, yet not
I," our subsequent manner of life whereby our members are mortified. By
saying "Christ liveth in me," he means nothing is done by me, which
Christ disapproves; for as by death he signifies not what is commonly
understood, but a death to sin; so by life, he signifies a delivery
from sin. For a man cannot live to God, otherwise than by dying to sin;
and as Christ suffered bodily death, so does Paul a death to sin.
"Mortify," says he "your members which are upon the earth; fornication,
uncleanness, passion;" (Col. iii: 5.) , and again, "our old man was
crucified, "(Rom. vi: 6.) which took place in the Bath.[3] After which,
if thou remainest dead to sin, thou livest to God, but if thou let it
live again, thou art the ruin of thy new life. This however did not
Paul, but continued wholly dead; if then, he says, I live to God a life
other than that in the Law, and am dead to the Law, I cannot possibly
keep any part of the Law. Consider how perfect was his walk, and thou
wilt be transported with admiration of this blessed soul. He says not,
"I live," but, "Christ liveth in me;" who is bold enough to utter such
words? Paul indeed, who had harnessed himself to Christ's yoke, and
cast away all worldly things, and was paying universal obedience to His
will, says not, "I live to Christ," but what is far higher, "Christ
liveth in me." As sin, when it has the mastery, is itself the vital
principle, and leads the soul whither it will, so, when it is slain and
the will of Christ obeyed, this life is no longer earthly, but Christ
liveth, that is, works, has mastery within us. His saying, "I am
crucified with Him""I no longer live," but "am dead," seeming
incredible to many, he adds,
Ver. 20. "And that life which I now live in
the flesh, I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of
God." The foregoing, says he, relates to our spiritual life, but
this life of sense too, if considered, will be found owing to my faith
in Christ. For as regards the former Dispensation and Law, I had
incurred the severest punishment, and had long ago perished, "for all
have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Rom. iii: 23.) And
we, who lay under sentence, have been liberated by Christ, for all of
us are dead, if not in fact, at least by sentence; and He has delivered
us from the expected blow. When the Law had accused, and God condemned
us, Christ came, and by giving Himself up to death, rescued us all from
death. So that "the life which I now live in the flesh, I live in
faith." Had not this been, nothing could have averted a
destruction as general as that which took place at the flood, but His
advent arrested the wrath of God, and caused us to live by faith.
That such is his meaning appears from what follows. After saying,
that "the life which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith," he adds,
Ver. 20. "In the Son of God, Who loved me, and gave
Himself up for me."
How is this, O Paul! why dost thou appropriate a
general benefit, and make thine own what was done for the whole world's
sake? for
23
he says not, "Who loved us," but, "Who loved me." And besides the
Evangelist says, "God so loved the world;" (John iii: 16.) and Paul
himself, "He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up, not for
Paul only, but, "for us all ;" (Rom. viii: 32.) and again, "that He
might purify unto himself a people for his own possession, ( Tit. ii:
14.) But considering the desperate condition of human nature, and the
ineffably tender solicitude of Christ, in what He delivered us from,
and what He freely gave us, and kindled by the yearning of affection
towards Him, he thus expresses himself. Thus the Prophets often
appropriate to themselves Him who is God of all, as in the words, "O
God, thou art my God, early will I seek Thee." (Psalm lxiii: I.)
Moreover, this language teaches that each individual justly owes as a
great debt of gratitude to Christ, as if He had come for his sake
alone, for He would not have grudged this His condescension though but
for one, so that the measure of His love to each is as great as to the
whole world. Truly the Sacrifice was offered for all mankind,[1] and
was sufficient to save all, but those who enjoy the blessing are the
believing only. Nevertheless it did not deter Him from His so great
condescension, that not all would come ; but He acted after the pattern
of the supper in the Gospel, which He prepared for all, (Luke xiv: 16.)
yet when the guests came not, instead of withdrawing the viands, He
called in others. So too He did not despise that sheep, though one
only, which had strayed from the ninety and nine. (Mat. xviii: 12.)
This too in like manner St. Paul intimates, when he says, speaking
about the Jews, "For what if some were without faith, shall their want
of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God? God forbid: yea
let God be found true, but every man a liar." (Rom. iii: 3, 4.) When He
so loved thee as to give Himself up to bring thee who wast without hope
to a life so great and blessed, canst thou, thus gifted, have recourse
to things gone by? His reasoning being completed, he concludes with a
vehment asseveration, saying,
Ver. 21. "I do not make void the grace of God."[3]
Let those, who even now Judaize and adhere to the
Law, listen to this, for it applies to them.
Ver. 21. "For if righteousness is through the Law,
then Christ died for naught."
What can be more heinous than this sin?[4] what more
fit to put one to shame than these words? Christ's death is a plain
proof of the inability of the Law to justify us; and if it does
justify, then is His death superfluous. Yet how could it be reasonable
to say that has been done heedlessly and in vain which is so awful, so
surpassing human reason, a mystery so ineffable, with which Patriarchs
travailed, which Prophets foretold, which Angels gazed on with
consternation, which all men confess as the summit of the Divine
tenderness? Reflecting how utterly out of place it would be if they
should say that so great and high a deed had been done superfluously,
(for this is what their conduct came to,) he even uses violent language
against them, as we find in the words which follow.
CHAPTER III
VERSE I.
"O foolish Galatians[2] who did bewitch you, before
whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth,
crucified?"
Here he passes to another subject; in the former
chapters he had shown himself not to be an Apostle of men, nor by men,
nor in want of Apostolic instruction. Now, having established his
authority as a teacher, he proceeds to discourse more confidently, and
draws a comparison between faith and the Law. At the outset he said, "I
marvel that ye are so quickly removing;" (Gal. i: 6.) but here, "O
foolish Galatians;" then, his indignation was in its
24
birth, but now, after his refutation of the charges against himself,
and his proofs, it bursts forth. Let not his calling them
"foolish" surprise you; for it is not a transgression of Christ's
command not to call one's brother a fool, but rather a strict
observance of it. For it is not said simply, "Whosoever shall say to
his brother, Thou fool," (Mat. v: 22.) but, whosoever shall do so,
"without a cause."[1] And who more fittingly than they could so be
called, who after so great events, adhered to past things, as if
nothing else had ever happened? If on this account Paul is to be called
a "reviler," Peter may likewise, on account of Annanias and Sapphira,
be called a homicide; but as it would be wildness to do so in that
case, much more in this. Moreover it is to be considered, that this
vehemence is not used at the beginning, but after these evidences and
proofs, which, rather than Paul himself, might now be held to
administer the rebuke. For after he had shown that they rejected the
faith, and made the death of Christ to be without a purpose, he
introduces his reproof, which, even as it is, is less severe than they
merited. Observe too how soon he stays his arm; for he adds not, Who
has seduced you? who has perverted you? who has been sophistical with
you? but, "Who hath cast an envious eye on you?" thus tempering his
reprimand with somewhat of praise. For it implies that their previous
course had excited jealousy,[2] and that the present occurrence arose
from the malignity of a demon, whose breath had blasted their
prosperous estate.
And when you hear of jealousy in this place, and in
the Gospel, of an evil eye, which means the same, you must not suppose
that the glance of the eye has any natural power to injure those who
look upon it. For the eye, that is, the organ itself, cannot be evil;
but Christ in that place means jealousy by the term. To behold, simply,
is the function of the eye, but to behold in an evil manner belongs to
a mind depraved within. As through this sense the knowledge of visible
objects enters the soul, and as jealousy is for the most part generated
by wealth, and wealth and sovereignty and pomp are perceived by the
eye, therefore he calls the eye evil; not as beholding merely, but as
beholding enviously from some moral depravity. Therefore by the words,
"Who hath looked enviously on you," he implies that the persons in
question acted, not from concern, not to supply defects, but to
mutilate what existed. For envy, far from supplying what is wanting,
subtracts from what is complete, and vitiates the whole. And he speaks
thus, not as if envy had any power of itself, but meaning, that the
teachers of these doctrines did so from envious motives.
Ver. I. "Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly
set forth, crucified."
Yet was He not crucified in Galatia, but at
Jerusalem. His reason for saying, " among you,"[3] is to declare the
power of faith to see events which are at a distance. He says not,
"crucified," but, "openly set forth crucified," signifying that by the
eye of faith they saw more distinctly than some who were present as
spectators. For many of the latter received no benefit, but the former,
who were not eye-witnesses, yet saw it by faith more clearly. These
words convey both praise and blame; praise, for their implicit
acceptance of the truth; blame, because Him whom they had seen, for
their sakes, stripped naked, transfixed, nailed to the cross, spit
upon, mocked, fed with vinegar, upbraided by thieves, pierced with a
spear; (for all this is implied in the words, "openly set forth,
crucified,")[4] Him had they left, and betaken themselves to the Law,
unshamed by any of those sufferings. Here observe how Paul, leaving all
mention of heaven, earth, and sea, every where preaches the power of
Christ, bearing about as he did, and holding up His. cross: for this is
the sum of the Divine love. toward us.
Ver 2. "This only would I learn from you, Received
ye the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith?"
As ye do not attend, says he, to long discourses,
nor are willing to contemplate the magnitude of this Economy, I am
desirous, (seeing your extreme ignorance,) to convince you by concise
arguments and a summary method of proof. Before, he had convinced them
by what he said to Peter; now, he encounters them entirely with
arguments, drawn not from what had occurred elsewhere, but from what
had happened among themselves.[5] And his persuasives and proofs
are adduced, not merely from what was given them in common with others,
but from what was especially conferred on themselves. Therefore he
says, "This only would I learn from you, Received ye the Spirit by the
works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith." Ye have received, he
says, the Holy Spirit, ye
25
have done many mighty works, ye have effected miracles in raising the
dead, in cleansing lepers, in prophesying, in speaking with
tongues,--did the LaW confer this great power upon you? was it not
rather Faith, seeing that, before, ye could do no such things? Is it
not then the height of madness for these who have received such
benefits from Faith, to abandon it, and desert back to the Law which
can offer you nothing of the same kind?
Ver. 3. "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the
Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?"
Here again he seasonably interposes a rebuke; time,
he says, should have brought improvement; but, so far from advancing,
ye have even retrograded. Those who start from small beginnings make
progress to higher things; ye, who began with the high, have relapsed
to the low. Even had your outset been carnal, your advance should have
been spiritual, but now, after starting from things spiritual, ye have
ended your journey in that which is carnal; for to work miracles is
spiritual, but to be circumcised is carnal. And after miracles ye have
passed to circumcision, after having apprehended the truth ye have
fallen back to types, after gazing on the sun ye seek a candle, after
having strong meat ye run for milk. He says, "made perfect,"[1]
which means not "initiated" merely, but "sacrificed," signifying that
their teachers took and slew them like animals, while they resigned
themselves to suffer what those teachers pleased. As if some captain,
or distinguished man, after a thousand victories and trophies, were to
subject himself to infamy as a deserter, and offer his body to be
branded at the will of others.
Ver. 4. "Did ye suffer so many things in vain?[2] if
it be indeed in vain."
This remark is far more piercing than the former,
for the remembrance of their miracles would not be so powerful as the
exhibition of their contests and endurance of sufferings for Christ's
sake. All that you have endured, says he, these men would strip you of,
and would rob you of your crown. Then, lest he should dismay and
unnerve, he proceeds not to a formal judgment, but subjoins, "if it be
indeed in vain;" if you have but a mind to shake off drowsiness and
recover yourselves, he says, it is not in vain. Where then be those who
would cut off repentance[3]? Here were men who had received the Spirit,
worked miracles, become confessors, encountered a thousand perils and
persecutions for Christ's sake, and after so many achievements had
fallen from grace; nevertheless he says, if ye have the purpose, ye may
recover yourselves.
Ver. 5. "He therefore that supplieth to you the
Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the
law, or by the hearing of faith?"
Have ye been vouchsafed, he says, so great a gift,
and achieved such wonders, because ye observed the Law, or because ye
adhered to Faith? plainly on account of Faith. Seeing that they played
this argument to and fro, that apart from the Law, Faith had no force,
he proves the contrary, viz., that if the Commandments be added, Faith
no longer avails; for Faith then has efficacy when things from the Law
are not added to it. "Ye who would be justified by the Law, ye are
fallen away from grace:" (Gal. v: 4.) This he says later, when his
language has grown bolder, employing the vantage-ground by. that time
gained; meanwhile while gaining it, he argues from their past
experience. For it was when ye obeyed Faith, he says, not the Law, that
ye received the Spirit and wrought miracles.
And here, as the Law was the subject of discuss;on,
he moots another special point of controversy, and very opportunely and
with much cogency introduces a notice of Abraham.
Ver. 6. "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was
reckoned unto him for righteousness. "
Even the miracles done by themselves, he says,
declare the power of Faith, but I shall attempt if you will suffer me
to draw my proofs from ancient narratives also. Then, as they made
great account of the Patriarch, he brings his example forward, and
shows that he too was justified by Faith.[4] And if he who was before
grace, was justified by Faith, although plentiful in works, much more
we. For what loss was it to him, not being under the Law? None, for his
faith sufficed unto righteousness. The Law did not then exist, he says,
neither does it now exist, any more than then. In disproving the need
of the Law, he introduces one who was justified before the Law, lest an
objection should also be made to him; for as then it was
26
not yet given, so now, having been given, it was abrogated. And as they
made much of their descent from Abraham, and feared lest, abandoning
the Law, they should be considered strangers to his kin; Paul removes
this fear by turning their argument against themselves, and proves that
faith is especially concerned in connecting them with Abraham. He draws
out this argument more at length in the Epistle to the Romans; however
he urges it also here in, the words,
Ver. 7. "Know therefore, that they which be of
faith, the same are sons of Abraham."
Which he proves by ancient testimony thus:
Ver. 8. "And the Scripture,[1] foreseeing that God
would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel Beforehand
unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed."
If then those were Abraham's sons, not, who were
related to him by blood, but who follow his faith, for this is the
meaning of the words, "In thee all the nations," it is plain that the
heathen are brought into kindred with him.
Hereby too is proved another important point. It
perplexed them that the Law was the older, and Faith afterwards. Now he
removes this notion by showing that Faith was anterior to the Law; as
is evident from Abraham's case, who was justified before the giving of
the Law. He shows too that late events fell out according to prophecy;
"The Scripture," says he, "fore-seeing that God would justify the
Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel beforehand unto Abraham." Attend
to this point. He Himself who gave the Law, had decreed, before He gave
it, that the heathen should be justified by Faith. And he says not
"revealed," but, "preached the Gospel," to signify that the patriarch
was in joy at this method of justification, and in great desire for its
accomplishment.
Further, they were possessed with another
apprehension; it was written, "Cursed is every one that continueth not
in all things that are written in the book of the Law, to do them."
(Deut. xxvii: 26.) And this he removes, with great skill and prudence,
turning their argument against themselves, and showing that those who
relinquish the Law are not only not cursed, but blessed; and they who
keep it, not only not blessed but cursed. They said that he who kept
not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed,
and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered .
to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to
Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? for it is no
common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give
close attention to what follows. He had already shown this, by
referring to the words spoken to the Patriarch, "In thee shall all
nations be blessed," (Gen. xii: 4.) at a time, that is, when Faith
existed, not the Law; so he adds by way of conclusion,
Ver. 9. "So then they which be of faith are blessed
with the faithful Abraham."[2]
Then, that they might not turn round, and object
that, true it was Abraham was justified by Faith, for the Law was not
then given, but what instance would be found of Faith justifying after
the delivery of the Law? he addresses himself to this, and proves more
than they required: namely, not only that Faith was justifying, but
that the Law brought its adherents under a curse. To be sure of this,
listen to the very words of the Apostle.
Ver. 10. "For[3] as many as are of the works of the
Law are under a curse."
This is what he lays down, before proving it ; and
what is the proof? it is from the Law itself:--
Ver. 10, 11. "For it is written, Cursed is every one
that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the
Law to do them. Now that no man is justified by the Law is evident."
For all have sinned, and are under the curse.
However he does not say this yet, lest he should seem to lay it down of
himself, but here again establishes his point by a text which concisely
states both points; that no man has fulfilled the Law, (wherefore they
are under the curse,) and, that Faith justifies. What then is the text?
It is in the book of the prophet Habakkuk, "The just shall live by
faith," (Hab. ii: 4.) which not only establishes the righteousness that
is of Faith, but also that there is no salvation through the Law. As no
one, he says, kept the Law, but all were under the curse, on account of
transgression, an easy way was provided, that from Faith, which is in
itself a strong proof that no man can be justified by the Law. For the
prophet says not, "The just shall live by the Law," but," by faith:"
Ver. 12. "And the Law is not of faith; but He that
doeth them shall live in them."
For the Law requires not only Faith but works also,
but grace saves and justifies by Faith. (Eph. ii: 8.)
27
You see how he proves that they are under the curse
who cleave to the Law, because it is impossible to fulfill it; next,
how comes Faith to have this justifying power? for to this doctrine he
already stood pledged, and now maintains it with great force of
argument. The Law being too weak to lead man to righteousness, an
effectual remedy was provided in Faith, which is the means of rendering
that possible which was "impossible by the Law." (Rom. viii: 3.) Now as
the Scripture says, "the just shall live by faith," thus repudiating
salvation by the Law, and moreover as Abraham was justified by Faith,
it is evident that its efficacy is very great. And it is also clear,
that he who abides not by the Law is cursed, and that he who keeps to
Faith is just. But, you may ask me, how I prove that this curse is not
still of force? Abraham lived before the Law, but we, who once were
subject to the yoke of bondage, have made ourselves liable to the
curse; and who shall release us therefrom? Observe his ready answer to
this; his former remark was sufficient; for, if a man be once
justified, and has died to the Law and embraced a novel life, how can
such a one be subject to the curse? however, this is not enough for
him, so he begins with a fresh argument, as follows :--
Ver. 13. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the
Law, having become a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every
one that hangeth on a tree."[1]
In reality, the people were subject to another
curse, which says, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in the
things that are written in the book of the Law." (Deut. xxvii: 26.) To
this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or
was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the
other, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." As then both he
who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and
as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse
himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it,
therefore Christ took opon Him such another, and thereby relieved us
from the curse. It was like an innocent man's undertaking to die for
another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For
Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other
curse, in order to remove that of others. For, "He had done no violence
neither was any deceit in His mouth." (Isa. liii: 9; 1 Peter ii: 22.)
And as