Thomas Aquinas

In his own words on Galatians

• Galatians 1:1

  The Apostle therefore writes the Galatians this epistle in which he shows that with the coming of the grace of the New Testament, the Old Testament should be cast out, so that with the fulfillment of the truth, the figure may be abandoned, and with the attainment of these two, namely, grace and truth, one may arrive at the truth of justice and glory. And these two are acquired, if, abandoning the observance of the "legalia" [i.e., the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law], we concentrate fervently on observing the Gospel of Christ. The order of this epistle is fitting in that, after the two epistles to the Corinthians, in the first of which it is a question of the sacraments of the Church, and in the second, of the ministers of these sacraments, there should necessarily follow the epistle to the Galatians, treating of the termination of the sacraments of the Old Testament. This epistle is divided into two parts: namely, into a greeting, and the setting forth of the epistle (v. 6): "I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel." In the greeting, however: First, the person who sends the greeting is mentioned; Secondly, the persons greeted are mentioned (v. 2): "To the Churches of Galatia;" Thirdly, the good he wishes them (v. 3). As to the first, mention is made first of the person principally sending the greeting; and he is described by his name and his authority. By his name, indeed, when he says "Paul" which, because it means "humble," accords with his humility. Hence it is said in 1 Corinthians (15:9): "I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle." Furthermore, it accords with his office, because in another sense it means "the mouth of the trumpet," in which the office of preaching is specially signified. "Lift up thy voice like a trumpet and announce to my people their sins" (Is 58:1). He is described by his authority, when he says, "an apostle." Here two things are mentioned, namely, his authority and its source. Authority, because he says "apostle," which is the same as "sent." Now it should be noted that the Apostle in some epistles calls himself "Servant," thereby showing a spirit of humility, as in the Epistle to the Romans; in others he calls himself "apostle," thereby showing his authority. The reason for this is that the Romans being proud, the Apostle, in order to induce them to humility, calls himself a servant as an example of humility. But to the Galatians, who were stupid and proud, he calls himself an apostle in order to break them down; hence he here sets forth his authority. He describes the source of his authority when he says, "not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father." First, he removes what is, according to their opinion, the source; Secondly, he presents the true source (v. 1): "but by Jesus Christ and God the Father." The source of his authority in their opinion was in keeping with the fact that the Galatians had been so deceived by false teachers as to believe that the Apostle did not enjoy the same authority as the other apostles, as having neither been taught by Christ nor lived with Him, but sent by them as their minister. He therefore removes this opinion when he says, "not of men, neither by man." For some had been sent by the whole college of apostles and disciples; hence, to show that he had not been sent by them, he says, "not of men." Others had been sent by some particular apostle, as Paul now and then sent Luke and Titus. Therefore, to show that he had not been sent in that manner, he says, "neither by man," i.e., not by any apostle in particular, but by the Holy Spirit, Who says: "Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them" (Acts 13:2). But because the true cause of the origin of this authority is Christ Jesus, he says, "but by Jesus Christ and God the Father." Now the distinction expressed when he says, "by Jesus Christ and God the Father," can be taken with respect to the person of the Father and the person of the Son; and then God the Father is one person and Jesus Christ another. For the Blessed Apostle Paul was sent to preach by both, and indeed, by the whole Trinity, because the works of the Trinity are inseparable. Yet no mention is made of the person of the Holy Spirit, because, since there is a union and joining of two, by mentioning two persons, namely, Father and Son, the Holy Spirit too is understood. Or, the aforesaid distinction can be taken with respect to the assumed nature, i.e., the human, because according to the divine nature there is not a distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ. In this sense, then, Paul was sent by God the Father as by the chief sender, and by Jesus Christ as by a minister. "For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision" (Rom 15:8). But because the Galatians belittled the Apostle for having neither lived with Christ, as did the others, nor been sent by Him, he extols himself on this very point, because they had been sent by Christ yet living in mortal flesh, whereas he had been sent by Christ now glorified. This is why he says, "who," namely, God the Father, "raised him," namely, Jesus Christ as man, "from the dead." As though to say: I am an apostle not of men, i.e., not by the college of apostles, "neither by man," namely, Christ living in mortal flesh, but I am an apostle through Christ now risen and glorified. "Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more" (Rom 6:9). And because the present life is signified by the left side and the future life by the right, inasmuch as the latter is heavenly and spiritual, and the former temporal, Peter, who was called while Christ was yet in mortal flesh, appears in papal bulls on the left side, but Paul, who was called by Christ now glorified, is set on the right side.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:2

  Then when he says, "and all the brethren who are with me," he refers to the persons who join with him in sending the greeting. These he describes in terms of sweet familiarity, because they "are with me," namely, for consolation and help. "A brother that is helped by his brother is like a strong city" (Prov 18:19). "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity" (Ps 132:1). And in terms of inseparable charity, when he says, "brethren." "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another" (Jn 13:35). And universality, when he says, "all." He adds this because they might be so deceived as not to respect the words of Paul. Hence he says, "all who are with me," to show them as witnesses to his truthfulness and make it easy for them to understand that they are wrong, when they are rebuked by everyone else. "To him who is such a one, this rebuke is sufficient which is given by many" (2 Cor 2:6). He mentions the persons greeted when he says, "to the churches of Galatia." Here it should be noted that, as is mentioned in a Gloss, Brennus, leader of the Senones, once gathered an army, and having entered Italy through which he passed, came into Greece before the time of Alexander the Great. There some of the invaders remained in a certain district of Greece and intermarried with the Greeks. For this reason that province came to be called "Gallic Greece" and the inhabitants "Galatians," as it were, "white." But whereas the Greeks are natively intelligent, those Galatians were stupid and inconstant and slow to understand, as the indocile Gauls from whom they descended. This is why he later says, "O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth?" (3:1). To these people, therefore, he writes this epistle, and they are the ones greeted.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:3

  Then when he says, "grace be to you and peace," he mentions the good things he wishes them. First, he mentions the goods he wishes; Secondly, the author of these goods (v. 3): "from God the Father and our Lord." The goods he wishes them are twofold, but in them are included all spiritual goods. The first is grace, which is the beginning of the spiritual life, and to it is ascribed in a Gloss the remission of sins, which is first in the spiritual life. For no one can be in the true spiritual life, unless he first dies to sin. The second is peace, which is the settling down of the mind in its end, and which in a Gloss is said to be reconciliation with God. Thus in wishing them the beginning and the end of all spiritual goods, the Apostle includes, as it were, between the two extremes, the wish that every good come to them. "The Lord will give grace and glory" (Ps 83:12). "The grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of God and the communication of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Cor 13:13). The author of these goods is God the Father, and so he says, "from God the Father." Here are mentioned: First, the cause of the goods; Secondly, the manner of causing (v. 4); Thirdly, thanksgiving for these goods (v. 5). The cause and source of good is God the Father as originator, precisely as God, and the entire Trinity, the God of all through creation. "But Thou, O Father, governest it" (Wis 14:3). Hence he says, "from God the Father." Again, the originator is the Lord Jesus Christ as minister; and this insofar as He is man. "For I say that Jesus Christ was a minister" (Rom 15:8). But that grace comes to us through Christ is plain from John (1:17): "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." "Being justified freely by His grace" (Rom 3:24). Peace, too, comes to us through Him. "My peace I give unto you" (Jn 14:27).

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:4

  The manner in which these goods are caused is also mentioned when he says, "who gave himself for our sins." Here is mentioned, first of all, the efficient cause, which is the death of Christ. Referring to this, he says "who gave himself for our sins." As if to say: Christ is the author of grace and peace, because He gave Himself to death and endured the cross. Hence the very death of Christ is the efficient cause of grace: "You have been justified freely by his grace" (Rom 3:24); "Making peace as to the things that are in heaven" (Col 1:20). And he says, first of all, "who gave himself," i.e., offered Himself voluntarily. "Christ also hath loved us and hath delivered Himself for us" (Eph 5:2); "That He might taste death for all" (Heb 2:9); "Who gave Himself for us" (Tit 2:14). From this, the Apostle plainly is arguing against them that if the death of Christ is the sufficient cause of our salvation, and if grace is conferred in the sacraments of the New Testament, which have their efficacy from the passion of Christ, then it is superfluous to observe, along with the New Testament, the rituals of the Old Law in which grace is not conferred nor salvation acquired, because the Law has led no one to perfection, as is had in Hebrews (7:19). Secondly, the end and utility of those goods is mentioned—in other words, the final cause. And it is twofold; one is that we be set free of past sins; and as to this he says, "for our sins," namely, that past sins be removed and atoned for, which is the beginning of our salvation. "He loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev 1:5). The other end is that He might free us from the power of death; and as to this he says, "that he might deliver us from this present wicked world." "He delivered us from the power of darkness" (Col 1:13). Herein he mentions three things: namely, to deliver us from the present, and the world, and wicked. To deliver us from the present by drawing us to eternal things through desire and hope; from the world, i.e., from being conformed to this world which allures us: "And be not conformed to this world" (Rom 12:2); wicked, leading us back to the truth of justice. And it is called a wicked world, not because of its nature, for it was created good by God, but because of the evils perpetrated in it, as is said in Ephesians (5:16): "The days are evil." And "Jacob said: the days of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty years, few and evil" (Gen 47:9). Now although these things come to us through Christ, God the Father is not excluded. Hence there is mentioned in the third place, acceptance of the divine will. Therefore he says, "according to the will of God and our Father." Of the Father by nature, I say, of Christ Who proceeds from eternity as the Word: "This day have I begotten Thee" (Ps 2:7); "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (Jn 1:1). Also of our Father by adoption: "He gave them power to be made the sons of God" (Jn 1:12). In the first rendering, "God the Father" is taken for the sole person of the Father; in the second, for the whole Trinity.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:5

  And because it is from God our Father, namely, from the whole Trinity, that all things come to us through Christ, therefore to it, i.e., to the whole Trinity, glory in itself, honor from others, be or is, "forever and ever," i.e., always. "Amen." This is a mark of corroboration. You have therefore, in summary, in the above greeting, the Apostle's authority by which he breaks their pride; the power of the grace by which he exhorts them to observe the Gospel; and the insufficiency of the ceremonies of the Law, in order to call them away from them.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:6

  The greeting given, it is followed by the epistle message, in which the Apostle refutes their error; secondly, he admonishes them with a view to their correction (5:1): "Stand fast and be not held again under the yoke of bondage." He refutes their error two ways: namely, on the authority of the Gospel teaching; and by reason, using the Old Testament (3:1): "O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you?" He refutes their error by showing the authority of the Gospel teaching: First, by showing their fickleness in lightly dismissing the Gospel teaching; Secondly, by commending the authority of the Gospel teaching, as he intimates that in view of the precious value of that which they so lightly regard, their error is seen to be so much the greater (v. 11). Regarding the first he does two things: First, he enlarges upon their guilt; Secondly, he inflicts a punishment (v. 8). Concerning the first, he enlarges upon the guilt both of the seduced and of those who seduced them (v. 7): "only there are some that trouble you." As to the first he does three things: First, he enlarges upon the guilt of those who were misled for their fickleness of mind. Hence he says, "I wonder." As if to say: Although you are aware of the many good things already mentioned that come to you through Christ, and although I instructed you well, nevertheless you are "thus," i.e., so far and so completely removed [transferred], that you seem already to have forgotten; "so soon," i.e., in such a short time, are you removed [transferred]. With this word he alludes to their name, for Galatia means "transferred." As if to say: You are Galatians, because you are so quickly transferred. "He that is hasty to give credit is light of heart" (Sir 19:4). Secondly, he amplifies their guilt on the part of that which they have abandoned. For if reason withdraws and is removed from evil, it is worthy of praise and does well; but when it departs from the good, it is culpable. And this is how they were removed from good. So he says to them: Although it is amazing that you are so quickly and so far removed, there is additional reason for wonder, namely, because you have removed yourselves "from him," i.e., from God, and from faith in Him "that called you into the grace of Christ," i.e., into the sharing of the eternal good which we have through Christ: "Giving thanks to God who hath called you into his marvelous light" (1 Pet 2:9). Again: "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them" (2 Pet 2:21). Thirdly, he amplifies their guilt on the part of that to which they have turned, because they have been turned not to good but to evil. Hence he says, "unto another gospel," i.e., of the Old Law, which is a good message only insofar as it does announce some good things, namely, temporal and carnal: "If you be willing and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land" (Is 1:19). Yet it is not completely perfect as is the Gospel, because it does not announce the perfect and loftiest goods, but small and slight ones. But the New Law is perfectly and in the full sense a Gospel, i.e., a good message, because it announces the greatest goods, namely, heavenly, spiritual and eternal. And although it is another gospel according to the tradition of the deceivers, yet according to my preaching it is not. For it is different in the promises, but not in the figure, because the same thing is contained in the Old Testament and in the New: in the Old, indeed, as in a figure, but in the New as in the express reality. Therefore it is another gospel if you consider the outward appearances; but as to the things that are contained and exist within, it is not another gospel.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:7

  Yet though it is not in itself another gospel, it can be another, if you consider the guilt of the others, i.e., of the deceivers. Hence in enlarging upon the guilt of the latter he says, "only there are some," namely, the seducers, "that trouble you," i.e., sully the purity of your understanding with which you were imbued with the truth of faith. Because although the same thing is contained, so far as the inward understanding is concerned, in the Old and New Testament, as has been said, yet if the Old is embraced after accepting the New, that is seen to show that the New is not perfect, and that the one is different from the other. Hence he says, "which is not another, only there are some that trouble you," because those deceivers were compelling them to be circumcised after professing faith in the Gospel, showing thereby that circumcision is something different from Baptism and does something that Baptism cannot do, and for that reason they are troubling you. "I would that they were even cut off who trouble you" (5:12). And they do indeed bring you trouble, because they "would pervert the gospel of Christ," i.e., the truth of the Gospel teaching, into the figure of the Law—which is absurd and the greatest of troubles. For a thing ought to be converted into that to which it is ordained. But the New Testament and the Gospel of Christ are not ordained to the Old, but contrariwise, the Old Law is ordained to the New Law, as a figure to the truth. Consequently the figure ought to be converted into the truth, and the Old Law to the Gospel of Christ, not the truth into the figure, or the Gospel of Christ into the Old Law. This is plain from the way we ordinarily speak; for we do not say that a man resembles the image of a man, but contrariwise, that the image resembles the man: "They shall be turned to thee and thou shalt not be turned to them" (Jer 15:19); "The new coming on, you shall cast away the old" (Lev 26:10).

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:8

  Then after enlarging upon their guilt, the inflicting of the penalty is set forth when he says, "But though we, or an angel from heaven." And with respect to this he does two things: First, he promulgates the sentence; Secondly, he gives a reason for the sentence (v. 10). As to the first he does two things: First, he presents authority for his sentence; Secondly, he passes sentence (v. 9). He shows that his authority for passing sentence is great on the ground that it would affect not only the perverters and seducers, who are subject to him, but also his own equals, as the other apostles, and even those above him, as the angels, were they guilty of this crime, namely, of turning the Gospel into the Old Law. Hence he says: Because the authority behind the sentence which we pass (which is excommunication) has efficacy, not only over those who are doing these things, then "though we," namely, the apostles, or an angel, good or evil, coming "from heaven, preach a gospel besides that which we have preached, let him be anathema," i.e., subject to this sentence that we pass. To elucidate the foregoing, three things should be investigated. First, the meaning of this word, "anathema." Apropos of this it should be noted that anathema is a Greek word composed of ana, which means above, and thesis, i.e., a placing; hence a placing above. The word arose from an old custom. For the ancients, when they waged war, sometimes took from their enemies certain booty which they were unwilling to turn to their own use, but hung it in the temple or other public place of the city, as though to separate it from the common use of men. Everything so hung up, the Greeks called anathema. And from this arose the custom of declaring anathematized anything excluded from common use. Hence in Joshua (6:17) it is said of Jericho and of everything in it, that Joshua once anathematized it. Consequently, even in the Church the practice arose of declaring anathema those who are excluded from the common society of the Church and from partaking of the sacraments of the Church. Secondly, we must look for an explanation of his statement, "though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." Here it should be noted that there are three kinds of teachings: the first is that of the philosophers who have arrived at a knowledge of their doctrine with their own reason guiding them. Another is that which has been delivered by angels, as the Old Law. For the Old Law was not issued by a human will but by angels in the hand of a mediator (Gal 3:19). But the third teaching was given immediately by God Himself, as the teaching of the Gospel: "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (Jn 1:18); "In these days He hath spoken to us by his Son" (Heb 1:2); "Which, having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him" (Heb 2:3). Now, a teaching passed on by a man can be changed and revoked by another man who knows better, as one philosopher refutes the sayings of another, or by an angel who has a more penetrating knowledge of the truth. Even a teaching handed down by one angel could be supplanted by that of a higher angel or by God. But a teaching that comes directly from God can be nullified neither by man nor angel. Hence if a man or an angel were to state anything contrary to what has been taught by God, such a statement would not contradict God's teaching, so as to void or destroy it; rather, God's teaching would be against him, because one who speaks thus should be expelled and prevented from sharing his teaching. Hence the Apostle says that the dignity of the Gospel teaching, which has come directly from God, is so great that if a man or even an angel preached another Gospel besides that which he has preached among them, he is anathema, i.e., must be rejected and expelled. Thirdly, we must solve the objections which arise on this point. The first is that, since an equal has no authority over his peers and much less over his superiors, it seems that the Apostle has no power to excommunicate the apostles, who are his peers, and less so, angels who are superior. "He that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (Matt 11:11). Therefore the anathema is invalid. The answer to this is that the Apostle passed this sentence not on his own authority, but on the authority of the Gospel teaching, of which he was the minister, and the authority of which teaches that whoever says aught contrary to it must be expelled and cast out. "The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day" (Jn 14:48). A second question arises from the words, "a gospel besides that which we have preached to you." Therefore no one may teach or preach anything but what is written in the epistles and Gospels. But this is false, because it is said in 1 Thessalonians (3:10): "Praying that we may accomplish those things that are wanting to your faith." I answer that nothing is to be taught except what is contained, either implicitly or explicitly, in the Gospels and epistles and Sacred Scripture. For Sacred Scripture and the Gospels announce that Christ must be believed explicitly. Hence whatever is contained therein implicitly and fosters its teaching and faith in Christ can be preached and taught. Therefore, when he says, "besides that which you have received," he means by adding something completely alien: "If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book" (Rev 22:18). And "Neither add anything," i.e., contrary or alien, "nor diminish" (Deut 12:32).

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:9

  Then when he says, "As we said before, so now I say it again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema," he pronounces his sentence on the evil person and says: As I have said of angels and apostles, so I say of the seducers. If any seducer "shall preach a gospel besides that which you have received from me, let him be anathema," i.e., excommunicated. And this is the sentence he passes. Now it may be asked whether all heretics are thereby excommunicated. And it seems not, because it is said: "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid" (Tit 3:10). I answer that a person might be called a heretic either because he errs solely from ignorance, and then he is not on that account excommunicated; or because he errs through obstinacy and tries to subvert others, and then he falls under the canon of the sentence passed. But whether he was then and there passing sentence on heretics by these words is open to question, since sentence was later passed against heretics in the Councils. Yet it can be said that perhaps he was showing that they deserved to be excommunicated.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:10

  Then when he says, "For do I now persuade men, or God?", he gives the reason for his sentence. First, he gives the reason for his sentence; Secondly, he discloses here his purpose (v. 10): "Or do I seek to please men?" For someone might say: Why do you excommunicate in this manner? Perhaps some are your friends or men of some authority. Therefore you ought not act in this way. But the Apostle says in answer: Indeed, one should act in this way, because the things I say now are not to gain the favor of men but to please God, and this is what he means by "do I now," i.e., after my conversion, or in this epistle, "persuade men," i.e., is it my intention to please men "or God?" As if to say: The things I do, I do to please God alone: "We speak, not as pleasing men, but God" (1 Thes 2:4); nor do we speak on the authority of men, but of God. That I do not seek to please men is plain from my intention and purpose. For "I do not seek to please men," i.e., it is not my intention in converting men to please men alone, but for the honor of God. And this is plain, because if I yet sought to please men, as I formerly pleased them, "I should not be the servant of Christ." The reason is that the two are opposed. More precisely, if I were to please men for the sake of men without referring it to God; for if I intend now and then to please men so that I might draw them to God, I do not sin. But if in the first way, I am not the servant of Christ: "For the bed is straitened, so that one must fall out, and a short covering cannot cover both" (Is 28:20); "No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will sustain the one and despise the other" (Mt 6:24); "They have been confounded that please men" (Ps 52:6).

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:11

  In the foregoing the Apostle rebuked the Galatians for their fickleness of mind in so quickly setting aside the Gospel teaching; now he shows the dignity of the Gospel teaching. And concerning this he does two things: First, he commends the authority of the Gospel teaching according to itself; Secondly, on the part both of the other apostles and himself (2:1): "Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas." The first part is further divided into two others, because: First, he presents his intention; Secondly, he manifests his purpose (v. 13). Regarding the first he does two things: First, he proposes what he intends; Secondly, he proves what he proposes (v. 12). Intending, therefore, to commend the truth of the Gospel teaching, he says, "For I give you to understand, brethren..." As if to say: So certain am I of the Gospel's authority, that I would disbelieve not only men but even angels saying the contrary; so that if they were contrary, I would say anathema to them. And I have this certainty, because one must believe God rather than men or angels. Therefore, since I have this Gospel from God, I should and do have the greatest of certainty. Hence he says, "For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me" to you and to the other Churches "is not according to man," i.e., not according to human nature out of tune with the divine rule or divine revelation. In this sense, "according to man" implies something evil: "For whereas there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal, and walk according to man?" (1 Cor 3:3). And this is the sense the Apostle takes here; hence he says, "not according to man" teaching me or sending me. As if to say: Not at all can this Gospel be had from men but from God.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:12

  That is why he adds, "For neither did I receive it of man; nor did I learn it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ," whereby he precludes two ways of receiving. First, that he did not receive from man the authority to preach. As to this he says, "nor of man," i.e., purely man, "did I receive it," i.e., the authority to preach the Gospel, but of Christ: "And how shall they preach unless they be sent?" (Rom 10:15); "I have given thee for a light of the Gentiles, for a covenant of the people" (Is 42:6); "This man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15). Secondly, that he did not receive the science of the Gospel from man. Hence he says, "nor did I learn it," namely, the Gospel, from mere man, "but by the revelation of Jesus Christ," i.e., by Jesus Christ showing everything clearly. "But to us, God hath revealed them" (1 Cor 2:10); "The Lord hath opened my ear, and I do not resist" (Is 50:5), and "The Lord has given me a learned tongue, that I should know how to uphold by word him that is weary" (Is 50:4). Now this revelation was made to the Apostle when he was rapt into paradise, where "he heard secret words which it is not granted to man to utter" (2 Cor 12:4).

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:13

  Then when he says, "For you have heard of my conversation in time past," he shows that he did not receive the Gospel from men, either before his conversion or after his conversion to Christ (v. 15). That he did not receive it from man before his conversion he shows both by the hatred he bore toward the faith of Christ and toward Christians, and by the zeal he had for Judaism: "And I made progress in the Jews' religion above many of my equals in my own nation" (v. 14). He says therefore: I say that I did not receive it of man, and this is true of the time before my conversion. This, indeed, is obvious from my actions at that time and from the hatred I bore toward the faith. "For you yourselves have heard"—"But they had heard only: He who persecuted us in times past doth now preach the faith which once he impugned" (v. 23)—"of my conversation in time past," when I was an unbeliever, "in the Jews' religion," when I lived as a Jew. And he says, "my," because the evil we do is from ourselves, but from God is whatever good we do: "Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in me" (Hos 13:9). This you have heard, "how that, beyond measure," i.e., more than others, because he bestirred not only himself to this but rulers as well. For others, when they persecuted, were to it by the rulers, but he urged even them: "Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest" (Acts 9:1). Also because he did this not only in Jerusalem but in the entire region. Hence "he received letters to Damascus, that if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem." Therefore what is said in Genesis (49:27): "Benjamin a ravenous wolf, in the morning shall eat the prey, and in the evening shall divide the spoil," can be understood as applying to him. "I persecuted the church of God," i.e., by hunting down Christians and discomfiting them: "I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" (1 Cor 15:9); "and I wasted it," not indeed spiritually, because I was unable to turn the hearts of the faithful from their faith, but physically by inflicting bodily punishment on them and casting them into prison: "Is not this he who persecuted in Jerusalem those that called upon this name?" (Acts 9:21); "Often have they fought against me" (Ps 128:1). It is plain, therefore, from the hatred he bore toward the faith of Christ before his conversion, that he did not receive the Gospel from man.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:14

  It is plain also from the love and burning zeal he had for Judaism, as to outward progress. Hence he says, "And I made progress in the Jews' religion above many of my equals in my own nation:" wherein he mentions three things that indicate how great was his progress. For he progressed not above a few but "above many," not above old men incapable of progress in learning, but "my equals," i.e., young men who were intelligent and capable of progress: "It is good for a man, when he has borne the yoke from his youth" (Lam 3:27). Furthermore, not above equals who were foreigners and ignorant of the language, but equals "of my own nation," i.e., Jews: "I am a Jew, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the truth of the law of the fathers, zealous for the law, as also all you are this day" (Acts 22:3). Finally, as to the inward zeal he had for the Law. Hence he says, "being more abundantly zealous," not only for the Law, but "for the traditions of my fathers," namely, those traditions which the Jews lawfully kept and "which the good fathers added," as is said in a Gloss. He calls these traditions his own because he treasured them as though they were his: "According to the Law, a Pharisee; according to zeal, persecuting the church of God" (Phil 3:5). But a question arises from the fact that the aforesaid Gloss says: "The good fathers added." For it seems that they were not good, because, it is said in Deuteronomy (4:2): "You shall not add to the word I speak to you." Hence in adding traditions they acted against the command of God and so were not good. To this one may answer that this word of the Lord is taken to mean that you shall not add anything contrary or alien to the words which I shall speak. But to add certain things not contrary was lawful for them, namely, certain solemn days and the like, as was done in the time of Mordechai and of Judith, in memory of the blessings they received from God. But against this is the rebuke addressed to them by our Lord, when He says: "You have made void the command of the Lord for the traditions of men" (Mt 15:16). Hence those traditions were not lawful. I answer that they are not rebuked for holding the traditions of men, but because for the sake of the traditions of men, they neglect the commands of God.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:15

  After showing that he did not receive the Gospel from man before his conversion, the Apostle now proves that he did not receive it from man after his conversion. About this he does two things: First, he shows that he did not receive the Gospel from man at the time of his conversion; Secondly, nor after his conversion (v. 18). Regarding the first he does two things: First, he shows that he did not receive or learn the Gospel from the apostles; Secondly, nor from any other believer (v. 17): "I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus." As to the first he does three things: First, he shows the efficient cause of his conversion; Secondly, the end (v. 16); Thirdly, the manner (v. 16): "immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood." In regard to the first point, he notes the twofold cause of his conversion, namely, the good pleasure of God, which is divine election, and the call of the one converting. Regarding the first he says, "when it pleased him," namely, God: not when I willed, but when it pleased Him, because "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy" (Rom 9:16); "The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear him" (Ps 146:11); "For it is God who worketh in us, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will" (Phil 2:13). "Who," namely, God, "separated me," i.e., rebellious: "I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" (1 Cor 15:9); "Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings" (Acts 9:1); and a persecutor: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" (Acts 9:4); "Who before was a blasphemer" (1 Tim 1:13). "Me," and such a one, I say, he "separated from my mother's womb." Or, literally: who made me to be born from my mother's womb. It is indeed true to say that God separates one from the womb, even though it is a work of nature, which is, as it were, an instrument of God, because even our own works are attributed to God as to their principal author: "For thou hast wrought all our works for us" (Is 26:12), as any effect is attributed to the principal agent; hence Job (10:11): "Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh." And he was separated from this womb to be justified, for the same one justifies who makes: "From my mother's womb thou art my God" (Ps 22:11). Or: "from my mother's womb," i.e., the synagogue, whose womb is the college of Pharisees who trained him in Judaism: "You go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte" (Mt 23:15). Thus, therefore, was the synagogue his mother: "The sons of my mother have fought against me" (Cant 1:5). Its womb are the Pharisees. And from this womb he was separated by the Holy Spirit unto faith in the Gospel: "Separated unto the Gospel of God" (Rom 1:1). Or his mother is the Church of Christ, and the womb, the college of apostles. Hence God separated him from the womb of the Church, i.e., from the college of apostles, for the office of apostleship and preacher to the Gentiles, when He said to the apostles: "Separate me Saul and Barnabas" (Acts 13:2). Again, he calls the synagogue his mother, because he was a Pharisee and an outstanding one, for which reason he is called a Pharisee and of the Pharisees, because he was zealous for the Law: "being more abundantly zealous for the traditions of my fathers" (v. 14). Now as regards the other cause, he says, "and called me by his grace." But there are two kinds of call. One is exterior, and so he says: He called me with a voice from heaven. "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me... Go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do" (Acts 9:4). In a similar fashion He called the other apostles. The other call is interior, and in this way He calls through a certain interior instinct, whereby God touches the heart to be turned to Him, as when He calls one from the path of evil to good; and this by His grace and not our own merits: "And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified" (Rom 8:30); "I have raised him up to justice" (Is 45:13); "That calleth the waters of the sea and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The Lord is his name" (Am 5:8).

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:16

  The end of his conversion is stated when he says, "to reveal his Son in me." Hence Christ is the end. Now his conversion is ordained to Christ in two ways: First of all, by his works. Hence he says, "to reveal his Son," i.e., by what He did in my regard, by converting me and forgiving my sins, He revealed what a great act of mercy was bestowed on me: "Jesus Christ came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief" (1 Tim 1:15); "But I obtained the mercy of God, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief" (1 Tim 1:13). Thus, therefore, in his conversion he revealed His Son in the sense that the Son is called the grace of God. Likewise, he revealed Him in his action; hence he says: "For I dare not speak of any of those things which Christ worketh not by me, for the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed, by virtue of signs and wonders" (Rom 15:18). And this inasmuch as the Son is the power of God. Furthermore, he revealed Him in his preaching. Hence he said: "We preach Christ crucified; unto the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness, but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:23). And this inasmuch as the Son is called the wisdom of God. Secondly, his conversion is ordained to Christ by his words. Hence he says, "that I might preach him among the Gentiles," because, whereas the other apostles preached the Gospel of Christ to the Jews, Paul, on the Lord's command, went to convert the Gentiles: "It is a small thing that thou shouldst be my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to convert the dregs of Israel. Behold, I have given thee to be the light of the Gentiles" (Is 49:6); "For so the Lord has commanded us: that thou mayest be for salvation unto the utmost part of the earth" (Acts 13:47); "Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, for a leader and a master to the Gentiles" (Is 55:4). The manner of his conversion is perfect, both as to its effect—hence he says, "immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood," i.e., at once I was so completely converted that all carnal affection left me: "It is easy in the eyes of God on a sudden to make the poor man rich" (Sir 11:23). "Flesh and blood" are here taken for vices of the flesh: "Flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 15:50). "For the flesh lusteth against the spirit" (5:17)—or for the affection and love borne toward blood relatives. "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee" (Mt 16:17). Thus the Apostle overcame his own vices and scorned his fellow Jews.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:17

  Furthermore, his conversion was perfect with respect to his understanding, because he was so instructed by Christ that there was no need to be instructed by the apostles; hence he says, "Neither went I to Jerusalem," i.e., to be instructed by them. Again, it was not necessary for him to be instructed by any other of the faithful; hence he says, "but I went into Arabia." As if to say: I did not go to places where there were believers who might instruct me, but I went to Arabia where they were not instructed in the faith but were unbelievers. "And again I returned to Damascus," i.e., to his parents: "Who gave a course to violent showers, or a way for noisy thunder?" (Job 38:25). But someone might object that it is said in Acts (9:25): "In Damascus they let him down in a basket... and when he was come into Jerusalem, he essayed to join himself to the disciples." Therefore, according to this, he went to Jerusalem. To this I answer that he did go, but not to be instructed. Or, better still, he did not go at once but after some time. Hence he says in the next verse, "Then, after three years I went to Jerusalem" (v. 18).

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:18

  After showing above that he did not receive the Gospel from man before his conversion nor at the time of his conversion, the Apostle now proves that neither after his conversion did he receive it from man; but he shows, rather, how his teaching was approved by men. About this he does two things: First, he shows how his teaching was approved by the apostles; Secondly, he shows how it was approved by the rest of the faithful (v. 21). First, he states the fact; Secondly, he confirms the truth of his statement (v. 20): "before God, I lie not." He says therefore: Although I did not go to the apostles to be instructed by them in the beginning of my conversion, because I had already been instructed by Christ, yet, being moved by a feeling of charity, "after three years," i.e., after my conversion, I went to Jerusalem, because I had long desired to see Peter, not to be taught by him but to visit him; "And visiting thy beauty thou shalt not sin" (Job 5:24). "And I tarried with him fifteen days," because that number is the sum of eight and seven. Eight is the number of the New Testament, in which the eighth day of those who will rise is awaited; but seven is the number of the Old Testament, because it celebrates the seventh day. And so he stayed with Peter fifteen days, conversing with him on the mysteries of the Old and New Testament.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:19

  But lest anyone suppose that, although he was not instructed by Peter, he might have been instructed by others, he adds that he was not instructed by others. Hence he says, "But other of the apostles," by whom I might be instructed, "I saw none," i.e., no one, "saving James, the brother of the Lord." For I saw him in Jerusalem. Regarding James, it should be known that he was the Bishop of Jerusalem and named James the Less, because he had been called after another James. Many things are recorded of him in Acts (15:13 ff). He also wrote a canonical epistle. Now there are various explanations why he is called the brother of the Lord. Elvidius says that it was because he was the son of the Blessed Virgin. For according to him, the Blessed Virgin conceived and gave birth to Christ, and after the birth of Christ she conceived of Joseph and brought forth other sons. But this error is condemned and refuted. Furthermore, it is false for the simple reason that James was not the son of Joseph but of Alpheus. Others say that before the Blessed Virgin, Joseph had another wife of whom he had James and other children, and that after she died, he took unto wife the Blessed Virgin, from whom Christ was born, although she was not known by Joseph, but, as it is said in the Gospel, He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. But because progeny are named after their father, and Joseph was considered the father of Christ, for that reason, James, too, although he was not the son of the Virgin, was nevertheless called the brother of the Lord. But this is false, because if the Lord did not want as mother anyone but a virgin entrusted to the care of a virgin, how would He have allowed her husband not to be a virgin and still endure it? Therefore others say (and this is mentioned in a Gloss) that James was the son of Mary of Cleophas, who was a sister of the Virgin. For they say that Anne, the mother of the Blessed Virgin, first married Joachim, of whom was born Mary, the mother of the Lord; but when Joachim died, she married Joachim's brother, Cleophas, from whom she bore Mary of Cleophas, and from her were born James the Less, Jude and Simon. Then after Cleophas died, she married a third man who was called Salome, of whom she conceived and bore another Mary, called Salome, from whom were born James the Great and his brother John. But this opinion is denied on two counts by Jerome: first of all, because Salome is not a man's name, as is plain in Greek, but the name of the woman who was the sister of the Blessed Virgin and who begot James the Great and John, of Zebedee, just as Mary Cleophas begot James the Less, Jude and Simon, of Alpheus. Now this James is singled out from his other brothers and called the brother of the Lord for two reasons: first, because of a likeness in appearance, for he had a facial resemblance to Christ; and because of a likeness in their lives, for he imitated the manners of Christ. Or he is called the brother of Christ, because Alpheus, his father, was related to Joseph. Accordingly, because the Jews were accustomed to draw up the lines of ancestry on the father's side, and Christ was considered the son of Joseph, as is said in Luke (3:23), he, rather than the others, was called the brother of the Lord, because they were related to him only on His mother's side. Furthermore, "brother" is taken here in the sense of kinsman. For in the Scriptures some are called brothers, who are so by nature: "Jacob begot Judas and his brethren" (Mt 1:2). Others, who are kinsmen, such as blood relations, are brothers: "Let there be no quarrel, I beseech thee, between me and thee... for we are brethren" (Gen 13:8). Others who are so by race; hence all who speak the same tongue are called brothers: "Thou mayest not make a man of another nation king, that is not thy brother" (Deut 17:15). Others who are so by affection; hence all who are friends and who have the same love are called brothers: "Because I found not Titus my brother" (2 Cor 2:13). Others who are so by religion; hence all Christians who have one rule of life are called brothers: "For one is your master; and all you are brethren" (Mt 23:8); "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity" (Ps 132:1). And in general, all men are called brothers, because they are ruled and protected by one God: "Have we not all one father?" (Mal 2:10).

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:20

  Then when he says, "Now the things which I write to you, behold, before God I lie not," he confirms his statements with an oath. As if to say: The things I now write to you about myself, behold, are so well known that it is obvious I lie not. And this I say before God, i.e., with God as my witness. The Apostle here takes an oath not for a slight reason, but for the sake of those for whom it was necessary, that they might believe. For had he not sworn, they would not have believed him. "Before God, in Christ we speak" (2 Cor 2:17); "God is my witness" (Rom 1:9). But what does the Lord say in Matthew (5:37)? "Let your speech be: Yea, Yea; No, No. And that which is over and above these is of evil." The answer to this is that it is of the evil of him who does not believe, or of the evil of punishment which compels one to swear.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:21

  Then when he says, "Afterwards, I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia," he shows how he was approved by the other churches of Judea. Here he does three things: first he shows where he lived, namely in Cilicia. Hence he says, "then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia," i.e., his native land. (Here he was caught up into paradise.) Because it is said in Acts (22:3): "Paul was born at Tarsus in Cilicia." Secondly, how he was known by the others, namely, not by sight but by report and reputation. Hence he says, "I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea, which were in Christ," i.e., in the faith of Christ: "As unknown and yet known" (2 Cor 6:8). Hence it is evident that the churches of Judea did not teach me. "But they had heard only," i.e., of me, from reports that "he who persecuted us in times past, doth now preach the faith which once he impugned." Thirdly, how he was approved by them, because "they glorified God in me," i.e., in my conversion they glorified Him Who converted me by His grace: "The beast of the field shall glorify me" (Is 43:20).

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:22

  Secondly, how he was known by the others, namely, not by sight but by report and reputation. Hence he says, "I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea, which were in Christ," i.e., in the faith of Christ: "As unknown and yet known" (2 Cor 6:8). Hence it is evident that the churches of Judea did not teach me.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:23

  Then when he says, "Afterwards, I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia," he shows how he was approved by the other churches of Judea. Here he does three things: first he shows where he lived, namely in Cilicia. Hence he says, "then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia," i.e., his native land. (Here he was caught up into paradise.) Because it is said in Acts (22:3): "Paul was born at Tarsus in Cilicia." Secondly, how he was known by the others, namely, not by sight but by report and reputation. Hence he says, "I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea, which were in Christ," i.e., in the faith of Christ: "As unknown and yet known" (2 Cor 6:8). Hence it is evident that the churches of Judea did not teach me. "But they had heard only," i.e., of me, from reports that "he who persecuted us in times past, doth now preach the faith which once he impugned." Thirdly, how he was approved by them, because "they glorified God in me," i.e., in my conversion they glorified Him Who converted me by His grace: "The beast of the field shall glorify me" (Is 43:20).

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 1:24

  Thirdly, how he was approved by them, because "they glorified God in me," i.e., in my conversion they glorified Him Who converted me by His grace: "The beast of the field shall glorify me" (Is 43:20).

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:1

  After commending the authority of the Gospel teaching according to itself in the preceding chapter, the Apostle now in this chapter commends it on the part both of the other apostles and of himself. About this he does two things: First, he commends the authority of his teaching because of its approval by the other apostles; Secondly, from the example both of himself and of the other apostles (v. 15). Concerning the first he does two things: First, he shows that the other apostles approved his teaching; Secondly, that he fearlessly rebuked the other apostles in matters where they opposed his teaching (v. 11). As to the first he does two things: First, he treats of the discussion he had with the apostles; Secondly, he narrates the consequences of that discussion (v. 3). Regarding the first he does two things: First, he gives the circumstances of that discussion; Secondly, what they discussed (v. 2): "and communicated to them the Gospel." With respect to the first he touches upon four things: first the time, then the place, the witnesses, and the motive. He mentions the time when he says, "Then, after fourteen years." Here some might object that if the Apostle was converted in the first year after the passion of Christ, and went to Jerusalem three years later, that makes four years. But he says, "after fourteen years" I went once more to Jerusalem—which makes a total of eighteen years—at which time he found Peter in Jerusalem. But this cannot be, because Peter had his See at Antioch seven years, and then at Rome for twenty-five years. So that makes eighteen plus seven, i.e., twenty-five years, before he went to Rome, and twenty-five years more he remained there. Hence Peter would have lived for fifty years after the passion of Christ—which is false, for in the fortieth year after the passion of Christ, Peter was martyred at Rome in the reign of Nero, as is recorded in history. I answer that when he says, "Then, after fourteen years," it is not to be understood that after three years there was another lapse of fourteen years before he went to Jerusalem, but that he went again in the fourteenth year of his conversion. Nor should the seven years that Peter ruled the Church at Antioch be added to those fourteen years, because he began his rule before those years. Furthermore, since Antioch is near Jerusalem, Peter could at times have come to Jerusalem and Paul found him there then. Consequently, what is gathered from history is that after fourteen years Peter went to Rome in the reign of Claudius the Emperor and lived there for twenty-five years, making a total of thirty-nine years, and he died in the fortieth year after the passion of Our Lord. Yet he purposely said "fourteen" in order to show that he did not need instructions from the apostles, if he went for fourteen years without them. He gives the place when he says, "Jerusalem." And he says, I went up, because it is built on a height. He went up to Jerusalem in order to show that he was in accord with the prophecy of Isaiah (2:3): "For the law shall come forth from Sion: and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." He gives the witnesses when he says, "with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me." Now Barnabas was a Jew, but Titus a Gentile. He went up with them, therefore, in order to have witnesses to his teaching and to show that he leaned neither to the side of the Jews nor the Gentiles: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand" (Deut. 19:15).

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:2

  He gives his motive when he says, "according to a revelation from God," i.e., because God revealed and commanded him to go up to Jerusalem. From this can be gathered that all the acts and movements of the apostles were according to an instinct of the Holy Spirit: "The clouds spread their light which go round about" (Job 37:11). Then when he says, "and communicated to them," he describes the conversation. About this he does three things: First, he mentions the subject of their conversation; Secondly, the persons with whom he conferred; Thirdly, the reason why he conferred with them. The subject about which he conferred was the Gospel; hence he says, "I communicated to them the Gospel"; the persons with whom he conferred were the senior and more outstanding apostles; hence he says, "but apart to them who seemed to be some thing." But the reason, both useful and necessary, was "lest I should run or had run in vain." Regarding the first, he says, "I went up to Jerusalem" where "I communicated to them," as to friends and equals, "the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles," not in order to learn, because I had already been taught by Christ, nor in order to be reassured, because I am so certain, that if an angel were to say the contrary, I would not believe him, as is plain above (1:8). But I conferred for two reasons: namely, to show the unity of my teaching with that of the other apostles: "That you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you" (1 Cor 1:10). Hence he conferred with them as one having the same word as they, and not as an adversary. Also, to avoid false accusation from others. For the Apostle had not lived with Christ or been taught by the apostles, but immediately after his conversion began to preach things odious to the Jews, especially the vocation of the Gentiles and that they should not observe the justifications of the Law. So, then, he conferred about the Gospel. But he indicates the ones with whom he did this, when he adds, "but apart to them who seemed to be some thing." As though to say: Not with all, but with those who were of some authority and importance among them, namely, with Peter, James and John and the other great ones: "Treat with the wise and prudent" (Sir 9:21). "But apart," not to talk or treat with them about ignoble or false things, as heretics do, but because he was aware of the presence there of Jews who brought false charges against him for his teachings about the Law. Hence, in order that the truth might prevail over false charges, he spoke apart with those who would not bring false charges against him: "Treat thy cause with thy friend, and discover not the secret to a stranger" (Prov 25:9); "Before a stranger do no matter of counsel: for thou knowest not what he will bring forth" (Sir 8:21). Thus the subject of the discussion as well as the persons are made known. Then follows the cause, which was "lest perhaps I should run or had run in vain," i.e., lest I be thought to have preached to no purpose. He calls his preaching a "running" on account of the rapidity of his teaching, for in a short time he preached the Gospel from Jerusalem to Illyricum and even as far as Spain. Hence the word of Psalm (147:15) can be said of him: "His word runneth swiftly"; "Pray, brethren, that the word of God may run and may be glorified, even as among you" (2 Thes 3:1). But did he really wonder whether he was running in vain? I answer that he did not wonder for himself, but for those to whom he had preached, because if his teaching was not firmly held by them, he would have run in vain as far as they were concerned. So he wanted to confer with them, in order that when his hearers heard that his teaching was in agreement with that of the other apostles and approved by them, they would hold to it more firmly—then he would not be running in vain with respect to them: "I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty" (1 Cor 9:26).

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:3

  Then when he says, "But neither Titus who was with me," he shows what resulted from the discussion held with the apostles. And he mentions three results: That he did not depart from his opinion; That nothing was added to his teaching (v. 6); Thirdly, that his teaching was approved (v. 7). Concerning the first he does two things: First, he shows with respect to one definite point that he did not depart from his teaching; Secondly, that on no other point did he depart from it (v. 4). He says, therefore: I say that the result of my discussion with them about the teaching of the Gospel was that my teaching and opinion remained unaltered concerning the non-observance of legalism, i.e., the Gentiles would not be compelled to observe the rites of the Law so that "neither Titus who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised," but was admitted uncircumcised into their fellowship by the apostles. This discussion occasioned the decree handed down by the apostles on not observing the rites of the law, as is had in Acts (15:28). The reason why these rites were not to be observed after the passion of Christ is assigned in the following way by Chrysostom: "For it is evident that the instrument drawn up for any promise or pact binds only until the pact and promise are fulfilled; but when fulfilled, the instrument no longer binds on that point." Now circumcision is an instrument of the promise and pact between God and believing men. Hence it was that Abraham underwent circumcision as a sign of the promise, as is said in Genesis (11:26). And because the promise was fulfilled and the pact completed by the passion of Christ, neither the pact holds after the passion nor is circumcision of any value. Thus, therefore, his refusal to permit Titus to be circumcised makes it plain that he did not depart from his teaching. But the special reason why Timothy was circumcised and Titus not, was that Timothy was born of a Gentile father and Jewish mother, whereas Titus' parents were both Gentiles. And the opinion of the Apostle was that those born of a Jewish parent on either side should be circumcised, but those born entirely of Gentile parents should on no account be circumcised.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:4

  Then when he says, "but because of false brethren, unawares brought in," he shows that he did not change on any other point. This passage is obscure and variant readings are found. It should be read thus: You say that you did not permit Titus to be circumcised; but why? seeing that in another case you permitted Timothy, as is read in Acts (16:3). To this the Apostle can respond that when Timothy was circumcised, it was an indifferent matter whether circumcision was observed or not; but later on, when it came to Titus, circumcision became a matter of paramount importance and I said that it is not to be observed. Hence, if I had allowed him to be circumcised, whereas I had already settled the question definitively myself, I would have been acting to the contrary. Furthermore, it was not lawful to raise this question again or to make difficulties about a matter now settled.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:5

  He says therefore: I say that I did not permit him to be circumcised by them, "to whom we yielded not by subjection, no, not for an hour," i.e., that the Gentiles be subject to the Law; and this "because of false brethren, unawares brought in" by the devil or by the Pharisees: false brethren, because they pretended to be friends: "In perils from false brethren" (2 Cor 11:26). "Who," namely the false brethren, "were brought into" the place where the apostles were gathered, "in order to spy on our liberty" from sin and the Law: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Cor 3:17); "You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of the adoption of sons" (Rom 8:15); "that he might redeem them who were under the Law" (4:5). "Which liberty we have in Christ Jesus," i.e., through faith in Christ: "You are not children of the bondwoman but of the free" (4:31). And to this end were they brought in, "that they might bring us into servitude" of the Law and the observances of the flesh, as before the passion of Christ. But this is not permissible, "for other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus" (1 Cor 3:11). And this, "that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." As if to say: We did not yield to them an iota, lest we give an occasion to those who said that you cannot be saved without circumcision, which is contrary to the truth of the Gospel I have preached to you. Ambrose, however, reads it another way. For according to the foregoing the reason he did not yield for the moment was on account of those brought in. From this it follows that if they had not been brought in, he would have yielded in the matter of observing legalism. Therefore it was not on that account, because on that account he would not have yielded to them, but on account of the truth itself. Therefore, says Ambrose, the text is faulty and the words, "no not even," are superfluous. Hence he would have it that those words should not be there. And then the sense is: I did not permit Titus to be circumcised, but Timothy I did, "because of false brethren, unawares brought in," i.e., to the place where I was with Timothy and the others "who were brought in to spy our liberty." But when they failed in this, they tried to incite the people to rise up against us. "To whom," i.e., to the false brethren, we therefore "yielded in the hour of subjection" in the matter of circumcision by circumcising Timothy, in order that the truth of the gospel might continue with you, i.e., the Gospel which teaches that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision profits anything, but the faith.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:6

  Having shown that the Apostle did not depart from his opinion on any point in the conference mentioned above, he now shows that nothing was added to his teaching by the other apostles. About this he does two things: First, he describes the status of the apostles who were unable to add anything; Secondly, he proves his proposition (v. 6): "for to me, they that seemed to be something, added nothing." Their status he describes from three standpoints: first from the authority they held in the Church, for it was great. Regarding it he says, "But of them who seemed to be some thing." The text is deficient and should be amended to read, "But of them," namely, Peter and John. As if to say: Although I would have yielded to them at the time, yet I received from them no new power or teaching. And if I received nothing from them, much less so from others. But it is to be noted that if his statement, "who seemed to be something," is understood with reference to the grace of God that was in them, it is true that in this respect they were great, because "whom he justified, them he also glorified," as is said in Romans (8:30). However, if it is understood that they were something according to themselves, then it is false, because in that respect they were nothing. For if they seemed to be some thing according to themselves, they would always have been great, because whatever belongs to a thing according to itself is always present. Hence, since they were not always great, it was not according to themselves that they were seen to be something. Secondly, he describes their status on the side of what they were before their conversion, i.e., the status they had in the synagogue. This status, he hints gently, was mean and lowly. Hence he says, "what they were some time"; for they had been coarse, poor, ignorant and unlettered: "There are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble" (1 Cor 1:26). "But what they were is nothing to me," i.e., it is not my concern to mention. Perhaps his reason for introducing this was that by considering the status they had in the synagogue—which was nothing—and the status of Paul—which was great—they might see that Paul's opinion on legalism should be preferred to theirs, particularly since Paul has an equal status with them in the Church; so that Paul had a higher rank in the synagogue before their conversion, but after the conversion, he had a rank equal to theirs. Hence when matters concerning the synagogue were discussed, the opinion of Paul deserved to prevail over the others, but when it came to the Gospel, his opinion was as good as theirs. And just as the others were not made great through things pertaining to the Law but through Christ, so too in the faith the Apostle was great through Christ and not through things pertaining to the Law. Thirdly, he describes their condition by reason of their election by God. Regarding this he says, "God accepteth not the person." As if to say: They are great because God made them great, not by regarding their merits or demerits, but by regarding what He intended to accomplish. Hence he says: "God accepteth not the person of man," i.e., he does not consider whether the person is great or little: "For he made the little and the great, and he hath equally care of all" (Wis 6:8). Furthermore, without regard to person, He calls everyone to salvation, no longer charging them with their sins for they have passed away: "The old things are passed away" (2 Cor 5:17); "Nor will I be mindful of their name" (Ps 15:5). Therefore Peter says: "In very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34). On this point it should be noted that accepting of persons in any transaction is, properly speaking, to take as a deciding factor in that transaction some aspect of the person that has nothing to do with the matter; for example, when I give a benefice to a person just because he is a noble or is handsome. For nobility or beauty have nothing to do with the question of getting a benefice. But if some aspect of the person does have something to do with the matter, then if I consider that aspect in settling the matter, I do not accept the person; for example, if I give a benefice to a person because he is good and will serve the Church well, or because he is well-educated and honorable, I am not an acceptor of persons. Therefore to accept the person is nothing other than to consider some aspect of the person that has no relation to the business. Hence, since God in His works and benefits regards nothing that pre-exists on the side of the creature—for that which pertains to the creature is an effect of His election—but takes as His measure merely what pleases His will, according to which He effects all things, and not the condition of their person, as is said in Ephesians (1:11), it is evident that He does not regard the person of man. Then, having described their condition, he proves his proposition, namely, that they were unable to add anything to him. Hence he says, "for to me they that seemed to be something added nothing." As if to say: Although they had great authority, they added nothing to my teaching or to my power, because, as was said above, I neither received the Gospel from man nor learned it by man. However, a certain Gloss has a different reading, namely, "what they were at one time is not my concern." As if to say: It is not my concern to recount their status before their conversion, i.e., what they were, because this too makes no difference, since I myself had even been a persecutor of that Church; yet God by the pleasure of His will chose and glorified me—and this because the Lord does not regard the person of man.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:7

  Then when he says, "But contrariwise, when they had seen...," he shows how his opinion was approved by the apostles. About this he does three things: First, he gives the reason for this approbation; Secondly, he mentions the approbation (v. 9): "James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship"; Thirdly, he adds a condition that was placed on the approbation (v. 10). He cites the two causes of the approbation (which moved the apostles to approve the opinion of the Apostle) namely, the office of teaching enjoined by Christ on the Apostle; and the effect of this appointment (v. 9). As to the first, he does two things: First, he mentions the office to which he was appointed which moved them to approve him; Secondly, the manifestation of this office (v. 8). He says therefore: I say that those "who seemed to be something, added nothing"; but rather, contrary to the opinion of the adversaries who came up to Jerusalem to oppose me in this matter, it was I that the Apostles approved, and this "when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel," i.e., the office of the preaching, "of the uncircumcision," i.e., the injunction to preach to the uncircumcised, namely, the Gentiles: "For all the nations are uncircumcised in the flesh, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart" (Jer 9:26). Just as to Peter was entrusted the authority to preach to the Jews alone, so to Paul to the Gentiles; but later, Peter, too, preached to the Gentiles and Paul to the Jews.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:8

  But because someone might say: What evidence have you that the commission to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles was given you, he interjects that it was through certain works of Christ. For just as it is evident that Peter received the Gospel from Christ because of the marvels Christ wrought through him, so it is evident that I received it because of the miracles Christ worked and does work in me. Therefore he says, "He who wrought in Peter to the apostleship," i.e., made Peter an apostle in Judea, namely Christ, also made me an apostle among the Gentiles. And this is the reason which moves them.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:9

  But because one's appointment and authority to preach are not enough, unless he carries it out through good understanding and discreet eloquence and commends it by a good life, he adds how he used his authority or the effect of his office, saying, "And, when they had known the grace of God that was given to me, James and Cephas and John... gave to me and Barnabas, the right hands of fellowship." This is a dependent clause, i.e., when they saw that my preaching enjoyed favor and was fruitful, James "and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars..." In this passage is mentioned the approval or fellowship entered into by them and Paul. First, the persons are mentioned with whom the fellowship was formed, namely, James and Cephas, i.e., Peter, and John. James is mentioned first, as being the Bishop of Jerusalem where these events took place. The John mentioned was John the Evangelist who did not quit Judea until the time of Vespasian. "Who seem to be pillars." This is a metaphor standing for "the support of the entire Church." For just as a whole edifice is supported by the pillars, so the whole Church of the Jews was supported and governed by these men. Of those pillars it is said in Psalm (74:4): "I have established the pillars thereof," i.e., the apostles of the Church; "His legs as pillars of marble, that are set upon bases of gold" (Cant 5:15). "They," on the one side, "gave the right hands of fellowship," i.e., consented to the fellowship, "to me and Barnabas," the persons on the other side. By giving them their right hands they signified that they accepted them into their hands as a sign of union and unity of opinion. Secondly, the intent or condition of the fellowship is shown when it is said, "that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision," i.e., to preach. As if to say: A bond and union was made among us to the effect that just as the faithful obey Peter among the circumcision, i.e., in the Church of the Jewish believers, so all the Gentiles converted to Christ should obey Paul and Barnabas.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:10

  But they added the condition that we should be mindful of the poor of Christ, i.e., of those who had sold all their goods and laid the price at the feet of the apostles and became poor for the sake of Christ. "Which same thing," indeed, "also I was careful to do," being no less moved than those commanding me, as is plain in Romans (Ch. 15), 1 Corinthians (Ch. 6) and 2 Corinthians (Ch. 8 and 9). Now the reason why the custom prevailed in the early Church for those in the Church of the circumcision to sell their goods and not those in the Church of the Gentiles was that the believing Jews were congregated in Jerusalem and in Judea, which was soon to be destroyed by the Romans, as later events proved. Hence the Lord willed that no possessions were to be kept in a place not destined to endure. But the Church of the Gentiles was destined to grow strong and increase, and therefore, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it came about that the possessions in it were not to be sold.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:11

  The Apostle showed above that he received nothing useful from the discussion held with the apostles; now he shows that he benefitted them: First, he shows how he helped Peter by correcting him; Secondly, he tells what he said (v. 12). He says, therefore: Indeed, they advantaged me nothing; rather I conferred something upon them, and especially upon Peter, because "when Cephas was come to Antioch," where there was a church of the Gentiles, "I withstood him to the face," i.e., openly: "Reverence not thy neighbor in his fall and refrain not to speak in the time of salvation" (Sir 4:27). Or: to his face, i.e., not in secret as though detracting and fearing him, but publicly and as his equal: "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart: but reprove him openly, lest thou incur sin through him" (Lev. 19:17). This he did, because he was to be blamed. But it might be objected: This took place after they received the grace of the Holy Spirit; but after the grace of the Holy Spirit the apostles did not sin in any way. I answer that after the grace of the Holy Spirit the apostles did not sin mortally, and this gift they had through the divine power that had strengthened them: "I have established the pillars thereof" (Ps 74:4). Yet they sinned venially because of human frailty: "If we say that we have no sin," i.e., venial, "we deceive ourselves" (1 John 1:8). Apropos of what is said in a certain Gloss, namely, that "I withstood him" as an adversary, the answer is that the Apostle opposed Peter in the exercise of authority, not in his authority of ruling. Therefore from the foregoing we have an example: prelates, indeed, an example of humility, that they not disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; subjects have an example of zeal and freedom, that they fear not to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:12

  Then when he says, "For, before that some came from James," he manifests what he has said. First, that he said he was to be blamed; Secondly, that he rebuked Peter (v. 14). As to the first he does three things: First, he shows what Peter's opinion was; Secondly, what he did (v. 11); Thirdly, what resulted from it (v. 13). He says therefore, as to the first point, that Peter felt that legalism ought not be observed. This he showed by the fact that "before some came," namely, Jews zealous for the Law, "from James," Bishop of the Church at Jerusalem, "he did eat," namely, Peter did, "with the Gentiles," i.e., without compunction he ate the food of Gentiles. He did this through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Who had said to him: "That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common," as is had in Acts (10:15), and as he himself in the following chapter said in answer to the Jews who rose up against him, because he had eaten with the uncircumcised. What Peter did Paul now shows, saying that when he was with the Jews, "he withdrew" from the company of the faithful who had been converted from the Gentiles and adhered to the Jews alone and mingled among them. Therefore he says, "but when they were come," namely, from Judea, Peter "withdrew" from the converted Gentiles "and separated himself from them." This he did because he was "fearing them who were of the circumcision," i.e., the Jews, not with a human or worldly fear but a fear inspired by charity, namely, lest they be scandalized, as is said in a Gloss. Hence he became to the Jews as a Jew, pretending that he felt the same as they did in their weakness. Yet he feared unreasonably, because the truth must never be set aside through fear of scandal.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:13

  What resulted from this dissimulation he mentions when he says that "to his dissimulation," i.e., Peter's, "the rest of the Jews consented" who were at Antioch, discriminating between food and separating themselves from the Gentiles, although prior to this act of dissimulation they would not have done this. And not only they consented to Peter, but such was the effect of that dissimulation upon the hearts of the faithful "that Barnabas also," who along with me was a teacher of the Gentiles and had done and taught the contrary, "was led by them into that dissimulation" and withdrew from them, namely, the Gentiles. And this on account of what is said in Sirach (10:2): "What manner of man the ruler of a city is, such also are they that dwell therein" and "as the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers."

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:14

  Then when he says, "But, when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all...," he explains what he had said concerning the rebuke with which he rebuked Peter. As to this he does three things: First, he gives the reason for the rebuke; Secondly, the manner of rebuking; Thirdly, the words of the rebuke. The occasion of the rebuke was not slight, but just and useful, namely, the danger to the Gospel teaching. Hence he says: Thus was Peter reprehensible, but I alone, "when I saw that they," who were doing these things, "walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel," because its truth was being undone, if the Gentiles were compelled to observe the legal justifications, as will be plain below. That they were not walking uprightly is so, because in cases where danger is imminent, the truth must be preached openly and the opposite never condoned through fear of scandalizing others: "That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light" (Mt 10:27); "The way of the just is right: the path of the just is right to walk in" (Is 26:7). The manner of the rebuke was fitting, i.e., public and plain. Hence he says, "I said to Cephas," i.e., to Peter, "before them all," because that dissimulation posed a danger to all: "Them that sin, reprove before all" (1 Tim 5:20). This is to be understood of public sins and not of private ones, in which the procedures of fraternal charity ought to be observed. The words the Apostle spoke to Peter when he rebuked him, he adds, saying, "If thou, being a Jew" by nature and race, "livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews do," i.e., if you observe the customs of Gentiles and not of Jews, since you know and feel that discriminating among foods is of no importance, "how dost thou compel the Gentiles," not indeed by command, but by example of your behavior, "to live as do the Jews?" He says, "compel," because as Pope Leo says, "Example has more force than words." Hence Paul rebukes Peter precisely because he had been instructed by God that although he had previously lived as the Jews do, he should no longer discriminate among foods: "That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common" (Acts 10:15). But now Peter was dissembling the opposite. It should be noted that these words occasioned no small controversy between Jerome and Augustine and, as their writings clearly show, they are seen to disagree on four points. First, as to the time of the legal justifications, namely, when they should have been observed. For Jerome distinguishes two periods, one before the passion of Christ and one after. Jerome's opinion is that the legal justifications were living before the passion of Christ, i.e., had validity, inasmuch as original sin was removed through circumcision, and God was pleased with sacrifices and victims. But after the passion they were, according to him, not only not living, i.e., dead, but what is more, they were deadly, so that whoever observed them after the passion of Christ sinned mortally. Augustine, on the other hand, distinguishes three periods. One period was before the passion of Christ and, in agreement with Jerome, he says that during that period the legal justifications were living. Another was the period immediately following the passion of Christ, before grace was promulgated (as the time of the apostles in the beginning); during this period, says Augustine, the legal justifications were dead but not yet deadly to the converted Jews, so long as the ones observing them placed no hope in them. Hence the Jews observed them during that period without sinning. But had they placed their trust in them when observing them after their conversion, they would have sinned mortally; because if they placed their trust in them so as to believe that they were necessary for salvation, then, as far as they were concerned, they would have been voiding the grace of Christ. Finally, he posits a third period, after the truth and grace of Christ had been proclaimed. It was during that period, he says, that they were both dead and deadly to all who observed them. The reasoning that underlies these statements is that if the Jews had been forbidden the legal observances right after their conversion, it might have seemed that they had previously been on an equal footing with idolaters, who were immediately forbidden to worship idols, and that just as idolatry had never been good, so too the legal observances. Therefore, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the legal observances were condoned for a short time for the reason given, namely, to show that the legal observances had been good in the past. Hence, says Augustine, the fact that the legal justifications were not forbidden right after the passion of Christ showed that the mother, the synagogue, was destined to be brought in honor to the grave. But whosoever did not observe them in that manner would not be honoring the mother, the synagogue, but disturbing her grave. Secondly, the aforesaid Jerome and Augustine disagree on the observance of the legal justifications with respect to the apostles. For Jerome says that the apostles never really observed them but pretended to do so, in order to avoid scandalizing the believers who had been of the circumcision. He says that even Paul made this pretense when he fulfilled a vow in the temple at Jerusalem, as is narrated in Acts (21:26), and when he circumcised Timothy, as in Acts (16:3), and when on advice from James he observed some of the justifications, as recorded in Acts (20:20). But in so doing the apostles were not misleading the faithful, because they did not act with the intention of observing the justifications but for other reasons; for example, they rested on the Sabbath, not because it was a legal observance, but for the sake of rest. Likewise, they abstained from food legally unclean, not for the sake of observing the legal justifications but for other reasons; for example, on account of an abhorrence or something of that nature. But Augustine says that the apostles observed the legal justifications and intended to do so, but without putting their trust in them as though they were necessary for salvation. Furthermore, this was lawful for them to do, because they had been Jews. Nevertheless, they observed them before grace was proclaimed. Hence just as certain other Jews could safely observe them at that time without putting any trust in them, so too could the apostles. Thirdly, they disagree on the sin of Peter. For Jerome says that in the dissimulation previously mentioned, Peter did not sin, because he did this from charity and, as has been said, not from mundane fear. Augustine, on the other hand, says that he did sin—venially, however—on account of the lack of discretion he had by adhering overmuch to one side, namely, to the Jews, in order to avoid scandalizing them. But the stronger of Augustine's arguments against Jerome is that Jerome adduces on his own behalf seven doctors, four of whom, namely, Laudicens, Alexander, Origen, and Didymus, Augustine rejects as known heretics. To the other three he opposes three of his own, who held with him and his opinion, namely, Ambrose, Cyprian, and Paul himself, who plainly teaches that Peter was deserving of rebuke. Therefore, if it is unlawful to say that anything false is contained in Sacred Scripture, it will not be lawful to say that Peter was not deserving of rebuke. For this reason the opinion and statement of Augustine is the truer, because it is more in accord with the words of the Apostle. Fourthly, they disagree on Paul's rebuke. For Jerome says that Paul did not really rebuke Peter but pretended to do so, just as Peter pretended to observe the legal justifications, i.e., just as Peter in his unwillingness to scandalize the Jews pretended to observe the justifications, so Paul, in order not to scandalize the Gentiles, feigned displeasure at Peter's action and pretended to rebuke him. This was done, as it were, by mutual consent, so that each might exercise his care over the believers subject to them. Augustine, however, just as he says that Peter really did observe the justifications, says that Paul truly rebuked him without pretense. Furthermore, Peter really sinned by observing them, because his action was a source of scandal to the Gentiles from whom he separated himself. But Paul did not sin in rebuking him, because no scandal followed from his rebuke.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:15

  Having manifested the truth of the apostolic doctrine preached by him because of the authority of the other apostles, he now shows the same thing from their manner of life and example. About this he does two things: First, he proves his proposition from the manner of life of the apostles; Secondly, he raises an objection posed by his adversaries (v. 17). As to the first he does three things: First, he sets forth the status of the apostles; Secondly, their manner of life (v. 16); Thirdly, the intended conclusion (v. 16): "because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." The status of the apostles and even of Paul is that according to natural origin they were born Jews. That is why he says, "We," namely, I and the other apostles, are "by nature," i.e., by natural origin, Jews, not proselytes: "They are Hebrews: so am I" (2 Cor 11:22). And this is a great compliment, because, as it is said: "Salvation is of the Jews" (Jn 4:22). "And not of the Gentiles, sinners," i.e., we are not sinners as are the Gentiles, idolatrous and unclean. But against this can be set the word of 1 John (1:8): "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." Therefore, the Jews were sinners. I answer that it is one thing to sin and another to be a sinner. For the first names an act, but the second a readiness or habit of sinning. Hence Scripture is wont to call the impious and those loaded down with the heavy burden of sin, sinners. The Jews therefore, being haughty on account of the Law, and as it were, restrained from sin by it, called the Gentiles sinners, living as they were without the Law's restraint and being prone to sin: "Be no more carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph 4:14). When, therefore, the Apostle says, "not of the Gentiles, sinners," he means we are not of that number of sinners that exist among the Gentiles.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:16

  Then when he says, "But knowing that man is not justified by the works..." he sets forth the apostles' manner of life, which consists not in the works of the Law but in the faith of Christ. About this he does two things: First, he gives the reason for the apostles' manner of life; Secondly, he sets forth their manner of life (v. 16): "we also believe in Christ Jesus." Therefore the apostolic life rested on the faith of Christ and not on the works of the Law. The reason for this is that although we were Jews by nature and were nourished in the works of the Law, yet "knowing" for certain that man is "not justified by the works of the law," i.e., through the works of the Law, but "by the faith of Jesus Christ," for that reason we have left the Law and are living according to the precepts of the faith: "For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law" (Rom 3:28); "For there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). However, it is said in Romans (2:13): "For not the hearers of the law are just before God; but the doers of the law shall be justified." Therefore, it seems that a man would be justified by the works of the Law. I answer that "to be justified" can be taken in two senses, namely, doing what is just, and being made just. But no one is made just save by God through grace. It should be known, therefore, that some works of the Law were moral and some ceremonial. The moral, although they were contained in the Law, could not, strictly speaking, be called "works of the Law," for man is induced to them by natural instinct and by the natural law. But the ceremonial works are properly called the "works of the Law." Therefore, to that extent is man justified by the moral laws—so far as the execution of justice is concerned—and also by the ceremonial laws that pertain to the sacraments, as their observance is a work of obedience. And this is the way it is taken in the word of the Apostle to the Romans (2:13). But with respect to being made just by the works of the Law, a man does not seem to be justified by them, because the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace. "How turn you again to the weak and needy elements?" i.e., that neither confer grace nor contain grace in themselves. The sacraments of the New Law however, although they are material elements, are not needy elements; hence they can justify. Again, if there were any in the Old Law who were just, they were not made just by the works of the Law but only by the faith of Christ "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith," as is said in Romans (3:25). Hence the sacraments of the Old Law were certain protestations of the faith of Christ, just as our sacraments are, but not in the same way, because those sacraments were configured to the grace of Christ as to something that lay in the future; our sacraments, however, testify as things containing a grace that is present. Therefore, he says significantly, that "it is not by the works of the law that we are justified, but by the faith of Christ," because, although some who observed the works of the Law in times past were made just, nevertheless, this was effected only by the faith of Jesus Christ. From this knowledge which the apostles had, namely, that justification is not by the works of the Law but by the faith of Christ, he concludes to their manner of life, in which they chose the faith of Christ and gave up the works of the Law. Hence he adds, "we also believe in Christ Jesus," because as is said in Acts (4:12): "There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." Therefore he continued, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ. "Being justified, therefore, by faith, let us have peace with God" (Rom 5:1). But lest anyone suppose that the works of the Law along with the faith of Christ justify, he adds, "and not by the works of the law": "For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law" (Rom 3:28). From this he derives his main proposition, saying that if the apostles, who are Jews by nature, do not seek to be justified by the works of the Law but by faith, then "by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified," i.e., no man whatsoever can be justified by the works of the Law. For "flesh" is taken here to stand for "man," i.e., the part for the whole, as does "All flesh shall see the salvation of the Lord" (Is 40:5). Then by saying, "because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified," he concludes, as it were, a fortiori. For it seems more natural or reasonable for the Jews, more than anyone else, to be justified by the works of the Law rather than by faith. But this is not the case. Therefore...

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:17-18

  After proving by the apostles' manner of life that the works of the Law ought not to be observed, the Apostle raises a question to the contrary. About this he does three things: First, he raises the question; Secondly, he solves it (v. 17): "God forbid"; Thirdly, he explains his solution (v. 19). The first point can be developed in two ways according to a Gloss. First, thus: Someone could say that the apostles sinned by abandoning the Law and turning to the faith of Christ. But the Apostle shows that this would lead to the following unwelcome conclusion, namely, that Christ is the author of sin in calling men to His faith. This is what he means when he says, "But if we apostles, while we seek to be justified in him," i.e., through Him, namely, Christ, "are found," i.e., plainly proven to be "sinners" for leaving the Law, "is Christ then the minister of sin?" i.e., is He inducing us to sin, Who called us from the slavery of the Law to His faith? "Made under the law that he might redeem them that were under the law" (4:4), namely, from the burden of the Law. The Apostle answers, "God forbid," because He is rather the minister of justice; "By the obedience of one, many shall be made just" (Rom 5:19); "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth" (1 Pet. 2:22). That Christ is not the minister of sin in leading one from the Old Law is plain, because "if I" myself, by wanting to glory once more in the Law, "build up again" the things I have destroyed, namely, my pride taking glory in the Law, "I make myself a prevaricator" in taking up what I destroyed: "The dog is returned to his vomit" (2 Pet. 2:22); "Cursed be the man that shall raise up and build the city of Jericho" (Jos. 6:26). He says, "which I have destroyed," i.e., not the Law itself, as the Manicheans would have it, because the Law is holy (Rom 7:12), but pride in the Law, concerning which it is said in Romans (10:3): "For they, seeking to establish their own justice have not submitted themselves to the justice of God." Now if someone were to object that since he formerly had wasted the faith of Christ, he makes himself a prevaricator by trying to build it up, the plain answer is that he did indeed try to destroy the faith of Christ, yet because of the truth he did not persist: "Why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad" (Acts 9:4). But pride in the Law was vain and this pride could be destroyed, never again to be re-established. The second way in which it can be developed is to refer his statement, "we ourselves are found sinners," not to their abandoning the Law, as in the first explanation, but to the observance of the Law. For it is plain that anyone who seeks to be made just does not profess himself to be just but a sinner. The sense, therefore, is this: "if we, in seeking to be justified in Christ, are" by the very fact of seeking to be justified "found," i.e., reasonably proved, to have been "sinners," because we observed the Law, "is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin?" i.e., commanding men to observe the works of the Law after His passion—something that cannot be done without sin? Note that this explanation harmonizes with Jerome's opinion which posited that the legal justifications were deadly immediately after the passion of Christ. It is possible to explain "we ourselves are found to be sinners" in a third way as referring, indeed, to the state in which the Law was observed; not that they offended by observing the Law, but that the Law is deficient and cannot remove sin. Hence the meaning is this: If in seeking to be justified in it, we ourselves are found to be sinners, i.e., still in our sins, because the Law does not remove sin—according to Romans (3:9): "For we have charged both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin"—"Is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin," so as to bring us back to observing the Law in which we are under sin? This explanation accords with Augustine's exposition. And he answers to either explanation, "God forbid," because I destroyed the Law understood carnally by judging and teaching it spiritually. Hence, if I should desire to re-establish the observances of the carnal law, I would be a prevaricator of the spiritual law. Furthermore, it can be explained in a fourth way, thus: I had said that man is not justified by the works of the Law. But someone might say, "Nor by the faith of Christ either," because many sin after embracing the faith of Christ. And this is what he says: "If we, seeking to be justified in Christ," i.e., by the faith of Christ, "are ourselves," who have become believers by embracing the faith of Christ, "found to be sinners," i.e., living in sin, "is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin" and of damnation, as the minister of the Old Law is a minister of sin and damnation? Not that the Law led one into sin, but was its occasion, because it forbade sin and conferred no grace to help one resist sin. Hence it is said: "But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence" (Rom 7:8). But Christ gives a helping grace: "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (Jn 1:17). Hence in no way is He the minister of sin, either directly or as its occasion.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:19

  Here the Apostle amplifies the solution given above. First, he explains the solution. Secondly, he concludes to his principal proposition (v. 21). It should be noted that the Apostle proceeds in a very thorough manner, leaving no doubt unexamined. Hence his words, although they seem involved, nevertheless, if they are carefully considered, say nothing without a purpose. This is plain from the words he uses. Therefore, he does three things: First, he manifests the solution; Secondly, he explains his manifestation of the solution (v. 19): "with Christ I am nailed to the cross"; Thirdly, he settles the question (v. 20): "That I live now in the flesh." Therefore, because the Apostle had said, "For, if I build up again the things which I have destroyed," which is understood to refer to the Old Law, for one might regard him as a destroyer of the Law and consequently impious according to Psalm (118:126): "They have dissipated thy law," for that reason the Apostle wishes to show how he destroys the Law without being impious, saying, "For I, through the law, am dead to the law." Here it should be noted that when anyone destroys a law by means of the law itself, he is indeed a prevaricator of the law, but not impious. For a law is destroyed by means of the law when the law itself contains some local or temporary precept, such that the law should be observed for such a time or in such a place and no other, and this fact is expressed in the law. If someone, therefore, after that time or outside that place, does not use the law, he destroys the law by means of the law itself, and in this way the Apostle destroyed the Law. Hence he says: I somehow destroyed the Law, but by means of the Law; because "through the Law I am dead to the Law," i.e., by the authority of the Law I have rejected the Law, as being dead to the Law. For the authority of the Law, through which he is dead to the Law, is cited in many places in Sacred Scripture. For example, although not in so many words, it is had in Jeremiah (31:31): "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel"; "The Lord will raise up to thee a prophet of thy brethren like unto me" (Deut 18:15), and in many other places. Therefore the Apostle is not a destroyer of the Law in the sense of a transgressor of the Law. Or else, "I by the law" spiritual "am dead to the law" carnal. For he dies to the Law when, being freed by the Law, he casts it aside, according to Romans (7:2): "If her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." Now inasmuch as the Apostle was subject to the spiritual law, he says that he is dead to the Law, i.e., loosed from the observances of the Law: "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). Again there is another possible way of setting the law aside without prevarication, because, namely, a law, when it is written on a scroll is called a dead law, and when it is in the mind of the lawgiver it is called a living law. Now it is plain that if someone were to act according to the word of the lawgiver against the written law and break the law, he would both be set free of the dead law and be acting according to the command of the lawgiver. He says, therefore, along these lines, "I am dead to the law," which is written and dead, i.e., I am loosed from it "that I may live to God," i.e., that I may guide my movements according to His precepts and be ordained to His honor. For a law that has been passed does, indeed, hand down something in writing on account of those outside and of those who cannot hear the words spoken by the lawgiver; but for those in his presence he does not lay it down in writing but in words alone. For in the beginning, men were weak and unable to approach unto God; hence it was necessary for the precepts of the Law to be given to them in writing, so that by the Law, as by a pedagogue, they might be led by the hand to the point where they might hear the things He commands, according to the words given below: "the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (3:24). But after we have access to the Father through Christ, as is said in Romans (5:2), we are not instructed about the commands of God through the Law, but by God Himself. Hence he says: Through the Law leading me by the hand I have died to the written law, in order that I may live unto God, i.e., to the maker of the Law, i.e., to be instructed and directed by Him.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:20

  Then when he says, "with Christ I am nailed to the cross," he amplifies what he said. Now he had said that he died to the Law and lives unto God. Hence he explains these two things: First, that he died to the Law, he explains by saying that "with Christ I am nailed to the cross"; Secondly, that he lives unto God, when he says: "I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me." The first point can be explained in two ways. In one way, as in a Gloss, thus: every man according to carnal origin is born a child of wrath: "By nature we were children of wrath, even as the rest" (Eph 2:3). He is also born in the oldness of sin: "Thou art grown old in a strange country" (Bar. 3:11). This oldness of sin is removed by the cross of Christ, and the newness of spiritual life is conferred. Therefore the Apostle says, "with Christ I am nailed to the cross," i.e., concupiscence or the inclination to sin, and all such have been put to death in me through the cross of Christ: "Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed" (Rom 6:6). Also from the fact that I am crucified with Christ and have died to sin; and because Christ rose again, I, too, have risen with Him rising: "Who was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification" (Rom 4:25). Thus, therefore, does Christ beget a new life in us, after the oldness of sin has been destroyed. Hence he says, "And I live," i.e., because I am nailed to the cross of Christ, I have the strength to act well, "now not I" according to the flesh, because I no longer have the oldness which I formerly had, "but Christ liveth in me," i.e., the newness which has been given to us through Christ. Or, in another way: a man is said to live according to that in which he chiefly puts his affection and in which he is mainly delighted. Hence men who take their greatest pleasure in study or in hunting say that this is their life. However, each man has his own private interest by which he seeks that which is his own. Therefore, when someone lives seeking only what is his own, he lives only unto himself; but when he seeks the good of others, he is said to live for them. Accordingly, because the Apostle had set aside his love of self through the cross of Christ, he said that he was dead so far as love of self was concerned, declaring that "with Christ I am nailed to the cross," i.e., through the cross of Christ my own private love has been removed from me. Hence he says "God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (6:14): "If one died for all, then all were dead. And Christ died for all, that they also who live may not now live to themselves, but unto him who died for them" (2 Cor 5:14). "And I live, now not I," i.e., I no longer live as though having any interest in my own good, "but Christ liveth in me," i.e., I have Christ alone in my affection and Christ Himself is my life: "To me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain" (Phil 1:21). Then when he says, "And that I live now in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God," he answers a twofold difficulty that might arise from his words. One is how he lives and yet it is not he who lives; the second is how he is nailed to the cross. Therefore he clears up these two points. First of all, the first one, namely, how he lives and yet it is not he who lives. He answers this when he says "And that I live now in the flesh I live in the faith of the Son of God." Here it should be noted that, strictly speaking, those things are said to live which are moved by an inner principle. Now the soul of Paul was set between his body and God; the body, indeed, was vivified and moved by the soul of Paul, but his soul by Christ. Hence as to the life of the flesh, Paul himself lived and this is what he says, namely, "and that I live now in the flesh," i.e., by the life of the flesh; but as to his relation to God, Christ lived in Paul. Therefore he says, "I live in the faith of the Son of God" through which He dwells in me and moves me: "But the just shall live in his faith" (Hab. 2:4). And note that he says "in the flesh," not "by the flesh," because this is evil. Secondly, he shows that he is nailed to the cross, saying: Because the love of Christ, which He showed to me in dying on the cross for me, brings it about that I am always nailed with Him. And this is what he says, "who loved me": "He first loved us" (1 Jn 4:10). And He loved me to the extent of "giving himself" and not some other sacrifice "for me": "He loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev 1:5); "As Christ loved the church and delivered himself up for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life" (Eph 5:25). But it should be noted that the Son delivered Himself, and the Father His Son: "He spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us" (Rom 8:32). Judas, too, delivered Him up, as is said in Matthew (26:48). It is all one event, but the intention is not the same, because the Father did so out of love, the Son out of obedience along with love, but Judas out of avarice and treachery.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 2:21

  Then when he says, "I cast not away the grace of God," he draws the principal conclusion. First, he draws the conclusion; secondly, he explains it. He says, therefore: Because I have received from God so great a grace that He delivered Himself, and I live in the faith of the Son of God, "I cast not away the grace of God," i.e., I do not repudiate it or show myself ungrateful: "The grace of God in me hath not been void, but I have labored more abundantly than all they" (1 Cor 15:10). Hence another version has, "I am not ungrateful for the grace of God." "Looking diligently lest any man be wanting to the grace of God" (Heb 12:15), i.e., by showing myself unworthy because of ingratitude. A form of repudiation and of ingratitude would exist, if I were to say that the Law is necessary in order to be justified. Hence he says, "For if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain," i.e., if the Law is sufficient, i.e., if the works of the Law suffice to justify a man, Christ died to no purpose and in vain, because He died in order to make us just: "Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust, that he might offer us to God" (1 Pet. 3:18). Now if this could have been done through the Law, the death of Christ would have been superfluous. But He did not die in vain or labor to no purpose, as it is said in Isaiah (49:4); because through Him alone came justifying grace and truth, as it is said in John (1:17). Therefore, if any were just before the passion of Christ, this too was through the faith of Christ to come, in Whom they believed and in Whose faith they were saved.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:1

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:2

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:3

  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).

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:4

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:5

  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."

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:6

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:7

  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).

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:8

  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).

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:9

  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."

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:10

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:11

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:12

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:13

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:14

  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.

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:15

  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).

  Commentary on Galatians

• Galatians 3:16

  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).

  Commentary on Galatians