Galatians 3

O senseless Galatians, who has bewitched you?

This passage can be understood in two ways. Either the Galatians were called senseless for this reason, that coming from greater things to lesser they had begun in the spirit and were being finished in the flesh; or on account of this, that each province has its own peculiar characteristics. The Apostle confirms that the Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy bellies, as was truly said by the poet Epimenides. The Latin historian lashes the vain Moors and the fierce Dalmatians. All the poets tear at the timid Phrygians. The philosophers boast that readier minds are born at Athens. Tully, before Gaius Caesar, taunts the Greeks as fickle, saying: Either of the fickle Greeks or of the savage barbarians. And in the speech for Flaccus: Inborn, he says, fickleness, and learned vanity. All the Scriptures reprove Israel itself for its heavy heart and stiff neck. In this way, then, I think that the Apostle too lashed the Galatians with the peculiar characteristic of their region. Some, it is true, thrusting themselves into deep questions, as if under the pretext of avoiding the heresy that introduces diverse natures, say that the Tyrians and Sidonians too, the Moabites and Ammonites and Edomites, the Babylonians and Egyptians, and all the peoples that are named in the Scriptures, have certain peculiarities from preceding causes and by the merit of former works, so that the righteousness of God may not come into doubt, since each nation is asserted to have some good or some evil that another does not have. We, declining these depths, shall follow what was said above: either that they are charged with folly, by which they cannot discern the spirit of the Law from the letter; or that they are rebuked for the fault of their nation, in that they are unteachable and witless and rather slow to wisdom. But what follows, Who has bewitched you, we ought to explain in a manner worthy of Paul (who, though he is unskilled in speech, is not so in knowledge [2 Cor. 11:6]): not that he knew that there is such a thing as the evil eye, which is commonly thought to do harm, but that he used the speech of the crossroads, and, as elsewhere, so in this place too he took up a word of everyday conversation. We read in Proverbs: "The gift of the envious man torments the eyes". What with us is "envious" is put more expressively in the Greek as "bewitcher"; and in the Wisdom that is ascribed to Solomon: "The bewitching of malice obscures good things" (Wisd. 4:12). By these examples we are taught either that the envious man is tormented by another's happiness, or that he in whom there are some good things is harmed when another bewitches him, that is, envies him. The evil eye is said properly to harm infants and those of tender age, and those who do not yet plant their step with a firm footing. Hence also one of the Gentiles says: Some eye or other bewitches my tender lambs. (Virgil, Eclogues 3.) Whether this is true or not, God will see; for it may be that demons too serve this sin, and turn away from good works whomever they know either to have begun or to have made progress in the work of God. For now, the point at issue is that we think the example was taken from the opinion of the common people: so that, just as tender age is said to be harmed by the evil eye, so also the Galatians, newly born in the faith of Christ and nourished with milk and not with solid food (1 Cor. 3), were harmed as though by someone bewitching them, and, with the stomach of their faith nauseated, vomited up the food of the Holy Spirit. But if anyone objects, let him explain how it is taken from common opinion that there is the valley of the Titans in the books of Kingdoms (2 Kings 23), Sirens and Onocentaurs in Isaiah (ch. 34), Arcturus and Orion and the Pleiades in Job (ch. 9), and other things like these, which names certainly have both the causes and the origins of the fables of the Gentiles. Let us ask Marcion, then, who rejects the prophets, how he interprets in this place what follows.

Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed (proscriptus), crucified among you. For Christ was rightly portrayed beforehand (præscriptus) for us, of whose gibbet and passion, blows and scourgings the whole choir of the prophets foretells, so that we have known his cross not from the Gospel alone, in which he is related to have been crucified, but long before he deigned to descend to the earth and to take up the man who was crucified. Nor is it small praise of the Galatians that they believed in the Crucified in such a way as he had been portrayed beforehand (præscriptus) to them: namely, that by reading the prophets again and again and knowing all the mysteries of the old Law, they came to believe by a way and an order. In some codices is read: "Who has bewitched you, not to believe the truth?" But because this is not found in the copies of Adamantius, we have omitted it.

What I had left untouched in the first book of the Commentaries on Galatians, when I was discussing the characteristics of the nations, it now seems I should render in the second: who the Galatians are, or whither and whence they crossed over; whether the land they now inhabit poured them forth as natives or received them as newcomers; and whether they lost their language through intermarriage, or both learned a new one and did not lose their own. Marcus Varro, the most diligent investigator of all antiquities, and the others who have imitated him, have handed down many things about this people, and things worthy of memory. But since it is our purpose not to bring uncircumcised men into the temple of God (and, to confess it plainly, it is many years now since we ceased to read these things), we shall set down the words of our Lactantius, what he held about this people in the third volume to Probus: "The Gauls," he says, "were anciently called Galatae from the whiteness of their bodies; and the Sibyl calls them so. This is what the poet meant to signify when he says: Then their milk-white necks — are entwined with gold (Virgil, Aeneid 8): when he could have said 'white.' Hence, certainly, the province of Galatia, into which the Gauls came at one time and mingled themselves with the Greeks. Whence that region was first named Gallograecia, afterward Galatia." Nor is it surprising if he said this of the Galatians, and recorded that Western peoples, passing over such great spaces of the lands in between, settled in the region of the East, since it is established that swarms from the East and from Greece, conversely, reached the farthest bounds of the West. The Phocaeans founded Marseilles, and Varro says they are trilingual, because they speak Greek and Latin and Gallic. Colonists of the Rhodians founded the town of Rhoda, from which the river Rhone received its name. I pass over the Tyrians, founders of Carthage, and the city of Agenor; I pass by the Thebes of Liber, which he founded in Africa, a city now called Thebestis. I leave aside that part of Libya which is full of Greek cities. I cross over to the Spains: did not Greeks setting out from the island of Zacynthus found Saguntum, and are not the Ionians, Greek men, reported to have founded the town of Tartessus, which is now called Carteia? The mountains of the Spains too, Calpe, Idrus, Pyrene, and likewise the islands Aphrodisiades and Gymnesiae, which are called the Balearics, do they not show traces of the Greek tongue? Italy itself, occupied by Greek peoples, was once called Greater Greece. Certainly, and this cannot be denied, the Romans were begotten of the stock of Aeneas, a man of Asia. From this it comes about that in the West talents of Greek sharpness are often found, and in the East they smack of barbarian stupidity. Nor do we say this as though diverse things were not born in each place according to the region, but because for the most part even the other things that are not alike are so named. Therefore it is not surprising that the Galatians were called foolish and slower of understanding, since even Hilary, the Rhone of Latin eloquence, himself a Gaul and born at Poitiers, in his Song of Hymns calls the Gauls unteachable. And that they are now fertile in orators pertains not so much to the diligence of the region as to the clamor of the rhetoricians, especially since Aquitaine boasts of a Greek origin, and the Galatians set out not from that part of the lands but from the fiercer Gauls. Do you wish to know, O Paula and Eustochium, how the Apostle marked each province with its own characteristics? To this very day the same traces remain, whether of virtues or of errors. The faith of the Roman people is praised (Rom. 1). Where else do people run with such zeal and in such crowds to the churches and to the tombs of the martyrs? Where does the Amen so resound, like heavenly thunder, that the empty temples of the idols are shaken? Not that the Romans have another faith than this which all the churches of Christ have, but that devotion is greater in them, and simplicity in believing. Again, they are accused of facility and of pride. Of facility, as there: "I beseech you, brothers, that you watch those who cause dissensions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you have learned; and turn aside from them; for such men do not serve Christ the Lord, but their own belly; and by sweet words and blessings they seduce the hearts of the innocent. For your obedience is spread abroad to every place. I rejoice therefore in you, and I wish you to be wise in good and simple in evil" (Rom. 16:17 ff.). And of pride: "Be not high-minded, but fear" (Rom. 11:20, 25). And: "I do not wish you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, that you may not be wise in yourselves". And in what follows: "For I say, through the grace that has been given to me, to all who are among you: not to be wise beyond what one ought to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety" (Rom. 12:3). And more openly: "To rejoice with those who rejoice; to weep with those who weep. Being of the same mind toward one another. Not minding high things, but consenting to the humble. Do not be prudent in your own sight" (Rom. 12:15-16). He also marks the Corinthians, because their women are with uncovered head and the men let their hair grow (1 Cor. 11), and they eat indifferently in temples (1 Cor. 8:10), and, puffed up with secular wisdom, they deny the resurrection of the flesh. That these things in part remain to this day, no one who has seen Achaia can doubt (1 Cor. 4). The Macedonians are praised for love, and for hospitality and the reception of the brothers. Hence it is written to them: "But concerning the love of the brotherhood we have no need to write to you. For you yourselves have learned from God to love one another. And indeed you do it toward all the brothers in all Macedonia" (1 Thess. 4:9). But they are rebuked because they go idly round the houses, and, looking for another's food, while they desire to please each one and run about hither and thither, they report what is done at each person's house. For it follows: "But we beseech you, brothers, that you abound more, and take pains to be quiet, and that you do your own business, and work with your hands, as we commanded you, so that you may walk honestly toward those who are outside, and may desire nothing of anyone" (1 Thess. 4:10-11). And lest anyone think this was urged more from the duty of a teacher than because of a fault of the people, in the second letter to the same he presses and repeats it, saying: "For even when we were with you, we declared this to you, that if anyone will not work, neither let him eat. For we have heard that some among you walk restlessly, doing no work, but acting as busybodies. Now those who are such we charge and beseech in the Lord Jesus Christ, that, working in silence, they eat their own bread" (2 Thess. 3:10 ff.). It would be long if I wished to note, from the Apostle and from all the Scriptures, either the virtues or the vices of the individual nations, since we have come down to these very things we have said from the fact that the Galatians were pronounced foolish and senseless. Whoever has seen Ancyra, the metropolitan city of Galatia, knows with me by how many schisms it is torn even now, by how many varieties of doctrines it is defiled. I pass over the Cataphrygians, Ophites, Borborites and Manichaeans; for these are by now familiar names of human calamity. Who has ever heard, in any part of the Roman world, of the Passalorynchites and Ascodrobi and Artotyrites, and the rest, monsters rather than names? Traces of the ancient folly remain to this day. One thing we add, and so pay what was promised at the beginning: that the Galatians, apart from the Greek speech which the whole East speaks, have their own language, almost the same as the Treveri, and it does not matter if they have corrupted some things in it, since the Africans too have in some part changed the language of the Phoenicians, and Latinity itself changes daily both by regions and by time. But now let us return to our purpose.

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;" but here, "O foolish Galatians;" then, his indignation was in its 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," but, whosoever shall do so, "without a cause." 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, 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.

Yet was He not crucified in Galatia, but at Jerusalem. His reason for saying, "among you," 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,") 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.

Having shown himself taught not by men but by the Lord, Paul now teaches with greater authority, making a comparison between the law and faith. And he calls them foolish. For indeed it is foolish to abandon Christ and hold to the law.

"Who has cast a spell on you?" He did not say, "Who has deceived you?" so that insult would not be joined to insult; but, "Who has cast a spell on you and envied you?" showing that they had previously been doing things worthy of envy.

"to whom Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified before your eyes." And indeed he was crucified in Jerusalem. How then does he say, "Which is before your eyes and among you"? He shows the power of faith, and that you see things afar off. But because it was previously proclaimed he said, that is, through the written proclamation of the Scripture, as if he were saying: The proclamation has painted the cross for you, but you with the eyes of faith as if present have seen it.

— [THEODORET] For you have believed in this way: having seen the very cross of Christ. [end of the excerpt by Theodoret] —

They bear in mind how the churches were rebuked by the apostle: "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you? " and, "Ye did run so well; who hath hindered you? " and how the epistle actually begins: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him, who hath called you as His own in grace, to another gospel.

This indicates their previous zeal for piety and manifests the fatherly affection of the apostle. He grieves over them for their loss of wealth accumulated.

Having shown first that he is an apostle not from men nor through men, and having presented himself as worthy of trust, he then speaks with greater authority. Intending to compare faith and the law, he calls the Galatians foolish, in no way violating the law of Christ, but on the contrary, fully observing it (Matt. 5:22), since it is not the one who rightly calls his brother a fool who is condemned, but the one who does so without cause. The Galatians, however, are quite justly called senseless, since they remained insensible to such great blessings and rendered the death of Christ useless. And notice, after his proofs he proceeds to reproach and immediately ceases it. For he did not say, "who deceived you?" but "who bewitched you?" (έβάσκανε) Who envied you? — thereby showing that in the beginning they were doing things worthy of envy. He also shows that those who incline them to this act not out of concern for them nor to supply what is lacking, but to destroy what already exists. For such is the nature of envy. And he says this not because envy in itself has the power to harm, but because those who teach these things came to it out of envy.

But He was crucified in Jerusalem. How then does he say "before your eyes" and "among you"? Because with the eyes of faith they saw the Cross far more clearly than those who were present at the time and saw it. For while many of those who saw with bodily eyes derived no benefit for themselves, they, without having seen with their eyes, saw very clearly through faith. So Christ was "openly portrayed," that is, vividly depicted through preaching, but you, having believed the preaching, saw Him as though He were present. This is both praise for them and a reproach: praise because they received it with such full assurance, and rebuke because they abandoned the One whom they had seen stripped, crucified, and dying, and turned to the law. Notice how he, setting aside everything else, speaks of the Cross of Christ alone.

Above, the Apostle reproved the Galatians for their vanity and fickleness on the authority of the Gospel teaching by showing that his doctrine was approved by the other apostles. Now through reason and authority he proves the same thing, namely, that the works of the Law must not be observed. This he does in two ways:

First, from the insufficiency of the Law;

Secondly, from the dignity of those who have been converted to Christ (4:1).

Concerning the first he does two things:

First, he utters the rebuke;

Secondly, he begins his proof (v. 2).

As to the first, he does two things:

First, he rebukes them by showing that they are foolish;

Secondly, he gives the reason for his rebuke (v. 1): "before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth."

First, therefore, he chides them for their folly, calling them senseless. Hence he says, "O senseless Galatians." Now "senseless" is properly said of one who lacks sense. But the spiritual sense is knowledge of the truth. Hence anyone who lacks the truth is appropriately called senseless: "Are you also yet without understanding?" (Mt 15:16); "We fools esteemed their life madness" (Wis 5:4).

But against this, it is said in Matthew (5:22): "Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire." Now a fool is the same as senseless. Therefore, the Apostle was in danger of hell-fire. But it must be said, as Augustine suggests, that this applies if it is said without reason and with the intention to disparage. But the Apostle said it with reason and with an intention to correct. Hence a Gloss says: "He says this in sorrow."

Secondly, when he says, "who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth," he shows how they had become senseless. Here it is to be noted, first of all, that someone becomes senseless in a number of ways: either because some truth he could know is not proposed to him; or because he departs from a truth that had been proposed and accepted, as when he abandons the way of truth. Such were these Galatians who rejected the truth proposed to them and abandoned the truth of the faith they had accepted: "I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel" (1:6). This, therefore, is the type of senselessness for which he chides them when he says: "who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth?"

To understand what bewitchment is, it should be noted that according to a Gloss, bewitchment is, properly speaking, a sense delusion usually produced by magical arts; for example, to make a man appear to onlookers as a lion or as having horns. This can also be brought about by demons who have the power to set phantasms in motion as well as to produce in the senses the very alterations that real objects are wont to produce. According to this acceptation the Apostle asks, appropriately enough, "who hath bewitched you?" As if to say: You are as deluded men who take obvious things to be other than they are in very fact, namely, because you are deluded by artifices and sophisms, "not to obey the truth," i.e., you neither see the obvious truth received by you nor embrace it by obeying it: "For the bewitching of vanity obscureth good things" (Wis 4:12); "Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil" (Is 5:20). In another way bewitchment is taken to mean that someone is harmed by an evil look, particularly when cast by sorcerers whose inflamed eyes and hostile glance cast a spell on boys who grow faint from it and vomit their food.

Avicenna, attempting to explain this phenomenon in his book On the Soul, says that corporeal matter obeys an intellectual substance more than it obeys the active and passive qualities at work in nature. Accordingly, he supposes that through the mental activity of intellectual substance (which he calls the souls or movers of the heavenly spheres) many things occur outside the order of heavenly movements and of all corporeal forces. Along the same lines he says that when a holy soul is purged of all earthly affection and carnal vice, it acquires a likeness to the aforesaid substances, so that nature obeys it. This is why certain holy men achieve marvels that transcend the course of nature. In like manner, because the soul of someone defiled by carnal passions has a vigorous apprehension of malice, nature obeys it to the point of affecting matter, particularly in those in whom the matter is pliant, as in the case of tender children. Thus does it happen, according to him, that from the vigorous apprehension exercised by sorcerers a child can be evilly affected and bewitched. This position seems to be true enough according to Avicenna's tenets. For he postulates that all material forms in sublunar bodies are influenced by the separated incorporeal substances and that natural agents can be no more than dispositive causes in such matter.

However, this is disproved by the Philosopher. For an agent should be similar to what is subject to it. Now what comes into existence is not a form alone or matter alone but the composite of matter and form. Consequently, that which acts to produce the existence of corporeal things ought to have matter and form. Therefore he says that the only thing which can cause changes of matter and form is something that itself has matter and form either virtually, as God, who is the maker of form and matter, or actually, as a bodily agent. Therefore with respect to forms of this kind corporeal matter obeys the nod neither of angels nor of any mere creature but of God alone, as Augustine says. Hence what Avicenna says about this matter of bewitchment is not true.

Therefore it is better to say that when a man's act of imagining or apprehending is strong, the sense is affected or at least the sense appetite is. Now such an affection does not occur without some alteration taking place in the body and the bodily spirits; as, for example, we see that when something pleasant is apprehended, the sense appetite is moved to desire and as a result the body becomes warm. Similarly, as a result of apprehending something horrible, the body grows cold. When the spirits are thus moved they mainly infect the eyes, which in turn infect certain things through their glance, as is plain in the case of a clean mirror that becomes defiled when looked into by a woman in her monthly purification. Therefore because sorcerers are obstinate and hardened in evil, their sense appetite is affected by the vigor of their apprehension; as a result, as has been said, the infection moves from the veins to the eyes and thence to the object upon which they look. Accordingly, because the flesh of children is soft, it is influenced and charmed by their hostile glance. And demons, too, can sometimes produce this effect.

He says, therefore, "who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth?" As if to say: You once obeyed the truth of the faith, but now you do not. Therefore, you are as children infected by some hostile glance who vomit the food they have eaten.

Then he tells why he rebukes them, when he says, "before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth, crucified among you." This can be interpreted in three ways. One way, Jerome's, corresponds to the first meaning of "bewitchment"; as if he says: I say that you are bewitched, because before your eyes Christ hath been set forth, i.e., the outlawing of Christ, Who was condemned to death, is as vivid to your eyes as if it were being enacted before your eyes and He was being crucified among you, i.e., the crucifixion of Christ was as clear in your understanding as though it were taking place there. Hence, if you no longer see it, it is because you have been deluded and bewitched. Against such a change of heart, it is said in the Canticle (8:6): "Put me as a seal upon thy heart, as a seal upon thy arm."

Another way, Augustine's, is as if he said: You are justifiably bewitched, because as children, you vomit out the truth you have received, namely, Christ by faith in your hearts. And you do this because before your eyes, i.e., in your presence, Jesus Christ is outlawed, i.e., expelled and refused His inheritance. This should trouble you, because the very one whom you should not allow to be outlawed and expelled by others has been outlawed among you, i.e., has lost His inheritance, namely, yourselves, among you. Then that which follows, namely, "crucified," should be read "with a heavy burden and obvious pain," because he adds this to make them consider the great price Christ paid for the inheritance He lost among them, and thus move them more deeply. As if to say: Christ has been outlawed among you, He Who was crucified, i.e., Who with His cross and His own blood purchased this inheritance: "You are bought with a great price" (1 Cor 6:20); "Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as gold or silver, from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled" (1 Pet. 1:18).

The third way, Ambrose's, is as though he says: Yes, you are bewitched, you, before whose eyes, i.e., in whose opinion, namely, according to your judgment, Jesus Christ is outlawed, i.e., condemned without saving others. And among you, i.e., so far as you understand, He was crucified, i.e., merely died, but justified no one in spite of the fact that it is said of Him, "Although he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God" (2 Cor 13:4).

It can be explained also in a fourth way according to a Gloss to the effect that by these words the Apostle proclaims the gravity of their guilt, because in deserting Christ by observing the Law, they sin somewhat on a par with Pilate who outlawed Christ, i.e., condemned him. For in believing that Christ does not suffice to save them, they are made to be sinners similar to Christ's executioners who hung Him on the cross, condemning Him to a most shameful death and killing Him. The parity is taken on the side of the one against whom they sinned, because the Galatians sinned against Christ Jesus as did Pilate and those who crucified Christ.

He sets forth a tenet that could not at that time be denied: the Holy Spirit dwells in believers. This gift was manifested by God to recollect the rudiments of the faith, as it was at the beginning when it was practiced among the apostles and the other disciples. … On these the Holy Spirit descended and gave the capacity to speak in many tongues, with the gift of interpretation, so that no one dared deny the presence of the Spirit of God in them.

Here he begins to demonstrate in what sense the grace of faith is sufficient for justification without the works of the law.… But so that this question may be carefully treated and no one may be deceived by ambiguities, we must first understand that the works of the law are twofold; for they reside partly in ceremonial ordinances and partly in morals. To the ordinances belong the circumcision of the flesh, the weekly sabbath, new moons, sacrifices and all the innumerable observances of this kind. But to morality belong "You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not bear false witness" and so on. Could the apostle possibly not care whether a Christian were a murderer and adulterer or chaste and innocent, in the way that he does not care whether he is circumcised or uncircumcised in the flesh? He therefore is specially concerned with the works that consist in ceremonial ordinances, although he indicates that the others are sometimes bound up with them. But near the end of the letter he deals separately with those works that consist in morals, and he does this briefly, but he speaks at greater length regarding the [ceremonial] works.… For nothing so terrifies the mind as a ceremonial ordinance that is not understood. But when it is understood it produces spiritual joy and is celebrated gladly and in due season. It is read and treated only with a spiritual sweetness. Now every sacrament, once understood in this way, is applied either to the contemplation of truth or to good morals. The contemplation of truth is founded in the love of God alone, good morals in the love of God and the neighbor, and on these two precepts depend the whole Law and the Prophets.

This only I wish to learn from you: did you receive the spirit by works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith?

There are indeed, he says, many things that could compel you by questioning to admit that the Gospel is to be preferred to the Law; but since you are senseless and can by no means hear them, I speak with you in plain language and ask about what is ready to hand: the Holy Spirit whom you received, did the works of the Law, the observance of the sabbath, the superstition of circumcision and of new moons give him to you, or the hearing of faith, through which you believed, coming from the Gentiles? But if it cannot be denied that the Holy Spirit, and the powers which at the beginning of faith followed the Spirit once received, were given not by works of the Law but by faith in Christ, it is manifest that you, having begun from better things, are collapsing into worse. Let us consider carefully, however, that he did not say: I wish to learn from you whether you received the Spirit by works; but added: by works of the Law. For he knew that Cornelius the centurion too had received the Spirit by works (Acts 10), but not by works of the Law, which he did not know. But if it is said on the contrary, "Then the Spirit can be received even without the hearing of faith," we shall answer that he did indeed receive the Spirit, but by the hearing of faith and by the natural law, which speaks in our hearts that every good thing is to be done and evil things avoided; by which, as we have related before, Abraham, Moses and the other saints were also justified; and which the observance of works and the righteousness of the Law can afterwards increase: not, however, of the carnal law, which has passed away, but of the spiritual, because the Law is spiritual. Nor indeed, because we prefer faith, do we destroy the works of the Law (Rom. 3), nor do we say, as certain people do: "Let us do evil things until good things come" (whose condemnation is just); but we set grace before slavery. And we say that what the Jews do out of fear, we do out of love: that they are slaves, we sons; that they are compelled to the good, we take up the good of our own accord. Therefore from faith in Christ there is not born a license to sin; rather, from the love of faith the will to do good works is increased, since we do good things not because we dread the judge, but because we know that they please him in whom we believe. Someone may ask: if faith is not except by hearing, how can those who were born deaf become Christians? For anyone can understand God the Father from the greatness and beauty of creatures, and the Creator is consequently recognized from the things created; but the birth, the cross, the death and the resurrection of Christ cannot be known except by hearing. Either, then, the deaf are not Christians; or, if the deaf are Christians, what is said elsewhere by the apostle is false: "So faith is by hearing, and hearing through the word of God". To this, one who is content with a simple answer says that he did not say generally, "The faith of all is by hearing," but "faith is by hearing," which can be taken both in part and in whole: that is, the faith of those who hear, who believe, is by hearing. But one who tries to satisfy this scruple will first attempt to assert that the deaf can learn the Gospel by nods too, and by daily intercourse, and, so to speak, by the speaking gesture of the whole body; and then also this, that the word of God, to whom nothing is deaf, speaks rather to those ears of which he himself says in the Gospel: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" (Luke 8:8). And in the Apocalypse: "He who has an ear, let him hear what the spirit says to the churches" (Rev. 2:11). And Isaiah: "The Lord added to me an ear" (Isa. 50:4-5). This is the other man, to whom God speaks in secret, who cries in the heart of the believer: "Abba, Father" (Rom. 8:15); and (as we have often explained) just as the body has all its members and senses, so the soul too has all the senses and members, and among the rest ears as well; and whoever has these will not greatly need these ears of the body for coming to know the Gospel of Christ. At the same time, observe this too, that here the Spirit, without any addition, is understood as the Holy Spirit, whom we obtain by the gift of God, and not as the spirit of man, of which it is written elsewhere: "The incorruptible Spirit is in all things" (Wisd. 12:1). And: "The Spirit himself bears witness to our spirit" (Rom. 8:16). And in another place: "No one knows the things that are in a man except the spirit of the man that is in him" (1 Cor. 2:11). And in Daniel: "Bless the Lord, you spirits and souls of the righteous" (Dan. 3:86).

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. 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 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?

"I only wish to learn this from you." Since, he says, you do not pay attention to so great a privilege, I will say something brief to you. Did you receive the Holy Spirit through the works prescribed by the law, and perform so many powers and signs, or through faith? Since you were not under the law but were esteemed to be in the Spirit, how then, having abandoned faith, do you again submit yourselves to the law?

Since you do not listen to lengthy instructions and do not wish to see the greatness of the dispensation, I will tell you briefly. Answer me this small question: from where did you receive the Holy Spirit and manifest such power and signs? From the works of the law, or from faith? It is clear that it was from faith, since it was not at the time when you adhered to the law that you had the Spirit and performed miracles. How then, after this, having abandoned faith, do you cling again to the law?

Having given his rebuke, the Apostle goes on to show the insufficiency of the Law, and the power of the faith.

First, he proves the insufficiency of the Law;

Secondly, he raises a question and answers it (v. 19).

Concerning the first, he does two things:

First, he proves the deficiency and insufficiency of the Law by appealing to what they experienced;

Secondly, by authority and reasons (v. 6).

As to the first, he does two things:

First, he proves his proposition by appealing to something they experienced;

Secondly, by using something he himself experienced (v. 5).

With respect to the first, he does two things:

First, he discusses the gift they have received;

Secondly, the defect into which they have fallen (v. 3).

He discusses the gift they received by asking them from whom they received it. Hence, presupposing that they accepted the gift, he interrogates them and asks: Although you have been bewitched and are foolish, nevertheless you are not so deluded that you cannot explain to me something very obvious. Hence he says, "This only would I learn of you," because this by itself is enough to prove my point; namely, it is evident that you have received the Holy Spirit. I ask, therefore, "Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?"

To elucidate this, it should be noted that in the early Church, by God's providence, in order that the faith of Christ might prosper and grow, manifest signs of the Holy Spirit took place in the hearers immediately after the apostles preached the faith. Accordingly, it is said of Peter in Acts (10:44): "While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word." The Galatians, too, openly received the Holy Spirit at Paul's preaching. The Apostle therefore asks them: Whence did they obtain the Holy Spirit? For it is obvious that it was not through the works of the Law, because, since they were Gentiles, they did not have the Law before they received the Holy Spirit. Therefore they had the Holy Spirit, i.e., the gifts of the Holy Spirit, by the hearing of faith: "For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear," which was given in the Law (for the Law was given amid tremors), "but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons," (Rom 8:17). Therefore, if the power of the faith could do this, it is vain to seek something else by which we are saved, because it is more difficult to make the unjust just than to preserve the just in their justice. Hence if the faith had made the unjust Gentiles just without the Law, no doubt it could without the Law keep them just. Great, therefore, was the gift they had received through faith.

Does not the Saviour who heals the soul also heal the body of its passions? But if the flesh were hostile to the soul, he would not have raised an obstacle to the soul by strengthening with good health the hostile flesh. "This I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God nor corruption incorruption." For sin being corruption cannot have fellowship with incorruption which is righteousness. "Are you so foolish?" he says; "having begun in the Spirit are you now to be made perfect by the flesh."

Are you so foolish that, though you began with the Spirit, you are now made perfect in the flesh?

If the Galatians had received the Holy Spirit, how were they foolish? But this is at once resolved: they had indeed begun with the Spirit, but when they were being made perfect in the flesh, the Spirit was taken away from them. Hence they suffered so many things in vain, as many as they suffered. That this might not befall him after his sin, David prays, saying: "Take not your holy Spirit from me" (Ps. 50:13). Notice carefully that he who follows the Scriptures according to the letter is said to be made perfect in the flesh. Wherefore that which is written to the Corinthians: "Living in the flesh, we do not wage war according to the flesh" (2 Cor. 10:3), can better be understood thus, that those are said to wage war in the flesh who expound the Old Testament in a lowly manner. But those who follow the spiritual understanding may indeed be in the flesh, because they have the same letter as the Jews, yet they do not wage war according to the flesh, since they pass over from the flesh to the spirit. When you see one who first believes from among the Gentiles, and puts his hand to the plough of Christ, and, with some prudent teacher going before him, so advances along the road of the Law to the Gospel that he understands all those things which are written there, about the sabbath, about unleavened bread, about circumcision, about victims, in a manner worthy of God; and then, after the reading of the Gospel, is persuaded by some Jew, or by an associate of the Jews, to abandon the shadows and the clouds of allegory and to interpret the Scriptures just as they are written: of him you can say: Are you so foolish that, though you began with the spirit, you are now made perfect 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," 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.

He says, "Are you so foolish," because, as time has passed, you are running backward. For having begun to be perfected in the Spirit (for this is in general), now you are being perfected in the flesh. For they were being perfected in the Spirit, performing signs, but were being circumcised in the flesh. See, he did not say, "Be perfected," but, "you are being perfected," indicating that, like sheep, they were receiving circumcision, neither knowing nor suffering.

"now you are being perfected in the flesh." He indeed spoke of the Spirit as grace, but of the flesh as conduct according to the law.

Again he opportunely resorted to reproach. You ought, he says, to have progressed toward perfection with the passage of time, but you have not only failed to advance, you have even gone backward. For performing signs is a spiritual matter, and this you were doing in the beginning, but being circumcised is a fleshly matter, which you have now chosen. And he did not say τελειΐτε — you yourselves finish — but τελεΐσθε — you are being forced to finish, showing that those who teach circumcision were ensnaring and slaughtering them like irrational animals.

Then when he says, "Are you so foolish that, whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh?" he shows the defect into which they have fallen. And he amplifies a twofold defect, touching, namely, the gifts they had received from Christ and the evils they endured for Him (v. 4): "Have you suffered so great things in vain?"

Concerning the first, it should be noted that the Galatians, after they left what was great, namely, the Holy Spirit, adhered to something less, namely, the carnal observances of the Law—and this is foolish. Hence he says, "Are you so foolish that, whereas you began" under the inspiration of "the Holy Spirit," i.e., obtained the beginning of your perfection from the Holy Spirit, "you would now," while you are more perfect, "be made perfect by the flesh," i.e., do you seek to be preserved by the carnal observances of the Law from which you could acquire not even the beginning of justice? "The flesh profiteth nothing" (Jn 6:64). Thus do you pervert right order, because the path of perfection consists in going from the imperfect to the perfect. But you, because you are doing the opposite, are foolish: "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun; but a fool is changed as the moon" (Sir 27:12). They are as those who begin to serve God with fervor of spirit but afterwards desert to the flesh. Again, they are as Nabuchodonosor's statue with head of gold and feet of clay (Dan. 11:32). Hence it is said: "They who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:8); "he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption" (6:8).

At that time believers were subject to reproach from others, whether at home or abroad, being pointed out as guilty of treason. Hence the Galatians, who had likewise suffered a great deal, were more perverse than those who had been spared, because they had lost the merit of their suffering by their resubmission to the law.

Such a subtle comment requires patience to understand. It both negatively reprimands and positively admonishes. He reprimands them by saying "You have suffered so much in vain." At the same time he admonishes them by saying "you have suffered so much," aware that they withstood many things with fortitude when they received faith.

Lest he should seem to despair needlessly, he has corrected his own reprimand by saying "if indeed it is in vain." For they could be corrected. If so, what they have suffered will not be without meaning. The meaning they will have will be perseverance in faith, the prize and the confirmation of promises derived from faith in Christ.

Have you suffered so much without cause, if indeed it is without cause?

Let us consider the unhappy Jews, with how great superstition and labor of observance they live among the other nations, saying, touch not, taste not, handle not; and we shall prove that what is said is true: Have you suffered so much without cause; but the sentence is not at once tempered toward them, and it becomes doubtful, if indeed it is without cause, because it is said of those who are able to return from the Law to the Gospel. But it can better be understood thus: that the Galatians, when they first believed in the Crucified, suffered many reproaches both from the Jews and from the Gentiles, and endured no small persecutions. These they are charged with having suffered in vain, if they withdraw from the grace of Christ, for the sake of which they suffered so much. At the same time there is also this hope: that whoever has labored for the faith of Christ and has afterward fallen into sin, just as he is said to have suffered his former things without cause while he sins, so in turn he does not lose them, if he returns to his original faith and to his former zeal. Otherwise: If, he says, you think that circumcision ought to be followed after grace, then all that you have suffered while living until the present time without circumcision has been brought to nothing. And indeed you seem to me not to have endured these things in vain, for I know that the Law has no force after the Gospel. Or certainly thus: It would have been no light loss if, by following circumcision, you had lost only your former labor of faith; but now the penalty of transgression is also joined to this harm, so that you have both suffered the past things without cause and will be tormented in the future. Some understand it in a more forced way, thus: Consider the former freedom of grace and the burdens of the present observance in the Law, and you will see how many things you have done with fruitless zeal; although the fruit of this error is not to be wholly despaired of, since you were led to this very thing by zeal for God. For pardon can be granted to the ignorant, if, turned to better things, you show that it was your knowledge that wavered in you, not your zeal.

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? 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.

"you suffered so much in vain." Many had been tempted while struggling for Christ. Therefore he says, "you suffered so much," therefore, "in vain." For if you are circumcised, you have in vain lost those things; then, for fear that he plunge them into despair, he says, "if indeed in vain." For if you wished to be restored, it would not be in vain.

— [PHOTIUS] "if indeed in vain," but not without loss. For it is without reason to neither take up nor set down anything. But the one who began in the Spirit, and because of this having fallen into many trials, then being changed, not only suffered without reason what he suffered, but also to his disadvantage, having lost what belonged to him, suffered because of the tribulations for Christ and the temptations. [end of the excerpt by Photius] —

They struggled through many trials for the sake of Christ. And have you, he says, suffered so much in vain? For if you are circumcised, all of this is in vain, and the deceivers have deprived you of so many crowns. Then, offering them hope of return, he says: "if only it were without benefit," that is, if you wish to come to your senses, then not in vain, not futilely did you labor. Let those who deny repentance be ashamed after this. Behold, they performed signs, were confessors and martyrs, but when they fell away, Paul does not reject them, but receives them with joy.

Then when he says, "Have you suffered so great things in vain?" he amplifies their desertion by considering the evils they endured for Christ. For anyone who receives something without labor does not guard it as something precious; but that which is obtained by great effort, it is foolish to esteem lightly and not guard it. Now it was with labor and tribulation suffered at the hands of their fellow citizens that they had received the Holy Spirit. That is why he says, "Have you suffered so great things in vain?" As if to say: You ought not to despise so great a gift received with labor; "else you have received it in vain," i.e., to no purpose, because you endured these things in order to attain to eternal life: "Tribulation worketh patience, and patience trial, and trial hope; and hope confoundeth not" (Rom 5:3). Hence, if you shut yourselves out from the door to eternal life by deserting the faith and seeking to be preserved by carnal observances, it is "in vain," i.e., uselessly, that "you have suffered." And I say, "If it be yet in vain." He says this because it was still in their power to repent, if they willed, as long as they were alive. This shows that certain deadened works are revived: "Their labors are without fruit, and their works unprofitable" (Wis 3:11); "I am afraid lest perhaps I have labored in vain among you" (4:11). If this is applied to evil men who do not repent, it can be said that they suffered without cause, i.e., a cause that can confer eternal life.

After confirming that they have suffered and consequently that the Spirit has been given to them, he rightly goes on to ask whether God worked virtues in them from the works of the law or from the hearing of faith. "Obviously not from works," [he says], "for it was not from yourselves that any works proceeded, but you heard in faith and were attentive to faith. And for this reason God worked virtues in you; and if he worked, he gave you the Spirit."

But that our faith was also prefigured in Abraham, and that he was the patriarch of our faith, and, as it were, the prophet of it, the apostle has very fully taught, when he says in the Epistle to the Galatians: "He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, [doeth he it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness. Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, announced beforehand unto Abraham, that in him all nations should be blessed. So then they which be of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham." For which [reasons the apostle] declared that this man was not only the prophet of faith, but also the father of those who from among the Gentiles believe in Jesus Christ, because his faith and ours are one and the same: for he believed in things future, as if they were already accomplished, because of the promise of God; and in like manner do we also, because of the promise of God, behold through faith that inheritance [laid up for us] in the [future] kingdom.

He therefore who gives you the Spirit and works miracles among you, does he do it by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith?

Gives (tribuit), that is, ministers (administrat), is to be read in the present tense, so as to show that the Holy Spirit is ministered to the worthy always, every hour and moment; and that the more anyone has advanced in the work and love of God, the more he has in himself the powers of the Holy Spirit, which the hearing of faith, and not the works of the Law, brings to completion. Not that the works of the Law are to be despised, and simple faith sought without them; but that the works themselves are to be adorned by faith in Christ. For shrewd is that saying of a wise man: "Not that the faithful man lives by righteousness, but that the righteous man lives by faith." At the same time it is shown that the Galatians, having received the Holy Spirit after they believed, had gifts of powers, that is, prophecy, kinds of tongues, healings of diseases, and the rest that are enumerated to the Corinthians among the spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12). And yet after such great things (because perhaps they did not have the grace of discerning spirits) they were ensnared by false teachers. It must also be observed that miracles are said to be worked among those who do not hold the truth of the Gospel: as among those who, not following the Lord, were doing signs in his name, John especially complaining: "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us" (Mark 9:37). This is against the heretics, who think the proof of their faith lies in whether they have done some sign. Though they have eaten and drunk in the name of the Lord (for they too have a sacrilegious altar), and boast that they have done many signs by invoking the Savior, on the day of judgment they will deserve to hear: "I do not know you; depart from me, you who work iniquity" (Matt. 7:23).

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:" 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 discussion, he moots another special point of controversy, and very opportunely and with much cogency introduces a notice of Abraham.

"So then, the One who provides you with." He says that the One providing, the Spirit of God, is present among you and working, that is, producing powers of signs in you, doing these things on account of the works from the law; he says, From which you have completed signs, you ought to know the power of faith.

God, he says, who supplies you with the Spirit so that you may prophesy and speak in tongues, and who grants you the power to perform signs and wonders — did He do this because of works of the law, as though by fulfilling them you pleased Him, or because of the faith in Christ that you demonstrated? Obviously, because of faith. How then can you, having abandoned the faith through which you were glorified, return to the abolished law?

Then when he says, "He, therefore, who giveth to you the Spirit and worketh miracles among you; doth he do it by the works of the law or by the hearing of the faith?" he proves his proposition by appealing to his own experience. For they might say that although it is true that we received the Holy Spirit by the hearing of faith, nevertheless it was because of the devotion he had to the Law that we received the faith he preached. Hence he says: But even considering the matter not from your side but from what I have done in giving you through my ministration the Holy Spirit Who "worketh miracles among you," do I do this "by the works of the law or by the hearing of the faith?" In truth, not by the works of the Law but by faith.

But can anyone give the Holy Spirit? For Augustine in On The Trinity (Bk. XV) says that no mere man can give the Holy Spirit, for the apostles did not give the Holy Spirit but imposed hands on men, who then received the Holy Spirit. What then does the Apostle mean when he speaks of himself as "giving to you the Holy Spirit?" I answer that in the giving of the Holy Spirit three things conspire in a certain order, namely, the indwelling Holy Spirit, the gift of grace and charity along with the other habits, and the sacrament of the New Law by whose administering He is given. Hence He can be given by someone in three ways.

For He can be given by someone as having authority with respect to all three, namely, in respect to the Holy Spirit's indwelling, in respect to the gift, and in respect to the sacrament. And in this way the Holy Spirit is given by the Father and Son alone, inasmuch as they have the authority not of dominion but of origin, because He proceeds from both.

But as to the grace or gift and as to the sacraments, the Holy Spirit even gives Himself in the sense that the giving implies the causality of the Holy Spirit with respect to His gifts, because, as the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians (12:11): "He divides to everyone according as He wills." But as far as the author of the giving is concerned, it is not appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit gives Himself.

But concerning the sacrament which is given by the ministry of the Church's ministers, it can be said that holy men by administering the sacraments give the Holy Spirit. And this is the way the Apostle had in mind—the way mentioned in a Gloss. Nevertheless, this is not the usual way of putting it, and it ought not be exaggerated.

Again, a Gloss says that the performing of miracles is attributed to faith, which, because it believes in things that are above nature, operates above nature. Hence because the apostles preached the faith which contained things above reason, they should have adduced in support of their credibility some testimony that they had been sent by God—a fact which surpasses reason. Hence Christ gave them His own sign to prove this.

Now there is a twofold sign of Christ. One is that He is the Lord of all; hence it is said: "Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all ages: and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations" (Ps 144:13). The other is that He is Sanctifier and Savior, according to Acts (4:12): "There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." Accordingly, He gave them two signs: one was the power to perform miracles, so that they could show they were sent by God, the Lord of all creatures: "He gave them power and authority over all devils and to cure diseases" (Lk 9:1). The other was that by their ministry they might give the Holy Spirit, in order to show that they had been sent by the Savior of all: "They laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:17). Of these two ways it is said in Hebrews (2:4): "God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders and divers miracles and distributions of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will."

Also in the priest Melchizedek we see prefigured the sacrament of the sacrifice of the Lord, according to what divine Scripture testifies, and says, "And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine." Now he was a priest of the most high God, and blessed Abraham. And that Melchizedek bore a type of Christ, the Holy Spirit declares in the Psalms, saying from the person of the Father to the Son: "Before the morning star I begat Thee; Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek; " which order is assuredly this coming from that sacrifice and thence descending; that Melchizedek was a priest of the most high God; that he offered wine and bread; that he blessed Abraham. For who is more a priest of the most high God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered that very same thing which Melchizedek had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, His body and blood? And with respect to Abraham, that blessing going before belonged to our people. For if Abraham believed in God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, assuredly whosoever believes in God and lives in faith is found righteous, and already is blessed in faithful Abraham, and is set forth as justified; as the blessed Apostle Paul proves, when he says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Ye know, then, that they which are of faith, these are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles through faith, pronounced before to Abraham that all nations should be blessed in him; therefore they who are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." Whence in the Gospel we find that "children of Abraham are raised from stones, that is, are gathered from the Gentiles." And when the Lord praised Zacchaeus, He answered and said "This day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham." In Genesis, therefore, that the benediction, in respect of Abraham by Melchizedek the priest, might be duly celebrated, the figure of Christ's sacrifice precedes, namely, as ordained in bread and wine; which thing the Lord, completing and fulfilling, offered bread and the cup mixed with wine, and so He who is the fulness of truth fulfilled the truth of the image prefigured.

If, then, God promised him the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord, as John the Baptist said: "For God is able from the stones to raise up children to Abraham." Thus also the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians: "But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise." And again, in the same Epistle, he plainly declares that they who have believed in Christ do receive Christ, the promise to Abraham thus saying, "The promises were spoken to Abraham, and to his seed. Now He does not say, And of seeds, as if [He spake] of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." And again, confirming his former words, he says, "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, fore-seeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham." Thus, then, they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

From this place up to the one where it is written: "Those who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham", Marcion erased the text from his own Apostle. But what did it profit him to have removed this, when the rest that he left is opposed to his madness? Now Abraham believed God when he went out from his homeland into a land he did not know (Gen. 12 ff.); when he trusted that Sarah, ninety years old and barren, would give birth; and when, having heard God's promise that in Isaac his seed would be called, he offered that very Isaac as a victim, and yet did not doubt the Lord's promise. Rightly is faith reckoned as righteousness to such a man, who, having gone beyond the works of the Law, won the favor of God not by fear but by love.

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. 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 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...

Moreover, do not be unbelieving toward the forefather Abraham, for he too was justified by faith.

But how are we children of faith? and of whose faith, if not Abraham's? For since "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness; " since, also, he deserved for that reason to be called "the father of many nations," whilst we, who are even more like him in believing in God, are thereby justified as Abraham was, and thereby also obtain life-since the just lives by his faith,-it therefore happens that, as he in the previous passage called us "sons of Abraham," since he is in faith our (common) father, so here also he named us "children of faith," for it was owing to his faith that it was promised that Abraham should be the father of (many) nations.

Accordingly it is patience which is both subsequent and antecedent to faith. In short, Abraham believed God, and was accredited by Him with righteousness; but it was patience which proved his faith, when he was bidden to immolate his son, with a view to (I would not say the temptation, but) the typical attestation of his faith.

Although, he says, you ought to have learned the power of faith primarily from the fact that you performed signs, yet if you also turn your attention to the forefather, about whom you speak so much, you will find that he too was justified by faith. And if one who lived before grace is justified by faith, then all the more must those who have been deemed worthy of grace hold fast to faith.

Having proved by experience the power of the faith and the insufficiency of the Law, the Apostle now proves the same things by authority and by reasons.

First, he proves the power of the faith to justify;

Secondly, in this he proves the insufficiency of the Law (v. 10).

The first he proves by using a syllogism. Hence with respect to this he does three things:

First, he proves the minor premise;

Secondly, the major premise (v. 8);

Thirdly, he draws the conclusion (v. 9).

Concerning the first, he does two things:

First, he proposes a certain authority from which he takes the minor;

Secondly, he concludes the minor (v. 7).

He says therefore: Truly, justice and the Holy Spirit come from faith, "As it is written" in Genesis (15:6) and mentioned again in Romans (4:3): "Abraham believed God and it was reputed to him unto justice." Here it should be noted that justice consists in paying a debt. Now man is indebted to God and to himself and to his neighbor. But it is on account of God that he owes something to himself and his neighbor. Therefore the highest form of justice is to render to God what is God's. For if you render to yourself or your neighbor what you owe and do not do this for the sake of God, you are more perverse than just, since you are putting your end in man. Now, whatever is in man is from God, namely, intellect and will and the body itself, albeit according to a certain order; because the lower is ordained to the higher, and external things to internal, namely, to the good of the soul. Furthermore, the highest thing in man is his mind. Therefore the first element of justice in a man is that a man's mind be subjected to God, and this is done by faith: "Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor 10:5).

Therefore in all things it must be said that God is the first principle in justice and that whosoever gives to God, namely, the greatest thing that lies in him by submitting the mind to Him, such a one is fully just: "Whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" (Rom 8:14). And hence he says, Abraham believed God, i.e., submitted his mind to God by faith: "Believe God, and he will recover thee: and direct thy way, and trust in him" (Sir 2:6); and further on (2:8): "Ye that fear the Lord believe him," "and it was reputed to him unto justice," i.e., the act of faith and faith itself were for him, as for everyone else, the sufficient cause of justice. It is reputed to him unto justice by men exteriorly, but interiorly it is wrought by God, Who justifies them that have the faith. This he does by remitting their sins through charity working in them.

Every mystery which is enacted by our Lord Jesus Christ asks only for faith. The mystery was enacted at that time for our sake and aimed at our resurrection and liberation, should we have faith in the mystery of Christ and in Christ. For the patriarchs prefigured and foretold that man would be justified from faith. Therefore, just as it was reckoned as righteousness to Abraham that he had faith, so we too, if we have faith in Christ and every mystery of his, will be sons of Abraham. Our whole life will be accounted as righteous.

You know, therefore, that those who are of faith, these are the sons of Abraham.

He argues this more fully in the Epistle to the Romans: that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness, not in circumcision but in uncircumcision (Rom. 4). And, observing it carefully, he teaches that those are sons of Abraham, whoever have believed with the same mind with which Abraham believed while uncircumcised, he who rejoiced to see the day of the Lord, and saw it, and was glad (John 8). Hence it is also said to the unbelieving Jews: "If you were sons of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham" (ibid. 39). But what other works (at that time, when these things were being said) did the Lord seek from them, except belief in the Son of God, whom the Father had sent, and who says: "He who believes in me, does not believe in me, but in him who sent me" (John 12:44)? Hence also in another place, to those who were applauding themselves on the antiquity and nobility of their race, the answer is given: "And do not say, We have Abraham as our father. For God is able from these stones to raise up sons to Abraham" (Matt. 3:9). No one doubts that the stones there signify the hard hearts of the Gentiles, which were afterwards softened and received the seal of faith. Count up, diligent reader, the virtues of Abraham by which he pleased God before circumcision, and whomever you find in like work, say that they are sons of Abraham, who was justified in uncircumcision and who received circumcision not on account of the merit of works, but as a sign of his earlier faith. For since Christ was to spring from his seed (in whom the blessing of all the nations had been promised, and many ages were to pass between Abraham and Christ), God, providing that the offspring of beloved Abraham should not be mingled with the other nations and his family little by little become uncertain, marked the Israelite flock with a kind of brand of circumcision, so that, living among the Egyptians, among the Assyrians, Babylonians and Chaldeans, they might be distinguished by this seal. Accordingly, for forty years in the desert no one was circumcised: for they were living alone, without any admixture of another nation; as soon as the people had crossed the bank of the Jordan and the Jewish swarm had poured itself into the land of Palestine, circumcision, now necessary, provided against the confusion that would come from mingling with the nations. But that the people is written to have been circumcised a second time by Joshua (Jesu) their leader (Josh. 5) signifies both that circumcision, which had been reasonably practiced in Egypt, ceased in the desert, and that believers were to be cleansed by the Lord Jesus Christ with a spiritual circumcision.

Which he proves by ancient testimony thus:

Since they were afraid to abandon the law, for fear that they fall away from the kinship of Abraham, he turns the argument the other way. The "then," [ἄρα] is "so therefore" [τοιγαροῦν].

"that those who are of faith." Therefore these were especially opposed to the law, scorning its antiquity. It must then be shown that faith was established before the law, and that above all by it one is pleasing to God from above.

For ye are all the children of faith," it becomes dear that what the heretic's industry erased was the mention of Abraham's name; for by faith the apostle declares us to be "children of Abraham," and after mentioning him he expressly called us "children of faith" also. But how are we children of faith? and of whose faith, if not Abraham's? For since "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness; " since, also, he deserved for that reason to be called "the father of many nations," whilst we, who are even more like him in believing in God, are thereby justified as Abraham was, and thereby also obtain life-since the just lives by his faith,-it therefore happens that, as he in the previous passage called us "sons of Abraham," since he is in faith our (common) father, so here also he named us "children of faith," for it was owing to his faith that it was promised that Abraham should be the father of (many) nations.

For if "faith" is the source whence we are reckoned to Abraham as his "sons" (as the apostle teaches, saying to the Galatians, "You know, consequently, that (they) who are of faith, these are sons of Abraham"), when did Abraham "believe God and it was accounted to him for righteousness?" I suppose when still in monogamy, since (he was) not yet in circumcision. But if afterwards he changed to either (opposite)—to digamy through cohabitation with his handmaid, and to circumcision through the seal of the testament—you cannot acknowledge him as your father except at that time when he "believed God," if it is true that it is according to faith that you are his son, not according to flesh. ... In like manner, too, if you have involved yourself in digamy, you are not the son of that Abraham whose "faith" preceded in monogamy. For albeit it is subsequently that he is called "a father of many nations," still it is of those (nations) who, as the fruit of the "faith" which precedes digamy, had to be accounted "sons of Abraham."

So since they were afraid that by departing from the law they would lose their kinship with the patriarch (for they took great pride in it), he, on the contrary, shows that faith most of all makes sons of Abraham of those who possess it.

From this authority he draws the minor proposition, saying "Know ye therefore, that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." As if to say: Someone is called the son of another because he imitates his works; therefore, "if you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham" (Jn 8:39). But Abraham did not seek to be justified through circumcision but through faith. Therefore the sons of Abraham are they who seek to be justified by faith. And this is what he says: Because Abraham is just through faith, in that he believed God and it was reputed to him unto justice; "therefore, know ye that they" who are of faith, i.e., who believe that they are justified and saved by faith, "the same are the children of Abraham," namely, by imitation and instruction: "They that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed" (Rom 9:8); "This day is salvation come to this house, because he also is the son of Abraham" (Lk 19:9); "God is able of these stones," i.e., of the Gentiles, "to raise up children to Abraham," inasmuch as He makes them believers (Mt 3:9).

The greatest cause for triumph in Abraham was that, before his circumcision, faith was reckoned to him for righteousness. This is most correctly referred to the promise that "All nations shall be blessed in you," meaning of course by the following of his faith, by which he was justified even before the ordinance of circumcision, which he received as a token of faith, and long before the servitude of the law, which was given much later.

But the Scripture, foreseeing that God justifies the Gentiles by faith, announced beforehand to Abraham that all the Gentiles shall be blessed in you. Therefore those who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham.

Not that Scripture itself, that is, the ink and the parchment, which are without sense, can foreknow future things; but that the Holy Spirit, and the sense which lies hidden in the letter, foretold things that were to come many ages later. Moreover, the example that has been taken from Genesis is contained thus in its own book: "And in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 26:4). Interpreting this of Christ, the Apostle says: "It is not written 'of seeds,' as in many, but as in one, 'and your seed,' which is Christ". And this we ought to observe in almost all the testimonies that have been taken from the old books into the New Testament: that the evangelists or apostles trusted to memory, and, setting out only the sense, often changed the order, and sometimes either took words away or added them. But no one doubts that it was not in Isaac and Jacob, or in the twelve patriarchs, and the others who descend from the stock of Abraham, that all the nations were blessed, but in Christ Jesus, through whom all the Gentiles praise God, and a new name is blessed upon the earth. It can also be understood that the Apostle took the example of the seed from another place of Genesis, where it is written: "Now there led out of doors" (no doubt, Abraham) "God, and said to him: Look into heaven and number the stars, if you shall be able to number them. And he said to him: So shall your seed be; and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness" (Gen. 15:5, 6).

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, "foreseeing 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.

"preached the gospel beforehand." As signifying a great good, salvation through faith. For this is what the phrase "preached the gospel beforehand" indicates.

"In you shall all the nations be blessed." The "in you" that is, in your seed, who is Christ. But how are they blessed? Through faith, namely, of which Abraham is the pioneer. Moreover, the "in you" can be understood as through the faith from him. The "in you," according to your pattern and likeness, is interpreted by Saint Cyril, in the second book of his treatise on worship, which is On the Spirit and on Truth, interprets at the beginning of the book ἐν σοί as "in you," that is, to your imitation and likeness.

And if of Abraham, how much more, to be sure, of David, as a more recent progenitor! For, unfolding the promised blessing upon all nations in the person of Abraham, "And in thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed," he adds, "He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." When we read and believe these things, what sort of flesh ought we, and can we, acknowledge in Christ? Surely none other than Abraham's, since Christ is "the seed of Abraham; "none other than Jesse's, since Christ is the blossom of "the stem of Jesse; "none other than David's, since Christ is "the fruit of David's loins; "none other than Mary's, since Christ came from Mary's womb; and, higher still, none other than Adam's, since Christ is "the second Adam.

Having shown in what way believers are children of Abraham, he also brings forward testimony from Scripture: "in you shall all nations be blessed" (cf. Gen. 12:3), that is, through imitation of your faith. And he also shows that faith is more ancient than the law, since before the law it justified Abraham, and that what is being accomplished now is being accomplished according to prophecy.

"The Scripture," he says, "foreseeing," that is, God Himself who gave the law predetermined that people are justified not by the law, but by faith. And he did not say "revealed," but "preached the gospel beforehand," so that you might learn that Abraham too rejoiced in this manner of justification and desired its fulfillment.

Then when he says, "the scripture, foreseeing that God justifieth the Gentiles by faith," he sets down the major premise, namely, that Abraham was told beforehand that in his seed all nations would be blessed. Hence when he says, "the scripture foreseeing," he introduces God speaking to Abraham (Gen 12:3). Therefore he says, "God told unto Abraham before" that "in thee," i.e., in those who in your likeness will be your sons by imitating your faith, "shall all nations be blessed": "Many will come from the east and from the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 8:11).

Whoever therefore believe shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, who, because of his outstanding faith in God, is related to have been the first to believe in him; just as Enosh, because of his preeminent hope in God, one that stood out among the rest, is written to have hoped to call upon the Lord God (Gen. 4:26). Not that Abel also, of whom the Lord says: "The voice of your brother's blood cries to me" (ibid. 4:10), and the others after him, did not hope to call upon God; but that each one is named from that quality which he possesses most of all.

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." 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," at a time, that is, when Faith existed, not the Law...

"Therefore those who are of faith are blessed." Those who are of faith united to Abraham and are counted as his offspring, not those who are of the flesh.

Paul has thus eulogized faith and shown what fruits it has from the gracious gifts of the Spirit. He also has shown that it is older than the law from the witness of the law itself—for the Old Testament describes the events concerning Abraham. Finally, he sets the law alongside faith, showing how it differs.

Since they were afraid that for not observing the law they would be subjected to a curse (for it is written: cursed is he who does not observe what is written in the law), he shows the complete opposite, namely, that blessed are those who leave the law and come to faith, just as the faithful Abraham received the blessing.

Then when he says, "Therefore, they that are of faith," he draws the conclusion from the premises. Accordingly, the argument can be formulated thus: God the Father announced to Abraham that in his seed all nations would be blessed. But those who seek to be justified by faith are the children of Abraham. Therefore, "they that are of faith," i.e., who seek to be justified through faith, "shall be blessed with faithful," i.e., with believing, "Abraham."

Because, indeed, they drew servitude upon themselves voluntarily, when they said, "We have no king but Caesar;" and, "If we do not slay Christ, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and will take away both our place and nation." And so they prophesied unwittingly. For accordingly the nations believed on Him, and they themselves were deprived by the Romans of their power, and of their legal worship; and they have been forbidden to slay whom they please, and to sacrifice when they will. Wherefore they are accursed, as not able to perform the things they are commanded to do. For says He: "Cursed be he that does not continue in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them." Now it is impossible in their dispersion, while they are among the heathen, for them to perform all things in their law. For the divine Moses forbids both to rear an altar out of Jerusalem, and to read the law out of the bounds of Judea.

The words "they are under a curse" mean that in the law there was a curse against Adam's transgression, until the advent of the one who came from above and who, clothing himself with a body from the mass of Adamic humanity, turned the curse into blessing.

From his saying "works of the law" we are to understand that there are also good works in the Christian life, especially those that the apostle frequently commends, such as that we should be mindful of the poor and the other precepts for living that are contained in this very letter. The fulfillment of all these works is the calling of every Christian. The cursed works of the law referred to here are therefore other things: obviously observations [of days,] sacrifices of lambs and other such works that they perform concerning circumcision and the choice of foods. But now the paschal feast has been consummated through Christ.

For whoever are of the works of the Law are under the curse. For it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all the things that are written in the book of the Law, that he may do them.

I have this custom: whenever something is taken by the apostles from the Old Instrument, I go back to the original books and examine carefully how it is written in its own place. And so I found this very passage set down in Deuteronomy by the Seventy translators thus: "Cursed is every man who does not continue in all the words of this Law, that he may do them: and all the people shall say, So be it" (Deut. 27:26). In Aquila, however, thus: "Cursed is he who does not establish the words of this Law, that he may do them: and all the people shall say, Truly". Symmachus: "Cursed is he who does not make firm the words of that Law, that he may do them, and all the people shall say, Amen". Theodotion, moreover, translated it thus: "Cursed is he who does not raise up the words of this Law, to do them, and all the people shall say, Amen". From this we understand that the Apostle, as in other places, set down the sense of the testimony rather than the words; and we hold it uncertain whether the Seventy Translators added "every man" (omnis homo) and "in all" (in omnibus), or whether it was so in the old Hebrew and was afterwards deleted by the Jews. Now what spurs me to this suspicion is this: the word "every" (omnis) and "in all" (in omnibus), as though necessary to his sense for proving that whoever are of the works of the Law are under the curse, the Apostle, a man of Hebrew learning and most learned in the Law, would never have brought forward unless it were found in the Hebrew volumes. For this reason, reading through the Hebrew volumes of the Samaritans, I found that CHOL, which means "every" or "all", is written there and agrees with the Seventy translators. In vain, therefore, did the Jews remove it, so as not to seem to be under the curse if they could not fulfill all the things that are written, since the more ancient letters of another nation too testify that it was set down. Now that no one can fulfill the Law and do all the things that are commanded, the Apostle testifies elsewhere as well, saying: "For what was impossible to the Law, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin, from sin condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8). If this is true, it can be objected to us: Then are Moses too, and Isaiah, and the other prophets, who were under the works of the Law, under the curse? He will not fear to grant this who has read the Apostle saying: "Because Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us"; and to answer that each one of the saints was in his own time made a curse for the people. Nor, in granting this to righteous men as well, will he at once seem to detract from the Savior, as though he had nothing special and excellent in being made a curse for us, since the others too were made a curse for others. For none of them, although he himself was made a curse, freed anyone from the curse, save only the Lord Jesus Christ, who with his precious blood redeemed from the curse of the Law both all of us and them too, I mean Moses and Aaron and all the prophets and patriarchs. And do not think that this is said from my own sense; Scripture is witness: that "Christ by the grace of God", or, as is read in some copies, "without God, died for all" (2 Cor. 5). But if for all, then also for Moses and for all the prophets, none of whom was able to blot out the old handwriting that was written against us and fix it to the cross (Col. 2): "All have sinned, and lack the glory [that is, grace] of God" (Rom. 3:23). Ecclesiastes too confirms this judgment: "There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin" (Eccles. 7:21). Finally, the Apostle's statement further below also plainly teaches that neither Moses nor any illustrious man among the ancients could be justified before God through the Law. For there follows:

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,

"So then they which be of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham."

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.

"For 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...

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."

Those who, he says, rely on the works of the law are under a curse. For since he feared to allow those people to rely on the law for fear that they become subject to a curse, because it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue," (Deut. 27:26) he himself strives to show that those who continue in the law are under a curse. How? Because no one, he says, fulfills the law, therefore they are cursed. As if they had departed from the law and so been freed from the curse. "Everyone who does not continue." For this reason then those who rely on the law are under a curse, because they are not able to fulfill the law.

Lest anyone object, saying: Abraham was quite naturally blessed and justified by faith, since there was not yet a law, but you show me that after the law was given, faith justifies and makes blessed — the apostle now shows not only that faith justifies and imparts blessing, but also that the law is the cause of sin and curse, because no one can fulfill what is written in the law, and the one who does not fulfill it is cursed. Thus, blessing belongs to faith, and in vain do you fear the curse for departing from the law. For by holding to it, you are more likely to fall under the curse, being unable to fulfill it.

Above, the Apostle proved the power of faith; now he shows the shortcoming of the Law.

First, through the authority of the Law;

Secondly, through a human custom (v. 15).

Concerning the first, he does three things:

First, he shows the curse brought on by the Law;

Secondly, the Law's inability to remove that curse (v. 11);

Thirdly, the sufficiency of Christ by whom that curse has been removed (v. 13).

In regard to the first he does two things:

First, he sets forth his intended proposition;

Secondly, he proves the proposition (v. 10): For it is written: "Cursed is every one that abideth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law to do them."

He says therefore: "For as many as are of the works of the law, are under a curse." For since he had said that they who are of faith will be blessed through being sons of Abraham, someone might say that they are blessed both on account of the works of the Law and on account of faith. Hence to exclude this he says: "As many as are of the works of the law are under a curse."

But against this it can be said that the ancient fathers were of the works of the Law. Therefore they are under a curse and, consequently, damned—which is a Manichean error. Hence it is necessary to understand this correctly. And it should be noted that the Apostle does not say, "As many as observe the works of the Law are under a curse," because this is false when applied to the time of the Law. He says rather: "As many as are of the works of the Law," i.e., whosoever trust in the works of the Law and believe that they are made just by them "are under a curse." For it is one thing to be of the works of the Law and another to observe the Law. The latter consists in fulfilling the Law, so that one who fulfills it is not under a curse. But to be of the works of the Law is to trust in them and place one's hope in them. And they that are of the Law in this way "are under a curse," namely, of transgression; not that the Law produces the curse, for concupiscence does not come from the Law, but the knowledge of sin does, to which we are prone through concupiscence banned by the Law. Therefore, inasmuch as the Law begets a knowledge of sin and offers no help against sin, they are said to be under a curse, since they are powerless to escape it by those works.

Furthermore, some works of the Law are ceremonies carried out in the observances; others are works that pertain to morals, with which the moral precepts deal. Hence, according to a Gloss, that which is said here, namely, "as many as are of the works of the law, are under a curse," is to be understood of ceremonial works and not of moral works. Or it should be said that the Apostle is speaking here of all works, both ceremonial and moral. For the works are not the cause making one to be just before God; rather they are the carrying out and manifestation of justice. For no one is made just before God by works but by the habit of faith, not acquired but infused. And therefore, as many as seek to be justified by works are under a curse, because sin is not removed nor anyone justified in the sight of God by them, but by the habit of faith vivified by charity: "And all these being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise" (Heb 11:39).

Then when he says, For it is written: "Cursed is every one, that abideth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law to do them," he proves the proposition which, according to a Gloss, is proved by the fact that no one can keep the Law in the way in which the Law prescribed: "As many as do not keep and do all that is written in the book of the law," i.e., who do not fulfill the whole Law, "cursed shall they be" (Deut 28:15). But it is impossible to fulfill the whole Law, as it is said in the Acts (15:10): "Why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" Therefore by the works of the Law no one is anything but cursed.

In another way the passage, "For it is written".... can be taken not as a proof of the proposition but as an exposition of the proof. As if to say: I say that they are under a curse, i.e., under that one of which the Law says, "For it is written: Cursed is every one, that abideth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law to do them," where the curse is understood to refer to sin. For the Law commands that good be done and evils avoided, and by commanding it puts one under the obligation without giving the virtue to obey. And hence he says, Cursed, as though placed in contact with evil, is every one, without exception; because, as it is said in the Acts (10:34): "God is not a respector of persons"; "that abideth not" to the end: "He that shall persevere to the end" (Mt 24:13); "in all things," not in some only, because as it is said in James (2:10): "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all"; "which are written in the book of the law to do them," not only to believe or will but actually to fulfill them in their works: "A good understanding to all that do it" (Ps 110:10). Yet the holy patriarchs, although they were of the works of the Law, were nevertheless saved by faith in one to come, by trusting in His grace and by fulfilling the Law at least spiritually. "For Moses," says a Gloss, "did indeed command many things which no one could fulfill, in order to tame the pride of the Jews who said: 'There are many willing and able, but no one to command'."

But a difficulty arises about saying "Cursed is every one that abideth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law to do them." For it is said: "Bless, and curse not" (Rom 12:14). I answer that to curse is nothing else but to say evil. I can therefore say that good is evil and evil good, and again, that good is good and evil evil. The first is what the Apostle forbids when he says, "Curse not," i.e., do not say that good is evil and evil good. But the second is lawful. Hence when we denounce sin, we do indeed curse, not by way of calling good evil but by saying that evil is evil. Therefore it is lawful to curse a sinner, i.e., to say that he is addicted to evil or is evil.

Here, indeed, they ought at least to concede that "in the law no one is justified," as the same apostle says elsewhere; but that the law avails for the knowledge of sin, and for the transgression of the law itself, so that sin, being known and increased, grace may be sought for through faith.

From Syria even unto Rome I fight with beasts not that I am devoured by brute beasts, for these, as ye know, by the will of God, spared Daniel, but by beasts in the shape of men, in whom the merciless wild beast himself lies hid, and pricks and wounds me day by day. But none of these hardships "move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself," in such a way as to love it better than the Lord. Wherefore I am prepared for [encountering] fire, wild beasts, the sword or the cross, so that only I may see Christ my Saviour and God, who died for me. I therefore, the prisoner of Christ, who am driven along by land and sea, exhort you: "stand fast in the faith," and be ye steadfast, "for the just shall live by faith;" be ye unwavering, for "the Lord causes those to dwell in a house who are of one and the same character."

But since in the Law no one is justified before God, it is manifest that the righteous lives by faith. But the Law is not of faith, but he who has done these things shall live in them.

The example by which it is proved that the righteous lives by faith, and not by works, he took from Habakkuk, which the Seventy translators rendered thus: "But the righteous lives by my faith" (Hab. 2:4). Aquila and Theodotion: "But the righteous lives by his faith", that is, God's. It must therefore be considered that he did not say "a human being" or "a man lives by faith", lest he should give occasion for despising the works of the virtues; but the righteous lives by faith: so that whoever was faithful and was to live through faith could not otherwise come to faith, or live in it, unless he had first been righteous, and had ascended by purity of life as by certain steps to faith. It can therefore happen that someone is righteous, and yet does not live, being without faith in Christ. If a scruple is stirred in the reader, let him take up the words of Paul, in which he says of himself: "As to the righteousness which is in the Law, without reproach" (Phil. 3:6). Paul therefore was at that time righteous in the Law, but could not yet live, because he did not have within himself Christ, who says: "I am the life" (John 11:25). Believing in him afterwards, he began also to live. Let us too make something similar to what is said, the righteous lives by faith; and let us say: the chaste lives by faith, the wise lives by faith, the brave lives by faith, and from the remaining parts of the virtues let us bring forward a like sentence against those who, not believing in Christ, think themselves brave and wise, temperate or righteous: so that they may know that no one lives without Christ, without whom every virtue is in vice. The present testimony can also be read thus: that the righteous by faith, so that there is then added, lives.

"no one is justified before God." For perhaps he may seem righteous before men.

"the righteous shall live by faith." For there is one way of being justified, he says, the one through faith.

But where three are, a church is, albeit they be laics. For each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says.

Having shown that the law subjects one to a curse, while faith imparts blessing, he now says that faith alone justifies, not the law, and he cites the words of Habakkuk: "The righteous shall live by faith" (Hab. 2:4), and not by the law. He also well said "before God," because among men those who adhere to the law may appear righteous, such as the Pharisees, who present themselves as righteous before men.

Then when he says, "But that in the law no man is justified with God, it is manifest," he shows the inability of the Law to snatch us from that curse, for it could not make one just. To show this he makes use of a syllogism in the second figure. Justice is by faith, but the Law is not by faith. Therefore the Law cannot justify. With respect to this, therefore:

First, he states the conclusion when he says, "But that in the law no one is justified;"

Secondly, the major premise (v. 11): "because the just man lives by faith;"

Thirdly, the minor (v. 12).

Therefore he says: I say that by the Law a curse was introduced, and yet the Law cannot extricate one from that curse, because it is obvious that no one is justified before God by the Law, i.e., through the works of the Law. On this point it should be noted that those who rejected the Old Testament took occasion to do so from this word. Hence it must be said that no one is justified in the Law, i.e., through the Law. For through it came the knowledge of sin, as is said in Romans (3:20); but justification came not through it: "By the works of the law no flesh shall be justified" (Rom 3:20).

But against this, it is said in James (2:21): "Was not Abraham our father justified by works?" I answer that "to be justified" can be taken in two senses: either as referring to the execution and manifestation of justice, and in this way a man is justified, i.e., proved just, by the works performed; or as referring to the infused habit of justice, and in this way one is not justified by works, since the habit of justice by which a man is justified before God is not acquired but infused by the grace of faith. Therefore the Apostle says significantly, "with God," because the justice which is before God is interior in the heart, whereas the justice which is by works, i.e., which manifests that one is just, is before men. And it is in this sense that the Apostle says, with God: "For not the hearers of the law, but the doers are just before God" (Rom 2:13); "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God" (Rom 4:2). Thus, therefore, the conclusion of his reasoning is obvious, namely, that the Law cannot justify.

Then when he says, "because the just man lives by faith," he presents the major premise, which is based on scriptural authority, i.e., Habakkuk (2:4) restated in Romans (1:17) and Hebrews (10:38). Apropos of this point it should be noted that in man there is a twofold life; namely, the life of nature and the life of justice. Now the life of nature is from the soul; hence when the soul is separated from the body, the body continues but is dead. But the life of justice is through God dwelling in us by faith. Therefore the first way in which God is in the soul of man is by faith: "He that cometh to God must believe" (Heb 11:6); "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts" (Eph 3:17). Accordingly, we say that in the soul the first signs of life appear in the works of the vegetal soul, because the vegetal soul is the first to be present in a generated animal, as the Philosopher says. Similarly, because the first principle whereby God exists in us is faith, faith is called the principle of living. And this is what he means when he says, "the just man lives by faith." Furthermore, this is to be understood of faith acting through love.

If no one is justified before God by the Law, why is it written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things that are written in the book of the Law, to do them” (Deut. 27:26)? If people are justified by faith and not by the Law (Gal. 2:16), why is the one who has not fulfilled the Law called cursed, since it does not lead to righteousness? — The Law given through Moses did indeed have righteousness, but an earthly one; so that those who kept the Law were righteous for the present, so that they would not become guilty. For the one who harms no one is righteous according to the Law. Therefore the Apostle says: “The Law is not of faith; but ‘the one who does them shall live in them’” (Gal. 3:12): that is, the one who does the Law will not die, but lives for the present; but the righteousness that is from faith justifies people before God, so that they may be rewarded in the future age. For to temporal righteousness they added the righteousness of faith. It is right to know from whom and through whom we exist, so that the true confession of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit may lead us to the heavenly kingdoms. For the ancients also, who not only kept the precepts of the Law but also loved God, having hope in the promise, were justified before God. He says that the Law alone does not justify people before God, just as faith alone, without good works, does not praise them before God; but the observance of both earthly and divine righteousness makes them perfect. Therefore the Lord says: “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20).

These three things, therefore, our philosopher attaches himself to: first, speculation; second, the performance of the precepts; third, the forming of good men;-which, concurring, form the Gnostic. Whichever of these is wanting, the elements of knowledge limp. Whence the Scripture divinely says, "And the Lord spake to Moses, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them, I am the Lord your God. According to the customs of the land of Egypt, in which ye have dwelt, ye shall not do; and according to the customs of Canaan, into which I bring you, ye shall not do; and in their usages ye shall not walk. Ye shall perform My judgments, and keep My precepts, and walk in them: I am the Lord your God. And ye shall keep all My commandments, and do them. He that doeth them shall live in them. I am the Lord your God." Whether, then, Egypt and the land of Canaan be the symbol of the world and of deceit, or of sufferings and afflictions; the oracle shows us what must be abstained from, and what, being divine and not worldly, must be observed. And when it is said, "The man that doeth them shall live in them," it declares both the correction of the Hebrews themselves, and the training and advancement of us who are nigh: it declares at once their life and ours. For "those who were dead in sins are quickened together with Christ," by our covenant. For Scripture, by the frequent reiteration of the expression, "I am the Lord your God," shames in such a way as most powerfully to dissuade, by teaching us to follow God who gave the commandments, and gently admonishes us to seek God and endeavour to know Him as far as possible; which is the highest speculation, that which scans the greatest mysteries, the real knowledge, that which becomes irrefragable by reason. This alone is the knowledge of wisdom, from which rectitude of conduct is never disjoined.

But in what he says, The Law is not of faith, but he who has done these things shall live in them, it is most manifestly shown that it is not life simply that is meant, but that life which is referred to something. For the righteous lives by faith: and there is not added "in these" or "in them". But he who lives in the Law, who has done these things, lives in them, that is, in the things which he did, which he thought good: having as the reward of his labor only those works which he did, whether length of life (as the Jews think) or escape from the penalty by which the transgressor of the Law is put to death. But let us not think that to live in them are the words of the Apostle, but of the prophet Ezekiel, who says: "And I led them out into the desert, and I gave them my precepts, and showed them my ordinances, which a man shall do, and shall live in them" (Ezek. 20:10, 11). And when he had said that those who had walked in the precepts and ordinances live, he added: "And I gave them precepts not good, and ordinances in which they should not live in them" (ibid., 25). How much care in the words! Where he said: "I gave them precepts and ordinances in which they should live in them", he did not add "good". But where he put "in which they should not live in them", he added: "And I gave them precepts not good, and ordinances in which they shall not live in them". But these things more fully in Ezekiel: now let us return to the order of the Epistle.

For the Law requires not only Faith but works also, but grace saves and justifies by Faith. (Eph. ii: 8)

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...

"The law is not of faith," but from works. And from this it is clear that "the one who does them shall live by them." Therefore salvation in the law is through works, and not through faith.

This means the one who follows the law will live and not die for the present. But the righteousness which is from faith makes one righteous in God's sight, so that one may be rewarded eternally in the age to come.

For the law requires not only faith, but also works. Since the law, by reason of its impossibility of fulfillment, did not justify but subjected to a curse, grace appeared, showing an easy path — faith, through which, being justified, we receive blessing. Thus it has been proven that faith imparted blessing and justification not only before the law, but even more so after it.

The minor premise is set down at, "But the law is not of faith."

First, the minor is set down;

Secondly, it is proved (v. 12): "but he that doth those things, shall live in them."

He says therefore that "the law is not of faith." But this seems to conflict with the truth that the Law commands one to believe that there is one God, which pertains to faith. Therefore the Law had faith. And that there is one God is stated in Deuteronomy (6:4): "Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord."

I answer that he is speaking here about keeping the commandments of the Law insofar as the Law consists of ceremonial precepts and moral precepts. This is the Law that is not of faith. For "faith," as is said in Hebrews (11:1), "is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not." Therefore, strictly speaking, he fulfills the command of faith who does not hope to obtain from it anything present and visible, but things invisible and eternal. Therefore, because the Law promised earthly and present things, as it is said: "If you be willing and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land" (Is 1:19), it is not of faith but rather of cupidity or fear, especially in regard to those who kept the Law in a carnal manner. Nevertheless, some did live spiritually in the Law; but this was not because of the Law but because of faith in a mediator.

And that the Law is not of faith he proves when he says, "but he that doth those things," i.e., the works of the Law, "shall live in them," namely, in the present life, i.e., will be immune from temporal death and will be preserved in the present life. Or again: I say that the "law is not of faith," and this is obvious, because "he that doth those things, shall live in them." As if to say: The precepts of the Law are not concerned with what is to be done, even though it proclaims something that must be believed. Therefore its power is not from faith but from works. He proves this on the ground that when the Lord willed to confirm it He did not say, "He that believeth," but "He that doth those things, shall live in them." But the New Law is from faith: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mk 16:16).

Nevertheless, the Law is something fashioned and produced by faith. That is why the Old Law is compared to the New as the works of nature to the works of the intellect. For certain works of the intellect appear in the works of nature, not as though natural things understand, but because they are moved and ordained to reach their end by an intellect. In like manner, in the Old Law are contained certain things that are of faith: not that the Jews held them precisely as being of faith, but that they held them only as protestations and figures of the faith of Christ, in virtue of Whose faith the just were saved.

Since no one could obey the law, all were convicted by the curse of the law, so that it was right to punish them. But Christ, born as a man and offered for us by his Father, redeemed us from the devil. He was offered for those who were liable to the curse of the law. Jesus was made a curse in the way that under the law a victim offered for sin is said to be sin.… Thus he did not say "cursed for us" but "made a curse."

WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE PROPHET ISAIAH SAYS OF CHRIST, “HE COMMITTED NO SIN,” WHILE THE APOSTLE, ON THE CONTRARY, SAYS, “HIM WHO KNEW NO SIN, HE MADE SIN FOR US” (Isa. 53:9; 2 Cor. 5:21)? — As far as the sense is concerned, the questions are different, but the words are similar: in one respect they are alike, in another they differ. “He made” and “did not make” are opposed; “knew not” and “did not commit” are similar. The prophet spoke in the person of Christ, because “He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in His mouth”; but the Apostle speaks of the person of God the Father, who made Him, that is, Christ, who knew no sin, “sin for us.” This must be understood in two ways. First, He made Him sin by willing that He be incarnate, so that He whom fate did not touch should take a body from sinful flesh; by this He is said to have been “made sin.” Then, by offering Him for sins, He made Him sin. For in the Law the victim offered for sins was called “sin.” Therefore Christ did not commit sin, as the prophet says; but by the Father He Himself was made sin, as has been shown. And what is it to offer Christ for us, if not to grant power to those who wished to kill Him? This was allowed because it would be for our benefit that He should be the cause of descending to the lower regions, to damage hell of souls. For it is an excessive and unheard-of sin to have killed Him who not only had not sinned in any way, but had also granted life to many. By this sin the Devil was made guilty and lost the boldness to contradict. A similar passage is read in the Epistle to the Galatians: among other things, “He was made a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). By whom was He made, if not by the Father? For by God’s judgment the cross of Christ is a curse upon the Jews: the death of the Savior cries out their sin. Therefore He allowed Himself to be crucified, so that His passion might profit us, that as we go forth with His sign, we may not be held by the second death. For death fears even His servants, by whom it has been conquered.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE PROPHET ISAIAH SAYS OF CHRIST, “HE COMMITTED NO SIN,” WHILE THE APOSTLE, ON THE CONTRARY, SAYS, “HIM WHO KNEW NO SIN, HE MADE SIN FOR US” (Isa. 53:9; 2 Cor. 5:21)? — With regard to the point at issue, not only do the words differ, but the persons are different. “He made” and “did not make” are opposed. But since what is said to have been made is not understood as having been made by Him who is declared not to have made it, it cannot be called a contradiction. For the statement of the prophet refers to the person of Christ, but that of the Apostle to the person of the Father. For God the Father reconciled the world to Himself through Christ; and therefore it came about that He, that is, Christ, was made sin. For this is what “He made Him sin” means: He gave Him into the virginal womb, that He might be born as man, made sin in respect of the flesh, because flesh is the flesh of sin, namely that one whom fate and condition did not touch, to bring forth as man. Therefore He was born for this, that He might be offered as a victim for sinners. He is said to have been made sin because, according to the Law, the victim offered for sins was called “sin.” There is a similar passage of the Apostle to the Galatians speaking of the Savior: “Made a curse for us”; (Gal. 3:13) the sense is the same: “He was made sin or a curse for us for our sake by God the Father, who allowed Him to be killed by the Jews, so that, because of their unbelief, they might be disinherited in our favor, with others brought in to take their place; as the Savior says, ‘The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation that produces its fruits’” (Matt. 21:43). For everything that God allows is said to be done by Him: because if He did not allow it, it would not happen. Therefore the Lord says to Pilate, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above” (Jn. 19:11). Therefore He is said to “give” power, not by infusing it, but by permitting it, so that when a wicked mind receives power according to its will, it becomes guilty: as the Jews who, in killing the Savior, made Him their curse by God’s judgment. For the cross of the Savior is a curse upon the Jews. It is not like the victim that was offered for sins, which cleansed the one who offered it; but rather, the offered Savior becomes stain and sin for those who offer Him: while justification comes to those who dissent, so that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus. For the offering of the Jews benefited the Gentiles who did not fall away from faith in Jesus Christ.

The holy apostle, revealing again how the appearance in the flesh and the cross fulfilled the plan for the loosing of the curse and how this was written beforehand in the law and prophesied as coming, then fulfilled in the Savior, has clearly proved that the law is not alien to the Savior.

It is not that the Lord was changed into these things—for how could that be?—but because he underwent them, "taking up our transgressions and bearing our sicknesses."

And everywhere, when [referring to] the passion of our Lord, and to His human nature, and His subjection to death, he employs the name of Christ, as in that passage: "Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died." And again: "But now, in Christ, ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." And again: "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree." And again: "And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died;" indicating that the impassible Christ did not descend upon Jesus, but that He Himself, because He was Jesus Christ, suffered for us; He, who lay in the tomb, and rose again, who descended and ascended,-the Son of God having been made the Son of man, as the very name itself doth declare. For in the name of Christ is implied, He that anoints, He that is anointed, and the unction itself with which He is anointed. And it is the Father who anoints, but the Son who is anointed by the Spirit, who is the unction, as the Word declares by Isaiah, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me,"-pointing out both the anointing Father, the anointed Son, and the unction, which is the Spirit.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, made a curse for us.

In this place Marcion creeps in concerning the power of the Creator, whom he defames as bloodthirsty, cruel and an avenger, asserting that we have been redeemed by Christ, who is the Son of another, good God. If he understood how buying and redeeming differ (for he who buys, buys what belongs to another; but he who redeems buys, in the proper sense, that which was his own and had ceased to be his own), he would never twist the simple words of the Scriptures into a calumny in support of his doctrine. Christ therefore redeemed us from the curse of the Law, which was established for those who sin, whom he himself rebukes through the prophet, saying: "Behold, you have been sold for your sins, and in your iniquities I have put away your mother" (Isa. 50:1). And the Apostle repeats this very thing, saying: "But I am carnal, sold under sin" (Rom. 7:14). The curses of the Law too, which are written in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, are not fulfilled with God as their author; rather, by a prophetic spirit, the things that are to come upon those who were going to sin are announced to them. But if he should wish to hem us in with the testimony of the Apostle, who says: "Whoever are of the works of the Law are under a curse: for it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not remain in all things that are written in the book of the Law, to do them" (Deut. 27:26), and to assert that all who were under the Law were cursed, let us ask him whether those who are under the Gospel of Christ and do not do its precepts are cursed or not. If he says they are cursed, he will have in the Gospel what we have in the Law. If he denies that they are cursed, then the precepts of the Gospel have been laid down in vain, and those who have fulfilled them will be without reward. Both points, therefore, are resolved in this way: just as Christ Jesus freed us from the curse of the Law, made a curse for us, so also from the curse of the Gospel, which has been established over those who have not done its precepts, he has rescued us, himself made a curse for us, knowing how not to remit even the smallest portion of a talent, and to exact the last farthing (Matt. 5, and Mark 12).

Because it is written: Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree: that the blessing of Abraham might come among the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the spirit through faith.

Before we discuss the sense and the words of the Apostle, it seems right to go over briefly the testimony of Deuteronomy, from which the Apostle also took these words (Deut. 21:22, 23), and to compare it with the other editions. The Seventy translators, then, rendered this passage thus: "But if there be in anyone a sin and a judgment of death, and he has died, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not sleep upon the tree, but burying you shall bury him on that day; because cursed by God is everyone who hangs on a tree: and you shall not defile your land, which the Lord your God will give you for an inheritance". Aquila: "And when there is in a man a sin unto a judgment of death, and he has been slain, and you hang him upon a tree, his carcass shall not remain upon the tree, but burying you shall bury him on that day, because he who is hanged is the curse of God: and you shall not defile your ground, which the Lord your God will give you as an inheritance". Symmachus: "But if there be in a man a sin bringing a judgment of death, and he has been slain, and you hang him upon a tree: his corpse shall not stay the night upon the tree, but with burial you shall bury him on that same day, because he was hanged on account of blasphemy of God: and you shall not defile your land, which the Lord your God will give you for an inheritance". Theodotion: "And because there will be in a man a sin unto a judgment of death, and he will die, and you will hang him on a tree, his carcass shall not sleep upon the tree, because with burial you shall bury him on that same day, because the one hanged is the curse of God: and you shall not defile your adama, which the Lord your God shall have given you as an inheritance". Now ADAMA (אדמה) is the word in the Hebrew language for "earth" or "ground". But in the place where Aquila and Theodotion translated alike, saying: "because the one hanged is the curse of God", the Hebrew has it thus: CHI CALALATH ELOIM THALUI. These words Ebion, that heresiarch, half-Christian and half-Jew, interpreted thus: ὅτι ὕβρις Θεοῦ ὁ κρεμάμενος, that is, "because the one hanged is an insult to God". I remember that in the Dispute of Jason and Papiscus, which is written in the Greek language, I found it thus: λοιδορία Θεοῦ ὁ κρεμάμενος, that is, "a curse of God is he who is hung up". The Hebrew who instructed me in some measure in the Scriptures used to tell me that it can also be read thus: "because God was hanged shamefully". We have gathered these things together for this reason: because it is a most notorious question, and the Jews are accustomed to throw it at us as a disgrace that our Savior and Lord was under the curse of God. First, then, we must observe that not whoever has hung on a tree is cursed before God, but he who has sinned, and on account of a crime has been sentenced to death and raised up on a cross: he is cursed not because he was crucified, but because he fell into such guilt that he deserved to be crucified. Next we must set against them this point: that further on the cause of the gallows is set out more fully, Scripture relating that he was crucified on account of a curse and blasphemy of God. Symmachus translated this more plainly, saying: "because he was hanged on account of blasphemy of God". Lastly, let us ask them whether, if Ananias and Azarias and Misael, refusing to worship the idol of Nebuchadnezzar, had been hanged on a tree (Dan. 3), and Eleazar too, a man of ninety under Antiochus king of Syria, and the glorious mother with her seven sons (2 Macc. 7), they would have reckoned them cursed, or most worthy of every blessing? Surely, if Haman had not himself mounted, as he deserved, the cross that he had prepared for Mordecai (Esther 7), I think Mordecai would have ascended it not as one cursed, but as a holy man. By these and other similar examples it is proved that he is cursed who has committed a crime worthy of the gallows, not he who has been crucified through the iniquity of judges and the power of enemies, or the clamor of the mob, or envy of his virtues, or the anger of a king. Naboth too was once condemned to death by the whole city of Jezreel at the letters of Jezebel (1 Kings 21); but his blood, as a type of Christ, is avenged many ages later, the Lord saying to Hosea: "Call his name Jezreel, for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu." (Hos. 1:4). So much against the Jews. But to bring the discussion back to ourselves, I cannot know why the Apostle, in what is written: "Cursed by God is everyone who hangs on a tree" (Deut. 21:23), has either taken something away or added something. For if he was once following the authority of the Seventy translators, he ought, as it was published by them, to have added the name of God as well. But if, as a Hebrew of the Hebrews, he thought that what he had read in his own language was most true, he ought not to have taken up either "everyone" or "on a tree", which are not found in the Hebrew. From this it seems to me either that the ancient books of the Hebrews had it otherwise than they have it now; or that the Apostle (as I have already said before) set down the sense of the Scriptures, not the words; or, what is rather to be supposed, that after the passion of Christ the name of God was added by someone, both in the Hebrew codices and in ours, so as to brand with infamy us who believe in a Christ cursed by God. With a bold foot, therefore, I advance to this contest, to appeal to the books: that in no place is it written that anyone is cursed by God, and wherever a curse is set down, the name of God is never added. "Cursed are you by all the beasts" (Gen. 3:14), is said to the serpent. And to Adam: "Cursed is the ground in your works" (ibid., 17). And to Cain: "Cursed are you upon the earth" (Gen. 4:11). And elsewhere: "Cursed be Canaan the boy, he shall be a servant to his brothers" (Gen. 9:25). And also in another place: "Cursed be their fury, because it is bold, and their anger, because it is harsh" (Gen. 49:7). It would be long if I were to list all the curses that are written in Leviticus, and in Deuteronomy, and in Joshua son of Nun; and yet in none of them is the name of God added: so much so that even Satan himself, when he was promising concerning Job that, if he were pressed by great distresses, he would blaspheme, expressed this by the better word, saying: "If he does not bless you to your face" (Job 1:11). And in the books of Kingdoms Naboth is reported to have been stoned for this reason: "because he blessed God and the king" (1 Kings 21). But no one ought to be troubled that Christ was made a curse for us, since God also, who is said to have made him a curse, himself (although Christ knew no sin) made him sin for us; and the Savior emptied himself from the fullness of the Father, taking the form of a slave (Phil. 2): Life died, and the wisdom of God was called foolishness, so that what was foolish of God might become wiser than men (1 Cor. 1). And in the sixty-eighth psalm he speaks of himself: "O God, you know my foolishness, and my offenses are not hidden from you" (Ps. 68:7). The Lord's insult, therefore, is our glory. He died, that we might live. He went down to the underworld, that we might ascend to heaven. He was made foolishness, that we might be made wisdom. He emptied himself of the fullness and the form of God, taking the form of a slave, that the fullness of divinity might dwell in us, and that from slaves we might become the Lord's. He hung on a tree, that, hung upon a tree, he might blot out the sin which we had committed by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. His cross turned bitter waters into a sweet taste, and, cast into the streams of the Jordan, it raised the axe that had been lost and sunk into the depths (2 Kings 6).

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." 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 upon 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." And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it.

Then I replied, "Just as God commanded the sign to be made by the brazen serpent, and yet He is blameless; even so, though a curse lies in the law against persons who are crucified, yet no curse lies on the Christ of God, by whom all that have committed things worthy of a curse are saved.

For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, 'Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.' And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God. For you did not practise piety when you slew the prophets. And let none of you say: If His Father wished Him to suffer this, in order that by His stripes the human race might be healed, we have done no wrong. If, indeed, you repent of your sins, and recognise Him to be Christ, and observe His commandments, then you may assert this; for, as I have said before, remission of sins shall be yours. But if you curse Him and them that believe on Him, and, when you have the power, put them to death, how is it possible that requisition shall not be made of you, as of unrighteous and sinful men, altogether hard-hearted and without understanding, because you laid your hands on Him?"

Paul removes a prevailing contradiction. Abraham, he says, was justified by faith for the very reason that he was among those who existed before the law, not being subject to the yoke of the law. For, he says, faith indeed justifies, let us be persuaded, but those who did not become subject to the law, just like Abraham. But we, having already become subject to the law, if we abandon it and rely on faith alone, who will redeem us from the curse of the law, because it is written, he says, "Cursed are those who do not remain faithful to the law"? (Gal. 3:10) This therefore resolves it, showing Christ to have ransomed us from the curse of the law by his own curse.

And rightly it says, "Christ redeemed us." For having paid the price, himself to become a curse, he has bought us from the curse of the law. See then: we were under a curse because we did not fulfill the law. Christ was not under this curse; for he fulfilled it; and yet he accepted a curse which he did not owe, namely that of being hung on a tree, (quoting Deut. 21:23) in order to free us from our curse. Just as if someone were to ransom those ordered to die by choosing death for them.

Concerning the last step, plainly, of His passion you raise a doubt; affirming that the passion of the cross was not predicted with reference to Christ, and urging, besides, that it is not credible that God should have exposed His own Son to that kind of death; because Himself said, "Cursed is every one who shall have hung on a tree." But the reason of the case antecedently explains the sense of this malediction; for He says in Deuteronomy: "If, moreover, (a man) shall have been (involved) in some sin incurring the judgment of death, and shall die, and ye shall suspend him on a tree, his body shall not remain on the tree, but with burial ye shall bury him on the very day; because cursed by God is every one who shall have been suspended on a tree; and ye shall not defile the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee for (thy) lot.

On the subject of His death, I suppose, you endeavour to introduce a diversity of opinion, simply because you deny that the suffering of the cross was predicted of the Christ of the Creator, and because you contend, moreover, that it is not to be believed that the Creator would expose His Son to that kind of death on which He had Himself pronounced a curse. "Cursed," says He, "is every one who hangeth on a tree." But what is meant by this curse, worthy as it is of the simple prediction of the cross, of which we are now mainly inquiring, I defer to consider, because in another passage we have given the reason of the thing preceded by proof.

You cannot establish a diversity of authors because there happens to be one of things; for the diversity is itself proposed by one and the same author. Why, however, "Christ was made a curse for us," is declared by the apostle himself in a way which quite helps our side, as being the result of the Creator's appointment.

But yet it by no means follows, because the Creator said of old, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree," that Christ belonged to another god, and on that account was accursed even then in the law.

Nay, but you do blaspheme; because you allege not only that the Father died, but that He died the death of the cross. For "cursed are they which are hanged on a tree," -a curse which, after the law, is compatible to the Son (inasmuch as "Christ has been made a curse for us," but certainly not the Father); since, however, you convert Christ into the Father, you are chargeable with blasphemy against the Father.

But when we assert that Christ was crucified, we do not malign Him with a curse; we only re-affirm the curse pronounced by the law: nor indeed did the apostle utter blasphemy when he said the same thing as we. Besides, as there is no blasphemy in predicating of the subject that which is fairly applicable to it; so, on the other hand, it is blasphemy when that is alleged concerning the subject which is unsuitable to it.

The Lord Himself was "cursed" in the eye of the law; and yet is He the only Blessed One.

Why, in this very standing of yours there was a fleeing from persecution, in the release from persecution which you bought; but that you should ransom with money a man whom Christ has ransomed with His blood, how unworthy is it of God and His ways of acting, who spared not His own Son for you, that He might be made a curse for us, because cursed is he that hangeth on a tree, -Him who was led as a sheep to be a sacrifice, and just as a lamb before its shearer, so opened He not His mouth; but gave His back to the scourges, nay, His cheeks to the hands of the smiter, and turned not away His face from spitting, and, being numbered with the transgressors, was delivered up to death, nay, the death of the cross.

Lest someone object, saying: it is true that he who does not fulfill the law is cursed and that faith justifies, but how do we know that that curse has been destroyed? For we fear that, having once fallen under the yoke of the law, we ourselves might remain under the curse; therefore Paul shows that the curse has been destroyed by Christ. For, having paid a ransom for us by Himself becoming a curse, He redeemed us from the curse of the law, to which He Himself was not subject, as one who had fulfilled the law, but to which we were liable, we who were unable to fulfill it, just as if someone were condemned to death, and another person, an innocent one, underwent death, having resolved to die in his place. Thus, He took upon Himself the curse through hanging on the tree and destroyed the curse that lay upon us for not fulfilling the law, although He Himself was not subject to it, because He both fulfilled the law and committed no sin.

Having explained the curse brought on by the Law, as well as the Law's incapacity to deliver from sin, he now shows forth Christ's power to set one free from this curse.

First, he shows how through Christ we are set free of that curse;

Secondly, how in addition we receive help from Christ (v. 14).

As to the first, he does three things:

First, he presents the author of the liberation;

Secondly, the manner of liberation (v. 13): "being made a curse for us;"

Thirdly, the testimony of the prophets (v. 13): "for it is written: Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."

He says therefore first: All who observed the works of the Law were under a curse, as has been said, and they could not be delivered by the Law. Hence it was necessary to have someone who should set us free, and that one was Christ. Hence he says, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law": "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8:3). "He redeemed," I say, "us," namely, the Jews, with His own Precious Blood: "Thou hast redeemed us in thy blood" (Rev 5:9); "Fear not, for I have redeemed thee" (Is 43:1), "from the curse of the law," i.e., from guilt and penalty: "that he might redeem them who were under the law" (4:5); "I will redeem them from death" (Hos 13:14).

Then when he says, "being made a curse for us," he sets forth the manner of the deliverance. Here it should be noted that a curse is that which is said as an evil. Now it is according to two kinds of evil that there can be two kinds of curse, namely, the curse of guilt and the curse of punishment. And with respect to each this passage can be read, namely, "He was made a curse for us."

First of all with respect to the evil of guilt, for Christ redeemed us from the evil of guilt. Hence, just as in dying He redeemed us from death, so He redeemed us from the evil of guilt by being made a curse, i.e., of guilt: not that there was really any sin in Him—for "He did not sin, neither was guile found in his mouth," as is said in 1 Peter (2:22)—but only according to the opinion of men and particularly the Jews who regarded him as a sinner: "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up to thee" (Jn 18:30). Hence it is said of Him, "Him who knew no sin He hath made sin for us" (2 Cor 5:21). But he says, "a curse," and not "accursed," to show that the Jews regarded Him as the worst type of criminal. Hence it is said, "This man is not of God who keepeth not the sabbath," (Jn 9:16) and "For a good work we stone thee not, but for sin and for blasphemy" (Jn 10:33). Therefore he says, "being made for us a curse" in the abstract. As though to say: He was made "curse" itself.

Secondly, it is explained with respect to the evil of punishment. For Christ freed us from punishment by enduring our punishment and our death which came upon us from the very curse of sin. Therefore, inasmuch as He endured this curse of sin by dying for us, He is said to have been made a curse for us. This is similar to what is said in Romans (8:3): "God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin," i.e., of mortal sin; "Him who knew no sin," namely, Christ, Who committed no sin, God (namely, the Father) "had made sin for us," i.e., made Him suffer the punishment of sin, when, namely, He was offered for our sins (2 Cor 5:21).

Then He gives the testimony of Scripture when he says, "for it is written: 'Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.'" This is from Deuteronomy (21:23). Here it should be noted, according to a Gloss, that in Deuteronomy, from which this passage is taken, our version as well as the Hebrew version has: "Cursed by God is everyone that hangs on a tree." However, the phrase "by God" is not found in the ancient Hebrew volumes. Hence it is believed to have been added by the Jews after the passion of Christ in order to defame Him.

But it is possible to expound this authority both with respect to the evil of punishment and the evil of guilt. Of the evil of punishment thus: "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree," not precisely because he hangs on a tree, but because of the guilt for which he hangs. And in this way Christ was thought to be cursed, when He hung on the cross, because He was being punished with an extraordinary punishment. And according to this explanation, there is a continuity with the preceding. For the Lord commanded in Deuteronomy that anyone who had been hanged should be taken down in the evening; the reason being that this punishment was more disgraceful and ignominious than any other. He is saying, therefore: Truly was He made a curse for us, because the death of the cross which He endured is tantamount to a curse—thus explaining the evil of guilt, although it was only in the minds of the Jews—because it is written: "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree." But with respect to the evil of punishment, "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree" is explained thus: The punishment itself is a curse, namely, that He should die in this way. Explained in this way, He was truly cursed by God, because God decreed that He endure this punishment in order to set us free.

For thus it had behoved the sons of Abraham [to be], whom God has raised up to him from the stones, and caused to take a place beside him who was made the chief and the forerunner of our faith (who did also receive the covenant of circumcision, after that justification by faith which had pertained to him, when he was yet in uncircumcision, so that in him both covenants might be prefigured, that he might be the father of all who follow the Word of God, and who sustain a life of pilgrimage in this world, that is, of those who from among the circumcision and of those from among the uncircumcision are faithful, even as also "Christ is the chief corner-stone" sustaining all things); and He gathered into the one faith of Abraham those who, from either covenant, are eligible for God's building. But this faith which is in uncircumcision, as connecting the end with the beginning, has been made [both] the first and the last. For, as I have shown, it existed in Abraham antecedently to circumcision, as it also did in the rest of the righteous who pleased God: and in these last times, it again sprang up among mankind through the coming of the Lord. But circumcision and the law of works occupied the intervening period.

Finally, he was made a curse, made, I say, not born: so that the blessings which had been promised to Abraham might, through him as author and forerunner, be transferred to the Gentiles, and the promise of the spirit might be fulfilled in us through faith in him: which we ought to take in two ways, either of the spiritual gifts of the virtues, or of the spiritual understanding of the Scriptures (1 Cor. 9).

How on the Gentiles? It is said, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed:" that is to say, in Christ. If this were said of the Jews, how would it be reasonable that they who were themselves subject to the curse, on account of transgression, should become the authors of a blessing to others? an accursed person cannot impart to others that blessing of which he is himself deprived. Plainly then it all refers to Christ who was the Seed of Abraham, and through whom the Gentiles are blessed. And thus the promise of the Spirit is added, as Paul himself declares, "that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." As the grace of the Spirit could not possibly descend on the graceless and offending, they are first blessed the curse having been removed; then being justified by faith, they draw unto themselves the grace of the Spirit. Thus the Cross removed the curse, Faith brought in righteousness, righteousness drew on the grace of the Spirit.

"might come to the Gentiles." For it is said, Christ was willing to be accursed so that it might be to the Gentiles, that is, to those who do not possess the law, the things of the promise of Abraham might come. And let it come through this Christ. How through him? Since the promises are bound to the seed of Abraham, and his seed is Christ. Therefore Christ, insofar as he is and is conceived as a man, having inherited the promises, bestowed these upon the rest of the human race who believe in him.

"that we might receive the promise of the Spirit." He says that in this way we receive the Spirit. For the curse was removed by the cross, and righteousness has been affected through faith in Christ; and from righteousness comes the drawing of the Advocate, the Spirit. Indeed, the Spirit was also in the promise. For the one who said, "In you all the nations shall be blessed," (Gen. 12:3, 22:18) promised the blessing through the outpouring of the Spirit.

For this reason, he says, He became a curse, so that "the blessing of Abraham might extend to the Gentiles," that is, to those who did not have the benefit of the law, "the blessing of Abraham," that is, the blessing which comes from faith, "through Christ Jesus," that is, concerning the seed of Abraham, as it is also written: "in your seed shall they be blessed," that is, in Christ, Who descended from you according to the flesh, shall they be blessed—namely, those who believe in Him.

For this reason, he says, the Gentiles were deemed worthy of the blessing, so that they might receive the Spirit through faith. Since it was impossible for those still under the curse to receive the Spirit, they obtain the blessing after Christ's destruction of the curse and, having then been justified by faith, they receive the promise of the Spirit. For what God promised to Abraham, in Paul's understanding, are the spiritual gifts, which have evidently now been given to us, such as the blessing and the rest.

Then when he says, "that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Christ Jesus," he touches on the hope which we acquire through Christ in addition to being freed from the curse: "Not as the offence, so also the gift" (Rom 5:16), but much greater, namely, because He both frees us from sin and confers grace.

First, therefore, he mentions the fruit and those to whom it is given, saying, "that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Christ Jesus." As if to say: He was made a curse for us not only to remove a curse but also to enable the Gentiles, who were not under the curse of the Law, to receive the blessing promised to Abraham: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen 22:18). And this blessing was made to us, i.e., fulfilled, through Christ, Who is of the seed of Abraham to whom the promises were made "and to thy seed, who is Christ," as is said below (v. 16). Now this blessing, this fruit, is "that we may receive the promise of the Spirit," i.e., the promises which the Holy Spirit, given to us as a pledge and an earnest, works in us concerning eternal happiness which He promises to us, as is said in Ephesians (Ch. 1) and in 2 Corinthians (Ch. 6). Furthermore, in the pledge is contained a guarantee, for a pledge is an assured promise concerning something to be received: "For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons" (Rom 8:15), and, "and if sons, heirs also" (v. 17). Or: "that we may receive the promise of the Spirit," i.e., the Holy Spirit. As if to say: That we may receive the promise made to the seed of Abraham concerning the Holy Spirit: "Upon my servants I will pour forth my spirit" (Jl. 2:29). For it is through the Spirit that we are joined to Christ and become children of Abraham worthy of the blessing.

Secondly, he shows how this fruit comes to us, saying, "by faith," through which also we obtain an eternal inheritance: "He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him" (Heb 11:6). Through faith, too, we receive the Holy Spirit, because as is said in Acts (Ch. 5), the Lord gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him, namely, through faith.

The value that a testator's death has for confirming his testament is final, since he cannot then change his mind. This is the value that the immutability of God's promise has in confirming the inheritance of Abraham, whose faith was reckoned for righteousness.

Brothers, I speak according to man: yet a man's testament, once confirmed, no one despises or adds to: to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He does not say, "and to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "and to your seed," who is Christ. But this I say: the testament confirmed by God, the Law, which was made after four hundred and thirty years, does not make void so as to annul the promise; for if the inheritance is from the Law, it is no longer from promise. But God gave it to Abraham through promise.

The Apostle, who became all things to all men that he might gain all, a debtor to Greeks and Barbarians, to the wise and the unwise, became foolish to the Galatians too, whom a little before he had called foolish. For he did not use with them the arguments he used with the Romans, but simpler ones, such as the foolish could understand, and almost from the street corner. And lest he seem to have done this from lack of skill and not by art, he first placates the prudent reader, and tempers what he is about to say with a preface set before it: Brothers, I speak according to man. For what I am about to say, I do not say according to God; I do not say it according to hidden wisdom and to those who can feed on solid food, but according to those who, because of the tenderness of their stomach, are nourished on a milky dew and are by no means able to hear things that are great (1 Cor. 5). Hence also to the Corinthians, among whom fornication was reported, and such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles, he says: "I say, and not the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:12). And to the same in the second letter: "What I speak, I do not speak according to the Lord, but as it were in foolishness" (2 Cor. 11:17).

Some think that he said Brothers, I speak according to man because he was about to discuss a man's testament, the death of the testator, and other examples drawn from human likeness; but it seems to me that it was set before partly, indeed, on account of what they suppose, but chiefly on account of what follows, that is: He does not say, "and to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "and to your seed," who is Christ. Ranging through all the Scriptures in mind and memory, I have never found "seeds" written in the plural number, but, whether in a good sense or in a bad, always in the singular number. So too with what he adds: But this I say: the testament confirmed by God; if anyone carefully compares the Hebrew volumes and the other editions with the translation of the Seventy translators, he will find that where testament is written, it does not sound "testament" (testamentum) but "pact" (pactum), which in the Hebrew tongue is called BERITH (ברית). From this it is plain that the Apostle did what he promised, and did not use hidden meanings with the Galatians, but everyday and cheap ones, such as could (had he not set before them I speak according to man) displease the prudent.

"To speak after the manner of men" means to use human examples. Having founded his argument on the Scriptures, on the miracles wrought among themselves, on the sufferings of Christ, and on the Patriarch, he proceeds to common usages; and this he does invariably, in order to sweeten his discourse, and render it more acceptable and intelligible to the duller sort. Thus he argues with the Corinthians, "Who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not the fruit thereof?" and again with the Hebrews, "For a testament is of force where there hath been death; for doth it ever avail while he that made it liveth?" One may find him dwelling with pleasure on such arguments. In the Old Testament God does the same thing in many instances, as, "Can a woman forget her sucking child?" and again, "Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou?" and in Hosea, He represents a husband set at nought by his wife. This use of human examples frequently occurs in types also, as when the prophet takes the girdle, and goes down to the potter's house. The meaning of the present example is, that Faith is more ancient than the Law, which is later and only temporary, and delivered in order to pave the way for Faith. Hence he says, "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men;" above he had called them "foolish," now he calls them "brethren," at once chiding and encouraging them. "Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed." If a man, says he, makes a covenant, does any one dare to come afterwards and overturn it, or subjoin aught to it? for this is the meaning of "or addeth thereto." Much less then when God makes a covenant; and with whom did God make a covenant?

Since from the signs given by them, and from the revealing of the Holy Spirit, and from the cross of Christ, and from those things by which Abraham was saved, faith was shown to save, and not the law; now he seeks to persuade them by a human example. For the phrase "according to men" stands for "according to a human argument and example." And he rightly calls them brothers, having called them foolish. For it is necessary sometimes to rebuke sharply, and sometimes to soften.

"a human-confirmed covenant." See what he wishes to prove by the example of the covenant. "I will bless," says God to Abraham, "and in his seed shall all the nations be blessed." (Gen. 22:18) Now the seed of Abraham, according to the flesh, is Christ. The law was given four hundred and thirty years later. If then, he says, the law committed the blessings and righteousness, the promise and the covenant of God to Abraham become void. But a man's covenant no one annuls; and the covenant of God is annulled, and it lasted a long time, namely four hundred and thirty years. For if that one promised to bless through Christ, but the law instead of Christ blesses, then the covenant of God to Abraham is annulled.

— [PHOTIUS] "Which he says has been confirmed." For it was authorized by an oath. And he says precisely, "has been confirmed." For the nullified thing is also transferred, just as the law itself, into the Gospel. It is ordered additionally, that is, it adds on. [end of the excerpt by Photius] —

"But," says he, "I speak after the manner of men: when we were children, we were placed in bondage under the elements of the world." This, however, was not said "after the manner of men.

For (with respect to the latter clause of this passage), what child (in the sense, that is, in which the Gentiles are children) is not in bondage to the elements of the world, which he looks up to in the light of a god? With regard, however, to the former clause, there was a figure (as the apostle wrote it); because after he had said, "I speak after the manner of men," he adds), "Though it be but a man's covenant, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto." For by the figure of the permanency of a human covenant he was defending the divine testament.

He called them foolish above, but now he calls them brothers—there restraining, and here consoling. I am going to present you, he says, a human example.

Paul wants to show that faith is a covenant more ancient than the law, and that it would be unjust to prefer the law over it. He brought an example to illustrate this. If, he says, a man made a testament, would anyone, coming afterward, dare to pervert it or alter it, that is, add anything to it? All the more must this be understood in relation to God.

Having proved by authority that the Law does not justify and is not necessary for justification, which is through faith, the Apostle then proves the same point with human reasons. Concerning this he does four things:

First, he mentions a human custom;

Secondly, he touches on a divine promise (v. 16);

Thirdly, he draws his conclusion (v. 17);

Fourthly, he shows that the conclusion follows from the premises (v. 18).

He says therefore: It is clear that up to now I have been speaking according to the authority of Sacred Scripture, which came not by the will of man, but by the Holy Spirit, as is said in 2 Peter (1:21). But now "I speak after the manner of man" and after the manners which human reason and human custom follow. Here, indeed, we have an argument to show that in discussions bearing on faith, we may use any truth of any science: "If thou seest in the number of the captives a beautiful woman and lovest her and wilt have her to wife, thou shalt bring her into thy house," i.e., if you are pleased with worldly wisdom and science, bring it within your boundaries, "and she shall shave her hair, and pare her nails," i.e., you shall cut away all erroneous opinions (Deut 21:11). This is why in many places in his epistles the Apostle uses the authority of the Gentiles; for example: "Evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Cor 15:33), and "The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies" (Tit. 1:12).

Or: although such reasons be fruitless and weak, because, as is said in Psalm 93 (v. 11): "The Lord knoweth the thoughts of men, that they are vain," yet a man's "testament, if it be confirmed, no one despiseth nor addeth to" it, because nothing human has as much power to bind as a man's last will. But someone would be scorning it if he were to say that a man's will, confirmed by his death and by witnesses, had no validity. Therefore, if no one scorns a testament of this kind by saying that it should not be heeded or by modifying it, much less may anyone scorn the testament of God or modify it and weaken it by adding or removing anything: "If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life" (Rev 22:18); "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it" (Deut 4:2).

If, then, God promised him the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord, as John the Baptist said: "For God is able from the stones to raise up children to Abraham." Thus also the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians: "But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise." And again, in the same Epistle, he plainly declares that they who have believed in Christ do receive Christ, the promise to Abraham thus saying, "The promises were spoken to Abraham, and to his seed. Now He does not say, And of seeds, as if [He spake] of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." And again, confirming his former words, he says, "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, fore-seeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham." Thus, then, they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."

Thus God made a covenant with Abraham, promising that in his seed the blessing should come upon the heathen; and this blessing the Law cannot turn aside. As this example was not in all respects appropriate to the matter in hand, he introduces it thus, "I speak after the manner of men," that nothing might be deduced from it derogatory to the majesty of God. But let us go to the bottom of this illustration. It was promised Abraham that by his seed the heathen should be blessed; and his seed according to the flesh is Christ; four hundred and thirty years after came the Law; now, if the Law bestows the blessings even life and righteousness, that promise is annulled. And so while no one annuls a man's covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable.

"Now the promises." As if they had been pledged.

For this fact-that Gentiles are admissible to God's Law-is enough to prevent Israel from priding himself on the notion that "the Gentiles are accounted as a little drop of a bucket," or else as "dust out of a threshing-floor: " although we have God Himself as an adequate engager and faithful promiser, in that He promised to Abraham that "in his seed should be blest all nations of the earth; " and that out of the womb of Rebecca "two peoples and two nations were about to proceed," -of course those of the Jews, that is, of Israel; and of the Gentiles, that is ours.

"To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. He said not `to seeds, 'as of many; but as of one, `to thy seed, 'which is Christ." Fie on Marcion's sponge! But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on what he has erased, when he may be more effectually confuted from that which he has retained.

So faith, illumined by patience, when it was becoming propagated among the nations through" Abraham's seed, which is Christ," and was superinducing grace over the law, made patience her pre-eminent coadjutrix for amplifying and fulfilling the law, because that alone had been lacking unto the doctrine of righteousness.

The words and to his offspring are found to be strictly fulfilled in Christ in their straightforward sense, since he is Abraham's offspring by nature, as are all those who derive their stock from that source. We, believing in him, are therefore enrolled as children of Abraham and thereby receive fellowship in the blessing. The result is that what appears to be said to one can in fact be understood commonly of many, insofar as all who derive from that source are of Abraham. This promise is completely fulfilled in Christ in the light of the actual events.

The promise made to Abraham is called a testament in the ancient Scripture and so cannot suffer addition, subtraction or dissolution through the imposition of the Mosaic law, which was given a very long time after Abraham. Now the promise was that the God of all would bless the nations through the offspring of Abraham. And this offspring is Christ the Lord, since the promise found its destination in him through whom the nations received a blessing. But all the others, such as Moses, Samuel, Elijah and in a word all who traced their descent from Israel, were called his offspring according to nature, but [this genetic fact] is not what brought the fount of blessings to the nations.… The fact that those men too trace their race to Abraham does not mean that they are rightly called his offspring, but this man has that appellation in the proper sense, as being the only One through whom, according to the promise, God has bestowed blessing on the nations.

And God gave a testament to Abraham, that in his seed the nations would be blessed. And his seed is Christ, because it did not say "seeds," lest you think of the Jews and Ishmaelites descended from him, but simply "in seed," which, as stated, is Christ.

Then when he says, "To Abraham were the promises made," he takes up the promise God made to Abraham, which is, as it were, the testament of God.

First, he explains this promise or testament;

Secondly, he discloses the truth contained therein (v. 16): "He saith not: And to his seeds."

He says therefore: "To Abraham were the promises made." As if to say: As the testament of a man is valid, so the divine promises are valid. But did God make any promises before the Law? He did; because "To Abraham" who lived before the time of the Law "the promises were spoken," i.e., made, "and to his seed," by God. However, they were made to Abraham as the one for whom they would be fulfilled, and to his seed as the one through whom they would be fulfilled. And he says, "promises," using the plural, because the promise that his seed would be blessed contained a number of things: or because the same thing, namely, eternal happiness, was promised to him on a number of occasions. For example, "In thee shall all the kindred of the earth be blessed" (Gen 12:3); "Look up to heaven and number the stars if thou canst. So shall thy seed be" (Gen 15:5). Again: "To thy seed will I give this land" (Gen 15:18); "I will bless thee and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven" (Gen 22:17). These promises then, are God's testament, as it were, i.e., a decree concerning the inheritance to be given to Abraham and his seed.

The meaning of this testament he explains when he says, "He saith not: 'And to his seeds, as of many; but as of one: And to thy seed.'" He explains this according to the very spirit in which the testament was made. And this is obvious from the words of the testament: "He saith not: 'and to his seeds, as of many," i.e., as He would do, if it were valid for many: "but as of one: 'And to thy seed,' which is Christ," because He is the only one through Whom and in Whom all could be blessed. For He alone and exclusively is the one who does not lie under the curse of guilt, in spite of the fact that He deigned to be made a curse for us. Hence it is said, "I am alone until I pass" (Ps 140:10); and again "There is none that doth good, no not one" (Ps 13:3); "One man among a thousand I have found" (namely, Christ, Who had been without any sin), "a woman among them all I have not found," who would be entirely immune from all sin, at least original or venial (Eccl. 7:29).

Once the promise had been established, the law was given subsequently, not so that it could undermine the promise but so that it might point to what was to be fulfilled and when it would come.

GOD HAVING FORETOLD TO ABRAHAM THAT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WOULD BE FREED FROM THE DOMINION OF THE EGYPTIANS. THE FOURTH GENERATION, WHY DOES THE LAW SAY, "THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SHALL COME FORTH OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT INTO THE FIFTH GENERATION?" — As far as the words are concerned, it seems to be a contradiction; but if the sense is examined, it will be found not to differ. For the Law speaks in such a way that those who are diligent and attentive may understand, so that the basis of the truth reveals itself not to the careless but to the earnest. Indeed, God said “fourth generation,” (Gen. 15:16) and Moses wrote “fifth generation.” (Exod. 13:18) Though Moses recorded both, and it is impossible that he should be mistaken, in whom such great power has worked; therefore the meaning must be investigated, since Scripture never speaks anything uselessly or without forethought. Therefore there are two aspects which each mentions. God indicated four generations that were born in Egypt; Moses, however, adding to these one from which these originated when they entered Egypt, says, “In the fifth generation the sons of Israel went out.” For he includes together the generation that entered Egypt and the four that were born there. From Abraham up to the departure of the sons of Israel from Egypt there are eight generations. For they lived two hundred and fifteen years in Canaan from the time the promise was made to Abraham, and two hundred and fifteen in Egypt. These are the years encompassed by the Apostle to the Galatians when he says, “The Law was given four hundred and thirty years later” (Gal. 3:17). Therefore these four generations were born in Canaan: one in Isaac, another in Jacob, a third in Levi, a fourth in Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari. But when the sons of Israel entered Egypt, Kohath begot Amram: this is the first generation produced in Egypt. Amram then begot Aaron and Moses and Miriam, which is the second generation produced in Egypt. And Aaron begot Eleazar and his brothers, which is the third generation. Then Eleazar begot Phinehas, the fourth generation. These are the four generations brought forth in Egypt. Therefore the Lord says to Abraham, “Your seed will be a stranger, and they will oppress them with slavery; but I will deliver them, and in the fourth generation they will come out from there.” (Gen. 15:13) See whether it is not clear that God signified nothing other than what took place in Egypt. Moses, however, in order also to include that generation which entered Egypt together with Jacob their father, from which these four take their origin, said, “In the fifth generation the sons of Israel went out from the land of Egypt.”

If the law justifies, Abraham was not justified, since he lived long before the law. Since they cannot say this, they are forced to admit that a man is justified not by works of the law but by faith. And he compels us to understand that all the ancients who were justified were justified from the same faith. For as we are saved by believing partly in a past event, that is, the first coming of the Lord, and partly in a future one, that is, his second coming, they believed the whole of it, that is, both comings as events. The Holy Spirit reveals this for their salvation.

In this place the years must be reckoned from the time when the Lord spoke to Abraham, saying: "And in your seed shall all the nations be blessed" (Gen. 22:18), down to Moses the lawgiver: whether they are four hundred and thirty, or how in Genesis the Lord promises Abraham himself that after four hundred years his sons would go out from the land of slavery. For it is no small matter, and though it has been sought by many, I do not know whether it has been found by anyone. That too which is read in the same book about Tamar and her two little ones (Gen. 38), namely that the first, who is called Zerah, put out his hand, and the midwife tied a scarlet thread on it, and then, as he drew his hand back inside, the later one, who is called Perez, stretched out his hand, fits the present place: that Israel showed its hand in the work of the Law, and drew it back defiled with the blood of the prophets and of the Savior himself. But afterward the people of the Gentiles broke forth, on whose account it is said to have been destroyed many times, and the middle wall which had stood between the Jews and the Gentiles to have been broken down, so that there might be one flock and one shepherd, and glory and honor and peace to everyone who works good, to the Jew first and to the Greek.

But the simple sense woven in this place has this force: the Apostle teaches that the promises made earlier to Abraham cannot be destroyed through the Law, which was given afterward, nor can later things prejudice earlier ones, since the promises were given to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before, that all the nations would be blessed in him; whereas the observance of the Law, that whoever had done it should live in it, was given to Moses on Mount Sinai four hundred and thirty years later. On the contrary, it could be said here: What need was there, then, for the Law to be given so long a time after the promise, since, once the Law was given, a suspicion that the pledge had been destroyed could arise, and since, while the promise remained, a Law that would profit nothing was given? Foreseeing this question, the Apostle himself puts it to himself in what follows and unravels it, saying:

"Now this I say: a covenant." For the sake of clarity he continues the discourse.

"by God in Christ." For the promise was to Christ. For he said, "In your seed all the nations shall be blessed." For this is, "in you." And the seed of Abraham according to the flesh is Christ.

— [PHOTIUS] "which came four hundred and thirty years later." Four hundred and thirty years are therefore gathered: from Abraham's seventy-fifth year to the one hundredth (when Isaac was born) are counted twenty-five years; Isaac was sixty years old (when Jacob was born); Jacob was ninety-five years old (when he begot Joseph); Joseph was one hundred and ten years old; the years spent in Egypt were one hundred and forty-four (from Joseph's death, according to the translation of the Seventy Translators, as appears in Exodus 12): together four hundred and thirty-four. [end of the excerpt by Photius] —

In what way, then, can the law annul this covenant, agreement, and promise, so that the nations would receive blessing not in Christ but through the commandments of the law? For this would be nothing other than the overthrow of the promise, which is absurd.

Then when he says, "Now this I say: that the testament which was confirmed by God," he draws his conclusion. Here let us see, in order, what it is that he says. He says therefore that this is what God promised to Abraham. But this is a "testament," i.e., a promise that he would obtain an inheritance: "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Juda" (Jer 31:31). He says, "confirmed" (in keeping with what he said above, namely, "a man's testament, if it be confirmed, no man despiseth nor addeth to it") "by God," i.e., by the One who promised. "The testament was confirmed," namely, with an oath: "By my own self have I sworn" (Gen 22:16); "That by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have the strongest comfort" (Heb 6:18). This testament, I say, the Law doth not disannul: "the law," namely, "which was made" and given by God through Moses: "For the law was given by Moses" (Jn 1:17) "after four hundred thirty years." Then, as if to explain what he had said, he adds, "doth not disannul to make the promise of no effect." For the aforesaid testament would have been disannulled if the promise made to Abraham were set aside, i.e., made fruitless, as though the seed promised to Abraham were not enough to bless the Gentiles. But as a matter of fact, the promises made to the patriarchs were not set aside by Christ but confirmed: "For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made unto the fathers" (Rom 15:8); "For all the promises of God are in him 'It is'" (2 Cor 1:20). "After four hundred thirty years"—this concords with Exodus (12:40): "The abode of the children of Israel that they made in Egypt was four hundred thirty years," and with Acts (7:6): "And God said to him," i.e., to Abraham, "that his seed should sojourn in a strange country and that they shall bring them under bondage four hundred thirty years."

But against this, it is said in Genesis (15:13): "Know thou before that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not their own, and they shall bring them under bondage and afflict them four hundred years."

I answer that if you count the years between the first promise made to Abraham (Genesis Ch. 12), and the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt (when the Law was given) there will be four hundred thirty years, as is written here and in Exodus (Ch. 12) and Acts (Ch. 7). But if you begin to count from the birth of Isaac, concerning which Genesis (Ch. 21) speaks, there are only four hundred five years. For twenty-five years elapsed between the promise made to Abraham and the birth of Isaac: for Abraham was seventy-five years old when he left his own country and the first promise was made to him, as is recorded in Ch. 21 of Genesis; and he was one hundred years old when Isaac was born, as is recorded in the same chapter. That there were four hundred five years between the birth of Isaac and the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt is proved by the fact that Isaac was sixty years old when he begot Jacob, as is had in Genesis (Ch. 25). Jacob, on the other hand, was one hundred thirty years old when he entered Egypt, as is recorded in Genesis (Ch. 47). Therefore from the birth of Isaac to Jacob's entry into Egypt were one hundred ninety years. Now Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh, as is recorded in Genesis (Ch. 41). After that there were seven years of plenty and two of want; and it was after that that Jacob came to Egypt, as is recorded in Genesis (Ch. 45). But Joseph lived one hundred ten years, as is mentioned in the final chapter of Genesis. If thirty-nine years be subtracted from this there remain seventy-one years. Consequently from the birth of Isaac to Joseph's death there were two hundred sixty-one years. Furthermore, the children of Israel remained in Egypt for one hundred forty-four more years after Joseph's death, as Rabanus says in a Gloss on the Acts (Ch. 7). Therefore from the birth of Isaac to the exodus from Egypt and the giving of the Law four hundred five years elapsed. However, the scripture in Genesis (Ch. 17) was not concerned with minutiae. Or it can be said that during Isaac's fifth year Ishmael was cast forth, leaving Isaac the sole heir of Abraham. Reckoning from this date, we have our four hundred years.

The Jews maintain two opposing tenets. For in no way and by no argument can they be persuaded that the promise to Abraham was rendered void by the law, and they are right. But in their short-sighted vanity they maintain another contrary principle, thinking that justification could not come without the practice of the law. They know that Abraham, who is the type [of justification], was justified through faith alone, without the practice of the law.… The heirs to the promise of Abraham are therefore those who are his successors in the adoption of the faith by which Abraham was blessed and justified. The testimony of the promise to Abraham is therefore called a covenant [to signify] that after his death there would be heirs in the promise, made sons of Abraham through faith.

"For if the inheritance is of the law." He himself so interpreted it. For if the blessing came through the law and not through Christ, the promise and covenant of God is annulled and terminated. He gave by the promise. He gave the blessing, he says, by the promise of God and not by the law.

If the law, he says, grants blessing and makes heirs of life and righteousness, then the promise given to Abraham is consequently abolished and destroyed. But this would make no sense: the law appeared later, so how can it annul a covenant that existed before it? But do not hasten to press this entire example too strictly. For this reason he also said: "I speak in human terms," that is, I am giving a human example. Therefore it is not surprising if it cannot be fully applied to the divine.

Then when he says, "For, if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise," he shows how from the foregoing it follows that the Law would nullify the promises, if the Law were necessary for justification or for the blessing to come to the Gentiles. He says therefore: The promise would indeed be disannulled, if the Law were necessary; for "if the inheritance," namely, of Abraham's blessing, "be of the law, it is no more of promise," i.e., of the seed promised to Abraham. For if the seed promised to Abraham was enough to obtain the inheritance of the blessing, there would not be justification through the Law. He rejects the consequent, when he says, "But God gave it to Abraham," i.e., He promised that He would give it; but the promise was as sure as if it had been fulfilled then and there, "by promise," i.e., through the seed promised. Therefore the inheritance, i.e., the blessing (about which it is said in 1 Peter (3:9): "For unto this are you called, that you may inherit a blessing") is not of the Law.

By "angels" he means God's messengers—that is, Moses, [Joshua] son of Nun and the other prophets up to John the Baptist. … Through these, therefore, the Law and Prophets are ordained and disposed by God in the hand, that is, the power, of the Savior. For he is the Mediator, the reconciler of God and humanity, so that he may save whom he will out of those who have received the law from the angels.

Here arises a rather pertinent question: if faith justifies and even the former saints, who were justified before God, were justified through it, what need was there for the law to be given?… The law was given to a proud people, but the grace of love cannot be received by any but the humble. Without this grace the precepts of the law cannot possibly be fulfilled. Israel was rendered humble by transgression, so that it might seek grace and might not arrogantly suppose itself to be saved by its own merits; and so it would be righteous, not in its own power and might but by the hand of the Mediator who justifies the ungodly.

Now every dispensation of the Old Testament was given through angels, the Holy Spirit working in them and in the very Word of truth, though not yet incarnate, yet never departing from some true ordering of providence. This law was given through angels, sometimes acting in their own person, sometimes in that of God, as was also the way of the prophets.… The children [of Abraham] were put in the hand of [Christ] the Mediator so that he himself might liberate them from sin when they were forced by their transgression of the law to admit that they needed grace and mercy from the Lord.

The purely intellectual vision existed in the minds of the angels and of the Lawmaker. For the Law was delivered by angels. Angels gave it forth, composed it, for they could see the pure truth in the eternal light. Moses was raised up to this vision more completely than any other prophet.

We are also led by the hand through the reformed powers of the soul itself, and this by gratuitous virtues, spiritual senses, and mental ecstasies, as is evident from the fourth step. We are led by the hand no less through hierarchical operations, namely of purgation, illumination, and perfection of human minds, through the hierarchical revelations of sacred Scriptures given to us through Angels, according to that saying of the Apostle, that the Law was given through Angels by the hand of a Mediator.

Whence the law was rightly said to have been given by Moses, being a rule of right and wrong; and we may call it with accuracy the divine ordinance, inasmuch as it was given by God through Moses. It accordingly conducts to the divine. Paul says: "The law was instituted because of transgressions, till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made." Then, as if in explanation of his meaning, he adds: "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up," manifestly through fear, in consequence of sins, "unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed; so that the law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we should be justified by faith."

as if in answer to the question What then is the law? meaning, Why was the law given? he at once replies and says: It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator; whereby he means, that the reason why the law was added was this, that by means of it and of the priesthood the people which had received the promise should be under safe guardianship—the people, namely, sprung from Abraham—and that there should be no intermixture of this people with any other; so that thereby he who had been foretold might be recognisable by all—he, by whom the world is being renovated, and by whom also the purpose and economy which God had from the first designed is being fulfilled.

Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour. He considered it to be absurd that under the (category of a) creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship-that is, the Good Deity. (His doctrine,) however, was that, independent of birth, (the Logos) Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues. For if He is a Mediator, He has been, he says, liberated from the entire nature of the Evil Deity. Now, as he affirms, the Demiurge is evil, and his works. For this reason, he affirms, Jesus came down unbegotten, in order that He might be liberated from all (admixture of) evil. And He has, he says, been liberated from the nature of the Good One likewise, in order that He may be a Mediator, as Paul states, and as Himself acknowledges: "Why call ye me good? there is one good." These, then, are the opinions of Marcion, by means of which he made many his dupes, employing the conclusions of Empedocles. And he transferred the philosophy invented by that (ancient speculator) into his own system of thought, and (out of Empedocles) constructed his (own) impious heresy.

From many other instances also, we may discover that the apostle frequently uses a transposed order in his sentences, due to the rapidity of his discourses, and the impetus of the Spirit which is in him. An example occurs in the [Epistle] to the Galatians, where he expresses himself as follows: "Wherefore then the law of works? It was added, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator." For the order of the words runs thus: "Wherefore then the law of works? Ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator, it was added until the seed should come to whom the promise was made,"-man thus asking the question, and the Spirit making answer.

He has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and trampled upon his head, as thou canst perceive in Genesis that God said to the serpent, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; He shall be on the watch for (observabit) thy head, and thou on the watch for His heel." For from that time, He who should be born of a woman, [namely] from the Virgin, after the likeness of Adam, was preached as keeping watch for the head of the serpent. This is the seed of which the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians, "that the law of works was established until the seed should come to whom the promise was made." This fact is exhibited in a still clearer light in the same Epistle, where he thus speaks: "But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman." For indeed the enemy would not have been fairly vanquished, unless it had been a man [born] of a woman who conquered him. For it was by means of a woman that he got the advantage over man at first, setting himself up as man's opponent. And therefore does the Lord profess Himself to be the Son of man, comprising in Himself that original man out of whom the woman was fashioned (ex quo ea quae secundum mulierem est plasmatio facta est), in order that, as our species went down to death through a vanquished man, so we may ascend to life again through a victorious one; and as through a man death received the palm [of victory] against us, so again by a man we may receive the palm against death.

But since the order of the reading is confused and thrown into disorder by a hyperbaton, it seems to us that it should be restored thus: The Law was set down through angels in the hand of a mediator, ordained through angels because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made. Now there is no doubt that the seed signifies Christ, who is shown by the opening of Matthew also to be the son of Abraham, as Scripture relates: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham".

What then? The Law was set down because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom it had been promised, ordained through angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one.

Since, while the promise that had been made to Abraham still stood, the Law given afterwards through Moses seemed to have been brought in to no purpose, he explains why it was given: because of transgressions, he says. For after the offense of the people in the desert, after the worship of the calf and the murmuring against the Lord, the Law followed to forbid transgressions. "For the law is not set down for the righteous man, but for the unjust and the unsubmissive, for the ungodly and sinners" (1 Tim. 1:9). And, to go back further: after the idolatry to which they had been enslaved in Egypt, so that they forgot the God of their fathers and afterwards said, "These are your gods, Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt", the rite of worshipping God and the punishment of offenders were ordained in the hand of the mediator Christ Jesus, because all things were made through him, and without him nothing was made: not only heaven, earth, sea and all the things that we see, but also those things that were laid through Moses upon a hard people as the yoke of the Law (John 1). It is also written to Timothy: "For there is one God, and one mediator also of God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). After the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, deigned for our salvation to be born from the Virgin's womb, he was called the go-between (sequester). But before he took up a human body, while he was with the Father in the beginning as God the Word, toward all the saints to whom the word of God came, namely Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and afterwards Moses and all the Prophets whom Scripture records, he is called only mediator, without the addition of the man, whom he had not yet assumed. And when he says, the Law ordained through angels, he wants this to be understood: that throughout the Old Testament, where an angel is first reported to have been seen and is afterwards introduced as if God were speaking, an angel indeed, whichever one of the many ministers it may be, was truly seen, but in him the mediator speaks, who says: "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Exod. 3:6). Nor is it surprising if God speaks in angels, since God also speaks in the prophets through the angels who are in men, as Zechariah says: "And the angel who spoke in me said" (Zech. 2:3); and next adds: "Thus says the Lord almighty". For the angel who had been said to be in the prophet did not dare to say in his own person: "Thus says the Lord almighty". By the hand of the mediator we ought to understand his power and might. Though according to God he is himself one with the Father, according to the office of mediator he is understood as other than he.

This remark again is not superfluous; observe too how he glances round at every thing, as if he had an hundred eyes. Having exalted Faith, and proved its elder claims, that the Law may not be considered superfluous, he sets right this side of the doctrine also, and proves that the Law was not given without a view, but altogether profitably. "Because of transgressions;" that is to say, that the Jews might not be let live carelessly, and plunge into the depth of wickedness, but that the Law might be placed upon them as a bridle, guiding, regulating, and checking them from transgressing, if not all, at least some of the commandments. Not slight then was the advantage of the Law; but for how long?

"Till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made."

This is said of Christ; if then it was given until His advent, why do you protract it beyond its natural period?

"And it was ordained through Angels by the hand of a Mediator."

He either calls the priests Angels, or he declares that the Angels themselves ministered to the delivery of the Law. By Mediator here he means Christ, and shows that He was before it, and Himself the Giver of it.

"What then is the law?" As it was said by way of contrast to it. Why then was the law given, he says, if it cannot save?

"It was added because of transgressions." It was not given in vain, he says, but in order that what appears to be from God may not be transgressed, so that even small faults may be prevented. "added." He rightly says "added" to show that the law is not original, as the promises are, but was given as something following arising from what preceded.

"until the seed to whom the promise referred should come." But the law was not given for eternity, he says, but until Christ comes, to whom it has been promised that all the nations will be blessed.

"administered through angels." The law was given, that is, enjoined, served and commanded through the intervention of messengers, whether of the priests or indeed of angels.

It is said to have been given into the hand of a mediator, that is, of Christ. For he wishes to show that the law was given under Christ, so that he might also be the Lord to abolish it. For the one who gives also has power to abolish. He calls Christ a mediator because he mediates to the Father and to men, as it were toward friendship, and reconciles us to God, to whom we were at enmity.

— [CHRYSOSTOM] "by the hand of a mediator." Here he calls Christ the Mediator, showing that he also gave the law beforehand.

For he, too, says that the world was originated by those angels; and sets forth Christ as born of the seed of Joseph, contending that He was merely human, without divinity; affirming also that the Law was given by angels; representing the God of the Jews as not the Lord, but an angel.

This question should be read as a personification. "What you want to know," he says, "is why the law was imposed. I shall tell you.… It was imposed for the tutelage of the race from which that offspring was going to sprout according to the flesh."

It was imposed through the ministry of angels, and Moses assisted in this imposition. For Moses is the one that is called an intermediary. … For the God of all set Michael over them, as taught by the blessed Daniel. And to the great Moses he promised to send with him an angel to the people.

Since he had exalted faith and pointed out that it is more ancient than the law, an objection arose: why then was the law given, if faith was more ancient and itself conferred the blessing? Not in vain, he says, was the law given, but for the sake of transgressions, to serve as a bridle for the Jews, preventing the violation of if not all, then at least some of the commandments. It is also beautifully said: "it was added afterwards," to show that the law was not given as a primary institution, like the promises, but was given, as it were, as a supplement, on account of the many transgressions, so as to prevent at least a few.

However, the law was not given forever, but until the time of the coming of Christ, to Whom the promise pertained, that through Him the nations would be blessed. But if the law was given until the appearing of Christ, why then do you extend its significance further?

The Law, he says, was given through the mediation of Angels – either priests, or actual Angels, because indeed Angels produced those trumpet sounds, thunders, and signs. "By the hand of a mediator," that is, Christ. He shows that Christ also gave the Law, and therefore He is free to abolish it as well.

After showing by the authority of scripture and by a human custom that the Law was unable to make one just, the Apostle now raises two questions and solves them. The second of these begins at (v. 21).

With respect to the first, he does three things:

First, he raises the question;

Secondly, he solves it (v. 19): "It was set because of transgressions;"

Thirdly, he elucidates something he presupposed in the course of his solution (v. 20).

The question which might arise from the foregoing is this: If the Law was unable to justify, was the Law without purpose? This question he raises when he says, "Why then was the law?" i.e., what purpose did it serve? This is the punctuation which, as a Gloss says, Augustine favors, although earlier he approved the reading, "What then?" followed by, "The law was set up because of transgressions." In Romans (3:1), a similar question is raised: "What advantage then hath the Jew; or what is the profit of circumcision?"

Then when he says, "It was set because of transgressions," he solves the question. Here he does four things:

First, he sets down the purpose of the Law;

Secondly, the fruit of the Law (v. 19): "until the seed should come to whom he made the promise;"

Thirdly, the ministers of the Law (v. 19): "being ordained by angels;"

Fourthly, the Lord of the Law (v. 19): "in the hand of a mediator."

With respect to the first, it should be noted that the Old Law was given for a fourfold purpose, corresponding to the four consequences of sin enumerated by Bede, namely, because of wickedness, weakness, passion, and ignorance. Hence the Law was given first of all to suppress wickedness, since by forbidding sin and by punishing, it restrained men from sin. This he touches on when he says, "The law was set because of transgressions," i.e., to prevent them. On this point it is said: "The law is not made for the just man but for the unjust" (1 Tim 1:9). The reason for this can be taken from Ethics IV of the Philosopher. For men who are well disposed, are inclined to act well of themselves, so that fatherly admonitions are enough for them: hence they do not need a law; indeed, as it is said, "They are a law to themselves who show the work of the law written in their hearts" (Rom 2:14).

But men who are ill disposed need to be kept from sin by penalties. Hence with respect to such men it was necessary to set down a law which has power to constrain.

Secondly, the Law was set down in order to disclose human weakness. For men gloried in two things: First, in their knowledge; and secondly, in their power. Hence God left men without the instruction of the Law during the period of the Law of nature, during which time, as they fell into errors, their pride was convinced of its lack of knowledge, even though they still presumed on their powers. For they said, "Many are willing and able, but there is no one to lead," as a Gloss says on Exodus (24:8): "All things that the Lord hath spoken we will do. We will be obedient." And therefore the Law was given which would cause a knowledge of sin, "for by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom 3:20). But it did not give the help of grace to avoid sin, so that man, bound by the Law, might test his strength and recognize his infirmity. Finding that without grace he was unable to avoid sin, he would more ardently yearn for grace. And this cause can also be derived from these words, if they are taken to mean that the Law was set for the sake of filling up transgressions, in the sense in which the Apostle speaks when he says: "Now the law entered in that sin might abound" (Rom 5:20). This is to be taken not in a causal but in a sequential sense; for after the Law entered in, sin abounded and transgressions multiplied, because concupiscence, not yet healed by grace, lusted after that which was forbidden, with the result that sin became more grievous, being now a violation of a written law. But God permitted this in order that men, recognizing their own imperfection, might seek the grace of a mediator. Hence he says significantly, It was set, i.e., interposed, as it were, between the Law of nature and the Law of grace.

Thirdly, the Law was given in order to tame the concupiscence of a wanton people, so that, worn out by various ceremonies, they would not fall into idolatry or lewdness. Hence Peter says: "This is a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear" (Acts 15:10).

Fourthly, the Law was given as a figure of future grace in order to instruct the ignorant, according to Hebrews (10:1): "For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come."

Then he sets forth the fruit of the Law when he says, "until the seed should come," i.e., Christ, of Whom God had promised that through Him all nations would be blessed: "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John" (Mt 11:13); "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen 22:18).

The ministers of the Law are mentioned when he says, "ordained," i.e., given in good order, "by angels," i.e., the messengers of God, namely, Moses and Aaron: "They shall seek the law at his mouth: because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts" (Mal 2:7). Or: "by angels," i.e., by the ministry of angels: "You have received the law by the disposition of angels" (Acts 7:53). And it was given by angels, because it was not fitting that it be given by the Son, Who is greater: "For if the word spoken by angels became steadfast... how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? Which, having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him" (Heb 2:2). Furthermore, he says ordained, because it was given in proper sequence, namely, between the time of the Law of nature (during which men were convinced they could not help themselves) and the time of grace. For before they should receive grace, they had to be convinced by the Law.

The Lord of the Law is Christ; hence he says, "in the hand of a mediator," i.e., in the power of Christ: "In his right hand a fiery law" (Deut 33:2); "There is one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5). This mediator was represented by Moses in whose hand the Law was given: "I was the mediator, and stood between the Lord and you at that time" (Deut 5:5).

Without doubt, a mediator, that is, arbiter, is not of one but two. For when two peoples were contending against one another, always at odds and enemies because of the disparity in their doctrines, the Savior came as their Mediator, taking from each people the cause of discord so that they might be at peace. So he took from the Gentiles the plurality of gods and cult of the elements, and he took from the Jews the works of the law, that is, new moons, circumcision, the keeping of the sabbath, the distinction of foods and other things that the Gentiles abhorred. And thus those who were formerly enemies came to be at peace. If then this is the case, how could the Galatians be so dull-witted as to violate this reconciliation by conversion back to Judaism?

WHAT NEED WAS THERE FOR THE APOSTLE, WHEN REBUKING THE GALATIANS, TO INSERT THIS STATEMENT? FOR TO THE GALATIANS, WHO AFTER THE GOSPEL WERE TAKING REFUGE IN THE LAW, HE SAYS AMONG OTHER THINGS: “NOW A MEDIATOR IS NOT OF ONE, BUT GOD IS ONE” (Gal. 3:20), AS THOUGH THE GALATIANS DENIED THAT GOD IS ONE. YET IT WAS PRECISELY BY THIS LINE OF REASONING THAT THEY HAD BEEN LED INTO THE LAW: SO THAT THEY MIGHT BELIEVE IN ONE, UNIQUE GOD; AND THAT CHRIST HAD COME ONLY AS A MINISTER BY PREDESTINATION, TO DISPENSE THE GIFT OF GOD’S GRACE. — It is clear that the Galatians were therefore drawn into the Law in such a way that they did indeed profess Christ, but not as he ought to be confessed; rather, in the manner of Photinus, so that, since the Law proclaims one God, it would be contrary to the Law if Christ were called God. This is the device of the Jews, who, overcome by the great deeds of power, believed after the cross of Christ in such a way that, while professing Christ, they nevertheless kept the Law, as though all hope ought not to be placed in Christ. These are the ones whom the Apostle calls “false brethren” (Gal. 2:4; and 2 Cor. 11:26). These, therefore, after the tradition of the Apostles, corrupted the understanding of the Galatians, so that they made them Jews under the name of the Savior. Therefore the Apostle says that Christ came as mediator of the circumcision and the foreskin, as he says to the Ephesians: “making peace in one new man” (Eph. 2:15). If, then, Christ came as mediator, a mediator makes peace between two in such a way that he lays down a new rule, taking away the professions of both, and reconciles them, so that, following his decision, they lose their former discord. For when the Jew insists on circumcision and the Gentile on uncircumcision, there is discord; but when this is taken away from both, there is peace. If, therefore, things stand therefore, how is it, he says, that you Galatians, having become Jews, corrupt the mediation of Christ? Therefore he said to them: “You have been severed from Christ.” (Gal. 5:4) For, despising the right of reconciliation which he had established between them, they turned back to the former way of thinking of the Jews, thereby accusing both themselves and their reconciler. For whatever displeases is accused. And because this matter forced the Galatians to turn to the Law, so that they confessed one God without the mystery, as though it were hostile to the Law if Christ were called God, he says: “The mediator,” that is, the go-between, “is not of one, but of two, of course; but you, turning to the Law, have rejected the mediator; yet God is one.” By saying this, he shows that he proclaims Christ as God in such a way that he does not make him another God, nor confess two, but one God, as is also said in the Law. For when Christ is proclaimed as God from God, this does not result in another God; because that which is from God does not allow itself to be called another God. For whether he is God, or what is from God, he is one God. For there is in fact no difference between God and that which is from God. Yet he is “another.” He is “another” on account of the person by which he is called the Son; but he is the same on account of the unity of substance. Let it not seem blameworthy that I have said “person”; for some are accustomed to reject this. But let us follow the Apostle, who says: “For what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I have done so for your sakes, in the person of Christ” (2 Cor. 2:10).

What can the heretics say to this? for as, according to them, the expression "the Only True God" excludes the Son from being true God, so here the phrase "God is One," excludes Him from being God in any sense. But if, although the Father is called "One God," the Son is nevertheless God, it is very plain that though the Father is called "Very God," the Son is very God likewise. Now a mediator, says he, is between two parties; of whom then is Christ the Mediator? plainly of God and of men. Observe, he says, that Christ also gave the Law; what therefore it was His to give, it is His to annul.

"Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one." The mediator, he says, is the mediator of two. Of whom then is Christ the mediator? Clearly of both men and God. Do you see how he shows that he both gave the law himself, and would also be Master and to loosen it again?

"Now a mediator is not of one." He says therefore that Moses indeed mediated for the giving of the law, but he mediated for only one nation.

— [GENNADIUS] It is necessary, however, that the one who truly is to mediate should mediate toward the one God of all nations, not on behalf of one nation, but should make the mediation common for all, since the God of all nations is one. And this mediator would not be a mere man like Moses, but Christ the Son of God, both God truly at the same time, and truly man, and by kinship toward each nature uniting the two into one in himself. "For he himself is our peace, who has made both one." (Eph. 2:14) [end of the excerpt by Gennadius] —

"is not of one." For there is not one mediator, but God and men. And if he himself mediated, he says, he himself shall save.

"God is one." If then a mediator must necessarily be someone between two parties or more who are different from one another, and God is one, it is clear that he interceded between God and humans and reconciled us to him. If then Christ reconciled us and not the law, it is evident that Christ and the faith in him save, and not the law.

— In another way. [PHOTIUS] God is the one who gave both the Law and the Gospel, and who acted as mediator and reconciled to the Father. That is to say, he is the same who is Christ. For even if the things mediated are two, the mediator is one; for he must be one. [end of the excerpt by Photius] —

Because this situation had made the Galatians turn to the law, so as to confess one God without the mystery, as if it were inimical to the law for Christ to be called God, he says: "An arbiter (that is, a mediator) is not of one but of course of two. You however, having turned to the law, have rejected the arbiter. God, however, is one." By saying this, he bears witness that he is not preaching Christ in such a way as to make him another God or confess two but that there is one God, as the law itself attests.

For [Moses] mediated between God and the people. But God is the one who both gave the promise to Abraham and imposed the law, and he has shown us the destination of the promise. For it was not one God who dispensed the former and another who dispensed the latter.

So also Christ serves as a mediator between two parties, namely, between God and men. For He reconciled both, giving peace and destroying the enmity that men had with God. Since He united human nature with Himself, He gave peace, wondrously uniting with the Divine nature the flesh that was hostile to it on account of sin. Therefore, if He is the mediator and reconciler, then it is clear that He saves, and not the law.

Then when he says, "Now a mediator is not of one," he explains what he meant when he said, "in the hand of a mediator." This can be explained in three ways. In one way, that a mediator is not of one alone but of two. Hence, since He is the mediator of God and men, it was fitting that He be God and man. For were he purely man or solely God, He would not be a true mediator. Therefore, if He is true God, then since no one is his own mediator, someone might suppose that there are, besides Him, other gods of whom He was the mediator. But this he forestalls when he says that although this "mediator is not of one" only, there are not on that account other gods, "but God is one," because, although He is distinct in person from God the Father, He is not distinct in nature: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut 6:4); "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:6).

In a second way, because someone might believe that He was the mediator of the Jews alone, he says: I say that Christ is mediator; but not of one, i.e., of the Jews, but one of all, i.e., capable of reconciling everyone to God, because He is God: "For it is one God that justifieth circumcision by faith and uncircumcision through faith" (Rom 3:30); "For God indeed was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).

In a third way, namely, that He is not a mediator of only one people, namely, the Jews, but of the Gentiles as well: "For he is our peace, who hath made both one" (Eph 2:14); on the part of the Gentiles by taking away idolatry, and on the part of the Jews by delivering them from the observances of the Law. Specifically it is not the Father, not the Holy Spirit, but the Son who is mediator; nevertheless, God is one.

Since God gave the law, it is not plausible that that same law should be seen as having been given against the promises. It is certainly against the promises if it embroils us in other things, namely, that we should fulfill the works required by the law and not expect from faith what is promised, that we should obtain through faith an inheritance in God. But let us see what is his answer to this. He first denies it unequivocally: "Certainly not!" That is, it is not right that God should make the giving of the law contrary to the promises.… And next he adds the reason.

We have said that the law given by Moses teaches nothing but sins, admonishing us what sins are and how they are to be avoided. And Scripture draws no other conclusion but lays down all its precepts in the light of and with reference to sin.… It is not given so that life may be sought from it but is given so that by its written form it may both include all sins in its teaching and show that they should be avoided. Therefore righteousness is not from the law; that is, justification and salvation come not from the law but from faith, as is promised.

Is the Law then against the promises of God? God forbid. For if a Law had been given which could give life, righteousness would truly be from the Law. But Scripture has shut up all things under sin, that the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto that faith which was to be revealed.

Just as the mediator of God and men stood in the middle between the one who gave the Law and the one who received it, so the Law itself, which was given after the promise, crept in as something in the middle between the promise and its fulfillment. It must not be thought to exclude the promise on the ground that, having followed afterwards, it seems to abolish that which came before; rather, from the fact that it could not give life, nor bestow what the first promise had pledged, it is manifest that it was given for the safekeeping of the promise, not for its overthrow. For if a Law had been given which could furnish life, and deliver what the promise had pledged, then truly the promise would be thought to have been excluded through the Law.

For if the blessing is given in the seed of Abraham, but the Law brings in the curse, it must be contrary to the promises. This objection he meets, first, by a protest, in the words,

"God forbid:" And next he brings his proof;

"For if there had been a law given which could make alive. verily righteousness would have been of the Law."

His meaning is as follows; If we had our hope of life in the Law, and our salvation depended on it, the objection might be valid. But if it save you, by means of Faith, though it brings you under the curse, you suffer nothing from it, gain no harm, in that Faith comes and sets all right. Had the promise been by the Law, you had reasonably feared lest, separating from the Law, you should separate from righteousness, but if it was given in order to shut up all, that is, to convince all and expose their individual sins, far from excluding you from the promises, it now aids you in obtaining them. This is shown by the words...

— [GENNADIUS] Therefore the promises bless, but the law makes accursed; consequently the law was given against the promises of God, that is, to hinder them from blessing. [end of the excerpt by Gennadius] —

This indeed resolves the opposition, both by what follows and by the prohibition: For let it not be, he says.

— In another way. [PHOTIUS] "Then is the law against the promises of God?" On the contrary, it dissolves them. For some might say, the law has seized the entitlement of the promises, and has stood against them. But may it not be. For if it had the power to give life, one would reasonably think it to be set against the promises and to have seized their entitlement, since it is able to justify by its own power. But since it has no power to do any such thing, neither to give life nor to justify, it is clear that it was not appointed against the promises. For these promises will show their proper right, saving and justifying the one who is of faith. And see the wisdom. What another might have brought forward as an accusation against the law, that it neither gives life nor justifies, this very thing he has turned into a defense of the charge and into its praise. For this reason, he says, the law was not set against the promises, because it had no power either to save or to justify. Not only did he not act against them, but in a certain way he cooperated with them and served them. For what he did not save nor justify by other means, he urged to take refuge in faith. And by which he brought them to faith, he also conspired to bring about the fulfillment of the promises. [end of the excerpt by Photius] —

"For if a law had been given that could impart life." For on the one hand, he says, the law had the power to save, so that faith would not even be necessary. But for this reason it did not have the power to give life, so that faith might have room; except that it beforehand purified and led as a kind of guardian [παιδαγωγοῦ] and made us capable and receptive of faith. How then does the one who makes progress by the promises oppose the promises of God? It is therefore neither possible nor reasonable to say that the law was given for the removal of the blessings.

"then righteousness would indeed have been based on the law." But now, Paul says, he himself did not have strength, so that faith might have strength.

If the promises communicated blessing, and the law subjected to cursing, then obviously, if we had accepted it as having force, it would have destroyed the promises of God, which give blessing. But let it not be so. Listen further in order.

Then, he says, the law would have been stronger than faith, would have imparted blessing and justified man, if it had been able to give life and save. But now it rather kills, since it cannot free from sins. How then can the law overcome faith, which has the power to give life through baptism, and to bless and justify?

Here, the Apostle raises the other question, namely, whether the Law is injurious to grace. First, he raises the question, saying, "Was the law then against the promises of God?" As if to say: If the Law was set because of transgressions, does the Law go counter to the promises of God, namely, so that what God promised He would do through the promised seed, He would do through another? "God forbid!" As if to say: No. For earlier he had said: "The law doth not disannul to make the promise of no effect" (3:17); "The law, indeed is holy and the commandment holy" (Rom 7:12).

Secondly, when he says, "For, if there had been a law given which could give life, verily justice should have been by the law," he answers the question.

First, he shows that the Law is not contrary to the promises of God;

Secondly, that the Law is in keeping with the promises (v. 22).

He says, therefore, that although the Law was set because of transgressions, nevertheless, it is not contrary to the promise of God in being unable to remove those transgressions. For if it were to remove them, then it would obviously be against the promises of God, because justice would be obtained by means other than God promised, since it would be through the Law and not through faith; whereas it is said: "The just shall live in his faith" (Hab. 2:4); "The justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ" (Rom 3:22). Hence he says that "if there had been a law given such that it could" give life, i.e., of such power as to confer grace and eternal happiness, then verily and not seemingly, justice should have been by the law, if the Law were to effect what faith is said to effect. Thus faith would serve no end. But the Law does not give life, because "the letter of the law killeth," as is said in 2 Cor (3:6); "For the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death" (Rom 8:2).

For those who are proud it is useful to be more closely bound under sin, so that they would not presume on free will for the performance of righteousness, as though upon their own strength.

Transgression of the law was needed to break the pride of those who, glorying in their father Abraham, boasted of having a sort of natural righteousness. They caused more harm to the Gentiles the more arrogantly they flaunted the merits of their circumcision. But the Gentiles could be humiliated very easily even without transgression of this sort of law, for the grace of the gospel found that these men, who knew that they had received no root of wisdom from their parents, were actually slaves to idols.… The law was therefore given not to take away sin but to include all under sin. For the law showed that to be sin which the Jews in their blindness deemed to be righteousness, so that by this humiliation they might know that their salvation was not in their own hands but in the hand of a mediator.… This very humility was fitted to the recognition of Christ, who is the paradigm of humility.

And they killed the prophets, and their followers too, and they received false prophets, thus revealing their malice. And so the Scripture shut up all things under sin, the first through ignorance, the second through weakness, and the third through malice, so that when Christ came, He could have mercy on them all.

Law without grace, then, can expose disease but cannot heal. It can reveal the wounds but does not administer the remedy. But so that the law's precepts may be fulfilled, grace provides assistance within.

Nor indeed should it be supposed that Scripture is the author of sin because it is said to have shut up all things under sin, since the commandment which is enjoined by right rather shows and convicts sin than is the cause of sin. So too a judge is not the author of a crime by binding wicked men: rather he shuts them up and, by the authority of his sentence, pronounces them guilty, so that afterwards, if he so wills, the sovereign may by his indulgence absolve those who are liable to punishment.

But now, having been laid down because of transgressions, as we said above, it rather convicts as sinners those to whom, after the promise, it was given as a custody and, so to speak, as a prison, so that, since through the freedom of their will they had been unwilling to await the promise in innocence, they might be held fast by the bonds of the Law and brought into the slavery of the commandments, and so be kept against the coming of the faith that was to be in Christ, which would bring the promise to its fulfillment.

As the Jews were not even conscious of their own sins, and in consequence did not even desire remission; the Law was given to probe their wounds, that they might long for a physician. And the word "shut up" means "convinced" and conviction held them in fear. You see then it is not only not against, but was given for the promises. Had it arrogated to itself the work and the authority, the objection would stand; but if its drift is something else, and it acted for that, how is it against the promises of God? Had the Law not been given, all would have been wrecked upon wickedness, and there would have been no Jews to listen to Christ; but now being given, it has effected two things; it has schooled its followers in a certain degree of virtue, and has pressed on them the knowledge of their own sins. And this especially made them more zealous to seek the Son, for those who disbelieved, disbelieved from having no sense of their own sins, as Paul shows; "For being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God." (Rom. x: 3)

"but Scripture has limited," that is, he allowed it to be confined and, as it were, to squeeze everyone into sin, God, through his various proper reasons and administrations.

But Scripture says that faith in Christ would be given a place. For even formerly the law, by being transgressed, taught men that they are sinners. But having taught, it did not free them from sin, so that from now men might gladly approach by faith to be delivered from their sins by the one who wills to save. And all this, he says, happened so that the promises made to Abraham, that the nations would be blessed, might be given to those who accept them through faith in Christ.

— [PHOTIUS] "but Scripture has limited everything." The Law, he says, as it were contained and shut up all into sin, proved them to be sinners. How? For he said, "For it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things written in the book of the law to do them;" and this is impossible. For not only did not all men do everything, but not even some of them did all, but at most the more visible of them did the greater part. Therefore whoever did not do everything was under a curse and sin. So they all were shut up and found to be in sin. Therefore, they are able to obtain the promise only through faith. For from the Law, being rather exposed as into sin, they all were shown. [end of the excerpt by Photius] —

— [THEODORET] The Divine Scripture reproved both those before the law and those under the law. It reproved some for transgressing the law of nature, and others for transgressing the Mosaic law. To both sets, however, the promised salvation through faith was offered as a solution. For again it placed the word "convicted" instead of "reproved." [end of the excerpt by Theodoret] —

Whose grace, if not of that God from whom also came the law? Unless it be, forsooth, that the Creator intercalated His law for the mere purpose of producing some employment for the grace of a rival god, an enemy to Himself (I had almost said, a god unknown to Him), "that as sin had" in His own dispensation "reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto (eternal) life by Jesus Christ," His own antagonist! For this (I suppose it was, that) the law of the Creator had "concluded all under sin," and had brought in "all the world as guilty (before God)," and had "stopped every mouth," so that none could glory through it, in order that grace might be maintained to the glory of the Christ, not of the Creator, but of Marcion! I may here anticipate a remark about the substance of Christ, in the prospect of a question which will now turn up.

The Law, he says, did not have the power to free from sins, but contributed to "shutting up" people under sin, that is, to show them as sinners and compel them to desire the remission of sins and turn to Christ, who is able to grant it. And since the Jews, not feeling the full weight of their sins, did not desire their forgiveness either, God gave the Law, which shuts them in, that is, presses and oppresses them with reproofs, declares them sinners, and urges them to seek a way to obtain forgiveness. And this way is faith in Christ, through which we receive blessing and justification.

Then when he says, "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin," he shows that the Law is not only not opposed to grace but serves it.

First, he shows that the Law serves God's promises;

Secondly, how this service was made manifest in the case of the Jews (v. 23);

Thirdly, how the Gentiles even without the Law obtained the promises of God (v. 26).

With respect to the first it should be noted that in general the Law serves the promises of God in two ways. First, because it exposes sin: "For by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom 3:20). Secondly, because it reveals human infirmity, in the sense that man cannot avoid sin without grace which was not given by the Law. And just as these two things, namely, the knowledge of a disease and the infirmity of the patient is a great inducement to seek medical treatment, so the knowledge of sin and of one's impotency lead us to seek Christ. Thus, therefore, is the Law the servant of grace, inasmuch as it affords a knowledge of sin and actual experience of one's impotency. Hence he says, "the scripture," i.e., the written Law, "hath concluded," i.e., held the Jews enclosed, "under sin," i.e., showed them the sins they committed: "For I had not known concupiscence, if the Law did not say: Thou shalt not covet" (Rom 7:7). Again, "hath concluded," because with the coming of the Law they took occasion to sin: "For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that He may have mercy on all" (Rom 11:32). And all this in order that they would search for grace. Hence he says, "so that the promise," i.e., the promised grace, "might be given" not only to the Jews, but to all them that believe, because that grace was able to free from sin; and this grace is "by the faith of Jesus Christ."

No person should be unwise enough to say here, "Why then was it no profit to the Jews that they were put in the hand of a Mediator through angels dispensing the law?" It was profitable to them beyond what can be expressed. For what churches of the Gentiles sold their possessions and put the price of them at the apostles' feet, which so many thousands of people so quickly did? … And when he praises the church of the Thessalonians before all other churches, he says that they have become like the churches of the Jews, because they had suffered many things from their people on account of their faith, as the others had from the Jews. … And the consciousness of a greater sickness, that they were found to be transgressors of the law itself, worked not to the ruin but to the good of those who believed, causing them to desire more fervently a doctor and to love him with more ardor.

For that faith is the one universal salvation of humanity, and that there is the same equality before the righteous and loving God, and the same fellowship between Him and all, the apostle most clearly showed, speaking to the following effect: "Before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed, so that the law became our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith; but after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Do you not hear that we are no longer under that law which was accompanied with fear, but under the Word, the master of free choice?

The law was not empty or against the promises. How does he say it was necessary? Because it looked forward to the faith that was to be, and the promise came through faith. "First," he says, "before the law came we were under a tutor; that is, under the law as a sort of custodian and guardian we lived a life that was pure through the avoidance of and repentance for sins, so that when Christ came we, being as it were confined for the purpose of that faith which was to come, should expect his coming; and being prepared through the law, should have faith in him; and, as we avoided sin and did the works of the law, should easily be able to have what was promised from his advent, namely, faith in Christ."

Here he clearly puts forward what I have stated: for the expressions "we were kept" and "shut up," signify nothing else than the security given by the commandments of the Law; which like a fortress fenced them round with fear and a life conformable to itself, and so preserved them unto Faith.

"before faith came." For indeed it did not afford the kind of security that would prevent most people from committing sins.

"restrained." Being guarded, he says, toward the faith that was to come. How? For the law, which was exposing our sins but was not able to rescue, did nothing else than urge those who were more eager to run toward the faith that would be revealed for the deliverance from sins.

— [OECUMENIUS] "until the faith that was to come would be revealed." He declared that the faith in Christ had been predestined from above, but has now been revealed to men, when the Incarnation also took place. [end of the excerpt by Oecumenius] —

The Law, he says, provided great safety to those who were under its protection, because it restrained them from many sins and was like a wall, surrounding people and leading them to faith. In what way? By exposing sins, but not having the power to free from them, it necessarily pointed to the justifying faith, which existed even in ancient times, but in a hidden manner, and was openly revealed later, when God also appeared in the flesh.

Then when he says, "But, before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up," he gives experimental evidence of this service, as manifested in the case of the Jews.

First, he states how the Jews were benefited;

Secondly, he concludes a corollary (v. 24).

He says therefore: If the scripture, i.e., the written Law, kept all things shut up under sin, what benefits did the Jews derive from the Law before faith came by grace? He answers and says: "We" Jews, before the coming of faith, "were kept under the law," inasmuch as it made us avoid idolatry and many other evils; we were shut up, I say, not as free men, but as servants under fear; and this "under the law," i.e., under the burden and domination of the Law: "The law hath dominion over a man as long as it liveth" (Rom 7:1). And we were kept shut up, i.e., protected, in order that we not be cut off from life, but be made ready "unto that faith which was to be revealed": "My salvation is near to come and my justice to be revealed" (Is 56:1). And he says, "to be revealed," because, since faith surpasses all human ingenuity, it cannot be acquired by one's own skill, but by revelation and by the gift of God: "The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh together shall see that the mouth of the Lord hath spoken" (Is 40:5). Or, "unto that faith," which was to be revealed in the time of grace, but which in olden times was hidden under many signs. Hence in the time of Christ the veil of the temple was rent (Mt 27:51).

Here is the paradox of Christianity. As practical imperatives for here and now the two great commandments have to be translated "Behave as if you loved God and man." For no man can love because he is told to. Yet obedience on this practical level is not really obedience at all. And if a man really loved God and man, once again this would hardly be obedience; for if he did, he would be unable to help it. Thus the command really says to us, "Ye must be born again." Till then, we have duty, morality, the Law. A schoolmaster, as St. Paul says, to bring us to Christ. We must expect no more of it than of a schoolmaster; we must allow it no less. I must say my prayers today whether I feel devout or not; but that is only as I must learn my grammar if I am ever to read the poets.

But the school-days, please God, are numbered. There is no morality in Heaven. The angels never knew (from within) the meaning of the word _ought_, and the blessed dead have long since gladly forgotten it... In this world our most momentous actions are impeded. We can picture unimpeded, and therefore delighted, action only by the analogy of our present play and leisure...

There is, or might be, martyrdom. We are not called upon to like it. Our Master didn't. But the principle holds, that duty is always conditioned by evil. Martyrdom, by the evil in the persecutor; other duties, by lack of love in myself or by the general diffused evil of the world. In the perfect and eternal world the Law will vanish. But the results of having lived faithfully under it will not.

Some modern theologians have, quite rightly, protested against an excessively moralistic interpretation of Christianity. The Holiness of God is something more and other than moral perfection: His claim upon us is something more and other than the claim of moral duty. I do not deny it: but this conception, like that of corporate guilt, is very easily used as an evasion of the real issue. God may be more than moral goodness: He is not less. The road to the promised land runs past Sinai. The moral law may exist to be transcended: but there is no transcending it for those who have not first admitted its claims upon them, and then tried with all their strength to meet that claim, and fairly and squarely faced the fact of their failure.

For the word which, in matters of doctrine, explains and reveals, is that whose province it is to teach. But our Educator. And when, having senselessly filled themselves, they senselessly played; on that account the law was given them, and terror ensued for the prevention of transgressions and for the promotion of right actions, securing attention, and so winning to obedience to the true Instructor, being one and the same Word, and reducing to conformity with the urgent demands of the law. For Paul says that it was given to be a "schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.". Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring "the Hellenic mind "as the law, the Hebrews, "to Christ.". As far as a sort of training with fear and preparatory discipline goes, leading as it did to the culmination of legislation and to grace.

Yet one nation after another made a gradual advance to a fixed and authoritative code of laws, not imposed from the beginning like that of Moses of old, who educated his nation in the knowledge of letters and of fixed law, being the first who showed both by word and deed the firm and permanent nature of the law and of letters, until, after a long course of time, he conducted the nations, guided and guarded by the firm nature of the law, to the predicted Lord Christ and his teaching.

But as many as feared God, and were anxious about His law, these ran to Christ, and were all saved. For He said to His disciples: "Go ye to the sheep of the house of Israel, which have perished." And many more Samaritans, it is said, when the Lord had tarried among them, two days, "believed because of His words, and said to the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying, for we ourselves have heard [Him], and know that this man is truly the Saviour of the world." And Paul likewise declares, "And so all Israel shall be saved;" but he has also said, that the law was our pedagogue [to bring us] to Christ Jesus. Let them not therefore ascribe to the law the unbelief of certain [among them]. For the law never hindered them from believing in the Son of God; nay, but it even exhorted them so to do, saying that men can be saved in no other way from the old wound of the serpent than by believing in Him who, in the likeness of sinful flesh, is lifted up from the earth upon the tree of martyrdom, and draws all things to Himself, and vivifies the dead.

Therefore the Law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But when faith came, we are no longer under a pedagogue. For you are all sons of God through faith, which is in Christ Jesus.

A pedagogue is assigned to little children, so that a wanton age may be reined in and hearts prone to vices may be held in check, while tender infancy is trained in studies and, restrained by fear of punishment, is prepared for the greater disciplines of philosophy and of governing the commonwealth. Yet the pedagogue is not the master and father, nor does the one who is being trained expect the inheritance and the knowledge of the pedagogue; rather, the pedagogue guards another man's son, and is to withdraw from him once he has arrived at the lawful time for taking up the inheritance. Indeed, the very name of pedagogue signifies this, and it is compounded from the fact that he leads (agat) boys, that is, conducts them.

And so the law of Moses too was set over a wanton people after the likeness of a rather severe pedagogue, to guard them and to prepare them for the faith to come; and after this came, and we believed in Christ, we are no longer under a pedagogue, the guardian and the trustee depart from us, and, entering upon the lawful time of our age, we are called true sons of God, to whom not the Law, now abolished, but mother Faith, which is in Christ Jesus, begets us.

Now the Tutor is not opposed to the Preceptor, but cooperates with him, ridding the youth from all vice, and having all leisure to fit him for receiving instructions from his Preceptor. But when the youth's habits are formed, then the Tutor leaves him, as Paul says.

"So the law became our guardian." It prepares the way, of course, for the faith that is in Christ, by pointing out to us our sins and making us ready to run to the revealed faith and to forgiveness. Therefore the law is not contrary to faith. For the guardian is not opposed to the teacher, but desires the same thing as he and beforehand teaches certain disciplines.

"until Christ." For just as the guardian instructs the children beforehand, so that when they go to teachers they may be more ready to learn and to receive from those who teach them, so too the law, by showing us beforehand that we are sinners, made nothing else than readier to run to Christ when He appeared, who was the longed-for deliverance from the sins that had become evident to us through the law. Therefore the example of the guardian has been most aptly spoken of him.

"by faith." For he was proving the sins, and being unable to justify, he was referring us to Christ.

Now it was necessary that the law be given, as it fulfilled our need of a custodian. And it freed us from our previous impiety, taught us knowledge of God and then brought us to Christ the Lord as though to some wise teacher, so that we might be instructed by him in perfect learning and acquire the righteousness that is through faith.

As a tutor protects a youth from everything harmful and helps him receive the teacher's instructions with all attentiveness and diligence, so too the law cultivated proper virtue in its followers and led them to the teacher – Christ, by its reproofs and indications of sins arousing in them the desire to seek the One who grants forgiveness and justifies by faith. Therefore, let those who slander the law be ashamed – for neither does the tutor stand in opposition to the teacher, nor the law to the New Testament.

Then when he says, "the law was our pedagogue in Christ," he draws a corollary:

First, he manifests the Law's functions;

Secondly, when its function ceased (v. 25).

The function of the Law was that of a pedagogue; hence he says, "the law was our pedagogue in Christ." For as long as the heir cannot obtain the benefits of his inheritance, either because he is too young or because of some other shortcoming, he is sustained, and guarded by a tutor called a pedagogue, from paedos (boy) and goge (a guiding). For under the Law the just were restrained from evil, as helpless boys are, through fear of punishment; and they were led to progress in goodness by the love and promise of temporal goods. Further, the Jews were promised that through a seed that was to come the blessing of an inheritance would be obtained, but the time for obtaining that inheritance had not yet come. Consequently, it was necessary that until the seed should come, they be kept safe and not do unlawful things. And this was effected by the Law. And therefore he says, "Wherefore the law was our pedagogue." As if to say: By being kept shut up under the Law, "the law was our pedagogue," i.e., it guided and preserved us, "in Christ," i.e., in the way of Christ. And this was done in order "that we might be justified by the faith" of Christ: "Israel was a child and I loved him" (Hos 11:1); "Thou hast chastised me and I was instructed" (Jer 31:18); "For we account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law" (Rom 3:28).

"That faith has come" means that Christ himself has come—for then faith arose. There began to be a time for faith to fully come and for us to believe in him in whom is all salvation, in contrast to the Jews, who did not believe [in him].

But if anyone, after the time of his age has been completed, when he is now called heir and free and son, should wish to be under a pedagogue, let him know that he cannot live by the laws of a little child. For where now can that be fulfilled: "Three times in the year all your males shall appear in the sight of the Lord your God" (Exod. 23:17), now that Jerusalem has been overthrown and the temple scattered even to ashes? Where are the peace offerings and the victims for sin? Where is the eternal fire of the burnt offerings, after the likeness of the heavenly stars, now that the altar has been utterly destroyed? And what punishment will be able to be decreed for the guilty, when Scripture says: "You shall take away the evil from the midst of you" (Deut. 13:5), while the Jews are in servitude and the Romans reign? And so it will come about that they live neither under a father nor under a pedagogue: since the Law cannot be fulfilled after faith has succeeded it, and faith, while the Law as pedagogue is sought after, is not held.

The Law then, as it was our tutor, and we were kept shut up under it, is not the adversary but the fellow-worker of grace; but if when grace is come, it continues to hold us down, it becomes an adversary; for if it confines those who ought to go forward to grace, then it is the destruction of our salvation. If a candle which gave light by night, kept us, when it became day, from the sun, it would not only not benefit, it would injure us; and so doth the Law, if it stands between us and greater benefits. Those then are the greatest traducers of the Law, who still keep it, just as the tutor makes a youth ridiculous, by retaining him with himself, when time calls for his departure. Hence Paul says, "But after faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor." We are then no longer under a tutor, "for ye are all sons of God." Wonderful! see how mighty is the power of Faith, and how he unfolds as he proceeds! Before, he showed that it made them sons of the Patriarch, "Know therefore," says he, "that they which be of faith, the same are sons of Abraham;" now he proves that they are sons of God also, "For ye are all," says he, "sons of God through faith, which is in Christ Jesus;" by Faith, not by the Law. Then, when he has said this great and wonderful thing, he names also the mode of their adoption...

"But when faith came." Therefore, then, the perfection and the adoption as sons being given.

"we were no longer under a guardian." For being children, it was necessary to act under a guardian, although not having become fully grown. "Proof of perfection, to be made sons to God."

With the coming of faith, which makes one a "perfect man," we, he says, can no longer be under the guidance of a tutor, as having become perfect through it and having outgrown childhood. Therefore it would be strange for those who have become men to submit to the guidance of the law, just as it would be to use a lamp when day has come and the sun is shining.

And although the Law was our pedagogue, it did not bring us the full inheritance, because as is said in Hebrews (7:19): "The law brought nothing to perfection." But the Law's function ended after faith came. Hence he says, "But, after the faith is come," namely, of Christ, "we are no longer under a pedagogue," i.e., under constraint, which is not necessary for those who are free: "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man I put away the things of a child" (1 Cor 13:11); "If then any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away" (2 Cor 5:17).

The metaphor of inheritance refers to receiving eternal life. But how does this come about? By faith in Jesus Christ, when we believe in him, that he is the Son of God and that he himself saves us and that he has accomplished every mystery on our behalf. All these things are reported in the gospel. But what should be noticed here is that, while Paul is stating this fact, he addresses it to their persons, offering incentives to persuade them more readily. "You all," he says, "are sons of God." Before, he had said, "We are under a custodian." Now as it were he names them anew, saying "You are sons of God"—but sons from faith in Christ Jesus.

— [CHRYSOSTOM] "through faith in Christ Jesus." Through the faith in Christ Jesus. For such is the construction. See also earlier, when he says "sons of Abraham," now he calls them "sons of God."

What I say, then, is this, that that God is the object of faith who prefigured the grace of faith. But when he also adds, ".For ye are all the children of faith," it becomes dear that what the heretic's industry erased was the mention of Abraham's name; for by faith the apostle declares us to be "children of Abraham," and after mentioning him he expressly called us "children of faith" also.

He has illustrated the perfection of believers. For what is more perfect than to be called sons of God?

Since through faith we have become perfect men, it is clear from this that we have also become sons of God through faith in Christ. Such is the train of thought. Of course, one who has been deemed worthy to be a son of God is not imperfect and not an infant. Notice, above he said that faith makes one sons of Abraham, but now — sons of God. So much can it do.

Here the Apostle shows that the Gentiles obtained the fruit of grace without serving the Law, whereas the Jews obtained it by keeping and serving the Law. Concerning this he does three things:

First, he states his proposition;

Secondly, he elucidates it (v. 27);

Thirdly, from this he proceeds to his argument (v. 29).

He says therefore: Verily, we are not under the Law, i.e., under a pedagogue, or under restraint, because we are the sons of God. In like manner, you, too, are neither under the Law nor under a pedagogue; for you have attained to grace. Hence "you are all the children of God by faith" and not through the Law: "For you have not received the spirit of bondage" (i.e., of fear which was given in the Old Law), "but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons," namely, of charity and love which is given in the New Law through faith (Rom 8:15); "He gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name" (Jn 1:12). If, then, you are the sons of God by faith, why do you wish to become slaves by the observances of the Law? For faith alone makes man the adopted son of God. Indeed, no one is an adopted son unless he is united to and cleaves to the natural son: "For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Rom 8:29). For faith makes us sons in Jesus Christ: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts" (Eph 3:17). And this "in Christ Jesus," i.e., you are sons of God through Jesus Christ.

We are bidden to "put on Christ", to become like God. That is, whether we like it or not, God intends to give us what we need, not what we now think we want. Once more, we are embarrassed by the intolerable compliment, by too much love, not too little.

Why? What is the good of pretending to be what you are not? Well, even on the human level, you know, there are two kinds of pretending. There is a bad kind, where the pretence is there instead of the real thing; as when a man pretends he is going to help you instead of really helping you. But there is also a good kind, where the pretence leads up to the real thing. When you are not feeling particularly friendly but know you ought to be, the best thing you can do, very often, is to put on a friendly manner and behave as if you were a nicer person than you actually are. And in a few minutes, as we have all noticed, you will be really feeling friendlier than you were. Very often the only way to get a quality in reality is to start behaving as if you had it already. That is why children's games are so important. They are always pretending to be grown-ups—playing soldiers, playing shop. But all the time, they are hardening their muscles and sharpening their wits so that the pretence of being grown-up helps them to grow up in earnest.

For inasmuch as the Apostle Paul says again, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? " -even although love urged us less to bring help to the brethren, yet in this place we must have considered that it was the temples of God which were taken captive, and that we ought not by long inactivity and neglect of their suffering to allow the temples of God to be long captive, but to strive with what powers we can, and to act quickly by our obedience, to deserve well of Christ our Judge and Lord and God. For as the Apostle Paul says, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ," Christ is to be contemplated in our captive brethren, and He is to be redeemed from the peril of captivity who redeemed us from the peril of death; so that He who took us out of the jaws of the devil, who abides and dwells in us, may now Himself be rescued and redeemed from the hands of barbarians by a sum of money-who redeemed us by His cross and blood-who suffers these things to happen for this reason, that our faith may be tried, whether each one of us will do for another what he would wish to be done for himself, if he himself were held captive among barbarians.

Name avail in the imposition of hands, which, they contend, availed in the sanctification of baptism? For if any one born out of the Church can become God's temple, why cannot the Holy Spirit also be poured out upon the temple? For he who has been sanctified, his sins being put away in baptism, and has been spiritually reformed into a new man, has become fitted for receiving the Holy Spirit; since the apostle says, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.".

Moreover, what is the meaning of that which Stephen would assert, that the presence and holiness of Christ is with those who are baptized among heretics? For if the apostle does not speak falsely when he says, "As many of you as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ,"20 certainly he who has been baptized among them into Christ, has put on Christ. But if he has put on Christ, he might also receive the Holy Ghost, who was sent by Christ, and hands are vainly laid upon him who comes to us for the reception of the Spirit; unless, perhaps, he has not put on the Spirit from Christ, so that Christ indeed may be with heretics, but the Holy Spirit not be with them.

For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek. There is neither slave nor free. There is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

He shows how we are born sons of God through the faith which is in Christ Jesus, saying: For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ. That Christ is a garment, moreover, is proved not only from the present passage but also from another, where the same Paul exhorts: "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 13:14). If, therefore, those who have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ, it is plain that those who have not put on Christ were not baptized in Christ. For it was to those who were thought to be believers and to have obtained the baptism of Christ that it was said: "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ". If anyone receives only the bodily washing of water, the one that is seen with the eyes of the flesh, he has not put on the Lord Jesus Christ. For Simon too, the one in the Acts of the Apostles, had received the washing of water; but because he did not have the Holy Spirit, he had not put on Christ (Acts 8). And heretics or hypocrites, and those who live sordidly, seem indeed to receive baptism, but I do not know whether they have the garment of Christ. Let us therefore take care lest perhaps someone be found among us too who, from the fact that he does not have the garment of Christ, is shown not to have been baptized in Christ.

Why does he not say, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have been born of God?" for this was what directly went to prove that they were sons;-because he states it in a much more awful point of view; If Christ be the Son of God, and thou hast put on Him, thou who hast the Son within thee, and art fashioned after His pattern, hast been brought into one kindred and nature with Him.

Since he called us children of God in a splendid way, he also speaks of the manner in which we became so. But it is fitting to say regarding the preceding sense, "All who were baptized into Christ have become children of God"; for this is the consequence. Yet now he has said the same thing in another way, more appropriately expressing it. For if we have put on the Son of God, and as it were have clothed ourselves with his image, it is clear that we are also sharers in his sonship. Even if he possesses it by nature, we have it by adoption.

Now since Emmanuel is God-with-us, and God-with-us is Christ, who is in us (for "as many of you as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ" ), Christ is as properly implied in the meaning of the name, which is God-with-us, as He is in the pronunciation of the name, which is Emmanuel.

When, however, the prescript is laid down that "without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless one be born of water, he hath not life" ), there arise immediately scrupulous, nay rather audacious, doubts on the part of some, "how, in accordance with that prescript, salvation is attainable by the apostles, whom-Paul excepted-we do not find baptized in the Lord? Nay, since Paul is the only one of them who has put on the garment of Christ's baptism, either the peril of all the others who lack the water of Christ is prejudged, that the prescript may be maintained, or else the prescript is rescinded if salvation has been ordained even for the unbaptized.

Us, moreover, Jesus, the Father's Highest and Great Priest, clothing us from His own store -inasmuch as they "who are baptized in Christ have put on Christ"-has made "priests to God His Father," according to John.

On the ground of continence the priests likewise of the famous Egyptian bull will judge the "infirmity" of Christians. Blush, O flesh, who hast "put on" Christ! Suffice it thee once for all to marry, whereto "from the beginning" thou wast created, whereto by "the end" thou art being recalled! Return at least to the former Adam, if to the last thou canst not! Once for all did he taste of the tree; once for all felt concupiscence; once for all veiled his shame; once for all blushed in the presence of God; once for all concealed his guilty hue; once for all was exiled from the paradise of holiness; once for all thenceforward married.

And thus if, from the moment when it changed its condition, and "having been baptized into Christ put on Christ," and was "redeemed with a great price"-"the blood," to wit, "of the Lord and Lamb" -you take hold of any one precedent (be it precept, or law, or sentence,) of indulgence granted, or to be granted, to adultery and fornication,-you have likewise at our hands a definition of the time from which the age of the question dates.

Defining in what way we are sons of God, he says: through baptism. But he did not say: you who were baptized became children of God, as the sequence would seem to require, — but far more expressively: you have put on Christ. And if we have put on Christ, the Son of God, and have been made like unto Him, it means we have been brought into one kinship, into one image, having become by grace what He is by nature.

Then when he says, "For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ," he expounds his proposition. Concerning this he does three things:

First, he proposes to explain the proposition;

Secondly, the elucidation of the explanation (v. 28);

Thirdly, he assigns the reason behind the explanation (v. 28): "For you are all one in Christ Jesus."

With respect to the first, he shows how we are sons of God in Christ Jesus. And he says: "For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ." Now this can be explained in four ways. In one way, so that "as many of you as have been baptized in Christ" means that it was by Christ's appointment that you have been instructed for baptism: "Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mk 16:16). In another way, "as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ," i.e., through a likeness and a configuration of the death of Christ: "We who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death" (Rom 6:3). Or: in Christ Jesus, i.e., in the faith of Christ. For baptism comes about only through faith, without which we derive no effect from baptism: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mk 16:16). Or: "in Christ Jesus," i.e., through His power and operation: "He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, he it is that baptizeth" (Jn 1:33). Therefore, as many "of you as have been baptized" in any of those four ways "have put on Christ."

Here it should be noted that when someone puts on clothing he is protected and covered by it and his appearance is that of the color of the clothing instead of his own. In the same way, everyone who puts on Christ is protected and covered by Christ Jesus against attack and against the heat; furthermore in such a one nothing appears except what pertains to Christ: "Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 13:14). Again, just as burning wood takes on fire and shares in fire's activity, so he who receives the virtues of Christ has put on Christ: "Stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high" (Lk 24:49). This applies to those who are inwardly clothed with the virtue of Christ: "Put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth" (Eph 4:24). And note that some put on Christ outwardly by good works and inwardly by a renewal of the spirit; and with respect to both they are configured to His holiness, as is mentioned in a Gloss.

Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains embedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected.… For we observe in the unity of faith that there are no such distinctions. Yet within the orders of this life they persist. So we walk this path in a way that the name and doctrine of God will not be blasphemed. It is not out of fear or anger that we wish to avoid offense to others but also on account of conscience, so that we may do these things not in mere profession, as if for the eyes of men, but with a pure love toward God.

Lady Nunburnholme has claimed that the equality of men and women is a Christian principle. I do not remember the text in scripture nor the Fathers, nor Hooker, nor the Prayer Book which asserts it; but that is not here my point. The point is that unless 'equal' means 'interchangeable', equality makes nothing for the priesthood of women. And the kind of equality which implies that the equals are interchangeable (like counters or identical machines) is, among humans, a legal fiction. It may be a useful legal fiction. But in church we turn our back on fictions. One of the ends for which sex was created was to symbolize to us the hidden things of God. One of the functions of human marriage is to express the nature of the union between Christ and the Church. We have no authority to take the living and semitive figures which God has painted on the canvas of our nature and shift them about as if they were mere geometrical figures.

Then he subjoined the utterance, clear of all partiality: "For ye are all the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." There are not, then, in the same Word some "illuminated (gnostics); and some animal (or natural) men; "but all who have abandoned the desires of the flesh are equal and spiritual before the Lord.

But in one sense there is a significance in the old slavery. It stands for one fundamental fact about all antiquity before Christ; something to be assumed from first to last. It is the insignificance of the individual before the State. It was as true of the most democratic City State in Hellas as of any despotism in Babylon. It is one of the signs of this spirit that a whole class of individuals could be insignificant or even invisible. It must be normal because it was needed for what would now be called 'social service.' Somebody said, 'The Man is nothing and the Work is all,' meaning it for a breezy Carlylean commonplace. It was the sinister motto of the heathen Servile State. In that sense there is truth in the traditional vision of vast pillars and pyramids going up under those everlasting skies for ever, by the labour of numberless and nameless men, toiling like ants and dying like flies, wiped out by the work of their own hands.

For (the Naassene) says, there is the hermaphrodite man. According to this account of theirs, the intercourse of woman with man is demonstrated, in conformity with such teaching, to be an exceedingly wicked and filthy (practice). For, says (the Naassene), Attis has been emasculated, that is, he has passed over from the earthly parts of the nether world to the everlasting substance above, where, he says, there is neither female or male, but a new creature, a new man, which is hermaphrodite.

Masters, be gentle towards your servants, as holy Job has taught you; for there is one nature, and one family of mankind. For "in Christ there is neither bond nor free."

But when someone has once put on Christ and, cast into the flame, has glowed white with the ardor of the Holy Spirit, one cannot tell whether he is gold or silver. So long as the heat holds the mass in this way, there is a single fiery color, and every difference of race, condition and bodies is taken away by a garment of this kind. For there is neither Jew nor Greek. By "Greek" we ought to understand Gentile, because Ἕλλην signifies both a Greek and a heathen. Nor is the Jew better for being circumcised, nor the Gentile worse for being uncircumcised; rather, it is according to the quality of their faith that either the Jew or the Greek is better or worse. Slave also and free are separated not by condition but by faith, since a slave can be better than a free man, and a free man can surpass a slave in the quality of his faith. Male and female likewise are separated by the strength and weakness of their bodies. But faith is reckoned according to the devotion of the mind, and it often happens both that a woman becomes the cause of salvation for a man and that a man goes before a woman in religion. Since, then, this is how the matter stands, and every difference of race, condition and bodies is taken away by the baptism of Christ and by his garment, we are all one in Christ Jesus: so that, as the Father and the Son are one in each other, so we too may be one in them.

See what an insatiable soul! for having said, "We are all made children of God through Faith," he does not stop there, but tries to find something more exact, which may serve to convey a still closer oneness with Christ. Having said, "ye have put on Christ," even this does not suffice Him, but by way of penetrating more deeply into this union, he comments on it thus: "Ye are all One in Christ Jesus," that is, ye have all one form and one mould, even Christ's. What can be more awful than these words! He that was a Greek, or Jew, or bondman yesterday, carries about with him the form, not of an Angel or Archangel, but of the Lord of all, yea displays in his own person the Christ.

"for you are all one in Christ Jesus." To be clothed with the one form and one likeness of Christ, and to have him as one head, and to bring all together into one body. He says, "in Christ Jesus." For through him we have being, through his cross, and his death, and his grace.

With what consistency do we mount that (future) judgment-seat to pronounce sentence against those whose gifts we (now) seek after? For you too, (women as you are, ) have the self-same angelic nature promised as your reward, the self-same sex as men: the self-same advancement to the dignity of judging, does (the Lord) promise you.

Each of the baptized, he says, has cast off his natural distinctions; all have received one type and one image, not of an Angel, but of the Lord Himself, manifesting Christ in themselves. So that we are all one in Christ Jesus, precisely insofar as we have one imprinted image of Christ, or insofar as we are one body, having one head, Christ.

He elucidates this teaching when he says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female." As if to say: Truly have I said, that "as many of you as have been baptized in Christ Jesus have put on Christ," because there is nothing in man that would exclude anyone from the sacrament of the faith of Christ and of baptism. And he mentions three differences among men to show that no one is excluded from faith in Christ by any of them: the first difference concerns one's rite. Hence he says: "There is neither Jew nor Greek." As if to say: Since you have been baptized in Christ, the rite from which you came to Christ, whether it was the Jewish or the Greek, is no ground for saying that anyone occupies a less honorable place in the faith: "Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. For there is one God that justifieth circumcision by faith and uncircumcision through faith" (Rom 3:29). Again: "There is no distinction of the Jew and Greek; for the same is Lord over all" (Rom 10:12).

But this seems to militate against what is said in Romans (3:1): "What advantage then hath the Jew? Much every way." I answer that Jews and Greeks can be considered in two ways. First, according to the state in which they were before faith. In this way, the Jew was greater because of the benefits he derived from the Law. In another way, according to the state of grace; and in this way, the Jew is not greater. And this is the sense in which it is taken here.

The second difference is with respect to estate, when he says: "there is neither bond nor free," i.e., neither slavery nor freedom, neither high estate nor low makes a difference so far as receiving the effect of baptism is concerned: "The small and great are there, and the servant is free from his master" (Job 3:19); "There is no respect of persons with God" (Rom 2:11).

The third difference concerns the condition of the nature: "there is neither male nor female," for sex makes no difference as far as sharing in the effect of baptism is concerned.

The underlying reason for this explanation is set forth when he says, "For you are all one in Christ Jesus." As if to say: Truly, none of these things makes a difference in Christ, because all of you, i.e., believers, are one in Christ Jesus, because through baptism you have all been made members of Christ and you form one body, even though you are distinct individuals: "So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and everyone members one of another" (Rom 12:5); "One body, one Spirit, as you are called in one hope of your calling" (Eph 4:4). Now where there is unity, difference has no place. Indeed it was for this unity that Christ prayed: "That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee" (Jn 17:21).

But if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise.

Since the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed, which is Christ Jesus, it follows that those who are sons of Christ, that is, his seed, are also called the seed of Abraham, whose seed they are from his seed. But whenever our Lord Jesus is named the seed of Abraham, it is to be understood bodily, in that he is begotten of his stock. Whenever, however, it is we who are so named, we who, having received the Savior's word, have believed in him and have taken up the nobility of the lineage of Abraham, to whom the promise was made, then we ought to take it spiritually as the seed of faith and of preaching. Next, this too must be considered: that when he speaks of the Lord, "Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed", that is, to Christ Jesus, he puts "promises" in the plural; but when it concerns those who through Christ are the seed of Abraham, it is called "promise" in the singular, as in the present place: Then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise. For it was fitting that what was spoken in the plural in the one Christ should be put in the singular among many men. There follows:

Here, you observe, he proves what he had before stated concerning the seed of Abraham,-that to him and to his seed the promises were given.

"if you belong to Christ, then." If then you are the form and body of Christ, he says, it is fittingly that you are the seed of Abraham. For since previously he said that Christ is the seed of Abraham according to the flesh (and to that seed of Abraham the promises were given, that is, to Christ), now the same thing is summed up. If you are, he says, the body of Christ, you are also the seed of Abraham and heirs of the promise given to his seed; Christ is, he says, the author of these things for us, having made us his body, and therefore also introducing us into the seed of Abraham, not, however, the law.

Since earlier he said that the seed of Abraham, through which the nations shall be blessed, is Christ, to Whom precisely the promises were given, and also pointed out that you too bear the image of Christ, he now concludes: therefore, you too are the seed of Abraham and heirs of the promised blessing. How then after this do you hold to the law — you who received the blessing through having put on Christ and become like Him, and thereby became the seed of Abraham?

Then when he says, "if you be Christ's, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise," he argues to his main proposition in the following manner: I have said that the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed; but you are of Abraham; therefore, to you pertains the promise made to Abraham about obtaining the inheritance. Then he proves the minor premise: You are the adopted sons of God, because by faith you are united to Christ, Who is the natural Son of God. But Christ is a son of Abraham, as was said above, "as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." Therefore, if you are of Christ, i.e., in Christ, "you are the seed of Abraham," i.e., sons, because Christ is his son. And if you are the sons, you are "heirs," i.e., the inheritance belongs to you "according to the promise made to Abraham": "Not they that are the children of the flesh are the children of God; but they that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed" (Rom 9:8).