Theophylact of Ohrid

In his own words on Galatians

• Galatians 1:1

  Immediately he also rejects that he is a disciple of men. For it was not men, but from above and from heaven that he was called, and not through a man, but through Christ Himself. For although Ananias baptized him, it was not he who called him to the faith, but Christ from heaven. Why then did he not say: Paul the called, but "apostle"? Because that was the whole point of the discussion: they were saying that he was chosen as an apostle by men. It is against this that he rises up, showing that this is untrue. And the book of Acts says further that by the Spirit he was chosen for apostleship (Acts 13:2). So then, it is clear that one is the will of the Son, and of the Spirit, and of the Father. Note also that the preposition "through" (δια) applies to the word "Father" as well, and that the Son is named first — this is on account of the heretics, who were very preoccupied with this matter. Very fittingly he mentions the death and resurrection, in order to persuade them henceforth not to hold to the law, which brought them nothing, but to Christ, who died and rose for them, and that therefore to depart from such a Benefactor is great folly. He says that the Father raised Him, on the one hand, because of the weakness of his listeners, and on the other, because everything that the Son does is referred to the Father. For He who even gave those who believed in Him the power to raise the dead by the mere shadow of their bodies was not powerless to raise Himself.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:2

  So since they slandered him saying that he alone preaches this, he now shows that many others also share his opinion. I pay attention to his indignation and sorrow. For he did not say: to the beloved, to the sanctified, or to the churches of God, but simply "to the churches of Galatia." And since they were in disagreement among themselves, he quite justly calls them many churches, and at the same time, to awaken shame in them, he unites them into one by means of this name (church). For those who disagree among themselves in many things cannot be called by this name, which signifies concord.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:3

  Since they were in danger of losing grace out of attachment to the law, he wishes it for them; and since they were warring against God by establishing what was under the law, which He had abolished, he calls them to peace. God became your Father. In what way? Through the law, to which you are inclined, or through the baptism of Christ? How then can you reject the Benefactor? And note: "from God the Father" (από θεού Πατρός) is written without the article, for the sake of those who placed the Son below the Father on the grounds that John says: "and the Word was God" ("και θεός...") (Jn. 1:1) without the article. Our master is not the law, but Christ Jesus. And the very names themselves point to His benefactions. For He is called Jesus as the One who delivered the people from sins, and Christ — from the anointing of the Spirit, with which He was anointed for our sake, having sanctified our nature by His incarnation and giving us the right to be so called.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:4

  Behold, He gave Himself up. So then, He did not render service as a slave. Therefore, when you hear that He was delivered up by the Father, understand it as the consent and will of the Father. And He gave Himself up in order to free us from sins, from which the law was not able to deliver us. How then, after this, having abandoned the One who freed you, do you submit to the law, which rendered no benefit? The Manichaeans rely on this saying, claiming that he called the present age evil, that is, our life. But this is not so. For the days are not evil in themselves (for what is evil about the movement of the sun or the succession of days), nor is our life bad in itself — and how could it be, when in this life we come to know God and philosophize about the future life? But by the evil age he means wicked actions and a corrupted will. Just as we too are accustomed to say: I had a terrible day, blaming not the time but the circumstances and actions. For Christ did not die in order to put us to death and remove us from the present life, but in order to deliver us for the remaining time from evil actions. Since he said above that He gave Himself for our sins, that is, freed us from previously committed transgressions, he then adds that for the future as well He gave certain proof that He will deliver us from an evil way of life. But the law neither cleansed former sins nor has any power against future ones. Since they thought that by leaving the law they were not obeying God, he corrects this assumption of theirs, showing that the will of the Father is to set them free through the Son. Notice, he did not say: by the command of the Father, but by the will, that is, by good pleasure. And by calling God our Father, he again reminds them of the Benefactor Christ, who made His own Father our Father as well. How then after this do you reject Him?

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:5

  Not using the word "amen" anywhere in the introduction, he placed it here, showing that this speech of his is finished and that what has been said is sufficient for the accusation of the Galatians. And having reminded them of the ineffable benefactions of God, in which is already contained the condemnation of them as those who abandoned their Benefactor Christ; then, filled with amazement before this Benefactor and finding nothing more to say about them, he concludes his speech with a doxology.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:6

  He shows that he had a high opinion of them. For I marvel, he says, that you who have labored so much in the faith are so quickly turning aside. Here there are two faults: "you are turning" and "quickly," so that the deceivers did not even need time, which testifies to the fickleness of those accepting their teaching. And he did not say "you have turned," but "you are turning," that is, I still do not believe and do not think that the deception has already been accomplished. Understand his wisdom. Since they, holding to the law, thought they were serving the Father, he says that those who hold to the law are distancing themselves from the Father: for he says "from Him who called you," that is, from the Father. "By the grace of Christ," that is, they were justified by Christ, not for works, but by grace. For although the Son grants the forgiveness of sins by grace, it is the Father who calls them to it.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:7

  Since the deceivers called their error a gospel, he objects to this designation as well, saying that there is no other Gospel besides the one you received. For there is one Gospel, containing the correct teaching, which I preached to you, if only some were not confusing your spiritual eyes and making you see one thing instead of another, wishing to pervert the Gospel of Christ. True, they did not overthrow the entire Gospel, but only introduced the commandment about the Sabbath and circumcision; however, he shows that even a small corruption overthrows the entire Gospel — just as one who cuts off a small part of a royal coin renders the whole coin worthless. Note, this is said for those who say that this is a trifle and not worth attention. And the Marcionites, seizing upon this saying, claim that on this basis one should accept not four, but one Gospel, which they composed, accepting some things and rejecting others. See, they say, even Paul affirms that there is one Gospel. But what does this mean? Just as we say that the four Gospels constitute one, of course by their agreement, so Paul speaks here not of number but of disagreement. Since, he says, the preaching of these deceivers is not in agreement, therefore it is not a Gospel; but if it were in agreement, it would be a Gospel, that is, an apostolic preaching. Thus, the opinion of Marcion is idle chatter.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:8

  Lest anyone should say that he praises his own teaching out of ambition, he anathematizes even himself. And since they were appealing to authority and referring to Peter and James, he therefore mentioned the angels as well. He added the words "from heaven" because priests were also called angels. So, lest you think he is speaking of priests, by the indication of heaven he designated the heavenly powers. And he did not say: if they will preach the opposite, but — if they will proclaim to you anything small beyond what we have proclaimed to you. So then, by subjecting to anathema the angels and himself, he rejects all authority and human friendship in the matter of faith. Do not tell me that your apostles preach something different; I will not spare even myself if I do not preach the Gospel. And he says this not to disparage the apostles, but wishing to shut the mouths of deceivers and to show that he does not recognize authority when it comes to matters of doctrine.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:9

  So that they would not think he said this in anger and carried away by emotion, he repeats the same thing again, showing that he spoke not thoughtlessly, but having firmly and unwaveringly resolved this within himself.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:10

  He intends to defend himself against that of which he is accused. However, lest they become proud, as judges of their teacher, he says: do not think that I am defending myself before you or trying to convince you; no, all my thought and speech are directed toward God. Therefore I write this not with the aim of gaining glory from you and having disciples, but in order to be right before God concerning the dogmas, and not out of a desire to please people. Or thus: since they slandered him, saying that to some he preaches one thing and to others another, and that he adapts himself to people, he asks them: am I trying to persuade men and please them, or God? For if I wished to please men, I would certainly do what you say. He proves that he does not care about pleasing people — and why would he either flatter them or preach one thing to some and another thing to others? For if he cared about this, he would not have departed from Judaism and would not have turned to Christ; he would not have disregarded relatives, friends, such glory, and would not have chosen persecution, dangers, and dishonor.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:11

  He wants to show them that he has truly departed from the law, and for this he reminds them of his former life and of the sharp change, showing that he would not have suddenly crossed over from Judaism if he had not had some divine assurance. Therefore he also says: "The gospel which I preached is not human," that is, I did not have a man as my teacher, but was a disciple of Christ Himself.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:12

  For since the slanderers were saying that he was not, like the rest of the apostles, a direct hearer of Christ, but received everything from men, he says that the One Who taught Peter and the others revealed the Gospel to me Himself.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:13

  From what is it evident that I received the Gospel through divine revelation? From my former life. For being such a persecutor, how could I have suddenly changed if some divine manifestation had not drawn me out? And that I was a zealous persecutor is evident from the fact that even you, Galatians, living so far from Judea, had heard about it. Note how strongly he expresses himself. For he did not say "persecuted," but "persecuted beyond measure." And not only this, but even "wasted," that is, he tried to destroy to the foundation and annihilate — for this is the work of a devastator.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:14

  All my contemporaries, he says, I surpassed in zeal, and in the war against the Church I went ahead; in other words: I was held in honor among the Jews. But do not think that this was a matter of vainglory or anger, but of zeal. So then, if I fought against the Church not out of any human calculations, but out of zeal for God, even though I was in error, then how now, having come to know the truth, would I preach out of love for human glory something other than what the truth commands and what Christ taught me.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:15

  If from his mother's womb he was destined for the proclamation of the Gospel and chosen by God, then, of course, by a certain divine arrangement he remained for some time in Judaism, undoubtedly so that such a dramatic change in him would attract many to the faith and strengthen them in it. God chose him not by lot, but by foreknowledge that he was worthy. Called by grace, not by merit, but by mercy — although God called him for his virtue, for it is said: "he is My chosen vessel" (Acts 9:15), he humbly says that he was called by grace not according to worthiness, but according to mercy.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:16

  He did not say: to reveal to me, but – "in me," showing by this that he received instruction not merely verbal, but his heart was also filled with much of the Spirit, since this knowledge was sealed in the inner man and Christ speaks in him. God revealed His Son to me not only so that I might know Him, but also so that I might preach Him to others. Because not only his coming to faith, but also his being chosen for preaching, was from God. How then can you say that people taught me? And not simply "that I should preach Him," but "to the Gentiles." So how could I preach circumcision to the Gentiles? That is, he did not go to consult with the apostles, for he calls them flesh and blood, naming them thus by nature; or he says this generally about all people, because in the matter of faith no man was his teacher.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:17

  In what way could the apostle have said this? Had he become so proud that he considered himself self-sufficient and having no need of advisors? And had he not heard the saying: "Be not wise in your own eyes" (Prov. 3:7); and: "Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes" (Isa. 5:21)? Not at all. But since his detractors were saying that one should listen to the apostles and not to him, and that they were apostles before him, he was compelled to say this in order to silence the deceivers. And indeed it would have been unreasonable for one taught by God to then heed men. Thus, he says this not out of arrogance, but to show the dignity of his preaching. True, he did come to Jerusalem as well, but not in order to learn, rather in order to convince others that those living in Jerusalem thought the same way. Then he did not come immediately, that is, at the beginning, but later; and even then for the sake of convincing others. He went through uncultivated and wild places, for if he had remained among the apostles, his preaching would have met with obstacles and would not have spread so quickly. Therefore he went to the wildest nations. But pay attention to his humility: in listing the cities, he nowhere said how many he converted, although in Damascus he threw the Jews into such confusion that he was subjected to persecution by the ethnarch. So if it seems that he speaks much about himself, he does so not for the sake of vainglory, but so that his preaching would not suffer harm if people did not believe him, regarding him as a simple man and a disciple of disciples.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:18

  And this is proof of humility: having accomplished so much, he went to Peter not for any benefit, but for the sake of a simple meeting, honoring him as a superior. Therefore he did not say "to see Peter" (ἰδεῖν), but "to visit" (ἱστορῆσαι), as those who study great and beautiful cities would express it; just as we too go to holy men, but we do so more for benefit, while he did so solely out of honor. A visit is an expression of honor, while a stay is an expression of friendship and ardent love. And he did not say that he studied, but "remained with him," instead of "with him."

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:19

  Although he came for the sake of Peter – so much did he honor and love him – he also saw James, and he mentions him too with respect, calling him "the brother of the Lord" – so far was he from envy! And indeed, if he had wanted to distinguish him, he would have called him the son of Cleopas. For he was not a brother of the Lord according to the flesh, but was only considered so. How then was he the son of Cleopas, listen: Cleopas and Joseph were brothers; when Cleopas died childless, Joseph raised up seed for him and begot him and his other brothers, and Mary, whom, although she was the daughter of Cleopas, the Gospel calls the sister of the Mother of the Lord, since Joseph maintained toward the Most Holy Virgin the care of a father rather than the affection of a husband.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:20

  As if intending to give testimony before a court, he resorts to these words in order to appear most worthy of trust.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:21

  Only for the sake of meeting with Peter having appeared in Judea, he again leaves it for the reason that he was sent to preach to the Gentiles and in order not to undertake building on another's foundation.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:22

  Therefore, he says, the Christians in Judea did not even know me by face. So how could I have preached circumcision to them, when they did not even know me by face? For they slandered him, saying that in Judea he preached circumcision.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:23

  But they had only heard about me that I had turned to Christ and was preaching the Gospel about Him.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:24

  And this is a sign of modesty. For he did not say: they marveled at me, they admired me, but ascribed everything that happened to the action of grace. For "they glorified God because of me," who truly does all things.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:2

  The cause of the first journey was Peter, and of the second — a revelation. And he brought Titus and Barnabas as witnesses of his preaching, that it was pleasing to the apostles. That is, the preaching of the gospel without circumcision. Why then, after so many years, did he set it before them, when he should have done this at the beginning and learned whether he was acting rightly or not? For it would be unreasonable that one who had labored for so many years should after this have need of instruction, unless he had labored in vain. But if he had come with the purpose of receiving instruction regarding his own ministry, this would indeed have been unreasonable. But since he saw that many were scandalized by the fact that Peter permitted circumcision while he did not circumcise, and through this he was subjected to the suspicion of violating the law, he came to Jerusalem by revelation, by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, in order to convince those who were scandalized that there is no disagreement in the preaching, and that those who permit circumcision wisely make a concession, as ones preaching to the circumcised; what is unreasonable about that? For the Holy Spirit moved him to go for the correction of others, and he naturally obeyed. "And privately to those of reputation." Because many were being scandalized, Paul converses "privately," in private with the disciples of Peter, so that no strife would arise and so as to prevent a greater scandal. For very many were being scandalized, and if they had heard that Paul openly rejects circumcision, then there would have been an uproar and everything would have been thrown into confusion. Therefore, he converses in private, having as witnesses Titus and Barnabas, who would be able to declare to all people that the apostles also found nothing contrary in his preaching. And by calling them "those of reputation," he does not reject their significance, but alongside his own he also places the common recognition of all, just as he also said of himself: "I think I also have the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 7:40), not rejecting the existence of this gift in himself, but pointing to the common opinion. So, "those of reputation," that is, the great, the renowned. That is, in order to teach those who are scandalized concerning me that I do not labor in vain, and not in order to learn myself, for how could I learn, when I received from the Father the revelation concerning the Son and His Gospel?

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:3

  Uncircumcised Titus, he says, was not compelled to be circumcised. And this serves as the most important proof that the apostles too permitted circumcision not as a law, but according to a certain economy, that is, as a temporary measure of prudent condescension to the weak, for the sake of believers from the circumcision, – and that they could not censure the preaching of Paul, whose disciple was uncircumcised.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:4

  The order of the speech is as follows: even on account of the false brethren who had come in, Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, that is, although my opponents were present, the apostles did not even for their sake compel Titus to be circumcised. But how does he call those who insisted on circumcision false brethren, if the apostles also accepted it? Because the apostles permitted circumcision out of condescension toward those who believed from the circumcision, as a preacher to the Jews; but those others did so as ones who established circumcision on principle and as defenders of the law, so to speak; for this reason he calls them false brethren. And by the expression "who came in secretly" he points to their crafty design, and by the word "to spy out" he gives us to understand that they are enemies. For spies come for no other purpose than precisely to find out everything and to clear the way for destruction and enslavement. This is exactly what they were doing. For they were watching to see who were the uncircumcised, who had freedom in Christ, that is, who were not subject to the law, in order to attack them and compel them to be circumcised, and to subject us again to the slavery of the law, from which Christ set us free. So then, from this it is clear that the apostles permitted what was under the law in order to gradually free people from this slavery, while those others acted so as to fasten this slavery firmly in place.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:5

  He did not say "did not yield" to the word, but did not submit, because they were not doing this to teach us anything, but for subjection and enslavement. Therefore we obey the apostles, but not them. So that, he says, what we preached to you might remain firm and true. What exactly? That the old things have passed away, the law has been abolished, and Christ does not accept the circumcised, and circumcision brings no benefit whatsoever. Thus, in opposition to them, we showed that we also truly proclaimed to you the abolition of the law. Therefore do not depart from this truth.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:6

  Since it was natural for someone to object to him and say: how then did the apostles command circumcision? – he removes this objection, though he does not indicate the true reason, that they acted this way by special dispensation and out of condescension, fearing that the believers from among the Jews, upon hearing that the apostles permitted circumcision not for the sake of truth but for the sake of good order, might also fall away from them as destroyers of the law; for until then they had adhered to them precisely because they preserved the law. Therefore Paul conceals this reason, but presses hard upon the apostles, saying: "it makes no difference to me," that is, I have no concern with those of repute, with the great ones, evidently the apostles – whether they preach circumcision or not, since they themselves will give an answer to God, and although they are great and preeminent, God will not regard their persons, for He is no respecter of persons. And notice: he did not say "what they are," but "what they once were," showing that afterward they too ceased to preach in this way, when the preaching shone forth everywhere. Paul says this not in reproach of the saints, but wishing to benefit his listeners. Whatever they may have been, he says, that is God's affair, but this I know: that they in no way opposed me and added nothing to my preaching, nor corrected it.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:7

  Some interpreted it this way: not only did they add nothing to correct my teaching, but on the contrary, they were even corrected themselves. But this is incorrect. For in what could they have been corrected by him? After all, each of them is perfect. So he says the following: "but on the contrary, they gave me the right hand of fellowship," — then still in the middle: "seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised," and so on in order. And not only did they not correct me, they even praised and agreed that I and Barnabas should go with the gospel to the uncircumcised, that is, to the Gentiles, while they would go to the circumcised, that is, to the Jews.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:8

  Here he also shows himself equal to Peter. For He who entrusted to Peter the work of preaching the gospel to the Hebrews gave the same to me for the Gentiles. And notice how he showed that his preaching was not only pleasing to the apostles, but was also acceptable to God. For concerning the apostles he says that they "recognized the grace." He did not say "heard," but from the very deeds themselves "recognized." For how would God have given me this gift if such preaching were displeasing to Him?

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:9

  And again he mentions the three with praise. For "those reputed to be pillars," that is, the great ones whom everyone everywhere names and glorifies — they bear witness concerning me that my preaching is pleasing to Christ. Therefore they also "gave the right hand of fellowship," that is, they agreed, acknowledged us as partners, and showed that they were satisfied with my preaching, as in no way differing from their own word.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:10

  Having divided among themselves, he says, the work of preaching, we remembered the poor without division. For in Jerusalem many of those who had believed were deprived of their possessions by the unbelieving Jews and were in difficulty regarding necessary sustenance. The Greeks did not wage war so fiercely against the believers from among them as the Jews did against the Christians from among the Hebrews. Therefore Paul shows especial zeal in his care for them, as he himself testifies, that "I was eager to carry out precisely." For collecting alms everywhere from his disciples, he himself delivered them to them.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:11

  Many think that here Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy, but this is unjust. For what he seemingly says against Peter was done and spoken with a special purpose. For Peter, being in Jerusalem, permitted circumcision — indeed it was impossible to suddenly draw them away from the law — but having come to Antioch, he ate together with the Gentiles. When certain people from Jerusalem came to Antioch, he began to avoid the Gentiles, so as not to scandalize the Jerusalemites and at the same time to give Paul a fitting occasion for rebuke. Therefore Paul rebukes, and Peter endures it. For in this way the disciples could more easily change their way of thinking, when the teacher is subjected to reproaches and remains silent. Thus, this "opposed him to his face" was only in appearance, since if the struggle had been real, they would not have accused each other in front of the disciples, because they would have subjected them to great scandal. But as it was, the apparent outward opposition served for the correction of the disciples. For Peter does not contradict at all — clearly he agreed with this objection of Paul. He did not say: from me, but simply, from others, who did not know that it was done with good intention, and considered it hypocrisy that in the absence of the Jerusalemites he ate together with the Gentiles, but when they came, he withdrew. And some understood it this way: Peter even before "was blamed," says Paul, because he ate together with Cornelius, therefore now too he withdrew, fearing to be subjected to new reproaches, and when he withdrew, "I opposed him to his face."

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:12

  He also points out the reason for this rebuke. James was the brother of the Lord, who taught in Jerusalem as their bishop. It was he who sent certain Jews who had already believed but still adhered to the law, and they went to Antioch. Seeing them and fearing not for his own safety, but lest they, being scandalized, should fall away from the faith, Peter began to withdraw from association with the Gentiles. But some, not knowing this reason, began to condemn him.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:13

  He calls this matter hypocrisy, because he does not wish to reveal Peter's intention, and also for the sake of those strongly attached to the law, in order to uproot their devotion to the law. And by the rest of the Jews he means those from among the Jews in Antioch who had believed, who themselves also kept away from the uncircumcised.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:14

  But do not be troubled by these words — he says this not to condemn Peter, but for the sake of those who could benefit from hearing that even Peter was subjected to rebuke for his attachment to the law. Why then should you hold to it? For it was with this purpose that he rebuked him then before all, so that they would be frightened, hearing that so great a man is subjected to censure and cannot object. Eusebius, however, says that the one subjected to rebuke from Paul was not the great Peter, but some other Cephas, one of the Seventy, and in support of this he points to the impossibility that the one who had already previously defended himself regarding the scandal he had caused by sharing a meal with Cornelius could again be subjected to such rebuke. But we too do not say that Peter was censured by Paul for ignorance of his duty, but that he voluntarily submitted to condemnation so that others too might be corrected. Paul all but cries out to everyone: "Imitate your teacher — for behold, he is a Jew, yet he ate food together with the Gentiles." And notice — he does not accuse him: "You do wrong by observing the Law," but reproaches him on behalf of his own disciples from among the Gentiles, that he compels them to be circumcised and to live according to Jewish customs. For in this form the word could be more readily accepted.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:15

  "By nature," that is, not proselytes, but born of Jewish fathers and raised in the law, yet we abandoned our accustomed way of life and turned to faith in Christ.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:16

  See how simply everything is said. We left the law not because it is not good, but because it is weak and unable to justify. For no one could fulfill its works, difficult and hard to perform, not because of their greatness, but rather because of their pettiness; or otherwise, because it did not sanctify the soul, but only removed bodily impurity. So circumcision is superfluous. And further ahead he will say that it is even dangerous, because it alienates from Christ.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:17

  We sought to obtain justification in Christ, he says, having abandoned the law. How then do you say that it is sinful to abandon the law: for it turns out that Christ led us into such a sin, since for His sake we abandoned everything pertaining to the law. Thus Christ, as you say, not only did not justify us, but even became for us the cause of greater condemnation by having persuaded us to depart from the law. Having driven the argument to absurdity, he no longer had need of confirmation, but contented himself with a simple denial, which is what he ordinarily always did in matters that were generally disputable.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:18

  Notice his wisdom: they were saying that the one who violates the law is a transgressor, but he, on the contrary, shows that the one who observes it is a transgressor, going not only against the faith, but also against the law itself. For the law itself led me to the faith and persuaded me to leave it. Further on he will point this out, but for now he says that the law has ceased, and we have testified to this by the fact that we destroyed it, having departed from it. Therefore, if we were to endeavor to restore it, we would prove to be transgressors, restoring that which was destroyed by God.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:19

  He explains in what manner he abandoned the law, and says: through the law of grace and the Gospel I died to the law of Moses, or I died, he says, to the law through the law; that is, the law itself led me to no longer observe it, having led me to Christ through the Mosaic and prophetic word. Therefore, if I again begin to observe it, I will again violate it. Or in this way: the law commanded that the one who does not fulfill its prescriptions be punished and put to death. And since it could not be fulfilled, by its power I was subjected to death. Therefore let it not command me, as one already dead both in soul, because I sinned, being unable to fulfill the works of the law, and in body, inasmuch as this depended on the condemnation by the law. How then after this shall I still hold to that which put me to death? Lest anyone should say: how then do you live, if you have died? – he says that although the law put me to death while I was living, Christ, having found me dead, made me alive, having been mystically co-crucified with Him and having died with Him through baptism. A twofold miracle: He gave life to one who was dead, and gave life through death.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:20

  By the words "I am crucified with Christ" he indicated baptism, and by the words "it is no longer I who live" – the life after this, through which our body dies. "But Christ lives in me," that is, there is nothing in us that is not pleasing to Christ, but He accomplishes everything in us, governing and ruling. And our will has died, and His lives and governs our life. Therefore, if I live for God a life distinct from life under the law, and have died to the law, then I cannot observe anything from the law. What I have said, I said about the spiritual life, but you will find the sensible life also in me, existing from Christ. For the law being transgressed subjected all to sin and punishment, and nothing prevented, as in the times of the flood, all from perishing as transgressors; but Christ, having appeared, delivered us from condemnation, having justified us by His death. So that even this very thing – the sensible and fleshly life – we have through faith in Christ, – faith that justifies us and delivers us from condemnation. Although He gave Himself for all and loved all, Paul, having reflected on what Christ freed us from and what He bestowed, and having been kindled with love, ascribes what is common to himself, just as the prophets say: "O God, my God." And at the same time he also shows that each person ought to render such gratitude to Christ as if He had died for him alone. But only those who believed in Him benefited from these gifts. So that the one who clings to the law shows that Christ did not die for him. How then are you not afraid of this, but return again to the law, showing the death of the Lord to be useless for you? And note the expression "who gave Himself" — on account of the Arians.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:21

  After these reasonings, he finally declares: I do not reject the gift of Christ, by which He deemed me worthy, having justified me without works by His death, and I do not resort to the law. For if, he says, the law is able to save and justify, then Christ died entirely in vain. But He, without a doubt, died in order to save us by His death, which the law is powerless to do. And if the law saves, the death of Christ is superfluous. Do you see where such blasphemy leads?

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:1

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:2

  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?

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:3

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:4

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:5

  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?

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:6

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:7

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:8

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:9

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:10

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:11

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:12

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:13

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:14

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:15

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:16

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians